Item N3BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: March 19, 2003
Bulk Item: Yes No X
Division: Growth Management
Department: N/A
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
Report on Monroe County's delegation trip to FEMA Region IV Headquarters to discuss proposed
revisions to the County's Implementation Plan for Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program
and floodplain regulations.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
At its February 19, 2003, meeting, the Board of County Commissioners tabled action approving proposed
amendments to its floodplain regulations to allow its FEMA Liaison (Commissioner McCoy), the County
Attorney, and Growth Management staff an opportunity to prepare and discuss with FEMA other options
for implementing the County's FEMA approved Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program.
Proposed options to be considered would not include reliance on restrictive covenants and would be
consistent with the four-year statute of limitations under Florida law.
A Monroe County delegation lead by Commissioner McCoy along with the Growth Management
Litigation Attorney, Jim Hendrick, and Growth Management Division Director, Tim McGarry, will meet
with FEMA representatives in Atlanta on March 18, 2003. Commissioner McCoy will brief the Board on
the outcome of that meeting.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTION:
Adopted Resolution 187-2002, approving Implementation Plan for the Flood Insurance Inspection and
Compliance Program.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: N/A
TOTAL COST: N/A BUDGETED: Yes No N/A
COST TO COUNTY: N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: N/A
REVENUE PRODUCING:Yes N/A No AMOUNT PER MONTH N/A YEAR
APPROVED BY: County Attorney N/A OMB/Purchasing N/A I -Ask Management
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
DOCUMENTATION: Included
TirrioMI( McGarft, AICP
To follow Not Required _X
N/A
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM #:
3/ 19/03
ELEMENTS OF MONROE COUNTY PROPOSAL TO
COMPLY WITH FEMA'S MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
FOR ENFORCING THE COUNTY'S
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
1. Permit the expansion or structural alteration of the elevated portion of any
residential structure non -conforming with the floodplain regulations contingent
upon meeting the following conditions: (1) the improvement is not substantial as
defined under the County's floodplain regulations; (2) a pre permitting inspection
of the downstairs enclosure is completed by the County staff to document the
extent of the non -conformity; and, (3 ), if within a "V" zone, the submittal of a
professional engineer's or registered architect's sealed certification that the non-
conforming improvements to the downstairs enclosure do not subject the elevated
portion of the structure to increased flood risk or structural damage.
This provision requires amendments to Section 9.5-316.1(a) of the County's
floodplain regulations. It reflects the legal opinion of the County Attorney that
structures with violations shielded by four-year statute of limitations under State
law must be treated similarly to legally permitted improvements that are non-
conforming.
This proposed amending language, in combination with proposed Element #2 and
#3, addresses the compliance issues associated with downstairs enclosures
separately from those associated with the elevated portion of the structure. This
approach is much more consistent with the Florida Statutes and the County Code
in the trcatniont of non- conforming structures than is the approach in the County's
current floodplain regulations.
Page 1 of 5 /Ve
3/19/03
Existing Section 9.5-316.1(a) of the County's floodplain regulations treats the
entire structure as non -conforming even if only the structure's downstairs
enclosure is non -compliant. Under the County's zoning regulations governing
non -conforming structures, non -substantial improvements are generally allowed
as long as the non -conforming aspect of the structure is not further expanded.
However, recognizing that unauthorized improvements to downstairs enclosures
may have a direct impact on the level of property damage risk for both insured
and uninsured properties, the County intends to institute safeguards on the
permitting of any expansion or structural alteration of the elevated portion of a
residential structure with a non -conforming downstairs enclosure.
The first safeguard is a required County compliance inspection of the downstairs
enclosure prior to permitting approval that allows the County to document the
extent of the non-conformance for its records and as a quality control check on
certifications to be submitted by architects or engineers. Element #3 requires this
inspection for any downstairs enclosure with an opaque wall material prior to
issuance of any permit for the expansion or structural alteration of the elevated
portion of the residential structure.
The second safeguard is the requirement for submittal of a sealed certification by
a professional engineer or registered architect that any unpermitted improvements
made to the downstairs enclosure within a "V" zone do not subject the elevated
portion of the structure to increased flood risk or structural damage.
In addition, if the downstairs enclosure contains an independent dwelling unit, as
defined in the Monroe County -Florida Department of Community Affairs 1998
Memorandum of Understanding, below the dwelling unit in the elevated portion
of the structure, the approval of any improvements would be subject to the
limitations of Section 9.5-143 [non -conforming uses], Monroe County Code, if
situated within a single family zoning district.
Page 2 of 5
3/ 19/03
2. Require that the issuance of any permit to a downstairs enclosure be contingent
upon bringing the downstairs structure into compliance with the floodplain
regulations.
This provision requires amendments to the County's floodplain regulations. It
discourages the expansion of existing violations and greatly increases the
likelihood that many more non -conforming downstairs will be brought into
compliance much more quickly than relying solely upon the substantial
improvement threshold.
3. Require that any residential structure with a downstairs enclosure have an
inspection prior to the approval and issuance of a building permit for any
structural alteration or expansion of the elevated portion of the structure.
This element requires amending the County's floodplain regulations. It allows the
County to document non -conforming structures that would not be routinely
identified through existing code enforcement and permitting procedures.
4. Require an inspection prior to the transfer of all properties with elevated
residential structures built after 1974; and, require that the results of this
inspection be included as part of the closing documents upon transfer and, if
appropriate, a statement that the enclosure is non -conforming with the County's
floodplain regulations.
This element requires amending the County's floodplain management regulations
and other appropriate sections of the County Code. The requirement for
inspection upon transfer of the property allows the County to identify and track
non -conformities with the floodplain management regulations, particularly
violations of less than four years old which are subject to removal under code
enforcement action (see Element #5). It also ensures disclosure to new property
Page 3 of 5
3/19/03
owners of floodplain non -conformities and restrictions placed on their use of and
improvements to downstairs enclosures.
5. Continue to prosecute possible violations of the County's floodplain regulations
through code enforcement action which are not protected by the four year statute
of limitations using the Property Appraiser's records or County inspection
reports.
In situations where the County has discovered a possible violation of the
floodplain regulations, the County has used as one of its evidentiary tools,
property tax records. The use of property tax records will be made a more
productive enforcement tool when coupled with proposed Elements # 3 and #4.
6. Permit only the enclosing with opaque materials of downstairs enclosures of less
Man 299 -398 square feet or less in area. Require the use of screening or lattice
in any downstairs enclosures of 300 square feet or more in floor area. These
requirements will apply to all new construction and the expansion of existing
conforming downstairs enclosures.
This proposed restriction eliminates opportunities for the creation of new
floodplain violations in the County. The restriction on use of opaque materials has
been recommended by FEMA in the past. It acknowledges the constraints placed
on the enforcement capabilities of the County by the Florida Statutes and case
law.
7. Request the Monroe County Property Appraiser to provide the County's Growth
Management Division with an annual update on the changes in the habitable
floor area of downstairs enclosures in the property tax records to allow the
County Growth Management Division to compile more complete data on
improvements to downstairs enclosure
Page 4 of 5
3/ 19/03
Although the County will collect data through the Flood Insurance Inspection
Program and proposed compliance inspections these inspections will not
necessarily identify all unpermitted improvements The update information
provided by the Property Appraiser will be only used for tracking purposes and to
supplement data collected from County inspections The information collected
from inspections and the Property Appraiser will be compiled and provided to
FEMA for monitoring purposes and potentially for input in the recalculation of
insurance risk assessments and rates.
Page 5 of 5
Mar 18 03 10:08a Growth Mgt
(3051289-2854 p.2
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR FLORIDA KEY DEER
(Odocoileus virginianus clavium) AND OTHER PROTECTED SPECIES
ON BIG PINE KEY AND NO NAME KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Draft — March 2003
March 18, 2003
ERRATA AND CLARIFICATIONS
(these comments will be reflected in the HCP to be submitted to the USFWS)
Sec. 2.3.4, p. 32: The Tiers are associated to H values: the mean value of all cells in Tier 1 is
H = 0.259* 10-3; 'Tier 2, H = 0.183 * 10-3; and Tier 3, 11= 0.168* 10-3.
Sec. 3.4, p. 38, Covered Activities: Delete "limited" and "expansion of in the following
sentence: "The types of activities covered under this HCP include residential development,
limited commercial development and expansion, o&paasion @ community and institutional
facilities, and transportation improvements." The following sentence will be added at the end
of the paragraph: "Other activities not described in this HCP are not authorized under this
HCP. Whether or not specifically described in this HCP, all public and private development,
including infrastructure, on Big Pine and No Name Keys permitted since March 13, 1995.
shall be assigned an H-value which shall be counted against the total H-value authorized
under this HCP.".
Sec. 5.3.2, p. 47: Where it reads: "No development which may interfere with Key deer
movement along the corridor will be permitted in Sands Subdivision.", it should read: "No
development will be permitted which may interfere with Key deer movement along the
Sands corridor, as shown in figure 5.2."
• Sec. 5.3.5, p. 50: Require that the ROGO continue to give priority to Tier 3 over Tier 1 in
the project area.
Sec_ 2.3.2, pp. 27-28:
0 lleer Corridors: Development in deer corridors would have a reater impact, not
lesser.
o Patch Quality: Development in large, uninterrupted areas would have a greater
impact, riot lesser.
o Water Barriers: Development in areas without canals would have a areater impact,
not lesser.
"'Transportation improvements" refers to paving of dirt roads as well as 3-laning US-1. No
new roads are "covered" by the HCP. The H-value for combined US-1 projects (Key deer
underpasses, intersection improvement, and three-laning) is H = -0.80. The H-value per mile
of road paving is H = 0.0372. The H-value for widening paved roads, per mile of widcning,
will be calculated as follows: (additional paved width)/(initial width) * 0.0372,
Page 1 of 2
Mar 18 03 10:08a Growth Mgt (305)289-2854 p,3
• Sec. 4.2.3, Page 42: Where it reads "(Section 3.5)", it should read "(Section 1.2.1)".
• Sec. 6.1, Page 55: Sentence which refers to Appendix B will be deleted.
• Sec. 5.33, Page 49, Table 5.2. Under impacts, the following changes apply:
o Building Permits (29 instead of 12); H = 0.071 instead of 0.0168; Total H = 0.1489
instead of 0.1286; Credit Requested: H = 0.3390 instead of 0.3999. Other references
to these numbers will be corrected.
• In general: Clearing of native vegetation will be limited to that necessary to complete
covered activities. Other clearing activities are not authorized under this HCP.
• Sec. 5.3.2, p. 49. Where it reads: "No development will be allowed in Lower Keys marsh
rabbit habitat. No residential or commercial development will be allow within 500 meters of
marsh rabbit habitat, with the exception of isolated areas (Figure 2.2), which will be given
negative ROGO points."
• Sec. 5.3.3, p. 49. A new paragraph will be added after Table 5.2: "The total H-value for all
development approvals on Big Pine Key and No Name Keys from March 13, 1995 to the
date of the Incidental Take Permit Issuance will be compiled and provided to the USFWS
within one month after permit issuance. This shall be included in the Habitat Mitigation and
Habitat Banking calculations at a 3:1 ratio and deducted from the total H-value of the
Incidental 'rake Permit."
Sec_ 5.4.1, p. 53: A new bullet will be added to the Compliance Information List: "An
updated master list of all development permitted on Big Pine Key and No Name Key with the
start date of March 13, 1995, which records the H-value for each development approval and a
running total which is cumulatively subtracted from the total H-value. This master list shall
be maintained by Monroe County and made readily available to the public, USFWS and the
DCA."
• Misspellings will be corrected.
---------------------------------- end of errata and clarifications ----------------------------------
Page 2 of 2
Mar 18 03 10:07a Growth Mgt (305)289-2854 p,1
Growth Management Division
2798 Overseas Highway
Suite 400
Marathon, Florida 33050
Voice: (305) 289-2517
FAX: (305) 289-2854
bounty of Conroe
Board of County Commissioners
Mayor Dube Spehar, Dist 1
Mayor Fro 1'em Murray E. Nelson, Dist, 5
Comm. Charles "Sonny" McCoy, Dist. 3
Comnt. George Neugent, D.,st. 2
Comm. David Ricc, Dist. 4
FAX CO SHEET
To:
FAX #:
FROM:
Growth Management Division
(Cover + 2-_ pages)
■ ■ ■ ■ f ■ • ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ t ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ • • ■ • ■ ■ • • ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ 1
HENRY LEE MORGENSTERN
Attorney at Law
27316 CAYMAN LANE
RAMROD KEY, FLORIDA 33042-5446
PHONE: 305.294.7838 E-MAIL ADDRESS: HenryLeeM@aol.com
March 19, 2003
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
Marathon, Florida
Re: BPK Habitat Conservation Plan
Dear Commissioners:
The National Wildlife Federation and Defenders of Wildlife urge you to pass the March
2003 Habitat Conservation Plan for the Florida Key Deer ("HCP"), with one important
amendment. This amendment ensures that the level of development is consistent with the
law and with the integrity of the HCP process.
Based on population modeling, biologists determined that the total H-value of
development in the project area could not exceed 1.4 without jeopardizing the deer, and
that the County's requested development from the March 2002 draft only required an H
of 0.7 (after deletion of the cross -island road). Up until a few days ago, the March 2003
draft appeared to request new development totaling H = 1.0. We agreed with that and
were pleased to see the HCP progressing towards passage.
Now we are told that, due to unexplained changes buried in a data summary table, the
current draft of the HCP suddenly allows for H = 1.8, more than double the amount
previously requested. This is apparently based on the claim that additional development
equal to H = 0.8 should be added because of the underpass/US1 project of 2000. We
believe this additional development is not legally supportable for several reasons. First, a
saving of 3 deer per year does not justify an increase in development virtually equal to
the entire amount the model previously allowed over 20 years. The model was not based
on traffic, but on habitat, and does not support this increase. Second, the underpass
project was a separate ITP (incidental take permit) with its own mitigation, and cannot be
used a second time for a separate permit. Third, the efficacy of the underpass project for
reducing deer mortality is as yet unproven, and therefore any assumed effect cannot be
locked in by the HCP. Fourth, the public was repeatedly assured that the underpass
project was outside the scope of the HCP.
Most importantly, a harvest of 1.8 will not adequately protect the Key deer and disregards
the Livable Communikeys Program. The amount of development this allows is far
greater than that contemplated in the March 2002 county request, and is also far greater
0.4
than the amount allowed for in Table 2.4 (March 2002 draft). An H of 1.8 allows 30%
more development than a total buildout of every parcel on Tiers 2 and 3, plus the
maximum allowed development in Tier 1. (See chart below.) This level of development
is inconsistent with a key conclusion of the Livable Communikeys, which was to keep
the rural character of the island.
Also attached to this letter is a copy of Table 2.2 of the September draft. If you compare
it to Table 2.4 of the present draft (p. 30), you will see that, although the study model has
not been changed or re -run, the resulting numbers are quite different. Finally, attached is
a copy of a memo excerpt from the HCP committee process, where the consultant,
Ricardo Calvo, answers committee member Alicia Putney's question as to the "exact H
value cap," and Ricardo says, 'Total H = 1.1 is absolute." The fact that this was the
intention all along is made clear on p. 47, second bullet, where the HCP computes 2% of
the 'Total H" as .02. This is true, of course, only if the total His 1.0.
We support the HCP with allowable development of H = 1.0, with no hidden add -on
development credits. We are forced to object, however, to the unjustified additional
credit.
Thank you for your consideration.
for
Nati6nal Wildlife�deration and
Defenders of Wil e
H value calculation:
10 x 10 meter cell = 40.47 cells per acre
Tier 1 = .259 x 10(-3) H per cell x 40.47 = .0105 H per acre = .0026 per 1/4 acre lot
Tier 2 = .183 x 10(-3) H per cell x 40.47 = .0074 H per acre = .00185 per 1/4 acre lot
Tier 3 = .168 x 10(-3) H per cell x 40.47 = .0068 H per acre = .0017 per 1/4 acre lot
59 Tier 3 acres = 236 lots x .0017 = .40 H for 236 lots
102 Tier 2 acres = 408 lots x .00185 = .7548 H for 408 lots
15 Tier 1 acres = 60 lots x .0020 = .12 H for 60 lots
Total H with Tiers 1, 2 and 3 buildout = 1.2748 H for 704 lots plus .5252 H
Cf Table 2.2 which uses lowest H values and estimates 500 - 600 houses max allowed
DRAFT DOCUMENT - 2/25/2003
documented ranges (Lopez 2001) to account for stochastic events. The final model run
result represents the average of the 10,000 iterations.
To estimate the effects of increasing levels of development on the Key deer population,
10 scenarios were evaluated with the Key deer PVA model (Table 2.4). For any given
scenario, the model chose the least valuable vacant parcels for development (parcels with
the lowest K, H). As parcels are selected, the spatial model calculated the change in
carrying capacity (K) and harvest (H). New K and H values, which represent the direct
effects of development, are then input into the matrix model. Therefore, the model run
simulates the effect of development on the Key deer population through time.
Table 2.4. Effect of development on the Key deer.
Scenario
Number of
Habitat
Total
Risk
Risk
Additional
Residential
Loss3
Harvese
(probability)
(probability)
average
Parcels
(decrease
(increase
of Extinction
of falling
annual
Develope&
in K)
in H)
in 100 years
below 50
mortality5
females at
least once in
50 years 3
No Action
0
0
0.00
0.0005
0.0230
0
S 1
0
0
(-0.80)
0.0005
0.0230
0
S2
200
4
(-0.38)
0.0005
0.0230
0
S3
300
6
(-0.07)
0.0005
0.0230
0
S4
400
8
0.27
0.0005
0.0276
0.29
S5
500
10
0.67
0.0005
0.0291
1.21
S6
600
12
1.20
0.0011
0.0459
2.32
S7
700
14
1.79
0.0021
0.0653
3.23
S8 800 24 2.10 0.0023 0.0774 3.50
S9 900 27 2.47 0.0037 0.0956 3.82
Sl0 1000 30 2.91 0.0068 0.1198 4.13
St includes US-1 projects: wildlife underpasses, intersection improvement, and three -lanes. The
combined effect of these projects is a surplus of three Key deer per year. All other scenarios include
these projects.
2 The model selected parcels with lowest total habitat value to the Key deer.
3 From the carrying capacity grid in the spatial model. It is an input to the matrix model.
` From the harvest grid in the spatial model. It is an input to the matrix model. H in scenarios Sl, S2 and
S3 is a surplus caused by the overall effect of US-1 projects (i.e., surplus of three deer per year, per
USFWS 1999). Net harvest was kept at 0 for these scenarios; therefore the no net change in model
results (risk and additional mortality).
5 Results from matrix model run. Refers to females only.
The model rums provide an estimate of the risk of extinction in 100 years and the risk of
the population falling below 50 individuals (females) at least once in 50 years
(Table 2.2). Both are expressed as probabilities. The model also estimates the average
additional human -induced mortality (number of female deer).
30
s6 ) Zo;,,-,-
INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUN[ENT - NOT INTENDED FOR
DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION
Table 2.2. Key deer PVA: Potential effect of development on the Key deer population
Scenario
F. 6vsknt
Habitat
Habitat
Total
Extinction
Risk
Additional
Bum*
Loss
Loss
Hawes?
risk in 100
(probability) of
average
Units
(acres)
(K 2
yeses
falling below
morality 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
sit
0
0
0
0.0000
0.0005
0.0023
0
S2'
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
195
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
Si0
900
334
27
0.0288
0.0073
0.1173
412
Sit
1000
371
30
0.0331
0.0098
0.1470
435
S I = Ongoing US-1 improvements (wildlife underpasses and intersection improvement); S2 =
Ong"*
US -I itatprovements plus cross -island
road.
All other scenarios include the US- I and
cross -island toad improvements.
2 K = carrying
opacity;
habitat loss and harvest are estimated by the spatial component of the
model.
' Threshold - 50 iaxlividuals.
sea-_.....---.____ ...._.. _... . - ..- ...... _ .... _ .._........_.........
e
Y 2f9
IS9 ,
40 ;
Sa St. S-2 V SA S. Ss S' V $o SM stt
insM
Frgnre 2,5. Key deer PVA: Effect of development on the level of take of Ket• deer
2.1.2 Silver rice rat (q omyc argentatus)
On April 30,1991, the rice rat was designated as endangered in the Lower Florida Keys,
west of Seven Mile Bridge,
Untitled
ALICIA'S QUESTIONS TO RICARDO:
Subj: HCP questions
Date: 10/14/02
To: micainnk@aol.com
6. Where does the HCP show the exact H value cap which will be alto
wed (a) overall, (b) over the
next 20 years, and (c) per year?
7. Where does the HCP show that, for purposes of determining the amo
unt of development, the
H value of lands acquired as "mitigation" cannot be credited against t
he H value of lands
developed?
RICARDO'S ANSWER TO ALICIA:
Subj. In preparation for next week's meeting
Date: 1115/02 4:28:07 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Ricardo_N_Calvo@URSCorp.com
Committee Members:
We reviewed all the comments and want to provide the following brief
responses in preparation for our meeting next week (comments by the NG
O's
mainly require clarification - they will be discussed in the meeting):
6.6 The HCP is clear in requesting a total (20 yr) H =1.1.
6.7 Total H =1.1 is absolute. It does not depend on acquisition.
Page 1
Key elements of the HCP
KEY ELEMENTS OF THE HCP
Objective: To obtain an Incidental Take Permit from the USFWS for Key deer and
other covered species in Big Pine and No Name Keys. Incidental take may occur as a
during the execution of development activities in the project area. The HCP
establishes how much development may occur and the guidelines under which
development must occur to ensure habitat conservation and species protection.
• Duration: 20 years
• Covered Species: Key deer, Lower Keys marsh rabbit, eastern indigo snake,
Garber's spurge
• Covered Activities
o Residential and commercial development, auxiliary uses
o Community/Government facilities
o Transportation improvements
• Permit Issuance Criteria
o Taking is incidental
o Minimization and mitigation
o Adequate funding
o No reduction in species survival and recovery
o Other measures per USFWS
• Measures of Impact
o Development has two main impacts on the Key deer: habitat loss (K in the
PVA model) and human -induced mortality (H in the PVA model)
o Human -induced mortality includes roadkills, entanglement, predation by
domestic predators, and poaching. The USFWS maintains a detailed database
with this information
o The effect of H on the model results is much larger than the effect of K
o Therefore, impacts are measured by "H", which represents the proportional
contribution to human -induced mortality of different areas throughout the
project area.
o Every parcel has an H value. The parcel database, with the H value for each
parcel has been provided to the County for their use.
o The total H of a development activity is calculated by multiplying the parcel
H x a land use multiplier (based on traffic generation because highway
mortality is by far the main cause of human -induced mortality) x number of
acres (or sq. ft. developed/1,000). Any H for road paving is calculated as
number of miles x H/mile.
o Total H;mpac, over 20 years: 1.0 (allows for 200 houses, plus facility
expansions, and limited road paving).
o H = 1.0 is a fixed maximum; the actual H incurred may be lower if mitigation
falls short due to unwilling sellers or lack of funding.
Page 1 of 3
o H is highly correlated with measures of incidental take: average additional
human -related Key deer mortality and the probability that the population fall
to below 50 females in 50 years.
Level of Take:
o Key deer:
■ For H=1.0, the PVA model predicts —4 additional human -induced deer
deaths per year.
■ For H = 1.0, the PVA model also predicts an increase of 1.7% in the
probability that the population fall below 50 females in 50 years (from
2.3% under current conditions to 4.0% for H = 1.0).
■ The number human -induced Key deer deaths varies from year to year.
However, it is highly correlated with deer density, as measured by the
average number of deer seen in field censuses. The ratio of human -
induced deaths to deer seen has varied little in the last 13 years. The
proposed level of impacts should not result in a significant increase in
this ratio.
■ An increase of 4 human -induced deaths per year would not result in a
significant increase in the ratio. The increase would be well within the
observed year-to-year variation.
o Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit: Activities such as road paving may occur
within 500 in of marsh rabbit habitat. No loss of marsh rabbit habitat will
occur.
o Indigo Snake: Anticipated loss of about 7-15 acres of potential habitat.
Avoidance and Minimization
o Conservative modeling assumptions
o Traffic management
o Progressive development
o No development in the Key deer corridor across Sands Subdivision
o In Tier 1 lands: No more than 5% of all residential units permitted over 20
years a total H of 0.02 (2% of the total), whichever results in a lower total H
o No commercial development allowed in Tier 1 areas.
o Development of scarified/disturbed areas
o Development of Tier 3 and Tier 2 lands
Habitat Mitigation
o Measure of habitat quality/impacts: H
o Proposed level of take: H = 1.0
o Proposed mitigation ratio: 3:1 (Mitigation H = 3.0)
o Acquisition and management
o Habitat banking (activity since 1995): H = 0.3999
o Regulatory control over rate and type of development (modified ROGO)
Page 2 of 3
Implementation
o Monroe County — lead implementing agency
o Monitoring and reporting
o Funding assurances
o Compliance:
■ Monroe County will halt issuance of development permits if:
• Mitigation lags development by 5% of H at the end of a
reporting year (i.e., if Hacq.ked is 5% smaller than H;mpact
• Unwilling sellers prevent mitigation from matching impacts
(within 5%)
• Funding shortage prevents mitigation from matching impacts
(within 5%)
• The ratio human -induced deer deaths over average number of
deer seen is higher than 1.53 for two consecutive years
Permit issuance may resume when unwilling sellers or funding
become available.
Page 3 of 3
Board of County Commissioners Resolution
RESOLUTION -2003
A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF THE
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (HCP) FOR
BIG PINE AND NO NAME KEYS TO THE U.S.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FOR AN
INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT OF THE
ENDANGERED SPECIES INCLUDING
MINIMIZING AND MITIGATING THE LEVEL
OF TAKE.
WHEREAS, on October 26, 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Florida
Game and Fish Commission, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (FDAC), Florida
Department of Transportation and Monroe County entered into a Memorandum of Agreement for
the development of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for Big Pine and No Name Keys; and
WHEREAS, the public agencies are among the federal, state and local agencies that
have regulatory authority or responsibility under certain federal and state statutes, including the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
the Constitution of Florida and state and local planning and zoning laws to conserve threatened
and endangered species and their habitats on Big Pine and No Name Keys from adverse effects
resulting from public and private development actions; and
WHEREAS, the HCP is a mechanism whereby the concerns and responsibilities of the
various public agencies with regard to the conservation of the Key Deer and other covered
species, and public and private development of Big Pine and No Name Keys can be coordinated;
and
WHEREAS, all projects including state and county roadway improvements and all other
public and private development activities on Big Pine and No Name Keys are subject to
individual review by USFWS and will enjoy a benefit from this comprehensive review by
USFWS; and
WHEREAS, the traffic Level of Service (LOS) on US #lin Big Pine Key is currently
and has been since 1996 below the adopted standard and is anticipated to continue to worsen
unless road improvements can be made to US #1; and
WHEREAS, the USFWS agreed to allow FDOT to proceed with the construction of a
short-term intersection improvement on US #1 on Big Pine under the condition that the FDCA,
FDOT and Monroe County agree to develop the HCP; and
WHEREAS, a Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) was signed by FDOT, FDCA and
Monroe County in January 2000 to fund and facilitate development of the HCP; and
WHEREAS, an HCP Coordinating Committee, consisting of two representatives from
each MOU signatory agency and two citizens designated by the County was established for
purpose of assisting the contracting agency, FDOT, in selection of an experienced professional
consulting firm to prepare the HCP and associated documents; and
WHEREAS, URS Corporation Southern was selected as the Contractor to prepare the
HCP; and
WHEREAS, Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act allows an applicant to apply for
a permit for "incidental take" of federally designated endangered species; and
WHEREAS, a comprehensive study was completed of the Key Deer and other
endangered species populations and conditions necessary for their continued viability; and
WHEREAS, three workshops were held with the community as part of the Monroe
County Livable CommuniKeys Program (LCP) to determine a preferred development action,
which was analyzed by the Contractor to determine the level of "take" of the endangered species
by the action; and
WHEREAS, the HCP is a plan for minimizing and mitigating the determined level of
"take"; and
WHEREAS, formal submittal of the HCP and it's associated documents and application
of an Incidental Take permit shall only be made after all three HCP co -applicant agencies are in
agreement with the submittal, NOW THEREFORE;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA to authorize the submittal of the Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP) for Big Pine and No Name Keys to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida
at a regular meeting held on the 19 day of March, A.D., 2003.
Mayor Dixie Spehar
Mayor Pro Tern Murray Nelson
Commissioner Charles "Sonny" McCoy
Commissioner David Rice
Commissioner George Neugent
(SEAL)
ATTEST: DANNY KOHLAGE, CLERK
Deputy Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Mayor/Chairperson
A O TO FO
— SLTM N
L
Attorney s c: —
Staff Report
County of Monroe
Planning and Environmental Resources
K. Marlene Conaway, Director
2798 Overseas Highway
Suite 400
Marathon, Florida 33050
Voice: (305) 289-2500
FAX: (305) 289-2536
March 3, 2003
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: K. Marlene Conaway, Director
Planning and Environmental Resources
Board of County Commissioners
Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy, Dist. 3
Mayor Pro Tem Dixie Spehar, Dist. 1
Comm. Bert Jimenez, District 4
Comm. Murray Nelson, Dist. 5
Comm. George Neugent, Dist. 2
SUBJECT: Habitat Conservation Plan for Big Pine and No Name Keys
Summary
Monroe County, DCA and FDOT entered into a Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) to prepare a
Habitat Conservation Plan (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. The
Board of County Commissioner approval before submittal of the HCP is required in the JPA.
Also, be aware, that the Department of Community Affairs have agreed to abate their appeals of the
twenty-one Board of County Commissioners approved Big Pine Key Beneficial Use residential
permits when the HCP is submitted.
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#1. 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
Concurrency Level of Service required in the 2010 Comprehensive 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 Conservation 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
County of Monroe
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
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
Conservation Plan.
The HCP process for Big Pine and No Name Keys was initiated in February 2000. The applicants
are Monroe County, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) 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 HCP committee made up of concerned agencies and citizen representatives. The
document first submitted to the Board of County Commissioners in September 2002. The
Commission requested the consultant to take it to the HCP committee for review. The application
for the incidental take permit is proposed to be sent to the USFWS in March 2003. 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 LCP 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 2001. 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 HCP model developed for these islands.
0)
County of Monroe
The LCP Master plan is currently being drafted and will implement the various requirements of the
HCP. 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. Attached is the Livable CommuniKey's
Newsletter which summarizes the types and amount of development proposed to stay within the
permit and the vision of the community.
The plan should be ready for review by the Planning Commission in April 2003. The MOU with
DCA includes mechanisms to allow the County 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 HCP 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 HCP 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 Conservation Plan for Big Pine and No
Name Keys.
3
Livable CommuniKeys Newsletter
,
Inside this issue:
Planning for the future
Community Vision
HCP and LCP
Plan Proposals -
Three Tiers
Big Pine Park
US 1 Corridor Design
Workshop
Transportation im-
provements
What is limiting de-
velopment on Big
Pine Key and No
Name Key?
• Need to protect the
endanger species.
• Traffic congestion on
us #1.
• Hurricane evacuation
times.
• County -wide morato-
rium on hotel/motel
units.
1
1
2
MO N R OF CC U N T t
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING A N C ENVIRONMENTAL
R E S O U R C E S
Volume 1 , Issue 4
Livable ConuntmiKeys Program
Big Pine Key and No Name Key
PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE
During the spring and fall of 2000, the
residents and property owners of Big Pine
and No Name Keys worked with Monroe
County planning staff on the Livable
CommuniKeys Program (LCP) to identify
the needs and desires of the community
for future development on Big Pine Key
and No Name Key.
2 Alternative potential development patterns
and types were drafted during the process
3 for evaluation to determine any possible
impacts to the endangered species which
3 make these islands their home. In order for
any new development, including road im-
3 provements, to occur a permit from U. S.
Fish and wildlife Service (USFWS) is re-
quired. Therefore, the county and state
have funded the preparation of a Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) for the islands.
The HCP is a proposal to mitigate and
compensate for the potential negative ef-
fects of develop-
ment activities on
the endangered
species. The HCP
will be reviewed
by the USFWS to
determine if it
meets the species
protection crite-
ria.
IMUNITY BY THE COMMUNITY
TIT c . I _ < n,- collected c:' the community workshops:
We envision Big Pine and No Name Keys
as a rural community with a small town
atmosphere and way -of -life where people
feel a connection with their friends and
neighbors. A community rich in natural
and scenic resources including endan-
gered habitat like nowhere else in the
world. A unique community in the Flor-
ida Keys where people can live in har-
mony with the natural world. Where resi-
dents and visitors can take advantage of the
local goods and services without fighting
traffic. Where kids of all ages have plenty
of recreational opportunities. Where the
dreams of home ownership and planting
roots in the community can be realized.
Where government regulations make sense
and work for the betterment of all. Above
all, we envision a community that responds
to the needs of all its inhabitants.
Page 2
The Blue Hole
Lands in Big Pine and No
Name Keys will be
classified into three Tiers
based on their
environmental sensitivity
and distance to US #1 .
Developed canal lots
Livable CommuniKeys Program
Big Pine Key and No Name Key
Volume 1 , Issue 4
Livable CommuniKeys and the HCP: Moving forward together
The Livable CommuniKeys Process Master
Plan (LCP) is currently being drafted and will
soon be ready for presentation to the commu-
nity and the Planning Commission. Approval
to submit The Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP) will be considered by the Board of
County Commissioners in March 2003.
The HCP is a permit application to allow a
limited amount of development to occur as
long as the impact on the endangered species is
minimized and mitigated and the long term
viability of the species is considered. The
USFWS interest is in the protection of the en-
dangered species. The LCP plan provides the
framework for development activities.
The LCP Master Plan minimizes impacts from
development on the Key Deer by locating de-
velopment in areas of least value to the deer
and reducing trip length; limiting amount of
proposed development to maintain the rural
character and to maximize the amount of
habitat protected; and mitigating development
by purchasing land for permanent protection.
Plan Proposal Three Tiers
The proposed LCP Master Plan will classify
all land on Big Pine and No Name Keys into
three `tiers' based on conservation and infill
priorities. Most of the islands are classified as
Tier I because of their environmental sensitiv-
ity and importance for the continued viability
of the Key Deer. Tier 2 lands are canal lots
located a distance from US # I with a potential
for secondary impacts on the deer from cars.
Tier 3 lands are canal lots in close proximity to
US #1, which provide little habitat value to the
endangered species and because of location, a
decreased potential for deer kills from vehi-
cles. Some undeveloped lots in Tier 3 are also
located between existing developed commer-
cial lots in the US #1 corridor.
The development activities proposed in the
Plan are expected to occur over a 20-year hori-
zon. Proposed activities include:
• Residential units at a rate of roughly 10
per year for a total of 200 units.
• Commercial development, limited to
2,400 square feet a year, around existing com-
mercial areas, mainly along the US # l corri-
dor.
• New recreational facilities constructed on
existing developed or disturbed/scarified lots.
• Limited expansion of community uses,
churches, public offices, waster water facili-
ties, and the existing fire station.
• Transportation improvements, the widen-
ing of local, paved roads to accommodate bi-
cycle paths and storm water and sewer infra-
structure and a third lane on US #1.
LEGEND
�• wn.r Ar -TYrI
.:
TrrAllim A— • TMr 11
:> DRAFT
C�oun-
Tier I - Hieh Oualitv Habitat
No Name Key
Most of Big Pine Key
Port Pine Heights
Tier II - Moderate Habitat/Distance US #1
Canal lots mid island
Tier III -Lowest Quality/ Close to US #1
Canal lots
Livable CommuniKeys Program
Big Pine Key and No Name Key
Volume 1 , Issue 4 IWI
US #1 Big Pine Key Corridor Design Charrette
On January 16th and 17th the Big Pine and No
Name community is invited to participate in a
design charrette which will focus on the US #1
corridor through Big Pine Key. A design char-
rette is an intensive workshop in which design
professionals, planners, landscape architects,
and transportation engineers work directly
with community members to create a vision
and plan for the community. Charrettes are
typically a short, intensive process focused on
producing a plan which reflects the input of
everyone involved.
For Big Pine, the charrette will be focused on
the US #1 corridor area, extending roughly
from St. Peter's Church to North Pine Chan-
nel. The issues to be addressed in the char-
rette will include visual enhancement, bicycle
and pedestrian safety, appropriate parking and
identification and enhancement of Big Pine
Key's "sense of place". The area enhance-
ment plan resulting from the charrette will be
included in the Livable CommuniKeys Plan
for Big Pine and No Name Keys. The recom-
mendations proposed in the plan will be de-
veloped within the context of the Florida
Keys Scenic Highway Corridor Management
Plan and the Overseas Heritage Trail. Please
see the back page of this newsletter for loca-
tion and time information.
Big Pine Park Design Approved in December
The Livable CommuniKeys public workshops
held in 2000 highlighted the community de-
sire for additional active park space. In March
2002, after much public input, the county pur-
chased the Mariner's Resort for a community
park. The site is approximately 10 acres in
size and located on Bogie Channel on the east-
ern side of Big Pine. Beginning in June the
Monroe County Parks and Recreation Board
held a series of four public workshops to ob-
tain community input on the wants, needs and
concerns for direction on park design. In De-
cember the Board of County Commissioners
approved a conceptual design layout for the
proposed park. The concept includes:
Page 3
Join us and help plan the Big
Pine Key
US # 1 Corridor
• a little league baseball and softball field
• a skate park
• a community center
• basketball/roller hockey court
ow,*
• walking trail with fitness stations
Recreation Planning
• tennis courts
• bocce ball and shuffleboard areas
Active Recreation
• a playground
Passive Recreation
• an area for future pool development
The next stage of the park development will be
• Children/Adults
the permitting process and to seek approval
from the Monroe County Planning Commis-
sion.
Travel Improvements to US Highway ## 1
The Plan will include widening of US Highway
# 1 to three lanes. Studies have demonstrated that
widening the Highway to three lanes will bring
the level of service on the road to an acceptable
level "C" for the next 20 years. Several options
were analyzed in the HCP. The potential impact
on the Key Deer of the additional lane has been
mitigated by the construction of the deer cross-
ings on US #1.
A scenario, suggested in LCP workshops and
further studied for a cross -island connector road
north of US # 1 to provide a way for people to
move around the island without going onto
US #1 has been abandoned. The Board of
County Commissioners, after receiving com-
munity comments, decided not to move for-
ward with the proposed road at it's meeting in
December 2002.
Design for the bike path on US #1 will be
discussed at the Charrette on January 16.
Other bike paths on County roads are in-
cluded in the HCP and will give the commu-
nity additional safe areas for biking, skating
and walking.
US # 1 Corridor
Florida Department of Transportation Correspondence
Feb 20 03 10:55a James L Roberts Co Rdmin 305-292-4544 p,2
�,..3
Florida Department of Transportation
!EB BUSH 1000 Northwest 1 1 1 th Avenue GOVERN -OR F. BARRY, Jk.
Miami, Florida 33172-5800 SECRETARv
Office of the District Secretary
District Six
(305) 470-5197
February 7, 2003
Mr. James Roberts, County Administrator
c/o Monroe County Growth Management Division
2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 410
Marathon. FL 33050
Dear Mr_ Roberts:
As you know, the Florida Department of Transportation, along with the Florida
Department of Community Affairs and Monroe County are co -applicants on an Incidental
Take Permit (ITP) application to be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS). The ITP would authorize the incidental take of the Key deer and other
protected species in Big Pine and No Name Keys, which may result from development
activities over a 20-year period. The co -applicants have worked diligently together since
1999 in order to develop a viable Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) to support the ITP
application.
The preparation of the HCP and accompanying Environmental Assessment included
detailed scientific studies, continuous agency coordination, and ambitious public
involvement. The Department endorses the Final Draft HCP submitted to the Monroe
County Board of County Commissioners for consideration, and looks forward to your
approval of the Final Draft HCP for submittal to the USFWS for official review.
The Department is committed to funding the construction phase for the US-1 roadway
improvements (i.e., three-laninR), as recommended in the HCP. Should you have
questions regarding the Department's support of the HCP, please feei tree to contact
Javier RodAgEterme at your convenience.
`t11
1
Jo Abre E.
Di rict Secretary
JA/cbo
cc: C. Leroy Irwin, FDOT
Javier Rodriguez, FDOT
Colleen Castille, FDCA
www.dot.state.fl.us
Florida Department of Transportation
JEB BUSH 605 Suwannee Street THOMAS F. BARR1 JR.
GOVERNOR Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 SECRETARY
February 11, 2003
Ms. Marlene Conaway
Monroe County Growth Management Department
2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 410
Marathon, Florida 33050
Dear Ms. Conaway:
Re: Habitat Conservation Plan
Big Pine Key — No Name Key
The three co -applicants have met and determined that the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is ready for
submittal to the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for approval, as stipulated in the
HCP Memorandum of Agreement between the three co -applicant agencies. The HCP will be provided to
Committee members in February.
URS is completing revisions to the HCP and Environmental Assessment (EA) based on input from the
Committee, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and other parties. The structure of the plan
remains the same: the total 20-year impacts will not exceed H = 1. 1; avoidance and minimization
measures include modeling assumptions, regulatory measures (e.g., rate of growth), and development
standards (e.g., fencing guidelines); mitigation and compensation for permitted impacts will include a 3H:1 H
ratio of land acquisition and management, which will occur alongside development activities; and
monitoring, reporting, and other typical HCP provisions. The revised HCP will omit the cross -island road
(which the BOCC voted down in December 2002), and will state a limit to H in Tier 1 in order to ensure and
clarify protection of Tier 1 lands.
The HCP will be presented to the BOCC for approval on March i 9th. it is anticipated that the HCP and EA,
along with the Incident Take Permit application, will be submitted to the USFWS in April. After submittal to
the Service, the document will follow the process as required by the Service.
The work of the Committee has been completed and I would personally like to extend my appreciation to
you for your participation over the past three years,
CLI/mh
Sincerely,
C. L. Irwin
Committee Chairman
www.dot.state.fl.us ® RECYCLED PAPER
Habitat Conservation Plan
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR FLORIDA KEY DEER
(Odocoileus virginianus clavium) AND OTHER PROTECTED SPECIES
ON BIG PINE KEY AND NO NAME KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Draft — March 2003
ERRATA AND CLARIFICATIONS
(these comments will be reflected in the HCP to be submitted to the USFWS)
• Sec. 2.3.4, p. 32: The Tiers are associated to H values: the mean value of all cells in Tier 1 is
H = 0.259* 10-3; Tier 2, H = 0.183* 10-3; and Tier 3, H = 0.168* 10-3.
• Sec. 3.4, p. 38, Covered Activities: Delete "limited" and "expansion of in the following
sentence: "The types of activities covered under this HCP include residential development,
limited commercial development and expansion, cKpansion of community and institutional
facilities, and transportation improvements." The following sentence will be added at the end
of the paragraph: "Other activities not described in this HCP are not authorized under this
HCP".
• Sec. 5.3.2, p. 47: Where it reads: "No development which may interfere with Key deer
movement along the corridor will be permitted in Sands Subdivision.", it should read: "No
development will be permitted which may interfere with Key deer movement along the
Sands corridor, as shown in figure 5.2."
Sec. 5.3.5, p. 50: Require that the ROGO continue to give priority to Tier 3 over Tier 1 in
the project area.
• Sec. 2.3.2, pp. 27-28:
o Deer Corridors: Development in deer corridors would have a rg eater impact, not
lesser.
o Patch Quality: Development in large, uninterrupted areas would have a rg eater
impact, not lesser.
o Water Barriers: Development in areas without canals would have a rg eater impact,
not lesser.
• "Transportation improvements" refers to paving of dirt roads as well as 3-laning US-1. No
new roads are "covered" by the HCP. The H-value for combined US-1 projects (Key deer
underpasses, intersection improvement, and three-laning is H = -0.80. The H-value per mile
of road paving is H = 0.0372.
• Sec. 4.2.3, Page 42: Where it reads "(Section 3.5)", it should read "(Section 1.2.1)"
0 Sec. 6.1, Page 55: Sentence which refers to Appendix B will be deleted.
• Sec. 5.33, Page 49, Table 5.2. Under Impacts, the following changes apply:
o Building Permits (29 instead of 12); H = 0.071 instead of 0.0168; Total H = 0.1489
instead of 0.1286; Credit Requested: H = 0.3390 instead of 0.3999. Other references
to these numbers will be corrected.
In general: Clearing of native vegetation will be limited to that necessary to for and
associated with covered activities. Other clearing activities are not authorized under this
HCP.
MAYOR DIXIE SPEHAR
AND MEMBERS OF THE BOCC:
RE: AGENDA ITEM N*
PLEASE AMEND THE ERRATA / CLARIFICATION SHEET OF MARCH 18, 2003
AS FOLLOWS:
1. DELE
`THE H-VALUE FOR COMBINED US-1 PROJECTS: (KEY DEER
UNDERPASSES, INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT, AND THREE LAMING)
IS H = -0.80" on the basis that this not only violates federal law, but also
defaults on commitments made to the community.
2. R_EPLACE:
TABLE 2.4 IN THE MARCH 2O03 DOCUMENT WITH TABLE 2.2 IN THE
SEPTEMBER 2002 DOCUMENT. No new data to justify the proposed change
has been brought forward.
III•
`THE TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEVELOPMENT UNDER THIS HCP SHALL NOT
EXCEED A TOTAL H VALUE OF 1.0, COMPUTED BY ADDING THE H
VALUE FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED BY THE COUNTY
SUBSEQUENT TO MARCH 13, 1995." This will return the HCP to the previously
agreed on values.
N��
INTERNAL WORIONG DRAFT DOCUMENT - N(yr R4TENDED FOR
DLSTRiBUTION -SUBJECT TO REVISION
Table 22- Key deer PVA_ Pa m" eD'ixt afdavdap®mt an the Kay doer popular m
Tow E diodim Riot
Adds l
Soesmo
swift Low Loss Ihawese d* is 100 ) of
avr=e
UA tt (acte4? (K2 Yaes filow ieic"
(aspmmd andnid at
mrulfty in
100 years
st imR aeoe in 50
3
S0 s- 0 0 0 0.0000 0.0005 0.0023
0
J J_ 0 0 .0001) GAM 0-0023
SO
0
S2 r 0 ,{ a) 0 0.4m O.A005 Q0023
0
S3 200 ` 4 4 0.9m 0 0005 4.0242
0
55
S4 300 ' 111 6 0,064 Q0006 Um
ss 140 148 8 0.0068 0.AOD<1 0.0327
124
S6 = SW 185 10 0.0108 0.0011 0.0416
210
S7 600 222 12 OA160 OA017 0.0567
88 700 259 14 0.0220 0.002$ 0.0623
369
'99 g0D 297 24 0.0251 0.0066 OA981
399
810 900 334 27 0.0288 OAM 0.1173
4I2
Sl1 1000 371 30 0,0331 0 0.1470
435
); S2 a
_ Sl -- Ompft US-1 hWn mmM (WOMM =1 I I I inatl ia'etaect
0M piaE US-1 impmvmmmmu Plea =oW4dmd mad. AN alter soatmia c bM*S& the US-1 awl
ti 2 K - Gctl►=eg "!_'_'„ le fte I= aed hat s am edified 6�►11w a i of *0
"
`7 � i J 3 7hM&Aoid — 90 bWRisidMgk.
7 -�
M cj
`,
1
�
-
s
c r
e
7s
V
in
N
a
an
! s 96 a a ff sn
FiPttre ?.5. Key feet' PVA.- Effect of devetoptaeM oo.the YO *Stake of Key deer
2.1.2 Silva rice rat ( A29dowl
On April 30,1991, the rice rat was deaigamad'as in ttrp Lower Florida Keys,
west of Saved Mile Bride.
21
DRAFT DOCUMENT - 2/25/2003
documented ranges (Lopez 2001) to account for stochastic events. The final model run
result represents the average of the 10,000 iterations.
To estimate the effects of increasing levels of development on the Key deer population, '
10 scenarios were evaluated with the Key'deer PVA model (Table 2.4). For any given
scenario, the model chose the least valuabl� vacant parcels for development (parcels with
the lowest K, H). As parcels am selected the spatial model calculated the change in
carrying capacity (K) and harvest (M. New K and H values, which represent the direct
effects of development, are then input into the matrix model. Therefore, the model run
simulates the effect of development on the Key deer population through time.
Table 2.4. Effect of development on the Key deer.
Scenario
Number of
Habitat
Total
Ris
Risk
Additional
Residential
Loss3
Harvest
(probability)
(probability)
average
Parcels
(decrease
(increase
of Extinction
of falling
50
annual
Developed2
in K)
in H)
in 100 years
below
mortality'
females at
least once in
50 years 3
No Action
0
0
0.00
0.0005
0.0230
0
S 1'
0
0
(-0.80))
0.0005
0.0230
0
S2
200
4
(-0.38)
0.0005
0.0230
0
S3
300
6
(-0.07)
0.0005
0.0230
0
S4
400
8
0.27
0.0005
0.0276
0.28
S5
500
10
0.67
0.0005
0.0291
1.21
S6
600
12
1.20
0.0011
0.0459
2.32
S7
700
14
1.79
0.0021
0.0653
3.23
S8
800
24
2.10
0.0023
0.0774
3.50
S9
900
27
2.47
0.0037
0.0956
3.82
S 10
1000
30
2.91
0.0068
0.1198
4.13
S1 includes US-1 projects: wildlife underpasses, intersection improvement, and three -lanes: The
combined effect of these projects is a surplus of three Key deer per year. All other scenarios include
these projects.
2 The model selected parcels with lowest total habitat value to the Key deer.
3 From the carrying capacity grid in the spatial model. It is an input to the matrix model.
` From the harvest grid in the spatial model. It is an input to the matrix model. H in scenarios S1, S2 and
S3 is a surplus caused by the overall effect of US-1 projects (i.e., surplus of three deer per year, per
USFW S 1999). Net harvest was kept at 0 for these scenarios; therefore the no net change in model
results (risk and additional mortality).
' Results from matrix model run. Refers to females only.
The model runs provide an estimate of the risk of extinction in 100 years and the risk of
the population falling below 50 individuals (females) at least once in 50 years
(Table 2.2). Both are expressed as probabilities. The model also estimates the average
additional human -induced mortality (number of female deer).
W
2/25/2003
Habitat Conservation Plan
for Florida Key Deer
(Odocoileus virginianus clavium)
and other Protected Species on
Big Pine Key and No Name Key,
Monroe County, Florida
Prepared for:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1339 20th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3559
Prepared by:
Florida Department of Transportation, District VI
1000 NW 111'h 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
March 2003
2/25/2003
Habitat Conservation Plan
for Florida Key Deer
(Odocoileus virginianus clavium)
and other Protected Species on
Big Pine Key and No Name Key,
Monroe County, Florida
Prepared for:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1339 20th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3559
Prepared by:
Florida Department of Transportation, District VI
1000 NW 111`h 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
March 2003
DRAFT' DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
6
1.1
.............................................................
Background and Purpose of the Plan............................................................. 6
1.1.1 Historical Background and Memorandum of Agreement ...............
8
1.1.2 Coordinating Committee.................................................................
9
1.1.3 Objectives of the Plan .....................................................................
9
1.2
Plan Development Process and Methodology .............................................
10
1.2.1 Technical Studies..........................................................................
10
1.2.2 Public Information and Involvement ............................................
10
1.3
HCP Covered Area......................................................................................
12
1.4
Regulatory Basis of the HCP.......................................................................
12
1.4.1 Endangered Species Act...............................................................
12
1.4.2 Clean Water Act............................................................................
13
2. BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS..............................................................................14
2.1
Covered Species...........................................................................................
14
2.1.1 Florida Key Deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium)....................
14
2.1.2 Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris hefneri).............
15
2.1.3 Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corals couperi) ....................
19
2.2
Vegetation and Habitat................................................................................
19
2.2.1 Pinelands.......................................................................................
20
2.2.2 Hammocks....................................................................................
22
2.2.3 Freshwater Wetlands.....................................................................
23
2.2.4 Saltwater Marsh/Buttonwood Marsh ............................................
24
2.2.5 Mangroves.....................................................................................24
2.3
Scientific Basis of the HCP: The Key Deer Population Viability
Analysis (PVA) Model and Its Application .................................................
25
2.3.1 Field Studies of the Population Dynamics of the Key Deer .........
25
2.3.2 Development of the Key Deer Population Viability
AnalysisModel.............................................................................
26
2.3.3 PVA Model Analysis and Results ................................................
29
2.3.4 Application of the PVA Model to the Habitat Conservation Plan
31
3. LAND USE CONDITIONS....................................................................................
35
3.1
Introduction..................................................................................................
35
3.2
Land Ownership...........................................................................................
35
3.3
Habitat Management Activities...................................................................
36
3.4
Covered Activities.......................................................................................
38
4. ALTERNATIVE PLANNING STRATEGIES....................................................
40
4.1
Introduction..................................................................................................
40
4.2
Planning Strategies Analyzed......................................................................
41
4.2.1 Planning Strategy #1: No Action Alternative/No Take ................
41
4.2.2 Planning Strategy #2: Reduced Take ............................................
41
4.2.3 Planning Strategy #3: Proposed Alternative .................................
42
4.3
Comparison of Alternatives.........................................................................
42
ii
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
5. CONSERVATION STRATEGY AND PROCEDURES .....................................
43
5.1
Biological Goals...........................................................................................
43
5.2
Summary of Take and Its Effects on the Covered Species ..........................
44
5.3
Conservation Strategy - Mitigation Measures and Procedures ....................
45
5.3.1 Conservative Assumptions and Level of Take .............................
45
5.3.2 Avoidance and Minimization........................................................
46
5.3.3 Habitat Mitigation and Habitat Banking .......................................
49
5.3.4 Habitat Management.....................................................................
50
5.3.5 Regulatory Actions.......................................................................
50
5.3.6 Other Considerations....................................................................
51
5.4
Monitoring and Reporting............................................................................
51
5.4.1 Reporting.......................................................................................53
6. IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCING...........................................................
55
6.1
Regulatory Actions......................................................................................
55
6.1.1 Roles and Responsibilities............................................................
55
6.1.2 Implementation Schedule..............................................................
55
6.2
Funding........................................................................................................
56
6.3
Permit Amendment Procedures...................................................................
57
6.4
Permit Renewal............................................................................................
58
7. REFERENCES........................................................................................................59
7.1
Agencies and Persons Contacted.................................................................
59
7.2
Bibliography................................................................................................
60
8. LIST
OF PREPARERS..........................................................................................
68
8.1
URS Corporation.........................................................................................
68
8.2
Sub-Consultants...........................................................................................
68
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Project area
Figure 2.1 Key deer locations from telemetry data
Figure 2.2 Marsh rabbit habitat
Figure 2.3 Vegetative cover of Big Pine Key and No Name Key
Figure 2.4 Six grid layers used to generate weighting factor grid
Figure 2.5 Key deer PVA model grid layers
Figure 2.6 Tier classification system in the project area
Figure 3.1 Land ownership n the project area
Figure 5.1 Relationship between human -induced Key deer mortality and deer density
Figure 5.2 Key deer corridor across Sands Subdivision
iii
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
List of Tables
Table 1.1 HCP public meetings
Table 2.1 Covered Species
Table 2.2 Habitat type distribution within the project area
Table 2.3 Gender and age -classes of radio collared Key deer in Big Pine Key and No
Name Key, 1998-1999
Table 2.4 Effect of development on Key deer
Table 2.5 H multiplier for land use categories
Table 2.6 Tier classification system
Table 3.1 Land Ownership in the project area as of mid-2002
Table 5.1 Estimated loss of native vegetation from covered activities
Table 5.2 Impacts and mitigation in Big Pine Key and No Name Key, 1995 — present
Table 5.3 Projected budget for monitoring Key deer population for 20-year period
Table 6.1 Estimated cost of the HCP
iv
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Act
Endangered Species Act
ADID
Advanced Identification of Wetlands
CARL
Conservation and Recreation Lands
CCP
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
Corps
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
County
Monroe County
CWA
Clean Water Act
DCA
Florida Department of Community Affairs
ESA
Endangered Species Act
FDOT
Florida Department of Transportation
F.S.
Florida Statutes
FWC
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
GIS
Geographic Information System
HCP
Habitat Conservation Plan
IS
Improved Subdivision
ITP
Incidental Take Permit
LCP
Livable CommuniKeys Program
LDR
Land Development Regulations
LOS
Level of Service
MCLA
Monroe County Land Authority
MM
Mile Marker on US-1
MOA
Memorandum of Agreement
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NGVD
National Geodetic Vertical Datum
NRCS
National Resource Conservation Service
PD&E
Project Development and Environment
Plan
Habitat Conservation Plan
Preserve
Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve and Preserve Buffer
PVA
Population Viability Analysis
Refuge
National Key Deer Refuge
ROGO
Rate of Growth Ordinance
US-1
U.S. Highway 1
USC
United States Code
USFWS
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
v
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 Background and Purpose of the Plan
The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), Monroe County, and the Florida
Department of Community Affairs (DCA)(the Applicants) submit this Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP or Plan), which addresses impacts to covered species resulting
from potential development activities over a 20-year year period in Big Pine Key and No
Name Key, Monroe County, Florida (Figure 1.1). Activities covered under this HCP
include residential and commercial development, as well as transportation improvements
to meet the community needs of Big Pine Key and No Name Key. The HCP establishes
the guidelines under which covered activities may occur and describes a conservation and
mitigation strategy to minimize and mitigate for the incidental take of threatened and
endangered species during the execution of covered development activities. The Plan has
been developed in accordance with the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (ESA or Act).
A number of species listed at the Federal and/or state level(s), including the endangered
Florida Key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium), have been documented to occur, or
have the potential to occur, within the project area. The Applicants have determined that
the incidental take of Key deer may occur as a result of development activities during the
next 20 years. Incidental take coverage is also requested for two additional species that
may be indirectly affected mainly through habitat loss by urban development activities
throughout the 20-year period.
This HCP and accompanying Incidental Take Permit (ITP) application support the
Applicants' request for the incidental take of Key deer and other covered species within
the project area from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service or USFWS). In
compliance with the ITP issuance criteria listed in Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, the
HCP provides for the minimization and mitigation of the incidental take. Ultimately, the
incidental take would not significantly affect the likelihood of survival and recovery of
the species in the wild.
The Applicants understand that the ITP itself does not authorize development activities.
Instead, the ITP authorizes the incidental take of covered species that may occur as a
result of covered activities during the 20-year permit.
0
DRAFT DOCUMENT -- 2/25/2003
Figure 1.1. Project area
7
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
1.1.1 Historical Background and Memorandum of Agreement
Several listed species, including the Key deer, occur on Big Pine Key and No Name Key.
The Key deer are wide-ranging and use a variety of habitats, including developed areas;
consequently, they share much of their range with the human population. The Key deer
was listed as endangered at the federal level in March 1967 [32 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 4001]. Since the establishment of the National Key Deer Refuge
(Refuge) in 1957, population levels recovered. In 1951, there were an estimated 25 to 80
individuals; by 1973 the population had recovered to approximately 300 to 400, including
151 to 191 deer on Big Pine Key alone (FDOT 1999). However, mortality from road
kills and habitat loss continued to threaten the population and, by 1982, population
numbers were down to between 250 and 300 individuals (Klimstra 1985, USFWS
1985a).
In the late 1980s, the FDOT began consultation to find a solution to the high road
mortality of Key deer along portions of US-1 on Big Pine Key. In September 1993,
FDOT convened a stakeholders meeting, after which an Ad Hoc Committee pursued
solutions to the highway mortality of the Key deer. FDOT funded a Concept Study to
examine viable alternatives for reducing Key deer mortality caused by vehicle collisions.
The study focused on consensus -building via public involvement and agency
coordination, coupled with scientific analyses, and identified a series of structural and
non-structural alternatives (FDOT 1996). The Concept Study recommended that wildlife
underpasses be installed to allow the Key deer to move safely across the undeveloped
segment of US-1 (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-1 in
Big Pine Key (approximately MM 31.0 to MM 29.5).
Following the recommendations of the Concept Study, FDOT funded a Project
Development & Environment (PD&E) Study to further evaluate the alternatives
identified in the Concept Study (FDOT 1998). The PD&E Study included extensive
public involvement and formal consultation with the USFWS. In January 1999, the
Service issued a Biological Opinion for the Key deer (USFWS 1999a).
During the course of the PD&E Study, a Technical Task Force developed possible
solutions for alleviating traffic congestion on US-1 on Big Pine Key. The Task Force
recommended an intersection improvement project in the vicinity of the signalized
intersection at US-1 and Key Deer Boulevard. Intersection improvements included
adding a northbound through lane on US-1, both east and west of the traffic signal;
extending the intersection's existing souhbound left -turn lane on US-1; and improving
the traffic signalization timing. The wildlife underpasses and intersection improvement
have been constructed.
Since 1995, Big Pine Key has been under a building moratorium due to an insufficient
level of service (LOS) on US-1. The moratorium was lifted temporarily in 1996.
Improvements to US-1 would improve the LOS, thereby alleviating the building
moratorium. The Service agreed to allow the intersection improvement project to
proceed on the condition that an HCP be prepared.
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
In 1998, the Applicants and two Technical Assistance Agencies, the Service and the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), signed a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) to develop an HCP for the Key deer and other protected species in the
project area. The purpose of the MOA was to direct an interagency approach to the
conservation of federally protected species on Big Pine Key and No Name Key. Specific
objectives of the MOA were to 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 FWC), and two citizen representatives from Big Pine Key and No Name Key. The
objectives of the Coordinating Committee were:
• Acquire and manage consultants tasked with developing the HCP;
• Establish funding obligations among the HCP Co -Applicant Agencies;
• Define the desired outcome of the HCP; and
• Define Applicant roles.
The HCP Coordinating Committee met approximately every other month, beginning in
late 1999 and continuing through December 2002.
1.1.3 Objectives of the Plan
At the outset of the study, the Applicants worked in consultation with the Service to
establish clear and measurable biological goals for the HCP. Initially, a 5% probability
of extinction in 100 years for the Key deer was established as the biological threshold to
measure the effect of development activities. During the development of the HCP, this
threshold was modified (see Section 5).
Biological studies performed for this HCP focused on the Key deer, and emphasized a
habitat -based approach for other covered species. The Key deer are wide ranging and
utilize virtually all available habitat in the project area, including developed areas (Lopez
2001). In contrast, the other species included in the HCP (see Section 2.3) are restricted
to one or two habitat types within the project area. For example, the Lower Keys marsh
rabbit (Sy/vilagus palustris he
fneri) is restricted to wetland habitats. Therefore, the Plan
focused on the Key deer as an "umbrella species" and operated under the assumption that
avoiding and minimizing impacts to Key deer habitat, would also provide direct
protection to both populations and habitats of other terrestrial species.
6
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
The plan aims at providing for the protection of covered species in the project area, while
allowing development activities that satisfy community needs in Big Pine Key and No
Name Key.
1.2 Plan Development Process and Methodology
The development of the HCP included scientific studies, developing and evaluating
alternatives, and implementing a public information and participation program.
Concurrently with the HCP, Monroe County carried out a planning effort based on
community participation, in order to determine community needs.
1.2.1 Technical Studies
Lopez (2001) studied the ecology and population dynamics of the Key deer for three
years. He followed the movement, habitat utilization and fate of over 200 deer using
radio -telemetry and census procedures. The study produced a Population Viability
Analysis (PVA) 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 PVA model to quantify the associated impacts to
Key deer in the project area. The PVA model was reviewed and critiqued by Dr. Resit
Akcakaya (Applied Biomathematics, Inc.), an expert in population models and PVA. Dr.
Akcakaya reviewed the model twice, in June 2000 and August 2001. Additionally, two
technical workshops were held in Miami, Florida among the Applicants and the USFWS
and the FWC to review the Key deer PVA model. For a description of PVA model
development see Section 2.2.
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 provide the basis of a Master Plan for future
development within the project area.
1.2.2 Public Information and Involvement
The development of the HCP included extensive public involvement activities. The
public information and participation plan included identification of stakeholders, periodic
project -update mailings, several public meetings, and an open-door policy for public
input.
10
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
Stakeholders are those individuals and organizations with an economic, cultural, social or
environmental interest in the HCP. They included property owners, elected officials and
other community leaders, Federal, State and local governments, permitting and reviewing
agencies, environmental organizations, members of the media, and interested private
citizens. Using the 1999 Monroe County Property Appraiser database as a foundation, a
stakeholder database containing the names and addresses of more than 4,400 landowners
was developed.
Public feedback helped identify over 100 additional stakeholders, who were included in
the database. These additional stakeholders represent individuals or groups that did not
own land within the project area but were interested in the process and outcome of the
HCP, including non-profit and environmental organizations. The list of stakeholders was
used to distribute public meeting invitations and project status reports. The stakeholder
database was continually updated and maintained, per input received at public meetings
from private landowners, citizen letters to the FDOT, and forwarding addresses provided
by the U.S. Postal Service.
Three public meetings were held in Big Pine Key between February 2000 and March
2001 (Table 1.1). The objectives of the meetings were to inform the public about the
scientific basis of the HCP, describe how land development alternatives were evaluated,
and obtain input to ensure that all points of view were considered. Meetings were
announced through direct mailings to property owners and other stakeholders, radio
announcements, and newspapers. Generally, the public meetings included a presentation
and a question and answer session. Public comments were recorded in 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
Venue Big Pine Key United Big Pine Key United
Methodist Church Methodist Church
Number
of Approximately 400 Approximately 100
Attendees
11
Two sessions: 4:30 pm
and 7:30 pm
Big Pine Key
Neighborhood School
Approximately 35 at each
session (70 total)
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
Table 1.1. HCP public meetings
First Public Meeting
Second Public Meeting
Third Public Meeting
Meeting • Introductory meeting
• Present the model, its
• Present preliminary
Objectives . Present background
opportunities and
model results for
material and the HCP
constraints
biological analysis of
process
• Present current status
the Key deer and
• Present the project
of the Key deer
Lower Keys marsh
schedule and
• Discuss land
rabbit
upcoming activities
acquisition programs,
• Discuss how the
• Provide opportunity
land use regulations
Livable Communi-
to identify public
and traffic analyses
Keys Program's
concerns
scenarios will
interrelate with the
knowledge of the
species biology
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 (10.4 square miles) are the
largest islands in this chain and possess the greatest diversity and acreage of habitats. Big
Pine Key and No Name Key are situated in the southern third of the Florida Keys, also
known as the Lower Keys. Long narrow channels separate the islands and connect the
Gulf of Mexico with the Straits of Florida (Figure 1.1).
The HCP project area encompasses 7,031 total acres, including 5,840 acres on Big Pine
Key and 1,191 acres No Name Key. These two islands support more than two-thirds of
the Key deer population. Sixty-six percent of the project area is in conservation,
including Federal lands within the Refuge, state-owned lands and lands owned by the
Monroe County Land Authority (MCLA). Though these lands currently receive
protection, they are included within the Plan's covered area since the effects of
development are evaluated on Key deer throughout Big Pine Key and No Name Key.
1.4 Regulatory Basis of the HCP
1.4.1 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 defined in Section 9 of the
ESA, the term "take" means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct, where harm is an act which
actually kills or injures wildlife. Such acts include significant habitat modification or
12
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
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 10(a)(1)(B) of
the Act.
Section 10 of the Act describes circumstances under which the incidental take of
federally listed species may be authorized for non -Federal activities. Section 10(a)(1)(B)
of the Act establishes the ITP process by which the Secretary of the Interior authorizes
the incidental take 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 measures that would be taken to
minimize and mitigate such impacts.
1.4.2 Clean Water Act
Lands containing jurisdictional wetlands are present in the project area (Figure 2.2).
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 CWA nor does it
exempt landowners from obtaining CWA 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.
13
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
2. BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
2.1 Covered Species
The HCP provides for a conservation strategy for three federally listed species (Table
2.1). Based on the best available scientific information on each of the covered species,
future development on Big Pine Key has the greatest probability of impacting the Key
deer. The Florida Key deer has been used as umbrella species in the analysis conducted
for this Plan. A brief description of the covered species follows.
Table 2.1. Covered species.
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Key deer Odocoileus virginianus clavium E
Lower Keys marsh rabbit Sylvilagus palustris hefneri E
Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon corals couperi T
E=Endangered, T=Threatened
2.1.1 Florida Key Deer Wdocoileus virginianus clavium
Description
The Florida Key deer is the smallest race of North American white-tailed deer. Key deer
are morphologically distinct from other races of white-tailed deer and exhibit a stocky
body, with shorter legs and a wider skull. Mature adults measure between 25 to 30 inches
at the shoulder with average weights of 55 to 75 pounds for males, and 45 to 65 pounds
for females. The Key deer's primary food source is the red and black mangrove, but they
also feed on approximately 160 other plants to meet nutritional requirements (Klimstra
and Dooley 1990).
Compared to northern white-tailed deer, Key deer are more solitary (Harding 1974).
Home ranges average about 299 acres (greater during the breeding season) for male deer
and 138 acres for females. The breeding season begins in September, peaks in October,
and declines through December and January, while the peak of fawning coincides with
the onset of the rainy season in April and May (Harding 1974, Silvy 1975). Factors
resulting in the low reproductive performance of Key deer include low fecundity and
reproductive activity as well as high fetal sex ratios and mean age of initial reproduction
(Folk and Klimstra 1991 b).
Distribution
The Key deer are wide ranging and utilize virtually all available habitat in the project
area, including developed areas (Figure 2.1, Lopez 2001). The principal factor
influencing the distribution and movement of Key deer is the location and availability of
fresh water. Deer swim easily between keys and use all islands during the wet season
14
DRAFT' DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
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).
Habitat
Development has led to the presence of patchy habitats where not all deer requirements
are met in a single area, thereby increasing the movements of Key deer (Silvy 1975).
Human -related mortality, primarily road kills, is the greatest known source of deer loss
and accounts for about 50 percent of identified deaths, or an average of 44 animals per
year (Lopez 2001). The current Key deer population on Big Pine Key and No Name Key
is estimated at 453-517 animals (Lopez 2001), compared to 151 to 191 animals in the
1970s (Silvy 1975) and 25 to 80 animals in 1955 (Dickson 1955). The greatest impact on
Key deer is the loss of habitat to development. Other factors include road kills, mortality
of young from falling into drainage ditches, and predation by free -roaming dogs (Folk
1991, Lopez 2001).
2.1.2 Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris hefneri)
The Lower Keys marsh rabbit is listed as endangered by both the Service and the FWC
Description
The Lower Keys marsh rabbit is a subspecies of the marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris)
and is discernible from the adjacent Upper Keys subspecies (Sylvilagus palustris
paludicola) by its skull proportions, sculpturing, and darker coloration (Lazell 1984). 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).
15
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
rigure z.1. Key deer locations trom telemetry data (Lopez 2001)
16
DRAFT DOCUMENT -- 2/25/2003
The Lower Keys rabbit is most active at night, in early morning or late afternoon, or
during overcast weather. It feeds on a variety of plants, including leaves, shoots, buds,
and flowers of grasses, herbaceous, and woody plants. Breeding behavior includes
chasing of inferior males and receptive females by dominant males. In late summer, adult
rabbits may chase young from the nest area.
Distribution
The Lower Keys marsh rabbit is presently known from many of the larger Lower Keys
including Sugarloaf, Saddlebunch, Boca Chica, and Big Pine Keys and the small islands
near these keys (Forys et al. 1996). Historically, the species may also have existed on
Cudjoe, Ramrod, Middle Torch, Big Torch, and Key West Keys, but has been extirpated
from these areas (Lazell 1984). The Lower Keys marsh rabbit probably occurred on all
of the Lower Keys that supported suitable habitat but did not occur east of the Seven -mile
Bridge where it is replaced by S. p. paludicola. Known localities for the rabbit are on
privately owned land, state-owned land, and federal land within the National Key Deer
Refuge and Key West Naval Air Station. In 1995, a comprehensive survey for Lower
Keys marsh rabbits located 81 areas comprising 783 acres that provided suitable habitat,
with 50 of these areas occupied (Forys et al. 1996). Suitable habitat for this species is
highly fragmented across all of the Lower Keys.
Natural marsh habitats are limited in the Florida Keys, and have decreased in total area
due to development for residential, commercial, or military -related purposes. Since the
rabbit occurs in small, relatively disjunct populations, has a low population density, and
is subject to predation by domestic predators, the species is in danger of extinction.
Predation by domestic cats is the principal cause of mortality. Some road mortality
occurs as rabbits attempt to move among increasingly isolated Lower Keys marshes. In
the past, the Lower Keys rabbit was often hunted by man; this is not known to be a
current threat. Connectivity among suitable habitat patches is necessary for marsh rabbit
dispersal among patches, and isolation from domestic predators is perhaps the main
factor to help this species survive (Forys and Humphrey 1994).
Habitat
Lower Keys marsh rabbit habitat occurs in saltmarshes and buttonwood areas throughout
Big Pine Key (Figure 2.2). The species primarily occurs in grassy marshes and prairies
of the Lower Keys in the middle of the salinity gradient but also includes less saline areas
and the beach berm habitat. The Lower Keys marsh rabbit builds mazes of runs, dens,
and nests in coastal (saline to brackish) or freshwater, inland marsh habitats. Two plant
17
�;o Name Key
71
1
0-
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
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 (Cladium jamaicense), and sea ox-eye daisy (Borrichia frutescens). The
rabbit's runs, dens and nests are made in cordgrass or sedges. Nests are lined with belly
hair.
2.1.3 Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corals 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.
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.
2.2 Vegetation and Habitat
Mangroves and buttonwood saltwater wetlands are the most abundant habitat types in the
project area, and account for 40 percent and 48 percent of Big Pine Key and No Name
Key, respectively (Figure 2.3, Table 2.2). Uplands, including pinelands and hammocks,
are the second most abundant habitat type and cover 29 percent of Big Pine Key and 48
percent of No Name Key. Developed areas are the least abundant habitat type and cover
19
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
19 percent of Big Pine Key and five percent of No Name Key. Freshwater wetlands are
found in the central and northern portions of Big Pine Key.
Table 2.2. Habitat type distribution within the project area
Percent Area
Habitat type ADID categories Big Pine Key No Name Key
Pinelands Pinelands 22 12
Hammocks
Hammocks, ridge/hammock
7
36
Freshwater
Freshwater marsh, freshwater
Wetland
hardwoods, freshwater pine
12
-
Buttonwoods
Buttonwoods, grasslands, saltmarsh
15
12
Mangrove
Mangrove, scrub mangrove
25
36
Developed
Developed, exotics
19
4
100
100
ADID: Advance Identification of Wetlands (FMRI 1995).
The Florida Keys Advance Identification of Wetlands (ADID) Project (McNeese and
Taylor 1998) was the source map to develop a vegetation map of the project area. All
land with the project area was field -verified and ADID habitat types were merged into six
categories: pineland, hammock, freshwater wetland, buttonwood, mangrove and
developed (Silvy 1975, Lopez 2001; Table 2.2). Water and Dune habitat categories were
deleted from the vegetation map because the Key deer rarely uses those types of habitat.
2.2.1 Pinelands
Pinelands are upland forest communities with an open canopy dominated by the native
slash pine (Pinus elliottii var. densa). Keys pinelands are fire -adapted and dependent on
periodic fires for their long-term persistence. Surrounded by wet prairie habitats and/or
mangroves, 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 subcanopy
consisting of palms (silver thatch palm, Coccothrinax argentata; Key thatch palm,
Thrinax morissh; 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.
20
w�
a
N
W
C
R
R
0
0
m
��
-�
5'
n
m
0
c
z
0
z
d
3
T.
a
0
0
c
3
r�
z
y
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
More tropical plant species also occur in the Lower Keys pineland shrub stratum
including Caesalpinia (Caesalpinia pauciora), dune lily -thorn (Catesbaea parviora),
pisonia (Pisonia rotundata), and pride -of -Big -Pine (Strumpfia maritime). Plant species
from adjacent habitats may invade at the pineland margins. For example, gumbo limbo
(Bursera simaruba), inkwood (Exothea paniculata) and wild tamarind (Lysiloma
latisiliquum) occur in pinelands sited adjacent to a hammock. Only four plant species
endemic to South Florida pinelands (partridge pea, Chamescista lineata; small -leaved
melanthera, Melanthera parvifolia, rockland spurge, Chamaesyce deltoidea var.
serpyllum; sand flax, Linum arenicola) occur on Big Pine Key (Ross and Ruiz 1996),
likely as a result of water table depth, salinity, and other physical variables.
Pinelands in the Lower Keys have declined markedly in recent history, primarily as a
result of development. Coverage in Big Pine Key has decreased by 50% since 1940
(Ross 1989). At present, somewhat extensive pinelands occur on Big Pine, Little Pine,
No Name, Cudjoe, and Sugarloaf Keys. Distribution of pineland vegetation in the Keys
appears to coincide with the presence of freshwater lenses (McNeese 1998). Other
limiting factors on the establishment, growth, and persistence of pinelands 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 pinelands, tropical hardwood hammocks represent the climax upland
community type in the Florida Keys and are second to pinelands in terms of biodiversity
(Ross et al. 1992). Tropical hardwood hammocks in the Florida Keys are closed, broad-
leaved forests that occupy elevated, well -drained and relatively fire -free areas.
Hammocks in the Lower Keys are more widespread than pinelands, except for Big Pine
Key where the area of pineland is greater than that of hammock. Approximately 560
acres of hammock occur on Big Pine Key and 385 acres on No Name Key (Figure 2.3).
The greatest limiting factor on hardwood hammocks in the Florida Keys has been human
influence, in particular from development.
Canopy trees of the Lower Keys hammocks tend to be smaller than those in hammocks
occurring in other parts of Florida, and are often referred to as "low hammock" or "Keys
hammock thicket". Trees commonly found in low hammock generally have a smaller
trunk diameter and grow closer together. Species include poisonwood (Metopium
toxiferum), buttonwood (Conocarus erectus), blolly (Guapira discolor), Key thatch palm,
22
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
Spanish stopper (Eugenia foetida), wild dilly (Manilkara bahamensis), Jamaica dogwood
(Piscidia piscipula), and white stopper (Eugenia axillaris). Other species present on the
windward side of low hammocks, referred to as transitional hammock or thorn scrub,
include black torch (Erithalis fruticosa), saffron plum (Bumelia celastrina), sea grape
(Coccoloba uvifera), blackbead (Pithecellobium guadalupense), indigo berry (Randia
aculeata), tallowwood (Ximenia americana), darling plum (Reynosia septentrionalis),
joewood (Jacquinia keyensis), barbed-wire cactus (Cereus pentagonus), and prickly pear
cactus (Opuntia stricta).
Herbaceous plants are largely absent from Keys hammocks. Grasses include low
panicum (Panicum spp.) and sour paspalum (Paspalum conjugatum) (MRCS 1989). In
addition, hammocks support a diverse flora of orchids, ferns, bromeliads, and other
epiphytes (Snyder et al. 1990, USEPA Undated 12), and are home to the federally
endangered Key tree cactus (Cereus robinii).
Tropical hammocks provide shelter for many animals during periods of high water and
also nesting, feeding and roosting sites for many local and migratory birds (MRCS 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 (MRCS 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 (Cladium jamaicense) 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 National Geodetic
Vertical Datum (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
23
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
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 -
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 dropseed (Sporobolus virginianus). There are approximately 685 acres of
buttonwood marsh on Big Pine Key and 170 acres on No Name Key (Figure 2.3).
Salt 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 Manrg oves
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.
24
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
Throughout the Florida Keys, mangrove forests form the predominant coastal vegetation
community. Mangroves are found along the edges of shorelines, bays and lagoons and
on overwash areas throughout the Keys. Major limiting factors on mangrove
establishment, growth and persistence in the Florida Keys appear to be water quality,
substrate, and development (Lewis 1980, Snedaker and Lugo 1973, Strong and Bancroft
1994, Odum et al. 1982). Mangrove habitat occurs on approximately 1,495 acres of Big
Pine Key and 374 acres of No Name Key (Figure 2.3).
Mangrove communities in the Florida Keys provide essential habitat for numerous
ecologically and economically important species (FWC Undated 7). The leaves and
fruits of red and black mangroves are a primary food source for the Key deer, which
spend considerable time foraging in tidal wetlands (Monroe County 1987, Silvy 1975).
In South Florida, mangroves are important habitat for at least 220 fish species, 24 reptile
and amphibian species, 18 mammal species, and 181 bird species (Odum et al. 1982), and
provide nesting habitat for a number of threatened and endangered species, including the
white -crowned pigeon (Columba leucocephala). Additionally dissolved organic matter
from mangroves serves as an alternate food source, the basis for heterotrophic
microorganism food webs, and a source of chemical cues for estuarine species (Snedaker
1989).
2.3 Scientific Basis of the HCP: The Key Deer Population Viability Analysis
(PVA) Model and Its Application
2.3.1 Field Studies of the Population Dynamics of the Key Deer
Prior to 1998, Silvy (1975) had conducted the most recent, comprehensive population
study of Key deer population dynamics in the early 1970s. Between 1998 and 2001,
Lopez (2001) studied the Key deer population on Big Pine Key and No Name Key. To
determine the fate of individual Key deer through time, Lopez placed radio transmitters
on over 200 deer (Table 2.3) and monitored the status of individual deer for up to three
years. Information on individual deer provided and assessment of the year-to-year
probability of mortality and fecundity. Radio telemetry data also provided a clear picture
of habitat utilization, deer movement, and deer distribution in the study area.
Table 2.3. Gender and age -classed of radio collared Key deer in Big Pine Key and No
Name Key, 1998-1999 (after Lopez, 2001)
Adults Yearlings Fawns Total
Male 52 35 9 96
Female 82 32 12 126
Total 134 67 21 222
Fawns: <1 year old; Yearlings: 1-2 years old; Adults: >2 years old.
From March 1998 to December 1999, Lopez (2001) also performed weekly censuses
along 10 miles of roads and bi-monthly censuses along 44 miles of roads in Big Pine Key
and No Name Key. The censuses provided information on deer number and density.
25
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
2.3.2 Development of the Key Deer Population Viability Analysis Model
Numerous models have been developed for estimating the risk of extinction for small
populations (Akcakaya 2000). A Population Viability Analysis (PVA) 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). PVA models attempt to predict such measures
based on demographic and habitat data. PVA 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 PVA model was developed to evaluate development impacts on the Florida Key deer
population. Key deer movements, habitat utilization, ecology and demographic data were
used to construct the model (Lopez 2001). The PVA model included two main
components: a) a matrix model of population dynamics and b) a spatial habitat model of
carrying capacity and secondary impacts.
Matrix Model
Quantitative information on mortality and fecundity for deer of different stages (e.g.,
fawn, yearling, adult) was used to create a matrix model, which allows for simulating the
fate of the population under different scenarios (Lopez 2001). In a matrix model,
changes in mortality or fecundity result in changes in the way the population size changes
through time. A stage -based matrix model of population dynamics represents the
dynamics of the population as a function of annual estimates of fecundity (average
number of fawns produced by females) and survival (probability of surviving from one
year to the next). The Key deer model is applied only to females and takes the form:
Fy F.
$j ,
Sy Su
Where Sf, Sy, and Sa are fawn, yearling, and adult survival, respectively, and F,, and FQ are
yearling and adult fecundity estimates, respectively.
The matrix model allows for the analysis of stochasticity (i.e., the haphazard, year-to-year
variation in fecundity and survival associated with changes in the environment).
Stochastic events are particularly significant for small populations and, therefore, the
model includes estimates of the variability of the population parameters. For example,
annual female survival and variance estimates for each stage class were determined using
26
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
a known -fate model framework in the computer program MARK (White and Burnham
1999, Lopez 2001). The model also allows for evaluating the effects of stochastic events,
such as hurricanes. A detailed discussion of the methodology to estimate model
parameters is found in Lopez (2001, 2003) and Lopez et al. (2003).
Spatial Model
While the matrix model represents the overall dynamics of the Key deer population in the
study area, the spatial model represents the location -specific contribution to the matrix
model parameters. For example, localized changes in habitat quality and distribution, or
in the number and location of paved roads may affect both fecundity and survival.
The spatial model also sought to address the anticipated impacts of development. Urban
development causes two main types of impacts on the Key deer:
1. A change in carrying capacity. Urban development displaces and modifies Key
deer habitat, therefore affecting the capacity of the remaining habitat to sustain
Key deer.
2. An increase in human -induced Key deer mortality. A change in the amount of
development and resulting changes in the human population may in turn result in
changes in the mortality of Key deer caused by motor vehicle collisions,
entanglement in fences, and other human -related effects.
Therefore, in order to address impacts to carrying capacity and mortality, the spatial
model includes a carrying capacity and a "harvest" (i.e., human -induced mortality) grid.
The grids represent the entire study area as an array of l Ox 10 meter cells; each cell's
value represents its contribution to the total carrying capacity or harvest of the study area.
A weighting factor grid supported the development of the carrying capacity and harvest
grids. The objective of the weighting grid was to address location -specific conditions
that affect carrying capacity and harvest. For example, two grid cells of the same
vegetation type may contribute differently to the carrying capacity of the Key deer
depending on their proximity to canals: a pineland cell located in the middle of a large
pineland area would provide better habitat to the Key deer that an isolated pineland cell
surrounded by canals. Similarly, development of a pineland cell near US-1 would create
a lesser vehicle collision impact (due to shorter travel distance to US-1) than
development of a pineland cell located far from US-1 (because of the longer travel
distance to US-1).
Six parameters entered into the weighting factor grid (Figure 2.4):
• House density. Development in areas with areas with higher house density would
have a lesser impact on the deer than development in areas of lower house density.
• Deer corridors. Development in Key deer corridors would have a lesser impact than
development in areas outside Key deer corridors.
27
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
• Patch quality: Development in larger, uninterrupted habitat areas would have a lesser
impact on the Key deer than development in smaller, fragmented habitat areas.
• Deer density: Development in areas of low Key deer density would have a lesser
impact than development in areas of high density.
• Distance from US-1. Development near US-1 would have a lesser impact on the Key
deer than development farther from US-1.
• Water barriers. Development in areas without canals would have a lesser impact than
development in areas with canals.
Deer Corridors
Water Barriers
Deer Density
Distance from US 1
House Density
LA
Patch Quality
Figure 2.4. Six grid layers used to generate weighting factor grid (darker shades = higher deer
value)
28
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
Because more than one factor may affect the value of a given cell, the final cell value in
the weighting factor grid was the average of the six parameters, where 0 represented the
lowest value to the Key deer and 2 represented the highest value to the Key deer.
The final carrying capacity grid (Figure 2.5) represents the contribution of each 1 Ox 10
meter cell to the total carrying capacity of the study area after applying the weighting
factor. Similarly, the final harvest grid represents the proportional contribution of each
1 Ox 10 meter cell to the total harvest in the study area.
Harvest Grid
Carrying -Capacity Grid
Figure 2.5. Key deer PVA model grid layers. For any given scenario, the location and
intensity of development affect both the carrying capacity and the mortality of the Key
deer (darker shades = higher deer value).
2.3.3 PVA Model Analysis and Results
The final PVA model includes the matrix model of population dynamics and the spatial
model, which allows for addressing development impacts. The program RAMAS
Metapop (Applied Biomathematics, Inc.) was used to run the model. The model provides
estimates of population size, probability of extinction, and other risk estimates.
In a model "run", the initial population number by stage class, is multiplied by the
matrix; the result represents the number of Key deer in each stage class one year later.
This new number is multiplied by the matrix again, to generate the population number for
year 2. The model run simulates 100 years. The process is repeated 10,000 times. Each
time, the computer randomly varies matrix parameters and hurricane probabilities, within
29
DRAFT DOCUMENT - 2/25/2003
documented ranges (Lopez 2001) to account for stochastic events. The final model run
result represents the average of the 10,000 iterations.
To estimate the effects of increasing levels of development on the Key deer population,
10 scenarios were evaluated with the Key deer PVA model (Table 2.4). For any given
scenario, the model chose the least valuable vacant parcels for development (parcels with
the lowest K, H). As parcels are selected, the spatial model calculated the change in
carrying capacity (K) and harvest (H). New K and H values, which represent the direct
effects of development, are then input into the matrix model. Therefore, the model run
simulates the effect of development on the Key deer population through time.
Table 2.4. Effect of development on the Key deer.
Scenario
Number of
Habitat
Total
Risk
Risk
Additional
Residential
Loss3
Harvese
(probability)
(probability)
average
Parcels
(decrease
(increase
of Extinction
of falling
annual
Developed2
in K)
in H)
in 100 years
below 50
mortalitys
females at
least once in
50 years 3
No Action
0
0
0.00
0.0005
0.0230
0
S 1
0
0
(-0.80)
0.0005
0.0230
0
S2
200
4
(-0.38)
0.0005
0.0230
0
S3
300
6
(-0.07)
0.0005
0.0230
0
S4
400
8
0.27
0.0005
0.0276
0.28
S5
500
10
0.67
0.0005
0.0291
1.21
S6
600
12
1.20
0.0011
0.0459
2.32
S7
700
14
1.79
0.0021
0.0653
3.23
S8
800
24
2.10
0.0023
0.0774
3.50
S9
900
27
2.47
0.0037
0.0956
3.82
S 10
1000
30
2.91
0.0068
0.1198
4.13
S 1 includes US-1 projects: wildlife underpasses, intersection improvement, and three -lanes. The
combined effect of these projects is a surplus of three Key deer per year. All other scenarios include
these projects.
2 The model selected parcels with lowest total habitat value to the Key deer.
3 From the carrying capacity grid in the spatial model. It is an input to the matrix model.
From the harvest grid in the spatial model. It is an input to the matrix model. H in scenarios S1, S2 and
S3 is a surplus caused by the overall effect of US-1 projects (i.e., surplus of three deer per year, per
USFWS 1999). Net harvest was kept at 0 for these scenarios; therefore the no net change in model
results (risk and additional mortality).
5 Results from matrix model run. Refers to females only.
The model runs provide an estimate of the risk of extinction in 100 years and the risk of
the population falling below 50 individuals (females) at least once in 50 years
(Table 2.2). Both are expressed as probabilities. The model also estimates the average
additional human -induced mortality (number of female deer).
30
DRAFT' DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
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 (Table 2.4). Model results also indicate the probability that the Key deer population
will fall below 50 females at least once in 50 years is 2.3 percent even with no further
development. The model suggests that annual human -induced mortality is likely to
increase with the intensity of development.
The matrix model is more sensitive to changes in H than to changes in K. In turn,
changes in H are highly correlated with predicted impacts measured as either the risk of
falling under 50 individuals in 50 years or additional annual human -induced mortality.
The equations that relate H with these impact assessment variables are:
Percent Risk(so) _ 2.2eo'SBH, and
Additional Annual Human -Induced Mortality (males plus females) _-0.65HZ + 4.85H - 0.34
In both cases, the equations explain 99% of the variance; therefore, H is an excellent
predictor of development impacts to the Key deer.
2.3.4 Application of the PVA Model to the Habitat Conservation Plan
First, the spatial component of the PVA model provides a reliable predictor of
development impacts on the Key deer: Harvest (H), which is highly correlated with
estimates of impacts. Throughout this HCP, H is used as the measure of impact and
incidental take on the Key deer.
The spatial model provides the H value of any given parcel. H for a parcel is the sum of
the H value for each IOx10-m grid cell inside the parcel. A cell is counted within a
parcel if >50% of its area is inside the parcel. To estimate the H value of a development
activity, the H value from the H grid is multiplied by a factor that accounts for the traffic
generated by specific land uses (Table 2.5). The multiplier is based on traffic generation
because vehicle collisions with Key deer is, bar for, the most important human -related
cause of mortality for the Key deer. Therefore, the H impact areas can be readily
measured for any parcel and any type of development activity.
31
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
Table 2.5. H multiplier for land use development cateizories'
Average Daily Trip
Land Use
Generation
H Multiplier
Single family residential
9.5
1
Fences only
__
0 23
Auxiliary uses
__
0.23
Retail
70.0
7.4 (per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Hotel/Motel
7.9
0.8 (per room)
Office
5.9
0.6 (per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Institutional
13.0
1.4 (per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Industrial
5.0
0.5 (per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Recreational
67.0
7.0
' The multiplier is based on traffic generation because vehicle collisions with Key deer is the most
important human -related cause of mortality for the Key deer.
2 Average daily trips generation was estimated from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual; daily trip
generation by land use has not been verified for the Florida Keys.
3 Fences and auxiliary uses, as defined in the Monroe County Land Development Regulations, are assumed
to cause no additional traffic impacts; they were assumed to cause habitat loss (change in K), which has a
lesser effect on the matrix model than changes in H.
For example, to estimate the H impact of a recreation park on a 5-acre parcel, first the
spatial model is queried to obtain the H for the parcel; then H is multiplied by the
corresponding factor, 7.0 in this case (Table 2.5), to obtain the total H for the proposed
development. For land uses in which the factor depends on the square footage of
development, the procedure is the same, but the factor is applied after the square footage
is taken into account. For example, a 2,500 sq. ft. expansion of a retail site would result
in a total H equal to: H for the parcel from spatial model x (2,500/1,000 sq. ft.) x 7.4
(retail multiplier).
Second, the Key deer studies done under this HCP and the resulting spatial model
provided the basis to develop a conservation priority classification for undeveloped lands
in the study area. The private undeveloped lands in the study area are classified into
three "Tiers" (Table 2.6 and Figure 2.6). Tier 1 lands are high quality habitat. Tier 3
lands are the lowest quality habitat. The tier classification provided support to
determining the location of potential development and prioritizing mitigation areas.
32
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
Table 2.6. Tier classification system (vacant privately -owned lands)
Tier Description
Area (acres)
Big Pine No Name
Key Key
1 Lands where all or a significant portion of the land area is
973.4 217.0
characterized as environmentally sensitive and important for
the continued viability of HCP covered species (i.e., high H).
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.
2 Scattered lots and fragments of environmentally sensitive
101.6 0
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.
3 Scattered lots within already heavily developed areas, which
58.5 0
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-1
corridor or are located on canals.
Total 1133.5 217.0
33
A
a
N
—1
A�
n
m
n
m
o'
`G
rt
s
v
rt
m
0
n
C
fs7
z
N
N
!1\1
N
W
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
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 developed at a slower pace than the Middle and Upper Keys, but
many subdivision plats were filed throughout the 1950s and 1960s. As human alteration
of the habitat on Big Pine Key and No Name Key progressed, land was set aside for
preservation, establishing the National Key Deer Refuge (Refuge) in 1957. Habitat
removal and alteration on remaining private lands continued through the 1970s and the
population on Big Pine Key and No Name Key increased steadily. A "housing boom"
during the late 1970s and early 1980s brought about significant changes in the
configuration of native habitat on the islands and the composition of the human
community. Presently 15 percent and 4.5 percent of the total landmass of Big Pine Key
and No Name Key, respectively, are developed.
This chapter provides an overview of the land use and planning conditions in Big Pine
and No Name Key, and focuses on future land use changes that are expected to occur
over the next 20 years. The information contained herein provides that basis for the
assessment of impacts to protected species and habitat in the project area that are likely to
occur as the result of planned urban development in the future. Development occurring
within the project area is used to model the amount of "take" that will be permitted under
this HCP.
3.2 Land Ownership
Approximately 69 percent of the land within the project area is in public ownership
(Table 3.1; Figure 3.1). The main landowner is the Federal government with 55 percent,
all of which is within the Refuge. Federal, state and county agencies purchase and
manage lands within the project area for the purpose of environmental protection and
conservation. The USFWS owns 52 percent of Big Pine Key and 71 percent of No Name
Key. The State of Florida purchases land under the Conservation and Recreation Lands
(CARL) program, which is administered by the FDEP. State-owned lands within the
project area include the Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve and Preserve Buffer Lands and
lands within the Coupon Bight/Key deer CARL project area, which combined are less
than ten percent of the project area. The Monroe County Land Authority (MCLA)
purchases a wide variety of vacant lands as directed in the Monroe County
Comprehensive Plan and own two percent of the land within the project area.
35
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
Table 3.1. Land ownership in the project area as of mid-2002'.
Big
Pine Key
No Name Key
Total
Acres
%
Acres
%
Acres
%
Federal
3,184
51.8
801
70.8
3,985
54.8
State
856
13.9
50
4.4
906
12.5
County
135
2.2
12
1.0
147
2.0
Private
836
13.6
52
4.6
888
12.2
Developed
Private
1,134
18.5
217
19.2
1,351
18.5
Undeveloped
Total
6,145
100.0
1,132
100.0
7,277
100.0
Includes submerged lands.
3.3 Habitat Management Activities
Federal, State and County agencies conduct habitat management activities within the
project area. The federal Government, through the National Key Deer Refuge is the main
landowner in the study area. The Refuge also manages most of the land within the
project area. Management activities include prescribed burning, mowing and clearing of
fire breaks, filling of ditches to prevent deer drownings and limit salinity intrusion,
habitat restoration and development and protection of habitat corridors. The Refuge is
developing a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), scheduled for completion in
2006. The CCP will outline a vision for the Refuge, guide management decisions, and
outline goals, objectives, and strategies to achieve the visions and purposes of the Refuge.
Development of the CPP is a requirement of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997.
The FDEP Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas manages state-owned lands
within the Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve and Preserve Buffer (Preserve), whereas the
Service manages state-owned lands within the Coupon Bight/Key deer CARL project
area under an existing lease agreement. A management plan developed for the Coupon
Bight Aquatic Preserve (Florida Department of Natural Resources 1992) states that
research and habitat restoration are primary needs for the Preserve. Current management
activities include the installation of mooring and warning buoys, seagrass restoration,
treatment of coral band disease, and sea turtle nesting beach surveys. Research activities
within the Preserve include juvenile fish studies, larval recruitment of the spiny lobster,
and studies on the effectiveness of fishing exclusion zones.
36
LMMIR
Pdvata Owners*
I o"ft in
Public Ownwamp
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
The Monroe County Land Steward is responsible for the management of county -owned
public lands within the project area and throughout the Florida Keys. Currently no
formal management plan exists for these lands; however, several small habitat restoration
and management plans have been developed for individual parcels and subdivisions
within the project area. Ongoing management efforts are conducted as needed or when
funding becomes available. Primary responsibilities include trash removal, invasive
exotic plant control, prescribed burning and other issues related to natural resource
management. The Land Steward works in conjunction with the Monroe County Public
Works Division, the MCLA, and volunteer groups to implement management activities.
Habitat management of county lands should commence Keys -wide during FY 2002-2003
that begins October 2002, contingent upon funding approval. Larger tracts of land will
receive priority for management. These lands are primarily conservation lands acquired
through grants from the Florida Communities Trust, for which contract requirements
necessitate immediate management. Management of remaining county lands throughout
the Keys will be prioritized depending upon several factors including logistics, habitat
quality, presence of rare species, and the character of the adjoining lands.
Federal, state and county agencies also work together to jointly manage larger tracts of
undeveloped land in which all are landowners. Within the project area this land is
primarily pinelands. Management of pineland habitat will be addressed in a Fire
Management Plan for Big Pine Key and No Name Key, which is currently being
developed by the Lower Keys Wildland Fire Hazard Reduction Initiative. Prescribed
burning will be conducted by all three agencies in the project area where there is
contiguous pineland habitat. Individual undeveloped lots that cannot be burned because
they are between developed properties will be maintained free of solid waste and non-
native invasive plants and allowed to grow to hammock vegetation.
3.4 Covered Activities
This HCP addresses the incidental take of protected species that may result from
development activities in Big Pine Key and No Name Key in the next 20 years. The
types of activities covered under this HCP include residential development, limited
commercial development and expansion, expansion of community and institutional
facilities, and transportation improvements. This HCP establishes the total amount of
impact, expressed in terms of H, over 20 years to be allowed in the execution of the types
of activities listed above. Covered activities will comply with the avoidance and
minimization guidelines established in this HCP (see Section 5.3). Finally, the Master
Plan for Future Development of Big Pine Key and No Name Key, which is being
developed in accordance with this HCP, will regulate the amount and extent of each type
of covered activity over the next 20 years in the project area.
A key development activity included in this HCP is the widening of US-1 in the
developed segment of Big Pine Key. The FDOT may expand US-1 from two to three
lanes, to provide a center turn lane in the business district portion of Big Pine Key. The
38
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
additional lane would commence near St. Peter's Catholic Church (MM 31.5) and
continue through Big Pine Key to the Pine Channel Bridge (MM 29.5). The project
would include two separate portions, one east and one west of the recently completed
intersection improvement project. This project is necessary to satisfy State of Florida
concurrency requirements and therefore to lift the building moratorium in the project
area.
W
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
4. ALTERNATIVE PLANNING STRATEGIES
4.1 Introduction
Monroe County initiated the Livable CommuniKeys Program (LCP) in April 2000. The
LCP was developed concurrently with the HCP and, while it focused on addressing the
needs of the local citizens, all development alternatives were discussed in the context of
the Key deer's biology. Like the HCP, the overall goal of the LCP was to determine the
appropriate amount, type and location of development in the project area and the
associated mitigation that would provide for community needs while maximizing
conservation of the Key deer 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 of the habitat
needs of the Key deer was facilitated during presentations and open discussion at three
HCP meetings held in tandem with LCP meetings (see Section 1.2.2). Results of the
community workshops and meetings were used to identify key community issues,
develop planning objectives and generate conceptual land use alternatives and
conservation strategies for the project area.
In the LCP workshops, the following key community issues were identified:
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-1 and minimize the need for
local trips on US-1.
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:
Minimize the need for local vehicular trips on and across US-1, from north to
south;
40
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
2. Improve the level of traffic service on US-1 to a standard that, in accordance with
local regulations, would allow some development and to maintain that level of
service over the planning horizon;
3. Discourage new development on No Name Key;
4. Encourage additional commercial development to be oriented to the local
community rather than to the regional or tourist communities;
5. Continue to allow some development but generally keep the level low to achieve
the maintenance of a "rural community" envisioned by the citizens;
6. Provide for a community gathering center and some active recreation;
7. Provide for a conservation plan with a reasonable level of implementation costs
and logistics;
8. Provide for a conservation plan which complies with current regulatory
constraints (for example, wetlands protection);
9. Provide greater certainty to the property owners and Key deer herd managers as to
the location of future development; and
10. Minimize the alteration of undisturbed natural habitat.
4.2 Planning Strategies Analyzed
4.2.1 Planning Strategy #1: No Action Alternative/No Take
Under this strategy, no HCP would be prepared. With no improvement in the LOS for
US-1, 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-1, Key deer mortality would be reduced and there would be a
surplus of six deer over pre -construction conditions (FWS 1999).
4.2.2 Planning Strategy #2: Reduced Take
Recently completed US-1 projects result in a surplus of six deer. A reduced take
alternative would involve a reduced amount of development that would overcome the
surplus and result in no net take. The PVA model suggests (Table 2.2) that developing
up to 300 low-H single family residential parcels, as well as three-laning US-1, would
result in no net take. Under this alternative, important community needs would remain
unsatisfied, such as community and government facilities expansions.
41
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
4.2.3 Plannine Strategy #3: Proposed Alternative
The proposed alternative provides for development activities that alleviate the building
moratorium, improve the level of service on US-1, restore a low rate of growth in the
study area, and offer community and public facilities improvements that satisfy
community needs (see Section 3.5). With the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
measures described in this HCP, no significant negative impacts on covered species are
anticipated.
4.3 Comparison of Alternatives
Both the no action and reduced take alternatives were rejected mainly because they
would impose undue restrictions on the community's ability to meet key needs, such as
traffic improvements, while not providing significant added value to the conservation of
the covered species. The proposed alternative provides for a development program that
satisfies the community's needs for growth and infrastructure, while ensuring habitat
protection in perpetuity for the conservation of covered species.
42
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
5. CONSERVATION STRATEGY AND PROCEDURES
5.1 Biological Goals
The two primary, measurable goals of this HCP are: a) to ensure the protection of
covered species habitat, and b) to limit the increase in human -induced mortality of Key
deer so that no significant negative effect on the species occurs.
The following measures will ensure habitat protection:
• The loss of native habitat will be severely restricted under this HCP: Native habitat
loss caused by development activities over the next 20 years will be limited to no
more than 0.5% of the current native habitat area.
• Land development regulations will direct development activities to areas of low
habitat quality. No more than 2 percent of the total impact over 20 years will be
allowed in Tier 1 areas (H = 0.02).
• A land acquisition program to protect habitat areas in perpetuity.
• Habitat management of acquired lands.
The number of human -induced deaths for Key deer varies year to year and is significantly
correlated with a measure of deer density (Figure 5.1). The goal of this HCP is to ensure
that development activities do not result in a significant increase in the relative
occurrence of human -induced mortality of Key deer.
70.00 _I
60.00
r 50.00
E 40.00 1
w c 30.00
20.00 ; y = 0.382x + 20.255
E 10.00 , RZ = 0.574
z 0.00
0 50 100
Average Number of Deer Seen in Road Censuses
(1988 - 2000)
Figure 5.1. Relationship between human -induced Key
deer mortality and deer density. Data from USFWS,
and Roel Lopez (pers. comm.)
43
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
5.2 Summary of Take and Its Effects on the Covered Species
Under this HCP, the Applicants will carry out covered activities progressively over
20 years. All development activities combined over the 20-year period will have a
maximum cumulative impact of H = 1.0. For H = 1.0, the resulting probability that the
population will fall below 50 females at least one in 50 years and the average additional
total annual human -induced mortality are, respectively:
Percent Risk(50) = 2.2e0 58*" = 4.0%
Additional Annual Human -Induced Mortality = -0.65* 1.02 + 4.85* 1.0 - 0.34 = 3.9 deer/year
Thus, the PVA model predicts that the combined effect of 20 years of development for a
total H = 1.0 would raise the probability that the population will fall under 50 females at
least once in 50 years by 1.7 percent (from 2.3 to 4.0 percent) and increase human -related
Key deer mortality by 3.9 deer a year. Additionally, the probability of extinction in 100
years is <0.1 percent, nearly undistinguishable from current conditions.
No direct loss of Lower Keys marsh rabbit or silver rice rat habitat is anticipated as a
result of development activities. No new residential or commercial development will be
allowed on marsh rabbit habitat or within 500 meters of accessible marsh rabbit habitat.
Development activities likely to occur within the 500-meter buffer area are limited to
roadway expansions and the expansion of two existing churches not to exceed more than
2,500 square feet of floor area per church. These types of development usually do not
bring up typical causes of indirect impacts to marsh rabbits, namely domestic predators
such as cats. However, minor secondary effects may occur. Housing development
activities may occur in subdivisions within 500 meters from marsh rabbit habitat; these
areas are largely inaccessible to the marsh rabbit due to roads or canals. Thus residential
development is expected to have no direct effect on the marsh rabbit. Community
facilities, commercial development, and other infrastructure development will occur
either outside areas of concern for the marsh rabbit or on parcels already altered and of no
value to the marsh rabbit. Moreover, road widening activities will not be allowed in
marsh rabbit habitat.
Development activities were estimated to result in the loss of up to approximately 7.1
acres of native vegetation, affecting 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.
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.
44
DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
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
5.3 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 of a Section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP.
5.3.1 Conservative Assumptions and Level of Take
The reported level of take, H = 1.0, is used in this HCP to measure the maximum amount
of impacts over 20 years and to establish the level of impact to be mitigated. The model
assumes that the entire impact of H = 1.0 is incurred at the outset of the model run. In
practice, H = 1.0 will be accrued over 20 years. The progressive increase in impact levels
will allow the Key deer to adapt to changing circumstances, whereas the assumption that
all impacts occur at once increases the impact estimates in the model runs.
The model assumed total habitat loss for newly developed or redeveloped parcels, as well
as for the facilities expansion. The Key deer uses all available open areas, including
developed areas. However, the PVA model assumes that any development results in the
loss of the entire parcel. For example, 200 developed residential lots in Pine Channel
States contribute 1.8 Key deer to the carrying capacity of the study area (i.e., K = 1.8).
45
DRAFT' DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003
However, the model assumes that 200 new houses will contribute nothing to the carrying
capacity. Therefore, the model overestimates the impact of development and provides a
conservative support to planning for development activities.
The Applicants chose to evaluate a more stringent population viability measure. Recent
PVA and conservation literature recommends that conservation planners evaluate shorter -
term risks to make management decisions (Akcakaya 2000, Akcakaya and Sjogren-Gulve
2000). The Key deer PVA model can estimate a variety of risk timeframes. For
example, extinction risk may be expressed as the probability of extinction of the Key deer
in 100 years. Historically, the Key deer population dwindled to less than 50 individuals,
but rebounded with the implementation of protection measures (see Section 1.2.1). The
Applicants chose to use the risk that the population fall below 50 females at least once in
50 years as a more conservative and realistic measure of risk in evaluating potential
development activities. This more stringent indicator guided subsequent viability and
incidental take analyses.
Finally, the PVA model predicts and average of 3.9 additional human -induced Key deer
deaths per year. The number of human -induced Key deer deaths varies from year to year,
but is strongly correlated with a measure of deer density (Figure 5.1). Therefore, the ratio
"deaths/deer seen" provides an indicator of the potential effects of development on the
relative occurrence of human -induced deaths. If development impacts are small, and
other factors remain the same, future development should not significantly increase the
ratio. For the last 13 years (1988-2000), the mean ratio of human -induced Key deer
deaths and average deer seen in censuses is:
deaths/average deer seen = 1.38
Standard deviation = 0.28
95% confidence interval = (1.23 — 1.53)
The predicted average increase in human -induced mortality (3.9 deer) would fall within
the 95% confidence interval, suggesting that no significant increase in the ratio should
occur as a consequence of the proposed level of take. For example, an increase of four
deer deaths in each of the last 11 years would have produced a mean ratio of 1.48, which
is well within the 95% confidence interval. The overall effect of the proposed level of
development over 20 years is expected to fall be within the existing yearly variability.
5.3.2 Avoidance and Minimization
Avoidance and minimization measures were applied at every step in the preparation of
the HCP. First, the Applicants made key decisions, discussed above, in the development
and use of the Key deer PVA model, which resulted in a conservative approach to
modeling.
M