Loading...
Item N4BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: March 19, 2003 Division: CTrowth Management Bulk Item: Yes _ No X Department: Planning and Environmental Resources AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of a ResoluP ne and No 1Name Keys to the U.StFish and Wildlife e Habitat Conservaion Plan (HCP) r the Florida Key Deer and other protected species on Big Service (USFWS). ITEM BACKGROUND: The County, DCA and FDOT entered into a Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) to prepare the HCP to address potential impacts from development activities in Big Pine and No Name Keys. The HCP describes a conservation and mitigation strategy to minimize and mitigate for the incidental take of threatened and endangered species due to any construction activities including residential and commercial development, transportation improvements, public facilities and institutional expansion. A maximum "take" from development activities over the 20-year period is given and a methodology to balance development with mitigation included. PREVIOUS REVELANT BOCC ACTION: Approval of MOU between Monroe County, USFWS, DCA, FDOT and Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission to develop the HCP on September 9, 1998. Approval of JPA with DCA and FDOT on May 12, 1999 to fund and implement a HCP. A revised amended JPA was approved In January 2000. BOCC requested the consultant to meet with the HCP coordinating committee giving them an additional opportunity to review the application. CONTRACT /AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval TOTAL COST: Unknown BUDGETED: Yes No _ COST TO COUNTY: Unknown SOURCE OF FUNDS: Unknown REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes — No X AMOUNT PER MONTH Year _ APPROVED BY: County Atty X OMB/ A)chas ng / Risk Management N/A DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL: imothv J cGarry, AICP DOCUMENTATION: Included X To Follow Not Required DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM # _Zv�/ Revised 2/27/01 a Approval of a Resolution to submit the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Florida Key Deer and other protected species on Big Pine and No Name Keys to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Contents • Key elements of the HCP • Board of County Commissioners Resolution • Staff Report • Livable CommuniKeys Newsletter • Florida Department of Transportation approval of HCP letter • Florida Department of Transportation letter to Committee stating that their work is complete and extending their appreciation • Habitat Conservation Plan Board of County Commission Meeting March 19, 2003 DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003 Second, development activities in the project area will occur in accordance to the following guidelines, which ensure avoidance and minimization of impacts to the Key deer and other covered species: • The total impact over 20 years will not exceed H = 1.0. • Clearing of native habitat will be limited to parcels to be developed for residential use or for local road widening. The total amount of clearing over 20 years will be limited to no more than 0.2 percent of the current extent of native habitat in the project area (15 acres). No clearing of native habitat, other than that necessary and authorized for residential development or local road widening, will be allowed. • Development in Tier 1 areas will be limited to no more than five percent of all residential units permitted over the 20-year period or a total H = 0.02 (two percent of the total H), whichever results in a lower H. • No development other that single family residential will be permitted in Tier 1. • No development which may interfere with Key deer movement along the corridor will be permitted within Sands Subdivision. With the completion of the Key deer underpasses and the proposed widening of US-1 along the business segment on Big Pine Key, native habitat in the Sands Subdivision area constitutes the main corridor connecting Key deer habitat south and north of US-1 (Figure 5.2). • Residential and commercial development will occur progressively over 20 years, thus minimizing the extent of construction impacts that occur at any given time. • Commercial development will be limited to infill in existing commercial areas on Tier 2 and Tier 3 lands, mainly along the US-1 corridor on Big Pine Key. This includes all current commercially zoned areas south of Lytton's Way. All new commercial development would be limited to disturbed or scarified lands, as defined in the Monroe County Code (9.5-4 [D-14][S-2]). Clearing of pinelands and/or hammock will not be permitted for commercial development activities. • Recreational and community facilities development would be restricted to existing developed areas that are either already publicly owned or that would be acquired for that purpose. • Minor recreational and community facilities will be restricted to areas within existing improved subdivisions. • Community organizations' development will be restricted to expansions, on existing applicant -owned land, up to the buildable area limits per Monroe County Code. 47 DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003 Figure 5.2 Key deer corridor across Sands Subdivision • Speed limits, traffic calming devices, and other measures will be applied to lower the probability of Key deer/vehicle collisions on County roads. • Public infrastructure development will be restricted to disturbed lands as defined in the Monroe County Code (9.5-4 [D-14][S-2]). • No fences will be allowed in Tier 1 lands, except Port Pine Heights and Kyle -Dyer Subdivisions. • No additional fences will be allowed in the US-1 commercial corridor. • Fences will be subject to restrictions and guidelines established in agreement with the USFWS. • FDOT will avoid impacts to wetland during US-1 three-laning. 48 DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003 • Accessory uses will be permitted for lots adjacent to existing developed lots only in Tier 2 and Tier 3 lands. Residential accessory uses would be limited to those listed in the Monroe County Code (Chapter 9.5-4[A-2]). • No development will be allowed in Lower Keys marsh rabbit habitat. No residential or commercial development will be allowed within 500 meters of marsh rabbit habitat, with the exception of isolated areas per Figure 2.2. Road widening activities along US-1 would occur within existing cleared and filled portions of the existing FDOT ROW. * 5.3.3 Habitat Mitigation and Habitat Banking The Applicants propose to mitigate for the incidental take of covered species by acquiring and managing native habitat areas within the HCP project area. The harvest grid used in the PVA (see Section 3) provides a measure of habitat quality and potential secondary effects (i.e., increased human -induced mortality) on the Key deer. It also provides a simple currency to compare impacts versus mitigation. This HCP proposes a level of incidental take that results in a total increase of H = 1.0. The Applicants will mitigate incidental take impacts by acquiring and managing habitat areas at a 3:1 ratio, using H as the currency. Therefore, over 20 years, lands for a total H = 1.0 will be acquired and managed. Land acquisition will occur in advance of or simultaneously with development activities. Should the cumulative Hacquired lag the cumulative Himpact by five percent a any time during the 20-year permit, Monroe County_ will halt development permit issuance until sufficient Ha,quired is available. During the building moratorium, Monroe County has continued to acquire lands for conservation. Monroe County issued 12 development permits - during a temporary lifting of the moratorium in 1996 - as well as 266 fencing permits. The Applicants propose to use the H value of acquired parcels, after taking into account permits issued for residential units and fences at a 3:1 ratio, as part of the overall mitigation required under this HCP. The proposed mitigation H. accrued through land acquisition is H = 0.3999 (Table 5.2). Table 5.2. Impacts and mitigation in Big Pine Key and No Name Key, 1995 — present Mitigation ( acquisition, credit) Properties acquired from 3/15/95 to 11/13/98 H = 0.5211 Properties acquired from 1999 through 2002 H = 0.2646 Total: H = 0.7857 Impacts (permits, debits) Fences (266 permits) H = 0.1118 Building permits (12 permits) H = 0.0168 Total: H = 0.1286 49 * This Section is being revised. Twenty Nine permits were issued instead of twelve, which will reduce the amount of H banked for land acquisition. DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003 Habitat Banking Credit Calculation H required to mitigate impacts at 3:1 H = (0.1286*3) = 0.3858 Credit Requested (Hacquired — HTNu;red) H = (0.7857 — 0.3858) = 0.3999 5.3.4 Habitat Management Monroe County will manage all natural lands acquired under this HCP, either directly or indirectly through agreements with other managing entities. Lands in the project area acquired for the HCP will comprise lands purchased by the Monroe County Land Authority (MCLA) for the Florida Forever Program and lands purchased by the MCLA in accordance with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Lands acquired through the Florida Forever Program, either during HCP development or throughout the 20-year life of the ITP, will be managed by the Service in accordance with existing practices and lease agreement. These lands are part of the Coupon Bight/Key deer CARL project and encompass 3,452 acres of undeveloped land between the Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve and the Refuge on Big Pine Key. No formal management plan exists for these lands; however, these lands will likely be included in the Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) to ensure a unified habitat management approach. The Refuge CCP is anticipated to be completed by 2006. The Monroe County Land Steward is responsible for managing all other lands acquired by the MCLA either during HCP development or throughout the 20-year life of the ITP. Habitat management activities for these lands will vary depending on the habitat quality, presence of rare species and the character of the adjoining lands. Larger tracts of contiguous pineland habitat will be managed in conjunction with Federal and State agencies and the Lower Keys Wildland Fire Hazard Reduction Initiative. Prescribed burning activities on these lands will be conducted in accordance with the Fire Management Plan for Big Pine Key and No Name Key, which is in preparation. Other county lands acquired under the HCP will be primarily individual undeveloped lots that cannot be burned due to the proximity of development. These lands will be maintained free of solid waste and non-native invasive plants and allowed to grow to hammock vegetation. The Land Steward will conduct additional management efforts as needed, including trash removal, invasive exotic plant control and other issues related to natural resource management. Management of mitigation lands will commence no later than 120 days following acquisition of land in fee title. 5.3.5 Reeulatory Actions Monroe County will enact land development regulations which will follow the guidelines for a rate of growth and development standards described in this HCP. Since 1992, Monroe County has successfully administered a Rate of Growth Ordinance, which directs growth into disturbed areas and protects environmentally sensitive lands. The County has awarded 2,014 Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) allocations since July 1992, of 50 DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003 which only about six percent of the total were awarded to parcels with environmental sensitive characteristics. Nearly half of this six percent were awarded to affordable housing projects. This HCP limits the proportion of permits in environmentally sensitive areas to five percent of all residential units permitted over 20 years or a total H = 0.02 (two percent of the total H over 20 years), whichever results in a lower total H. The Master Plan for Future Development of Big Pine Key and No Name Key (Appendix A), in preparation, will direct the rate of growth and development standards in the project area. The master plan will follow the avoidance and minimization guidelines described in this HCP. 5.3.6 Other Considerations With this HCP, the Applicants consolidate their efforts to provide for the protection of the Key deer and other covered species in the project area. For example, ongoing land acquisition has increased the amount of habitat protected in perpetuity. Beginning in 1993, the Florida Department of Transportation invested approximately $12 million to study, plan and execute projects to reduce highway mortality of Key deer and improve safety on US-1 in Big Pine Key. In addition to co -funding the development of this HCP, the FDOT has also funded the following studies, for a total of $252,500, which are consistent with recovery plans for covered species in the project area: • Development of a Methodology for Determining Optimum Locations for Wildlife Crossings on State Highways Using a Geographic Information System (GIS) Approach, with Application to Key Deer on Big Pine Key: $18,994. • Evaluation of Deer Guards for Key Deer, Big Pine Key: $45,000. • Evaluating Reintroduction as a Conservation Strategy for Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit: $18,000. • Effectiveness of Fencing, Underpasses, and Deer Guards in Reducing Key Deer Mortality on the US-1 Corridor, Big Pine Key: $170,506. 5.4 Monitoring and Reporting The Applicants will carry out biological and compliance monitoring to ensure that the biological goals and the commitments made in this HCP are met. Biological monitoring of the Key deer will focus on assessing the relative occurrence of human -induced mortality. The main objective of the biological monitoring is to determine if human -induced mortality is increasing beyond the levels observed in recent years. Specifically, the biological monitoring will test the null hypothesis that, as development activities proceed in the project area, there will be no significant increase in 51 DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003 the relative incidence of human -induced mortality. Based on the statistical relationship between human -induced deaths and the mean number of deer seen in standard field censuses (Sections 5.1 and 5.2), the ratio of human -induced deaths to mean number of deer seen should remain below 1.53 during the 20-year permit period. The USFWS conducts weekly population counts and monthly deer census. The Applicants will conduct a yearly census to supplement and verify data from the USFWS (Table 5.3). Census data will provide the "average number of deer seen." Also, the Applicants will request Key deer mortality data the USFWS collects. Mortality data will provide the "number of human -induced deaths." The ratio will then be calculated for the reporting period and compared against the reference value, 1.53. The Applicants will also review the USFWS mortality data every year to determine if new spatial patterns emerge, or if any other change in the mortality patterns occur which may be explained by the additional development. During construction activities of county facilities and road expansion activities, the County biologist will conduct regular monitoring to ensure that development is occurring in accordance with the conditions of the Plan. Population surveys of the other covered species will not be conducted since the effects on these species are anticipated to be minimal. For these species, only habitat loss data will be compiled. Table 5.3. Projected budget for monitoring Key deer Donulation for 20-vear period. Item/Service Annual Costs Costs for 20-year Plan Marking supplies 500 10,000 Trapping/surveys 1,000 20,000 Travel costs (2 trips) 3,000 60,000 Data analysis/reporting 500 10,000 Total Costs $5,000 $100,000 Compliance monitoring will include an annual compilation of the amount of development completed and acres converted, number of acres acquired, and a summary of habitat management activities by Monroe County. The total H for development and acquisition will be determined using the spatial model and the appropriate land use H conversion factors. Documentation of habitat management activities will be conducted by the Monroe County Land Steward for lands acquired under the HCP, that are not part of the Coupon Bight/Key deer CARL project. Habitat management activities should parallel land acquisition efforts, that is, the amount of land acquired by the MCLA annually, outside of the Coupon Bight/Key deer CARL project, should be equivalent to that which is 52 DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003 managed. The Monroe County Land Steward will submit an annual summary of the number of the county's habitat management activities. Monroe County is responsible for ensuring that these monitoring activities are funded and implemented. Actual monitoring efforts will be conducted by the Monroe County Growth Management Division, MCLA, Monroe County Biologist and the Monroe County Land Steward. Monitoring activities will be detailed and summarized in an annual report for the 20-year life of the ITP. 5.4.1 Reporting Monroe County will prepare and submit an annual HCP Report to the Service at the end of the reporting year. The reporting period will cover January 1 through December 31 and will be submitted by March 31 following the end of the reporting period. The report will address both the biological monitoring and the compliance monitoring. The report will include the following information: • Biological Information: o Results of the Key deer census, including the calculation of the average number of deer seen. o A summary of Key deer mortality information, including the calculation of the number of human -induced deaths. Human induced deaths include those due to road kills, entanglement, attacks from domestic predators, and poaching. o A discussion and interpretation of mortality data. o An assessment of whether the ratio of the number of human -induced deaths to average deer seen remains below 1.53. Compliance Information: o A list and map of development activities approved and completed. o The H value associated with each activity and the total H value of all activities for the year. o The cumulative H value of all development since permit issuance. o A discussion of observation made during construction monitoring. o A list and map of parcels acquired in the reporting year. o The H value for each parcel and the total H value of parcels acquired during the reporting period. o The cumulative H value of all acquisition since permit issuance including the mitigation credit of H = 0.3999 discussed above. o A discussion of management activities conducted during the reporting year. o An assessment of the status of all mitigation parcels, addressing the extent of invasion by exotic species, trash disposal, and other potential human -induced impacts. o A statement confirming that mitigation has occurred as to maintain a 3H:1H ratio with respect to development activities. o Any other pertinent information relative to the implementation of the HCP. 53 DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003 5.6 Adaptive Management/Unforeseen Circumstances/"No Surprises" Adaptive management provisions in HCPs aim at reducing risk to the species due to significant data or information gaps. The Key deer has been extensively studied (Lopez 2001) and ongoing research programs at Texas A&M University are addressing the Key deer, the silver rice rat and the Lower Keys marsh rabbit. The Key deer PVA model is the state-of-the-art and will likely be fully applicable unless conditions change dramatically. No further studies are proposed as part of this HCP. Under the "No Surprises" policy establishes a clear commitment from the Federal government to honor its agreements under an approved HCP for which the permittee is in good faith implementing the RCP's terms and conditions (USFWS 1996). The HCP handbook (USFWS 1996) states that the Service will not require the commitment of additional land or financial compensation beyond the level of mitigation, which was provided in the HCP. The success of the proposed mitigation strategy relies heavily on the willingness of landowners to enter into a sales agreement with the Applicants. Should unwilling sellers prevent the County from accomplishing the mitigation goals, Monroe County will halt the issuance development permits until willing sellers become available. Under no circumstance will the County issue permits if mitigation is not assured; to the extent practicable, land acquisition will occur in advance to incurring impacts. Should the relative occurrence of human -induced mortality surpass 1.53 for two consecutive years, the County will halt the issuance of permits until consultation with the FWS is completed and a decision on how to proceed is made. Finally, monitoring the success of this HCP depends on annual data the FWS gathers. Should the FWS stop gathering deer density and mortality data, other options to gather these data should be agreed upon between the Applicants and the Service. 54 DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003 6. IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCING 6.1 Regulatory Actions Upon approval of the HCP and issuance of the ITP, the County will amend its Comprehensive Development Plan (Comp Plan) and Land Development Regulations (LDR) to codify the development guidelines described in this HCP. A Master Plan for Future Development of Big Pine Key and No Name Key, in preparation, will rule the rate of growth and development standards in the project area, in accordance with the guidelines described in this HCP. Sections of the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan that will be amended as a result of the HCP are listed in Appendix B. Pursuant to the 1998 MOU between the Applicants and technical agencies, the DCA and the County may enter into an agreement under Section 380.032, F.S., whereby the County may proceed with development activities in the HCP before amendments to the Comp Plan are completed. 6.1.1 Roles and Responsibilities Monroe County will act on behalf of the Applicants in conducting the Plan's mitigation program and for all reporting activities under this HCP. In addition, Monroe County will be responsible for the following activities: approving development consistent with the covered activities in the HCP; maintaining a GIS database on the number, habitat type and location of development activities and mitigation actions including acquisition and management activities; funding or providing staff for biological monitoring and annual reporting activities; establishing and maintaining an annual budget and budget amendments for HCP adoption and implementation; and all other duties and responsibilities relating to the execution of the HCP. Moreover, the County will be responsible for ensuring that all mitigation activities are implemented concomitant with development activities. Finally, Monroe County will coordinate with the FDOT and DCA to ensure that the provisions of this HCP are met. 6.1.2 Implementation Schedule Over the 20-year life of the ITP, Monroe County will authorize residential development at a steady rate to be determined in the Master Plan. Commercial development and local road improvements would also occur progressively through the plan period at an approximate rate of 2,390 square feet per year and 10,890 square feet per year, respectively. Expansion of the existing fire station and institutions, and approximately half of the community facilities and county offices will be constructed during year one. The remaining community facilities and expansion of county offices will likely be completed in year two of the Plan. The interim wastewater treatment plants will be constructed in years five, six and seven of the Plan. FDOT would construct the US-1 three-laning project following completion 55 DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003 of the design phase, which is scheduled for 2004. Construction may be completed within the first seven years of the plan period. Issuance of permits for accessory uses and fences will occur at the time of request, for the purposes of the schedule permit issuance was averaged over the 20 years. Management of mitigation lands will be commensurate with land acquisition. 6.2 Funding Monroe County will fund land acquisition and management under this HCP through existing funding mechanisms. Since 1986, the MCLA has been tasked with acquiring lands for the County in accordance with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Land Authority Ordinance (Ord. No. 31-1986, 1), and by s. 380.0661-380.0685, F.S., s. 125.0108, F.S. The MCLA was established to conduct land acquisition activities necessary to deal with property rights of small landowners, environmental protection, park and recreational space, affordable housing and public infrastructure should there be an environmental component. The MCLA provides a mechanism to "deal with the challenges of implementing comprehensive land use plans pursuant to the area of critical state concern program, which challenges are often complicated by the environmental sensitivity of such areas (and to provide) a stable funding source and the flexibility to address plan implementation innovatively and by acting as an intermediary between landowners and the governmental entities regulating land use" (Section 1-3, Rule 02-1991, MCLA). Funding for the MCLA was initially supplied by recurring revenue from a Florida Department of Natural Resources park surcharge and one half cent of tourist impact tax revenue. The State Park surcharge (s. 380.0685, F.S.) is collected at a rate of 50 cents per person per day, or $5 per annual family auto entrance permit, or $2.50 per night per campsite, cabin, or other overnight recreational occupancy unit. Ninety-eight percent of this surcharge is provided to the MCLA for the purpose of land acquisition, ten percent of which may be used for administrative purposes. The tourist impact tax (s. 125.0108, F.S.) is collected as a 0.5 cent bed tax per $1 lodging money on rentals with 6-month term or less, segregated by Area of Critical State Concern. Fifty percent of this tax is provided to the MCLA for the purpose of land acquisition, five percent of which may be used for administrative purposes. Additional sources of revenue for the MCLA include grants from programs such as Preservation 2000. Since 1998 to 2001, contributions to MCLA revenue from the State have been to the amount of $3,000,000 per year, with a total of $14,793,174 provided since 1985 (FDEP 2001). These funds are being used by the MCLA to purchase lands for the Coupon Bight/Key Deer CARL project. Whereas funds generated by grants fluctuate, revenue produced by the state park surcharge is relatively constant. Funds from the tourist impact tax continue to increase with increasing numbers of tourists visiting the Keys. All revenue provided to the MCLA is deposited into an interest -bearing account for the purpose of land acquisition and program administration costs. 56 DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003 Table 6.1 provides a preliminary estimate of the costs for Plan implementation. This cost estimate assumes that management costs for mitigation lands purchased by the MCLA for the Coupon Bight/Key deer CARL project are not sustained by the County. Mitigation lands to be managed under the HCP include lands acquired in Tier 2 and Tier 3 areas. Administrative costs for land acquisition activities and reporting efforts will primarily constitute staff time and therefore are not shown in the estimate below. Table 6.1. Estimated cost of the HCP Item Unit Development impact (H) 1.0 Mitigation (H) 3.0 Estimated land value (based on average cost for $6,185,000 lands totaling H=3.0) Estimated number of acres (based on Tier 1 lands) 270 Annual management costs (based on $1,000/acre) $270,000 20-year management $5,400,000 20-year monitoring ($5,000/year) $100,000 Total estimated HCP cost (Raw Cost over 20 Years) $11,685,000 6.3 Permit Amendment Procedures Modifications to the ITP would need to be made in the event that: 1. Modifications to the boundaries of the project area or the location of development activities; 2. Increases in the acreage of development activities; 3. The listing of a species protected under the Act which is not covered under the HCP and which would likely be taken as a result of covered development activities; 4. A change in the development action or land acquisition mitigation activities that would result in an increased take of one or more of the covered species; and 5. Changes which would result in significant adverse effects to the covered species or new effects to covered species that were not addressed in the HCP. Amendments to the ITP will require a revised HCP, a permit application and application fee, a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document and a 30-day public comment period. The USFWS must be consulted and concur on all proposed amendments. There are two types of proposed amendments: Minor Amendments. Minor amendments involve routine administrative revisions or changes to the operation and management program, which do not deplete the level or means of mitigation. Such minor amendments do not alter the terms of the Permit. Upon written request of the applicants, the USFWS is authorized to approve minor amendments to the HCP, if the amendment does not conflict with the purpose of the HCP as stated in Section 1.2. DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003 • All Other Amendments. All other amendments will be considered an amendment to the ITP, and will be subject to any other procedural requirements of laws or regulations that may be applicable. 6.4 Permit Renewal The ITP may be renewed prior to expiration if the biological conditions described in the HCP are not significantly different and no additional take of covered species is requested. In the event that renewal of the ITP is sought, the Applicants will submit a written request to the Service certifying that the provisions within the HCP and all subsequent amendments are valid. The request for renewal will also include a description of the portions of the project to be completed or development activities that would be covered under the ITP renewal period. The request for renewal must be submitted 30 days prior to the ITP's date of expiration. The Service may renew the ITP if its findings are consistent with those detailed in the Applicant's request. Renewal procedures will be conducted in accordance with 50 CFR 13.22. Renewal of the ITP does not authorize an increase in take levels beyond those stated in the original HCP. All annual reports and reporting requirements must be completed prior to submittal of the request for renewal. 58 DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003 7. REFERENCES 7.1 Agencies and Persons Contacted Below is a list of persons and agencies consulted. Florida Department of Community Affairs Division of Community Planning Florida Keys Field Office Rebecca Jetton, Community Program Administrator 2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 212 Marathon, FL 33050 Florida Department of Transportation Environmental Management Office C. Leroy Irwin, Director 605 Suwannee Street, MS-37 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Florida Department of Transportation, District VI Environmental Management Office Catherine B. Owen, Project Manager 1000 NW 111th Avenue, Room 6101 Miami, FL 33172 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Office of Environmental Services Habitat Protection Planning Randy S. Kautz, Section Leader 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600 HCP Coordinating Committee Member Jim Cameron, Citizen Representative Big Pine Key Resident HCP Coordinating Committee Member Alicia Putney, Citizen Representative No Name Key Resident Monroe County Growth Management Division Planning Department Marlene Conaway, Director 3101 Overseas Highway 59 DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003 Marathon, FL 33050 Monroe County Growth Management Division Laurie McHargue, Ph.D., Land Steward 2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 400 Marathon, FL 33050 Monroe County Land Authority Mark J. Rosch, Executive Director 1200 Truman Avenue, Suite 207 Key West, FL 33040 United States Fish and Wildlife Service South Florida Ecological Services Office Michael Jennings, Fish and Wildlife Biologist 1339 20th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960-3559 United States Fish and Wildlife Service South Florida Ecological Services Office Philip A. Frank, Ph.D., Fish and Wildlife Biologist P.O. Box 510 Big Pine Key, FL 33043 United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Key Deer Refuge Emery Hoyle, Acting Refuge Manager 610 Wilder Road Big Pine Key, FL 33043 7.2 Bibliography Akcakaya, H.R. and P. Sjogren-Gulve. 2000. Population viability analyses in conservation planning: an overview. Ecological Bulletins 48:9-21. Alexander, T.R. and J.H. Dickson, ill. 1970. Vegetational changes in the National Key Deer Refuge -II. Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Sciences 32(2):81-89. Bergh, C. and J. Wisby. 1996. Fire History of Lower Keys Pine Rocklands. The Nature Conservancy, Florida Keys Initiative. Key West, FL. Binney, W.G. 1885. A manual of American land shells. Bulletin of the U.S. National Museum, Vol. 28. 528p. DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003 Boyce, M.S. 1992. Population viability analysis. Annual Reviews Ecology and Systematics 23:481-506. Britton, N.L. and J.N. Rose. 1937. The Cactaceae, 2nd edition. Dover. New York, NY. Burgman, M.A., S. Ferson, and H.R. Akcakaya. 1993. Risk assessment in conservation biology. Chapman and Hall, London, England. Camp, Dresser and McKee Inc. 2000. Monroe County Stormwater Management Master Plan. Carlson, P.C., G.W. Tanner, J.M. Wood, and S.R. Humphrey. 1993. Fire in Key deer habitat improves browse, prevents succession, and preserves endemic herbs. Journal of Wildlife Management 57(4):914-928. Cox, J.A. and R.S. Kautz. 2000. Habitat Conservation Needs of Rare and Imperiled Wildlife in Florida. Office of Environmental Services, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, FL. 156p. Dickson, J.G. III. 1955. An ecological study of the Key deer. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Tech. Bull. 3. 104p. Emmel, T.C. and A.J. Cotter. 1995. A summary of the historical distribution and current status of the Florida tree snail, Liguus fasciatus. Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission Nongame Wildlife Program Project Report. 467p. Endangered and Threatened Species of the Southeastern United States (The Red Book) FWS Region 4. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2001. Florida Forever Five Year Plan. Prepared for the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement trust Fund in cooperation with the Acquisition and Restoration Council. Florida Department of Transportation. 1996. US-1/SR-5 Key deer/Motorist concept report. District VI. Florida Department of Transportation. 1997. US-1 Key Deer PD&E Study. Noise Study Report. District VI. Florida Department of Transportation. 1998. SR5/US-1 Key Deer/Motorist Conflict PD&E Study. District VI. Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Environmental Determination for SR5/US-1 Key Deer/Motorist Conflict PD&E Study. Categorical Exclusion Type II. 61 DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Undated 7. Ecosystem assessment and restoration — habitat assessment and restoration. Florida Marine Research Institute. St. Petersburg, FL. http://www.fmri.usf.edu/proprams/earhar.htm Folk, M.L. and W. D. Klimstra. 1991. Reproductive performance of female Key deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 55:386-390. Forys, E.A., P.A. Frank, and R.S. Kautz. 1996. Recovery actions for the Lower Keys marsh rabbit, silver rice rat, and Stock Island tree snail. Unpublished report to Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. Tallahassee, FL. Franz, R. (ed.) 1982. Invertebrates. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Vol. 6. University Press of Florida. Gainesville, FL. Goodyear, N.C. 1984. Final report on the distribution, habitat, status of the silver rice rat Oryzomys argentatus. Unpublished report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Jacksonville, FL. 49p. Goodyear, N.C. 1987. Distribution and habitat of the silver rice rat, Oryzomys argentatus Journal of Mammology 73:186-200. Halewyn, R. van and R. Norton. 1984. The status and conservation of seabirds in the Caribbean, pp. 169-222. In Status and Conservation of the World's Seabirds, ed. by J. P. Croxall, P. G. H. Evans, and R. W. Schreiber, ICBP Tech Publ. No. 2. Hardin, J.W. 1974. Behavior, socio-biology, and reproductive life history of the Florida Key deer, Odocoileus virginianus clavium. Dissertation, Southern Illinois University. Carbondale, IL. Hennessey, M.K. and D.H.Habeck. 1994. Observations on reproduction of an endangered cactus Cereus robinii (Lemaire) L. Benson. Florida Scientist 57(3):93-101. Humprey, S.R. 1992. Lower Keys population of rice rat: rare. Pp. 300-309 In Humprey, S.R. (ed) Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida: Volume 1, Mammals. University Press of Florida. Gainesville, FL. Jackson, D.R. 1989. The fauna of freshwater and non -tidal wetlands on Big Pine Key. Pp. 37-58 In Robertson, M.L. and J.M. Young (eds.) Freshwater and Surface Water Resources of Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. 122p. Jacobsen, B.N. 1974. Effects of drinking water on habitat utilization by Key deer. M.S. research paper. Southern Illinois University. Carbondale, IL. 43p. Klimstra, W.D. 1985. The Key deer. The Florida Naturalist. 58(4): 2-5. 62 DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003 Klimstra, W.D. and A. Dooley. 1990. Foods of the Key deer. Florida Scientist 53:264- 273. Lazell, J.D., Jr. 1984. A New Marsh Rabbit from Florida's Lower Keys. Journal of Mammology 65(1):26-33. Lewis, R.R. 1980. Impact of oil spills on mangrove forests. International Symposium on the Biology and Management of Mangroves in Tropical Shallow Water Communities, 2"d. Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. Lopez, R. R. 2001b. Population ecology of Florida Key deer. Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. 203pp. Lopez, R.R. 2001 a. Demographic and Spatially Structured Population Model. Texas A&M University. College Station, TX. 43p. MacAulay, G.M., T.J. Leary, F.J. Sargent, M. M Colby, E.J. Prouty and C.A. Friel. 1994. Advanced Identification of Wetlands in the Florida Keys, Final Report. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Marine Resources. Marathon, FL. McNeese, P.L. and J.G. Taylor. 1998. Florida Keys Advance Identification of Wetlands (ADID) Project Technical Summary Document — Final Draft. Lewis Environmental Services, Inc., Summerland Key, FL. Meylan, A., B. Schroeder, and A. Mosier. 1995. Sea turtle nesting activity in the State of Florida 1979-1992. Florida Marine Research Publications Number 52; St. Petersburg, Florida. Monroe County. 1987. A Focal Point Plan for the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern. Monroe County Planning Department. Key West, FL. Monroe County. 1995. Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Technical Document. Monroe County Planning Department. Key West, FL. Monroe County. 2000. Property Appraiser Tax Role Database. Monroe County. 2001a. Big Pine and No Name Key Development Alternatives Report. Monroe County Department of Planning and Environmental Resources. Marathon, FL. 33p. Monroe County. 2001b. Monroe County Public Facility Capacity Assessment Report. Monroe County Division of Growth Management. Key West, FL. http://www.co.monroe.fl.us/pages/hottopics/hottopics.htm Montague, C.L. and R.G. Wiegert. 1990. Salt marshes. Pp. 481-516 In Myers, R.L. and J.J. Ewel (eds.) Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida. Orlando, FL. 63 DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003 Natural Resource Conservation Service. 1989. The 26 ecological communities of Florida, correlated to the natural soil landscape positions. Florida Chapter of the Soil and Water Conservation Service. Gainesville, FL. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1995. Soil Survey of Monroe County, Keys Area, Florida. United States Department of Agriculture. U.S. Government Printing Office: 1995-3 86-441 /20005/SCS. Odum, W.E., C.C. McIvor and T.J. Smith. 1982. The ecology of the mangroves of South Florida: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS 81-24. 105p. Ogden, J.C. and B.W. Patty. 1981. The Recent Status of the Wood Stork in Florida and Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division, Technical Bulletin WL 5:97-101. Ross, M.S. 1989. Effects of hydrologic factors on the vegetation of Big Pine Key. In Robertson, M.L. and J.M. Young (eds.) Freshwater and surface water resources of Big Pine Key, Florida. The Nature Conservancy. Key West, FL. Ross, M.S. and P.L. Ruiz. 1996. A Study of the Distribution of Several South Florida Endemic Plants in the Florida Keys. A report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Southeast Environmental Research Program, Florida International University. Miami, FL. Ross, M.S., J.J. O'Brien and L.J. Flynn. 1992. Vegetation and landscape ecology of central Big Pine Key. The Nature Conservancy, Key West, Florida. Ross, M.S., J.J. O'Brien, and LA.S.L. Sternberg. 1994. Sea -level rise and the reduction in pine forests in the Florida Keys. Ecological Applications 4(1):144-156. Silvy, N.J. 1975. Population density, movements, and habitat utilization of Key deer, Odocoileus virginianus clavium. Ph.D. Dissertation. Southern Illinois University. Carbondale, IL. Snedaker, S.C. 1989. Overview of ecology of mangroves and information needs for Florida Bay. Bulletin of Marine Science 44:341-347. Snedaker, S.C. and A.E. Lupo. 1973. The Role of Mangrove Ecosystems in the Maintenance of Environmental Quality and a High Productivity of Desirable Fisheries. Final Report. Contract # 14-16-008-606. U.S. Bureau Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Washington D.C. Snyder, J.R., A. Herndon, W.B. Robertson, Jr. 1990. South Florida rockland. Pp. 230-277 In Myers, R.L. and J.J. Ewel (eds.) Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida. Orlando, FL. 64 DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003 Stewart, M.T., M.J. Wightman, and K.M Beaudoin. 1989. The freshwater lenses of Big Pine Key. Pp 11-28 In Robertson, M.L. and J.M. Young (eds) Freshwater and Surface Water Resources of Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. The Nature Conservancy.122p. Strong, A.M. and G.T. Bancroft. 1994. Patterns of deforestation and fragmentation of mangrove and deciduous seasonal forests in the Upper Florida Keys. Bulletin of Marine Science 54:795-804. Texas Parks and Wildlife. Threatened and Endangered Species Fact Sheets, Bald Eagle. http://www.lpwd.state.tx.us/nature/endangibirds/baldea lg htm U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1995. Soil Survey of Monroe County, Keys Area, Florida. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Undated 12. Hammocks. Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program. hn://www.epa.gov/OWOW/oceans/lagoon/hammock.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species. Undated 18. Garber's spurge Chamaesyce garberi. In Endangered and Threatened Species of the Southeastern United States. FWS region 4. hqp://endangered.fws.gov/i/g/sag2p.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Stock Island tree snail recovery plan. Atlanta, GA. 15p. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985a. Revised Florida Key Deer Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, Georgia. 46p. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Recovery Plan for Five Pine Rockland Plant Species. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, Georgia. 18p. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999a. Biological Opinion. South Florida Ecosystem Office, Vero Beach, FL. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999b. Stock Island tree snail (Orthalicus yeses). Pp. 4- 767 to 4-786 In South Florida Multi -Species Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region. Atlanta, GA. 2179p. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999c. Key tree cactus Pilosocereus robinii (Lemaire) L. Benson. Pp. 4-1111 to 4-1124 In South Florida Multi -Species Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region. Atlanta, GA. 2179p. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001a. Biological Opinion. South Florida Ecological Services Office, Vero Beach, FL. 65 DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001b. Threatened and Endangered Species System. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species. htty:Hecos.fws. ovg /webl2age/. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, All About Piping Plovers, hqp://plover.fws.gov/facts.html University of Nevada, Reno. Biological Resource Research Center, Bald Eagle species account. httv://www.brre.unr.edu/datalbirds/halileuc.html URS. 2001a. Arterial and Travel Time/Delay Study. URS. 2001b. Big Pine Key Transportation Improvement Study. Miami, FL. URS. 2001 c. Carrying Capacity Analysis Model. Final Report. Tampa, FL. US Census Bureau. 2000. hLp:Hfactfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet Virginia Tech. 1996. Taxonomy species cactus, tree-, Key-. Virginia Technical Institute Endangered Species Information System. http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/WWW/esis/lists/e704OO4.html Witherington, B.E., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1989. Status and reproductive characteristics of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) nesting in Florida. Pp 351-3521n Ogren, L., F. Berry, K. Bjorndal, H. Kumpf, R. Mast, G. Medina, H. Reichart, and R. Witham (eds) Proceedings of the second western Atlantic turtle symposium. NOAA Tech Mem NMFS-SEFC-226. National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, Species Accounts: - Green sea turtle. hLp://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot res/species/turtles/green.html. Web page last updated: 04/13/2001. - Loggerhead sea turtle. http://www.mnfs.noaa.gov/prot res/species/turtles/loggerhead.html. Web page last updated: 08/10/2001. - Hawksbill sea turtle. http://www.mnfs.noaa.goy/prot res/species/turtles/hawksbill.html. Web page last updated: 04/13/2001. - Kemp's Ridley Turtle. h=://www.ninfs.noaa.gov/prot res/species/turtles/kemps.html. Web page last updated: 04/13/2001. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species, Species Accounts: - Eastern indigo snake. http://endangered.fws.gov/i/c/saclq.html - Wood Stork. httv://endangered.fws.gov/i/b/sab5z.html - Silver rice rat. http://endangered.fws.gov/i/a/saa9a.html - Lower Keys marsh rabbit. hM://endangered.fws.gov/i/a/saa94.html. DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003 - West Indian manatee. http://endangered.fws.gov/i/a/saa0c.html - Roseate tern. http:Hendangered.fws.gov/i/b/sab6i.html - Stock Island tree snail. hLtp://endangered.fws.gov/i/g/sag05.html - Garber's spurge. http://endangered.fws. o� v/i/q/sag2p.html - Artic peregrine falcon. http:Hspecies.fws.gov/bio pere.html 67 DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003 8. LIST OF PREPARERS 8.1 URS Corporation Ricardo N. Calvo, Ph.D., Project Manager. Dr. Calvo has more than 12 years of experience in ecological research and environmental consulting in the U.S. and abroad. His project experience includes environmental impact assessments for diverse infrastructure projects, threatened and endangered species, preserve design and management, wildlife surveys, mitigation design and environmental planning. He was the Project Director for the PD&E for wildlife underpasses to address Key deer/US-1 motorist conflicts in Big Pine Key. Dr. Calvo also served as the Project Manager for a study to develop feasible alternatives to reduce Key deer mortality along US-1 in Big Pine Key. He received in Ph.D. in Biology in 1990. Dr. Calvo served as project manager and document author for this Habitat Conservation Plan. Roel Lopez, Ph.D., Key Deer Expert. Dr. Lopez is a wildlife biologist, published scientific author, and a Key deer expert. He received his Ph.D. in Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences in 2001. Dr. Lopez's specific research interests include Key deer ecology, wildlife population dynamics, habitat management, computer simulation and modeling, use of GIS and databases in resource management. He provided biological expertise on the Florida Key deer including estimating population parameters for the PVA, statistical analysis, and database management. Barry Lenz, Senior Ecologist. Mr. Lenz is an ecologist with more than 21 years of experience, including 16 years with URS, with a specialization in ecology and threatened and endangered species. He has extensive background in environmental and ecological assessment, environmental permitting, and vegetation community mapping. Mr. Lenz served as a technical researcher and document reviewer. Amy Lecours, M.S., Environmental Scientist. Ms. Lecours has more than eight years of experience and holds a Master's Degree in Coastal Zone Management and Marine Biology. She has experience in coastal and marine biological investigations for NEPA documents and environmental assessments. Ms. Lecours served as a technical researcher and document author. Laura Cherney, Environmental Scientist. Ms. Cherney has more than three years of experience in threatened and endangered species surveys, NEPA documentation and wetland delineations. She holds a Bachelor's in Environmental Engineering Sciences. Ms. Cherney served as project coordinator, technical researcher and document author. 8.2 Sub -Consultants Patricia L. McNeese, M.S., Environmental consultant. Ms. McNeese has 18 years of experience including 14 years working in the Florida Keys environment. She holds Bachelor's and Master's degrees in marine biology. Her Florida Keys experience .: DRAFT DOCUMENT — 2/25/2003 includes work on such projects as the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan, the Florida Keys Advance Identification of Wetlands, the Habitat Evaluation Index and the Livable CommuniKeys Program for Big Pine Key and No Name Key. Her latest activities in the Keys have focused on restoration and management of natural habitats. Mrs. McNeese has been accepted as an expert witness in environmental planning and Florida Keys biology and ecology. She served as a technical researcher and document author.