Item V2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: October 16, 2013 Division: Growth Management
Department: Planning and Environmental Res.
Bulk Item: Yes _ No X Staff Contact/Phone#: Christine Hurley 289-2517
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: A public hearing to consider an ordinance by the Monroe County
Board of County Commissioners amending Monroe County Code Chapter 122 Floodplain Regulations,
amending Section 122-2(b)3 providing a new date for revised Species Assessment Guides for
floodplain development permit determinations in the Permit Referral Process. (Legislative Proceeding)
ITEM BACKGROUND: The Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance No. 015-2012
on June 20, 2012 creating Section 122-8 creating the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Permit Referral Process and incorporating the May 20, 2012 Species Assessment Guides
(SAGs) developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) as part of the Ordinance to be used
by the County in reviews of permit applications for federally designated species focus areas and buffer
areas to protect listed species under the Federal Endangered Species Act. The subsequent
implementation of the SAGs by County staff and the Service prompted recommended revisions to
simplify and clarify the assessment criteria. The Service provided updated SAGs to the County for the
re-ordering of assessment criteria to simplify reviews, specifying a calculation of percent development
by area and not by parcel, and clarifying requirements for the restrictive covenant prohibiting keeping
free-roaming cats, among other modifications. On July 29, 2013, the Service published the new SAGs,
notified FEMA of the updated 2013 SAGs for Monroe County and the Florida Keys' municipalities,
and distributed final copies of the revised documents with a request that the County adopt and utilize
the revised SAGs.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: On June 20, 2012, the Board of County
Commissioners approved Ordinance No. 015-2012.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: n/a
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval.
TOTAL COST: INDIRECT COST: BUDGETED: Yes No X
DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE:
COST TO COUNTY: SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No X AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty x OMB/Purchasing Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM#
2
3
4
Al
5
6 MONROE COUNTY,FLORIDA
7 MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
8 ORDINANCE NO. -2013
9
10 AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD
11 OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE
12 COUNTY CODE SECTION 122-2(b)3 GENERAL
13 PROVISIONS, BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING SPECIAL
14 FLOOD HARZARD MAPS, SPECIES ASSESSMENT
15 GUIDES (SAGS); PROVIDING A NEW DATE FOR
16 REVISED SPECIES ASSESSMENT GUIDES FOR
17 PERMIT REFERRAL PROCESS DETERMINATIONS;
18 PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
19 REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;
20 PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE
21 LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF
22 STATE; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION;
23 PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
24
25 WHEREAS, in 1990 the National Wildlife Federation, Florida Wildlife Federation, and the
26 Defenders of Wildlife filed suit against the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
27 claiming FEMA was not consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS or Service) as
28 required by the Endangered Species Act in its administration of the National Flood Insurance
29 Program(NFIP)in Monroe County, Florida; and
30
31 WHEREAS, in 1997 the Service completed a Biological Opinion (BO) for the effects of the
32 NFIP on Federally listed(threatened or endangered) species in the Florida Keys; and
33
34 WHEREAS, the 1997 BO found the NFIP jeopardized nine species in the Keys; and
35
36 WHEREAS, in 2003 the Service re-initiated consultation and amended the 1997 BO and
37 concluded that the effect of the NFIP would result in jeopardy to eight of 10 species evaluated in
38 the BO; and
39
40 WHEREAS, in a second amended complaint in 2003 the plaintiffs filed suit against FEMA and
41 the Service pursuant to the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedures Act; and
42
43 WHEREAS, on March 29, 2005 the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
44 (District Court) granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs which found that the Service
45 and FEMA violated the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedures Act; and
46
Page 1 of 5
1 WHEREAS, on September 9, 2005, the District Court entered an order enjoining FEMA from
2 issuing flood insurance under the NFIP on any new residential or commercial developments in
3 suitable habitats of federally listed(threatened or endangered) species in the Keys; and
4
5 WHEREAS, the District Court also ordered the Service to submit a new BO by August 9, 2006,
6 and the Service issued a new BO on August 8, 2006; and
7
8 WHEREAS, on April 1, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
9 affirmed the District Court's rulings of March 29, 2005 and September 9, 2005; and
10
11 WHEREAS, on February 26, 2009, the District Court ordered the Service to submit a new BO
12 by March 31, 2010 and on March 28, 2010, the Court granted a 30 day extension of this deadline;
13 and
14
15 WHEREAS, on April 30, 2010, the Service published the revised BO for FEMA's
16 administration of the NFIP in Monroe County; and
17
18 WHEREAS, on December 14, 2010, the Service published the final amended BO for FEMA's
19 administration of the NFIP in Monroe County; and
20
21 WHEREAS, the BO contains a "Reasonable and Prudent Alternative" (RPA) that requires
22 Monroe County and other participating communities in the Florida Keys to revise their Flood
23 Damage Prevention Ordinance(s) to reference and use the updated real estate list (referenced in
24 RPA paragraph 1) within 120 days of acceptance of this BO by the Court, and;
25
26 WHEREAS, on January 11, 2011, the District Court approved a Settlement Agreement between
27 the Plaintiffs and the Federal Defendants in which the Federal Defendants agreed to notify the
28 Court and the parties when Monroe County and the other "participating communities" in the
29 Florida Keys have: 1) revised their Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance(s); and 2) implemented
30 procedures to reference and use the updated real estate list and Species Focus Area Maps
31 (referenced in RPA paragraph 1) in compliance with paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the RPA; and
32
33 WHEREAS, on June 15, 2011 FEMA provided a draft of Ordinance recommendations to
34 Monroe County for adoption to meet the requirements of the RPA requiring the County to make
35 permit determinations based on assessment keys within Species Assessment Guides(SAGs); and
36
37 WHEREAS, on December 2, 2011, FEMA notified Monroe County that if the County did not
38 implement the RPA by January 11, 2012, then Monroe County would be placed on probation on
39 May 10, 2012. In response to the County's requested time extension, FEMA requested and the
40 Court granted an extension to June 30, 2012 for the ordinance revisions and permit referral process
41 implementation; and
42
43 WHEREAS, the County Attorney, outside counsel, and the Growth Management Director have
44 advised the Board that adoption of the RPA; ordinance language; and originally drafted SAGS
45 suggested by the Federal agencies would have resulted in increased exposure to the County for
46 liability for inverse condemnation or takings claims; and
47
Page 2 of 5
1 WHEREAS, FEMA and the Service revised the SAGs to include provisions that substantially
2 reduce the County's potential exposure for liability for inverse condemnation or takings claims;
3 and
4
5 WHEREAS, FEMA provided comments on the County's DRAFT Ordinance, transmitted by the
6 County to FEMA on various dates; and
7
8 WHEREAS, on June 20, 2012, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance No.
9 015-2012 that created Section 122-8 which made the May 20, 2012 SAGs part of the Ordinance;
10 and
11
12 WHEREAS, on April 15, 2013 the Service provided updated SAGs to the County for staff
13 review and comment; and
14
15 WHEREAS, on July 29, 2013, the Service notified FEMA of the updated 2013 SAGs for
16 Monroe County and the Florida Keys' municipalities, provided final copies of the revised
17 documents, and posted digital copies on the Service's website; and
18
19 WHEREAS, this Ordinance is being adopted to improve the use and consistent application of
20 the SAGs in Permit Referral Process determinations by correcting semantic problems, clarifying
21 wording, and reordering assessment keys; and
22
23 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission during a regular meeting held on
24 August 28, 2013, reviewed, discussed and approved the Sr. Director of Planning and
25 Environmental Resources' recommendation to the Planning Commission for the revisions to
26 Section 122-2(b)3 of the Monroe County Land Development Code;
27
28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
29 COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
30
31 Section 1. Section 122-2 of the Monroe County Land Development Code shall be amended as
32 follows: (additions are underlined, deletions are""'_ken flffeugh)
33
34 Sec. 122-2. General provisions.
35
36 a) Applicability. Except as provided for the elevated portion of a nonconforming residential
37 structure by section 122-4(a)(10), no structure or manufactured home hereafter shall be
38 located, extended, converted or structurally altered, and no development shall occur, without
39 full compliance with the terms of this chapter in addition to other applicable regulations,
40 including,but not limited to, 44 CFR 60.3(a)(2).
41
42 b) Basis for Establishing Special Flood Hazard Maps; Species Focus Area Maps (SFAMs) with
43 Species Focus Area Buffers and Federally Protected Species Area Real Estate (RE) List; and
44 Species Assessment Guides (SAGs).
45
46 1) The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Emergency Management
47 Agency (FEMA) in its February 18, 2005 Maps with accompanying supporting data, and
Page 3 of 5
I any revisions thereof, are adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapter,
2 and shall be kept on file, available to the public, in the offices of the county building
3 department. Letter of map amendments, letter of map revisions, letter of map revision
4 based on fill, and conditional letter of map revisions approved by FEMA are acceptable
5 for implementation of this regulation.
6 2) Species Focus Area Maps (SFAMs) with Species Focus Area Buffers and Species Real
7 I Estate (RE) list. FEMA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service JFWS) have provided the
8 Species Focus Area Maps (SFAMs) mailed to Monroe County and dated April 30, 2011,
9 and a listing of real estate numbers of parcels (RE list) emailed to Monroe County and
10 dated November 18, 2011, that are within the SFAMs and that have been identified by
11 FWS. The SFAMs and the RE List that are within the SFAMs identified by the FWS in
12 accordance with the Biological Opinion, dated April 30, 2010, as amended December 14,
13 2010, are hereby declared to be a part of this chapter. The SFAMs and RE list are on file
14 at the Monroe County Clerk's office and the Monroe County Growth Management
15 Division Office.
16 3) Species Assessment Guides (SAGs). FEMA and FWS have-provided the May 20, 2012
17 Species Assessment Guides (SAGs) W—to Monroe County and cater-May-2A;
18 241-2Monroe County adopted these SAGs on September 13, 2012. FEMA and the FWS
19 provided revisions of the SAGs to Monroe County on July 29, 2013. Permits submitted
20 after the date of this Ordinance shall be reviewed utilizing the July 29, 2013 FWS/FEMA
21 SAGs. These SAGs are declared to be a part of this chapter. The SAGs are on file at the
22 Monroe County Clerk's office and the Monroe County Growth Management Division
23 Office.
24 c) Rules for interpreting flood hazard issues. The boundaries of the flood hazard areas shown
25 on the official flood insurance rate maps may be determined by scaling distances. Required
26 interpretations of those maps for precise locations of such boundaries shall be made by the
27 floodplain administrator, in consultation with the building official. In interpreting other
28 provisions of this chapter, the building official shall be guided by the current edition of
29 FEMA's 44 CFR, and FEMA's interpretive letters, policy statements and technical bulletins
30 as adopted by resolution from time to time by the board of county commissioners.
31 Additionally, the building official shall also obtain, review and reasonably use any base
32 flood elevation and floodway data available from a federal, state or other source, as criteria
33 for requiring that new construction, substantial improvements, and other developments meet
34 the criteria required in the appropriate flood zone.
35 Section 2. Severability.
36 If any section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, sentence or provision of this Ordinance shall be
37 adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect,
38 impair, invalidate, or nullify the remainder of this Ordinance, but the effect thereof shall be
39 confined to the section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, sentence or provision immediately
40 involved in the controversy in which such judgment or decree shall be rendered.
41 Section 3. Conflicting Provisions.
42 In the case of direct conflict between any provision of this ordinance and a portion or provision
43 of any appropriate federal, state or county law, rule, code or regulation, the more restrictive
Page 4 of 5
1 Section 4. Filing,Transmittal, and Effective Date.
2 This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of Florida, and
3 transmitted to the State Land Planning Agency, but shall not become effective until a notice is
4 issued by the State Land Planning Agency or Administrative Commission approving the
5 ordinance pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and after any appeal period has expired.
6 Section 5. Codification
7 The provisions of this ordinance shall be included and incorporated into the Code of Ordinances
8 of the County of Monroe, Florida, as an addition or amendment thereto and shall be
9 appropriately numbered to conform to the uniform numbering system of the Code.
10 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
11 Florida at a regular meeting held on the day of , 2013.
12
13 Mayor George Neugent
14 Mayor Pro Tern Heather Carruthers
15 Commissioner Danny L. Kolhage
16 Commissioner David Rice
17 Commissioner Sylvia Murphy
18 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY,FLORIDA
19 BY
20 Mayor George Neugent
21 (SEAL)
22 ATTEST: AMY HEAVILIN, CLERK
23
24
25 DEPUTY CLERK
4ONROECOUNTYATTORNEY
r
APPR As TO FOR
Date:
Page 5 of 5
Eastern Indigo Snake Species Assessment Guide
July 29,2013
The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service's(Service)FEMA Biological Opinion(BO)dated April 30,
2010, and modified on December 14,2010, identified 14,413 at-risk parcels, representing
14,960 acres, intersecting habitats that may occasionally be used by the threatened eastern indigo
snake(indigo snake;Drymarchon corais couperi)in Monroe County. There are at-risk 10,921 acres
and 10,711 parcels in unincorporated Monroe County; 1,406 acres and 1,433 parcels in Islamorada;
20 acres and 112 parcels in Key Colony Beach; 703 acres and 433 parcels in Key West; 1 acre and
6 parcels in Layton; and 1,910 acres and 1,718 parcels in Marathon. The BO also identified an
additional 8,580 acres of at-risk lands outside Monroe County's parcel layer not subject to the Rate
of Growth Ordinance program.
The at-risk properties were determined by overlaying the County's property parcel layer onto the
County's 2009 land cover boundary maps(Monroe County 2009). The County's land cover
boundary maps included 13 land cover types. Developed land,undeveloped land, impervious
surface, and exotic are considered non-native land cover types. Hammock,pineland, scrub
mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh,buttonwood,mangrove, and beach berm are considered
native land cover types. The water classification is also considered a native cover type. The
minimum mapping unit for land cover polygons was 0.35 acre for hammock and 0.5 acre for all other
cover types.
The County's boundary map land cover types containing suitable habitat for the indigo snake include
undeveloped land,hammock,pineland, exotic, scrub mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh,
buttonwood,mangrove, and beach berm.
Species Profile: The Florida Keys are on the extreme southern end of the indigo snake's range.
The indigo snake population in the Florida Keys is very small(Cox and Kautz 2000). Verified
observations are rare and scattered;the latest was in 2009 on Little Knockemdown Key(Service
2010). In the last several years,three unsubstantiated observations of the indigo snake were reported,
two on Grassy Key(City of Marathon) and one in the Village of Islamorada(Sheahan 2006). Indigo
snake surveys were conducted on Big Pine and No Name Key in 2006 and 2007(Schmidt et al.
2008)and,although 27 species of reptiles were noted(973 total observations),the indigo snake was
not observed.
The Service issued a Section 10(a)(1)(B)Incidental Take Permit(ITP)to Monroe County,Florida
Department of Transportation, and Florida Department of Community Affairs(applicants)in June
2006 for adverse effects from development on Big Pine and No Name Keys. The ITP authorizes take
of 168 acres of suitable indigo snake habitat. The take will be incidental to land clearing for
development and recreational improvements. The Service issued the ITP to the applicants based
upon their development of a Habitat Conservation Plan(HCP)that sets guidelines for development
activities on Big Pine and No Name Keys to occur progressively over the permit period(20 years).
The HCP provides avoidance,minimization, and mitigation measures to offset impacts to covered
species,including the indigo snake. Mitigation includes the protection of three mitigation units for
each development unit of suitable habitat within the plan area.
Eastern indigo snake Species Assessment Guide
Threats: Although the species may occur in all referenced habitats,it is suspected that they prefer
hammocks and pine forest,because most observations occur in these habitats disproportionately to
their presence in the landscape(Steiner et al. 1983). In the Florida Keys,the primary threat to the
indigo snake is native habitat loss and fragmentation due to development. Residential housing is also
a threat because it increases the likelihood of indigo snakes being killed by property owners.
Assessment Guide: In order to provide assistance in assessing threats to the indigo snake from a
given project,the Service has developed the following guidance and recommendations that,if
implemented,will minimize adverse effects to the indigo snake. If the use of this guide results in a
determination of"no effect"for a particular project,the Service supports this determination. If the
use of this guide results in a determination of"not likely to adversely affect"(NLAA),the Service
concurs with this determination and no additional correspondence is necessary. If the use of this
guide results in a"may affect"determination,the acreage of impacts will be subtracted from the take
limits provided in the BO and/or the HCP. This guide is subject to revision as necessary.
A. Parcel is not in the species focus area and/or on the Real Estate(RE)parcel list............no effect
Parcel is in the species focus area or on the RE parcel list.................................................go to B
B. Parcel is on Big Pine Key or No Name Key........................................refer to HCP for coverage
Parcel is not on Big Pine Key or No Name Key.................................................................go to C
C. Parcel contains the indigo snake's native habitat (i.e., hammock, pineland, scrub
mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh,buttonwood,mangrove, or beach berm)........go to D
Parcel contains only non-native habitat(undeveloped land or exotic)...............................go to G
D. The proposed action will not remove or modify the indigo snake's native habitat............go to G
The proposed action will remove or modify the indigo snake's native habitat..................go to E
E. The property is within a developed subdivision or canal subdivision and the area
within 500 feet of the parcel is greater than 60 percent developed or scarified............go to G
The property is not as above.................................................................... go to F
F. The applicant has proposed either on-site or off-site habitat compensation*
commensurate with the amount of native habitat lost, has received a copy of the
Service's indigo snake protection measures(attached), and has agreed to implement the
measures and post the information sign on-site. Signed verification of this is in the
permit file maintained by the NFIP participant community. Permit with indigo snake
protection measures and habitat compensation*...................................................................NLAA
July 29, 2013 2
Eastern indigo snake Species Assessment Guide
The applicant will not agree to the indigo snake protection measures, is not proposing
habitat compensation* or the proposed habitat compensation* does not meet minimum
compensation requirements.......may affect,subtract project footprint from authorized Take**
G. The applicant has received a copy of the Service's indigo snake protection measures
and has agreed to implement the measures and post the information sign on-site.
Signed verification of this is in the permit file maintained by the NFIP participant
community. Permit with indigo snake protection measures...............................................NLAA
Not as above..............................may affect,subtract project footprint from authorized Take**
*Habitat Compensation
The minimum recommended habitat compensation is replacement of lost vegetation through
protection or restoration of habitat, and/or monetary contributions to accomplish the aforementioned
activities,according to the participating community's land development regulations. The Service has
reviewed the following participating communities' Codes of Ordinances governing habitat
compensation and found them to meet minimum recommended habitat compensation: Monroe
County,Part II, Chapter 18, Sections 118-2 and 118-8; City of Marathon,Article 2,Chapter 106;
Village of Islamorada,Part II, Chapter 30,Article VII,Division 4, Section 30-1616; and Key West,
Part H, Subpart B, Chapter 110,Article V, Section 110-223 and Section 110-225,and Article VI,
Division 2, Section 110-287 and Division 3, Section 324 and 327. The cities of Key Colony Beach
and Layton were determined to not have ordinances that meet the minimum recommended habitat
compensation. If the participating community proposes to modify the habitat compensation
requirements of their ordinance,additional review by the Service will be necessary.
If habitat compensation is being provided in excess of the minimum recommended, the Service may
consider the additional compensation as a credit to the not-to-exceed habitat acreage losses
referenced in the BO. To be considered for credit,the compensation must be like for like habitat
compensation and credit will be granted at half value. For example,if 4 acres of additional
compensation are provided,the credit granted would be 2 acres. This partial credit is considered
appropriate as existing vegetation currently provides benefit and the credit vegetation may not
provide the same habitat benefit until later in time.
**For projects where take is subtracted,the participating community shall transmit a list of parcel
numbers and acreage of take to the Service quarterly.
Monitoring and Reporting Effects
For the Service to monitor cumulative effects and to track incidental take exempted for the indigo
snake, it is important for FEMA and the NFIP participants to monitor the number of permits and
provide information to the Service regarding the number of permits issued. In order to meet the
reporting requirements in the BO,we request that FEMA and/or the NFIP participants send to the
Service an annual database summary consisting of.project date,permit number,project acreage,
native impact acreage, amount of acres and/or number of trees/plants replaced as habitat
compensation, and project location in latitude and longitude in decimal degrees.
July 29, 2013 3
Eastern indigo snake Species Assessment Guide
Literature Cited
Cox,J. and R.S.Kautz. 2000. Habitat conservation needs for rare and imperiled wildlife in Florida.
Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, Office of Environmental Services;
Tallahassee,Florida.
Duquesnel,J. 1998. Keys invasion by alien lizards continues. Florida Department of Environmental
Protection,Florida Park Service, Resource Management Notes 10(1):9.
Monroe County. 2009. Geospatial Land Cover Dataset of the Florida Keys. Photo Science,
Incorporated. St.Petersburg,Florida
Schmidt, P.M.,R.R. Lopez,R.N. Wilkins, and N.J. Silvy. 2008. Recovery Permit#TE125517-0
Final Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Vero Beach,Florida.
Sheahan,B. 2006. Personal communication. Senior planner. Village of Islamorada,Florida.
Steiner,T.M., O.L.Bass,Jr., and J.A. Kushlan. 1983. Status of the eastern indigo snake in southern
Florida National Parks and vicinity. South Florida Research Center Report SFRC-83i0 1,
Everglades National Park;Homestead,Florida.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Eastern indigo snake observation; Little Knockemdown Key.
Email and photo provided to KDNWR,Big Pine Key,Florida.
July 29, 2013
Eastern Indigo Snake Protection Measures
It appears that harm to the eastern indigo snake occurs primarily through construction accidents,vehicular
strikes, and habitat loss and/or degradation. These adverse effects can be minimized by maintaining a careful
watch during construction and when traveling onsite to avoid killing snakes. In addition,protecting burrows
and leaving native vegetation as refugia onsite for indigo snakes displaced by construction activity can benefit
this species.
The eastern indigo snake is not likely to be adversely affected if the following measures are implemented for
the project.
1) Burrows and onsite native vegetation should be protected. If such habitat must be disturbed, limit
disturbance to a minimum and improve remaining habitat through exotic vegetation removal. Maintain
native vegetation onsite as refuges for the snake.
2) Clearing and grading activities should be performed outside high activity months(June to November).
Winter months(January to March)provide the best opportunity to initiate and complete construction
activities that will not impact this species.
3) Post informational signs containing the following information throughout the construction site and along
any proposed access road:
a) A description and picture of the eastern indigo snake, its habits,and protection under Federal Law;
b) Instructions not to injure,harass,or kill this species;
c) Directions to cease clearing activities and allow the eastern indigo snake sufficient time to move away
from the site on its own before resuming clearing; and,
d) Telephone numbers of pertinent agencies to be contacted if a dead eastern indigo snake is encountered.
Other useful educational materials may consist of a combination of posters,videos,pamphlets, and lectures
(e.g.,an observer trained to identify eastern indigo snakes could instruct construction personnel before any
clearing activities occur).
4) Monitor eastern indigo snake activity onsite. Report any eastern indigo snake observations that occur
during project activities(see monitoring report below). Document with photograph,if possible. If large
snake skins are found, they may belong to an eastern indigo snake. Skins can be collected and sent to the
Service's South Florida Ecological Services Office(attention: Monroe County FEMA Biologist,U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Office, 1339 20th Street,Vero Beach,Florida
32960) for positive identification. Provide information on the date and location collected.
Monitoring Report: A monitoring report should contain the following information: location, dates,and times
for any sightings of eastern indigo snakes. Also include the results any of burrow searches and observations.
If a snake is encountered during a burrow search,then a description of the outcome for the snake is needed.
Document by photograph,if possible. Was the snake left in an intact burrow? Was the burrow excavated? If
so,did the snake leave and where did it go? A site map with sighting locations marked would be helpful. If an
indigo snake is observed onsite a copy of the report is to be sent to the Service at the address listed above
within 60 days of the conclusion of the project.
Dead,injured,or sick animals: If a dead, injured,or sick eastern indigo snake is found onsite,notification
should be made to the Service at the address listed above. Secondary notification should be made to the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; South Region; 3900 Drane Field Road; Lakeland,FL
33811; Wildlife Alert Number 1-800-404-3922.
• ss, aai s, � � a a a o � o � o �
N
yU, p y 6> rU � 0 N
"O W U O
b
'Z a ^o O y �+
vi o 0 ,� •O y 0 S 1. Vl � U > 0 0 � O O
O
an 0
v �•+ �•+ a. y O i„ •`rn
Cd
bNcd C C a a y v0, D
sU. O y V H O +C� U O Cd sU. b N RS
14
o > > ao 3
0. Cd E-+ cd O W n a •o u co c 8 b
CL N 40 a O
p y 0
N y N .a GTi o0
bA CL O ❑ �+ ,�„ CAS N
�+ N O M c� U Pk .O 00
cd O y + r N
'b N 00 ui .O. O
a�
o cd
Z � a� O
a -d 3
cd +3
y 0 it y
0 0 0
O U b O rn ram+ cd
bQ v1 O ff' q.- C U •U Q
Cd
cd
b a a
Cd
y
p [� ^o
r..
ram+
O0 U E �+ �+
O w cc 0 Cd
Rio b°A D 14
sz
Z N
~ O O
� i c�
c4 o
y.•� V1 C4 .y. "O _wc�
� � W •�.. •bA.b a� � •� a�
ao -d cd 0
Key Largo Woodrat and Key Largo Cotton Mouse Assessment Guide
July 29, 2013
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) FEMA Biological Opinion(BO) dated April 30,
2010, and modified on December 14, 2010, identified 3,261 at-risk parcels, representing 977
acres, intersecting habitats that may occasionally be used by the endangered Key Largo woodrat
Neotoma floridana smalli and/or the endangered Key Largo cotton mouse(Peromyscus
gaossypinus allapaticola), all within unincorporated Monroe County. The BO also identified an
additional 287 acres of at-risk lands outside Monroe County's parcel layer not subject to the Rate
of Growth Ordinance(ROGO)program. In addition,the BO noted that the ROGO program
would allow for the construction of 153 new residences(with a potential for 139 associated cats);
77 residences(70 cats) in potentially suitable Key Largo woodrat and/or cotton mouse habitat
and 76 residences (69 cats) in adjacent buffer lands. New residences in the buffer areas may
have an indirect effect on predation of the Key Largo woodrat and/or cotton mouse due to
associated free-roaming cats (see Tables 19, EA-8a and EA-8b in the BO).
The at-risk properties were determined by overlaying the County's property parcel layer onto the
County's 2009 land cover boundary maps (Monroe County 2009). The County's land cover
boundary maps included 13 land cover types. Developed land,undeveloped land, impervious
surface, and exotic are considered non-native land cover types. Hammock,pineland, scrub
mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh,buttonwood,mangrove, and beach berm are
considered native land cover types. The water classification is also considered a native cover
type. The minimum mapping unit for land cover polygons was 0.35 acre for hammock and 0.5
acre for all other cover types.
The County's boundary map land cover types containing suitable habitat for the Key Largo
woodrat and cotton mouse included undeveloped land, hammock, and beach berm. Undeveloped
land and beach berm cover types were included as these mapping units could also include small
inclusions of tropical hardwood hammock. Based on the mapping,there are 413 parcels,
representing 251 acres in North Key Largo and 2,848 parcels,representing 1,013 acres in South
Key Largo.
The Key Largo woodrat and cotton mouse occupy the same area of the Keys and have nearly
identical habitat requirements. Suitable habitat is tropical hardwood hammock in North Key
Largo,north of the U.S. 1 and S.R. 905 intersection, and tropical hardwood hammock extending
south of this intersection to South Key Largo,but not including Tavernier. Although suitable
hardwood hammock exists in South Key Largo, there have been no documented occurrences of
either woodrats or cotton mice on South Key Largo in recent years.
Species Profile: The Key Largo cotton mouse builds leaf-lined nests in logs,tree hollows, and
rock crevices. The entrances measure 1.2 to 3.5 inches in diameter. The cotton mouse often
partially covers entrances with leaves or bark. Their holes are usually located at the bases of
trees, or near or in woodrat nests. They also use recently burned areas where bracken fern
(Pteridium aquilinum) dominates ground layers (Goodyear 1985).
Key Largo woodrat and Key Largo cotton mouse Species Assessment Guide
The Key Largo cotton mouse feeds on leaves, buds, seeds, and fruits. They breed throughout the
year and produce two to three litters annually. The average litter is four and the cotton mouse's
average life expectancy is 5 months. However, individuals may live for 2 to 3 years(Service
2009).
Key Largo woodrats are active climbers, seem to have definite trails, and often use fallen trees to
move over the forest floor. They, like other members of the genus Neotoma, have a habit of
building large stick nests. Woodrats construct their nests out of sticks,twigs, and various other
objects that they assemble into mounds that can reach 4 feet high and 6 to 7 feet in diameter.
They frequently build their nests against a stump, fallen tree, or boulder and may use old sheds,
abandoned cars, rock piles, and machinery as nest sites. Their nests have several entrances and a
single, central nest chamber.
Key Largo woodrats feed on a variety of leaves, buds, seeds, and fruits. They are capable of
reproducing all year, although there are seasonal peaks. Reproductive activity is highest during
the summer and lowest during the winter. Litter sizes range from one to four although a litter
typically contains two young. Females can produce two litters per year, with both sexes reaching
sexual maturity in about 5 months. The life expectancy of the Key Largo woodrat is unknown,
but is probably similar to other subspecies of N.floridana,which may live for 3 years, but
probably averages less than 1 year in the wild.
Threats: The Key Largo woodrat and cotton mouse were formerly distributed throughout Key
Largo,but are now restricted to hardwood hammocks on North Key Largo (Frank et al. 1997).
The majority of high quality hammock available on North Key Largo has been protected through
acquisition and is being managed for conservation by the Service and State of Florida. Because
of these efforts and current land use regulations in place by Monroe County,the threat of
occupied habitat loss from development on North Key Largo is low.
Contiguous tracts of hammock remain on South Key Largo,but no longer appear to support
these species (Frank et al. 1997). Brown(1978 and 1978b) and Hersh(1981) attributed the
possible extirpation of the cotton mouse in South Key Largo to land clearing and development.
In addition,predation by feral and domestic cats is also suspected(Frank et al. 1997). However,
given the historic presence of the species in this area, the secretive nature of these species and the
lack of systematic trapping on South Key Largo,the Service considers these habitats suitable and
potentially occupied.
Assessment Guide: In order to provide assistance in assessing threats to the Key Largo woodrat
and cotton mouse from a given project, the Service has developed the following guidance and
recommendations that, if implemented, will minimize adverse effects to these species. If this
guide results in a determination of"no effect,"the Service supports this determination. If this
guide results in a determination of"not likely to adversely affect" (NLAA) for these species and
a cat brochure is provided, then the Service concurs and no additional correspondence is
necessary. If the use of this guide results in a"may affect"determination, then additional
coordination with the Service is necessary prior to permit issuance. For projects that result in a
"may affect"determination, if, after reviewing the specific project and assessing its potential
effects to federally listed species, the Service determines that the project will result in take, the
July 29, 2013 2
Key Largo woodrat and Key Largo cotton mouse Species Assessment Guide
Service will notify FEMA and the acreage of impacts will be subtracted from the take limits
provided in the BO. This guide is subject to revision as necessary.
NOTE: The Service recommends that all new residences in the Key Largo woodrat and
Key Largo cotton mouse focus area or buffer, except on South Key Largo or as outlined in
couplet G(below), be subject to a covenant restriction which prohibits keeping free-
ranging cats,per Monroe County Ordinance 015-2012,Section 122-8(d)2-i**. A new
residence for which the applicant does not agree to such a restriction shall be subtracted
from the allocated residences take(couplet I).
A. Parcel is located in the species focus area, buffer area, or on the Real Estate (RE) parcel
list................................................................................................. go to B
Parcel is not in the species focus area,the buffer area, or on the RE parcel list......no effect
B. Parcel is in the species focus area in North Key Largo. The Service will examine the site-
specific parameters of the habitat and proposed development..........................may affect
Parcel is located in the buffer area(a zone extending 500 meters [1,641 feet] from the focus
area). If a parcel is mapped as being both within the species focus area and the buffer zone,
it should be wholly considered a species focus area....................................................go to F
Parcel is in South Key Largo...................................................................go to C
C. The applicant proposes no removal or modification of these species' native habitat
(hammock, beach berm, and native habitat in the undeveloped lands classification)..
........................................................................................................NLAA
The applicant proposes removal or modification of these species' native habitat (hammock,
beach berm, and native habitat in the undeveloped lands classification). A vegetation
survey is required to document the native plant species and size present on the property and
a general description of the surrounding properties within 500 feet is also required. Once
these have been completed .....................................................................................go to D
D. The property is within a developed subdivision or canal subdivision and the area within
500 feet of the parcel is greater than 60 percent developed or scarified ....................NLAA
The property is not as above and contains and/or is adjacent to contiguous tracts of this
species' native habitat greater than 1 acre in size. Further coordination with the Service is
necessary and a small mammal survey may be required...............................may affect
Native habitat (hammock, beach berm, and native habitat in the undeveloped lands
classification)will be impacted but neither of the above applies to the property........go to E
E. The applicant has proposed either on-site or off-site habitat compensation* commensurate
with the amount of native habitat lost.........................................................NLAA
July 29, 2013 3
Key Largo woodrat and Key Largo cotton mouse Species Assessment Guide
The applicant is not proposing habitat compensation* or habitat compensation* does not
meet minimum compensation requirements..............................................may affect
F. The applicant proposes the construction of a new residence and does not agree to
enforceable cat restrictions**............................................................... go to G
Proposal is for actions other than a new residence OR is for a residence with enforceable
cat restrictions**. Provide cat brochure .....................................................NLAA
G. Parcel is within a canal subdivision and is separated by a canal, open water, or US-1 from
these species' native habitat in the buffered woodrat/cotton mouse focus area OR the parcel
is adjacent to less than 1 acre of these species' native habitat in the buffered woodrat/cotton
mouse focus area. Provide cat brochure.................................................................NLAA
The parcel is not as above.....................................................................go to H
H. The new residence is proposed in the buffer area, does not result in a cumulative loss of
species habitat, and the total number of new residential permits issued in buffer lands has
not exceeded 76. Provide cat brochure..................................take exempted in BO,
additional consultation with the Service not required
The proposed new residence in the buffer exceeds the limits of take in the 2010 BO
(76 residences)............................................................................ may affect
*Habitat Compensation
The minimum recommended habitat compensation is replacement of lost vegetation through
protection or restoration of habitat, and/or monetary contributions to accomplish the
aforementioned activities, according to the participating community's land development
regulations. The Service has reviewed the following participating communities' Codes of
Ordinances governing habitat compensation and found them to meet minimum recommended
habitat compensation: Monroe County, Part II, Chapter 18, Sections 118-2 and 118-8; City of
Marathon, Article 2, Chapter 106; Village of Islamorada,Part II, Chapter 30,Article VII,
Division 4, Section 30-1616; and Key West, Part II, Subpart B, Chapter 110,Article V, Section
110-223 and Section 110-225, and Article VI, Division 2, Section 110-287 and Division 3,
Section 324 and 327. The cities of Key Colony Beach and Layton were determined to not have
ordinances that meet the minimum recommended habitat compensation. If the participating
community proposes to modify the habitat compensation requirements of their ordinance,
additional review by the Service will be necessary.
If habitat compensation is being provided in excess of the minimum recommended,the Service
may consider the additional compensation as a credit to the not-to-exceed habitat acreage losses
referenced in the BO. To be considered for credit, the compensation must be like for like habitat
compensation and credit will be granted at half value. For example, if 4 acres of additional
compensation are provided,the credit granted would be 2 acres. This partial credit is considered
July 29, 2013 4
Key Largo woodrat and Key Largo cotton mouse Species Assessment Guide
appropriate as existing vegetation currently provides benefit and the credit vegetation may not
provide the same habitat benefit until later in time.
"Enforceable Cat Restrictions
On June 20,2012,the Monroe County Board of Commissioners passed Ordinance 015-2012.
Section 122-8(d)2-i of this ordinance requires property owners applying for new construction permits
in Key Largo wood rat and Key Largo cotton mouse habitat to agree to execute and record a
covenant restriction in favor of Monroe County which prohibits keeping free-ranging cats.
Monitoring and Reporting Effects
For the Service to monitor cumulative effects and to track incidental take exempted for these
species, it is important for FEMA and the NFIP participants to monitor the number of permits
and provide information to the Service regarding the number of permits issued. In order to meet
the reporting requirements in the BO,we request that FEMA and/or the NFIP participants send
to the Service an annual database summary consisting of: project date,permit number,project
acreage,native impact acreage, amount of acres and/or number of trees/plants replaced as habitat
compensation, and project location in latitude and longitude in decimal degrees.
Literature Cited
Brown,L.N. 1978a.Key Largo cotton mouse.Pages 10-11. In: J.N. Layne(ed.)Rare and endangered
biota of Florida,Volume 1: Mammals. University Presses of Florida; Gainesville,Florida.
Brown,L.N. 1978b.Key Largo woodrat.Pages 11-12. In: J.N. Layne(ed.)Rare and endangered
biota of Florida,Volume 1: Mammals.University Presses of Florida; Gainesville,Florida.
Frank,P.A.H.F. Percival,and B.Keith. 1997. A status survey for the Key Largo woodrat and Key
Largo cotton mouse on North Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida.Unpublished report,U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service,Vero Beach,Florida.
Goodyear,N.C. 1985. Results of a study of Key Largo woodrats and cotton mice: Phase I, spring and
summer 1985.Unpublished report to North Key Largo Study Committee.
Hersh, S.L. 1981. Ecology of the Key Largo woodrat (Neotoma floridana smalli). Journal of
Mammalogy 62(1):201-206.
Monroe County. 2009. Geospatial Land Cover Dataset of the Florida Keys. Photo Science,Inc. St.
Petersburg,Florida
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009.Key largo cotton mouse, 5-year status review. Atlanta,
Georgia.
July 29, 2013 5
Key Deer Assessment Guide
July 29, 2013
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service)FEMA Biological Opinion(BO)dated April 30,
2010, and modified on December 14, 2010, identified 8,205 at-risk parcels intersecting 6,746
acres of habitats that may occasionally be used by the endangered Key deer(Odocoileus
virginianus clavium) in Monroe County, Florida. The BO also identified an additional 3,510
acres of at-risk lands outside Monroe County's parcel layer not subject to the Rate of Growth
Ordinance (ROGO)program.
The at-risk properties were determined by overlaying the County's property parcel layer onto the
County's 2009 land cover boundary maps(Monroe County 2009). The County's land cover
boundary maps included 13 land cover types. Developed land,undeveloped land, impervious
surface, and exotic are considered non-native land cover types. Hammock,pineland, scrub
mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh,buttonwood,mangrove, and beach berm are
considered native land cover types. The water classification is also considered a native cover
type. The minimum mapping unit for land cover polygons was 0.35 acre for hammock and 0.5
acre for all other cover types.
The County's boundary map land cover types containing suitable habitat for the Key deer
included all 13 land cover types. We also noted that potential habitat is present only in
unincorporated Monroe County(Lower Keys only).
Species Profile: The Key deer's historical range was thought to extend from Key Vaca to Key
West(Klimstra et al. 1978), although the current range is restricted to 20 to 26 islands within and
adjacent to the boundaries of the National Key Deer Refuge and the Great White Heron National
Wildlife Refuge. The largest concentration(about 75 percent of the overall population) is found
on Big Pine Key(Lopez et al., 2004a). The principal factor influencing the distribution and
movement of Key deer is the location and availability of freshwater. Key deer swim easily
between keys and use all islands in their range during the wet season,but suitable water is
available on only 13 of the 26 islands during the dry season(Folk 1991). Key deer use all habitat
types including pine rocklands,hardwood hammocks,buttonwood salt marshes, mangrove
wetlands, freshwater wetlands, and disturbed/developed areas (Lopez 2001). The deer use
uplands more than wetlands(Lopez et al. 2004b). Key deer use these habitats for foraging,
cover, shelter, fawning, and bedding. Pine rocklands hold freshwater year round and are
especially important to Key deer survival. About 34 percent of the range is pine rocklands and
hardwood hammocks (Lopez et al. 2004c), and over 85 percent of fawning occurs in these two
habitats(Hardin 1974). Five of 26 islands occupied by Key deer have significant pine rocklands.
Key deer also use residential and commercial areas extensively where they feed on ornamental
plants and grasses and can seek refuge from biting insects.
The greatest number of at-risk parcels(4,925 parcels or 60 percent) are on Big Pine and No
Name Keys. The Service issued a Section 10(a)(1)(B) Incidental Take Permit(ITP)to Monroe
County, Florida Department of Transportation, and Florida Department of Community Affairs in
June 2006 for adverse effects from development on Big Pine and No Name Keys. The ITP
authorizes take of 4 Key deer per year and 168 acres of Key deer habitat. The take will be
incidental to land clearing for development and recreational improvements. The Service issued
r
Key Deer Species Assessment Guide
the ITP to the applicants based upon their development of a Habitat Conservation Plan(HCP)
that sets guidelines for development activities on Big Pine and No Name Keys to occur
progressively over the permit period(20 years). The HCP provides avoidance,minimization,
and mitigation measures to offset impacts to covered species, including the Key deer. Mitigation
includes the protection of three mitigation units for each development unit of suitable habitat
within the plan area.
Threats: The principle threat to Key deer is native habitat loss and fragmentation due to
development(Klimstra et al., 1974). Fencing associated with development may cause direct Key
deer habitat loss by preventing access to areas used for breeding, feeding, and sheltering. Native
habitat that is fenced is no longer available for use by the Key deer and the fencing may block
access to other areas. Residential and commercial development over the past 20 years has
increased the number of vehicles and vehicular traffic in the Keys. This additional traffic has
increased the likelihood of Key deer/vehicle collisions
Assessment Guide: In order to provide assistance in assessing threats to the Key deer from a
given project,the Service has developed the following guidance and recommendations that, if
implemented, will minimize adverse effects to the Key deer. If the use of this guide results in a
determination of"no effect"for a particular project, the Service supports this determination. If
the use of this guide results in a determination of"not likely to adversely affect" (NLAA), the
Service concurs with this determination and no additional correspondence is necessary. If the
use of this guide results in a"may affect"determination,then additional coordination with the
Service is necessary prior to permit issuance. For projects that result in a"may affect"
determination, if, after reviewing the specific project and assessing its potential effects to
federally listed species, the Service determines that the project will result in take, the Service will
notify FEMA and the acreage of impacts will be subtracted from the take limits provided in the
BO. This guide is subject to revision as necessary.
A. Parcel is not in the species focus area and/or on the Real Estate(RE)parcel list.... no effect
Parcel is in the species focus area or on the RE parcel list.................................go to B
B. Parcel is on Big Pine Key or No Name Key...................................refer to HCP for coverage
Parcel is not on Big Pine Key or No Name Key...........................................................go to C
C. Parcel includes one of referenced permanent freshwater sources................................go to D
Notas above......................................................................................go to E
D. The applicant's proposed action does not restrict access to the referenced permanent
freshwater..................................................................................................... go to E
Not as above ................................................................................. may affect
E. Parcel contains only non-native habitat (developed land, undeveloped land, impervious
surfaces, or exotic)...............................................................................go to H
July 29, 2013 2
Key Deer Species Assessment Guide
Parcel contains native habitat(hammock,pineland, scrub mangrove, freshwater wetland,
salt marsh,buttonwood, mangrove, or beach berm)........................................go to F
F. The proposed action will not remove or modify native habitat...................................go to H
The proposed action will remove or modify native habitat. A vegetation survey is required
to document the native plant species and size present on the property and a general
description of the surrounding properties within 500 feet is also required. Once complete ...
..................................................................................................................................... .go to G
G. The property is less than 1 acre AND is not adjacent to contiguous native habitat greater
than1 acre ...................................................................................... go to H
The property is greater than 1 acre OR the property (regardless of size) is adjacent to
contiguous native habitat greater than 1 acre in size................................... may affect
H. The applicant has proposed either on-site or off-site habitat compensation* commensurate
with the amount of native habitat lost.......................................................go to I
The applicant is not proposing habitat compensation* or the proposed habitat
compensation* does not meet minimum compensation requirements...............may affect
I. The proposed action does not include fencing or includes fencing that complies with the
attached May 2012 Key deer fencing guidelines..............................................NLAA
The proposed action includes fencing that is not compliant with the attached Key deer
fencing guidelines. Habitat fragmented by non-compliant fencing will be considered a
deduction from the not-to-exceed habitat acreage losses referenced in the BO...may affect
*Habitat Compensation
The minimum recommended habitat compensation is replacement of lost vegetation through
protection or restoration of habitat, and/or monetary contributions to accomplish the
aforementioned activities, according to the participating community's land development
regulations. The Service has reviewed the following participating communities' Codes of
Ordinances governing habitat compensation and found them to meet minimum recommended
habitat compensation: Monroe County, Part II, Chapter 18, Sections 118-2 and 118-8; City of
Marathon, Article 2, Chapter 106; Village of Islamorada, Part II, Chapter 30, Article VII,
Division 4, Section 30-1616; and Key West,Part II, Subpart B, Chapter 110,Article V, Section
110-223 and Section 110-225, and Article VI, Division 2, Section 110-287 and Division 3,
Section 324 and 327. The cities of Key Colony Beach and Layton were determined to not have
ordinances that meet the minimum recommended habitat compensation. If the participating
community proposes to modify the habitat compensation requirements of their ordinance,
additional review by the Service will be necessary.
If habitat compensation is being provided in excess of the minimum recommended,the Service
may consider the additional compensation as a credit to the not-to-exceed habitat acreage losses
referenced in the BO. To be considered for credit, the compensation must be like for like habitat
compensation and credit will be granted at half value. For example, if 4 acres of additional
July 29, 2013 3
Key Deer Species Assessment Guide
compensation are provided,the credit granted would be 2 acres. This partial credit is considered
appropriate as existing vegetation currently provides benefit and the credit vegetation may not
provide the same habitat benefit until later in time.
Monitoring and Reporting Effects
For the Service to monitor cumulative effects and to track incidental take exempted for the Key deer,
it is important for FEMA and the NFIP participants to monitor the number of permits and provide
information to the Service regarding the number of permits issued. In order to meet the reporting
requirements in the BO,we request that FEMA and/or the NFIP participants send to the Service an
annual database summary consisting of.project date,permit number,project acreage,native impact
acreage, amount of acres and/or number of trees/plants replaced as habitat compensation,and project
location in latitude and longitude in decimal degrees.
Literature Cited
Folk,M.L. 1991. Habitat of the Key deer. Ph.D. Dissertation. Southern Illinois Univ., Carbondale,
Illinois.
Hardin,J.W. 1974. Behavior, socio-biology,and reproductive life history of the Florida Key deer,
Odocoileus virginianus clavium. Ph.D. Dissertation. Southern Illinois University;
Carbondale, Illinois.
Klimstra,W.D.,J.W.Hardin,and N.J. Sihey. 1978. Population ecology of Key deer. Pages 313-321.
In: P.H. Oehser and J. S.Lea(eds.)Research Reports, 1969.National Geographic Society;
Washington, D.C.
Klimstra,W.D.,J.W. Hardin,N.J. SiIvy,B.N. Jacobson, and V.A.Terpening. 1974.Key deer
investigations final report: December 1967-June 1973.U.S. DOI,Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Key Deer Refuge; Big Pine Key,Florida.
Lopez,R.R. 2001. Population ecology of Florida Key deer. Ph.D. Dissertation.Texas A&M
University, College Station,Texas.
Lopez,RR,N.1. Silvy,B.L.Pierce. P.A. Frank,M.T.Wilson, and K.M.Burke. 2004a. Population
density of the endangered Florida Key deer.Journal of Wildlife Management 68(3):570-575.
Lopez,R R.,N. 1. Silvy,B. L. Pierce,P. A.Frank,M. T. Wilson, and K. M.Burke.2004b.
Population density of the endangered Florida Key deer.Journal of Wildlife Management.
68(3):570-575.
Lopez,R.R,N.J. Silvy,RN. Wilkens,P.A. Frank,M.I. Peterson, and M.N. Peterson. 2004c.Habitat-
use patterns of Florida Key deer: implications of urban development. Journal of Wildlife
Management 68(4):900-908.
Monroe County.2009. Geospatial Land Cover Dataset of the Florida Keys.Photo Science, Inc.St.
Petersburg,Florida
July 29, 2013 4
Key Deer Species Assessment Guide
KEY DEER FENCING GUIDELINES
May 2012
The Key deer is a federally-listed endangered species endemic to the Lower Florida Keys. Loss
of habitat is the major threat to the future of the Key deer. Nearly half of the islands in the range
of the deer are currently inhabited by people, and eight have large subdivisions and commercial
areas. Habitat degradation and fragmentation have reduced the Key deer's distribution and
affected behavior. Habitat fragmentation from fencing and development restricts deer
movements, creating bottlenecks that interfere with their ability to reach permanent water and
feeding areas and often forcing them to cross roads in areas of heavy traffic where they are
susceptible to roadkill. Vehicular strikes are the greatest known source of deer deaths, and
typically account for about 70 percent of all known deaths.
Fencing of private property throughout the range of the Key deer is currently regulated by the
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulation(114-20),with more
stringent rules in effect for Big Pine and No Name Keys(114-20(3)). Specific deer-friendly
design standards are incorporated in the code and include fence setbacks from roadways and
maximum fencing allowances under various zoning and habitat conditions. As fencing of private
lands throughout the range of the Key deer proceeds, comprehensive fencing guidelines are
needed that recognize the needs of the private citizens and the cumulative impacts of fencing on
the Key deer herd.
To this end, we are applying the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development
Regulation below, in its entirety, to Big Pine and No Name Keys. For other islands with parcels
that fall within the Key deer focus area but outside of Big Pine and No Name Keys,we are only
applying items c. through f, of Sec. 114-20(3) (below). Only a minor segment of the Key deer
population(about 10%) occurs outside of Big Pine and No Name Keys, and there are no prior
records of negative fencing effects on Key deer on other islands where habitat occurs in large,
native patches and is less likely to be fragmented by fencing.
Monroe County Big Pine and No Name Keys Fencing Regulations 114-20(3)
Sec. 114-20(3).Big Pine and No Name Key.
The purpose of this section is to recognize and provide for the particular habitat needs of the
Florida Key Deer(Odocoileus virginianus clavium) on Big Pine Key and No Name Key so that
deer movement throughout Big Pine Key and No Name Key is not hindered while allowing for
reasonable use of minimal fencing for the purposes of safety and protection of property. In
addition to all other standards set forth in this section,all fences located on Big Pine Key and No
Name Key shall meet the standards of this subsection as listed below:
a. In the improved subdivision(IS)land use district,fences shall be set back as follows:
1. On canal lots,fences shall be set back at least 15 feet from the edge of abutting
street rights-of-way;and built to the edge of all other property lines or as approved
through a U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service coordination letter;and
July 29, 2013 5
Key Deer Species Assessment Guide
2. On all other lots,fences shall be set back at least 15 feet from the edge of abutting
street rights-of-way,at least five feet from side property lines and at least ten feet
from the rear property line,or as approved through a U.S.Fish and Wildlife
Service coordination letter.
b. In all other land use districts,fences may enclose up to a maximum of and not to exceed
the net buildable area of the parcel only.
C. Enclosure of the freshwater wetlands by fences is prohibited.
d. All fences shall be designed and located such that Key Deer access to native habitat,
including pinelands,hammocks,beach berms,salt marshes,buttonwoods and mangroves
is maintained wherever possible.
e. All fences shall be designed and located such that Key Deer corridors,as identified by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,shall be maintained.
f Fences shall not be permitted without a principal use except where the enclosed area
consists of disturbed lands or disturbed land with exotics.
July 29, 2013
Schaus Swallowtail Butterfly Assessment Guide
July 29,2013
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's(Service) FEMA Biological Opinion(BO) dated April 30,
2010, and modified on December 14,2010, identified 4,312 at-risk parcels representing 1,414
acres, intersecting habitats that may be used by the endangered Schaus swallowtail butterfly
(Heraclides aristodemus ponceanus) in Monroe County. Specifically, we noted that potential
habitat is present in unincorporated Monroe County and in the Village of Islamorada. There are
411 parcels with potential habitat representing 247 acres, in North Key Largo; 2,846 parcels,
representing 725 acres, in South Key Largo; and 1,055 parcels, representing 442 acres, in
Islamorada. The BO also identified an additional 349 acres of at-risk lands outside of Monroe
County's parcel layer not subject to the Rate of Growth Ordinance program.
The at-risk properties were determined by overlaying the County's property parcel layer onto the
County's 2009 land cover boundary maps(Monroe County 2009). The County's land cover
boundary maps included 13 land cover types. Developed land,undeveloped land, impervious
surface, and exotic are considered non-native land cover types. Hammock,pineland, scrub
mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh, buttonwood,mangrove, and beach berm are
considered native land cover types. The water classification is also considered a native cover
type. The minimum mapping unit for land cover polygons was 0.35 acre for hammock and 0.5
acre for all other cover types.
The County's boundary map land cover types containing suitable habitat for the Schaus
swallowtail butterfly include undeveloped land,hammock, and beach berm. Undeveloped land
and beach berm cover types were included as these mapping units could also include small
inclusions of tropical hardwood hammock.
Species Profile: The Schaus swallowtail butterfly is a large blackish-brown swallowtail butterfly
with contrasting markings that are mostly dull yellow (Klots 1951,Pyle 1981, Opler and Krizek
1984). This subspecies is most easily confused with the giant swallowtail(Papilio cresphontes),
which is widespread in eastern North America and occurs in habitat occupied by the Schaus
swallowtail butterfly. Although 30 different wild plant species may be exploited as a nectaring
food source (Emmel 1988, 1995a), only torchwood(Amyris elemifera) and wild lime
(Zanthoxylum fagara) are known to be used by larvae for development. Nectaring activity
usually occurs on blossoms of wild coffee(Psychotria nervosa), guava(Psidium guajava), or
cheese shrub (Morinda royoc), also known as yellowroot. Adults may fly in clearings and along
roads and trails, or even out over the ocean for short distances (Rutkowski 1971, Brown 1973),
but typically remain in the hammocks proper and rarely feed in areas open to direct sunlight
(Service 1982, Rutkowski 1971).
Suitable habitat for the Schaus swallowtail butterfly is tropical hardwood hammock in the
northern Keys(north Key Largo through Upper Matecumbe Key). Within this area,the Schaus
swallowtail appears to be restricted to northern Key Largo, as well as a few islands within
Biscayne National Park. However,potential suitable habitat within the subspecies' historic
range extends southward to the Matecumbe Keys in Islamorada. Schaus swallowtail butterflies
have rarely been reported south of northern Key Largo in recent years,but occurrence has not
Schaus swallowtail butterfly Species Assessment Guide
been assessed on a frequent or widespread basis (Service 2008). The amount of suitable habitat
undoubtedly fluctuates depending on hurricanes, wildfires, and subsequent vegetation
succession,but the primary upland habitat is hardwood hammocks.
Threats: Contiguous tracts of hammock remain on South Key Largo and portions of Upper
Matecumbe Key,but no longer appear to support the Schaus swallowtail butterfly(Salvato,
personal communication, 2006). However,the Service considers these habitats potentially
suitable for this subspecies. The reasons these lands likely no longer support the subspecies are
not known. A wide array of factors may be contributing to their absence including use of
mosquito control pesticides (Service 2008). Prior to human influences,populations of this
butterfly were probably subject to naturally occurring population depressions caused by
hurricane damage, drought, and rare freezes(Covell 1976).
Assessment Guide: In order to provide assistance in assessing threats to the Schaus swallowtail
butterfly, the Service has developed the following guidance and recommendations that, if
implemented,will minimize adverse effects to the Schaus swallowtail butterfly. If the use of this
guide results in a determination of"no effect"for a particular project, the Service supports this
determination. If the use of this guide results in a determination of"not likely to adversely
affect"(NLAA) for the Schaus swallowtail butterfly, the Service concurs with this determination
and no additional correspondence is necessary. If the use of this guide results in a"may affect"
determination, then additional coordination with the Service is necessary prior to permit
issuance. For projects that result in a"may affect"determination, if, after reviewing the specific
project and assessing its potential effects to federally listed species, the Service determines that
the project will result in take,the Service will notify FEMA and the acreage of impacts will be
subtracted from the take limits provided in the BO. This guide is subject to revision as
necessary.
A. Parcel is not in the species focus area or on the Real Estate(RE)parcel list..........no effect
Parcel is in the species focus area or is on the RE parcel list.................................go to B
B. The applicant proposes no removal or modification of the Schaus swallowtail butterfly's
native habitat (i.e., beach berm, hammock, and native habitat in the undeveloped lands
classification)......................................................................................NLAA
The applicant proposes removal or modification of the Schaus swallowtail butterfly's
native habitat. A vegetation survey is required to document the native plant species and
size present on the property and a general description of the surrounding properties within
500 feet is also required.........................................................................go to C
C. The property is in North Key Largo. The Service will examine the site-specific parameters
of the habitat and proposed development...............................................may affect
The property is in South Key Largo or Islamorada........................................go to D
D. The property is within a developed subdivision or canal subdivision and the area within
500 feet of the parcel is greater than 60 percent developed or scarified ................NLAA
July 29, 2013 2
Schaus swallowtail butterfly Species Assessment Guide
Not as above..................................................................................... go to E
E. The vegetation survey documents the presence of torchwood and/or wild lime, and any of
the above referenced nectaring food source plant species (wild coffee, guava, or cheese
shrub/yellowroot) and the parcel is adjacent to contiguous tracts of this species' native
habitat greater than 1 acre in size .........................................................may affect
The property is not as above .......................................................................................go to F
F. The property is less than 1 acre and/or is not adjacent to contiguous native habitat greater
than 1 acre. The applicant has proposed either on-site or off-site habitat compensation*
commensurate with the amount of native habitat lost. Permit with habitat
compensation*.................................................................................... NLAA
The property contains and/or is adjacent to contiguous native habitat greater than 1 acre in
size AND/OR the applicant is not proposing habitat compensation* or the proposed habitat
compensation* does not meet minimum compensation requirements............ may affect
*Habitat Compensation
The minimum recommended habitat compensation is replacement of lost vegetation through
protection or restoration of habitat, and/or monetary contributions to accomplish the
aforementioned activities, according to the participating community's land development
regulations. The Service has reviewed the following participating communities' Codes of
Ordinances governing habitat compensation and found them to meet minimum recommended
habitat compensation: Monroe County, Part II, Chapter 18, Sections 118-2 and 118-8; City of
Marathon, Article 2, Chapter 106; Village of Islamorada, Part II, Chapter 30,Article VII,
Division 4, Section 30-1616; and Key West, Part II, Subpart B, Chapter 110, Article V, Section
110-223 and Section 110-225, and Article VI, Division 2, Section 110-287 and Division 3,
Section 324 and 327. The cities of Key Colony Beach and Layton were determined to not have
ordinances that meet the minimum recommended habitat compensation. If the participating
community proposes to modify the habitat compensation requirements of their ordinance,
additional review by the Service will be necessary.
If habitat compensation is being provided in excess of the minimum recommended,the Service
may consider the additional compensation as a credit to the not-to-exceed habitat acreage losses
referenced in the BO. To be considered for credit, the compensation must be like for like habitat
compensation and credit will be granted at half value. For example, if 4 acres of additional
compensation are provided, the credit granted would be 2 acres. This partial credit is considered
appropriate as existing vegetation currently provides benefit and the credit vegetation may not
provide the same habitat benefit until later in time.
July 29, 2013 3
Schaus swallowtail butterfly Species Assessment Guide
Monitoring and Reporting Effects
For the Service to monitor cumulative effects and to track incidental take exempted for the
Schaus swallowtail butterfly, it is important for FEMA and the NFIP participants to monitor the
number of permits and provide information to the Service regarding the number of permits
issued. In order to meet the reporting requirements in the BO,we request that FEMA and/or the
NFIP participants send to the Service an annual database summary consisting of. project date,
permit number,project acreage,native impact acreage, amount of acres and/or number of
trees/plants replaced as habitat compensation,and project location in latitude and longitude in
decimal degrees.
Literature Cited
Brown,L.N. 1973. Populations of Papilio andraemon bonhotei Sharpe and Papilio aristodemus
ponceanus Schaus in Biscayne National Monument Florida. Journal of the
Lepidopterists' Society 27(2):136-140.
Covell, C.V.,Jr. 1976. The Schaus swallowtail: a threatened subspecies? Insect World Digest
3(59):21-26.
Emmel,T. C. 1985. Status survey of the Schaus swallowtail in Florida in 1984. Technical Report
No. 145, Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Florida,
Gainesville.
Emmel,T.C. 1986. Status survey and habitat requirements of Florida's endemic Schaus
swallowtail butterfly. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Final Report
GFC-84-028. Tallahassee.
Emmel,T.C. 1988. Habitat requirements and status of the endemic Schaus swallowtail in the
Florida Keys. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, nongame Wildlife
Section; Tallahassee,Florida.
Emmel, T. C. 1995. Designated species management plan for the reintroduction of the Schaus
swallowtail butterfly in the Florida Keys. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Klots, A.B. 1951. A field guide to the butterflies of North America east of the Great Plains.
Houghton Mifflin Co.; Boston, MA.
Monroe County. 2009. Geospatial Land Cover Dataset of the Florida Keys. Photo Science, Inc.
St. Petersburg,Florida
Opler,P.A. and G.N. Krizek. 1984. Butterflies east of the Great Plains. Johns Hopkins Univ.
Press, Baltimore, MD.
July 29, 2013 4
Schaus swallowtail butterfly Species Assessment Guide
Pyle, R.M. 1981. The Audubon Society field guide to North American butterflies. Chanticleer;
New York,New York.
Rutkowski, F. 1971. Observations on Papilio aristodemus ponceanus(Papilionidae). Journal of
the Lepidopterists' Society. 25(2):126-136.
Salvato M., Personal communication. 2006. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Vero Beach,
Florida
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Schaus Swallowtail Butterfly Recovery Plan. Atlanta,
Georgia.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Schaus swallowtail butterfly, 5-year status review,
Atlanta, Georgia
July 29, 2013 5
Key Tree-Cactus Assessment Guide
July 29, 2013
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's(Service) FEMA Biological Opinion(BO) dated April 30,
2010, and modified on December 14, 2010, identified 5,607 at-risk parcels, representing 2,322
acres, intersecting habitats that may support populations of endangered Key tree-cactus
(Pilosocereus robinii) in Monroe County. There are 1,725 acres and 4,101 at-risk parcels in
unincorporated Monroe County; 300 acres and 779 parcels in Islamorada; 5 acres and 5 parcels
in Key Colony Beach; 43 acres and 102 parcels in Key West; less than 1 acre and 1 parcel in
Layton; and 249 acres and 579 parcels in Marathon. The BO also identified an additional 436
acres of at-risk lands outside Monroe County's parcel layer not subject to the Rate of Growth
Ordinance program.
The at-risk properties were determined by overlaying the County's property parcel layer onto the
County's 2009 land cover boundary maps(Monroe County 2009). The County's land cover
boundary maps included 13 land cover types. Developed land,undeveloped land, impervious
surface, and exotic are considered non-native land cover types. Hammock,pineland, scrub
mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh,buttonwood, mangrove,and beach berm are
considered native land cover types. The water classification is also considered a native cover
type. The minimum mapping unit for land cover polygons was 0.35 acre for hammock and 0.5
acre for all other cover types.
The County's boundary map land cover types containing suitable habitat for the Key tree-cactus
include hammock and beach berm. Beach berm cover types were included as this mapping unit
could also include small inclusions of tropical hardwood hammock.
Species Profile: As of 2009,the known distribution of this species is restricted to seven
populations on four islands of the Florida Keys including Big Pine Key, Long Key, Lower
Matecumbe Key, and Upper Matecumbe Key(Adams and Lima 1994; Service 1999; Maschinski
2009; Florida Natural Areas Inventory 2008). Six of seven populations are located on lands
protected through acquisition or agreements (Maschinski et al. 2009). One is located on private,
developable property currently used for aquaculture.
Long distance dispersal and establishment of new tree-cactus populations are dependent upon the
production of seed. However, reproduction within a single population(a clump) is mostly, if not
entirely, vegetative(asexual). Seed dispersal by birds (Cardinalis cardinalis, for example) is
indicated for this species (Austin 1980). Given the Key tree-cactus' preference for naturally
disturbed patches of hammock and the fact that these patches are subject to change as a result of
natural succession and disturbance events,predicting where a new population may be found is
problematic.
The preferred habitat for the Key tree-cactus is naturally disturbed patches in hammock(Avery
[no date], Small 1917, 1921). It grows only on lightly shaded,upland sites on a limerock
substrate. This habitat is not common in the Florida Keys, and, furthermore, is transient in
nature. The location and number of these patches changes with time as disturbed areas re-grow
and new sites are disturbed(e.g., from tropical weather events). The primary cause for the
cactus' rarity seems to be its rather restrictive habitat requirements.
Key tree-cactus Species Assessment Guide
Threats: In the Florida Keys, the primary threat to the Key tree-cactus is native habitat loss and
fragmentation due to development, although much of the suitable protected habitat is currently
unoccupied. Natural disasters such as hurricanes and drought can have a significant effect.
Assessment Guide: In order to provide assistance in assessing threats to the Key tree-cactus from
a given project,the Service has developed the following guidance and recommendations that, if
implemented,will minimize adverse effects to the species. If the use of this guide results in a
determination of"no effect"for a particular project, the Service supports this determination. If
the use of this guide results in a determination of"not likely to adversely affect"(NLAA) for the
Key tree-cactus,the Service concurs with this determination and no additional correspondence is
necessary. If the use of this guide results in a"may affect"determination,then additional
coordination with the Service is necessary prior to permit issuance. For projects that result in a
"may affect"determination, if, after reviewing the specific project and assessing its potential
effects to federally listed species,the Service determines that the project will result in take,the
Service will notify FEMA and the acreage of impacts will be subtracted from the take limits
provided in the BO. This guide is subject to revision as necessary.
A. Parcel is not in the species focus area and/or on the Real Estate(RE)parcel list.....no effect
Parcel is in the species focus area or is on the RE parcel list.................................go to B
B. The applicant proposes no removal or modification of the Key tree-cactus' native habitat
(i.e., hammock or beach berm).................................................................NLAA
The applicant proposes removal or modification of the Key tree-cactus' native habitat (i.e.,
hammock or beach berm). A vegetation survey is required to document plant species and
size present prior to construction impact. A general description of the surrounding
properties within 500 feet is also required..................................................................go to C
C. The Key tree-cactus is not present on the property.........................................NLAA
The Key tree-cactus is present on the property........................................ may affect
Habitat Compensation
The minimum recommended habitat compensation is replacement of lost vegetation through
protection or restoration of habitat, and/or monetary contributions to accomplish the
aforementioned activities, according to the participating community's land development
regulations. The Service has reviewed the following participating communities' Codes of
Ordinances governing habitat compensation and found them to meet minimum recommended
habitat compensation: Monroe County,Part II, Chapter 18, Sections 118-2 and 118-8; City of
Marathon, Article 2, Chapter 106; Village of Islamorada,Part II, Chapter 30,Article VII,
Division 4, Section 30-1616; and Key West, Part II, Subpart B, Chapter 110,Article V, Section
110-223 and Section 110-225, and Article VI,Division 2, Section 110-287 and Division 3,
Section 324 and 327. The cities of Key Colony Beach and Layton were determined to not have
ordinances that meet the minimum recommended habitat compensation. If the participating
July 29, 2013 2
Key tree-cactus Species Assessment Guide
community proposes to modify the habitat compensation requirements of their ordinance,
additional review by the Service will be necessary.
If habitat compensation is being provided in excess of the minimum recommended, the Service
may consider the additional compensation as a credit to the not-to-exceed habitat acreage losses
referenced in the BO. To be considered for credit,the compensation must be like for like habitat
compensation and credit will be granted at half value. For example, if 4 acres of additional
compensation are provided, the credit granted would be 2 acres. This partial credit is considered
appropriate as existing vegetation currently provides benefit and the credit vegetation may not
provide the same habitat benefit until later in time.
Monitoring and Reporting Effects
The"take" (removal)of plants on private property is not a violation of the Act(unless State law
also prohibits take). Therefore, authorization to"take"plants on private property is not required
under section 10(a)(1)(B)nor exempted under section 7. However, Federal agencies are required
under section 7(a)(2)to make sure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of
listed plants. Therefore, to monitor the Key tree-cactus populations and avoid jeopardy to the
species from FEMA's actions,the Service, in coordination with FEMA,will monitor the amount
of habitat impacted by proposed actions as a surrogate for avoiding jeopardy of the Key tree-
cactus.
For the Service to monitor cumulative effects for the Key tree-cactus, it is important for FEMA
and the NFIP participants to monitor the number of permits and provide information to the
Service regarding the number of permits. In order to meet the reporting requirements in the BO,
we request that FEMA and/or the NFIP participants send to the Service an annual database
summary consisting of. project date,permit number,project acreage,native impact acreage,
amount of acres and/or number of trees/plants replaced as habitat compensation, and project
location in latitude and longitude in decimal degrees.
Literature Cited
Adams, R.M. and A. X. Lima. 1994. The natural history of the Florida Keys tree cactus,
Pilosocereus robinii. Unpublished Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
Jacksonville,Florida.
Austin, D.F. 1980. Cereus robinii var. robinii and Cereus robinii var. deeringii. In:
D.F. Austin, C.E. Naumann, and B.E. Tat (eds.) Endangered and threatened plant species
survey in Southern Florida and the National Key Deer and Great White Heron National
Wildlife Refuges. U.S. DOI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Office;
Atlanta, Georgia.
Florida Natural Areas Inventory(FNAI). 2008. Element Tracking Summary. Tallahassee,
Florida.
July 29, 2013 3
Key tree-cactus Species Assessment Guide
Maschinski, J.,J.L. Goodman, and D. Powell. 2009. Assessment of Population Status and Causes
of Decline for Pilosocereus robinii(Lem.) Byles &G.D. Rowley in the Florida Keys. Final
Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Office, Vero
Beach, FL.
Monroe County. 2009. Geospatial Land Cover Dataset of the Florida Keys. Photo Science, Inc.St.
Petersburg,Florida
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. South Florida multi-species recovery plan. Atlanta,
Georgia.
July 29, 2013
Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit Assessment Guide
July 29,2013
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's(Service) FEMA Biological Opinion(BO)dated April 30,
2010, and modified on December 14, 2010, identified 3,710 at-risk parcels,representing 4,331
acres, intersecting habitats that may occasionally be used by the endangered Lower Keys marsh
rabbit(LKMR; Sylvilagus palustris hefneri)in Monroe County. The BO also identified an
additional 1,427 acres of at-risk lands outside Monroe County's parcel layer not subject to the
Rate of Growth Ordinance(ROGO)program. In addition, the BO noted that the ROGO program
would allow for the construction of 871 new residences (with a potential for 787 associated cats);
296 residences(268 cats) in potentially suitable LKMR habitat and 575 residences(520 cats)in
adjacent buffer lands. New residences in the buffer areas may have an indirect effect on
predation of the LKMR due to associated free-roaming cats (see Tables 19, EA-1 la and EA-1 lb
in the BO).
The at-risk properties were determined by overlaying the County's property parcel layer onto the
County's 2009 land cover boundary maps(Monroe County 2009). The County's land cover
boundary maps included 13 land cover types. Developed land,undeveloped land, impervious
surface, and exotic are considered non-native land cover types. Hammock,pineland, scrub
mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh,buttonwood,mangrove, and beach berm are
considered native land cover types. The water classification is also considered a native cover
type. The minimum mapping unit for land cover polygons was 0.35 acre for hammock and 0.5
acre for all other cover types.
The County's boundary map land cover types containing suitable habitat for the LKMR included
pinelands, scrub mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh,buttonwood, and beach berm. We
also noted that potential habitat is present only in unincorporated Monroe County(Lower Keys
only).
Species Profile: The LKMR's historic range extended from Big Pine Key to Key West,
encompassing a linear distance of about 30 miles. It occurs on some of the larger keys from
Boca Chica,just north of Key West, to Big Pine Key. The LKMR is habitat specific, depending
upon a transition zone of grasses and sedges for feeding, shelter, and nesting. The majority of
potential suitable habitat areas lie in transitional zones between marine environments and
uplands. The current population estimate is about 500 rabbits in the Lower Florida Keys(Perry,
personal communication, 2006). Although habitat loss is responsible for the original decline of
the LKMR,high mortality from predation from feral cats has also occurred and may be the
greatest current threat. Feral cat control is an ongoing operation on Naval Air Station Key West
(NASKW) and lands within the National Key Deer Refuge(NKDR). However, feral cat control
activities outside NASKW and the NKDR are unknown.
Typical LKMR habitat includes wetlands with a dense herbaceous cover that is dominated by a
mixture of grasses, sedges, and forbs. This community is considered a transitional plant
community that is similar in form and species composition to comparable communities
interspersed among the mangrove forests of mainland Florida(Forys and Humphrey 1994).
Forys(1995) concluded that marsh rabbits spend most of their time in the mid-marsh(seaside
Lower Keys marsh rabbit Species Assessment Guide
oxeye) and high-marsh(cordgrasses and marsh fimbry) and avoid areas with mature
buttonwoods and high canopy cover.
Marsh rabbits have been documented to feed on at least 19 different plant species (Forys 1995).
However,the most abundant species in the rabbit's diet is seashore dropseed, glassworts,
cordgrass, seaside oxeye, red mangrove, and white mangrove.
Marsh rabbits are sexually mature at about 9 months of age. During this time, the majority of the
males disperse. Sexually maturing females are not as likely as males to disperse. Like other
marsh rabbit subspecies, LKMRs are polygamous, and generally breed throughout the year
(Holler and Conway 1979). Although LKMRs do not display an apparent seasonal breeding
pattern(Service 1994),the highest proportion of females with litters occurs in March and
September; the lowest proportion occurs in April and December.
The Service issued a Section 10(a)(1)(B) Incidental Take Permit(ITP)to Monroe County,
Florida Department of Transportation, and Florida Department of Community Affairs
(applicants) in June 2006 for adverse effects from development on Big Pine and No Name Keys.
The ITP was issued to the applicants based upon their development of a Habitat Conservation
Plan(HCP)that sets guidelines for development activities on Big Pine and No Name Keys to
occur progressively over the permit period(20 years). The take will be incidental to land
clearing for development and recreational improvements. The HCP provides avoidance,
minimization, and mitigation measures to offset impacts to covered species. Mitigation includes
the protection of three mitigation units for each development unit of suitable habitat within the
plan area.
The HCP includes specific development restrictions in LKMR habitat and within a 1,640-foot
(500 meter)buffer surrounding this habitat. The distance of 1,640-feet is based on the use of
upland areas by this species and the estimated distance domestic cats will travel from their
homes(Frank,personal communication, 1996). The ITP does not authorize incidental take of
suitable marsh rabbit habitat,but does authorize incidental take of up to 40 acres of buffer lands
surrounding suitable marsh rabbit habitat. Since incidental take of suitable marsh rabbit habitat
was not exempted in the Big Pine and No Name HCP,the potential direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects of NFIP actions on at-risk marsh rabbit habitat were addressed in the 2010
FEMA BO.
Threats: The LKMR is vulnerable to predation by free-roaming cats, habitat loss and
degradation, fire suppression, vehicular traffic,hurricanes, sea level rise, fire ants, and exotic
constrictor snakes. The greatest threats to the continued existence of the LKMR are predation by
cats,habitat loss and degradation, and hurricanes (Service 2007). These threats not only directly
affect the viability of local subpopulations,but also reduce the probability of successful dispersal
among the increasingly fragmented habitats. Connectivity among suitable habitat patches is
necessary for LKMR dispersal among patches (Forys and Humphrey 1999), and dispersal is a
necessary process if rabbit metapopulations are to remain self-sustainable.
Assessment Guide: In order to provide assistance in assessing threats to the LKMR from a given
project, the Service has developed the following guidance and recommendations that, if
July 29, 2013 2
Lower Keys marsh rabbit Species Assessment Guide
implemented,will minimize adverse effects to this species. If this guide results in a
determination of"no effect,"the Service supports this determination. If this guide results in a
determination of"not likely to adversely affect"(NLAA)for these species and a cat brochure is
provided, then the Service concurs and no additional correspondence is necessary. If the use of
this guide results in a"may affect"determination, then additional coordination with the Service
is necessary prior to permit issuance. For projects that result in a"may affect"determination, if,
after reviewing the specific project and assessing its potential effects to federally listed species,
the Service determines that the project will result in take,the Service will notify FEMA and the
acreage of impacts will be subtracted from the take limits provided in the BO. This guide is
subject to revision as necessary.
NOTE: The Service recommends that all new residences in the LKMR focus area or
buffer, except as outlined in couplet G(below),be subject to a covenant restriction which
prohibits keeping free-ranging cats, per Monroe County Ordinance 015-2012,Section 122-
8(d)2-i**. A new residence for which the applicant does not agree to such a restriction
shall be subtracted from the allocated residences take(couplet H).
A. Parcel is located in the species focus area or on the Real Estate(RE)parcel list........go to B
Parcel is located in the buffer area(a zone extending 500 meters [1,641 feet] from the focus
area). If a parcel is mapped as being both within the species focus area and the buffer zone,
it should be wholly considered as being in the species focus area...............................go to F
Parcel is not in the species focus area,the buffer area, or on the RE parcel list...no effect
B. Parcel is on Big Pine Key or No Name Key.................................. refer to HCP for coverage
Parcel is not on Big Pine Key or No Name Key....................................................go to C
C. The applicant proposes no removal or modification of this species' native habitat
(pinelands, scrub mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh, buttonwood, and beach
berm).........................................................................................................................go to F
The applicant proposes removal or modification of this species' native habitat (pinelands,
scrub mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh, buttonwood, and beach berm). A
vegetation survey is required to document the native plant species and size present on the
property and a general description of the surrounding properties within 500 feet is also
required. Once these have been completed................................................... go to D
D. The property is within a developed subdivision or canal subdivision and the area within
500 feet of the parcel is greater than 60 percent developed or scarified ................ go to F
The property is not as above, and contains and/or is adjacent to contiguous tracts of this
species' native habitat greater than 1 acre in size. Further coordination with the Service is
necessary and a small mammal survey may be required...............................may affect
July 29, 2013 3
Lower Keys marsh rabbit Species Assessment Guide
Native habitat (pinelands, scrub mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh, buttonwood,
and beach berm)will be impacted,but neither of the above applies to the property...go to E
E. The applicant has proposed either on-site or off-site habitat compensation* commensurate
with the amount of native habitat lost...................................................... go to F
The applicant is not proposing habitat compensation* or habitat compensation* does not
meet minimum compensation requirements..............................................may affect
F. The applicant proposes the construction of a new residence and does not agree to
enforceable cat restrictions**................................................................go to G
Proposal is for actions other than a new residence OR is for a residence with enforceable
cat restrictions**. Provide cat brochure .....................................................NLAA
G. Parcel is within a canal subdivision and is separated by a canal, open water, and/or US-1
from this species' native habitat in the buffered LKMR focus area OR the parcel is adjacent
to less than 1 acre of this species' native habitat in the buffered LKMR focus area. Provide
catbrochure............................................................................................................NLAA
The parcel is not as above.................................................................. go to H
H. The new residence is proposed in the species focus area, does not result in a cumulative
loss of species habitat, and the total of new residential permits issued in the focus area
lands has not exceeded 296. Provide cat brochure........take exempted in BO, additional
consultation with the Service not required
The new residence is proposed in the buffer area and the total number of new residential
permits issued in buffer lands has not exceeded 575. Provide cat brochure.
......................take exempted in BO, additional consultation with the Service not required
The proposed new residence exceeds the limits of take in the 2010 BO (296 residences in
the focus area, 575 residences in buffer lands)........................................may affect
*Habitat Compensation
The minimum recommended habitat compensation is replacement of lost vegetation through
protection or restoration of habitat, and/or monetary contributions to accomplish the
aforementioned activities, according to the participating community's land development
regulations. The Service has reviewed the following participating communities' Codes of
Ordinances governing habitat compensation and found them to meet minimum recommended
habitat compensation: Monroe County, Part II, Chapter 18, Sections 118-2 and 118-8; City of
Marathon,Article 2, Chapter 106; Village of Islamorada, Part II, Chapter 30, Article VII,
Division 4, Section 30-1616; and Key West,Part II, Subpart B, Chapter 110, Article V, Section
110-223 and Section 110-225, and Article VI, Division 2, Section 110-287 and Division 3,
Section 324 and 327. The cities of Key Colony Beach and Layton were determined to not have
July 29, 2013 4
Lower Keys marsh rabbit Species Assessment Guide
ordinances that meet the minimum recommended habitat compensation. If the participating
community proposes to modify the habitat compensation requirements of their ordinance,
additional review by the Service will be necessary.
If habitat compensation is being provided in excess of the minimum recommended, the Service
may consider the additional compensation as a credit to the not-to-exceed habitat acreage losses
referenced in the BO. To be considered for credit,the compensation must be like for like habitat
compensation and credit will be granted at half value. For example, if 4 acres of additional
compensation are provided, the credit granted would be 2 acres. This partial credit is considered
appropriate as existing vegetation currently provides benefit and the credit vegetation may not
provide the same habitat benefit until later in time.
"Enforceable Cat Restrictions
On June 20,2012,the Monroe County Board of Commissioners passed Ordinance 015-2012.
Section 122-8(d)2-i of this ordinance requires property owners applying for new construction permits
in LKMR habitat to agree to execute and record a covenant restriction in favor of Monroe County
which prohibits keeping free-ranging cats.
Monitoring and Reporting Effects
For the Service to monitor cumulative effects and to track incidental take exempted for the
LKMR, it is important for FEMA and the NFIP participants to monitor the number of permits
and provide information to the Service regarding the number of permits issued. In order to meet
the reporting requirements in the BO, we request that FEMA and/or the NFIP participants send
to the Service an annual database summary consisting of: project date,permit number,project
acreage, native impact acreage, amount of acres and/or number of trees/plants replaced as habitat
compensation, and project location in latitude and longitude in decimal degrees.
Literature Cited
Forys, E.A. 1995. Metapopulations of marsh rabbits: a population viability analysis of the Lower
Keys rabbit(Sylvilagus palustris hefneri). Ph.D. Thesis. University of Florida;
Gainesville, Florida.
Forys, E.A. and S.R. Humphrey. 1994. Biology and status of the Lower Keys marsh rabbit.
Final Report, Contract No.N62467-90-C-0766. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission, Tallahassee, Florida.
Forys, E.A. and S.R. Humphrey. 1999. Use of population viability analysis to evaluate
management options for the endangered Lower Keys marsh rabbit. Journal of Wildlife
Management 63:251-260.
Frank, P. 1996. Personal Communication. Biologist. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission,Cudjoe Key, Florida
July 29, 2013 5
Lower Keys marsh rabbit Species Assessment Guide
Holler,N.R. and C.H. Conaway. 1979. Reproduction of the marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris) in
South Florida. Journal of Mammalogy 60:768-777.
Monroe County. 2009. Geospatial Land Cover Dataset of the Florida Keys. Photo Science, Inc.
St. Petersburg, Florida
Perry,N.D. 2006. Personal communication. Texas A&M University. College Station.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Recovery Plan for the Lower Keys marsh rabbit. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service;Atlanta, Georgia.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Biological Opinion. Big Pine and No Name Keys Habitat
Conservation Plan. Monroe County, Florida. Atlanta, Georgia.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Lower Keys marsh rabbit, 5-year status review. Atlanta,
Georgia.
July 29, 2013 6
Silver Rice Rat Assessment Guide
July 29, 2013
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) FEMA Biological Opinion(BO)dated April 30,
2010, and modified on December 14,2010, identified 3,985 at-risk parcels, representing 4,134
acres, intersecting habitats that may occasionally be used by the endangered silver rice rat(rice
rat) (OrEzomys palustris natator f O. argentatuA in Monroe County. The BO also identified
an additional 3,358 acres of at-risk lands outside Monroe County's parcel layer not subject to the
Rate of Growth Ordinance(ROGO)program. The BO noted that the ROGO program would
allow for the construction of 871 new residences; 522 in potentially suitable rice rat habitat and
349 in adjacent buffer lands. New residences in the buffer areas may have an indirect effect on
predation of the rice rat due to associated free-roaming cats(see Tables 19, EA-14a and EA-14b
in the BO).
The at-risk properties were determined by overlaying the County's property parcel layer onto the
County's 2009 land cover boundary maps(Monroe County 2009). The County's land cover
boundary maps included 13 land cover types. Developed land,undeveloped land, impervious
surface, and exotic are considered non-native land cover types. Hammock,pineland, scrub
mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh,buttonwood,mangrove, and beach berm are
considered native land cover types. The water classification is also considered a native cover
type. The minimum mapping unit for land cover polygons was 0.35 acre for hammock and 0.5
acre for all other cover types.
The County's boundary map land cover types containing suitable habitat for the rice rat include
hammock,pinelands, scrub mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh,buttonwood,mangrove,
and beach berm. We also noted that potential habitat is present only in unincorporated Monroe
County(Lower Keys only).
Species Profile: The rice rat occurs on 13 islands in the Lower Keys: Big Pine, Little Pine,
Howe, Water, Middle Torch, Big Torch, Summerland,Raccoon, Johnston, Ramrod, Cudjoe,
Upper Sugarloaf, and Saddlebunch Keys(Vessey et al. 1976, Goodyear 1984,Wolfe 1987, Forys
et al. 1996, Perry 2006, Service 2008). Based on the availability of suitable habitat and
proximity to existing populations, the rice rat may also occur on several other islands in the
Lower Keys such as Little Torch. Range-wide surveys confirmed that rice rat populations are
not established on Boca Chica, Geiger, East Rockland, or Big Coppit Keys (the islands that
encompass Naval Air Station Key West)(Perry 2006).
The rice rat is restricted to a narrow range of wetland habitat types. Populations are widely
distributed and occur at extremely low densities. Rice rats use low intertidal and low salt marsh
habitats during activity periods, and swales in the low salt marsh are primary foraging sites.
Buttonwood transitional salt marsh is at a higher elevation than other salt marsh habitats, and is
used for foraging and nesting(Goodyear 1987). Forys et al. (1996) found that the rice rat occurs
at comparable densities in both scrub and fringe mangrove communities. Mitchell(1996)
conducted additional work on rice rats and found that reproductive activity occurs in freshwater
habitat and that animals regularly use freshwater marsh on Big Torch Key.
Silver rice rat Species Assessment Guide
Silver rice rats are generalized omnivores that eat a variety of plant and animal material(Wolfe
1982). The diet of the rice rat includes seeds of saltwort, mangroves,Borrichia spp., coconut
palm(Cocos nucifera), and invertebrates, including isopods(Spitzer 1983; Goodyear 1992).
However, they probably eat a greater variety of foods than those listed above.
A variety of ecological factors likely influence reproduction in rice rats throughout the year
(Wolfe 1982). The reproduction peak occurs after the wet season, from October to November.
The gestation period for rice rats is 21 to 28 days,with litter sizes ranging from 4 to 6. Spitzer
(1983) studied a pregnant female rice rat during winter and observed litter sizes of 3 to 5. The
average number of litters that are produced in a year has not been documented. Forys et al.
(1996) found that juvenile rice rats comprised only 14 percent of the total number of individuals
captured in their study. Although there is high survivorship of rice rats in the Keys, the low
proportion of juveniles in this population may indicate a low reproductive rate.
Threats: The primary threat to the rice rat is degradation and loss of wetland habitat(Barbour
and Humphrey 1982). Rice rats require expanses of high quality salt marsh habitat. They are
extremely limited in habitat occupancy, occurring in salt marsh and transitional buttonwood
habitats. Construction activities typically result in the direct loss of habitat, as well as secondary
effects that extend into surrounding habitats. Related secondary effects include habitat
fragmentation and an increase in the densities of black rats and domestic cats. Cats are predators
of rice rats and there is evidence of habitat competition between rice rats and black rats.
Assessment Guide: In order to provide assistance in assessing threats to the rice rat from a given
project, the Service has developed the following guidance and recommendations that, if
implemented,will minimize adverse effects to this species. If this guide results in a
determination of"no effect,"the Service supports this determination. If this guide results in a
determination of"not likely to adversely affect" (NLAA) for these species and a cat brochure is
provided,then the Service concurs and no additional correspondence is necessary. If the use of
this guide results in a"may affect" determination,then additional coordination with the Service
is necessary prior to permit issuance. For projects that result in a"may affect"determination, if,
after reviewing the specific project and assessing its potential effects to federally listed species,
the Service determines that the project will result in take,the Service will notify FEMA and the
acreage of impacts will be subtracted from the take limits provided in the BO. This guide is
subject to revision as necessary.
NOTE: The Service recommends that all new residences in the rice rat focus area or
buffer, except as outlined in couplet F(below), be subject to a covenant restriction which
prohibits keeping free-ranging cats, per Monroe County Ordinance 015-2012, Section 122-
8(d)2-i**. A new residence for which the applicant does not agree to such a restriction
shall be subtracted from the allocated residences take(couplet G).
A. Parcel is located in the species focus area or on the Real Estate (RE)parcel list........go to B
Parcel is located in the buffer area(a zone extending 500 meters [1,641 feet] from the focus
area). If a parcel is mapped as being both within the species focus area and the buffer zone,
it should be wholly considered a species focus area....................................................go to E
July 29, 2013 2
Silver rice rat Species Assessment Guide
Parcel is not in the species focus area,the buffer area, or on the RE parcel list......no effect
B. The applicant proposes no removal or modification of this species' native habitat
(hammock, pinelands, scrub mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh, buttonwood,
mangrove, and beach berm)..........................................................................................go to E
The applicant proposes removal or modification of this species' native habitat (hammock,
pinelands, scrub mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh, buttonwood, mangrove, and
beach berm). A vegetation survey is required to document the native plant species and size
present on the property and a general description of the surrounding properties within 500
feet is also required. Once these have been completed.......................................go to C
C. The property is within a developed subdivision or canal subdivision and the area within
500 feet of the parcel is greater than 60 percent developed or scarified ................go to E
The property is not as above, and contains and/or is adjacent to contiguous tracts of this
species' native habitat greater than 1 acre in size. Further coordination with the Service is
necessary and a small mammal survey may be required...............................may affect
Native habitat (hammock, pinelands, scrub mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh,
buttonwood, mangrove, and beach berm) will be impacted but neither of the above applies
tothe property............................................................................................................go to D
D. The applicant has proposed either on-site or off-site habitat compensation* commensurate
with the amount of native habitat lost...................................................... go to E
The applicant is not proposing habitat compensation* or habitat compensation* does not
meet minimum compensation requirements.............................................may affect
E. The applicant proposes the construction of a new residence and does not agree to
enforceable cat restrictions**................................................................ go to F
Proposal is for actions other than a new residence OR is for a residence with enforceable
cat restrictions**. Provide cat brochure ...................................................NLAA
F. Parcel is within a canal subdivision and is separated by a canal, open water, and/or US-1
from this species' native habitat in the buffered rice rat focus area OR the parcel is adjacent
to less than 1 acre of this species' native habitat in the buffered rice rat focus area. Provide
catbrochure...............................................................................................................NLAA
The parcel is not as above......................................................................go to G
G. The new residence is proposed in the species focus area, does not result in a cumulative
loss of species habitat, and the total of new residential permits issued in the focus area
July 29,2013
Silver rice rat Species Assessment Guide
lands has not exceeded 522. Provide cat brochure........take exempted in BO, additional
consultation with the Service not required
The new residence is proposed in the buffer area and the total number of new residential
permits issued in buffer lands has not exceeded 349. Provide cat brochure.
.....................take exempted in BO, additional consultation with the Service not required
The proposed new residence exceeds the limits of take in the 2010 BO (522 residences in
the focus area, 349 residences in buffer lands)......................................may affect
*Habitat Compensation
The minimum recommended habitat compensation is replacement of lost vegetation through
protection or restoration of habitat, and/or monetary contributions to accomplish the
aforementioned activities, according to the participating community's land development
regulations. The Service has reviewed the following participating communities' Codes of
Ordinances governing habitat compensation and found them to meet minimum recommended
habitat compensation: Monroe County, Part II, Chapter 18, Sections 118-2 and 118-8; City of
Marathon, Article 2, Chapter 106; Village of Islamorada, Part II, Chapter 30,Article VII,
Division 4, Section 30-1616; and Key West, Part II, Subpart B, Chapter 110,Article V, Section
110-223 and Section 110-225, and Article VI, Division 2, Section 110-287 and Division 3,
Section 324 and 327. The cities of Key Colony Beach and Layton were determined to not have
ordinances that meet the minimum recommended habitat compensation. If the participating
community proposes to modify the habitat compensation requirements of their ordinance,
additional review by the Service will be necessary.
If habitat compensation is being provided in excess of the minimum recommended, the Service
may consider the additional compensation as a credit to the not-to-exceed habitat acreage losses
referenced in the BO. To be considered for credit, the compensation must be like for like habitat
compensation and credit will be granted at half value. For example, if 4 acres of additional
compensation are provided, the credit granted would be 2 acres. This partial credit is considered
appropriate as existing vegetation currently provides benefit and the credit vegetation may not
provide the same habitat benefit until later in time.
**Enforceable Cat Restrictions
On June 20,2012,the Monroe County Board of Commissioners passed Ordinance 015-2012.
Section 122-8(d)2-i of this ordinance requires property owners applying for new construction permits
in silver rice rat habitat to agree to execute and record a covenant restriction in favor of Monroe
County which prohibits keeping free-ranging cats.
Monitoring and Reporting Effects
For the Service to monitor cumulative effects and to track incidental take exempted for the silver
rice rat, it is important for FEMA and the NFIP participants to monitor the number of permits
and provide information to the Service regarding the number of permits issued. In order to meet
the reporting requirements in the BO,we request that FEMA and/or the NFIP participants send
July 29, 2013 4
Silver rice rat Species Assessment Guide
to the Service an annual database summary consisting of: project date,permit number,project
acreage,native impact acreage, amount of acres and/or number of trees/plants replaced as habitat
compensation, and project location in latitude and longitude in decimal degrees.
Literature Cited
Barbour,D.B. and S.R.Humphrey. 1982 . Status and habitat of the Key Largo woodrat and cotton mouse
(Neotoma floridana smalli and Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola).Journal of Mammalogy
63(1):144-148.
Forys E.A.,P.A.Frank,and RS Kautz. 1996. Recovery actions for the Lower Keys marsh rabbit,silver
rice rat,and Stock Island tree snail.Final Report to Florida Game and Freshwater Fish
Commission,Cooperative Agreement No. 1448-0004-94-9164,Tallahassee,Florida.
Goodyear,N.C. 1984.Final report on the distribution,habitat,and status of the silver rice rat Oryzomys
argentatus Unpublished Report prepared for the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service Under contract
No. 14-16-0604-83-57. Jacksonville,Florida.
Goodyear,N.C. 1987. Distribution and habitat of the silver rice rat,Oryzomys argentatus. Journal of
Mammalogy 68:692-695.
Goodyear,N.C. 1992. Spatial overlap and dietary selection of native rice rats and exotic black rats.
Journal of Mammalogy 73:186-200.
Mitchell,N.C. 1996. Silver rice rat status.Draft final report to Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission.
Monroe County. 2009. Geospatial Land Cover Dataset of the Florida Keys.Photo Science, Inc. St.
Petersburg,Florida
Perry,N.D.2006. Lower Keys marsh rabbit and silver rice rat: steps towards recovery. Master's Thesis,
Texas A&M University,College Station,Texas.
Spitzer,T.M. 1983.Aspects of the biology of the silver rice rat, Oryzomys argentatus. M.S.Thesis.
University of Rhode Island,Kingston,RI
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.2008. Silver rice rat,5-year status review.Atlanta,Georgia.
Vessey, S.H.,D.B. Meikle and S.R. Spaulding. 1976. Biological survey of Raccoon Key Florida: a
preliminary report to the Charles River Breeding Labs,Wilmington,Massachusetts.
Wolfe,J. L. 1982. Oryzomys palustris. Mammalian Species, Special Publication of the American Society
of Mammalogists, 178:1-5.
Wolfe,J. L. 1987.A survey for the silver rice rat on U.S.Naval property in the Lower Florida Keys. Final
Report to Naval Facilities Engineering Division, Southern Division,Naval Air Station; Boca
Chica,Florida
July 29, 2013 5
Silver Rice Rat Critical Habitat Assessment Guide
July 29, 2013
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) FEMA Biological Opinion(BO) dated April 30,
2010, and modified on December 14, 2010, identified 644 at-risk parcels(representing 1,316
acres)that: (1) are located within designated critical habitat for the endangered silver rice rat
(rice rat) (Or
yzom s palustris natator L:f.0. argentatus7) and(2)may contain the critical habitat's
constituent elements. The BO also identified an additional 466 acres of at-risk lands outside
Monroe County's parcel layer not subject to the Rate of Growth Ordinance program.
Critical habitat for the rice rat includes areas containing mangrove swamps, salt marsh flats, and
buttonwood transition vegetation. The major constituent elements of this critical habitat that
require special management considerations or protection are:
(1) mangrove swamps containing red mangrove,black mangrove, white mangrove, and
buttonwood;
(2) salt marshes, swales, and adjacent transitional wetlands containing saltwort,perennial
glasswort, saltgrass, sea ox-eye, Key grass and
(3) coastal dropseed and freshwater marshes containing cattails, sawgrass, and cordgrass.
The at-risk properties were determined by overlaying the County's property parcel layer onto the
County's 2009 land cover boundary maps(Monroe County 2009). The County's land cover
boundary maps included 13 land cover types. Developed land,undeveloped land, impervious
surface, and exotic are considered non-native land cover types. Hammock,pineland, scrub
mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh,buttonwood,mangrove, and beach berm are
considered native land cover types. The water classification is also considered a native cover
type. The minimum mapping unit for land cover polygons was 0.35 acre for hammock and 0.5
acre for all other cover types.
The County's boundary map land cover types containing critical habitat constituent elements for
the rice rat include six habitat classifications. These land cover types include scrub mangrove,
freshwater wetland, salt marsh, and buttonwood. We also noted that potential habitat is present
only in unincorporated Monroe County(Lower Keys only).
Critical Habitat Profile: The Service's designated critical habitat for the rice rat includes all
lands and waters above mean low tide on the following Keys: Little Pine, Big Torch, Middle
Torch, Johnston, Raccoon, and the Water Keys. In addition, it includes Summerland Key north
of U.S. 1, and the Saddlebunch Keys south of U.S. 1;but not lands in Township 67S, Range 27E,
Section 8, nor the northern 115 of Section 17(50 CFR 17.95) (Service 1993). The critical habitat
boundary encompasses an area of about 9,362 acres, all of which fall within unincorporated
Monroe County. Within the designated boundary, only 8,532 acres have the constituent
elements required to be critical habitat for the rice rat.
Critical habitat only affects Federal agency actions and does not apply to private or local or State
government activities that are not subject to Federal authorization or funding. Federal agencies
that may be affected by the designation of rice rat critical habitat include,but are not limited to
the Service(National Key Deer Refuge [NKDR]), Corps, FEMA, U.S.Navy, and the Federal
Silver Rice Rat Critical Habitat Species Assessment Guide
Highway Administration. Seven of the nine Keys in critical habitat are within the NKDR
boundaries. Although the NKDR is managed for Key deer, the habitat requirements and
biological needs of the two species do not conflict(Service 2006).
Threats: The primary threat to rice rat critical habitat is degradation and loss of wetland habitat
(Barbour and Humphrey 1982). Construction activities typically result in the direct loss of
habitat as well as secondary effects that extend into surrounding habitats. Related secondary
effects include habitat fragmentation.
Assessment Guide: In order to provide assistance in assessing threats to rice rat critical habitat,
the Service has developed the following guidance and recommendations that, if implemented,
will minimize adverse effects to rice rat critical habitat. If the use of this guide results in a
determination of"no effect"for a particular project, the Service supports this determination. If
the use of this guide results in a determination of"not likely to adversely affect(NLAA)"for a
particular project and the applicant is provided with a copy of the cat brochure, then the Service
concurs with this determination and no additional correspondence is necessary. If the use of this
guide results in a"may affect" determination, then additional coordination with the Service is
necessary prior to permit issuance. For projects that result in a"may affect"determination, if,
after reviewing the specific project and assessing its potential effects to federally listed species,
the Service determines that the project will result in take,the Service will notify FEMA and the
acreage of impacts will be subtracted from the take limits provided in the BO. This guide is
subject to revision as necessary.
A. Parcel is not located within designated rice rat critical habitat and/or on the Real Estate
(RE)parcel list....................................................................................no effect
Parcel is located within designated rice rat critical habitat or is on the RE parcel list
............................................................................................................................. go to B
B. The applicant proposes no removal or modification of the rice rat's native habitat(scrub
mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh,or buttonwood).................................NLAA
The applicant proposes removal or modification of this species' native habitat(hammock,
pinelands, scrub mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh,buttonwood, mangrove, and
beach berm). A vegetation survey is required to document the native plant species and size
present on the property and a general description of the surrounding properties within 500
feet is also required. Once these have been completed.....................................go to C
C. The property contains and/or is adjacent to contiguous tracts of the rice rat's native habitat
greater than 1 acre in size.....................................................................may affect
The property is not as above....................................................................go to D
D. The applicant has proposed either on-site or off-site habitat compensation* commensurate
with the amount of native habitat lost. Permit with habitat compensation* and provide cat
brochure..........................................................................................NLAA
July 29, 2013 2
Silver Rice Rat Critical Habitat Species Assessment Guide
The applicant is not proposing habitat compensation* or habitat compensation* does not
meet minimum compensation requirements............................................ may affect
*Habitat Compensation
The minimum recommended habitat compensation is replacement of lost vegetation through
protection or restoration of habitat, and/or monetary contributions to accomplish the
aforementioned activities, according to the participating community's land development
regulations. The Service has reviewed the following participating communities' Codes of
Ordinances governing habitat compensation and found them to meet minimum recommended
habitat compensation: Monroe County,Part II, Chapter 18, Sections 118-2 and 118-8; City of
Marathon, Article 2,Chapter 106; Village of Islamorada, Part II, Chapter 30,Article VII,
Division 4, Section 30-1616; and Key West, Part II, Subpart B, Chapter 110,Article V, Section
110-223 and Section 110-225, and Article VI, Division 2, Section 110-287 and Division 3,
Section 324 and 327. The cities of Key Colony Beach and Layton were determined to not have
ordinances that meet the minimum recommended habitat compensation. If the participating
community proposes to modify the habitat compensation requirements of their ordinance,
additional review by the Service will be necessary.
If habitat compensation is being provided in excess of the minimum recommended, the Service
may consider the additional compensation as a credit to the not-to-exceed habitat acreage losses
referenced in the BO. To be considered for credit, the compensation must be like for like habitat
compensation and credit will be granted at half value. For example, if 4 acres of additional
compensation are provided,the credit granted would be 2 acres. This partial credit is considered
appropriate as existing vegetation currently provides benefit and the credit vegetation may not
provide the same habitat benefit until later in time.
Monitoring and Reporting Effects
For the Service to monitor cumulative effects and to track incidental take exempted for the silver
rice rat critical habitat, it is important for FEMA and the NFIP participants to monitor the
number of permits and provide information to the Service regarding the number of permits
issued. In order to meet the reporting requirements in the BO,we request that FEMA and/or the
NFIP participants send to the Service an annual database summary consisting of: project date,
permit number,project acreage, native impact acreage, amount of acres and/or number of
trees/plants replaced as habitat compensation, and project location in latitude and longitude in
decimal degrees.
July 29,2013 3
Silver Rice Rat Critical Habitat Species Assessment Guide
Literature Cited
Barbour,D.B. and S.R. Humphrey. 1982 . Status and habitat of the Key Largo woodrat and
cotton mouse (Neotoma floridana smalli and Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola).
Journal of Mammalogy 63(1):144-148.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Final Rule on the designation of critical habitat for the
silver rice rat. Federal Register 58(167):46030-4603)4.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Biological Opinion. FEMA's continued administration of
the NFIP in Monroe County, Florida. Atlanta, Georgia.
July 29, 2013 4
Stock Island Tree Snail Assessment Guide
July 29,2013
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's(Service) FEMA Biological Opinion(BO) dated April 30,
2010, and modified on December 14, 2010, identified 5,607 at-risk parcels, representing 2,322
acres, intersecting habitats that may be used by the threatened Stock Island tree snail(Orthalicus
yeses,not incl. nesodryas)in Monroe County. There are 1,725 acres and 4,101 at-risk parcels in
unincorporated Monroe County; 300 acres and 779 parcels in Islamorada; 5 acres and 5 parcels
in Key Colony Beach; 43 acres and 102 parcels in Key West; less than 1 acre and 1 parcel in
Layton; and 249 acres and 579 parcels in Marathon. The BO also identified an additional 436
acres of at-risk lands outside Monroe County's parcel layer not subject to the Rate of Growth
Ordinance program.
The at-risk properties were determined by overlaying the County's property parcel layer onto the
County's 2009 land cover boundary maps (Monroe County 2009). The County's land cover
boundary maps included 13 land cover types. Developed land,undeveloped land, impervious
surface, and exotic are considered non-native land cover types. Hammock,pineland, scrub
mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh,buttonwood, mangrove, and beach berm are
considered native land cover types. The water classification is also considered a native cover
type. The minimum mapping unit for land cover polygons was 0.35 acre for hammock and 0.5
acre for all other cover types.
The County's boundary map land cover types containing suitable habitat for the Stock Island tree
snail include hammock and beach berm. Beach berm cover types were included as this mapping
unit could also include small inclusions of tropical hardwood hammock.
Species Profile: The Stock Island tree snail is an arboreal snail inhabiting hardwood hammocks
of the Keys (Deisler 1987). Its historic range includes the islands of Stock Island and Key West
(Voss 1976). Individuals of the species have since been relocated to other hammocks in the
Keys and the mainland. Today,populations of snails occur throughout the Keys in hardwood
hammocks. As of 2006, the Service had records of 27 populations,25 in the Keys and 2 in
mainland Miami-Dade County(Service 2006). However, for most populations,the area
occupied is poorly defined(Service 2009). Survey and monitoring efforts have been limited and
highly variable, and methodologies are not usually reported in detail(Service 2009). The
Service will provide updated information to the County and municipalities on known locations of
the Stock Island tree snail as new data become available. Since 2006, an additional 15
population locations have been reported.
Threats: Although the predominant threat described at the time of listing was habitat destruction
(Service 2009),much of the suitable protected habitat is currently unoccupied. Additional
threats include: non-native predators, inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, climate
change,hurricane winds, right-of-way maintenance, and Key deer browsing. Natural disasters
such as hurricanes and drought can have a significant effect. The snails are also faced with
predation by invertebrate predators, such as fire ants (Service 2009).
Assessment Gatide: In order to provide assistance in assessing threats to the Stock Island tree
snail from a given project, the Service has developed the following guidance and
Stock Island tree snail Species Assessment Guide
recommendations that, if implemented, will minimize adverse effects to the Stock Island tree
snail. If the use of this guide results in a determination of"no effect" for a particular project,the
Service supports this determination. If the use of this guide results in a determination of"not
likely to adversely affect" (NLAA) for the Stock Island tree snail,the Service concurs with this
determination and no additional correspondence is necessary. If the use of this guide results in a
"may affect"determination, then additional coordination with the Service is necessary prior to
permit issuance. For projects that result in a"may affect"determination, if, after reviewing the
specific project and assessing its potential effects to federally listed species, the Service
determines that the project will result in take, the Service will notify FEMA and the acreage of
impacts will be subtracted from the take limits provided in the BO. This guide is subject to
revision as necessary.
A. The parcel IS in a known location of the Stock Island tree snail, in the species focus area
and/or on the RE parcel list................................................................................go to B
The parcel IS NOT in a known location of the Stock Island tree snail, in the species focus
area and/or on the RE parcel list..........................................................................no effect
B. The applicant proposes no removal or modification of the Stock Island tree snail's native
habitat(hammock and beach berm)............................................................NLAA
The applicant proposes removal or modification of the Stock Island tree snail's native
habitat. A Stock Island tree snail survey and a vegetation survey are required. Once these
have been completed...........................................................................go to C
C. A negative Stock Island tree snail survey, following Service protocol, has been provided to
and accepted as valid by the Service (i.e., Stock Island tree snails are not present). The
applicant has proposed either on-site or off-site habitat compensation* commensurate with
the amount of native habitat lost. Permit with habitat compensation*.................NLAA
A Stock Island tree snail survey documents presence, or habitat compensation* is either not
proposed or not sufficient................................................................ may affect
*Habitat Compensation
The minimum recommended habitat compensation is replacement of lost vegetation through
protection or restoration of habitat, and/or monetary contributions to accomplish the
aforementioned activities, according to the participating community's land development
regulations. The Service has reviewed the following participating communities' Codes of
Ordinances governing habitat compensation and found them to meet minimum recommended
habitat compensation: Monroe County, Part II, Chapter 18, Sections 118-2 and 118-8; City of
Marathon, Article 2, Chapter 106; Village of Islamorada, Part II, Chapter 30, Article VII,
Division 4, Section 30-1616; and Key West,Part II, Subpart B, Chapter 110,Article V, Section
110-223 and Section 110-225, and Article VI,Division 2, Section 110-287 and Division 3,
Section 324 and 327. The cities of Key Colony Beach and Layton were determined to not have
ordinances that meet the minimum recommended habitat compensation. If the participating
July 29, 2013 2
Stock Island tree snail Species Assessment Guide
community proposes to modify the habitat compensation requirements of their ordinance,
additional review by the Service will be necessary.
If habitat compensation is being provided in excess of the minimum recommended, the Service
may consider the additional compensation as a credit to the not-to-exceed habitat acreage losses
referenced in the BO. To be considered for credit, the compensation must be like for like habitat
compensation and credit will be granted at half value. For example, if 4 acres of additional
compensation are provided, the credit granted would be 2 acres. This partial credit is considered
appropriate as existing vegetation currently provides benefit and the credit vegetation may not
provide the same habitat benefit until later in time.
Monitoring and Reporting Effects
For the Service to monitor cumulative effects and to track incidental take exempted for the Stock
Island tree snail, it is important for FEMA and the NFIP participants to monitor the number of
permits and provide information to the Service regarding the number of permits issued. In order
to meet the reporting requirements in the BO, we request that FEMA and/or the NFIP
participants send to the Service an annual database summary consisting of: project date,permit
number,project acreage, native impact acreage, amount of acres and/or number of trees/plants
replaced as habitat compensation, and project location in latitude and longitude in decimal
degrees.
Literature Cited
Deisler, J.E. 1987. The ecology of the Stock Island Tree Snail(Orthalicus reses reses) (Say).
Bulletin Florida State Museum, Biological Science 31(3):107-145.
Monroe County. 2009. Geospatial Land Cover Dataset of the Florida Keys. Photo Science, Inc.
St. Petersburg, Florida
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Biological Opinion. FEMA's continued administration of
the NFIP in Monroe County, Florida. Atlanta, Georgia.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Stock Island tree snail, 5-year status review. Atlanta,
Georgia.
Voss, R.S. 1976. Observations on the Ecology of the Florida Tree Snail Liguus fasciattcs
(Muller).Nautilus, 90:6569.
July 29, 2013 3