The Consequences of Expiration: Big Pine Key’s Habitat Conservation Plan
April 30, 2026
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
Mayor Michelle Lincoln, District 2
Commissioner Craig Cates, District 1
Commissioner Jim Scholl, District 3
Commissioner David Rice, District 4
Commissioner Holly Raschein, District 5
Re: Expiration of the Big Pine Key and No Name Key HCP/ITP
Dear Mayor Lincoln, Commissioners, and County Staff:
Last Stand is writing regarding the Big Pine Key and No Name Key Incidental Take Permit and Habitat Conservation Plan (“HCP/ITP”), which is set to expire on June 30, 2026. (1)
We appreciate that the County and Last Stand share the goal of maintaining effective protections for habitat and endangered species, and we write in that spirit. The County's recent press release, however, suggests that expiration will not meaningfully affect the rate or nature of development, or the protection of endangered species and their habitat. That conclusion is difficult to reconcile with the basic structure and contents of the HCP/ITP, and with the County's own record. Several consequences of expiration appear not to have been acknowledged or addressed. We write to put them on the record.
When the HCP/ITP expires, several substantive changes occur immediately:
Total residential development potential increases by 20%: The HCP/ITP capped new residential development at 200-units. That will disappear; under the County's proposed ROGO framework, development potential rises roughly 20% via another 10 years of ROGO with 4 units/year.
40,000 SF of commercial development potential opens up: Even with NROGO, non-residential development cannot exceed the HCP/ITP’s net limit of 1.1 H-impact. Without the HCP/ITP, commercial development can be maxed out under NROGO, including 31,913 square-feet of floor area currently in the Big Pine/No Name NROGO bank plus an additional 8,600 square-feet over the next 10 years, or a total of roughly 40,000 square-feet.
Habitat mitigation weakened to cash payments only
The 3:1 habitat mitigation standard will be eliminated. Instead, mitigation will only be required pursuant to current County code, which requires financial contributions in exchange for plants removed. This does not address the full ecological function of lost habitat, and, importantly — does not guarantee any additional conserved habitat for species in Big Pine & No Name.
The habitat-based development cap disappears (1.1 H-impact limit):
The model used by the HCP/ITP is so valuable for conservation purposes because it limits development based on its real-world impact, accounting for both direct habitat degradation, and indirect effects like traffic, which is the leading cause of Key deer mortality. A retail store, for example, carries roughly 12 times the H-impact of an office of the same size on the same site, because retail generates substantially more traffic. The HCP functions as an ecological budget: every project spends a portion of a limited allowance, and the total cannot exceed what the habitat can sustain. There is no substitute for this in the LDC.
Loss of biological monitoring:
The County’s role in monitoring Key deer and other covered species—and using that data to inform management decisions—will end, despite limited federal capacity to perform this work.
The 10-unit cap in Tier 1 will no longer apply.
Loss of Lower Keys marsh rabbit buffer protection.
The 500-meter buffer for Lower Keys marsh rabbit is in the HCP/ITP but not in the Code or Comprehensive Plan. As it stands, the County is preempted from amending the Code to include this protection. Studies from before the HCP was adopted found that the Lower Keys marsh rabbit would likely go extinct within 30 years if development impacts weren’t reduced.
In addition to these immediate changes, several existing Code-based provisions would also become legally vulnerable:
The Tier Overlay Map for Big Pine and No Name Key. Comprehensive Plan Policies routinely define Tiers by reference to the HCP/ITP. For instance, Comprehensive Plan Policy 205.1.1 provides that Tier I, II, and III designations on Big Pine Key and No Name Key “shall be in accordance with the wildlife habitat quality criteria as defined in the Habitat Conservation Plan for those islands,” and Code Section 130-28 provides that tier boundaries “shall be designated using the Big Pine Key and No Name Key Habitat Conservation Plan.”
When the HCP expires, the foundation of the Tier System in this sub-area expires with it. Any property owner seeking to challenge a Tier designation, or to request an amendment, will have a substantially stronger basis to do so than they do today. It makes the Tier system a much more vulnerable tool.
The proposed limited ROGO allocation for the Big Pine and No Name Key sub-area. The County proposes to maintain the limited ROGO allocations for the Big Pine & No Name Key sub-area. Because the basis for that limitation is compliance with the federal HCP/ITP, the limitation may be more vulnerable to challenge once the HCP expires, especially in light of taking claims discussions. We would welcome the County’s analysis of how this affects exposure to takings claims.
The Livable CommuniKeys Plan. The County has cited the LCP as a continuing source of protection for Big Pine and No Name Key. The LCP, however, was designed for the same 20-year horizon as the HCP. It is difficult to argue simultaneously that the HCP should lapse because its 20-year analysis period has ended, and that the LCP — designed for the same period — provides continuing protection. We would welcome the County’s explanation of how it distinguishes the two.
Monroe County’s proposed alternative:
The press release indicates that the County will rely on existing FWS frameworks — presumably the Biological Opinion (BiOp) and Permit Referral Process — to regulate new development. We respectfully note two concerns.
First, the BiOp specifically excludes Big Pine Key and No Name Key, for the express reason that development there was already governed by the HCP/ITP. The BiOp and the HCP were designed to operate in tandem, not separately. (2) Adding thousands of acres of habitat — home to the majority of an endangered species' population — is not a minor amendment. It may require a new BiOp, a process that, given current FWS staffing and budget constraints, could take years.
Second, the last public action the BOCC took on this issue was to remove not only all references to the HCP/ITP from the Code, but all references to the Biological Opinion & Permit Referral Process as well. A year later, with two months to expiration, the County's proposed alternative is the Biological Opinion and Permit Referral Process. The public should have to a clear explanation of how those instruments apply to Big Pine and No Name Key, and what property owners can expect on July 1 if no replacement authorization is in place.
Conclusion:
The County has expressed its commitment to maintaining conservation protections for Big Pine and No Name Key, and we take that commitment seriously. We are asking that it be reflected in the record. Nearly 350 residents have added their names to Last Stand's registry of citizens concerned about the HCP/ITP's expiration — nearly half of them property owners on these islands. They are entitled to answers to the questions raised here.
For these reasons, we respectfully request:
That the expiration of the HCP/ITP be placed on the May 20, 2026 BOCC agenda for public, on-the-record discussion.
That the County answer, on the record, the questions raised in this letter and those raised previously over the past year.
That if these open questions and a successor framework are not resolved prior to June 30, 2026, the County request a one-year extension of the HCP/ITP.
The HCP/ITP has operated for 23 years, balancing conservation and development on Big Pine and No Name Key. In that time, the County has already paid for more than 99% of the mitigation the framework requires. A one-year extension would not trigger additional mitigation spending; it would simply preserve the benefits that spending has purchased. Development could continue, and the County would not owe a dollar more.
What extension would provide is time to get answers from FWS, to resolve permitting questions, and to evaluate how a shifting landscape — from preemption at the state level to endangered species policy at the federal level — will impact long-term conservation goals and the County’s ability to achieve them. There is no reason to rush. The consequences of getting this wrong are permanent — for the species, for property owners, and for protections the County has spent two decades building.
Last Stand is grateful for your service and your attention to these issues, and we welcome the opportunity to discuss any of the points raised above.
Sincerely,
Jordan Mannix-Lachner
On behalf of Keys Last Stand
CC:
Christine Hurley, County Administrator;
Emily Schemper, Growth Management Director
The press release states that the HCP expired in 2023. However, per FWS, “an ITP describes the legally binding elements of an HCP. If the ITP is active, the permittee is obligated to follow the HCP.” (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.)
As the BO states: “Because the HCP has already addressed impacts and exempted take within its boundaries, this BO addresses impacts on potential suitable habitat outside of Big Pine and No Name Keys.”
Photo by Zoshua Colah on Unsplash
