Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem M13 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY of MONROE Mayor Michelle Lincoln,District 2 The Florida. Keys Mayor Pro Tem David Rice,District 4 p Craig Cates,District I James K. Scholl,District 3 - Holly Merrill Raschein,District 5 Regular Meeting June 10, 2026 Agenda Item Number: M13 26-32247 BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: Planning and Environmental Resources TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Emily Schemper AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of a Resolution Accepting the May 27, 2026, Letter Issued by the US Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding Transition From the Habitat Conservation Plan(HCP) and Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for Big Pine and No Name Keys, and Utilizing Letter for Permit Review Beginning July 1, 2026. Staff Will Provide an Update on the Expiration of the HCP and ITP for Big Pine and No Name Keys, which occurs June 30, 2026, and the Resulting Transition of Endangered Species Review for Three Species on Big Pine and No Name Keys, to the County's Permit Referral Process Under the 2010 Biological Opinion (BO) associated with FEMA's administration of the National Flood Insurance Program, Beginning July 1, 2026. TIME APPROXIMATE 2:00 P.M. ITEM BACKGROUND: On May 27, 2026,the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued a letter confirming the transition of endangered species review for three species on Big Pine and No Name Keys from the Habitat Conservation Plan and Incidental Take Permit(HCP/ITP), which will expire on June 30, 2026, to the county's Permit Referral Process under the 2010 Biological Opinion (BO) associated with FEMA's administration of the National Flood Insurance Program. The letter also confirms that the species protections established by the HCP/ITP specific to Big Pine and No Name Keys for the three species covered will remain in effect with the transition to the Permit Referral Process. The Incidental Take Permit(ITP) for Big Pine and No Name Keys (BPK/NNK), which allows limited impacts to the Key Deer, Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit and Eastern Indigo Snake endangered species/habitat with associated mitigation, will expire on June 30, 2026. The associated Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) already expired in 2023. Staff has been working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and FEMA to determine how the process of permit review on BPK/NNK will change on July 1, and how review of impacts to these three species will be managed and mitigated in a way that maintains compliance with the Endangered Species Act and continues to protect the species. For the three species covered by the HCP/ITP, development permits outside of Big Pine and No Name Keys are reviewed through what is commonly referred to as the "Permit Referral Process." This process was developed to implement the requirements of the 2010 Biological Opinion(BO) associated with FEMA's administration of the National Flood Insurance Program. The BO also covers six additional endangered species both within BPK/NNK and throughout the rest of the county. Per existing requirements in the BO, the expiration of the HCP/ITP means permits on Big Pine and No Name Keys will automatically be reviewed through the same Permit Referral Process for the three species in question beginning July 1, 2026. As stated in the Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives of the 2010 Amended BO, "In the event that current HCPs designated in the Florida Keys under section 10 of the Act expire, all properties addressed by these HCPs that fall within the Species Focus Area Maps will be referred to the Service for review per the guidelines in this RPA." USFWS has updated the Species Assessment Guides for the three species covered by the HCP/ITP for Big Pine and No Name Keys; and has also confirmed that key protections developed for the HCP/ITP will remain in effect and will continue to be tracked and reported to FEMA and USFWS in the BO annual reports. Most notably: • The cumulative cap on species impacts that was established in the HCP/ITP will continue to apply under the BO (total of"1.1 H-impact"). • The 3:1 H mitigation-to-impact ratio requirement will also remain the same under the BO. • There is currently a surplus mitigation credit that will remain available to permittees under the BO. • To accommodate additional ROGO units from the State of Florida, Monroe County will increase the maximum number of new residential units from 200 to 236,provided the total impact shall not exceed"H"= 1.1. • Both the H-impact and the cap of 236 new residential permits will be tracked independently from the "take" associated with projects outside of BPK and NNK and reported as part of the Permit Referral Process annual report. • Other than the increase in allowed units, the protection measures of the ITP (ITP "Condition G") and the associated County Ordinances that were established to implement the HCP/ITP will remain in place to ensure that "take" of covered species is minimized and mitigated. The County hosted a community meeting on Big Pine Key on Thursday, May 28, 2026, to explain the upcoming changes to the review process. Many community members attended the meeting and had the opportunity to review information on the existing and future processes, speak informally with staff about questions and concerns, and provide comments and questions to the group. Based on requests by the public for additional discussion on the topic of species protections on Big Pine and No Name Keys, Mayor Lincoln plans to hold future quarterly meetings with the Big Pine and No Name Key community on Big Pine Key regarding how the county can continue to improve protections of endangered species and quality of life for Lower Keys residents. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: June 20, 2012—the BOCC adopted Ordinance No. 015-2012 amending the Monroe County Floodplain Regulations (Chapter 122 of the LDC) to provide for inclusion of FEMA and USFWS requirements from the 2010 Amended Biological Option to create the Permit Referral Process. INSURANCE REQUIRED: No CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of resolution accepting USFWS letter and utilizing it for permit review beginning July 1, 2026. DOCUMENTATION: FINANCIAL IMPACT: Effective Date: Expiration Date: Total Dollar Value of Contract: Total Cost to County: Current Year Portion: Budgeted: Source of Funds: CPI: Indirect Costs: Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts: Revenue Producing: If yes, amount: Grant: County Match: Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) ITP LCP Comp. Incidental Livable plan Take Permit CommuniKeys Monroe indicates inclusion in regulatory document Plan for Big County203O Pine Key and Comprehensiv No Name Key e Plan 1. The total impact of commercial,institutional,and residential development over 20 years will not exceed H=1.1 *G1 2. New residential development will be limited to a maximum of 200 dwelling units over 20 years. *G3 20 year planning period* 3. Clearing of native habitat will be limited to parcels developed for residential use or road widening.The total amount of clearing over 20 years will be limited to no more than 7 acres. No clearing of native habitat,other than that necessary and authorized for new residential development,local road widening,or fire breaks to protect *G4 residential areas will be allowed.All other development will occur on disturbed lands. 4. New residential development in Tier 1 areas will be limited to no more than five percent of all residential units permitted over the 20-year period (i.e.maximum of 10 units)or a total of H=0.022(two percent of the total H),whichever results in a lower *G5 H. 5. No new development other than single family residential and accessory uses will be permitted in Tier 1.The total H of all development in Tier 1 will not exceed H=0.022. *G6 6. No development will be permitted which may result in habitat loss on the Sands corridor,as shown in Figure 5.2.With the completion of the Key deer underpass and Implemented through ITP Conditions G4, the proposed road widening of US-1 along the business segment on Big Pine Key, G17,and G22 and other Tier system reqt native habitat in the Sands Subdivision area constitutes the main corridor connected Plan and Land Develc Key deer habitat south and north of US-1 (Figure 5.2). 7. New residential and commercial development will occur progressively over 20 years, thus minimizing the extent of construction impacts that occur at any given time. *G8 8. New commercial development will be limited to infill in existing commercial areas on Tier 2 and Tier 3 lands,mainly along the US-1 corridor on Big Pine Key(Appendix B). This includes all current commercially zoned areas south of Lytton's Way.All new commercial development would be limited to disturbed lands,as defined in the *G9 Monroe County Code.Clearing of pinelands and/or hammock will not be permitted for commercial development activities. 9. Expansion of private non-residential facilities will be restricted primarily to within the US-1 corridor,as described above. *G10 10. The modified ROGO will continue to give new development priority to Tier 3 over Tier 2 and Tier 1 lands. *G11 11. New recreational and community facilities development would be restricted to existing developed areas that are either already publicly owned or acquired for that purpose. *G12 12. Minor recreational and community facilities development will be restricted to areas V within existing improved subdivisions. *G13 13. Community organizations'development will be restricted to expansions,on existing organization-owned land,up to the buildable area limits,per Monroe County Code. V No clearing of native habitat will be permitted for these expansions. *G14 14. Speed limits,traffic calming devices,and other measures will be applied to lower the %/ V probability of vehicle collisions with key deer and Lower Keys marsh rabbit on county roads. *G15 15. Public infrastructure development will be restricted to disturbed lands as defined in o - k 7 ƒ § / ? q / § % m o = 0 !�e E « § § 0 m LU \ k 2 2 2 . \ CL \ = m N k 0- 0 0.& K � C / B k o / M CD -1 } - 0 = q e 0 » 11 # o ƒ � k / k z / @ m o o 2 / 2 m @ q S k CL ■ t 2 ° \ \ � i d 5 k co oo $ ? >> / \ co G � 2 � / / e e \ O 3 2 u o m 2 2 o E a 2 G % \ o o 2 2 G 9 0 $ 7 \ C ` s m / o m & q 0 cr � m k / 11 g m TO,/ u k I w c & m 7 ' ¢ 2 2 W \ f / a f 2 2 / K 3 ■ _ \ 4 R 2 0 2 e � q 2 ~ D / / / ƒ ca LU 2 2 2 e e o k Q o @ 3 o E u @ u 0 ct 0 0 _ 3 = e w / E % » / / � % 2 2 o Lu a) a / CO ƒ � \ = k 3 ¢ B E 2 c O co Vi / 3 CIO 2 7 / Ne § = 7 2 - §R to d@ LU E CD q v ca 2 \ E & 2 l 2 2 m G co LO 2 _2 � 2 2 \ _Q $ CD ? _0 -0 e ƒ \ cn c « N L « � m 7 £ � § k z \ § k 2 c � e CO � \ ? ƒ / co * / / m r + ? � § 2 ~ E = -E % \ / 2 % 2 / E q 5 \_ ® 7 2 C g > © \ / \ \ ƒ f \ 2 \ § c = § 2 E 3 2 2 E a t - / = d \ 2 § f ) / 2 > \ / \ / ƒ \ k o / B O ƒ \ ± 7 ƒ 7 - > o 2 3 ± r _ g \ \ / \ \ / k \ \ w _ / + ® \ § k 2 2 § m \ \ k / cu � % c 2 k 2 > e . \ / ` / \ 2 _ 2 -0) E .� / k ƒ f ƒ _ E Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) ITP LCP Comp. Incidental Livable plan Take Permit CommuniKeys Monroe indicates inclusion in regulatory document Plan for Big County203O Pine Key and Comprehensiv No Name Key e Plan 1. The total impact of commercial,institutional,and residential development over 20 years will not exceed H=1.1 *G1 2. New residential development will be limited to a maximum of 200 dwelling units over 20 years. *G3 20 year planning period* 3. Clearing of native habitat will be limited to parcels developed for residential use or road widening.The total amount of clearing over 20 years will be limited to no more than 7 acres. No clearing of native habitat,other than that necessary and authorized for new residential development,local road widening,or fire breaks to protect *G4 residential areas will be allowed.All other development will occur on disturbed lands. 4. New residential development in Tier 1 areas will be limited to no more than five percent of all residential units permitted over the 20-year period (i.e.maximum of 10 units)or a total of H=0.022(two percent of the total H),whichever results in a lower *G5 H. 5. No new development other than single family residential and accessory uses will be permitted in Tier 1.The total H of all development in Tier 1 will not exceed H=0.022. *G6 6. No development will be permitted which may result in habitat loss on the Sands corridor,as shown in Figure 5.2.With the completion of the Key deer underpass and Implemented through ITP Conditions G4, the proposed road widening of US-1 along the business segment on Big Pine Key, G17,and G22 and other Tier system reqt native habitat in the Sands Subdivision area constitutes the main corridor connected Plan and Land Develc Key deer habitat south and north of US-1 (Figure 5.2). 7. New residential and commercial development will occur progressively over 20 years, thus minimizing the extent of construction impacts that occur at any given time. *G8 8. New commercial development will be limited to infill in existing commercial areas on Tier 2 and Tier 3 lands,mainly along the US-1 corridor on Big Pine Key(Appendix B). This includes all current commercially zoned areas south of Lytton's Way.All new commercial development would be limited to disturbed lands,as defined in the *G9 Monroe County Code.Clearing of pinelands and/or hammock will not be permitted for commercial development activities. 9. Expansion of private non-residential facilities will be restricted primarily to within the US-1 corridor,as described above. *G10 10. The modified ROGO will continue to give new development priority to Tier 3 over Tier 2 and Tier 1 lands. *G11 11. New recreational and community facilities development would be restricted to existing developed areas that are either already publicly owned or acquired for that purpose. *G12 12. Minor recreational and community facilities development will be restricted to areas V within existing improved subdivisions. *G13 13. Community organizations'development will be restricted to expansions,on existing organization-owned land,up to the buildable area limits,per Monroe County Code. V No clearing of native habitat will be permitted for these expansions. *G14 14. Speed limits,traffic calming devices,and other measures will be applied to lower the %/ V probability of vehicle collisions with key deer and Lower Keys marsh rabbit on county roads. *G15 15. Public infrastructure development will be restricted to disturbed lands as defined in m © 2 � +— c ,° x ra x ra ra ra ra ra r cu a as ea csa G G G Y G G G G LO w 1 O C� 00 •_' 1 CAS "CS �y CV " c 04 C, Co 0 -. 4 crw CU n 0 cc m N r N as N csa ea N ra x ra Ln m 4 w- ? N cy N cy N cy N cy Sps cy ipsa Spsa Spsa Spsa Spsa Coro att N N N N N N N N N N CO a U co Spy Spy Spy Spy Spy Spy Spy Spy Spy h -j CL C) k1tl F w � sla 4 4 ap n + a � y m o � a n >, G7 � c � � cr N ° c tE u a � a 8 W to cc _ y U rn._ a tO ii ° m - ° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0rr - o o m .y c, 00 rn W N C � o co y o. o aai Y m x v N M d m a `m a 7 d o 3 ti a ~ E tj R m o 6 ° to to E � :; %° + � •• " o ate.. d N c� E ¢ a XW O R •3 r y a H 7 n�6(I > 08 Q R C a Y w ('..� a ul = V O N Q LL n tp 0 v a a N N N $ not N R N o y :a d d d v °' � rn d o d d rn d � �• W a U cz C y cp CO CJ CV Q m Q C) m C V }; O '� a) > = CC CO N co = a 4 +. W Q N 6 co M - a� c O m O O co n- y cn 0 (D C i o Nm N 0 c m a Z aQ cai co z U) � o -0 a Ya r, C) 0 C) m o cn — co a) N d m O 0 0 C) a N O O N � a) bA .� C) Q o c6 Cc4n) + U >+ C a) (n y LL -0 'a U ° � + wWCO i a O O O LL aN o 1-0 T c1 O _ C � ++ W a m CO � a) d a) a) c � cli cy CO ) M N () c ) cy) N 0 CO o m O Oa, er co c:L a o (n d O ) O o co O c OC ' — M cz CO N d�p N _0 W u Z cc Z M � O c � CL Z r 1 M ca d - O n N oO M � o_ ooa� 0- co = Z _ LO rn m O , O > CO c1 c. aU 1 c0aazc N No cn O S— O N OOD aU) a) a) N ZU .QQ Q Y U) -q -qV a) ) a)L0 O XOQ p O +0on a _O E O O Vim a- Lu 2: U 0- -k CU ya E ro a o L U cycuO C C6 i c6 a) co Z N co > a cn O O a _ H >O co � H N N J C).Q = 2C C O U p O y Y E M U M CY) r I C a) p >j 1U W C M co O cn CZ 7 V N m C C1 a) a) bA X +� N bA C C O a) O co U i C Q o m Z Q UU Y O > cz = a) 'Q o O x cn = a 0 N 2 CL 2 .E x a) a3 a M n o a) Q is: O o r1 LO LO o H i C Q }; � c-I O -1 O a) _O •� in NO CDR � �_ a--� a) c6 co m > O cy N a) •i- U En N N c ) = n n3 c O O V N c6 c6 C -0 cn O a) coC) >, O + C N U U N bA m Co 2 �co m N CV -a >o = o W M U T U a) Q c Y _ C/) O H a) Z 41 U 0 ci> pO,p C O J++ C m E N W C = N p 'E Z E O a) E c E co }� x H cc •X W Condition G of the ITP: The I'lortnitices, fhall ernrOoy tM, folkj�wi-ng nveas(tres to cnstwi that take of the co;v rod qI)e6es is trilriAtniz,,ed Pernijitees are responsible for ineeting the terins and cunditions of the YFP and tinplernenfing the, H(A", 1. The tMal impact, oF cormnemial, Astitutiona], and residenUal devekInnent overle 20yealilb of We 1, exceed "IT' - I A, 2. f(:5i- cach"'I(" vaWe unit of devOopmen; three 'Munits of conr wrvation hvids sholl bc ac 'l°iiirvdl, rustoi- in pei'petulty. Over the tmin of this Fernin, lands -with a cunuJadve "I I" Ahe of 13 shWI A aaQvd. T Atigalium lands may tag behind Wt requked by the c�,,uuulafive 114" Que of development by no more, liar time, 3. New reddendal development vvUl be finuted toa aaaxinium of 200 divelfing units over the 20-year life 4. Clearing of-nadve ha biml MIA li�c finli(cd to palvclsto be deveh,')pod for r-csidvT.1ti'aj lose: or fclr (,ot,al, aa)ount of dearing =r TQ 2(�-yiwar hbe ,n�Pfthc JJCP wil be lititited to, rto,rriore than, 7 @Qrc-s'. No cleal habitwq other than that necessary and authodzed fi)r new,msidential deve boom enit, local road w id,cning,, ar proiact residenrial areas will ho Oawod Ml other dcvWojmncn1 will occur an thsUsbcd lands, 5. New residential dowdopmeM in TO; I (Tiers dehned in 111(77, Table.2.7) areas will behraited to ric),mc) percent of all resi(Jenifial units perinitted over the, .0-year fiff of dc M1,1111 (ie., z niaxinnan of If.) units) or (two 1�,wrccnt ofthe Wal 1-1), Michever rte�sufts in, a, kpwer 11. ,6. No new devcloj.ilent other than single-fian.ifly residential and -accessary uses will b,c permitted in Tier, �H of rill dvvelopin,un.1 in 'Fier 1, will. riol cxcee4,'J H == 0,022, 7. M developmeM M be pernAtted MW may result: in Whim loss on the Sands conidoq as diawn W B. New residenthl and commercial developmetat vidl macur larogressively over the 21.1-year fif` of"the 1i(.71 ito'°rPacts that:occur at Iny k g T1 t~' 9. New COftIMMAl devekVnimit will be HOW to hi MI I in exisling commercial ateas" on Ti,er 2 and Tiel a�,ong the US-1 ccirridor an Big Pine Key. Ilds includes all cunvnt corivnierciat(y-zoned zireas south (.),H,. new cornmeMal devehyprent; woWd be AM to WsWrhed Wds, as deDned jr,'ij lb,c Cocinly C"clde (9,54 Cnezri[ng of gi tiellands an.dior hamnxwk OR ]lot hO IXTUdRed W commercial dove I opmcri.t activities. 10. ExMnMnn ofli,rj virtc non-rcsidciitikil ImMics W bu resuBcd yQuarfly W within the US-1 conidot above, 11. Ile nwdli.fled Rale,ofC.3rowth Ordinance will continLie to give newd eve]qpmara prioYity to Tier 3 1& 'kvr I land's, 12, Now, reavadonal and COYTIMLIFlity facilitics deMopnient would berestrieted to exisring developed an �Ort;ady public(y owned or,acqLtired fbi, that parpose. 13. %,Minor reovalional and conununity ',faciliiies will be restrictod to areas 14. Coinnianity wganizadons' developawnt will be neskicted to expansions, on existhig o,ganizatiomov holdame ama Umbs pe"be coutoy ("'o'dc. No,cl,earii-L14 of nadve habimt MH be thc'sc 15. spo'ed limits, traffic i;alniirtg MWq and othor nwa,-,urcs will be apphod to losor the probabi1hy c& whh Key, deer and Lo,wer Keys marsh rabbit on (`mnity roads.. 16. Publit, infrastrucwTorl vctlr.rparnnrrnt vrwill l � tcstrictccl w disturbed lands dcfinod in thtw ("cotnit"y (7�odc 17. No new fences witt beidlowed, in lier I lands unkss they aiv, authoii'zvd, by the Ul.S.A`ish aild 'Witt„ (Service). The Service will rcLview applications lbr fences in'TiQLr I R)t iaq)acts ,on covemd sptrcius. '18. No a dd i ti o na I Owes MH be a I I owed in die U S-I commercial corridor. 19. Fences uval be sW,7jcc( u) restriciJousand guidelines ostabli shed in agTVerlleftl villa the Service, A,ll 11 the Puidelineq irt TJCP Ar)ti,otidix C"- u � i / , ,gip 1f, i ar" r/ ri i f � / ,r r a n�f , °11%� �„ '... µiMVmIIVI111,NH11lV �IIUIII!m6� a IIIIIIIVN INMwIWIVVIM1VIXVk 1u194urilllul UdIhN}odVU4rir mlllp uww �p�mNN�Y W�p�N���V��m����G�IpIIraAAxm�l,mnWWmr VNVup6 plNpp����I�N.�,tiNNNNN'NI WurM1KdlwwrrctG 9TM'Nlu, DN'WWIN III0.wNNll miIIINmNdImIµWN IIUMIwUr nmuuu¢II I� urxrilmev uuwuummlp'm ulw,Nu'I%woof+},u\rw mWWmN Immwmin INMIUIiU mmWrtmo Iwu%almYamnw Dw ni A{ NM1we'inlpml l µw{NT,UUw%w'/ III „Ww,wIVI IIUWtlbm' IVMd'mnO MlVlll uVmrw Allow ONMNMIV Nd1wIN1WNIIIIN'FOr$ .. „ II I ImUWINw !%',emvmrp'eouMUP Nam; IIUIN% WutttAN"V RANNuY4« N^Ill ^Oltlllllll �,I���I � Q ww u° iawu lu mliNMli ubn\luwll ilvM1UIW'7rl^"I�II�'IIuwpIIVMV�I�pf;wwuwuv Iluw e ' ll�iui\„°w1i Ilp�m"'Aw" .« 1uIWW�� pWp��!'dW'Ivllr lmmlllu,r4'.Im�aW�IryUry u I 1m�l��p�ww@;uglWuuwrs ICYitiN1N: pq��yp}M1 MMIN,uFNN INIINI�N IY ¢ IIIIIUWW� IV III'Y W WUI4WN mmWIVno, r hWll mr�glN WWWIIIMwNXI , 1 ilm� ��INNWM pNIIgryMV � 'MMiIXwm}IIpWItlUi@NIIIN ' pNpldIpIIIV1IV // UYNi61ol AulluwwAll'�I�INIWI '' IJ uuuti��\�Inla�m\\u,Wwuww plUriIW4luum �NWIrrIaWINiD� Iri�iia%�lwa\4uuWr IWuuDDloreluua FlawWuur?aunN�NgW�vuN!WINp' �NuwliwWm V � „�;,, mllnMgil unoomrla!nUumrWl�� � ,.. ° ' ,IpmNmrMWznv?.@Illgnillll MWlllWtt wUIwUItlYm4W\\q4 VIUIm, IUI11IMpwl d1941WN}hill@Yhq}I'p�p�����{1w Mq'AVWY Im}\Nllwlglhpni9N;H PA\nNIwW9UDIwW IIIIIWIWINwNm Ip 1ppl�Ip��'p`N'pI �;1pFIp,�1N�pIXIW , -- iNOp16Y6,FfunUW'M14-.NIi I, Ullall\WN IIwIWIIIIN II.INII�NIGWM1N% IIpIMBISN,IgYWllw ju lwVIIIIIme wIwNNW INtiIIIIIIIIIIIINUN"" �il ,'O,ryllll iWNW 1�%� �i\ 1Ylul¢I,NIVDIII lu@Wi�INI�MMIINIII �IIIWNPN'M' � ump' 'Mwllmnl Ipll#N,Ir mINmmW'INnwlIXlr+w!91IN«l IIVIIIIWwW,wwm ��i O'V�GI ,IIM1WUIN Ittnn'uIIIY IIINIItlYNI.Uwl107k,wnWWNIM'p1C9Wl IUw;wMN INmfWMF.I ImIYIYWtlI wWa WIIwMn tlgWllull uNNNaup L,Ywuyry' IWhlu'AwWXIY ����� /y�&',�y ...;:a;,�„ .. ,umNnnW wpnrnuw ulwllmiaullaYulwu IruwdluwiluulYr IDImWnL. nnlolpYxalWmmu rv%Noubr lNunlgpn I � rr�..� ,, ImumlaYwlM1mou, Nulx%wlaudWvw I�mulllu IINwAwrl� l Ilwxl II � mPoIwwWNmw �N���Ipl��p�pl o% , IIIMamuwr✓e wuvVpivulauuuw w!uNmuw�Ka%il�w/'lil�aim}Iw��ww�Psn':WuuwwwuWw�� �.. 'mn��ll��,.. WIIIUIIU �� /„i ,/, ;mmnarM1wuluunnw unummµpumwWW olumww)I VuwrM1{rw,romflrr;laumvwnlmumnnu Nmwmty II,1„r '^ I „/i I �,, VmemuN lumomo„,.IUNuoI%w olNumlw IownlwlcVuwuuru, ouwvMc InarapW+wMlluuu ��uWweM1n Ali%�iaa 61quuN%Im,mNlwwv IVVVVIINNmw III ...l �% jf," ( ,,. IlulmmulWuawnmwImININ,mNpaloro%r;Inpmla,¢NinnawpY; m\vw�N�u ImumavM1wlmNUN riuwlr Milifi111nuliuu"%ulwmuaNuwilwIXl RWwu �11 pp NIA' IIV IIVONVU IIamI}uuu Nlnwuulvglpmlllm,IwMllrorrmllmnml bW. ;IM,wmma\u{}wly awIN.NIX puwoAa\uuuhaGuw mw\ww IWmwww WVuwVmmX V .VI}dro Iwbll}m,wlxmml-.INtnmuo rtpNollul lawmwrawlnuore, 0�1�� IminNwmalwlmual IMti%ANw� Imlmwi}waularrury mmmllwuuumwmm IwumwWm I � , ^rorrrrrowrx!x alxlomtwmWa;Wll �„ xn uWlgbw llmmnaw iu\a\wmrmauuuw Wn;Fw;NIPUImvW rutlwwp � ,�./ muymuWl uloewulM1 dlrilNrslnnpa\awly drw.tinsvvAmlllruM1n,uu\wlrm���`I,�pq��., uluulmiwNowwuv Idrolnmvl nllmlWN IIIolvuuarvwamlVW IwnwwwvWuunww WXululwwNm IImIINIWIppIN�IIIryIN � ,../ mtlw,u'M'mmwu°pn Wnla\NWIqu1mN I@%'IINItlC 'wONYa.NY u1 Wm%INraM1lUl11m buVidq\q`uwwuNw NwawNUAlliulrytlul tlpuNmiµ mW`,w mu!uuuw IRS �V'Ulu��!lull� madm«lurn a l'W Illuapgwmullwl KIN IMPS IlmnlmUp:, ;umlNmu l«IwUNUN IIwU101 MII%IIpV,u P}II.VIIIIUWIIPW iulliVVWIq NU@�N ul IUIII«WW auwllw,n'111ViwWiuwlulWNAVA, NUIMWM 111Wwwr IUWo111w IwIMNgl1,OMwPIIIY IdIm umxwu,!"Awro ,uN'pw\4UIIIGwWw IINWwIaMYlI uiiwlmWphUU4llN lY iV!mW,N,ilurili0! u N .:whin°imrlmvuN}nr NwlNuugl4grvplmv NouvM1w%v¢IlmwtliY pmllulluuuWunNll IllumaµnwwuuW uuwwwwnwlw„m�ml�wa„mmio I'�I IUUIIIU�I „ „ p������������p IIII�w; y ' Iw\N YPoAIIUMI I�'�I��V Flwllp%YOY,Nwuttvnr INIC1tlr:PlIa 'IWwuXiNu uuu!uw4a�umNW'XOTNM;I I, NwWAw uW'Wlmw onuiuomnuuuw 1. IVNVNwIryYi �RgtlS.' I UK'/AM. ...�m\urUM1tlw uuoMwtl t u,nuuw,rnnlolgr Nuuwwh IGNVNUp;INmwuwl ImuNuw i�amlulV'til,ulOmnlol VUIwINIIw IVIwuN�nnfiUu � NN 'ull„'... wul�mr6 IIYVI�Nrmuwr NXwuvmlWwAlmr wmrvnwluaw m IWNWVUINuuWuo wWunnauluuuvniuupulu{wlNNwwly XuARNOXu 'IIIII,l�111�I� 4 %inuVil GmulwMi..NIIuIUu! mmw14w11L115rNu Iwmmiurauunngil' uunevwreA\\auurvw sunwNurwmw',wu wulAnnrlolawulruWI11W¢eNwroum wOuwHrauuwN !wrouuµvml umaenu INwwNW upwmm mNllmmaum;Iuw�MwnM= Imawuwrwlw,wW ImllaMa. uWuuwre NWluun onollwumlllluw Inmrntm manAou�u 1pun\\,wo. a IMrYGUNwIoI. uwwnnr anxantnr,.luumAMIA omlww,Y llwsuwlxw;nnlml uwuIM1IN: :'umuNlwrmumuuum Wwiwmumumw 1 u. ,fllr✓'wwo� umwpmwarvpl �.. MvvwwaWv IIDN'Wlp Nlnuwnry ION,\anwwXlulN, wmuuvuaulwwvw Grwluwwmsunww;n"MwmulNNnwN_v IIwp¢aaNtiu\nwu mwoulmu YNwdlumuwwupuv �� miwmlrvaip!Wuull,o%IuumFewlN,reti,N.,,mmummYWrvnwwllI oNNOuIVm Iuu ' NwWwawlmwN}v MEN .., �•�.� d UMIIInM1wmlWc pll,NNIVII AmNr&Jaa IPRUIIIIwN mmlNNlll IIUINtlmUMwWalm IUUWWIWIImIUNwill ONM1NUIIUIwWlllu4µ .4 d IIWUXWwuW,nw gdNiumlulttmwww;uuwWmrou,YNtmm, Iramnoly ,uuwmlwolmtluwula-muoWne Il I IVIIIIIVV'�n'ul�. If r.I ,`: uu uu a ��j �.. � Nmulsloarlwu'unrlw>wul n;wuuv\lnir�.IlwW weNnulr� .. w.IWwmv IWunwmuwumluuil wuumaumurmmw P I. ^I��� '��'�' d..�: ���jl�������� �, ��� lum„ror. ,Vduluwlcr �uloMupmawwNmn�uaun\.: wmuwnwNollw IwuNUNrawwwwN uwsMNrWwUuan NmmNNUWmmr !!<"�dul`VII(III� �' �, � y %�� I�I �, I.�., l' a III: „' �'.IVY. ,wamnww owmwrm,IWwNmka'rtWiwlml mWolmwNmVNUulI wnWMU WwmuW uupWWmmpur Ip�111� �.... .d r Iminmi�lrr; �, :IIIu mmµµqq IIC�I E�pppp ; ,r pw111nluw aumumw\Nwlnuu,uwanYW wXuwmuuauwmW lu%wmwt,NnwNm uuuNvnm NplolaNN mNIWwluluulwwW remwumlvFmv 'V}'V�CSP BVI'�Q '� �ryuN�IW7lI)N� �NVjI;��!j�� fuIImV IjpWry gWlp, F����{p mlUl UdIIY AHMM,Ir�UNttYN{N flblmtllNl)�NNwpugl pplHIIM,Yi IUNwu6w lYfumwW�NIIUIINW wkNiWW"IIUIIIIIItlIN IIIIwtlIIIN NINIIwIW. III 'I I "'""'�""' ""'""'�""""' "" "^'"" �101`"" uwmlulpwmlovnl uplilWnlvlmlNlNu uwwlamrmaWmmXl{ullvruuluwuXWuuW+'uWNuuuawlwuluuY I ¢. � IluwwWlmlN\wu.iNelrvlWowwr���� ��� Illuauoaumowwlr'WNN0.wd111brNlp NIwoNVlNurimlNll Nmoliwamimuuaar Iwwwu mwWmu IluwuuuNNupwm wWavuwlwwompw mmlimumwvW I ' � : „�I ,� { I py�� ly �IIII�p����p ��G NMrnre' w Wrc%mwuUWtlmlm Wmouwum!Uluulw uuwwwNuwun!w .NWulmwulwu � ��µ}�1:� 1IIjm�IIuu��u�r I ImIuuWllawullulNr WNeWwuuuWw aIWIIWI UV{WWtu Imuwupr«dvnllu6 IwlbuunlNW uwwwolmwlaruumo IeuomlwMmoruNc WUXWWUNmwNu NVuwullNuwur ♦ � �WI�419� �Y � ltl '.. I jN� ,Q 1 iJNi,���IVIUVu�"YYV' N�.� Y V OIUIII&&11,111NLNN;IIIVUU'NPWI0111%'NMuIUIUINI&�'�YIIIIIIIIIIIINVINVNNIIIII��IlllllwVNll m'14WI'MNW,IIIINNIIM'S'INIVNIIUIU IIIIIVIWINVIWIVIIINOY IIIIII!�mN IIIIR'lllglil 161iFN6S111Yim','dtl r�� ➢VIIMVINU II N'PII ..II ��������������pp����IIII ������tt IIII 1} `j �iA ^NIWIIII NVW,l9 ��\tl Ipq uy�,µ�p�IlIy,,v6^pipp pyy p�V�¢�t NIWNYr �F�1y1ry �ij� p�pN�js�y�'�,jry�Y Y VNWUDUWN � tl ��I,I �j� �nO �'Iu V1I�1;�\�V11�'�" ��:VII@���w IlY1f41VIIWM'VdII�..IIYItl V114116tt �M4YIMI�IC WIIVVW IIUVI� �IIII^1��� 00.U1U`F1VI1'M{ �ii��. .VIVmUU'JNmUN^ � NNN b'U{IF11u�1 if.p �:y� �I'� �II�I'Y^Iti'.,. � ,. ��uy�� AI111v�YVUIVp{8'a VV'MNY611Fll11Wlt AwIFWNdriiulVlr OIIFNN'k3NmtlIM iY�A'I% tl. � ^.... 11 �IQ p !II�I4�%yIy N Iwuri4tl VNNWIVVWJ wUIV'WG906WIVII!NII IlN{IWFr WFrM�p ,IIIVUWV«,ouao... I��I I .. IIV � UW I r � ... � : ;M1u11YN NYNIN4tlIWIX VVWNVII Ir1 4%9�tt�A\\V1q NHiI{m1�iVNIIY V' ' V WMN atiri1NY hhn ��I� ,�I i INNNNIYWFWIU-IiYiWM!!VUN11,4 NIIIpWfbVVp\\111q VAtlIIwN6 VMwI{ri IwNI � � ��... � �� �ip���W41,4 V@6Phtu nl%lnri4 VFgYMk�;YPUII NnaaluVNWIIIriV INmIriUY u���.... I'�uu\��II NNIIWY M1Y6YUIW 111VI'�,'� I'mW,Wl MIYM1'mw. IIIIIUIIW fWIN,m IVIVM'U)gW}IVlri I � WNW�� NnW'htWIN'I I�IOVwI @YmYIVY IVIUWtim111Wu41@ IVflF MA ..gym P UUIIIN q �I �I IIfiNJ^F0N'pWVplw VWNIw qw 111 III VNOW W VIv z VII �II� J i Hl ��k Illlm �I III�IV0V19G�u I(u AA��m�;I w„II o v�p NS'NNN V 1 I ICI � is / I,o i > 'III I���part�w,W6 pyl loq a I IIIwW'MIUIYwINU"Y1�11141 //' _ / 'X Oi �/ ff N F /' 'i/ %/ I �p j�� �� � p�W IVIIVI�������W4111 Iu��iVi. I11i a uI�� k �II�IIIII�� V� „/ /// a /a / ° o1, S�/ io n,I u rw awuNdnTP"" Ulam uuiNN NmuXXIWw uillou4aulRulum uiGNVIuwWXW IiwwGu`uiwula'rnttuuuiuM1ym uuu1lnwtilldN Iiw uw mWoml /II U /2 �IMnntw:mnNrh uuouuW uououlllWWN WUUNuwuWNl INWIouylmlWu umuNrmlrauv l�p\,N\r\w XNUWI uolomWuuwuw Wommr NgoNml owWNNumnuul r %% i l /,,. / /I". ,,, { �;//,INw,aNOluwuwl mlllDllllll XuwNmm NwNwIOINNIu VW➢wumWWu IWMrbNmlwic IXwINUI-uuuuuW IWouwuuGlVuuN IINWwuwwlw wNdMwWuuulwf Y,/i.. 11i, : % /,, / /;1 IIN7WII Ni O4M I%IINNwWNWlII IllUllllw4 wWUIIrUWIw INW991mIWIW WNmN IIUUIIUIII IIww6;4Wlllw wIIIUIIWIIIIIIwW IIOUIINtl tiNMWw IUUUWNIA'W!Uw U4W4WVINIIInM14' i, ,, ,,, ^;. „,. tlAWml p"GNAV v�NmWWwIllUlllp IUWIIUIU IUlUlllmllUlllllltl IIUWWIIIUIIww mIUUIWmNImw Illllllllllpm",IwUllf. IIII01111111 IIIIIIIIdilll IWWMmIIIUUIw ItlVNNhIIIUINUIV' IUIVIYW NIIMw° �' /.. 'y�I� I� II'�� f pUlYw lwYaNl rp„WIUIWIIUIINUIW IIWUUUµ II NI 'wiw^mJ4NY% IGII!dd'nV!ri° /� A- y/%/ / 1 WIR � V# y y{%A,\N`:D(tlnpbv l�,l,ININOIIIIIIwwwl IIIUUUUIw nMGWNMM au" wIIUUUO nii tlflWNN NNmwNltlWm�U YIMfNIIM'aW'!M pw%wI NNNtlk IIUIIUN4NUINImI IgwllW)mllllipll g /; / 14NWMU INw;N NNN II6u�wWww IIIIUNUUI �wb tlNIXN IIIINUIa Walw4U,umh 'IIUwWu IIIIIUNII+INmIw IpdmG'Pr+wwwN W!'WW'tl9110@ o `... ttOwMm lfimMip lNuwcmwuuw IUIIWNU YuI NiWUI mwum°wN 1WUUI@ m'NwmrwWu IuOuullu'uµ,wNY ImIIOUIR MuulNnr N'd%mll MflMim IINwV!wllUxru. If %/ O/ D/ ��&o ; loin I wNn Ip\wIN pIINAIvw wlw WIIUDC NNwIw WUUW w NWm NW Wm 11A a IINWiUti Wu NIUIII IlYhw / //I wusW+uWwuu mlwwamWmm uolWuw wnmuuu WNIWmWWp WlwllU'mN'IM'm WuuuulWouwIX mgWWNuuouw ouWlowU',wW,Imwwawp%lur buwwwwluwVl � ' �" �`, � I INwaurmowur ulwwuouumw NXmIWI uwuuN: WOXwWrImW uNlimwlws WWmww omlolummmmW mMw.alrwVarn Fuunnixulauuir.umuumuuummNr A% / 2 � //%�' /1 l - i�lia'�wm uoN �aliiml�ilti�uu�lolif w�uuWw' iuo mVl Nwu�sm,IwWII wl�rnuiluirtrvin\I�dl�i�I�rmwn Nb v��rn�ic�iwn"NY � �%;/ �% �� ��� I j, � Imolwvoollmm Ilmwwmuwvu ImuWlm unumiiilWNo NloumulwNW Nwiwwllllalr,IwrMmlrcarow,,{ININWrueumA'YlwlilM1rumlW,°�iMmw'wWmm wXNWu %„// / ,.r` �� �''"�rl`"... koldNlruuwaw IWwrriuNwWl wluwW WIMaIVum,l umtltluuww„a :VwNINnNrrq\^rmbunumuNflwArwmlwlunMr,-,mNumulWcduu btlUNruuUNUN IIIIIVN �!,<;:: f �I� NpI%wmt INwNieaNwNa XuuuuuuluwwwiMnW INwuW �,IpwrAnNlarru�vridVmr lwlmw r,,Valwn ammrca um+lm\DUWwN oWulDu. /p �� � / ) � , .° � mxnlrneavaw,INlamluuwwq Wlpnul wolllrwulttu uluawamulurafuwglenGxM1w,ulNnpluorauupl.^uwrAnlluw,m,r�/Iwmuuummolwu Wwowo ,� ,,�! �1;, I/j% ,0' Yj I�����p�����!auam uwuWu.VUWm N,gmav)mrlurnmwlry xrrxe( nn rn/I�/,annex ,n°�ammzr,^ IINUOo" yl r II��IIIj���� 'OfiIr1lti lMninr Iw,NWUuam¢rtNluum, Nnprumlwu lr UuwW lnbrvIXti�luiWlwnwlw';rtilvu ulWuu 'uwmlNlWwml wuaNw rm >,. � �r/' /I'�I� IgMVII INDIIIIV r�N'WMx,IpIINtt{N'lUm1'Xlt'(.Iµb0.N llb\rtlNU IMWIWIP/1pIu,INm;Yp,116wANJ�1WUWVm'IwU IIWUIIWwwwwU I!NNwW. 7'x INN �µ,� I .. NwWl lawpnl'r lmmwdribllnwrl Nr'uanv�uraowmwua�IlNIXpyu mxWu WNUIGwuMM uwuumnuwmuu:Iw✓ulwwmnaw'IIIIW"w ������� I IWWmIw,sV,w�>fvs�rAw:euluMNwlr^molmumtla«v=Irwwimmwl INV�u �roiwmnnWm ulwuu i'�'I� I!Id1114V1!µltttlRh V!.}YIVIV'NYtµMY @WIM fNNI W1M;w,'A111wN 1, pry WbN'M UPn'NIY:NGIMN: � r gip,` . ..w IIV(OUIIihNWN VmIWm NwIllrylplprMV;V@�NN.mIN WIW !WINb' WI%' �? I% U/ y�'""'" I�����•^'i�� �' mlplVLllllwlN INII1111q Nllwwll IIWIUIN IN „ , - y 1 uuwmuluwws 1ill1 ilk M " t �Ij Il�uuullll,l,;:w , 6 n INp�l�l�l wurvuummo l�, II I � (� �A!V �,; i�ii 4" ^ i � n r !!�i�°� l % , / ����!//'10�'� r r/'��, r i r ��� / ���, t� �r a �� /1'i/', �%/���' i 'lei' %��i% l ,// ! � � ! �' i 1 � G% ,�, ,i �/j°�% i!, ii, L ' !!� � rJr; ii f fi Gl/ � ,`�i/�' ''o�� I u ni I aP' „f ,,,-r / ,��r���% %' ��� / �vw i= m 1 i�1 o m ' r m � �r�!� glllllll V I ,qlu uuuuuuuuuuuY��"6uuuuuuuuuuuu ""'�ii�u"""' f i Vd � i m��i7uuuui II I I ui uui �� I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHII I�II IIII IIIII I� III I� r w ,. y v r� »fir f , r III IIIIIII Ills v� r i a jI, 'L i i t3 r I F / r„, MEMO /yr r;��rre,�rar,lrr 1"��(r•eei r� � � al D��� ai ■� ref i,rim �� � �� ��r � � .P. ��pp�� i„rv,oiH�nlrue mrnm %" na a emsa,ms � � s. � �sem aM ® ■ ,f� J tip«9�)�'r' malre �mli ���i I!' :r r' r �r4�lr sm� ■reaMw err ��trri�m � mr �rrwr omr P�,r�� �� rr i � _ EMESSIMEmoommmm �� ■or�r rrw¢en� u srs�s � mere +�wn>o arm MI�� � - ! ��� SOMEONE IMEME �eesi smem emss mssea emss seem msews �� muse stww� mwms errs wm � uses a r a r ® .0 MEMO"' ONE ® 11�®MEMO ®®® ® ®® ®®®M®®® ®®; M ®® ®®® NONE NONE® ®®®ENONE ��®® NONE MEME ,i�"are, � w„ ■ NNEN EEME NONE OMENr ®®ICI® r ,� _ s� _ _ .�� rr .� �, .:.: ,,�_ _ .. __ _ s,r _�. _ __ All-Rmm � _�. �.. .... .... o_ ��. . • ��� a r��parsr r, �... .... .... .... .... �.� �... ..� ME �.. .... �..r .... �s �..� �... .... ' i' �� cram ems• �me rsl kN9 �l fimess r �%, �Y%"m' �� 1/ NelNelell Idlim i A� AIAINI rlrlilNk emml �® �Ig6e)me(„(" eels � � !Wa"➢�� 'I�1 � ®� iNNAII em ■rrr �»row rua� u �r a .nra �, r �» ■ rs��re�� ®es wuma��i a� a 1�" rl i � ��1°�frr as>i�eN�,�rs rer• me �® a I f i u kh Jr a r i„ „ o i 1/01 /rrrrrrrr l'%��Sri ////%%%%%/% / �/�/ / I�� il O f­rw //� I i � u uui MI I ul i/ II +,15 r �i „ / em i ( io "° � i MII iuiuuiu4 „r �o I� i'. o e NT OF Ty FISH do WILDLIFE SERVICE �9 United States Department of the Interior t _ FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CH a Florida Ecological Services Field Office May 27, 2026 Angelika Phillips Federal Emergency Management Agency 3003 Chamblee Tucker Road Atlanta, GA 30341 Service Federal Activity Code: 2006-F-1005-R164 Project Name: Monroe County FEMA Biological Opinion Applicant: Federal Emergency Management Agency County: Monroe Dear Ms. Phillips, I am writing to inform you that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)has revised the Species Assessment Guides (SAGS) that are used to implement the amended April 30, 2010 Biological Opinion(BO) associated with Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) administration of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). These revisions were necessitated by the expiration of the Big Pine Key/No Name Key Habitat Conservation Plan/Incidental Take Permit ESPER0039939 (HCP/ITP) on June 30, 2026. The December 14, 2010, Amendment to the April 30, 2010, BO provided Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPA) as required by the December 3, 2010, Settlement Agreement. Specifically, RPA paragraph 4.(c) states: "In the event that current HCPs designated in the Florida Keys under section 10 of the Act expire, all properties addressed by these HCPs that fall within the Species Focus Area Maps will be referred to the Service for review per the guidelines in this RPA."With the expiration of the referenced ITP, Monroe County is now referring affected properties located in Big Pine Key(BPK) and No Name Key (NNK) that are within the Species Focus Area Maps to the Service for review, as outlined in the amended BO. The "Take" restrictions developed as part of the BPK/NNK HCP/ITP will be applied to the FEMA Biological Opinion (BO) for projects located in BPK and NNK. The H value take limits (maximum allowable H-impact of 1.1) established in the ITP for projects on BPK and NNK will remain the same under the BO. Similarly, the 3:1 H mitigation-to-impact ratio requirement will also remain the same under the BO. According to the most recent 19t" Annual Key Deer HCP Monitoring Report the total cumulative"H"mitigation credit acquired through 2024 (Reporting Year 19) is 3.2782. The cumulative "H" mitigation credit acquired to date (3.2782) is 99.3% of the 3.3 mitigation"H"required for the maximum allowable H-impact of 1.1. The cumulative H impact of parcels impacted by development activities since March 13, 1995 through the end of 7915 BAYMEADOWS WAY,#200 1601 BALBOA AVENUE 77737...ST SUITE D-101 JACKSONVILLL,FL 32256 PANAMA CITY,FL 32405 VLRO BLACH,FL 32960 (352)448-9151 (352)448-9151 (352)448-9151 the reporting period, December 31, 2024 is 0.5736 "H". This means that there is currently a surplus mitigation credit that will remain available under the BO. In 2025, the State of Florida adopted legislation (Chapter 2025-190, Laws of Florida, Section 22) authorizing additional building permit allocations over a 10-year period for new dwelling units in Monroe County beyond those approved through 2026. Based on this new legislation, using the current ROGO allocation system of four new residential units per year for Big Pine and No Name Keys, Monroe County is able to increase the maximum number of new residential units from 200 to 236. As such new residential development on Big Pine and No Name Keys will be limited to a maximum of 236 dwelling units, including those issued over the life of the HCP, provided the total impact of commercial, institutional, and residential development shall not exceed"H" = 1.1. Both the H-impact and the cap of 236 new residential permits will be tracked independently from the "Take" associated with projects outside of BPK and NNK and reported as part of the Permit Referral Process (PRP) annual report. Additionally, with the exception of Condition G.3.of the ITP the remainder of the measures described in Condition G of the ITP (attached) and the associated County Ordinances that were established to implement the BPK/NNK HCP will remain in place to ensure that"Take" of covered species is minimized and mitigated. We appreciate FEMA's and Monroe County's continued partnership and support in ensuring compliance with federal regulations and the protection of listed species. Please let us know if you require additional information or documentation regarding these revisions or the referral process. Sincerely, J OS E Digitally signed by JOSE RIVERA RIVERA 09:5201-04'00'7 4 Jose Rivera Manager, Division of Environmental Review Florida Ecological Services Office cc: electronic only Monroe County, Key Largo, Florida(Emily Schemper) Monroe County, Key West, Florida (Christine Hurley) Monroe County, Marathon, Florida(Mike Roberts) FEMA (Portia Ross) FEMA (Michael Nakagaki) 2 Attachment A Big Pine Key/No Name Key Habitat Conservation Plan/Incidental Take Permit ESPER0039939 3 Page 1 of 6 'M&W LIFE NATIVE ENDANGERED &THREATENED SP. HABITAT SERVICE CONSERVATION PLAN Permit Number: ESPER0039939 Version Number: 0 Effective: 2006-06-09 Expires: 2026-06-30 Issuing Office: Department of the Interior U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ES Atlanta Permit Office 1875 Century Boulevard Atlanta, Georgia 30345 Division Manager,Ecological Services Field Office, Gainesville,Florida permitsR4ES@fws.gov Per mittee: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources Dept. Marathon,2798 Overseas Hwy; Suite 400 Florida 33050 U.S.A. Name and Title of Principal Officer: Roman Gastesi County Administrator Authority:Statutes and Regulations: 16 U.S.C. 1539 (a), 16 U.S.C. 1533 (d) 50 CFR 17.22, 50 CFR 17.32, 50 CFR 13 Location where authorized activity may be conducted: Big Pine Key,No Name Key,and Adjacent Islets As shown in Figure 1.1 of the Permittees'Habitat Conservation Plan,Part of the Florida Keys,Monroe County(County),Florida. Reporting requirements: Reports will be provided to the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service office appearing in Condition M of this Permit. Authorizations and Conditions: A. General conditions set out in Subpart B of 50 CFR 13,and specific conditions contained in Federal regulations cited above,are hereby made a part of this permit.All activities authorized herein must be carried out in accordance with and for the purposes described in the application submitted.Continued validity,or renewal of this permit is subject to complete and timely compliance with all applicable conditions,including the filing of all required information and reports. THIS PERMIT CONSISTS OF CONDITIONS A-M(6 PAGES TOTAL). Page 2 of 6 NATIVE ENDANGERED &THREATENED SP. HABITAT xrxexx�wxxaxxax� BF;IxVICF. CONSERVATION PLAN Permit Number: ESPER0039939 Version Number: 0 Effective: 2006-06-09 Expires: 2026-06-30 B. The validity of this permit is also conditioned upon strict observance of all applicable foreign,state,local tribal,or other federal law. C.Valid for use by permittee named above.Also valid for use by permittee's authorized agents. D.Acceptance of this Permit serves as evidence that the Permittee and its authorized agents understand and agree to abide by the terms of this Permit and all sections of Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations.Parts 13 and 17,pertinent to issued permits. Section IT of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,as amended provides for civil and criminal penalties for failure to comply with Permit conditions. E.The Permittees have defined the geographic area(Plan Area)covered by their April 2006 Habitat Conservation Plan(HCP)to include Big Pine Key and No Name Key and surrounding small unnamed keys in Monroe County(County),Florida. Status surveys and annual monitoring indicate that the Plan Area provides breeding,feeding,and sheltering habitat for the Florida Key deer, Odocoileus virginianus clavium, and Lower Keys marsh rabbit,Svlvilagus palustris hefneri; and potential habitat for the eastern indigo snake Diymarchon corais couperi: the"covered species." F. Subject to the continuing validity of this Permit,the Permittees,and their designated agents, successors,and assigns,are authorized to take,in the form of harassment,harm,or mortality,the covered species incidental to all commercial,institutional,and residential development set forth in the Permittees' HCP and as authorized by this Permit when conducted in conformance with the terms and conditions of this Permit. This permit does not authorize take of any covered species resulting from unlawful activities. This Permit is based upon the Permittees' expected compliance with the provisions and commitments established in the HCP and the Permit's stated terms and conditions identified herein. Where a conflict occurs between the HCP and this Permit,the Permit shall control. G. The Permittees shall employ the following measures to ensure that take of the covered species is minimized and mitigated. The Permittees are responsible for meeting the terms and conditions of the UP and implementing the HCP. 1. The total impact of commercial,institutional,and residential development over the 20-year life of the HCP shall not exceed"H"— 1.1. 2. For each"H"value unit of development,three"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. The acquisition of mitigation lands may lag behind that required by the cumulative"H"value of development by no more than 5 percent at any time. 3. New residential development will be limited to a maximum of 200 dwelling units over the 20-year life of the HCP. 4. Clearing of native habitat will be limited to parcels to be developed for residential use or for local road widening. The total amount of clearing over the 20-year life of the HCP will be limited to no more than 7 acres. No clearing of native habitat,other than that necessary and authorized for new residential development,local road widening,or fire breaks to protect residential areas will be allowed. All other development will occur on disturbed lands. 5. New residential development in Tier 1 (Tiers defined in HCP,Table 2.7)areas will be limited to no more than five percent of all residential units permitted over the 20-year life of the HCP(i.e.,a maximum of 10 units)or a total H—0.022 (two percent of the total H),whichever results in a lower H. 6. No new development other than single-family residential and accessory uses will be permitted in Tier 1 areas. The total H of all development in Tier 1 will not exceed H=0.022. 7. No development will be permitted which may result in habitat loss on the Sands corridor,as shown in HCP Figure 5.2. 8. New residential and commercial development will occur progressively over the 20-year life of the HCP,thus minimizing the extent of construction impacts that occur at any given time. Page 3 of 6 NATIVE ENDANGERED &THREATENED SP. HABITAT xrxexx�wxxaxxax� BF;IxVICF. CONSERVATION PLAN Permit Number: ESPER0039939 Version Number: 0 Effective: 2006-06-09 Expires: 2026-06-30 9. New commercial development will be limited to infill in existing commercial areas on Tier 2 and Tier 3 lands,mainly along the US-1 corridor on Big Pine Key. This includes all current commercially zoned areas south of Lytton's Way. All new commercial development would be limited to disturbed lands,as defined in the County Code(9.5-4 [D-14][S-2]). Clearing of pinelands and/or hammock will not be permitted for commercial development activities. 10. Expansion of private non-residential facilities will be restricted primarily to within the US-1 corridor,as described in 6.9 above. 11. The modified Rate of Growth Ordinance will continue to give new development priority to Tier 3 lands over Tier 2 and Tier 1 lands. 12. New recreational and community facilities development would be restricted to existing developed areas that are either already publicly owned or acquired for that purpose. 13. Minor recreational and community facilities will be restricted to areas within existing improved subdivisions. 14. Community organizations' development will be restricted to expansions,on existing organization-owned land,up to the buildable area limits per the County Code. No clearing of native habitat will be permitted for these expansions. 15. Speed limits,traffic calming devices,and other measures will be applied to lower the probability of vehicle collisions with Key deer and Lower Keys marsh rabbit on County roads. 16. Public infrastructure development will be restricted to disturbed lands as defined in the County Code(9.5-4 [D-14][S- 2]). 17. No new fences will be allowed in Tier 1 lands,unless they are authorized by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The Service will review applications for fences in Tier 1 for impacts on covered species. 18. No additional fences will be allowed in the US-1 commercial corridor. 19. Fences will be subject to restrictions and guidelines established in agreement with the Service. All fencing will follow the guidelines in HCP Appendix C. 20. 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.,the green hatched areas on HCP Figure 22). Road widening activities along US-1 will occur within existing cleared and filled portions of the FDOT right- of-way. 21. Florida Department of Transportation will avoid impacts to wetlands during US-1 widening. 22. Accessory uses will be permitted on lots adjacent to existing developed lots only in Tier 2 and Tier 3 lands. Residential accessory uses will be limited to those listed in the County Code(Chapter 9.5-4[A-2]). 23. The County will implement an animal control education program to educate the public regarding the potential negative effect of domestic predators on the Key deer and Lower Keys marsh rabbit. The education program will also request that the public report any Lower Keys marsh rabbit road mortality to the County or the Service. 24. The County and Service will annually review and evaluate the need and feasibility of additional regulatory measures to control the spread of domestic predators. A substantial decline in the Lower Keys marsh rabbit population will be considered a changed circumstance. If deemed necessary and feasible,measures will be enacted at a date to be determined through mutual agreement. 25. The County will ensure that standard protection measures for the eastern indigo snake will be implemented during all construction activities to minimize impacts to eastern indigo snakes. H. Unforeseen and/or changed circumstances may become apparent either to the Permittees,authorized agents,or to personnel of the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. For purposes of implementation of this condition,unforeseen circumstances are defined as changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by the HCP that could not reasonably have been Page 4 of 6 NATIVE ENDANGERED &THREATENED SP. HABITAT xrxexx�wxxaxxax� BF;IxVICF. CONSERVATION PLAN Permit Number: ESPER0039939 Version Number: 0 Effective: 2006-06-09 Expires: 2026-06-30 anticipated by the HCP developers and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service at the time of the HCP's negotiation and development, and that result in a substantial and adverse change in the status of the covered species. Changed circumstances are defined as changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by the HCP that can reasonably be anticipated by HCP developers and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,and that can be planned for. The Permittees and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledge that even with the above detailed provisions for mitigating and/or minimizing impacts,circumstances could arise which were not fully anticipated by this Permit and which are considered unforeseen. Such circumstances may become apparent either to the Permittees or to personnel of the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. For purposes of implementation of this condition,unforeseen circumstances are defined as any significant,unanticipated adverse change in the status of species;any significant,unanticipated adverse change in impacts of the Activity or in other factors upon which the HCP and Permit are based; or any other significant new information relevant to the Permit and Activity that was unforeseen by the Permittees and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service that could give rise to the need to review the Permittees' conservation program. If,during the implementation of the HCP and adherence to this Permit,a significant unanticipated situation occurs that would have a serious effect on species covered by this Permit or the ability of the Permittees to continue the effective implementation of the HCP and/or adherence to this Permit,the Permittees shall undertake actions described in Section 5.7(Unforeseen Circumstances) of the HCP. 1. The Permittees and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service agree that modification and amendments to the Permittees'HCP and this Permit may occur through its effective term. The following procedures shall govern the modification and amendment process: 1. Any of the Permittees or the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service may propose modifications and/or amendments to the HCP or this Permit by providing written notice. Such notice shall include a statement of the reason for the proposed modification and an analysis of its environmental effects,including its effects on operations under the HCP and on the covered species. The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service or the Permittees will use best efforts to respond to a proposed modification or amendment within sixty(60)days of receipt of such notice. Absent any objection from the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service or any Perrmittee and provided such proposed modification or amendment does not fall within the limits of Condition 1.2,the proposed modification and/or amendment will be determined as minor and shall become effective upon written concurrence by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service or all of the Permittees. If the Service determines that a proposed modification or amendment would exceed the limits of Condition 1.2,such proposed modification or amendment must be processed in accordance with Condition 1.3. 2. The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service will not propose or approve minor modifications or amendments to the HCP or this Permit if the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service determines that such modifications or amendments would result in operations under the HCP and Permit that are significantly different from those analyzed in connection with the HCP,in adverse effects on the environment that are new or significantly different from those analyzed in connection with the HCP,or in additional take of the covered species not analyzed in connection with the HCP. 3. Any amendment or modification shall conform with all applicable legal requirements,including but not limited to the Endangered Species Act,the National Environmental Policy Act,and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service's permit regulations at 50 C.F.R.'13 and'17. J. The Permit and HCP will be reviewed formally by the Permittees and the Service annually. A meeting between the Permittees and Service will be scheduled within 60 days of annual report submittal to review the progress of Permit and HCP implementation and discuss any problems. Intermediate reviews may be conducted informally any time when either the Service or the Permittees find it necessary. Page 5 of 6 NATIVE ENDANGERED &THREATENED SP. HABITAT xrxexx�wxxaxxax� BF;IxVICF. CONSERVATION PLAN Permit Number: ESPER0039939 Version Number: 0 Effective: 2006-06-09 Expires: 2026-06-30 K. By March 31 of each year this Permit is in effect,the Permittees shall submit an annual report to the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service and other offices listed in Conditions M and N. The annual report shall describe implementation of the terms of this Permit and HCP. The Permittees shall identify non-compliance and measures employed to resolve such non-compliance. The annual report shall also include the following certification from a responsible official who supervised or directed the preparation of the report: "Under penalty of law,I certify that,to the best of my knowledge,after appropriate inquiries of all relevant persons involved in the preparation of this report,the information submitted is true,accurate,and complete." The annual report also shall address the following: 1. Results of the Key deer census,including the calculation of the average number of deer seen. 2. A summary of Key deer mortality information,including the calculation of the number of human-related deaths. Human- related deaths include those due to road kills,entanglement,attacks from domestic predators,and poaching. 3. A discussion and interpretation of mortality data. 4. A summary discussing habitat management activities for County mitigation lands. 5. An assessment of whether the ratio of the number of human-related deaths to average deer seen remains below 1.53. 6. A compilation(in acres)of annual impacts to the 500-meter wetland buffer areas identified as important for Lower Keys marsh rabbit. 7. The cumulative impacts of all development projects affecting buffers since permit issuance for Lower Keys marsh rabbit. 8. A summary of reported Lower Keys marsh rabbit road mortality. 9. A compilation and report of entire project area impacts(in acres)to document possible effects on eastern indigo snakes. 10. A list and map of development activities approved and completed. 11. The"H"value associated with each activity and the total"H"value of all activities for the year. 12. The cumulative"H"value of all development since permit issuance. 13. A discussion of any observations of covered species made during construction monitoring of county facilities and road expansion activities. 14. A list and map of parcels acquired as mitigation in the reporting year. 15. The"H"value for each parcel and the total"H"value of parcels acquired as mitigation during the reporting period. 16. The cumulative"H"value of all land parcels acquired as mitigation since permit issuance. 17. A discussion of management activities conducted on mitigation parcels during the reporting year. 18. An assessment of the status of all mitigation parcels,addressing the extent of invasion by exotic species,trash disposal, and other potential human-related impacts. 19. A monitoring report documenting compliance with the exotic/nuisance plant control program on County mitigation lands demonstrating no more than 20 percent aerial coverage of nuisance and 10 percent aerial coverage of invasive species identified by Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. 20. A statement confirming that mitigation has occurred so as to maintain a three to one ratio with respect to development activities and demonstrating that the cumulative"H"value of lands acquired as mitigation does not lag any more than 5 percent behind what is necessary to fully mitigate the cumulative"H"value of impacts authorized through the reporting period. 21. Any other pertinent information relative to the implementation of the HCP. L. Upon locating a dead,injured,or sick specimen of any covered species or any other threatened or endangered species whose death,injury,or illness is causally related to the activities authorized by this Permit,initial notification must be made immediately to the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service Law Enforcement Office,Miami Office at 3701 NW 82nd Avenue,Doral FL 33166,phone Page 6 of 6 NATIVE ENDANGERED &THREATENED SP. HABITAT xrxexx�wxxaxxaxrE EERYICE CONSERVATION PLAN Permit Number: ESPER0039939 Version Number: 0 Effective: 2006-06-09 Expires: 2026-06-30 305-632-4824 [This is a 24/7 phone number]. Notification should also be made,by the next workday,to the contact office of the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service noted in Condition M. Care should be taken in handling sick,injured,or dead specimens to ensure effective treatment or to preserve biological materials for later analysis. Tn conjunction with the care of sick or injured threatened or endangered species or preservation of biological materials from a dead animal, the finder should take responsible steps to ensure that the site is not unnecessarily disturbed. M. For purposes of receiving reports,and monitoring compliance and administration of the terms and conditions of this permit, you may either email fwsflesreg@fws.gov(mail to: fwsflesreg@fws.gov). (Please include permit number on all emails)or contact the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service office directly at: U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service South Florida Ecological Services Office 1339 20th Street Vero Beach,Florida 32960 3559 Telephone:772/562-3909 Key Deer Assessment Guide July 2026 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 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. The ITP expired on June 30, 2026, therefore in accordance with the Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives provided in the December 14, 2010 BO amendment all properties addressed by the ITP that are within the Species Focus Area Maps will be referred to the Service for review, as outlined in the amended BO. As such this assessment guide was revised to account for a change in the review process for those projects that would have previously been under the jurisdiction of the HCP/ITP. 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. Please note that even though the ITP for Big Pine Key and No Name Key has expired, the H value take limits (maximum allowable H-impact of 1.1) established in the ITP for projects on Big Pine Key and No Name Key will remain the same under the BO. Similarly, the 3:1 H mitigation-to-impact ratio requirement will also remain the same under the BO. According to the most recent 19th Annual Key Deer HCP Monitoring Report the total cumulative"H" mitigation credit acquired through 2024 (Reporting Year 19) is 3.2782. The cumulative "H" mitigation credit acquired to date (3.2782) is 99.3% of the 3.3 mitigation"H"required for the maximum allowable H-impact of 1.1. The cumulative H impact of parcels impacted by development activities since March 13, 1995 through the end of the reporting period, December 31, 2024 is 0.5736 "H". This means that there is currently a surplus mitigation credit that will remain available under the BO. Based on legislation the State of Florida adopted in 2025 (Chapter 2025-190, Laws of Florida, Section 22) Monroe County is able to increase the maximum number of new residential units from 200 to 236. The take for projects on Big Pine Key and No Name Key should be calculated using the H value method and the additional maximum new residential units (236) and tracked separately from take associated with projects outside of Big Pine Key and No Name Key. This guide is subject to revision as necessary. July 29, 2013 2 Key Deer Species Assessment Guide 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 includes one of referenced permanent freshwater sources................................go to C Notas above......................................................................................go to D C. The applicant's proposed action does not restrict access to the referenced permanent freshwater.................... to D Not as above ................................................................................. may affect D. Parcel contains only non-native habitat(developed land, undeveloped land, impervious surfaces, or exotic)............................................................................. .go to G Parcel contains native habitat (hammock,pineland, scrub mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh, buttonwood, mangrove, or beach berm)........................................go to E E. The proposed action will not remove or modify native habitat....................................go to G 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 F F. The property is less than 1 acre AND is not adjacent to contiguous native habitat greater than 1 acre ....................................................................................... go to G 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 G. The applicant has proposed either on-site or off-site habitat compensation* commensurate with the amount of native habitat lost.......................................................go to H The applicant is not proposing habitat compensation* or the proposed habitat compensation* does not meet minimum compensation requirements...............may affect H. 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 July 29, 2013 3 Key Deer Species Assessment Guide 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 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 claviunn. 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. July 29, 2013 4 Key Deer Species Assessment Guide Klimstra, W.D., J.W. Hardin,N.J. Silvy, B.N. Jacobson, and V.A. Terpening. 1974. Key deer investigations final report: December 1967 -June 1973. U.S. DOl,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, RR,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 5 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 6 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 7 Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit Assessment Guide July 2026 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-I I and EA-1lb 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 I0(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. The ITP expired on June 30, 2026, therefore in accordance with the Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives provided in the December 14, 2010 BO amendment all properties addressed by the ITP that are within the Species Focus Area Maps will be referred to the Service for review, as outlined in the amended BO. As such this assessment guide was revised to account for a change in the review process for those projects that would have previously been under the jurisdiction of the HCP/ITP. 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 July 29, 2013 2 Lower Keys marsh rabbit Species Assessment Guide 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 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 Please note that even though the ITP for Big Pine Key and No Name Key has expired, the H value take limits established in the ITP for projects on Big Pine Key and No Name Key will remain the same under the BO. Based on legislation the State of Florida adopted in 2025 (Chapter 2025-190, Laws of Florida, Section 22) Monroe County is able to increase the maximum number of new residential units from 200 to 236. The take for projects on Big Pine Key and No Name Key should be calculated using the H value method and the additional maximum new residential units (236) and tracked separately from take associated with projects outside of Big Pine Key and No Name Key. 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 E 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(pinelands, scrub mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh, buttonwood, and beach berm).........................................................................................................................go to E 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 July 29, 2013 3 Lower Keys marsh rabbit Species Assessment Guide 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(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 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 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 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 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 July 29, 2013 4 Lower Keys marsh rabbit Species Assessment Guide 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 I1, 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 I1, 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 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. July 29, 2013 5 Lower Keys marsh rabbit Species Assessment Guide 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 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 Eastern Indigo Snake Species Assessment Guide July 2026 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. The ITP expired on June 30, 2026, therefore in accordance with the Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives provided in the December 14, 2010 BO amendment all properties addressed by the ITP that are within the Species Focus Eastern indigo snake Species Assessment Guide Area Maps will be referred to the Service for review, as outlined in the amended BO. As such this assessment guide was revised to account for a change in the review process for those projects that would have previously been under the jurisdiction of the HCP/ITP. 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. Please note that even though the ITP for Big Pine Key and No Name Key has expired, the H value take limits established in the ITP for projects on Big Pine Key and No Name Key will remain the same under the BO. Based on legislation the State of Florida adopted in 2025 (Chapter 2025-190, Laws of Florida, Section 22) Monroe County is able to increase the maximum number of new residential units from 200 to 236. The take for projects on Big Pine Key and No Name Key should be calculated using the H value method and the additional maximum new residential units (236) and tracked separately from take associated with projects outside of Big Pine Key and No Name Key. 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 contains the indigo snake's native habitat (i.e., hammock, pineland, scrub mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh, buttonwood, mangrove, or beach berm)........go to C Parcel contains only non-native habitat(undeveloped land or exotic)...............................go to F C. The proposed action will not remove or modify the indigo snake's native habitat............go to F The proposed action will remove or modify the indigo snake's native habitat..................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.................................................................... go to E July 29, 2013 2 Eastern indigo snake Species Assessment Guide E. 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 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, subtraetproject footprint from authorized Take** F. 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 11, 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. **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 July 29, 2013 3 Eastern indigo snake Species Assessment Guide 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. 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-8310 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 4 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. 05 O .r it — • it ��„ O CG a5 N y u �", ct 'C R p Qr QM ct m O M +� cn -- U C". O �� O ¢ O gl. U M b°A� � � •� � � it y O �" p � � ^� vOi U � y O U `n c� O d U .� v, tt o .. .. s., cv U � y oc n e� OC U o 0 0 m ooc z � C o CAA ° cz ; CZ C y . a bi)o o CZ a� H A C�3 ,S y IT o W oo o -Z:� U . .= ;-, 'a 3 ct 4° 4-4 m O U cd U M -= a xi 3 GipN 2. M.1.uN2, �1 4 aw' 5 »,mRw Imo. 6 7 MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA 8 MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 10 RESOLUTION NO. - 2026 11 12 A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY 13 COMMISSIONERS ACKNOWLEDGING, ACCEPTING, AND CONFIRMING THE 14 MAY 27, 2026, LETTER ISSUED BY THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 15 ("USFWS") REGARDING TRANSITION OF BUILDING PERMIT AND 16 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES COVERED BY THE 17 HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN ("HCP") AND INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT 18 ("ITP") FOR BIG PINE AND NO NAME KEYS TO REVIEW THROUGH THE 19 COUNTY'S PERMIT REFERRAL PROCESS ("PRP") UNDER THE 2010 20 BIOLOGICAL OPINION (`BO") ASSOCIATED WITH THE FEDERAL 21 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S ADMINISTRATION OF THE 22 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM, BEGINNING JULY 1, 2026; 23 ACKNOWLEDGING UPDATED OPERATIVE SPECIES ASSESSMENT GUIDES 24 FROM USFWS FOR THREE SPECIES; MAINTAINING THE H-IMPACT AND H- 25 MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF "CONDITION G" 26 OF THE ITP; DIRECTING PROFESSIONAL STAFF TO UTILIZE THE LETTER TO 27 DIRECT PERMIT REVIEW BEGINNING JULY 1, 2026; AND DIRECTING 28 PROFESSIONAL STAFF TO PROCEED WITH AMENDMENTS TO LAND 29 DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 122 — FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT TO 30 INCORPORATE PROCEDURAL CHANGES TO THE PERMIT REFERRAL 31 PROCESS AS NEEDED. 32 33 34 WHEREAS, in 2003, Monroe County, the Florida Department of Transportation 35 ("FDOT"), and the Florida Department of Community Affairs (now THE Florida 36 Department of Commerce) ("the Applicants") developed a Habitat Conservation Plan 37 ("HCP"), which addressed impacts to covered species resulting from potential 38 development activities over a 20-year period in Big Pine Key and No Name Key, Monroe 39 County, Florida; and 40 41 WHEREAS, the HCP was amended in April, 2006; and 42 43 WHEREAS, in 2006, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") issued 44 Incidental Take Permit ("ITP") Number TE083411-0, effective June 8, 2006, and 45 expiring June 30, 2023, to the Applicants, which authorized "take" of the HCP's covered 46 species, subject to certain conditions stated in the issued ITP; and 1 of 5 47 WHEREAS, many provisions consistent with the requirements of the HCP and 48 ITP have also been adopted into Monroe County's Comprehensive Plan, Liveable 49 CommuniKeys Master Plan for Big Pine Key and No Name Key ("LCP"), and Land 50 Development Code ("LDC"); and 51 52 WHEREAS, the 20-year period of the HCP expired in 2023; and 53 54 WHEREAS, on November 11, 2022, USFWS issued an extension to the ITP 55 through June 30, 2026, to coincide with the timeframe of Monroe County's Rate of 56 Growth Ordinance Permit Allocation System which was extended by Monroe County 57 Ordinance No. 006-2020; and 58 59 WHEREAS, as the result of litigation initiated in 1990 against the Federal 60 Emergency Management Agency (TEMA"), USFWS issued a Biological Opinion (BO) 61 dated April 30, 2010, amended December 14, 2010, for FEMA's administration of the 62 National Flood Insurance Program ("NFIP") in participating communities in Monroe 63 County, Florida; and 64 65 WHEREAS, the BO covers nine federally protected species in Monroe County, 66 including those addressed by the HCP and ITP for Big Pine and No Name Keys; and 67 68 WHEREAS, in 2012, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners 69 (`BOCC", "Monroe County", "Board", or the "County") adopted Monroe County 70 Ordinance No. 015-2012, amending LDC Chapter 122 — Floodplain Regulations, to 71 establish the Permit Referral Process to meet the requirements for species review in 72 accordance with the BO; and 73 74 WHEREAS, the December 14, 2010, Amendment to the April 30, 2010, BO 75 provided Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives ("RPA") as required by the December 3, 76 2010, Settlement Agreement. Specifically, RPA paragraph 4.(c) states: "In the event that 77 current HCPs designated in the Florida Keys under section 10 of the Act expire, all 78 properties addressed by these HCPs that fall within the Species Focus Area Maps will be 79 referred to the Service for review per the guidelines in this RPA;" and 80 81 WHEREAS, review of permits on Big Pine Key and No Name Key previously 82 covered by the HCP default to review through the Permit Referral Process upon the 83 expiration of the HCP and ITP; and 84 2of5 85 WHEREAS, on May 27, 2026, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a letter 86 to the Federal Emergency Management Agency informing FEMA that USFWS has 87 revised three Species Assessment Guides ("SAGs"), that are used to implement the 88 amended April 30, 2010 Biological Opinion associated with Federal Emergency 89 Management Agency's (FEMA) administration of the National Flood Insurance Program 90 ("NFIP"), due to expiration of the Big Pine Key/No Name Key Habitat Conservation 91 Plan/Incidental Take Permit ESPER0039939 ("HCP/ITP") on June 30, 2026; and 92 93 WHEREAS, the revised SAGS are dated July 2026, and become the updated 94 operative SAGS as of that date; and 95 96 WHEREAS, the subject letter states that with the expiration of the ITP on June 97 30, 2026, Monroe County will be referring affected properties located in Big Pine Key 98 and No Name Key that are within the Species Focus Area Maps to USFWS for review, as 99 outlined in the amended BO; and 100 101 WHEREAS, the subject letter also states that the "Take" restrictions developed 102 as part of the BPK/NNK HCP/ITP will be applied to the FEMA Biological Opinion for 103 projects located in Big Pine Key and No Name Key. The H value take limits (maximum 104 allowable H-impact of 1.1) established in the ITP for projects on Big Pine Key and No 105 Name Key will remain the same under the BO; and the 3:1 H mitigation-to-impact ratio 106 requirement will also remain the same under the BO; and 107 108 WHEREAS, the letter notes that according to the most recent 19th Annual Key 109 Deer HCP Monitoring Report the total cumulative "H" mitigation credit acquired through 110 2024 (Reporting Year 19) is 3.2782. The cumulative "H" mitigation credit acquired to III date (3.2782) is 99.3% of the 3.3 mitigation "H" required for the maximum allowable H- 112 impact of 1.1. The cumulative H impact of parcels impacted by development activities 113 since March 13, 1995 through the end of the reporting period, December 31, 2024, is 114 0.5736 "H". This means that there is currently a surplus mitigation credit that will remain 115 available under the BO; and 116 117 WHEREAS, the letter states that Monroe County is able to increase the 118 maximum number of new residential units from 200 to 236 to accommodate additional 119 ROGO allocations approved by the State of Florida per Chapter 2025-190, Laws of 120 Florida ("L.O.F."), directed by the State Administration Commission on December 17, 121 2025, to be distributed over a ten year period; and 122 123 WHEREAS, according to the letter, both the H-impact and the cap of 236 new 124 residential permits will be tracked independently from the "Take" associated with 125 projects outside of Big Pine Key and No Name Key and reported as part of the Permit 126 Referral Process annual report. 127 128 WHEREAS, the letter states that with the exception of Condition G.3.of the ITP 129 the remainder of the measures described in Condition G of the ITP and the associated 130 County Ordinances that were established to implement the Big Pine Key and No Name 3 of 5 131 Key HCP will remain in place to ensure that "Take" of covered species is minimized and 132 mitigated; 133 134 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY 135 COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA: 136 137 Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals, findings of fact and conclusions of law 138 are true and correct and are hereby incorporated as if fully stated herein. 139 140 Section 2. The appended letter from USFWS dated May 27, 2026, inclusive of its 141 attachments thereto, is hereby incorporated as if fully stated herein. 142 143 Section 3, The BOCC hereby acknowledges, accepts and confirms the transition as 144 memorialized by the USFWS letter dated May 27, 2026, whereby 145 beginning July 1, 2026, permits shall be reviewed through Monroe 146 County's Permit Referral Process using the revised SAGs dated July 2026; 147 while maintaining the maximum H-impact (1.1 H) and H-mitigation (3:1 148 ratio) requirements established in the HCP and ITP; and maintaining the 149 requirements in Condition G of the ITP except Condition G.3. which has 150 been revised to allow a maximum of 236 new dwelling units, including 151 those issued over the life of the HCP. 152 153 Section 4. The BOCC directs professional staff to: 154 155 1. As of July 1, 2026, review applicable building permits through the 156 PRP, pursuant to the subject SAGs; 157 2. With the exception of Condition G.3., maintain the requirements of 158 Condition G of the ITP, including but not limited to maximum H- 159 impact (LI H) and H-mitigation (3:1 H ratio); 160 3. Allow no more than 236 new residential dwelling units on Big Pine 161 Key and No Name Key, including those issued over the life of the 162 HCP; 163 4. Allow private applicants to utilize county-purchased surplus mitigation 164 to meet the H-mitigation requirements for development; 165 5. Process amendments to Land Development Code Chapter 122 - 166 Floodplain Management, as necessary, to implement the transition of 167 permit review previously covered by the HCP and ITP to the PRP; 168 6. Include the status of Big Pine Key and No Name Key H-impact, 11- 169 mitigation, and cap of 236 new residential units in the PRP annual 170 reports; and 171 7. Permits already reviewed under the HCP do not require re-review for 172 endangered species impacts other than final confirmation that H 173 impact has not been exceeded at the time of issuance. 174 4of5 175 Section 5. The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners finds and concludes 176 that approval of this resolution in fact and law will benefit the health, 177 safety, and welfare of the public at large. 178 179 Section 6. Inconsistency, Partial Invalidity, Severability, and Survival of 180 Provisions. If any provision of this Resolution, or part or any portion 181 thereof, is held to be invalid or unenforceable in or by any administrative 182 hearing officer or court of competent jurisdiction, the invalidity or 183 unenforceability of such provision, or any part or portion thereof, shall 184 neither limit nor impair the operation, enforceability, or validity of any 185 other provision of this Resolution, or any remaining part(s) and/or 186 portion(s) thereof. All other provisions of this Resolution, and remaining 187 part(s) and/or portion(s) thereof, shall continue unimpaired in full force 188 and effect. 189 190 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe 191 County, Florida, at a regular public meeting held on this 10th day of June, 2026. 192 193 Mayor Michelle Lincoln, District 2 194 Mayor Pro Tem David Rice, District 4 195 Commissioner Craig Cates, District 1 196 Commissioner Jim Scholl, District 3 197 Commissioner Holly Merrill Raschein, District 5 198 199 200 201 By: 202 Mayor Michelle Lincoln 203 (SEAL) 204 ONO CEO . onNEY 205 APPRW—;fY TO FORM 206 ATTEST: KEVIN MADOK, CLERK 207 __..._ r..... _......._.__ .. TOTS 208 SS16TANT COUNTY T ""O NE 209 Dale: .._. 6/2/26 210 AS DEPUTY CLERK 5 of 5 NT OF Ty FISH do WILDLIFE SERVICE �9 United States Department of the Interior t _ FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CH a Florida Ecological Services Field Office May 27, 2026 Angelika Phillips Federal Emergency Management Agency 3003 Chamblee Tucker Road Atlanta, GA 30341 Service Federal Activity Code: 2006-F-1005-R164 Project Name: Monroe County FEMA Biological Opinion Applicant: Federal Emergency Management Agency County: Monroe Dear Ms. Phillips, I am writing to inform you that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)has revised the Species Assessment Guides (SAGS) that are used to implement the amended April 30, 2010 Biological Opinion(BO) associated with Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) administration of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). These revisions were necessitated by the expiration of the Big Pine Key/No Name Key Habitat Conservation Plan/Incidental Take Permit ESPER0039939 (HCP/ITP) on June 30, 2026. The December 14, 2010, Amendment to the April 30, 2010, BO provided Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPA) as required by the December 3, 2010, Settlement Agreement. Specifically, RPA paragraph 4.(c) states: "In the event that current HCPs designated in the Florida Keys under section 10 of the Act expire, all properties addressed by these HCPs that fall within the Species Focus Area Maps will be referred to the Service for review per the guidelines in this RPA."With the expiration of the referenced ITP, Monroe County is now referring affected properties located in Big Pine Key(BPK) and No Name Key (NNK) that are within the Species Focus Area Maps to the Service for review, as outlined in the amended BO. The "Take" restrictions developed as part of the BPK/NNK HCP/ITP will be applied to the FEMA Biological Opinion (BO) for projects located in BPK and NNK. The H value take limits (maximum allowable H-impact of 1.1) established in the ITP for projects on BPK and NNK will remain the same under the BO. Similarly, the 3:1 H mitigation-to-impact ratio requirement will also remain the same under the BO. According to the most recent 19t" Annual Key Deer HCP Monitoring Report the total cumulative"H"mitigation credit acquired through 2024 (Reporting Year 19) is 3.2782. The cumulative "H" mitigation credit acquired to date (3.2782) is 99.3% of the 3.3 mitigation"H"required for the maximum allowable H-impact of 1.1. The cumulative H impact of parcels impacted by development activities since March 13, 1995 through the end of 7915 BAYMEADOWS WAY,#200 1601 BALBOA AVENUE 77737...ST SUITE D-101 JACKSONVILLL,FL 32256 PANAMA CITY,FL 32405 VLRO BLACH,FL 32960 (352)448-9151 (352)448-9151 (352)448-9151 the reporting period, December 31, 2024 is 0.5736 "H". This means that there is currently a surplus mitigation credit that will remain available under the BO. In 2025, the State of Florida adopted legislation (Chapter 2025-190, Laws of Florida, Section 22) authorizing additional building permit allocations over a 10-year period for new dwelling units in Monroe County beyond those approved through 2026. Based on this new legislation, using the current ROGO allocation system of four new residential units per year for Big Pine and No Name Keys, Monroe County is able to increase the maximum number of new residential units from 200 to 236. As such new residential development on Big Pine and No Name Keys will be limited to a maximum of 236 dwelling units, including those issued over the life of the HCP, provided the total impact of commercial, institutional, and residential development shall not exceed"H" = 1.1. Both the H-impact and the cap of 236 new residential permits will be tracked independently from the "Take" associated with projects outside of BPK and NNK and reported as part of the Permit Referral Process (PRP) annual report. Additionally, with the exception of Condition G.3.of the ITP the remainder of the measures described in Condition G of the ITP (attached) and the associated County Ordinances that were established to implement the BPK/NNK HCP will remain in place to ensure that"Take" of covered species is minimized and mitigated. We appreciate FEMA's and Monroe County's continued partnership and support in ensuring compliance with federal regulations and the protection of listed species. Please let us know if you require additional information or documentation regarding these revisions or the referral process. Sincerely, J OS E Digitally signed by JOSE RIVERA RIVERA 09:5201-04'00'7 4 Jose Rivera Manager, Division of Environmental Review Florida Ecological Services Office cc: electronic only Monroe County, Key Largo, Florida(Emily Schemper) Monroe County, Key West, Florida (Christine Hurley) Monroe County, Marathon, Florida(Mike Roberts) FEMA (Portia Ross) FEMA (Michael Nakagaki) 2 Attachment A Big Pine Key/No Name Key Habitat Conservation Plan/Incidental Take Permit ESPER0039939 3 Page 1 of 6 'M&W LIFE NATIVE ENDANGERED &THREATENED SP. HABITAT SERVICE CONSERVATION PLAN Permit Number: ESPER0039939 Version Number: 0 Effective: 2006-06-09 Expires: 2026-06-30 Issuing Office: Department of the Interior U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ES Atlanta Permit Office 1875 Century Boulevard Atlanta, Georgia 30345 Division Manager,Ecological Services Field Office, Gainesville,Florida permitsR4ES@fws.gov Per mittee: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources Dept. Marathon,2798 Overseas Hwy; Suite 400 Florida 33050 U.S.A. Name and Title of Principal Officer: Roman Gastesi County Administrator Authority:Statutes and Regulations: 16 U.S.C. 1539 (a), 16 U.S.C. 1533 (d) 50 CFR 17.22, 50 CFR 17.32, 50 CFR 13 Location where authorized activity may be conducted: Big Pine Key,No Name Key,and Adjacent Islets As shown in Figure 1.1 of the Permittees'Habitat Conservation Plan,Part of the Florida Keys,Monroe County(County),Florida. Reporting requirements: Reports will be provided to the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service office appearing in Condition M of this Permit. Authorizations and Conditions: A. General conditions set out in Subpart B of 50 CFR 13,and specific conditions contained in Federal regulations cited above,are hereby made a part of this permit.All activities authorized herein must be carried out in accordance with and for the purposes described in the application submitted.Continued validity,or renewal of this permit is subject to complete and timely compliance with all applicable conditions,including the filing of all required information and reports. THIS PERMIT CONSISTS OF CONDITIONS A-M(6 PAGES TOTAL). Page 2 of 6 NATIVE ENDANGERED &THREATENED SP. HABITAT xrxexx�wxxaxxax� BF;IxVICF. CONSERVATION PLAN Permit Number: ESPER0039939 Version Number: 0 Effective: 2006-06-09 Expires: 2026-06-30 B. The validity of this permit is also conditioned upon strict observance of all applicable foreign,state,local tribal,or other federal law. C.Valid for use by permittee named above.Also valid for use by permittee's authorized agents. D.Acceptance of this Permit serves as evidence that the Permittee and its authorized agents understand and agree to abide by the terms of this Permit and all sections of Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations.Parts 13 and 17,pertinent to issued permits. Section IT of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,as amended provides for civil and criminal penalties for failure to comply with Permit conditions. E.The Permittees have defined the geographic area(Plan Area)covered by their April 2006 Habitat Conservation Plan(HCP)to include Big Pine Key and No Name Key and surrounding small unnamed keys in Monroe County(County),Florida. Status surveys and annual monitoring indicate that the Plan Area provides breeding,feeding,and sheltering habitat for the Florida Key deer, Odocoileus virginianus clavium, and Lower Keys marsh rabbit,Svlvilagus palustris hefneri; and potential habitat for the eastern indigo snake Diymarchon corais couperi: the"covered species." F. Subject to the continuing validity of this Permit,the Permittees,and their designated agents, successors,and assigns,are authorized to take,in the form of harassment,harm,or mortality,the covered species incidental to all commercial,institutional,and residential development set forth in the Permittees' HCP and as authorized by this Permit when conducted in conformance with the terms and conditions of this Permit. This permit does not authorize take of any covered species resulting from unlawful activities. This Permit is based upon the Permittees' expected compliance with the provisions and commitments established in the HCP and the Permit's stated terms and conditions identified herein. Where a conflict occurs between the HCP and this Permit,the Permit shall control. G. The Permittees shall employ the following measures to ensure that take of the covered species is minimized and mitigated. The Permittees are responsible for meeting the terms and conditions of the UP and implementing the HCP. 1. The total impact of commercial,institutional,and residential development over the 20-year life of the HCP shall not exceed"H"— 1.1. 2. For each"H"value unit of development,three"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. The acquisition of mitigation lands may lag behind that required by the cumulative"H"value of development by no more than 5 percent at any time. 3. New residential development will be limited to a maximum of 200 dwelling units over the 20-year life of the HCP. 4. Clearing of native habitat will be limited to parcels to be developed for residential use or for local road widening. The total amount of clearing over the 20-year life of the HCP will be limited to no more than 7 acres. No clearing of native habitat,other than that necessary and authorized for new residential development,local road widening,or fire breaks to protect residential areas will be allowed. All other development will occur on disturbed lands. 5. New residential development in Tier 1 (Tiers defined in HCP,Table 2.7)areas will be limited to no more than five percent of all residential units permitted over the 20-year life of the HCP(i.e.,a maximum of 10 units)or a total H—0.022 (two percent of the total H),whichever results in a lower H. 6. No new development other than single-family residential and accessory uses will be permitted in Tier 1 areas. The total H of all development in Tier 1 will not exceed H=0.022. 7. No development will be permitted which may result in habitat loss on the Sands corridor,as shown in HCP Figure 5.2. 8. New residential and commercial development will occur progressively over the 20-year life of the HCP,thus minimizing the extent of construction impacts that occur at any given time. Page 3 of 6 NATIVE ENDANGERED &THREATENED SP. HABITAT xrxexx�wxxaxxax� BF;IxVICF. CONSERVATION PLAN Permit Number: ESPER0039939 Version Number: 0 Effective: 2006-06-09 Expires: 2026-06-30 9. New commercial development will be limited to infill in existing commercial areas on Tier 2 and Tier 3 lands,mainly along the US-1 corridor on Big Pine Key. This includes all current commercially zoned areas south of Lytton's Way. All new commercial development would be limited to disturbed lands,as defined in the County Code(9.5-4 [D-14][S-2]). Clearing of pinelands and/or hammock will not be permitted for commercial development activities. 10. Expansion of private non-residential facilities will be restricted primarily to within the US-1 corridor,as described in 6.9 above. 11. The modified Rate of Growth Ordinance will continue to give new development priority to Tier 3 lands over Tier 2 and Tier 1 lands. 12. New recreational and community facilities development would be restricted to existing developed areas that are either already publicly owned or acquired for that purpose. 13. Minor recreational and community facilities will be restricted to areas within existing improved subdivisions. 14. Community organizations' development will be restricted to expansions,on existing organization-owned land,up to the buildable area limits per the County Code. No clearing of native habitat will be permitted for these expansions. 15. Speed limits,traffic calming devices,and other measures will be applied to lower the probability of vehicle collisions with Key deer and Lower Keys marsh rabbit on County roads. 16. Public infrastructure development will be restricted to disturbed lands as defined in the County Code(9.5-4 [D-14][S- 2]). 17. No new fences will be allowed in Tier 1 lands,unless they are authorized by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The Service will review applications for fences in Tier 1 for impacts on covered species. 18. No additional fences will be allowed in the US-1 commercial corridor. 19. Fences will be subject to restrictions and guidelines established in agreement with the Service. All fencing will follow the guidelines in HCP Appendix C. 20. 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.,the green hatched areas on HCP Figure 22). Road widening activities along US-1 will occur within existing cleared and filled portions of the FDOT right- of-way. 21. Florida Department of Transportation will avoid impacts to wetlands during US-1 widening. 22. Accessory uses will be permitted on lots adjacent to existing developed lots only in Tier 2 and Tier 3 lands. Residential accessory uses will be limited to those listed in the County Code(Chapter 9.5-4[A-2]). 23. The County will implement an animal control education program to educate the public regarding the potential negative effect of domestic predators on the Key deer and Lower Keys marsh rabbit. The education program will also request that the public report any Lower Keys marsh rabbit road mortality to the County or the Service. 24. The County and Service will annually review and evaluate the need and feasibility of additional regulatory measures to control the spread of domestic predators. A substantial decline in the Lower Keys marsh rabbit population will be considered a changed circumstance. If deemed necessary and feasible,measures will be enacted at a date to be determined through mutual agreement. 25. The County will ensure that standard protection measures for the eastern indigo snake will be implemented during all construction activities to minimize impacts to eastern indigo snakes. H. Unforeseen and/or changed circumstances may become apparent either to the Permittees,authorized agents,or to personnel of the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. For purposes of implementation of this condition,unforeseen circumstances are defined as changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by the HCP that could not reasonably have been Page 4 of 6 NATIVE ENDANGERED &THREATENED SP. HABITAT xrxexx�wxxaxxax� BF;IxVICF. CONSERVATION PLAN Permit Number: ESPER0039939 Version Number: 0 Effective: 2006-06-09 Expires: 2026-06-30 anticipated by the HCP developers and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service at the time of the HCP's negotiation and development, and that result in a substantial and adverse change in the status of the covered species. Changed circumstances are defined as changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by the HCP that can reasonably be anticipated by HCP developers and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,and that can be planned for. The Permittees and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledge that even with the above detailed provisions for mitigating and/or minimizing impacts,circumstances could arise which were not fully anticipated by this Permit and which are considered unforeseen. Such circumstances may become apparent either to the Permittees or to personnel of the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. For purposes of implementation of this condition,unforeseen circumstances are defined as any significant,unanticipated adverse change in the status of species;any significant,unanticipated adverse change in impacts of the Activity or in other factors upon which the HCP and Permit are based; or any other significant new information relevant to the Permit and Activity that was unforeseen by the Permittees and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service that could give rise to the need to review the Permittees' conservation program. If,during the implementation of the HCP and adherence to this Permit,a significant unanticipated situation occurs that would have a serious effect on species covered by this Permit or the ability of the Permittees to continue the effective implementation of the HCP and/or adherence to this Permit,the Permittees shall undertake actions described in Section 5.7(Unforeseen Circumstances) of the HCP. 1. The Permittees and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service agree that modification and amendments to the Permittees'HCP and this Permit may occur through its effective term. The following procedures shall govern the modification and amendment process: 1. Any of the Permittees or the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service may propose modifications and/or amendments to the HCP or this Permit by providing written notice. Such notice shall include a statement of the reason for the proposed modification and an analysis of its environmental effects,including its effects on operations under the HCP and on the covered species. The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service or the Permittees will use best efforts to respond to a proposed modification or amendment within sixty(60)days of receipt of such notice. Absent any objection from the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service or any Perrmittee and provided such proposed modification or amendment does not fall within the limits of Condition 1.2,the proposed modification and/or amendment will be determined as minor and shall become effective upon written concurrence by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service or all of the Permittees. If the Service determines that a proposed modification or amendment would exceed the limits of Condition 1.2,such proposed modification or amendment must be processed in accordance with Condition 1.3. 2. The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service will not propose or approve minor modifications or amendments to the HCP or this Permit if the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service determines that such modifications or amendments would result in operations under the HCP and Permit that are significantly different from those analyzed in connection with the HCP,in adverse effects on the environment that are new or significantly different from those analyzed in connection with the HCP,or in additional take of the covered species not analyzed in connection with the HCP. 3. Any amendment or modification shall conform with all applicable legal requirements,including but not limited to the Endangered Species Act,the National Environmental Policy Act,and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service's permit regulations at 50 C.F.R.'13 and'17. J. The Permit and HCP will be reviewed formally by the Permittees and the Service annually. A meeting between the Permittees and Service will be scheduled within 60 days of annual report submittal to review the progress of Permit and HCP implementation and discuss any problems. Intermediate reviews may be conducted informally any time when either the Service or the Permittees find it necessary. Page 5 of 6 NATIVE ENDANGERED &THREATENED SP. HABITAT xrxexx�wxxaxxax� BF;IxVICF. CONSERVATION PLAN Permit Number: ESPER0039939 Version Number: 0 Effective: 2006-06-09 Expires: 2026-06-30 K. By March 31 of each year this Permit is in effect,the Permittees shall submit an annual report to the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service and other offices listed in Conditions M and N. The annual report shall describe implementation of the terms of this Permit and HCP. The Permittees shall identify non-compliance and measures employed to resolve such non-compliance. The annual report shall also include the following certification from a responsible official who supervised or directed the preparation of the report: "Under penalty of law,I certify that,to the best of my knowledge,after appropriate inquiries of all relevant persons involved in the preparation of this report,the information submitted is true,accurate,and complete." The annual report also shall address the following: 1. Results of the Key deer census,including the calculation of the average number of deer seen. 2. A summary of Key deer mortality information,including the calculation of the number of human-related deaths. Human- related deaths include those due to road kills,entanglement,attacks from domestic predators,and poaching. 3. A discussion and interpretation of mortality data. 4. A summary discussing habitat management activities for County mitigation lands. 5. An assessment of whether the ratio of the number of human-related deaths to average deer seen remains below 1.53. 6. A compilation(in acres)of annual impacts to the 500-meter wetland buffer areas identified as important for Lower Keys marsh rabbit. 7. The cumulative impacts of all development projects affecting buffers since permit issuance for Lower Keys marsh rabbit. 8. A summary of reported Lower Keys marsh rabbit road mortality. 9. A compilation and report of entire project area impacts(in acres)to document possible effects on eastern indigo snakes. 10. A list and map of development activities approved and completed. 11. The"H"value associated with each activity and the total"H"value of all activities for the year. 12. The cumulative"H"value of all development since permit issuance. 13. A discussion of any observations of covered species made during construction monitoring of county facilities and road expansion activities. 14. A list and map of parcels acquired as mitigation in the reporting year. 15. The"H"value for each parcel and the total"H"value of parcels acquired as mitigation during the reporting period. 16. The cumulative"H"value of all land parcels acquired as mitigation since permit issuance. 17. A discussion of management activities conducted on mitigation parcels during the reporting year. 18. An assessment of the status of all mitigation parcels,addressing the extent of invasion by exotic species,trash disposal, and other potential human-related impacts. 19. A monitoring report documenting compliance with the exotic/nuisance plant control program on County mitigation lands demonstrating no more than 20 percent aerial coverage of nuisance and 10 percent aerial coverage of invasive species identified by Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. 20. A statement confirming that mitigation has occurred so as to maintain a three to one ratio with respect to development activities and demonstrating that the cumulative"H"value of lands acquired as mitigation does not lag any more than 5 percent behind what is necessary to fully mitigate the cumulative"H"value of impacts authorized through the reporting period. 21. Any other pertinent information relative to the implementation of the HCP. L. Upon locating a dead,injured,or sick specimen of any covered species or any other threatened or endangered species whose death,injury,or illness is causally related to the activities authorized by this Permit,initial notification must be made immediately to the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service Law Enforcement Office,Miami Office at 3701 NW 82nd Avenue,Doral FL 33166,phone Page 6 of 6 NATIVE ENDANGERED &THREATENED SP. HABITAT xrxexx�wxxaxxaxrE EERYICE CONSERVATION PLAN Permit Number: ESPER0039939 Version Number: 0 Effective: 2006-06-09 Expires: 2026-06-30 305-632-4824 [This is a 24/7 phone number]. Notification should also be made,by the next workday,to the contact office of the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service noted in Condition M. Care should be taken in handling sick,injured,or dead specimens to ensure effective treatment or to preserve biological materials for later analysis. Tn conjunction with the care of sick or injured threatened or endangered species or preservation of biological materials from a dead animal, the finder should take responsible steps to ensure that the site is not unnecessarily disturbed. M. For purposes of receiving reports,and monitoring compliance and administration of the terms and conditions of this permit, you may either email fwsflesreg@fws.gov(mail to: fwsflesreg@fws.gov). (Please include permit number on all emails)or contact the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service office directly at: U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service South Florida Ecological Services Office 1339 20th Street Vero Beach,Florida 32960 3559 Telephone:772/562-3909 Key Deer Assessment Guide July 2026 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 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. The ITP expired on June 30, 2026, therefore in accordance with the Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives provided in the December 14, 2010 BO amendment all properties addressed by the ITP that are within the Species Focus Area Maps will be referred to the Service for review, as outlined in the amended BO. As such this assessment guide was revised to account for a change in the review process for those projects that would have previously been under the jurisdiction of the HCP/ITP. 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. Please note that even though the ITP for Big Pine Key and No Name Key has expired, the H value take limits (maximum allowable H-impact of 1.1) established in the ITP for projects on Big Pine Key and No Name Key will remain the same under the BO. Similarly, the 3:1 H mitigation-to-impact ratio requirement will also remain the same under the BO. According to the most recent 19th Annual Key Deer HCP Monitoring Report the total cumulative"H" mitigation credit acquired through 2024 (Reporting Year 19) is 3.2782. The cumulative "H" mitigation credit acquired to date (3.2782) is 99.3% of the 3.3 mitigation"H"required for the maximum allowable H-impact of 1.1. The cumulative H impact of parcels impacted by development activities since March 13, 1995 through the end of the reporting period, December 31, 2024 is 0.5736 "H". This means that there is currently a surplus mitigation credit that will remain available under the BO. Based on legislation the State of Florida adopted in 2025 (Chapter 2025-190, Laws of Florida, Section 22) Monroe County is able to increase the maximum number of new residential units from 200 to 236. The take for projects on Big Pine Key and No Name Key should be calculated using the H value method and the additional maximum new residential units (236) and tracked separately from take associated with projects outside of Big Pine Key and No Name Key. This guide is subject to revision as necessary. July 29, 2013 2 Key Deer Species Assessment Guide 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 includes one of referenced permanent freshwater sources................................go to C Notas above......................................................................................go to D C. The applicant's proposed action does not restrict access to the referenced permanent freshwater.................... to D Not as above ................................................................................. may affect D. Parcel contains only non-native habitat(developed land, undeveloped land, impervious surfaces, or exotic)............................................................................. .go to G Parcel contains native habitat (hammock,pineland, scrub mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh, buttonwood, mangrove, or beach berm)........................................go to E E. The proposed action will not remove or modify native habitat....................................go to G 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 F F. The property is less than 1 acre AND is not adjacent to contiguous native habitat greater than 1 acre ....................................................................................... go to G 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 G. The applicant has proposed either on-site or off-site habitat compensation* commensurate with the amount of native habitat lost.......................................................go to H The applicant is not proposing habitat compensation* or the proposed habitat compensation* does not meet minimum compensation requirements...............may affect H. 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 July 29, 2013 3 Key Deer Species Assessment Guide 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 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 claviunn. 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. July 29, 2013 4 Key Deer Species Assessment Guide Klimstra, W.D., J.W. Hardin,N.J. Silvy, B.N. Jacobson, and V.A. Terpening. 1974. Key deer investigations final report: December 1967 -June 1973. U.S. DOl,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, RR,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 5 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 6 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 7 Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit Assessment Guide July 2026 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-I I and EA-1lb 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 I0(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. The ITP expired on June 30, 2026, therefore in accordance with the Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives provided in the December 14, 2010 BO amendment all properties addressed by the ITP that are within the Species Focus Area Maps will be referred to the Service for review, as outlined in the amended BO. As such this assessment guide was revised to account for a change in the review process for those projects that would have previously been under the jurisdiction of the HCP/ITP. 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 July 29, 2013 2 Lower Keys marsh rabbit Species Assessment Guide 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 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 Please note that even though the ITP for Big Pine Key and No Name Key has expired, the H value take limits established in the ITP for projects on Big Pine Key and No Name Key will remain the same under the BO. Based on legislation the State of Florida adopted in 2025 (Chapter 2025-190, Laws of Florida, Section 22) Monroe County is able to increase the maximum number of new residential units from 200 to 236. The take for projects on Big Pine Key and No Name Key should be calculated using the H value method and the additional maximum new residential units (236) and tracked separately from take associated with projects outside of Big Pine Key and No Name Key. 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 E 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(pinelands, scrub mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh, buttonwood, and beach berm).........................................................................................................................go to E 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 July 29, 2013 3 Lower Keys marsh rabbit Species Assessment Guide 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(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 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 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 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 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 July 29, 2013 4 Lower Keys marsh rabbit Species Assessment Guide 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 I1, 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 I1, 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 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. July 29, 2013 5 Lower Keys marsh rabbit Species Assessment Guide 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 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 Eastern Indigo Snake Species Assessment Guide July 2026 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. The ITP expired on June 30, 2026, therefore in accordance with the Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives provided in the December 14, 2010 BO amendment all properties addressed by the ITP that are within the Species Focus Eastern indigo snake Species Assessment Guide Area Maps will be referred to the Service for review, as outlined in the amended BO. As such this assessment guide was revised to account for a change in the review process for those projects that would have previously been under the jurisdiction of the HCP/ITP. 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. Please note that even though the ITP for Big Pine Key and No Name Key has expired, the H value take limits established in the ITP for projects on Big Pine Key and No Name Key will remain the same under the BO. Based on legislation the State of Florida adopted in 2025 (Chapter 2025-190, Laws of Florida, Section 22) Monroe County is able to increase the maximum number of new residential units from 200 to 236. The take for projects on Big Pine Key and No Name Key should be calculated using the H value method and the additional maximum new residential units (236) and tracked separately from take associated with projects outside of Big Pine Key and No Name Key. 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 contains the indigo snake's native habitat (i.e., hammock, pineland, scrub mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh, buttonwood, mangrove, or beach berm)........go to C Parcel contains only non-native habitat(undeveloped land or exotic)...............................go to F C. The proposed action will not remove or modify the indigo snake's native habitat............go to F The proposed action will remove or modify the indigo snake's native habitat..................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.................................................................... go to E July 29, 2013 2 Eastern indigo snake Species Assessment Guide E. 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 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, subtraetproject footprint from authorized Take** F. 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 11, 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. **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 July 29, 2013 3 Eastern indigo snake Species Assessment Guide 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. 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-8310 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 4 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. 05 O .r it — • it ��„ O CG a5 N y u �", ct 'C R p Qr QM ct m O M +� cn -- U C". O �� O ¢ O gl. U M b°A� � � •� � � it y O �" p � � ^� vOi U � y O U `n c� O d U .� v, tt o .. .. s., cv U � y oc n e� OC U o 0 0 m ooc z � C o CAA ° cz ; CZ C y . a bi)o o CZ a� H A C�3 ,S y IT o W oo o -Z:� U . .= ;-, 'a 3 ct 4° 4-4 m O U cd U M -= a xi Liz Yongue From: Ballard-Lindsey <Balla rd-Lindsey@ Mon roeCou nty-FL.Gov> Sent: Friday, June 5, 2026 4:01 PM To: Liz Yongue; Brynn Morey Cc: Gomez-Krystal; Shillinger-Bob Subject: FW: Agenda Item M13 - Conservation in Big Pine & No Name Key Attachments: LastStand-LTC-Junel O-BPK-.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Good afternoon, Liz & Brynn. Please see the attached letter from Last Stand. Thank you. Li�y�Ballard, A e to Christine HvrLe�, Covot� Ac{odn str,2tor ­?,Vs�ness M,2n,29er - Ac{odn str,2tCon 1I00 Sintooton Street, Sv to 2-205 K.e� VVest, FL :2,:2,040 (M5)292-444� (offiCe) (:2,05):2,9:2,-4442 (ceLL Phone) (M,5)292-4,544 (FRX) Courier Stop #! @vKonroecokntW-:R.c.4ov www.vKovq,roec,o Monroe County, Florida "The Florida Keys" "We may encounter many defeats, but we must not be defeated."-Maya Angelou PLEASE NOTE: FLORIDA HAS A VERY BROAD RECORDS LAW. MOST WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS TO OR FROM TTtE COUNTY 2E(�ARDINC7 COUNTY BUSINESS ARE PUBLIC RECORDS AVAILABLE TO 7WE PUBLIC AND MEDIA UPON REQUEST'. YOUR EMAIL COMMUNICATION MAY BE SUBJECT'TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE. Please consider the environiment when dec idi'ng wheflier to print this email, From:Jordan Mannix-Lachner<jmannixlachner@keyslaststand.org> Sent: Friday,June 5, 2026 3:44 PM To: BOCCDIS2<boccdis2@monroecounty-fl.gov>; Cates-Craig<Cates-Craig@ Mon roeCou nty-FL.Gov>; BOCCDIS3 <BOCCDIS3@ Mon roeCou nty-FL.Gov>; BOCCDIS4<BOCCDIS4@ Mon roeCou nty-FL.Gov>; BOCCDIS5 <BOCCDIS5@ Mon roeCou nty-FL.Gov> Cc: Hurley-Christine<H u rley-Ch risti ne@ Mon roeCou nty-FL.Gov>; Last Stand Board <board@ keyslaststand.org>; 1 Schemper-Emily<Schemper-Emily@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov> Subject:Agenda Item M13-Conservation in Big Pine& No Name Key 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 afternoon Mayor Lincoln &Commissioners, Last Stand is submitting the attached letter for your consideration, regarding Agenda Item M13 and the proposed plan to carry forward Habitat Conservation Plan protections for Big Pine & No Name Key. The letter raises several questions about the County's proposed approach, including the regulatory basis for carrying the HCP's protections forward through the Biological Opinion, how those protections would be enforced, and what expiration would mean for property owners on the two islands. It also explains why we believe a one-year extension of the HCP/ITP is the most prudent path while those questions are resolved. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Jordan Mannix-Lachner Executive Director Last Stand of the Florida Keys KeysLastStand.org 4�ctiN0 ryF 4 to LAST STAND; 2 �CoNG rot 2l LAST, 'T ND June 5, 2026 Monroe County Board of County Commissioners Mayor Michelle Lincoln Mayor Pro Tern David Rice Commissioner Craig Cates Commissioner Jim Scholl Commissioner Holly Raschein Re:Agenda Item M 13 - Approval of a Resolution Accepting the May 27, 2026, Letter Issued by USFWS Dear Mayor Lincoln& Commissioners, Last Stand is writing about the Big Pine &No Name Key Habitat Conservation Plan and Incidental Take Pennit(the "HCP/ITP"),FEMA's Biological Opinion(BiOp), and its Incidental Take Statement(ITS). The County has proposed to let the HCP/ITP expire and carry a number of its provisions forward through the BiOp. We respectfully request that the County instead pursue, at minimum, a one-year extension of the HCP/ITP, so the protections it provides are maintained in a clear, consistent, and enforceable manner that achieves the conservation goals set out in the HCP and the Comprehensive Plan. Several of our key concerns are set out below. A one-year extension would allow time to address and resolve them. The County has proposed carrying the most substantive HCP/ITP protections forward through the Biological Opinion. In particular, it says two key limits would stay in place: the H=1.1 cap on habitat impact and the 3:1 mitigation requirement. These two limits are the foundation of the HCP's conservation framework, and because they are not in the Land Development Code, they would otherwise disappear when the HCP expires. We share the County's goal of keeping them. The question is whether the plan actually would reliably advance these goals. We are concerned it would not. First: there is no clear regulatory mechanism or enforcement authority: • The County's plan rests on a single provision in the BiOp, which says that properties fonnerly addressed by HCPs "will be referred to the Service for review per the guidelines in this RPA." But that provision only routes pennits to FWS for review. It does not change the guidelines, conditions, or take authorizations, and it does not turn the HCP's conditions into binding conditions under the BiOp. • The staff report states that FWS has "confirmed that key protections developed for the HCP/ITP will remain in effect." But it does not identify the regulatory basis or mechanism for carrying them over, or say whether that authority would come from the County or from FWS. • FWS has updated the Species Assessment Guides (SAGs) to reference the carried-over conditions. But they're not actually a part of the decision-making flow chart, and it doesn't say whether the authority to enforce them is coming from the FWS or the County.Additionally, SAGs 1 of 6 are implementation documents that decide which permits get routed for review; they cannot authorize new binding development conditions. • Enforcement would have to come from either the County or FWS. However, FWS cannot deny County pennits, and the County can't enforce development regulations that aren't in the LDC and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. • The H=1.1 impact limit and the 3:1 mitigation ratio are not in the LDC. In total, nine of the conditions proposed to be carried over are not in the LDC. As a result, this plan relies on the County selectively enforcing the conditions of an expired HCP, without a basis in the LDC. When a regulation or policy is adopted, it normally cites the authority it rests on and sets out how it will be enforced. The current plan does neither. The result is that there is no guarantee, let alone a clear mechanism, that these conservation measures will carry over. The County's stated goal is to preserve the existing protections in one clear, consistent framework with no expiration date. However, the plan creates new conflicts between policy documents and adopted regulations, and it is not clearly enforceable. The attached table details several of these issues.A one-year extension would give the County time to put these protections on firmer footing and to infonn property owners of the rights,risks, and obligations they would face. Second: Even if the enforcement issues are resolved,the environmental and local-control impacts have not yet been assessed: Less development is tracked, so the real impact is missed.The HCP counts every pennit against the habitat-impact ceiling. The BiOp does not: • The HCP counts every permit against the habitat-impact ceiling. The BiOp does not. Under the Species Assessment Guides, which the LDC and BiOp require the County to use — most parcels under one acre go untracked. • The BiOp only covers development tied to flood insurance; it's not clear that this plan would reach development that is self-insured, ineligible for insurance, or otherwise not covered under NFIP.. • Measuring that cumulative impact is the whole point of the HCP. Give it up, and the claim that the BiOp is just as protective does not hold. The scientific basis and wildlife impacts of this decision have not yet been assessed. • The plan raises the number of new homes allowed from 200 to 236. That number isn't based on any study of wildlife. It's just how many pennits happen to be left. • Nothing in the BiOp says those extra homes are safe for the species. It was based on fewer homes and older science, and it never looked at the development being proposed now. • The plan assumes things are fine the way they are, and that we can even afford to protect a little less. Science says the opposite. FWS staff have already documented saltwater intrusion into fresh watering holes, and the loss of coastal habitat due to coastal upward migration. • The threats are growing, so protections should be getting stronger, not weaker. At the very least they should stay the same, and this plan doesn't do that. 2 of 6 There's not yet a plan for how to maintain critical, real-world monitoring: The HCP and the BiOp both use the word "monitoring,"but they mean different things: • The HCP requires biological monitoring, like counting the Key deer populations, tracking mortality, and assessing human-caused mortality trends. That is what shows whether the protections are working and it's the backbone of conservation management. • The BiOp's monitoring tracks permits and paperwork. It records what the County approved, not what happened to the species. This tells us nothing about what's going on in the real world. • Under the HCP, responsibility for this was clear. When the HCP expires, that obligation, and the clear line of responsibility behind it, goes with it. • This is the worst time to let biological monitoring lapse, as FWS is actively cutting local field staff/biology roles. An extension would give the County and FWS time to coordinate & to articulate who is responsible for biological monitoring going forward, and to identify whether the resources exist to carry it out. The HCP is a County-driven plan.A BiOp is fully controlled by the federal government. The County has said the BiOp is preferred because it is more stable and lasts longer, and that asking to extend the HCP could let FWS weaken it. The opposite is true. • An HCP is the County's own permit. The County sets the teens, FWS approves them, and the federal "No Surprises" rule bars the government from changing them or adding cost later without the County's consent. • The BiOp is a deal between two federal agencies. The County is not a party. It can only follow along or risk its flood insurance. • The BiOp is also not the pennanent fixture it is presented as. It lasts only as long as the federal action behind it, while an HCP can last 50+ years. BiOps can be unilaterally amended by the federal government—and the BiOp is currently 10-years overdue for a legally-required update. Conclusion: According to the County, the intent of this plan is to maintain conservation measures while rolling them into one comprehensive framework that can theoretically operate in perpetuity. Last Stand agrees with this vision,but the plan put forth doesn't seem to accomplish this. There is a simpler path. If the County is prepared to maintain the H=1.1 impact limit and the 3:1 mitigation ratio, then there is no reason for the County not to pursue an extension of the HCP/ITP. FWS's letter already indicates that it's even willing to allow 36 more units if the H=1.1 impact remains the same. There is no need to tear down a plan that works just to rebuild it somewhere else on less secure footing. We are asking the County to request an extension of the HCP/ITP for at least one year to address the open questions —both practical,legal, and environmental. There are too many open questions, too much uncertainty,and too much at risk. Sincerely, Keys Last Stand 3 of 6 Attachments: Table 1: Open Regulatory &Enforcement Issues Table 2: Comparison of Monitoring Provisions Table 1: Open Regulatory & Enforcement Issues • The BiOp's Action Area doesn't include BPK/NNK. • The ITP doesn't exempt take on BPK/NNK. • A BiOp/ITP only covers the specific proposed action submitted by the federal agency. The scope is strictly defined by the action area and the activities described in the agency's consultation request. The Biological • Adding more territory or development requires FEMA to reinitiate Opinion and its consultation with FWS, which hasn't happened. Incidental Take Statement do not Consequences: cover Big Pine and • New development can cause unauthorized take. No Name Key. • If this occurs, the federal action(issuance of new flood insurance) must cease until FEMA reinitiates consultation.That could mean new flood insurance is jeopardized. • If Monroe County issues permits in a place where take has not been authorized, it opens both the County and property owners up to liability for unauthorized take under the Endangered Species Act. • A BiOp/ITP only covers the specific proposed action submitted by the federal agency. The scope is strictly defined by the action area and the activities described in the agency's consultation request. • The BiOp's finding rested on the number of ROGO units available when it was written, and it requires the County to notify FEMA of any The BiOp does not change to ROGO. cover the new • More ROGOs are coming, and they aren't in the BiOp. ROGO units. Consequences: • New development under the new ROGO allocations may not be covered by the BiOp, leaving property owners and the County open to liability. 4 of 6 • The County can only enforce development regulations that are in the LDC and authorized by the Comprehensive Plan.The County cannot selectively enforce conditions from an expired HCP/ITP if those conditions are not in the LDC. The proposed plan • Nine proposed carry-over conditions are not in the LDC, Comp Plan, or exceeds the BiOp. authority of the • In order for the conditions to carry over, the County must deny permits LDC and Comp once the H=1.1 impact is reached. Plan. Consequences: • The proposed plan would require staff to deny permits even if they are authorized under the LDC. • A permit decision must rest on standards adopted in the Comprehensive The carried-over Plan and the Land Development Code and are subject to appeal. HCP conditions are unlikely to survive Consequence: appeal. • The County must either deny permits and face appeals and takings claims, or approve them and face third-party liability under the ESA. • The new plan& SAGs are inconsistent with the language in the LDC and BiOp. For example: • The LDC lets an owner proceed if the SAGs result in a"no effect" or "Not likely to adversely affect" determination. • The County now says that it will deny permits once the H=1.1 impact limit is met,regardless of the SAG outcome. The policy • However, the H=1.1 impact limit is not in the LDC. documents contradict one Consequences: another. • The County is proposing a policy that conflicts with the LDC. • Property owners have no clear, single rule for what governs their permits. • When policy documents are inconsistent, the Comprehensive Plan rules. • Since the carry-over conditions aren't in the Comprehensive Plan, they can't be enforced. 5 of 6 Table 2: Comparison of Monitoring Provisions Comparison of monitoring obligations HCP BiOp Key deer census Yes No Mortality information Yes No Calculations of human-related deaths,by type Yes No Monitor ratio of human-related deaths to number of deer Yes No seen, & compared to baseline ratio of 1.53 A suminary of reported Lower Keys marsh rabbit road Yes No mortality 6 of 6 Liz Yongue From: Ballard-Lindsey <Balla rd-Lindsey@ Mon roeCou nty-FL.Gov> Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:12 AM To: Liz Yongue; Brynn Morey Cc: County Commissioners and Aides; Hurley-Christine; Shillinger-Bob; Schemper-Emily; Tolpin-Devin; Morris-Peter; Gomez-Krystal; Ballard-Lindsey Subject: FW: Letter to BOCC: HCP-ITP Big Pine & No Name Keys - Agenda Item #M 13, June 10, 2026 Attachments: KDPA to BOCC June 5, 2026 - HCP-ITP Ext. - final.docx Good morning, Liz & Brynn. Please see the attached letter to be included as back-up to agenda item M13 for the June 10, 2026 BOCC Meeting. Thank you. Best, Li�v�Ballard, A e to (�hhr stine HvrLe�, Covot� Ac{vidn str,2tor ­?,vs�ness M,2n,29er - Ac{vidn str,2tCon !I00 Sintooton Street, Sv to 2-205 K.e� VVest, FL :2,:2,040 (M5)292-444� (offiCe) (:2,05):2,9:2,-4442 (ceLL Phone) (M5)292-4544 (Fax) ( ovri er,Stop #! gaLLat @vKonroecokntW-:R.c.4ov www.vKowroec,o Monroe County, Florida "The Florida Keys" "We may encounter many defeats, but we must not be defeated."—Maya Angelou PLEASE NOTE: FLORIDA HAS A VERY BROAD RECORDS LAW. MOST WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS TO OR FROM TTtE COUNTY 2E(�ARDINC7 COUNTY BUSINESS ARE PUBLIC RECORDS AVAILABLE TO 7WE PUBLIC AND MEDIA UPON REQUEST'. YOUR EMAIL COMMUNICATION MAY BE SUBJECT'TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE. Please consider the environiment when dec idi'ng wheflier to print this email, From:Joyce Newman <keysjoyce@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday,June 5, 2026 5:47 PM To: Ballard-Lindsey<Ballard-Lindsey@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov> Subject: Letter to BOCC: HCP-ITP Big Pine & No Name Keys-Agenda Item#M13,June 10, 2026 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. Hi Lindsey, Please find the Key Deer Protection Alliance's letter attached. I understand you will include it as part of the back-up for Agenda Item #M13 for Wednesday's BOCC meeting. Thanks for your help. Joyce Newman, KDPA Advisor Big Pine Key 2 t111W. Key Deer Protection Alliance W P.O. Box 430224 � Big Pine Key FL 33043 1 www.keydeer.org June 5, 2026 Sent by email Mayor Michelle Lincoln Commissioner Craig Cates Commissioner Jim Scholl Commissioner David Rice Commissioner Holly Rachein Monroe County Administrator's Office Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources Department Re: June 10 BOCC Meeting Agenda Item 4M13 Dear BOCC and County Staff: The Key Deer Protection Alliance(KDPA) strongly urges the County to extend the HCP/ITP for another year. This would provide time for details associated with an updated Biological Opinion (BiOp) and an effective permit process to be developed. Extending the HCP/ITP would protect the unique environment of Big Pine Key and No Name Key, give residents assurance and clarity, and shield the County from potential legal liability. We appreciate your efforts to make a smooth transition from the existing protections of the HCP/ITP to County management of this very important process. This continuity, we believe, is the best way to accomplish our shared goal: to continue to protect endangered species and the fragile habitat only available on Big Pine and No Name Keys. Also, residents are grateful the County conducted a recent community meeting on Big Pine to answer questions and address any concerns. However, we believe the County's plans to rely upon protections under the dated, existing BiOp do not, in fact, actually accomplish continued protection of the cited three endangered species and their habitat, as the County has stated. This is because the permit under which the BiOp operates is no longer valid and"take" is not adequately defined. Unfortunately, much of the County's stated plan seems to operate on "good faith,"without actual legal protections for enforcement if"good faith" is not demonstrated. To let the HCP/ITP expire, without assuring all protections and procedures are in place, appears very risky at this time. KDPA urges the County to extend the HCP/ITP another year, so all the details can be adequately addressed and the three endangered species and their habitat on Big Pine and No Name Keys can continue to be protected. For the KDPA Board, Joyce,NewwwL+v Joyce Newman, KDPA Advisor Big Pine Key 2 Liz Yongue From: Hunt-Kacey <Hunt-Kacey@MonroeCounty-FL.Gov> Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:42 AM To: Liz Yongue Subject: FW: Agenda item M 13 06/10/2026 BOCC meeting Attachments: HCP extension comments.docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Good morning, Liz. Please see attached letter, to be added to the record for item M13. Thankyou, Lacey Hunt, Executive Assistant Michelle Lincoln Mayor Monroe County, District 2 7280 Overseas Hwy, #2 Marathon, FL 33050 Courier Stop#14A (305) 292-4512 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: Beth Fennell <bthfennell@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,June 8, 2026 10:41 AM To: BOCCDIS2<boccdis2@monroecounty-fl.gov>; Cates-Craig<Cates-Craig@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>; BOCCDIS3 <BOCCDIS3@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>; B0CCDIS4<BOCCDIS4@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>; BOCCDIS5 <BOCCDIS5@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>; Hurley-Christine<Hurley-Christine@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>; Schemper-Emily <Schemper-Emily@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov> Subject:Agenda item M 13 06/10/2026 BOCC meeting 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. 1 Dear Honorable Mayor and Commissioners, Thankyou foryour efforts to make a smooth transition from the tenants of the HCP/ITP to County management of this very important process to protect endangered species and the fragile environment only available on Big Pine and No Name Keys in the Florida Keys. Citizens also appreciate the County conducting public meetings on Big Pine to answer questions and address any concerns. Unfortunately,the County's plans to absorb protections under the aged biological opinion when the permit under which that operates is no longer valid and "take" is not adequately defined, does not continue protection of the three endangered species, as the County has stated. It also opens up the County to liability. Much of the County's plan seems to operate on good faith without actual protection or procedures if"good faith" does not occur. Existing County Land Code, regs and documents do not adequately cover the gaps in protection or liability once the HCP/ITP expires. Specific procedures are not outlined for these gaps. In addition, it would be difficult to defend any protections under existing documents like the Big Pine No Name Keys Livable CommuniKeys document when LCPs have been routinely ignored by the County in redevelopment projects like Little Dolphin Marina. To let the HCP/ITP expire without assuring all protections and procedures are in place and the County is protected from liability, seems risky at this time while there appears no harm in extending the HCP and ITP for another year. I urge the County to extend the HCP/ITP another year in order to adequately work out all the details to protect the three endangered species on our most fragile set of Keys and protect the County from liability. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely Beth Fennell Big Pine Key 2 Dear Honorable Mayor and Commissioners, Thankyou foryour efforts to make a smooth transition from the tenants of the HCP/ITP to County management of this very important process to protect endangered species and the fragile environment only available on Big Pine and No Name Keys in the Florida Keys. Citizens also appreciate the County conducting public meetings on Big Pine to answer questions and address any concerns. Unfortunately, the County's plans to absorb protections under the aged biological opinion when the permit under which that operates is no longer valid and "take" is not adequately defined, does not continue protection of the three endangered species, as the County has stated. It also opens up the County to liability. Much of the County's plan seems to operate on good faith without actual protection or procedures if "good faith" does not occur. Existing County Land Code, regs and documents do not adequately cover the gaps in protection or liability once the HCP/ITP expires. Specific procedures are not outlined for these gaps. In addition, it would be difficult to defend any protections under existing documents like the Big Pine No Name Keys Livable CommuniKeys document when LCPs have been routinely ignored by the County in redevelopment projects like Little Dolphin Marina. To let the HCP/ITP expire without assuring all protections and procedures are in place and the County is protected from liability, seems risky at this time while there appears no harm in extending the HCP and ITP for another year. I urge the County to extend the HCP/ITP another year in order to adequately work out all the details to protect the three endangered species on our most fragile set of Keys and protect the County from liability. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely Beth Fennell Big Pine Key Liz Yongue From: Burke-Sue <Burke-Sue@MonroeCounty-FL.Gov> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 2:06 PM To: Liz Yongue Subject: FW: HCP-ITP Big Pine & No Name Keys - Agenda Item #M13, June 10, 2026 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Hi Liz, Commissioner Scholl received the following email which pertains to tomorrow' s 06-10-2026 Monroe County Commission Meeting: Agenda Item M-13. Please see that this email is added to the record accordingly. Thank you! -) Sincerely, Sue Burke Executive Assistant Jim Scholl, Commissioner Monroe County District 3 1100 Simonton Street Suite 1-213 Key West, FL 33040 305-292-3430 (Office) 850-341-5041 (Cell) Courier Stop #1 www.monroecounty-fl.gov �A'al k7l F 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:Joyce Newman <keysjoyce@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday,June 9, 2026 1:23 PM To: BOCCDIS3<BOCCDIS3@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov> Subject: HCP-ITP Big Pine & No Name Keys-Agenda Item#M13,June 10, 2026 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. Please excuse the unconventional format, as I'm writing from my cell phone. Dear Commissioner Scholl: Thank you for acknowledging receipt of the Key Deer Protection Alliance letter. I want to add my personal comments, urgingyou and your colleagues on the BOCC to extend the HCP/ITP for one year. This is important for the residents of Big Pine and No Name Keys and the Endangered Species and their habitat. Research has indicated the Biological Opinion will simply not be adequate or effective, despite assurances from some parties. My understanding is CONTINUANCE of the HCP/ITP would provide time for all parties to ensure existing protections would be maintained, and doing so would not be subject to preemption by the State. I urge you to EXTEND the HCP/ITP for one year. Thank you for considering my position. Respectfully, Joyce Newman Big Pine Key 2