Big Pine & No Name Key Protections
August 3, 2026
JOINT COMMENTS OF LAST STAND, KEY DEER PROTECTION ALLIANCE, SAVE OUR KEY DEER, AND BIG PINE UNITED REGARDING UPDATED PROTECTIONS FOR BIG PINE KEY AND NO NAME KEY
The following are general requests which do not necessarily require any amendments to County law and could be addressed in a BOCC resolution:
We request that the BOCC direct County staff to review the Big Pine Key and No Name Key Tier Overlay District Maps using the County’s updated 2023 Land Cover–Habitat Maps, current field-verified habitat information, habitat-connectivity information, and the applicable habitat-quality criteria. Staff should identify any recommended corrections or amendments and return them to the BOCC for consideration through the Tier Overlay District Map amendment process. The County should regularly update its habitat data and review the Tier Overlay District Maps consistent with Comp Plan Policy 106.1.1 and the comprehensive-plan evaluation-and-appraisal schedule required by Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes.
We ask that the County make a request of FEMA and USFWS for an update to the Biological Opinion (BiOp).
We request that County staff prepare an accurate GIS depiction of the Sands Corridor and request from USFWS any existing data that was used to create HCP Figure 5.2. HCP Figure 5.2 does not clearly define the boundaries of the Sands corridor.
We request that the BOCC direct staff to explore the possibility of using Tourist Development Council (TDC) funds for Key Deer biological monitoring and reporting due to the clear connection between Key Deer protection and tourism. Specifically, we ask that the County allocate at least $175,000 annually from the TDC to contract with a qualified entity to conduct and analyze an official annual Key Deer census and trend analysis. This census will provide a comprehensive population estimate and analysis to assess the status of the Key Deer herd. The annual survey will be performed by experienced PhD-level scientists possessing demonstrated expertise in the biology of Key Deer and familiarity with the Florida Keys ecosystem.
We request that the County support improved community reporting of Key Deer mortality, injuries, and other wildlife incidents to provide more complete information for science-based management decisions.
a. The County should request that USFWS expand its existing Key Deer mortality and injury tracking system to allow private citizens to submit observations through a standardized public portal or mobile reporting system. Reports could include vehicle strikes, injured or sick deer, mortality events, entanglements or fencing incidents, orphaned fawns, and unusual behavior. Wildlife professionals should review and verify submitted observations before incorporating them into official datasets.
b. To help ensure that all known Key Deer deaths are captured, the County should request that USFWS also obtain and cross-check its mortality records against Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Wildlife Alert Hotline call data, including reports from residents concerning dead deer. Verified deaths identified through the FWC call data would be added to the official Key Deer mortality dataset when they are not already recorded.
The following are summaries of amendments to County law we believe are needed:
1. Independently Codify Protections from ITP Condition G [1]
a. The H = 1.1 cumulative habitat-impact limit, including the H-impact calculation methodology and land-use multipliers, which is currently only referenced in the LCP and is referenced as an estimate for a 20-year period that has now expired
b. The 10-unit cap on new Tier 1 residential development. The LDC and Comp Plan limit Tier 1 development to one unit every two years, but do not have a 10-unit cap. The 10-year cap should be cumulative and inclusive of all Tier I residential units previously authorized or counted under the HCP/ITP. Identify the starting count so the cap can be administered.
c. The 3:1 mitigation requirement. This ratio is not replicated in the LDC or Comp Plan. As written, LDC Sections 118-2 and 118-8 provide for substantially lower habitat-compensation standards. This mitigation ratio should be established in the Comp Plan or LDC, and the amendment should provide that required mitigation be implemented concomitantly with the associated development approval.
d. The 7-acre cap on native habitat clearing. Per LDC Section 118-9, this limit expired three years ago. The Comp Plan does not independently establish the limit; it only notes that there was a limit under the ITP, which is now expired. The amendment should provide that cumulative native habitat clearing, including all clearing previously approved or counted under the HCP and ITP, shall not exceed 7 acres, that no other clearing of native habitat shall be permitted, that all other development shall occur on disturbed lands, and that the existing 20%-per-lot clearing limit for wildfire prevention purposes be retained. The amount of habitat already cleared, and the amount remaining, should be established and published.
e. Marsh Rabbit buffer protections. There is no prohibition on development in the marsh rabbit buffer in either the Comp Plan, LCP or LDC; Sec. 138-28 and Comp Plan Policy 101.6.4 assign negative ROGO points but do not prohibit it.
f. The 236-unit ROGO cap, inclusive of all units previously authorized under the HCP. As currently proposed, more ROGO units from the State could increase this number.
2. Livable CommuniKeys Plan (LCP) Updates
a. Amend Comp Plan Policy 101.19.2(1) to state that, notwithstanding the expiration of the HCP and the ITP, all provisions of the LCP continue to apply indefinitely, rather than being limited to the original 20-year planning horizon, and continue to apply to the 236 ROGO units allocated to Big Pine Key and No Name Key through 2035, except as otherwise specifically provided in the Comp Plan.
b. Certain Action Items in the LCP need to be updated as described below. An alternative approach would be to make these amendments to the Comp Plan and state that those amendments override these LCP provisions. This approach has already been taken in Comp Plan Policy 101.5.28.
c. Update LCP Action Item 3.2.5 to remove its obsolete 5-year and 20-year timing references and to clarify whether Big Pine Key and No Name Key will retain a separate residential-allocation reserve. The principal HCP/ITP protections must be addressed through related Action Items 3.2.2, 3.2.4, 3.2.6, and 3.2.7, including the cumulative 236-unit cap, annual allocation limit, complete Tier I restrictions—including the 10-unit and H = 0.022 limits, and the H = 1.1 impact ceiling and mitigation requirements.
i. Amend LCP Action Item 3.2.2 to state that the Big Pine Key and No Name Key ROGO shall be implemented through the Comp Plan and LDC, independently preserving the substantive conservation protections formerly established through the HCP/ITP. These protections should include the cumulative 236-unit cap, annual allocation limit, H = 1.1 ceiling, Tier I limits, habitat-clearing restrictions, mitigation requirements, and other applicable avoidance and minimization standards.
ii. Amend LCP Action Item 3.2.4 to maintain progressive residential development by establishing a firm annual allocation limit that may not exceed ten units or the lower annual rate established by the Comp Plan. Remove the provision allowing accumulated or borrowed-forward affordable allocations to exceed the annual limit. Require all allocations to remain within the cumulative 236-unit cap, H = 1.1 ceiling, Tier I limits, mitigation requirements, and other conservation protections carried forward from the HCP/ITP.
iii. Amend LCP Action Item 3.2.6 to remove the expired 20-year reference while preserving the original cumulative Tier I limits without allowing the new 236-unit cap to increase Tier I development.
iv. Amend LCP Action Item 3.2.7 to independently establish the cumulative H = 1.1 impact ceiling under County law and retain March 13, 1995, as the original accounting date. Require all commercial, institutional, and residential impacts—and all mitigation acquisitions—previously or subsequently recorded to remain in the cumulative accounting, without resetting after expiration of the HCP/ITP. Require mitigation to be provided at the applicable 3:1 ratio concurrently with development, maintain a publicly accessible accounting record, and prohibit approvals that would exceed the H = 1.1 ceiling.
d. Amend LCP Action Item 3.3.3 to retain the minimum 20% affordable-housing set-aside while providing that it does not increase the annual allocation rate or cumulative 236-unit cap. Require all affordable-housing development to remain subject to the H = 1.1 ceiling, Tier I limits, mitigation requirements, and other conservation standards, with any adjustment made only after an annual public review of development and biological-monitoring data.
e. Amend the Comp Plan to state that, where Comp Plan or LDC provisions establishing special protections for Big Pine Key and No Name Key conflict with the LCP, the more protective provision governs. If this amendment is not made, more-protective provisions in the LCP should be incorporated into the new Comp Plan amendments.
3. Management and Monitoring Obligations
a. Amend the Comp Plan to establish mitigation, land stewardship, and reporting obligations. State that Monroe County shall maintain within the geographic area formerly covered by the HCP the responsibilities that are described in HCP Section 6.1.1, which are listed in Exhibit A.
b. Establish biological monitoring obligations. Amend the Comp Plan to require each of the following, consistent with the provisions of HCP Sections 5.1.2, 5.3.2, 5.4, 5.4.1, and 5.6 and ITP Conditions J, K, and L: An annual Key Deer census; annual collection and analysis of Key Deer mortality data; calculation and interpretation of human-related mortality relative to deer abundance; annual review of geographic mortality patterns; Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit mortality and habitat-impact reporting; Eastern Indigo Snake project-impact reporting; a certified annual biological and compliance report containing the applicable biological and compliance information required by HCP Section 5.4.1 and ITP Condition K, including identification of any noncompliance and measures taken to resolve such noncompliance; and continuity of necessary biological data if federal data becomes unavailable.
c. Establish adaptive management. Amend the Comp Plan to preserve an adaptive-management process consistent with HCP Section 5.5. The County shall evaluate monitoring results and, when significant data or information gaps or other circumstances indicate that a change in species-management or mitigation-acquisition strategy is needed, coordinate with USFWS and modify the applicable strategy as appropriate.
4. Resolve Remaining HCP/ITP Cross-References; Consistency Updates
a. Define Tiers independently of HCP/ITP. Comp Plan Policy 205.1.1 and LDC Section 130-130(d) currently tie Tier designations to the HCP. Comp Plan or LDC amendments should incorporate directly into County law the substantive habitat-quality, habitat-sensitivity, wildlife-connectivity, and related criteria used to designate Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III lands on Big Pine Key and No Name Key.
b. ROGO. Amend Comp Plan Policy 101.6.4, which states that negative ROGO point deductions exist to implement the HCP, so that these designations no longer depend on an expired instrument. Delete the second and third sentences of the second paragraph of Comp Plan Policy 101.6.2.
c. Amend LDC Section 138-51 and Comp Plan Policies 101.4.3 and 101.4.4 to provide that new commercial floor area on Big Pine Key and No Name Key shall be subject to a cumulative maximum of 47,800 square feet. This maximum, currently established only in LCP Action Item 4.1.1 for the LCP's original planning horizon, should be maintained and extended by adopting it directly into the Comp Plan. Any commercial floor area previously authorized under LCP Action Item 4.1.1 should be deducted from the cumulative maximum.
d. For all other HCP/ITP references that remain, add a provision to the Comp Plan establishing that any provision of the Comp Plan, LDC, LCP or any other County legal document that refers to the HCP or ITP, or to any specific provision of either, remains effective notwithstanding the expiration of the HCP and ITP.
5. Process and Procedural Amendments
a. Amend LDC Section 122-2(c)(2)b to update the Species Assessment Guides reference to incorporate the new July 2026 Species Assessment Guides for Key Deer, Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit, and Eastern Indigo Snake and all other applicable SAGs or similar guidance as issued by USFWS, while retaining the existing references to the 2013 SAGs for other species.
b. Amend LDC Section 122-12(d) to clearly establish how the May 27, 2026 USFWS letter will operate and be enforced. For example, specify when and on what basis the County will approve and deny permits based on Condition G, what happens once H = 1.1 is exceeded, and how the 3:1 mitigation requirement applies both before and after H = 1.1 is met. Amend LDC Section 122-12(d)(2)e to require the creation of a publicly accessible database to track permits applied for, rejected, and in process. Amend LDC Section 122-12(d)(2)i to also cover properties located in Key Deer habitat and to also prohibit free roaming dogs.
c. Add a new Comp Plan policy establishing detailed requirements for the County's Land Cover-Habitat maps. These maps should be current, clearly identified, publicly accessible, consistently used in local planning and development review, and coordinated with the federal maps and guidance used under the FEMA Permit Referral Process. Specific requirements are set out in Exhibit B.
EXHIBIT A
The responsibilities described in HCP Section 6.1.1 are as follows:
● Administration of County development approvals for applicable categories of activities formerly covered by the HCP
● Maintenance of a geographic information system database identifying the number, habitat type, and location of applicable development activities and mitigation actions, including acquisition and management activities
● Funding or provision of staff for biological monitoring and annual reporting activities
● Establishment and maintenance of an annual implementation budget and necessary budget amendments
● Performance of other duties and responsibilities necessary to carry out the responsibilities set forth in this Policy
● Assurance that mitigation required by County law is implemented concomitantly with the corresponding development activities
● Coordination with FDOT and the state land planning agency concerning implementation of these responsibilities.
EXHIBIT B
The requirements for the County’s Land Cover-Habitat maps are as follows:
● Amend the Comp Plan to establish recurring Land Cover-Habitat map updates, identify the authoritative County dataset, require use and version documentation in applicable County review, establish public-access and map-correction procedures, and create formal mapping coordination with USFWS. Direct County staff to submit the County's accepted dataset and identified mapping discrepancies to USFWS for review, provide FEMA with a copy for coordination under the Permit Referral Process, and return with proposed amendments, the USFWS response, and an implementation schedule.
● Monroe County shall maintain and use a current, versioned Land Cover-Habitat GIS dataset. Following each comprehensive update, the County shall evaluate whether mapped hammock, pineland, wetlands, habitat connectivity, Tier boundaries, or related protection standards require revision. The County shall publish the accepted dataset, metadata, effective date, limitations, and change analysis and retain prior versions.
● Monroe County shall update its Land Cover-Habitat GIS dataset at least once during each evaluation-and-appraisal cycle required by Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes, and sooner when material environmental change, development, restoration, mapping error, new imagery, hydrologic change, or new scientific information warrants review. Each update shall include metadata, quality control, field verification as appropriate, change analysis, public access, and review of whether related County maps, plans, or regulations require amendment.
● The Planning Director shall identify the accepted Land Cover-Habitat dataset by version and effective date. Applicable permit and Tier-review records shall identify the County and federal map and guide versions, aerial imagery, and site-specific information relied upon. The County layer shall inform review but shall not automatically amend a regulatory map or replace required site investigation. Material conflicts shall be addressed through a documented correction procedure.
● Monroe County requests that USFWS compare the accepted County Land Cover-Habitat dataset with current Species Focus Area Maps, parcel lists, and Species Assessment Guides; resolve material discrepancies in writing; update federal screening materials when warranted; provide versioned GIS files and metadata; and determine whether updated information requires supplemental or reinitiated consultation. Monroe County will provide FEMA with a copy because these federal maps and guides are used in the FEMA Permit Referral Process.
[1]Why adopt these independently? We reviewed the County's table assessing whether these conditions already exist in the LCP, Comp Plan, and LDC. The conditions listed have the clearest gaps: some apply only to the original 20-year period, which has ended; some depend on an active HCP/ITP; and some are stated as guidelines or estimates rather than mandates. The County has also proposed making these conditions enforceable by citing the May 27, 2026 FWS letter in Section 122-12. This is vulnerable to challenge. The BiOp has not been formally amended to include Condition G or to cover Big PineKey and No Name Key. Per the BiOp and Comp Plan Policies 206.1.4 and 206.1.5, the Permit Referral Process is a review and referral process which ensures compliance with the BiOp. The BiOp has not been amended since 2010 and does not include Condition G.
