HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem J1 JI
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY of MONROE Mayor James K.Scholl,District 3
The Florida Keys Mayor Pro Tern Michelle Lincoln,District 2
Craig Cates,District 1
David Rice,District 4
Holly Merrill Raschein,District 5
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
May 21, 2025
Agenda Item Number: J1
2023-3961
BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: Planning & Environmental Resources
TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Michael Roberts
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
A Presentation Regarding the Status of the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Incidental Take
Permit (ITP) for Big Pine Key and No Name Key and the 2010 Biological Opinion (BIOP) Relating to
the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Administration of the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) in Monroe County; and Direction for the Monroe County Administrator to Send Letters to
FEMA and to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Requesting Confirmation That FEMA Will
Not Be Pursuing a New BIOP, That FEMA Does Not Need to Continue Community Assistance Visits
(CAVs) Every Six (6) Months Related to the BIOP, and With the Expiration of the BIOP, That USFWS
Is Now the Appropriate Agency to Determine Whether Permits Issued in Monroe County Impact
Endangered Species; and Direction for Professional Staff to Begin Processing Amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code to Eliminate the Permit Referral Process and Amend
Local Regulations Associated with the HCP, ITP, and BIOP.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
The following is provided as a summary of the origins of wildlife protection policies and Land
Development Code regulations in Monroe County and the potential changes that may result from the
recent expiration of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Opinion(s) (BIOP) related to
the protection of species listed as Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species Act(ESA).
Prior to 1986, there do not appear to have been any codified protections for listed (Threatened and
Endangered) species in the Monroe County Code. With the adoption of the 1986 Comprehensive Plan
and associated Land Development Regulations, Monroe County incorporated endangered species
protection into development review(1986 LDR, Division 8 Section 9-805(b)(8) and others) as part of
the required Habitat Evaluation Index (HEI).
In 1989, the USFWS formally requested the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) initiate
consultation under Section 7 of the ESA over the administration of the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP). FEMA responded with their opinion that the ESA did not apply to FEMA as an
2819
agency nor to the NFIP as a program.
In 1990, the National Wildlife Federation, Florida Wildlife Federation, and the Defenders of Wildlife
filed suit against FEMA pursuant to the Endangered Species Act on behalf of the endangered Key deer
(Odocoileus virginianus clavium) in the Florida Keys (Keys) claiming that FEMA was not consulting
with USFWS pursuant to the ESA.
The 2006 Land Development Code (LDC) (adopted 8/20/2008), at Section 9-5345(c), required the
habitat of threatened and endangered animals to be preserved to the maximum extent practical through
the configuration of open space while subsection (g) allowed the Planning Director, in consultation with
the County Biologist, to approve an application that modifies or waives the minimum yard requirements
set out in this chapter in order to preserve champion and specimen trees or the habitat of threatened and
endangered animals. ROGO points (Section 9.5-122)were also negatively impacted by the presence of
listed species on a parcel.
Habitat Conservation Plan for Florida Key Deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium) and other
Protected Species on Big Pine Key and No Name Key, Monroe County, Florida
Also in 2006, the USFWS issued an Incidental Take Permit(ITP) to Monroe County, the Florida
Department of Transportation, and the Florida Department of Community Affairs (now the Florida
Department of Commerce)which became effective on June 9, 2006, and was originally scheduled to
expire on June 30, 2023. Monroe County requested that the ITP be extended to June 30, 2026, and this
request was granted. However, the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that the ITP is based upon also had
an analysis range of 2003 through 2023 and has expired. To clarify—the ITP dictates how much"take"
of a species is permitted; the HCP details how the allowed take is to be distributed, tracked and
monitored. Therefore, the Planning & Environmental Resources Department continues to process
permit applications for development on Big Pine Key &No Name Key in accordance with the ITP.
The HCP/ITP includes specific development limitations on Big Pine Key &No Name Key, including,
but not limited to:
• The total impact of commercial, institutional(including public projects such as wastewater and
roads), and residential development over the 20-year life of the HCP shall not exceed H=1.1.
• For each H value unit of development, 3 H units of conservation lands shall be acquired, restored,
and protected in perpetuity. Over the term of this permit, lands with a cumulative H value of 3.3
shall be acquired.
• This required acquisition has been paid for with public funding whereby the Land
Authority has purchased land to offset impacts by private development. Staff recommend
we discontinue subsidizing private development. Since the beginning of the HCP/ITP, the
Land Authority has purchased 439 parcels at a cost of$7,968,173.
• Through December 31, 2023 (the end of Reporting Year 18), Monroe County acquired
parcels with a total H-value of 3.2762 "H".
• New residential development will be limited to a maximum of 200 dwelling units over the 20
year life of the HCP.
• New residential development in Tier 1 areas will be limited to no more than 5% of all residential
units permitted over the 20 year life of the HCP (no more than 10 units) or H=0.022 whichever
results in a lower H.
• No new development other than single-family residential and accessory uses will be permitted in
2820
Tier I areas.
• No development will be allowed in Lower Keys marsh rabbit habitat. No residential or
commercial development will be allowed within 500 meters of marsh rabbit habitat, with the
exception of isolated areas (i.e. green hatched areas on HCP Figure 2.2).
FEMA Permit Referral Process
Subsequent to the issuance of the ITP and after years of negotiation and revisions to the USFWS
Biological Opinion, a Settlement Agreement in Case No. 90-10037-CV-Moore (Key Deer v. FEMA)
was entered on December 3, 2010 (approved by the Court on January 11, 2010). The end result of the
Settlement Agreement was that FEMA required Monroe County to revise our Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance (LDC Chapter 122) to reference and use the updated real estate list and
Species Focus Area Maps to implement and enforce the procedures listed in the 2010 Reasonable and
Prudent Alternative(RPA). This was the initiation of the Permit Referral Process (Ordinance No.
015-2012).
Due to listing of additional species in the years following the initiation of the Permit Referral Process
(PRP), in March 2014 the BOCC adopted Ordinance No. 002-2014 (LDC Section 118-13)which
requires property owners to consult directly with USFWS and provide authorization from USFWS
before commencement of development on parcels located in critical habitat or designated potentially
suitable habitat of species not included in the BIOP and/or addressed by the Permit Referral
Process. Table 1 below includes a list of all currently listed species and indicates whether they are
addressed by the PRP and/or HCP.
Table 1. Monroe County Species Currently
(December 2024) Listed under the ESA
Mammals
Common Taxon Status HCP/PRP
Name
Florida Eumops
Bonneted umopsus Endangered
Bat
Florida Puma (=Felis) Endangered
Panther concolor coryi
Odocoileus
Key Deer virginianus Endangered HCP/PRP
clavium
Key Largo Peromyscus
Cotton gossypinus Endangered PRP
Mouse allapaticola
Key Largo Neotoma Endangered PRP
Woodrat oridana smalli
Lower Keys Sylvilagus
Marsh alustris Endangered HCP/PRP
Rabbit hefneri
2821
oryzomys
Silver Rice alustris Endangered PRP
Rat natato�
Tricolored Pe 1.myotis Proposed
Bat subflavus EndangeredN
Birds
Common [hhasitata
axon Status HCP/PRP
Name
Black- terodroma
capped Endangered
Petrel
Laterallus
Eastern amaicensis Threatened N
Black Rail ssp.
amaicensis
Everglade Rostrhamus
Snail Kite sociabilis EndangeredN
lumbeus
Piping Charadrius Threatened N
Plover Imelodus
Roseate Sterna
Tern �dougallii Threatened N
dougallii
Wood Stork Mycteria Threatened N
americans
Reptiles
Common Taxon Status HCP/PRP
Name
American lligator SAT* N
Alligator mississippiensis
American Crocodylus Threatened N
Crocodile acutus
Eastern Drymarchon
Indigo Threatened PRP/HCP
Snake �couperi
Florida Plestiodon Proposed
Keys Mole egregius Threatened N
Skink egregious
Green Sea Chelonia Threatened N
Turtle mydas
Hawksbill Eretmochelys Endangered
Sea Turtle imbricata
LeatherbackDermochelys Endangered
Sea Turtle coriacea
Loggerhead Caretta caretta Threatened N
Sea Turtle
2822
The FEMA/NFIP Biological Opinion (BIOP)was published in 2003 as a 20-year analysis of the status
of the covered species. The revised BIOP issued in 2010 consisted of a 13-year evaluation period
(2010-2023), which at the time coincided with the expiration of the HCP/ITP. The ITP was revised to
extend the expiration to June 30, 2026. It should be noted however that the HCP also had a 20-year
analysis period of 2003 through 2023. While the USFWS has listed additional species as Threatened or
Endangered under the ESA since the publication of the FEMA BIOP, neither the USFWS nor FEMA
have pursued amending the BIOP to address these species.
The USFWS has encouraged Monroe County to pursue a County-wide Habitat Conservation Plan to
address all of the federally listed species in the Keys upon expiration of the BIOP and the HCP/ITP. A
County-wide HCP would need to incorporate protections for all currently listed species in the Keys as
reflected in Table 1. Conservation Planning Assistance grants are available to support the development
of HCPs, typically in the range of$25,000. A Notice of Funding Opportunity(NOFO) for FY 2025 has
not been issued.
Absent an update to the FEMA BIOP and the associated Species Focus Area maps and Species
Assessment Guides (provided by USFWS), it is unclear to Monroe County professional staff how
FEMA intends to maintain compliance with the ESA.
Without a County-wide HCP or Code amendment, development of vacant, undeveloped lots or parcels
within potentially suitable habitat for any species listed as Threatened or Endangered under the ESA
(those in Table 1)would require independent consultation with the USFWS to obtain authorization for
the proposed development in accordance with Section 118-13.
The analysis of"take" included in the FEMA BIOP for administration of the NFIP in Monroe County
does not address the potential for "take"beyond 2023, and also does not include any analysis of the
species added to the Endangered Species List since 2010. Based on the absence of suitable analysis,
Planning & Environmental Resources professional staff recommends amending the attached
Comprehensive Plan policies and the Land Development Code to:
• Amend policies to include species not currently addressed in the comprehensive plan; and
• Amend policies and regulations to refer permit applicants to the USFWS for technical assistance
regarding potential impacts to federally listed species.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
August 18, 2004 - The BOCC adopted the Master Plan for Future Development of Big Pine Key and
No Name Key into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan via Ordinance No. 029- 2004. This ordinance
included amendments to Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Objective 103. 1 requiring Monroe
County to regulate future development and coordinate the provision of public facilities on Big Pine Key
and No Name Key, consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of this Comprehensive Plan, the
Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan (" LCP") and the Habitat Conservation Plan (" HCP") for Big Pine
Key and No Name Key.
June 20, 2012 - The BOCC adopted Ordinance 015-2012 amending Chapter 122 Floodplain
Regulations and creating Section 122-8 providing for inclusion of United States Federal Emergency
2823
Management Agency(FEMA) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)requirements in
Permit Referral Process implementation and determinations.
March 31, 2021 - The BOCC directed staff to request an extension of the Key deer ITP through June
30, 2026.
INSURANCE REQUIRED:
No
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
NA
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Professional staff is requesting the following direction from the BOCC:
1. Direction for the Monroe County Administrator to send letters to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency(FEMA) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) requesting confirmation
that FEMA will not be pursuing a new Biological Opinion (BIOP) with the expiration of the 2010
BIOP; FEMA does not need to continue Community Assistance Visits (CAVs) every six (6) months
related to the BIOP; and that USFWS is now the appropriate agency to determine whether permits
issued in Monroe County impact endangered species; and
2. Direction for professional staff to begin processing amendments to the Monroe County
Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code to eliminate the Permit Referral Process and amend
local regulations associated with the HCP, ITP, and BIOP.
DOCUMENTATION:
Notice_to_FEMA_May_2025.do cx
DRAFT ESA Policies and Code recommendations
Notice_to_FWS_May_2025.docx
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
2824
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
%-Iounty of Monroe Mayor James K.Scholl,District 3
The Florida Keys Mayor Pro Tem Michelle Lincoln,District 2
.. k Craig Cates,District L
David Rice,District 4
Holly Merrill Raschein,District 5
May 22, 2025
Robert Samaan
Regional Administrator
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region IV
3003 Chamblee Tucker Road
Atlanta, GA 30341
SUBJECT: FEMA'S ADMINISTRATION OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
IN MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Dear Mr. Samaan:
This letter is to seek confirmation that the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA")will not be
pursuing a new Biological Opinion (`BO") on FEMA's Administration of the National Flood Insurance
Program ("NFIP") in Monroe County, Florida. As you are no doubt aware, in 1990, the National Wildlife
Federation, Florida Wildlife Federation, and the Defenders of Wildlife filed suit against FEMA pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 ("ESA" or"Act") on behalf of the endangered Key Deer (Odocoileus
virginianus clavium) in the Florida Keys ("Keys") claiming FEMA was not consulting with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service ("FWS")pursuant to the Act, After years of negotiation and revisions to the FWS' Biological
Opinion, a Settlement Agreement in Case No'. 90-10037-CV-Moore (Key Deer v. FEMA)was entered on
December 3, 2010 (approved by the Court on January 11, 2010).
The end result of the Settlement Agreement Was that FEMA required Monroe County to revise our Flood
Damage Prevention Ordinance (Monroe County Code Chapter 122)to reference and use the updated Real
Estate List and Species Focus Area Maps prepared by the FWS to implement and enforce the procedures listed
in the 2010 Reasonable and Prudent Alternative ("RPA").
In 2012 the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 015-2012 enacting the
Permit Referral Process ("PRP") in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
The 2010 BO had an analysis period of thirteen (13)years which ended in 2023. The FWS has listed numerous
species as Threatened or Endangered under the ESA since the publication of the FEMA BO and neither the
FWS nor FEMA have pursued amending the BO to address these species. As a result, Monroe County is not
clear on the current status of FEMA's compliance with the Endangered Species Act with regard to the National
Flood Insurance Program in Monroe County.
It is however the County's opinion that FEMA does not need to continue Community Assistance Visits
("CAVs") every six (6) months for the purpose(s) of determining compliance with the Settlement Agreement or
the Permit Referral Process and that with the expiration of the 2010 FEMA BIOP, the United States Fish and
2825
Wildlife Service is now the appropriate agency to determine whether permits issued in Monroe County impact
wildlife protected under the Endangered Species Act.
Sincerely,
Christine Hurley, A.LC.P.i
Monroe County Administrator
'American Institute of Certified Planners(A.LC.P.)—Certification.
2826
Sec. 114-13.-Fences and Walls.
(c)Additional requirements for Big Pine Key and No Name Key as required by
LCP,IIr�for Big Pine Key and No Name Key.The purpose of this subsection 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:
118-13—Endangered Species
a) Applicability.On parcels that the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service has determined are within
critical habitat or designated potentially suitable habitat for federally listed threatened or
endangered species,no development shall occur without full compliance with the terms of
this chapter in addition to other applicable regulations,including,but not limited to,Section
122-8.
b) Technical assistance required.For any development permit application filed with Monroe
County for properties located within critical habitat or designated potentially suitable
habitat for federally listed threatened and endangered species 41;4 are--,^ot ^^i„aoa 4A 4e
$.,.7.7,-o^^oa ...]o,- oeetiOA 122 8 .,t'41,o (`T�iT.,..,-.,o .,,,.. t4e s . ..4. fn.,...] pe elap,ry.o..4
God the property owner shall be required to consult directly with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and provide authorization from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
Monroe County before commencement of development.Any conditions imposed by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shall be incorporated as conditions of the Monroe County
development permit.
Sec.122-2.Applicability.
(a) Applicability this chapter.Where there is a conflict between a general requirement and a
specific requirement,the specific requirement shall be applicable.
(b)Areas to which this chapter applies.This chapter shall apply to all flood hazard areas
within the unincorporated areas of Monroe County,as established in Section 122-2(c)of
this chapter.
(c) Basis for establishing flood hazard areas,sp@ei@s f eias^w@a R4apS(cF n MS)W44 f^„^
and spe
0..4 list;
,;.40S(SAGS)..
(1) The flood insurance study for Monroe County dated February 18,2005,and the
accompanying flood insurance rate maps(FIRM),are adopted by reference as a
part of this chapter,shall be kept on file,available to the public,in the offices of
the county Building Department and shall serve as the minimum basis for
establishing flood hazard areas.Amendments and revisions by letters of map
change(LOMC)issued by FEMA shall be retained by the county and utilized for
implementing this chapter.Studies and maps that establish flood hazard areas
shall be kept on file at the offices of the county Building Department.
2827
/7l F.Of iR4Pt@4:AP4. A. ik 4. Of41.0., R44 ., S(DUD)i C'0G4;.,.. 177
spews F@al @stg@(R9)list.RT,'TAA ld o1 y,oT C'.R;sl� d AS7 14 fo
.,;1 P-d 4.,1\A.,..,-.,o Cr oia.4, R 4at@.1 ApFil Zn 7011 44d- .,1--sti...4 F@ l
a. P,
��0�4 4. .,f.,mb@Fs .fe@ls/UPl list 0 ail@ 1 4o A.1.,.. o-P,l P-41-4 4. R 4 aWd
SY-4G1S14-;GIT8,2 0 11 tb4 afe-N,SCni1Tt-beT S „ )Aft f
;,;,W4#ifs;oP-d-i d ey la iP'�S Iwo F'A a4c ---cr[41 oP-R F4 li,44b a�m:y, w;�4 i1.;..4 xbo
Soizittl-ss pAi wed 1'vyt'[t'e PAI-inravo,t ':d ffin PC vl,i i-az4le o;�o-�oui
at@ ApFil�n 2n1 n maoa P@e@w.t,o,-14,2010,
"4:o,;41.>4 ,.o 0 4 1�;,.; .op nff;,.o
b. Species asses.meni guides(SAGS PPnaA and PAS S p,-,,yided the May
20 201 0 4, i4@s is A r)4 >\a,,,,+ o ram,4+1t ,,1
na,,,,, r-94*t a p40,1t4@s@cAGs,,,, S@p4@iR4@FP 2012 PPnaA apd
7n1 Z Do4RRB4s „hw.;44o.1.#@F Pol„-.,.,,-, 1'7,2014,t-k@ 4aw
oydi�ice R..mot h�vie .1 utilizing the T,,1, 79 20112 FEM /RA S
See.122 12.inelusion of United State Feder-a!Emer-geney Management Ageney and United
atat2.i--F6.ih and[ 7;1dl;fp Spiq,6 a(l x�equiFeed-permit r-eiciizrli--process r(PDD)in finall
development.permit determinations for- Commented[MDR7]:Delete(repeal?)in entirety
..,,1.,4ig+ls ., .,F 040..4;.,.. .,F4i+ia-t4 + ..4+iotif;e 4;.p o-f PPI\AA apd P.Al S
c�s,��Pe--ri co�ncrrcccrr�
cc1'm'icrr4 sumac to byT c-¢pp
(2) T., 4s to„ -iA O1 i,; 0..4iPP apply.See S@G4 9+ 122 7/mil/7l
pFeeise loeations;ofmach hou-nd-avies shall be made by the ootmty planning diFeotoF oF his/he
/ l/I A 4a t sFa-t� 9+i 4.1 c=fc1[o"Pircirct-app-oya4 4-r1•'• W@ei@ssroeias f@as.
2828
shall pFoN,idp--4404:a-notation in the development applioation pe-Fmit f4les that indica-te-s-
b. Tte d-R*e ewe feview
P. Thy,d,4y,of fl.o CRAM Ap d U1~'1;,4 4,0.14.,.. ...1,,..441.0
lI o. 1.. gO 9449.1 w. o TI o. 1.. gO 9 f..4 lI o. 4roo G.G4IS 1., r 1I o.S
.1;roG4P-r 0-4:1.iS44@r Sl.A11.1 IS 0 41.o C AG e404-M;..o.i 1.04 WE..4994 4ai4.
a. 1..eg+:pq atjgp of T�IIC C A( ccjc[ii�cFricir4sas 7vm[isxmx4 o nsv cr[�41 o��T P�oc�� �
b.
41
, .0 0 .0 ..4.SAGS,1,. 41 sl...11; 0 41.o r w.;4 ip A Or.1....Po.i;41.Q....p4or 2012
r a do 41...4: > >
, ffid
7 :AW..ffliG....4 44.i pfi9f W 41.0 iSIMIAMPR 04 fl.o.194 G@ W r ooa ..11
'2 1„ A .,r.l.,,,e0..;41.41.o-Wo fi4 R„4.4ig Cody,.,,..1 1\-OPW.,o('94fft.
4. 44 w p++orw.;4 0 � 41.0..ppli.�....4 sl...11 13o ro....4@ 4o r pp! fnr 41.0
�r
Porw44..pplieatig..41...4 r@emiro, 41.0
4P-AM;..n1.. �4.....�o N49+.r.,o Co..v.4y sl...11 r 44@ 41.0..ppliGatiO..4P 41.0';P
PA'S'Avircx��cnTccl'm'F@R4@+AS W 4 rl @ GOR+Ay.4t @aff1;.�4 agf@@S-P:hv,PAS
d. -F 'Pff A dPYV4P-PR4@+Ay@+R;y4 a ffl iG 4 9+1 tnc�r41...4 F@eM4c@S--MittgatiOP APd4vr
0..4S r the r rw.;4 f;lo
2829
r4o pmpvses-of fleeq wedow the Roket9-Joe ppd qu tm'--vbnow4py•, 4h
,,�v�ivri;�.,4;.,..
f0a.the Ai onfoe('0„a4. ('_,-0...4h Management Division 40 the ae.-nittee that the
_____ a___.
g. 4h0 a.,,-..01; .;-bal a-41ffi 1`
Tf r0a h. .,habitat eons@F,.,t;0a al.,a
and wliefe that habitat eonsen,ation plan has&&Pifed 4 the time Of development
-...it applieatio.. the.. -m Shall apply the p@F it ., ..4 is
0e4;0a R!@S i mitigation Was a10404 f.-the.. iat@ 1; ets
40 h0;aPh..10.1;a the.10..010aa.0a4 a0.mit.. a.1;4;0as the e a4. Shall net iss e
the a0600 40 a ee.1 andsh.,11 F a.1 the Jee. .s1. issued development pen nit,
_ F44 pFOp0,-t;0S 10eaWd in Key T.. Wood Fat,
Key T.. 0440a.ry. @ We.-
OPP.-4 affid T 0 TI ,-F e. Sh 400 h.,h;4.,4 P ,-t a0 . 0 .,tt.,Sh e 40
0f saeeies habitat,.hieh will a04 ae0.,tiyel. .,..4 the t04.,1 a a.he,-0f aew
csc4c�orrl;�o Oii-cix4h 0e 4994plamc=fc1[o0�iicir Pezii;4.H4411OFnvcxvmie@ too-Jeoo&cca •,h�i.�h
Comity development pefFaits,to avoid possible impaets on fedefaIly listedspe—es
(4 weateae.1 0 a.1.,a..0,M) C7;01.,4;0a 0f4h;s S@et;ea ae1...1;a....ny
.10..010aa.0a4
1\AO,.,-00(vomity development„0,mit 4@Fi..04 4h,-0,,..h, 0f 4h0 C A('_s 04-4 0 h,- ,,..h
wohnical assistanee by PAIS,aFe heFeby deemed to be violations of the County-Code-and
4 1\AOa,-00('0„a4. 994@ 0f 04-.1;...,....0s _F4 wt40,- c0..t4o 118 11 sh.,tl h0 44;h-�e.1 40
/4l D@Fmit; 0 f,-Jee ioiasl. tolled Rate 0f('_,-0,..4h 04-.1i4.i e@(R 149)
TTOa _RM-W SHOW_RW 0f QFW_ 4h n,-.1;...,....0 PMQQrn.,nOPati O_4. h„;1ding
40110.1 land , auth.,,-;4. 0f1\ omme('.,mt. Rpsah,4;ow 4M 39w Ill NQQ 145 7/1 I.,a.1
2 W 2N8 an 292 20 ., s„14 of the;a net;0a a,-0h;h;t;a0 FEE A f0a. ;
< <-�< < o-a�j'�a�� mg z
i4.4 i easy, f P 4 Key P 1 T7„ 4 .,1 90 1 QW:7 n117 1\A00,-e
+ In ova Re these pusons*lose a4loeations Of whose
AM tohe 01;0;h1 0-W f.10,-.,1 fl00.1; and a.004 Apia0h1;0.,4;0a�,a.1e,-
the Was!T,ndaage-Fe.1 Caeeies A et the fll0,.;a0; ,-e.1�
i. n0-*1'4a e4:S A"th.,1 10...,4;04.S..,hd0 4.04 4.cca"0 04:dal a,i0....,;4h PASS_ .,#PF
the. SO4 4ffgag4 the a@Fmit,-0f0,-.-.,1 a
umw 3W days f.,a,the date of., „4. e.1, F ttea a04 ;f
40 a P@Fmit foam the.10a.,44a.ea4 0f h0.,141 (T 09)an P"
up their
4h e;,- ants
2830
O'A W 4h halm iffg„oFH4 41 ..I.O,1„,,,,4„ee,t di4, ,iO4,,..;4h PAS
afteF they aFe se,t th,-ough the peFm t Fefe,-al
.,,44
ii Have
4ho4-o; o.t W F@4@Sig+ .. S 40"A"..�4o.i..40.-4.@atH.0..4 sWFA
p@F4e.- ..14 f e.r 4ho D014 F e .1.1.1
/C\ P@FH14; e f ., 1.,1.,110..4iO4. , .WdS f.,.ry.4ho-R 4e.,f('_,-.,...4h 0,-.1;.1.+RGe--
(ROGO),Non Uosid emi4ial-R a4e,of('_yw.4(l,-.1ina- ee( U(1T GO)alloeatio s.Di�4
It
ffIRY.104V-4:M4..4O..it fnOf4ho ..ppliGatiO.. 444o
>\R,,,l+ee Ce11„r. Th;s 4;1„ef.,1„e may h e e.,4e,,,1 e.t�h. 44o„i.,,,,441g,1;,-0,.4,,4-;f 4ho
PFe.,e,-4;es f,-.. 44 a p@fm 4 h.,, hoe„ e,t.,,,,1 f,-,.h;..h,1 o..oi,,,,.,,0„4 h.,I PO,
nMR
n
,,,.111,te the,-e,.11;f@ ,,,di-PA,iO,,,..;4h-W.A S a,1 e..ei,,,,.,,e„4.,H
ovxxvxcscsc-crcc-rt-,cjaarca�o cm�c-uc-rt--roprrrcrr�-crrccr-rcvt--ra c-cs
(OFN m6 2m� § � 1 1 1 C 2m2\
�,--Y.o-�z� «ate-�—Y�—�«�
Sec.138-24.-Residential ROGO Allocations
(a) Number of available annual residential ROGO allocations. The number of market rate
residential ROGO allocations available in each subarea of the unincorporated county and
the total number of affordable residential ROGO allocations and workforce housing early
evacuation unit allocations available countywide shall be as follows:
(a) Big Pine Key and No Name Key.
a. All allocation awards on Big Pine Key and No Name Key are subject to the
provisions of the 1.-...;.1..44A T.,L..D..f ffi 4/1TD\ the L7.,44at(i..4......-.4;....Dl.,..
/un�4-Livable CommuniKeys Plan(LCP)f, 4he>a pffia.,rre. r,ee,.^ a
^thef,.,.vefea sp,.,._es,which may affect ROGO allocations under this article.
Sec.138-28.-Evaluation Criteria(ROGO).
(a) Residential Evaluation Criteria.The point values established on the following pages
are to be applied cumulatively:
For all applications entering the Residential Permit Allocation system after July 13,2016,
the following points and criteria shall apply:
2831
(1) Tier designation.Utilizing the Tier System for land classification,the following points
shall be assigned to allocation applications for proposed dwelling units in a manner that
encourages development of infill in predominately developed areas with existing
infrastructure and few sensitive environmental features and discourages development in
areas with environmentally sensitive upland habitat which are targeted for acquisition
and the retirement of development rights for resource conservation and protection.
(2)Big Pine and No Name Keys. The following negative points shall be cumulatively
assigned to allocation applications for proposed dwellings to implement the Big Pine
Key and No Name Key Habitat Conservation Plan(HCP)and the Livable
CommuniKeys Community Master Plan.
Point Criteria(Within Big Pine Key, and No Name Key):
Assignment:
-10 Proposes development on No Name Key.
-10 Proposes development in designated Lower Keys marsh rabbit habitat
or buffer areas as de tea ii 4lie uCD
-10 Proposes development in Key Deer Corridor as 4@sig aw i,,thy-unn
Policy 101.6.2
In order to encourage a compact form of residential growth that results in infill
development in platted,improved subdivisions,the Point System shall be primarily
based on the Tier system of land classification as set forth under Goal 105.To
discourage and limit further growth in Tier I designated areas,the annual maximum
number of residential permit allocations that may be awarded in Tier I shall be no more
than three(3)each in the Upper and Lower ROGO subareas.Other criteria and
corresponding points are allocated to encourage development to the most appropriate
locations and discourage development from inappropriate locations.
In the Big Pine Key/No Name Key subarea the annual maximum number of residential
permit allocations that may be awarded in Tier I shall be no more than one(1)every 2
years.
PeF1.44(TTD)Mid a lided WRI-44Rt C---R".....-V—at: R DlaR(14GP)/T iyable GE)niniu ni Keys
Plan(Lc3p)to cover the properties Nvithin QRS system units in the subarea;Rs;A.vell Rs;
,St.,.,,, ,.:tom:,,tl,., 914t:l the TTD LT(`D giel....ieal Q.-.iRiGR l4d T(`D
R-6-R-4-4OR 44FE.Ugh the DOG 0 that... ,be US ed.. that.-..-...-e Ft<
oh-tRins;RII required permits;Rnd RuthorizR44ons required uncler the Endangered Species
2832
aS the appliSalit Eliligelitly alid 44 gE)E)Ei faith P'Rp4mi"lles 4:R A.AiRrk vijth USP.Wq 4:R C'R"C411de
the Cnordination and Pick up a building permit
Objective 103.1
Monroe County shall regulate future development and coordinate the provision of public
facilities on Big Pine Key and No Name Key,consistent with the Goals,Objectives,and
Policies of this Comprehensive Plan,the Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan A4^d ftP-UAh44
C-offlisepl,fttio-ii Pliffi,faf Big Piiie Key afid No Naffie Key in order to:
I. protect the Key deer(Odocoileus virginianus clavium);
2. preserve and enhance the habitat of the Key deer;
3. limit the number of additional vehicular trips from other islands to Big Pine Key and
No Name Key;
4. maintain the rural,suburban,and open space character of Big Pine Key and No Name
Key; and
5. prevent and reduce adverse secondary and cumulative impacts on Key deer.
Policy, 103.1.1
Monroe County shall identify Key deer habitat areas as acquisition sites for conservation
purposes,pursuant to Policy 102.4.2.Emphasis shall be placed upon acquisition of
movement corridors,sources of fresh water,and undisturbed native vegetation areas which
are located within Improved Subdivisions and which are outside of the acquisition areas
identified by the USFWS(for the National Key Deer Refuge),FDEP(for the Coupon Bight
CARL Project),and SFWMD (for the Big Pine Key Save Our Rivers project). (See
Objective I 02.d.and related policies.)
Policy 103.1.2
Monroe County shall support,wherever possible,the efforts of federal agencies,state
agencies,and private non-profit conservation organizations,to acquire land for
conservation purposes within habitat areas of the Key deer.
Policy 103.1.3
Monroe County,in conjunction with the USFWS,shall implement activities to prohibit the
destruction of the federally-designated endangered Key deer and to protect its habitat by
addressing:
I. enforcement of animal control laws;
2. incorporation of management guidelines into development orders;
3. construction of fences;
4. roadside management techniques;
5. feeding laws;
6. speed limit enforcement;
7. removal of invasive plants;
8. distribution of management guidelines to private landowners;
9. attainment of Key deer management objectives;(See Conservation and Coastal
Management Objective 200.d and supporting policies.)and
10.secondary and cumulative impacts by,among other things,adopting and implementing
appropriate land development regulations.
2833
Policy 205.3.4
Monroe County shall work cooperatively with the FWS to promote the recovery of plant
species designated by the federal government as threatened and endangered.Related
activities shall include:
1) identification of sites in the Keys with key tree-cactus(Polosocereus polygonus),
Small's millcpea(Galactia smallii),and Garber's spurge(Chamaesyce garberi);
2) notification to the FWS when development proposals are received for sites having
historic and/or current occurrences of federally-designated plant species list in(1.)
above;
3) cooperation with the FWS in locating potential introduction sites for federally-
designated plant species;and
4) technical assistance,and where possible,financial assistance,with acquisition of:
a. sites having known populations of federally-designated plant species;or
b. sites deemed highly suitable as re-introduction sites for such species. [F.S. yS
163.3177(6)d.2.d.,e.]
Pahey 206.1.4
(SBA )" F- SBA ',1,,..ti 4_e b tiff,TT S L';..T. .....1 TAA 1.11;F.,CSR
trn�rr:r . 0-�rrrS--9i-oarrs--8`rc-8`rcu�-i�zcir�zncc�a�-axc-o- .rr�naacocr-d-icc
1`a�,,+ o@(;GW#¢'1,,,11n o.�,,,-v AA 4 1_4_14 4 ,,,,,1 T1,AFIo@4@r-al g�
9 gel=ed Speeies Aet t49+glt 41he, W444i t,,e 4994plaiff
Proper- .,,-4 ete+149..., ...fl
44iatia ,b.'
R ...ft;F;...,t;.f..4_"__ TA aaid TTC'WATS'
...f.1; it.,.,pliG.,tiOHS F;lo.1,f;tl.., ,o.1 h. TIOPIFOe G.,U ty
Policy 206.1.5
Monroe County shall work cooperatively with USFWS in requiring any development permit
application within Critical Habitat or designated potentially suitable habitat for federally listed
threatened and endangered species za t��.�t in�clluQom;,,t,o USSFAWa Aril Affil 30 20114
pialagirzal
41 P r,,.. 296 , ^ a4a e to consult directly with USFWS and provide authorization
from USFWS to Monroe County before commencement of development.
Objective 206.2
2834
Monroe County shall provide guidance to private landowners to reduce
disturbances to wildlife species designated by the FWS as threatened or
endangered.
Policy 206.2.1
Monroe County shall distribute management guidelines(if available)for wildlife
species designated as threatened and endangered by the state and federal governments.
The guidelines shall provide public education to residents and prospective developers
within critical habitat areas regarding activities disruptive or harmful to specific
wildlife species.As appropriate for each species,the guidelines may address items such
as feeding,free-roaming domestic pets,invasive exotic species,noise,traffic,fencing,
pesticide applications,etc.
Policy 206.2.2
Monroe County shall make the management guidelines for designated wildlife species
available to the general public.
Policy 206.2.3
Monroe County may,as appropriate,incorporate specific management guidelines
for federally-designated wildlife species as conditions for development orders.
Objective 206.3
Monroe County shall protect native wildlife species,especially state-and
federally-designated species,from disturbance and predation by free-roaming
domestic pets,particularly cats and dogs.
Policy 206.3.1
Big Pine and No Name Keys shall be areas where the County shall strive to control
free-roaming cats and dogs.
Policy 206.3.2
The control of free-roaming cats and dogs shall be of continuing interest for the
following at risk listed species:Key Largo Cotton Mouse,Key Largo Woodrat,
Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit,and the Silver Rice Rat.
Objective 206.5
Monroe County shall continue to discourage the destruction of,and work toward the
recovery of,the federally-designated Key deer(Odocoileus virginianus clavium)
and to protect its habitat;through the implementation of the policies incorporated
herein.
Policy 206.5.1
Monroe County shall regulate future development and coordinate the provision of
public facilities on Big Pine Key and No Name Key,consistent with the Goals,
Objectives and Policies of this Comprehensive Plan^^a,toe
2835
/TTD\,,R 14a-bitat(`.,..moo,-...4..,..D1,,..(1442)for-T.Ia-i4 Key pee'4:....d oflAe'.-
PFOteGted SpeGieS on Big Pine Key and No Nanw-K,&�L-to:
1. protect the Key deer,
2. preserve and enhance the habitat of the Key deer;and
3. maintain the rural,suburban,and open space character of Big Pine Key. (See
Future Land Use Objective .11)2.1 and related policies.)
Policy 206.5.2
Monroe County shall continue to designate Key deer habitat areas as acquisition
sites for conservation purposes,pursuant to Policy 102.4.2 _Ara i~ ����ra�~��.'A'**,
*';P.uC-P 4 IT-1-P.- (See Future Land Use Objective 102mm,J and related policies).
Policy 206.5.3
Big Pine Key and No Name Key shall be high priority areas for enforcement of
animal control laws.
Policy 206.5.4
Monroe County shall continue to meet with the FWS to determine measures which
can be taken by the County to support the FWS in enforcing existing no feeding
laws pertaining to the Key deer.
Policy 206.5.5
On an ongoing basis,Monroe County shall strictly enforce speed limits on roads on
Big Pine,No Name,Big Torch,Middle Torch,Cudjoe and Summerland and
Sugarloaf Keys. Speed limits,traffic calming devices and other measures shall be
applied to lower the probability of vehicle collisions with Key deer and Lower Keys
marsh rabbits on County roads.
Policy 1301.6.8
Monroe County shall continue to implement the following species of special status
identification and protection programs in coordination and cooperation with all
pertinent agencies and organizations,including but not limited to the following:
2836
Subject Coordination Entity/Entities
Prepare management guidelines for federally-designated FDEP,FWC,and USFWS
wildlife species
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Maintain a list of undesirable exotic wildlife populations FWC and USFWS
Identify probable concentrated range of wildlife species of FDEP,The Nature
special status Conservancy,FWC,and
USFWS
Promote recovery of threatened and endangered species by FWC and USFWS
coordinating development review and protection
Maintain the list of offshore island rookeries and nesting areas FDEP,National Audubon
where development shall be prohibited Society,USFWS,NOAA,and
FWC
Maintain protection and habitat preservation measures to assist USFWS and FWC
with recovery of the Eastern Indigo Snake,Key Deer,Key
Largo Wood Rat,Silver Rice Rat,Key Largo Cotton Mouse,
Key Tree Cactus,Schaus Swallowtail Butterfly,Stock Island
Tree Snail,and the Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit
2837
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
%-Iounty of Monroe Mayor James K.Scholl,District 3
The Florida Keys Mayor Pro Tem Michelle Lincoln,District 2
.. k Craig Cates,District L
David Rice,District 4
Holly Merrill Raschein,District 5
May 22, 2025
Mike Oetker
Regional Director
United States Fish& Wildlife Service Southeast Region
1875 Century Boulevard
Atlanta, GA 30345
SUBJECT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION ON FEMA'S ADMINISTRATION OF THE NATIONAL
FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM IN MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Dear Mr. Oetker:
This letter is to seek confirmation that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service will not be updating or
providing a new Biological Opinion (`BO") on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's ("FEMA")
Administration of the National Flood Insurance Program ("NFIP") in Monroe County, Florida.
By way of background, in 1990 the National Wildlife Federation, Florida Wildlife Federation, and the
Defenders of Wildlife filed-suit against the FEMA pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 ("ESA" or
the "Act") on behalf of the endangered Key deer(Odocoileus virginianus clavium) in the Florida Keys
("Keys") claiming FEMA was not consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS")pursuant to the
Act. After years of negotiation and revisions to the FWS' Biological Opinion (the final version of which was
issued in 2010), a Settlement Agreement in Case No.'90-10037-CV-Moore (Key Deer v. FEMA)was entered on
December 3, 2010 (approved by the Court on January 11, 2010).
The end result of the Settlement Agreement was that Monroe County was required to revise our Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance (Monroe County Code Chapter 122)to reference and use the updated Real Estate List
and Species Focus Area Maps that were provided by FWS to implement and enforce the procedures listed in the
2010 Reasonable and Prudent Alternative ("RPA").
In 2012 the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 015-2012 enacting the
Permit Referral Process ("PRP") in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
The 2010 BO had an analysis period of 13 years which ended in 2023. The FWS has listed numerous species as
Threatened or Endangered under the ESA since the publication of the FEMA BO and neither the FWS nor
FEMA have pursued amending the BO to address these species. Being that the BO had a specific analysis range
which has since passed, Monroe County is not clear on the current status of FEMA's compliance with the
Endangered Species Act with regard to the National Flood Insurance Program in Monroe County.
2838
It is the County's opinion that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service is the appropriate agency to
determine whether permit applications for development in Monroe County impact wildlife protected under the
Endangered Species Act through direct consultation with FWS, rather than Monroe County professional staff
making that determination.
Sincerely,
Christine Hurley, A.LC.P.i
Monroe County Administrator
'American Institute of Certified Planners(A.LC.P.)—Certification.
2839
Liz Yongue
From: Burke-Sue <Burke-Sue@MonroeCounty-FL.Gov>
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2025 11:31 AM
To: Shillinger-Bob; Liz Yongue; Gomez-Krystal
Subject: For the Record FW: May 21, 2025 Agenda item J1 - Key Deer Habitat
Categories: Orange Category
Good morning,
Following is an email to Mayor Scholl, from Kimberly Stamps, pertaining to J1
regarding Key Deer Habitat on the 05-18-2025 BOCC Meeting Agenda, for the record.
Sincerely,
Sue Burke
Executive Assistant to
Jim Scholl
Mayor
Monroe County District 3
530 Whitehead Street, Suite 102
Key West, FL 33040
305-292-3430 (Office)
850-341-5041 (Cell)
Courier Stop: CLK — Stop #8
Burke—Sue@MonroeCounty—FL.Gov
www.monroecounty—fl.gov
�A'al
k7lF
Monroe County, Florida
"The Florida Keys"
PLEASE NOTE: FLORIDA HAS A VERY BROAD RECORDS LAW. MOST WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS TO OR FROM THE
COUNTY REGARDING COUNTY BUSINESS ARE PUBLIC RECORDS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AND MEDIA UPON
REQUEST. YOUR EMAIL COMMUNICATION MAY BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.
From: Kim Stamps<thekimitrain@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2025 11:17 AM
To: BOCCDIS3<BOCCDIS3@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>
Subject: May 21, 2025 Agenda item J1- Key Deer Habitat
Some people who received this message don't often get email from thekimi train CO)gmail.com.Learn why this is important
1
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the County. Whether you know the sender or not, do not click links or
open attachments you were not expecting.
Good Morning Mayor Scholl,
Thankyou so much for taking my call this morning. I am concerned about the agenda item J1 regarding
the Key Deer Habitat presentation that will take place at the meeting May 21, 2025. Unfortunately, I
cannot attend the meeting but will try to watch it on Zoom as you suggested. It is possible that I have
misinterpreted the information provided, so if I am wrong, I hope that the presentation will clarify it for
me.
As discussed on the phone, my primary concern is the continuance of the protections of the Key Deer
habitat. From the way the agenda item cover letter and the policy recommendation reads, it appears to
me that the proposal will eliminate the oversight of permitting provided by FEMA. This would effectively
eliminate a layer of governmental protection for the sensitive and critical Key Deer habitat, potentially
paving the road for future development of endangered species habitat areas.
• Page 1: "Direction for the Monroe County Administrator to Send Letters to FEMA and to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Requesting Confirmation That FEMA Will Not Be Pursuing a
New BIOP"-would it not be prudent to request the results of the BIOP that was ordered in 2010 to
be updated? It appears to me that we would be effectively telling FEMA that they do not need to
finish what was requested in 2010.
• Page 5: "Absent an update to the FEMA BIOP and the associated Species Focus Area maps and
Species Assessment Guides (provided by USFWS), it is unclear to Monroe County professional
staff how FEMA intends to maintain compliance with the ESA."- again, would it not be prudent to
follow through with the 2010 request?
• The following information concerns me that the proposal is to eliminate decisions that were made
in 2010 and an Ordinance adopted in 2012 because FEMA did not update the BIOP.Again, it
seems more prudent to follow through with FEMA rather than eliminating those previous
decisions:
• Page 5: "Based on the absence of suitable analysis, Planning& Environmental Resources
professional staff recommends amending the attached Comprehensive Plan policies and the
Land Development Code to:Amend policies to include species not currently addressed in the
comprehensive plan;and Amend policies and regulations to refer permit applicants to the USFWS
for technical assistance regarding potential impacts to federally listed species."
• Page 5 and 6: "June 20, 2012- The BOCC adopted Ordinance 015-2012 amending Chapter 122
Floodplain Regulations and creating Section 122-8 providing for inclusion of United States Federal
Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FINS)
requirements in Permit Referral Process implementation and determinations."
• In the DRAFT_ESA_Policies_and_Code_recommendations.pdf, the recommended changes
eliminate the protections afforded by FEMA and NFIP which will cause additional land
development in sensitive areas to only require a County permit and approval by USFWS(the same
department that recently considered DELISTING the Key Deer). The FEMA BIOP would no longer
be required or updated, which cascades to other requirements being eliminated, as shown by
strikethroughs in the policy recommendations.
• In my opinion, the BOCC should follow through with the 2010 and 2012 decisions and continue to
require FEMA approval so that the sensitive endangered species habitats are protected to the
fullest extent possible.
2
1 appreciate you paying close attention to this agenda item.
Thanks again for taking my call today. I appreciate all your hard work and your valuable time.
Kimberly Stamps
822 Ashe St Unit 101
Key West FL 33040
850-225-6292
3
Liz Yongue
From: Burke-Sue <Burke-Sue@MonroeCounty-FL.Gov>
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2025 10:06 AM
To: Shillinger-Bob; Liz Yongue; Gomez-Krystal
Subject: FW: 5/21/2025 Agenda. Item J1, Key Deer
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Categories: Orange Category
Good Morning,
Following is an email for the record regarding J1 on the 05-21-2025 Monroe County
BOCC Agenda.
Sincerely,
Sue Burke
Executive Assistant to
Jim Scholl
Mayor
Monroe County District 3
530 Whitehead Street, Suite 102
Key West, FL 33040
305-292-3430 (Office)
850-341-5041 (Cell)
Courier Stop: CLK - Stop #8
Burke-Sue@MonroeCounty-FL.Gov
www.monroecounty-fl.gov
�A'al
k7lF
Monroe County, Florida
"The Florida Keys"
PLEASE NOTE: FLORIDA HAS A VERY BROAD RECORDS LAW. MOST WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS TO OR FROM THE
COUNTY REGARDING COUNTY BUSINESS ARE PUBLIC RECORDS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AND MEDIA UPON
REQUEST. YOUR EMAIL COMMUNICATION MAY BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.
From:J J <johnstonJay2020@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 20, 2025 11:23 PM
To: Cates-Craig<Cates-Craig@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>; BOCCDIS2<boccdis2@monroecounty-fl.gov>; BOCCDIS3
<BOCCDIS3@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>; BOCCDIS4<BOCCDIS4@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>; BOCCDIS5
<BOCCDIS5@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>
Subject: 5/21/2025 Agenda. Item J1, Key Deer
1
Some people who received this message don't often get email from iohns ton.iay2Q200)gmail.com. Learn why this is important
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the County. Whether you know the sender or not, do not click links or
open attachments you were not expecting.
Commissioners,
The timing of this current focus to amend these regulations around HCP/ITP is curious, to say the least.
At this time, when DOGE is haphazardly decimating both FEMA and USFWS staffing, and both agencies
are unclear also as to how they are going to carry out their missions to the public, Monroe County
Planning and Environmental Resources Dept wants to now re-write and amend regulations --to basically
throw the Key Deer and other endangered species on Big Pine and No Name under the approaching bus?
We are all well aware that USFWS, under Trump's guidance, is trying to legally change the Endangered
Species Act(ESA)to amend the legal definition of"harm" so that habitat destruction won't be viewed as
directly doing harm to any endangered species. We also are aware that this clears the way for selling off
publicly held Federal lands, including wildlife refuge lands. In the past, Federal Protections were the
strongest we could create, and provided protection of the animals, plants, and their habitats. The laws in
place carried much more weight than county rules.
There are four National Wildlife Refuges in the Florida Keys, Monroe County: National Key Deer Refuge,
Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge, Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge, and Key West
National Wildlife Refuge. The USFWS Park Rangers that manage these refuges were already at
historically low staffing levels.As of last month, under harassment and pressure from DOGE, we in the
Keys lost two management level park rangers to DOGE early retirement offers. Chris Eggleston, Refuge
Complex Manager, and Greg Boling, Deputy Refuge Complex Manager, both retired. There are now two
FWS Rangers left in the Keys, both of whom were hastily given acting promotions to try to cover the
workload left behind by the unbelievable losses of Chris and Greg.
Ranger Katy, manager of the Key Deer Nature Center, and Ranger Jeremy in Crocodile Lake, are now
scrambling to do the work of four people.
First: The draft letters that you've prepared to FEMA and USFWS--Are the people to whom you've
addressed the letters even still occupying the positions in those agencies? If so, asking them to put in
writing at this time that they don't intend or do intend to update BIOPs, etc., seems antagonistic. They are
stretched to their limits, experiencing Reductions in Workforce, and trying to redefine what their priorities
are. Will Monroe County's plan to begin amending regulations hang on the responses of FEMA and FWS,
or are the letters just formalities and we don't care about the responses?
Second: In an era when disappearing species are grabbing headlines every day, is it the intention of
Monroe County to do the heroic and admirable thing of ensuring that we amend current local regulations
to protect Key Deer and Marsh Rabbit habitats from encroaching sea level rise as well as development?
Striking all references to Federal agencies, regulations and studies seems premature, even though the
agencies haven't updated their studies recently.We all know sea level rise is happening, as it has been
creating work around protecting people's habitats here already.Are we going to give the same care
and thought into protecting the habitats for the animals?Also, washing our hands of the permitting
2
issues and putting the permitting issues squarely back on FWS, when they clearly have no staffing or
current experience in this area, seems a disservice in working with Federal agencies overall.
Why is it a priority NOW to begin amending regulations? Is it because you see a chaotic lack of leadership
from Federal agencies, and feel you can justify it now with little backlash?
Voting to amend/eliminate references to HCP, ITP and BIOP doesn't appear to be in the best interest of
the endangered species that live in this special place with us. Eliminating the Permit Referral Process
(PRP) in favor of simply saying it will be up to USFWS to make the decision also doesn't seem to be
currently a move that will be in the best interest of the plants and animals.What is your end game here?
Thankyou,
Jackie Johnston
3460 Tarpon St
Big Pine Key, FL 33043
3
Liz Yongue
From: Burke-Sue <Burke-Sue@MonroeCounty-FL.Gov>
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2025 2:45 PM
To: Liz Yongue; Shillinger-Bob; Ballard-Lindsey
Subject: FW: KDPA Comments to May 21st BOCC - Agenda Item J-1
Attachments: KDPA to BOCC May 21.2025 -ROGO - FINAL.docx
Good afternoon, everyone (Commissioners via BCC) ,
Following is an email and relevant attachment regarding Agenda Item J-1 from the
21 May BOCC Meeting.
Please see that it is added to the record as requested.
Thank you, and I hope each of you has a lovely weekend!
Sincerely,
Sue Burke
Executive Assistant to
Jim Scholl
Mayor
Monroe County District 3
530 Whitehead Street, Suite 102
Key West, FL 33040
305-292-3430 (Office)
850-341-5041 (Cell)
Courier Stop: CLK - Stop #8
Burke-Sue@MonroeCounty-FL.Gov
www.monroecounty-fl.gov
�A'al
k7lF
Monroe County, Florida
"The Florida Keys"
PLEASE NOTE: FLORIDA HAS A VERY BROAD RECORDS LAW. MOST WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS TO OR FROM THE
COUNTY REGARDING COUNTY BUSINESS ARE PUBLIC RECORDS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AND MEDIA UPON
REQUEST. YOUR EMAIL COMMUNICATION MAY BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.
From:Alicia Roemmele-Putney<aliputney50@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2025 2:31 PM
To: BOCCDIS4<BOCCDIS4@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>; Cates-Craig<Cates-Craig@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>; BOCCDIS2
<boccdis2@monroecounty-fl.gov>; BOCCDIS3<BOCCDIS3@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>; BOCCDIS5
<BOCCDIS5@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>
Cc: Hurley-Christine<Hurley-Christine@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>;Aguila-Ilze<Aguila-Ilze@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>
Subject: KDPA Comments to May 21st BOCC-Agenda Item J-1
1
Some people who received this message don't often get email from aliputney50C gmail.com. Learn why this is
important
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the County. Whether you know the sender or not, do not click links or
open attachments you were not expecting.
Please see the attached Key Deer Protection Alliance Comments for Agenda Item J1:
"Presentation Regarding the Status of the HCP, ITP and Draft Biop" for the
May 21, 2025 BOCC Meeting.
Thank you,
Alicia Putney
KDPA President
2
ro�
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners Meeting
May 21, 2025
Marathon Government Center
Agenda Item J1. "Presentation Regarding the
Status of the HCP, ITP and DRAFT FEMA BIOP"
KDPA COMMENTS TO THE BOCC
by Alicia Putney, President
Good Morning Mayor Scholl and Fellow County Commissioners,
For the record, my name is Alicia Putney. I am speaking on behalf of the Key Deer
Protection Alliance.
The Key Deer Protection Alliance has been working to protect the endangered Florida
Key deer since 1989. We have been providing public education and advocating for good
governmental policies for decades.
The "Big Pine Key Area" of Big Pine and No Name Keys has always been unique and,
therefore, needs special regulatory tools for this area to remain protected. We ask that
you take actions to ensure the special character and natural features of the Big Pine Key
Area so it will not be negatively impacted by future development. We owe it to today's
residents and visitors, and we owe it to our children and grandchildren.
Given this extremely critical topic, we want to provide some historical context — some
important historical facts —which we believe should be considered today as part of your
discussion and future decision-making.
The original designation of the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern was in 1975•
This state-level designation intended to protect the Florida Keys from uncontrolled
development that could harm its natural resources. This designation allows the state to
promote state and regional interests in land use and development constraints, aiming to
improve water quality, protect habitat, and ensure safe evacuation in case of disasters.
1
With the adoption of the 1986 Monroe County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, there
were three "Areas of Critical County Concern" identified. They were the North Key
Largo Area, the Ohio Key Area and the Big Pine Key Area. These three areas required
special planning and regulatory needs.
As our land-use planning developed over the years to include the 1992 Rate of Growth
Ordinance (ROGO), the protection of these three areas continued with negative points
being assigned during the scoring process. This protection was not limited to the Key
deer. For example, there are twenty-three (23) endangered and threatened plant and
animal species, as well as hundreds of other species, within the boundaries of the
National Key Deer Refuge.
In 2005, the County-wide Tier System Overlay Maps were adopted. The designation of
every parcel of land in Monroe County followed clearly defined criteria.Additionally,
comprehensive individual evaluations were performed on those parcels which did not fit
perfectly into the three Tier categories.All of Big Pine Key and No Name Key were
classified as Tier 1.
The goals of the 2oo6 Habitat Conservation Plan were to ensure development did not
have a negative impact on habitat and to limit human-related mortality of the Lower
Keys marsh rabbit and the Key deer to a level that would make quasi-extinction unlikely.
In 2oo6, the HCP model indicated that the Key deer would be at risk for quasi-
extinction without ANY additional development.'
Based on the science of the model of the HCP, all lands on Big Pine Key and No Name
Key were divided into three tiers. There were negative points assigned for being on No
Name Key, inside a Marsh rabbit buffer zone and/or inside a Key deer corridor. These
criteria made up the Point Assignment System for the HCP Tiers.
Twenty years ago, before the Habitat Conservation Plan, the number of ROGO
allocations for Big Pine Key and No Name Key were eight (8) units per year. For the last
five years, the number of ROGO allocations for Big Pine Key and No Name Key has been
four (4) units per year.
This history of the Big Pine Area may not be directly related to your immediate decisions
today. Nonetheless, it is important for you to understand just how unique, rare, and
special this Area is.
To repeat, Big Pine Key and No Name Key have always been special and need special
regulatory tools for this Area to survive. Please ensure that you can make this happen
for us and for future generations of residents of and visitors to the Florida Keys.
Thank you.
' Quasi-extinction was defined as the probability that the population fall to 50 or fewer
females at least once in a 50-year period.
2