Last Stand Asks BOCC to Renew Big Pine Key Habitat Conservation Plan
June 5, 2026
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
Mayor Michelle Lincoln
Mayor Pro Tem 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 Permit (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 formerly addressed by HCPs "will be referred to the Service for review per the guidelines in this RPA." But that provision only routes permits 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 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 permits, 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 inform 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 permit 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 permits 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.
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 terms, 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 permanent 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
