Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges

              DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
LOWER FLORIDA KEYS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES
National Key Deer Refuge
Key West National Wildlife Refuge
Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge
Monroe County, Florida
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
May 2008
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose And Need For The Plan ................................................................................................. 1
Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 4
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 4
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 6
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 6
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 9
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9
description of refuges and History of their Establishment ............................................................ 9
Key West National Wildlife Refuge ..................................................................................... 9
Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge ....................................................................... 9
National Key Deer Refuge ................................................................................................ 10
Refuge Purposes ........................................................................................................................ 10
Key West National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................... 11
Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge ..................................................................... 11
National Key Deer Refuge ................................................................................................ 11
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 12
Ecosystem Context and Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives ....................................... 16
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 17
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 17
Geology ............................................................................................................................. 17
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 17
Physiograpy ...................................................................................................................... 17
Hydrology and freshwater Resources ............................................................................... 17
Water Quality and Quanity ................................................................................................ 18
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 18
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 19
Flora – habitat characteristics of native vegetation/Plant Communities ............................ 19
Fauna – fish and Wildlife ................................................................................................... 23
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 31
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 31
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 39
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 39
Priority Resource Issues ............................................................................................................. 39
Overarching Issue (applies to all refuges across most program areas) ..................................... 39
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 40
Habitat Management ......................................................................................................... 40
Fish and Wildlife Population Management ........................................................................ 41
Refuge Administration ....................................................................................................... 43
ii Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ....................................................................................................... 45
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 45
Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 45
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 45
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 47
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................ 67
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 67
Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 67
Fish And Wildlife Population Management ....................................................................... 67
refuge administration and Resource Protection ................................................................ 71
Visitor Services, Wildlife-Dependent recreation, and Environmental Education ............... 72
Staffing and Funding .................................................................................................................. 73
Partnership Opportunities........................................................................................................... 73
Monitoring and Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 80
Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 80
SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................................. 81
I. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................. 81
Purpose and need ...................................................................................................................... 81
Proposed Action ......................................................................................................................... 81
II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 83
III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................. 85
Formulation and description of Alternatives ............................................................................... 85
Alternative A - (Current Management - No Action) ........................................................... 85
Alternative b - (Proposed Alternative) ............................................................................... 86
Alternative c ...................................................................................................................... 87
Features Common to all Alternatives ......................................................................................... 88
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ..................................................................................... 105
Overview ................................................................................................................................. 105
Effects on the Physical Environment ........................................................................................ 105
Soils ............................................................................................................................... 105
Hydrology ........................................................................................................................ 105
Water Quality .................................................................................................................. 105
Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 106
Noise Pollution ................................................................................................................ 106
Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................... 106
Facilities .......................................................................................................................... 107
Effects on the biological Environment ...................................................................................... 107
Native Habitats Affected By The Plan ............................................................................. 108
Table of Contents iii
Wildlife and Protected Species ................................................................................................. 110
Research and monitoring ......................................................................................................... 111
Fire Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 112
Fishing ............................................................................................................................. 113
Wildlife Observation and Photography ............................................................................ 113
Environmental Education and interpretation ................................................................... 113
Other Permitted Activities ................................................................................................ 114
Ecotourism ...................................................................................................................... 114
Tax Revenue ................................................................................................................... 114
Regulatory ....................................................................................................................... 115
Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 115
Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 115
Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 116
Revenue Sharing ............................................................................................................ 116
Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 116
User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 117
Water Quality from Soil Disturbance and Use of Herbicides ........................................... 117
Vegetation Disturbance ................................................................................................... 118
Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 118
Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 118
Land Ownership .............................................................................................................. 118
Site Development ............................................................................................................ 118
Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ....................................................................... 119
Summary statement ................................................................................................................. 119
V. COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION .................................................................................... 121
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 121
Biological Review: ........................................................................................................... 121
Visitor Services and Public Use Review ......................................................................... 121
Wilderness Review .......................................................................................................... 121
Fire Management Program Review ................................................................................ 122
Planning Team ................................................................................................................ 122
Tribal Coordination .......................................................................................................... 122
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................... 123
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED .............................................................. 133
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS .............................. 137
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................... 149
APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS............................................................... 153
APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................... 163
APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................. 187
APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ............................................................................................ 203
iv Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges
APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA ........................................................................................................ 205
APPENDIX J. BUDGET REQUESTS ............................................................................................... 245
APPENDIX K. LIST OF PREPARERS .............................................................................................. 247
Planning Team ................................................................................................................ 247
Biological Review ............................................................................................................ 247
Visitor Services and Public Use Review ......................................................................... 248
Wilderness Review ......................................................................................................... 248
Fire Management Program Review ................................................................................ 248
APPENDIX L. LIST OF PARTNERSHIPS ........................................................................................ 249
Table of Contents v
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. FLORIDA KEYS REFUGES .............................................................................................. 2
FIGURE 2. REFUGE BOUNDARIES LOWER FLORIDA KEYS ......................................................... 3
FIGURE 3. FLORIDA REFUGES ......................................................................................................... 5
FIGURE 4. SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS ............................................................................................. 13
FIGURE 5. WILDERNESS AREA ...................................................................................................... 15
FIGURE 6. LAND COVER .................................................................................................................. 20
FIGURE 7. LOWER FLORIDA KEYS REFUGES VISITOR SERVICES FACILITIES ....................... 36
FIGURE 8. LOWER KEYS TRAILS ................................................................................................... 37
FIGURE 9. BOATING – ZONES AND RESTRICTIONS .................................................................... 38
FIGURE 10. PROPOSED ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE
LOWER FLORIDA KEYS REFUGES .......................................................................... 76
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 - FEDERALLY LISTED ENDANGERED (E), THREATENED (T), AND
CANDIDATE (C)SPECIES OF THE LOWER FLORIDA KEYS REFUGES ...................... 27
TABLE 2 - MONROE COUNTY – POPULATION, HOUSING UNITS, AREA AND DENSITY ........... 32
TABLE 3 - INCOME AND POPULATION STATISTICS ..................................................................... 33
TABLE 4 - MONROE COUNTY DEMOGRAPHY STATISTICS ......................................................... 33
TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS (IN 2007 DOLLARS)
* DENOTES < 14 YEAR COST ........................................................................................ 74
TABLE 6. APPROXIMATE ANNUAL COSTS OF PROPOSED STAFF POSITIONS
IN 2007 DOLLARS ........................................................................................................... 75
TABLE 7. LOWER FLORIDA KEYS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES STEP-DOWN
MANAGEMENT PLANSAND COMPLETION DATES ..................................................... 79
TABLE 8. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES BY MANAGEMENT ISSUES FOR THE
LOWER FLORIDA KEYS REFUGES .............................................................................. 89
vi Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
The Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges Complex is comprised of four refuges situated in the Florida
Keys (Figure 1). Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is located at the northern end of the
Florida Keys near Key Largo, Florida. The Lower Florida Keys Refuges are physically separated from
Crocodile Lake NWR. This group of three refuges, National Key Deer Refuge, Key West National Wildlife
Refuge (NWR), and Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), is situated between the city of
Marathon and the Marquesas Keys, which are located west of Key West, Florida (Figure 2). The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) developed the Lower Florida Keys Refuges’ Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) to guide management and resource
conservation for these three refuges over the next 15 years. The refuge complex is managed as a whole
with administrative headquarters at National Key Deer Refuge on Big Pine Key, Florida. One Draft
CCP/EA document has been prepared for the three Lower Florida Keys Refuges. This Draft CCP/EA
contains background information on the refuges and presents a description of the planning process and
the desired future conditions. The Draft CCP/EA states the refuges’ vision, goals, and management
actions necessary to achieve these goals and conditions.
Guiding the development of the Draft CCP/EA is Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning)
of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997. An overriding consideration reflected in this Draft CCP/EA is that fish and wildlife conservation
has first priority in refuge management. All public use of refuges must be compatible with the
purposes for which each refuge was established. The Improvement Act specifies six priority wildlife-dependent
uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental
education and interpretation. Except for hunting, these uses are allowed in specified areas of the
Lower Florida Keys Refuges.
The major issues addressed in the Draft CCP/EA include the complexity of managing geographically
scattered islands and lands with mixed ownership and jurisdiction; changing public attitudes, needs
and demands; habitat fragmentation; climate change; fire management; lack of ecological
inventorying and monitoring; recovery of imperiled species; invasive exotic species; and staffing and
facility needs. Based on these issues, three alternatives were identified for managing the refuges as
outlined in the EA. From these alternatives, the Service selected a proposed alternative, which is
described in Chapter IV of this Draft CCP/EA. Implementation of the proposed management action is
discussed in Chapter V.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purposes of this Draft CCP/EA are to identify the role these refuges will have in support of the
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and to provide guidance in refuge management and
public use activities. This Draft CCP/EA describes the Service’s management direction (i.e., goals,
objectives, and strategies) for the next 15 years.
2 Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges
Figure 1. Florida Keys Refuges
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
Figure 2. Boundaries of Lower Florida Keys NWRs
4 Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges
The CCP is needed to:
􀁹􇤠 Provide a clear statement regarding management of the refuges;
􀁹􇤠 Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials and other stakeholders with an
understanding of the Service’s management actions on and around the refuges;
􀁹􇤠 Ensure that refuge management actions are consistent with the purposes of the refuges and
the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 Provide long-term guidance and continuity for refuge management; and
􀁹􇤠 Provide a basis for the development of budget requests relative to the refuges’ operational,
maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary federal agency responsible for conserving,
protecting, and enhancing the Nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. Although the
Service shares this responsibility with other federal, state, tribal, local, and private entities, it has
specific trustee responsibilities for migratory birds, federally listed threatened and endangered
species, anadromous fish, certain marine mammals, and the lands and waters administered by the
Service for the management and protection of these resources.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
As part of its mission, the Service operates 547 national wildlife refuges covering over 100 million
acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), the world’s
largest network of lands and waters specifically managed for fish and wildlife. Most of these lands
are in Alaska, with only about 20 percent situated within the other 49 states and several island
territories. The Service manages 28 national wildlife refuges in Florida (Figure 3) that comprise
approximately 964,992 land and water acres (Florida Natural Areas Inventory 2005).
The mission of the Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997, is “to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their
habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” The
Improvement Act establishes wildlife conservation as the primary mission of the Refuge System.
National wildlife refuges provide important habitat for native plants and many species of mammals,
birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles, insects, and other invertebrates. They also play a vital role in the
recovery of threatened and endangered species. Refuges offer a wide variety of wildlife-dependent
recreational opportunities, and many have visitor centers, interpretive trails, and environmental
education programs. In 2006, approximately 87 million people hunted, fished, or observed wildlife,
and spent $120 billion pursing those activities (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007).
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
Figure 3. Florida refuges
6 Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges
LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT
Legal Mandates and Administrative and Policy Guidelines
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the Refuge System,
congressional legislation, executive orders, and international treaties. Policies for management options of
refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines established by the Secretary of the Interior and by
policy guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Select legal summaries of
laws relevant to administration of the Refuge System and management of the Lower Florida Keys
Refuges are provided in Appendix C.
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy
The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans. The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow
while achieving refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System’s mission. It provides for the
consideration and protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found
on refuges and associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction
for refuges, refuge managers will use sound professional judgment to determine their refuges’
contribution to biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple landscape
scales. Sound professional judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of refuge
resources, ecosystem management, applicable laws, and best available science, including
consultation with others both inside and outside the Service.
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
National American Bird Conservation Initiative
Begun in 1999, the National American Bird Conservation Initiative is a coalition of government
agencies, private organizations, academic institutions, and industry leaders in the United States,
Canada, and Mexico, working to ensure the long-term health of North America’s native bird
populations by fostering an integrated approach to bird conservation to benefit all birds in all
habitats. The Lower Florida Keys Refuges support the following: North American Waterfowl
Management Plan; Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan; Southeastern Coastal Plain and
Caribbean Region Shorebird Conservation Plan; and Southeastern Coastal Plain Colonial
Waterbird Conservation Regional Plan.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan
Since the first European settlers arrived, more than 53 percent of the contiguous United States’
original 221 million acres of wetlands have been destroyed, causing dramatic declines in waterfowl
populations. Recognizing the importance of waterfowl and wetlands to North Americans, and the need
for international cooperation to help in the recovery of this shared resource, the United States and
Canadian governments developed a strategy to restore waterfowl populations to levels of the 1970s
through habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement. The strategy was documented in the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan, signed in 1986 by the Secretary of the Interior and the Canadian
Minister of the Environment. With an update in 1994, Mexico became a signatory to the plan.
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
The plan identified important waterfowl habitat areas and established habitat and population goals. It
developed interstate/international partnerships called Joint Ventures to implement plan goals. In
1997, the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture added Florida as its seventeenth state partner.
Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan
The Partners in Flight initiative was launched in 1990, in response to growing concerns about declines in
the populations of many land bird species, particularly migratory passerines, for which no coordinated
management was in place. It addresses the conservation of birds not covered by other conservation
programs. The central premise of Partners in Flight is that the resources of public and private
organizations in North and South America must be combined, coordinated, and increased in order to
achieve success in conserving bird populations in this hemisphere. The Service is a member of the
cooperative effort to promote research, land protection, and education about migratory birds. Other
participants include federal, state, and local government agencies, philanthropic foundations, professional
organizations, conservation groups, industry, the academic community, and private individuals.
The Partners in Flight initiative focuses on species that breed in the Nearctic (North America) and
spend the winter in the Neotropics (Central and South America). These species are commonly
known as neotropical migratory birds. Partners in Flight coordinates international conservation efforts
for all neotropical migratory land birds in the United States and the Western Hemisphere. The goal of
the initiative is to keep common birds common.
Southeastern Coastal Plain and Caribbean Region Shorebird Conservation Plan
The Southeastern Coastal Plain and Caribbean Region Shorebird Conservation Plan correlates
roughly to the Partners in Flight initiative. It identifies priority species, outlines potential and present
threats to shorebirds and their habitats, reports gaps in knowledge relevant to shorebird conservation,
and makes recommendations for addressing identified problems. General habitat goals for the region
are to: (1) provide optimal breeding habitat for priority species; (2) provide high-quality managed
habitat that supports the requirements of species migrating through or spending winter in the region;
and (3) maintain human disturbances at tolerable levels for shorebirds throughout the year.
Southeastern Coastal Plain Colonial Waterbird Conservation Plan
The Southeastern Coastal Plain Colonial Waterbird Conservation Plan follows the same format as the
previous two bird conservation plans, with a focus on herons, ibises, storks, seabirds, and their habitats.
Through public use area closures and habitat protection, the Service provides important wintering
habitat for 22 priority conservation species included in the plan. The refuges have regionally important
habitats, such as intertidal seagrass, algal and mudflats, salt ponds, and beaches.
Globally Important Bird Area
All three refuges are designated as Globally Important Bird Areas (GIBA). Worldwide, there are
3,500 sites. The American Bird Conservancy identified the top 500 sites within the United States.
For a site to be designated, it must, for at least part of a year, contain habitat that supports one of the
following criterions: (1) a major population of a threatened and/or endangered; (2) a notable
population of watch list species; (3) a population of a species with a limited range; or (4) large
aggregations of breeding, migrating, or wintering birds, including waterfowl, seabirds, wading birds,
raptors, or landbirds. The goal of the GIBA program is to create public awareness of these sites and
to obtain resources to protect them.
8 Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
DESCRIPTION OF REFUGES AND HISTORY OF THEIR ESTABLISHMENT
KEY WEST NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Key West National Wildlife Refuge (Key West NWR) is west of Key West, Florida and accessible only
by boat or plane. Key West NWR consists of the Marquesas Keys and 13 other keys distributed across
over 375 square miles of open water (Figure 2). Key West NWR is among the first refuges established
in the United States. President Roosevelt created the refuge in 1908 as a preserve and breeding
ground for colonial nesting birds and other wildlife. The refuge encompasses 208,308 acres of land
and water, with only one percent (2,019 acres) being land. Most islands are dominated by mangrove
plant communities. Exceptions are the hardwood hammock in the Marquesas Keys, and the beaches
and dunes there and on Boca Grande and Woman Keys. All islands lack fresh water and native,
terrestrial mammals are absent.
Key West NWR provides habitat and protection for federally listed species, including piping plover and
roseate terns. The refuge harbors the largest wintering population of piping plovers and the largest colony
of white-crowned pigeons in the Florida Keys. It is a haven for over 250 species of birds, including ten
wading bird species that nest in the refuge. Other notable imperiled species include sea turtles. More
loggerhead and green sea turtle nests are found each year in Key West NWR than any area of the Florida
Keys except for the Dry Tortugas. Waters within the refuge’s administrative boundaries are important
developmental hapitat for sea turtles, as well as hawksbills and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles.
In 1975, Public Law 93-632 designated all islands in Key West NWR (except Ballast Key, which is
privately owned) as a part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Wilderness areas are
managed to minimize human impacts and influences and to let natural processes occur without
intervention. The refuge limits human use and influence in order to preserve the quality, character,
and integrity of these protected wilderness lands. The Service co-manages the open water and
submerged lands owned by the State of Florida through a Management Agreement for Submerged
Lands within Boundaries of the Key West and Great White Heron NWRs (Management Agreement).
Adopted in 1992, the Management Agreement prohibits the use of personal watercraft, airboats,
waterskiing, hovercrafts, and the landing of seaplanes within the administrative boundary of the
refuge, and it restricts public access in certain locations in order to protect sensitive wildlife resources.
GREAT WHITE HERON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Great White Heron NWR was established in 1938, by Executive Order 7993 signed by President
Roosevelt, as a haven for great white herons, migratory birds, and other wildlife. The refuge
encompasses 117,683 acres of land and water with 6,500 acres of land (Figure 2), the latter of which
1,900 acres were designated Wilderness in 1975 under Public Law 93-632. The islands are primarily
mangroves. Some of the larger islands contain pine rockland and tropical hardwood hammock
habitats. This vast area, known locally as the “backcountry,” provides critical nesting, feeding, and
resting areas for more than 250 species of birds. As noted above, the Service co-manages the open
water and submerged lands owned by the State of Florida through a Management Agreement.
10 Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges
Great white herons are a white color-phase of great blue herons. In the United States, nesting is
restricted to extreme south Florida, including the Florida Keys. The refuge was created to protect great
white herons from extinction since the population was decimated by the demand for feathered hats.
Protection of great white herons was successful, and these magnificent birds can be observed
feeding on tidal flats throughout the refuge. The refuge islands are also used for nesting by ten
wading bird species, including the reddish egret, and by many neotropical migratory bird species.
Three species of sea turtles rely on the backcountry for feeding and nesting. Green and loggerhead
sea turtles successfully nest in the refuge. Hawksbill sea turtles are known to feed in seagrass beds
throughout the refuge, but nesting has not been observed.
NATIONAL KEY DEER REFUGE
National Key Deer Refuge was established on August 22, 1957 to protect and conserve Key deer and
other wildlife resources. It comprises nearly 8,983 acres of land on several islands within the approved
acquisition boundary, as well as additional parcels located outside the boundary administered by the
refuge (Figure 2). These lands host diverse habitats, most notably globally endangered tropical hardwood
hammocks and pine rocklands. The refuge provides habitat for hundreds of endemic and migratory
species, including 21 federally listed species, such as Key deer, Lower Keys marsh rabbit, and silver rice
rat. It contains a variety of plants endemic to the Florida Keys.
When the refuge was established, the Key deer was nearing extinction. Less than 50 deer remained
as a result of uncontrolled hunting. Establishment of the refuge, along with habitat acquisition and
law enforcement efforts, has allowed the deer population to increase and stabilize. Today, there are
about 600 Key deer located on Big Pine and No Name Keys, with around 100 more located on
surrounding islands. Key deer continute to be classified as endangered because the population is
isolated and confined to a small geographic area, which could allow a disease outbreak or hurricane
to wipe out the entire species.
The refuge is an important stopping point for thousands of migrating birds each year and an important
wintering ground for many North American bird species. Notable species include the piping plover and the
peregrine falcon. The mosaic of upland and wetland habitats found in the Florida Keys is critical breeding
and feeding ground for birds, and refuge land acquisition efforts strive to add to the lands already protected.
Loggerhead, green, hawksbill, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles forage in the waters surrounding National Key
Deer Refuge, but nesting is limited to refuge lands on Ohio Key, where a small number of loggerhead turtle
nests are laid annually.
REFUGE PURPOSES
The purposes of the refuges come from the executive orders and subsequent laws Congress passed
as it established each refuge. There are also specific purposes Congress designated for managing
the Refuge System as a whole. Each of the three refuges has different enabling legislation and
purposes. This Draft CCP/EA has been designed with consideration of the distinct purposes of each
refuge. The purposes of the refuges are as follows:
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
KEY WEST NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
􀁹􇤠 “... a preserve and breeding ground for native birds.” Executive Order 923 dated August 8,
1908.
􀁹􇤠 “... particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program.” 16
U.S.C. 667b (An Act authorizing the transfer of certain real property for wildlife, or other
purposes).
􀁹􇤠 “…so as to provide protection of these areas…and to ensure…the preservation of their
wilderness character…” (Wilderness Act of 1964, Public Law 88-577.)
GREAT WHITE HERON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
􀁹􇤠 “... as a refuge and breeding ground for great white herons [white phase of the great blue
heron], other migratory birds and other wildlife.” Executive Order 7993, dated Oct 27, 1938.
􀁹􇤠 “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory
birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act).
􀁹􇤠 “... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened
species .... or (B) plants ...” 16 U.S.C. 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973).
􀁹􇤠 “... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the
protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened
species ...” 16 U.S.C. 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property.
Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive
covenants imposed by donors ...” 16 U.S.C. 460k-2 [Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-
460k-4), as amended].
􀁹􇤠 “…so as to provide protection of these areas…and to ensure…the preservation of their
wilderness character…” (Wilderness Act of 1964, Public Law 88-577.)
NATIONAL KEY DEER REFUGE
􀁹􇤠 “... to protect and preserve in the national interest the Key deer and other wildlife
resources in the Florida Keys.” 71 Stat. 412, dated Aug. 22, 1957.
􀁹􇤠 “... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened
species .... or (B) plants ...” 16 U.S.C. 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973).
􀁹􇤠 “... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the
protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened
species ...” 16 U.S.C. 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property.
Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive
covenants imposed by donors ...” 16 U.S.C. 460k-2 [Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-
460k-4), as amended].
􀁹􇤠 “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and
wildlife resources ...” 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4) “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and
12 Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges
Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to
the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C.
742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956).
􀁹􇤠 “... conservation, management, and … restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources
and their habitats … for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans...” 16
U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act).
􀁹􇤠 “…so as to provide protection of these areas…and to ensure…the preservation of their
wilderness character…” (Wilderness Act of 1964, Public Law 88-577.)
These purposes and the mission of the Refuge System are fundamental to determining the
compatibility of proposed uses of the refuge, including public recreation. The compatibility of these
uses is discussed in Appendix F.
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
Outstanding Florida Waters Designation
Section 403.061(27), Florida Statutes, grants the Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) the
power to “Establish rules which provide for a special category of water bodies within the state, to be
referred as ‘Outstanding Florida Waters,’ which shall be worthy of special protection because of their
natural attributes.” Among other public conservation lands within state and federal ownership, all
waters in national wildlife refuges are designated as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs). Each of
the Lower Florida Keys Refuges was designated in 1986 (Figure 4), with modifications made in 1988
and 1994. A Special Waters OFWs designation was made for the Florida Keys in 1985. The
regulatory significance of the OFWs statute is to prevent the FDEP from issuing permits for direct or
indirect pollutant discharges into OFWs, which would lower or degrade their existing water quality.
Permits for new dredge and fill activities must clearly be in the public interest.
Marine Protected Areas
Executive Order 13158 on Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) was issued May 26, 2000. It directs
federal agencies to work with government and non-governmental partners to increase protection and
sustainable use of ocean resources by strengthening and expanding a national system of MPAs. The
definition of MPAs provided in the President’s Executive Order is “any area of the marine environment
that has been reserved by federal, state, territorial, tribal, or local laws or regulations to provide
lasting protection for part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein.” Each of the Lower
Florida Keys Refuges is classified as an MPA by virtue of being in the Refuge System. All actions
concerning the management of MPAs are left to the discretion of the local, state, or federal authorities
that currently have those powers.
For more information on MPAs see: http://mpa.gov/national_system/national_system.html.
Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program
The Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) was established in 2002 to protect
coastal and estuarine lands considered important for their ecological, conservation, recreational,
historical, or aesthetic values. The program is administered by the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). It provides state and local governments with matching funds to
purchase important coastal and estuarine lands, or conservation easements on such lands, from
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
Figure 4. Special designations
14 Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges
willing sellers. Lands or conservation easements acquired with CELCP funds are protected in
perpetuity so that they may be enjoyed by future generations. Within the refuges’ administrative
boundaries, CELCP goals are as follows: acquire 124 parcels (50 acres) on Big Pine Key and 55
parcels (79 acres) on Cudjoe Key.
Federal Wilderness Designation and Stewardship
Congress designated wilderness areas in the Lower Florida Keys Refuges on January 3, 1975
(Public Law 93-632) to be managed under the Wilderness Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 890.892: 16 U.S.C.
1132). The wilderness areas include 1,990 acres in Great White Heron NWR, 2,019 acres in Key
West NWR and 2,278 in National Key Deer Refuge. They are portrayed in Figure 5.
Under the Wilderness Act, wilderness areas “…shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of
the American people in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as
wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness
character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment
as wilderness.”
Sixteen principles of wilderness stewardship are derived from the Wilderness Act of 1964. They are:
􀁹􇤠 Manage wilderness as a distinct resource with inseparable parts;
􀁹􇤠 Manage the use of other resources and activities within wilderness in a manner compatible
with the wilderness resource;
􀁹􇤠 Allow natural processes to operate freely within wilderness;
􀁹􇤠 Attain the highest level of primeval wilderness character within legal constraints;
􀁹􇤠 Preserve wilderness air and water quality;
􀁹􇤠 Produce human values and benefits while preserving wilderness;
􀁹􇤠 Preserve outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined recreation
experience in each wilderness;
􀁹􇤠 Control and reduce the adverse physical and social impacts of human use in wilderness
through education or minimum regulation;
􀁹􇤠 Favor wilderness-dependent activities when managing wilderness use;
􀁹􇤠 Exclude the sight, sound, and other tangible evidence of motorized or mechanical transport
wherever possible within wilderness;
􀁹􇤠 Remove existing structures and terminate uses and activities not essential to wilderness
management or not provided for by law;
􀁹􇤠 Accomplish necessary wilderness management work with the minimum tool;
􀁹􇤠 Establish specific management direction with public involvement in a management plan for
each wilderness;
􀁹􇤠 Harmonize wilderness and adjacent land management activities;
􀁹􇤠 Manage wilderness with interdisciplinary scientific skills; and
􀁹􇤠 Manage special provisions provided for by wilderness legislation with minimum impact on the
wilderness resource.
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
Figure 5. Wilderness areas
16 Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT AND REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan
Several species known to occur in the refuges are listed under the Endangered Species Act as
threatened or endangered (Appendix I). To be endangered means that a species is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a major portion of its range, while threatened means that a species is likely
to become endangered within the foreseeable future. Under the Act, all federal agencies must use their
authorities to conserve listed species and make sure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued
existence of listed species. They must protect these species and conserve their habitats. Recovery
plans are developed for each of the federally listed threatened or endangered species with the objective
of restoring the species to a healthy population. For the South Florida Ecosystem, the South Florida
Multi-Species Recovery Plan was adopted by the Service in 1999. It is available online at:
http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/Programs/Recovery/vbms5.html. All refuge plans, management actions,
and operations affecting listed species must be in accordance with this recovery plan and only
undertaken after consultation with the Service’s Ecological Services’ Office.
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan
To protect the diverse marine ecosystem of the Florida Keys, Congress passed the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) and Protection Act in 1990. The FKNMS Management Plan
was approved in 1997 by the Florida Governor and Cabinet and Congress. Since the FKNMS
encompasses both state and federal waters (Figure 4), it is managed cooperatively between the
NOAA and the FDEP. The primary purpose of the FKNMS is to protect the unique marine habitats of
the Florida Keys, especially the world’s third largest coral reef system. Copies of this plan are
available online at: http://floridakeys.noaa.gov/regs/welcome.html.
Coastal Resources Barrier Act
The Coastal Resources Barrier Act of 1982 designated many islands within the Florida Keys,
including parts of the refuges, for inclusion within the John H. Chaffee Coastal Barrier Resources
System. Areas so designated are not eligible for federal financial assistance that might support
development. This law requires agencies that propose using federal expenditures within the Coastal
Barrier Resources System to consult with the Service’s Ecological Services’ Office for consistency
with the Coastal Barrier Resources Act.
State Aquatic Preserves
The state has established a system of Aquatic Preserves throughout Florida, including Coupon Bight in
the Lower Florida Keys in 1969 (Figure 4). Management intent is defined in the Florida Aquatic Preserve
Act of 1975: “for such preserves possessing ...exceptional biological, aesthetic and scientific value...to be
set aside forever as aquatic preserves or sanctuaries for the benefits of future generations.” (Section
258.36, Florida Statutes). Coupon Bight is located south of Big Pine Key and encompasses 4,600 acres
of seagrass meadows, hardbottom communities, mangrove wetlands, and coral patch reefs. For more
information, visit this web page: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/sites/coupon.info.htm.
Florida Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy
Florida’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (Strategy) is an action plan for conserving all of
the state’s wildlife and vital natural areas for future generations. It identifies which native wildlife and
habitat are in need of conservation and proposes management strategies to address this need. The
Strategy is part of a nationwide conservation program. To qualify for federal funding, each state and trust
territory must develop an action plan. In Florida, the State Wildlife Grants Program provides funding. For
more information, see: http://myfwc.com/wildlifelegacy/strategy.html.
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
The climate of the Lower Florida Keys is tropical (Jordan l99l), with a mean annual temperature of
about 77 degrees Fahrenheit (F). The coldest average monthly temperature, 70 degrees F, occurs
during January, and the warmest mean monthly temperature, 84 degrees F, occurs in August
(Thomas l974). Temperatures below 39 degrees F are unusual due to the moderating effects of the
warm marine waters and the coastal Gulf Stream. Freezing temperatures and frost have never been
recorded. The mean annual rainfall is 39 inches, of which 80 percent falls from May through October
(Hanson l980). Compared to other seasons, winters are usually dryer, with most rainfall occurring
during passing cold fronts. Prevailing wind direction is east to southeast, with an annual average of
about 11 knots. Winds are strongest during the winter months (December through March), when cold
fronts from the north move through the area. The mean annual sunshine is 3,300 hours, ten percent
more than the Florida Peninsula to the north.
GEOLOGY
The geology of the Lower Florida Keys (Big Pine Key west to Key West) has been described in detail
by Hoffmeister (l974). Marine carbonate sediments nearly 20,000 feet in depth underlie the Keys.
Along this submerged platform, coral reefs developed in a band from present day Miami to the Dry
Tortugas. Two limestone formations of marine origin are found in the Lower Florida Keys. Miami
oolite, a medium-to-hard limestone, overlies the Key Largo limestone formation. The latter is
exposed only in a narrow band on the extreme southeast end of Big Pine Key. Elsewhere, it is
overlain by Miami oolite, a limestone formed during the Pleistocene era in a high energy, shallow
water environment containing an abundance of calcium carbonate.
SOILS
Physical and chemical properties of soils in Monroe County have been detailed by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (1989). Saddlebunch marl is the dominant soil in tropical hardwood
hammocks. In some hardwood hammock areas, humus may be present to a depth greater than 3
feet. Key Vaca, a very gravelly loam, is the dominant soil in the pine rocklands. Soil types in the
freshwater wetlands are of the Rock-Outcrop-Cudjoe Complex consisting of 55 percent rock outcrop
and 45 percent Cudjoe marl. Soils within the fire-dependent pine rocklands are very thin; burning
removes vegetative litter and exposes the bare oolitic caprock. Cracks and crevices in the exposed
limestone cap rock form pockets of soil.
PHYSIOGRAPY
Refuge islands range from less than a quarter-acre (e.g., Hurricane Key) to nearly 6,919 acres (Big
Pine Key, partial Service ownership). Taken as a whole, the refuge has relatively few islands larger
than 99 acres. Elevation ranges from sea level on inundated mangrove islands (e.g., Little Crane
Key) to 13 feet above sea level (Big Pine Key). A complex network of narrow tidal creeks dissects
small mangrove islands in some areas (e.g., between Snipe Point and Outer Narrows).
HYDROLOGY AND FRESHWATER RESOURCES
Freshwater, other than limited shallow pooling following a rainstorm, is absent from the whole of Key
West NWR and from nearly all backcountry islands (islands not linked by U.S. Highway 1) in the other
refuges. A notable exception is Little Pine Key, which is underlain by a freshwater lens.
18 Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges
The distribution of surface freshwater on refuge islands has been mapped and described in detail by Folk
et al., 1991. Refuge lands on Cudjoe, No Name, Upper Sugarloaf, Big Torch, Little Pine, Howe, and Big
Pine Keys contain freshwater wetlands year-round. Freshwater wetlands reach their greatest extent and
distribution on Big Pine Key. Rain water collects and is held chiefly in shallow, impermeable limestone
basins and solution holes within this islands’ tropical hardwood hammocks and/or pine rocklands. At
slightly lower elevations amidst these habitats are freshwater wetland communities.
Big Pine Key is underlain by two distinct freshwater lenses. The largest one is north of Watson
Boulevard; the other is south of this road (Hanson 1980). In both lenses, freshwater floats on the
underlying saltwater with areal, tidal, and rainfall-dependent changes occurring seasonally. During
the highest spring tides, freshwater may be discharged above ground level (Folk et al., 1991).
Extensive canals dug to create waterfront property accelerated the natural discharge from freshwater
lenses, decreasing the size of the lens by 20 percent (Levington et al., 1998). The freshwater layers
are narrow for both lenses (20 to 23 feet), with only a 5- to 10-foot transition zone between fresh and
salt water (Wightman 1990). Additionally, there are more than 60 miles of ditches dug to drain
freshwater wetlands for mosquito control.
WATER QUALITY AND QUANITY
Four studies of surface and nearshore water quality (Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
1985; 1987; Lapointe and Clark 1990; and Kruczynski 1999) have been performed in the Florida
Keys; none were specific to the refuges.
Both the surface and subterranean freshwater resources of refuge lands on Big Pine are vulnerable
to contamination (Wightman 1990) because of sea level rise, the runoff of fertilizers, herbicides and
pesticides from lawns, and the outflow from septic tanks. The latter are inherently a constant source
of pollution (Paul et al., 1991) because of the referenced geological characteristics of the Lower
Florida Keys (Lapointe and Clark 1992). Septic tank densities in subdivisions adjacent to refuge
lands greatly exceed the normally accepted national benchmark of 40 tanks per square mile. This
benchmark was set for areas unlike Big Pine Key where suitable soils are present (Saarinen 1989).
AIR QUALITY
Air quality is a global concern. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has lead responsibility
for the quality of air. Through the 1990 Clean Air Act, EPA set limits on the amount of pollutants that
can be legally discharged into the air. Nationally, more than 170 million tons of pollution is emitted into
the air annually within U.S. borders, through either stationary sources (e.g., industrial and power plants)
or mobile sources (e.g., automobiles, planes, trucks, buses, and trains). There are also natural sources
of air pollution, such as fires, dust storms, volcanic activity, and other natural processes. EPA has
identified six principal pollutants that are the focus of its national regulatory program: lead, carbon
monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter.
Air pollution causes damage to the environment and property and affects human health. Both federal
and state governments track air quality and visibility impairment, through a system of 5,200 monitors
at 3,000 locations across the United States. Florida has 227 monitors at 141 sites. Carbon
monoxide is from combustion or fire sources and is a problem mainly in cold weather climates. Lead
has not been detected above standard levels, except in places that have a smelter source. Nitrogen
dioxide is only monitored in large metropolitan areas, but Florida has never approached the standard.
Sulfur dioxide is emitted from power plants and paper mills. None of these four principal pollutants
are monitored near the refuges since they are not considered problem pollutants in this area. The
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Clean Air Act provides for the protection of visibility in national parks and wilderness areas, also
known as Class 1 areas; however, there are no monitoring stations within the refuges.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
FLORA – HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS OF NATIVE VEGETATION/PLANT COMMUNITIES
The refuges harbor a very diverse assemblage of plants, with 423 native and 88 non-native species
recorded (Appendix I computed from Gann et al., 2007a,b,c). Native plant diversity is greatest in
National Key Deer Refuge (410 species), followed by Key West NWR (182 species), and Great White
Heron NWR (128 species). These data come from Gann et al., 2007a,b,c. Federally listed species
include Key tree cactus (endangered) and Garber’s spurge (threatened), with six candidate species
under consideration for listing.
Because of the small size of the refuge islands, their flat topography and low elevation, and their
proximity to the sea, very slight differences in elevation cause marked differences in plant
communities. A controlling factor is the amount, duration, and frequency of tidal inundation. The pine
rocklands, for example, are intolerant of saltwater, with tidal flooding occurring only during hurricanes.
In the wake of hurricanes in 1998 (Georges) and 2005 (Wilma), many slash pines were killed by
saltwater intrusion.
Major community types include pine rockland, tropical hardwood hammock, freshwater marsh,
buttonwood transition zone, salt marsh, inland salt ponds, beach ridge hammock, beach/dune and
mangrove forest (Figure 6). Small but important plant communities on Big Pine Key include the Long
Beach berm and Cactus Hammock on the southeast end of the island and a marl prairie on the
island’s north tip. Upland vegetation is primarily of West Indian origin (Dickson 1955, Weiner 1979).
Pine Rocklands
A globally imperiled habitat, pine rocklands are a fire-dependent community consisting of an open
canopy of slash pines with a patchy understory/groundcover of tropical and temperate shrubs, palms,
grasses, and herbs (Folk 1991). Pine rocklands occur at an elevation 6.5 to 10 feet above mean sea
level and are usually underlain by a freshwater lens. Pine rocklands contain significant freshwater
resources, in the form of natural waterholes that are important to Key deer.
Pine rocklands have the highest plant diversity of all plant communities in the Florida Keys. Ross
(1989) reported that a typical 16.5-by-16.5-foot area contains up to 30 individual plant species. Pine
rocklands harbor a number of rare or endemic plant (e.g., Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge,
sand flax) and animal taxa (e.g., Big Pine Key ringneck snake), including two rare butterfly species –
Bartram’s hairstreak and Florida leafwing. Common plants associated with pinelands include long-stalked
stopper, blackbead, Keys thatch palm, silver palm, locustberry and poisonwood.
Pine rocklands are intolerant of saltwater. Of all refuge plant communities, sea-level rise poses the
greatest risk for the pine rocklands. Ross et al., (1994) reported that a half-foot rise in sea level over
a 70-year period reduced the size of the pine rocklands on Upper Sugarloaf Key by 66 percent.
Without periodic fires to check the growth of competing hardwood species, pine rocklands will
succeed to hardwood hammock. Because anthropogenic barriers, such as roads and houses, have
fragmented the once contiguous pineland on Big Pine Key, the natural fire regime has been altered to
the detriment of this habitat.
20 Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges
Figure 6. Land cover
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
Tropical Hardwood Hammock
Tropical hardwood hammocks are the climax terrestrial plant community in the Florida Keys.
Occurring on uplands 6.5 to 10 feet above sea level, hammocks are hardwood forests consisting of a
wide diversity of evergreen and semi-deciduous tree and shrubs, many of West Indian origin,
including paradise tree, gumbo limbo, Jamaican dogwood, pigeon plum, blolly, and wild dilly. Except
during extreme storm events, these areas are not inundated by sea water. Although not fire-maintained
communities, fire may periodically enter tropical hardwood hammocks from a nearby
pineland wildfire, particularly during extreme drought conditions.
Tropical hardwood hammocks serve as important stopover areas for neotropical migratory birds,
particularly during inclement weather. Human development has severely reduced and
fragmented this habitat in the Florida Keys (Bancroft 1996), deleteriously affecting forest nesting
birds (Bancroft et al., 1995). For example, the state-listed white-crowned pigeon is inextricably
tied to hammock fruit production.
Beach Ridge Hammocks
These hardwood hammocks occur on high sand berms, 3 to 20 feet above sea level, created by
storm events. Although some of the plants found there are also found in tropical hardwood
hammocks, this habitat is sufficiently different to warrant a separate classification (Folk et al., 1991).
Trees in this habitat type grow on a sand substrate with low freshwater retention and are usually
nearer to the sea–sometimes mere feet–than a typical tropical hardwood hammock. Beach ridge
hammocks normally have relatively low plant diversity with a sparse understory, which may contain
limber caper, Bahama nightshade, and blackbead. However, the latter may serve as the dominant
species over a large area in some beach ridge hammocks. A nearly pure, four-acre stand on Boca
Grande Key provides an example. Of all berm hammocks in the refuge, elevation is highest (6.5 to
10 feet) and size greatest on the northwest side of the Marquesas Keys. Within this hammock is the
only viable population of yellowheart trees in the United States.
Freshwater Marsh
Freshwater marshes occur in shallow basins or lowlands either surrounded by higher upland forests
or between upland areas and transition zones. They have standing freshwater levels that persist for
extended periods. The average marsh elevation is 3 to 6.5 feet above mean sea level, with size
varying up to 247 acres (Folk 1991). Wetland plant species include sawgrass, buttonwood, white-top
sedge, and leather fern. These wetlands are important to amphibians, reptiles, insects, mammals,
birds, and crustaceans. Freshwater wetlands are absent in Key West NWR. Ephemeral puddling
occurs on a very small scale where limestone caprock is exposed on Boca Grande Key.
Buttonwood Transition Zone
The buttonwood transition zone occurs between mangrove forests and upland forests and consists of
open scrub (e.g., sea oxeye) and buttonwood forest. Common plants include joewood, mayten,
saffron plum, key grass, Christmas berry, sea purslane and buttonwood. Average elevation is less
than three feet above mean sea level, with occasional saltwater inundation during spring high tides
and/or coastal storms.
22 Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges
Salt marsh
Refuge salt marshes lack trees and usually occur in the interface between buttonwood transition and
mangrove zones. The plants in this habitat type are halophytic, that is, able to tolerate periodic tidal
inundation (e.g., spring high tides) and fluctuating salinity. Common plant species include cord grass,
sea oxeye, saltgrass, saltwort, and glasswort. Salt marshes are used by a variety of resident and
transient organisms, notably the endangered Lower Keys marsh rabbit and silver rice rat.
Inland Salt Pond
Salt ponds are high salinity, non-vegetated, shallow-water areas of at least an acre that occur
landward of salt marshes or mangroves. Large salt ponds (greater than 3 acres) are found on Big
Pine, Barracouta, Cudjoe, and Boca Grande Keys. High numbers of wading birds may gather in such
areas depending on water depths and fish density. Of special note is the salt pond on Boca Grande
Key, which is used year-round by wading birds and seasonally by piping plovers; white pelicans;
black-necked stilts; and least, royal and sandwich terns. This island and Barracouta Key harbor the
largest known mangrove terrapin populations in the refuge.
Mangrove
More than half of the acreage in the three Lower Keys refuges is covered by dense, low mangrove
forests. Elevation ranges from sea level to four inches above sea level. Dominant plant species are
red and black mangrove. The roots of these trees are usually either constantly submerged or
inundated daily by the tides. Lugo and Snedaker (1974) described six mangrove forest types, four of
which occur in the Florida Keys: overwash, basin, scrub (dwarf), and fringe forests. The latter are the
most prominent type in the refuges.
Mangrove forests are some of the most biologically productive ecosystems in the world. These
forests are a vital component of the estuarine and marine environment, providing a major detrital
base to organic food chains, important habitat for arboreal, intertidal and subtidal organisms, nesting
sites, cover and foraging grounds for birds, and habitat for some reptiles and mammals. Mangrove
wetlands are excellent filters of runoff and are found along coastlines. Mangrove communities
produce much of the essential nutrients to support the organisms comprising the food chain and
provide nursery areas for many commercially valuable marine fish.
Beach and Dune
Beaches and associated dunes are rare in the Lower Florida Keys Refuges. Except for a narrow
beach on the extreme southeast side of Big Pine Key, this habitat is absent in National Key Deer
Refuge. Short, narrow beaches are found on east Sawyer Key and Snipe Point in Great White Heron
NWR. Beach and associated dunes are a prominent part of the Key West NWR, occurring on Man,
Woman, Marquesas (7 separate beaches) and Boca Grande Keys. Beach length varies from 164 to
8,530 feet. All refuge beaches are narrow and coarse-grained, formed primarily of calcareous
remains from various shallow water marine organisms. Green and loggerhead sea turtles nest on
refuge beaches; hawksbills nest occasionally on Key West NWR. The beaches also afford important
foraging and loafing habitat for a variety of shorebirds, including the threatened piping plover.
Dunes occur landward of the beaches and reach their greatest size and have the highest plant
diversity on refuge islands in Key West NWR. The beach-dune interface is an important ecological
front that produces sustained levels of biological activity (Carter et al., 1990). The beach and dune
may function homeostatically with the nearshore system and alteration of one of these elements may
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
affect the others (Carter et al., 1990). Narrow dunes are the most vulnerable to overwash. On Boca
Grande Key, for example, a small portion (about 165 feet) of the narrow dune on the extreme
northwest side of the island is inundated during exceptional spring high tides.
Dunes are a fragile habitat easily damaged by humans, even when very low levels of use are
involved (Nickerson and Thibodeau 1983). The vulnerability of a dune to any given human activity
will vary according to local conditions, such as dune size and profile, quantity, and type of flora,
beach characteristics, and surrounding water depth. Liddle and Greig-Smith (1975) found that
human activity on dunes alters plant distribution and species diversity, and concluded that impacts
were equal to that of natural factors. McDonnel (1981) reported that trampling dune vegetation
altered the width of the fore-dune plant community, and reduced the interdune community to a narrow
strip at the base of the back-dune community.
Exotic Plant Species
Exotic, invasive plant species cause habitat loss by disrupting natural communities on the refuges.
They displace native species and alter ecosystem functions. There are at least 25 terrestrial exotic,
invasive plant species known to occur on the refuges. The most widespread and problematic species
include Brazilian pepper, Australian pine, Asiatic columbrina, seaside majoe, lead tree, and non-native
grasses. Continual monitoring and treatment maintenance are required to keep exotics under
control in order to prevent new infestations.
The treatment of invasive exotic pest plants is extremely difficult for both Great White Heron NWR
and Key West NWR. On these refuges, affected areas are located on the uplands of remote,
offshore islands, many of which are designated Wilderness areas. Treatment is also problematic on
National Key Deer Refuge because infestations on private lands, the Overseas Highway, and other
road rights-of-way serve as seed sources that may re-infest refuge lands. The use of non-native,
invasive plants in landscaping causes the introduction of exotics to refuge lands. Hurricanes can
wipe out native plants allowing for the invasion of exotics on disturbed sites. The Service has
invested substantial time and money in removing exotics and participates as a member on the Florida
Keys Invasives Exotics Task Force.
For information on distributions of particular species by county, visit the Atlas of Florida Vascular
Plants website, www.plantatlas.usf.edu. For additional information on exotic plant species, visit the
Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council website, www.fleppc.org.
FAUNA – FISH AND WILDLIFE
For a listing of the wildlife known to occur in the Lower Florida Keys Refuges, see Appendix I.
Fish
The refuges have a high diversity of aquatic habitats. Marine waters within the refuges’
administrative boundary are under state jurisdiction. Although marine fishes in the Florida Keys have
been studied extensively (Bohnsack et al., 1998), those inhabiting fresh and brackish water wetlands
on refuge lands have received little attention. The few published works have been species-specific
and narrowly focused (Travel et al., 1990; Turner 1992). A simple inventory of fishes occurring on the
refuges is needed.
24 Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges
Birds
More than 250 bird species have been observed in the refuges (Appendix I). Avian species that are
listed under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act and documented on the refuges include
the roseate tern and piping plover. The red knot is a candidate species. State-listed species include
the aforementioned species, as well as the least tern, peregrine falcon, snowy plover, bald eagle, and
white-crowned pigeon.
The refuges provide important breeding, wintering, and stopover habitat for neotropical migratory
birds, including songbirds, shorebirds, and raptors. Through the Partners in Flight initiative, federal,
state, and private agencies are developing and implementing a comprehensive approach for
managing selected species of migratory nongame birds (Appendix I, Priority Birds in Need of
Conservation Attention for Subtropical Florida Physiographic Area BCR 31). In an attempt to prevent
the listing of most of these birds as threatened or endangered species, these trust species are given
high priority in management decisions. Nesting bald eagles, wading birds, white-crowned pigeons,
and some terns are also surveyed annually.
Waterfowl
Waterfowl do not nest in the Florida Keys. Apart from small numbers of overwintering red-breasted
mergansers and blue-winged teal, other migratory waterfowl are rarely observed.
Resident land birds
Red-bellied woodpeckers, red-winged blackbirds, gray kingbird, black-whiskered vireo, and white-crowned
pigeon are among the more common resident breeding birds. The only warbler species
known to breed in the Lower Florida Keys Refuges are Cuban yellow and prairie warblers. Both are
common breeders in the backcountry islands.
Shorebirds, Waterbirds, and Marshbirds
The Lower Florida Keys Refuges contain extensive mangrove and shallow water habitats that are
important loafing and foraging sites for local wading birds and migratory shorebirds. The refuges
harbor all species of Florida wading birds—excepting the wood stork—as either nesters or vagrants.
Known nesters include all Florida herons and egrets, as well as the white ibis. The refuges are
important to nesting great white herons. A peak of 336 nests was documented in 1998 (Wilmers
2003a), but thereafter nesting declined yearly, with only 83 nests in 2005 and 102 in 2006.
Roseate tern nesting in the United States is rare and limited by a lack of suitable nesting sites.
Nesting in the Florida Keys occurred annually outside refuge boundaries on Pelican Shoals, an
oceanic island obliterated by hurricanes in 2004 and 2005. For the first time on record in 2006, terns
nested within the administrative boundaries of the Key West NWR at a site close to Boca Grande
Key. This small sand island was created by Hurricane Wilma and is under state jurisdiction.
Although three of four nesting attempts were successful, disturbance by dogs and humans was
observed. The island is eroding and may prove to be ephemeral. In 2005 the south beach on Boca
Grande Key was washed landward of the dune by Hurricane Wilma. This created a large expanse of
sand on the island’s interior that may be marginally suitable for roseate tern nesting. Since the island
is closed to public access, this site may provide a less transitory option for nesting. In July 2007, 82
non-nesting roseate terns were observed in this area.
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Other birds that nest in the refuges include the brown pelican and double-crested cormorant. Brown
pelican nesting has declined progressively since 1987. By 2003, there were with only two rookeries, each
producing less than 20 fledglings, active in 2003 (Wilmers 2003b). In 2007, only one rookery was active
and no young were produced. Non-nesting, fish-eating birds include various tern and gull species.
Neotropical Migratory Birds
A primary purpose of the refuges is conservation of migratory birds. This includes neotropical
migratory birds, which are defined as shorebirds, waterbirds, and landbirds that are listed in the
most recent American Ornithologists Union checklist (1983). They are distinguished by having
separate breeding and wintering ranges, with at least part of the winter range being south of the
Tropic of Cancer. Where separate populations of a species exhibit differing breeding and
wintering behavior, an effort has been made to include only those local species that spend the
winter in the tropics. These species are of keen public and conservation interest because they
migrate remarkable distances in all weather conditions. Many are experiencing range-wide
declines due to the destruction and fragmentation of breeding and wintering habitat, poisoning by
pesticides, collisions with towers and large buildings, and feral cat predation.
Raptors (Hawks and Allies)
The Lower Florida Keys Refuges are situated along a major migratory pathway for raptors. Sixteen
migratory species have been observed in the refuges. Migration begins in late August with the
passage of American swallow-tailed kites and ends in November with Swainson’s hawks. Broad-winged
and sharp-skinned hawks are the most abundant migratory birds. More peregrine falcons
pass over the Keys than any other hawk observation sites in North America (Lott 2006). While most
of the migratory raptors use the refuges as a resting and feeding stopover enroute to the tropics,
significant numbers of certain species overwinter, such as the broad-winged and short-tailed hawks.
Bald eagle nesting has been monitored annually since 1985 with four to six active nests sighted
yearly. Some islands were used for nesting for over 20 years and others for only a few years, with
pairs moving elsewhere. Osprey and red-shouldered hawks are also nesters in the refuges.
Osprey, red-shouldered hawks, and bald eagles are nesters. Sixteen migratory raptor species have
been observed in the refuges. Migration begins in August with the transiting of American swallow-tailed
kites and ends in November with the passage of Swainson’s hawks. Broad-winged and sharp-skinned
hawks and American kestrels are the most common migratory birds.
Mammals
As with many island chains, few land-dwelling species occur in the Florida Keys. Except for the
introduced black rat, mammals are absent from Key West NWR. Key deer and raccoons are the most
commonly seen mammals in the Lower Florida Keys Refuges. Marsh rabbits and silver rice rats are
rarely seen. “In 1991 there was a high of 300 individual rabbits and by 1993 the population decreased
to only 100 individuals (Forys and Humphrey 1994).” According to the South Florida Multi-Species
Recovery Plan, the “…estimated population sizes for silver rice rats from nine islands range from 0 to
16 individuals, with an average of approximately 5 per island.” Bottlenose dolphins are the most
common sea-dwelling mammal in refuge waters. The Florida manatee is a rare, transient visitor.
Maintaining Key deer numbers at carrying capacity, a level that promotes herd health, is a paramount
need. The population increased markedly during the 1990s and now exceeds carrying capacity on No
Name Key and parts of Big Pine Key. The result has been degradation of native plant communities and
26 Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges
loss of habitat diversity, with probable, but as yet unstudied, impacts on other wildlife species. Several
once-common plant species highly palatable to deer, such as black torch, have disappeared or been
greatly reduced over large areas of Big Pine and No Name Keys. Deer at high densities may exist at a
lowered nutritional plane and are more susceptible to epizootic diseases.
For many years, Key deer aggregations have been particularly high near subdivisions, such as Port Pine
Heights and Koehn, their numbers burgeoned collectively by the reproductive output of a large number of
resident does, feeding on ornamental plants, and illicit feeding of deer by tourists and residents. After the
mid-1990s, deer roadkill numbers increased markedly, with annual numbers sometimes exceeding 100
animals. Despite this elevated mortality, deer numbers have remained high and were offset by annual
population recruitment. For this reason, and because Key deer have no natural predators and cannot be
hunted, immuno-contraception is the only means to control herd numbers.
Paradoxically, as deer population increased on No Name and Big Pine Keys, there was a reduction
or extirpation in other parts of the deer’s range, including Johnson, Cudjoe, and Sugarloaf Keys.
Because substantial suitable deer habitat existed on Sugarloaf and Cudjoe Keys, more than 30 Key
deer were translocated several years ago to these islands from No Name and Big Pine Keys. The
fate of these populations must be monitored over time to assess the efficacy of translocation as a
long-term management strategy for these areas.
Nutritional indices of the deer herd as a whole can be effectively assessed by performing necropsies
of all dead animals. Detection of some epizootic diseases, however, cannot be confirmed without a
battery of laboratory tests.
Amphibians
Amphibians require freshwater and are therefore absent in Key West NWR and most of the islands in
the Lower Florida Keys Refuges. They occur mostly on National Key Deer Refuge, most notably in
water holes and mosquito ditches on Big Pine Key. The most common amphibians are the southern
leopard frog and two introduced species: the greenhouse and Cuban tree frogs. At least seven
native and three non-native species (e.g., marine toad) of amphibians occur on the refuge.
Inventories are underway in 2007 in the National Key Deer Refuge to establish baseline data on the
status and distribution of amphibians.
Reptiles
A comprehensive survey of reptilian species in the Lower Florida Keys Refuges is lacking and a
precise number of species is not known. Eleven species of lizards, nine species of snakes, and
eleven species of turtles have been documented, many of which are non-native. The American
alligator, crocodile, and eastern indigo snake are noteworthy species. The green, loggerhead, and
hawksbill sea turtles are nesting species, while the Kemp’s ridley is a forager in waters surrounding
the refuges. Inventories began in 2007 in the National Key Deer Refuge to establish baseline data on
the status and distribution of reptiles as only sea turtles have had regular specific monitoring.
Invertebrates
No attempt has been made to catalogue the plethora of invertebrates on the refuge, although some
outside researchers have studied certain species or groups. The refuge is compiling a list of moths
and butterflies. At least three federal candidate species of butterflies occur in the refuges: Bartram’s
hairstreak, Florida leafwing, and Miami blue. Both the Bartram’s hairstreak and Florida leafwing
butterflies are restricted to slash pine rocklands that contain pineland croton, the only known host
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
plant for both species. The Miami blue is present on six islands (eight discrete beach/dune areas) in
Key West NWR where it occupies narrow berm hammocks, fronted by dunes, where its host plant,
blackbead, is present. Both the range and populations of these three species are but a fraction of
their historical distribution and numbers. Given their rarity and small populations, illicit collection and
future hurricane damage warrant concern. Aerial application of Naled (aka Dibrom) to control
mosquitoes is known to deleteriously impact butterfly populations (Emmel 1991, Salvato 2002).
Naled drift into non-target refuge areas on Big Pine Key warrants concern.
Exotic Animal Species
The distribution and impact of exotic and feral animals on native plants and wildlife within the refuge
are poorly known. Feral cats are predators of the endangered Lower Keys marsh rabbit, silver rice
rat, and other animals. Imported fire ants attack young sea turtles and endangered endemic
mammals. Black rats may eat bird eggs and the young of endangered rodents and out-compete the
latter for habitat. Non-native reptiles and amphibians may be impacting their native counterparts. No
substantive research has been performed, but it is warranted. Perhaps the most common exotic
animal is the green iguana, the population of which has increased greatly over the past decade.
Other exotic animals include the Cuban treefrog and imported fire ant; their impacts have not been
studied but could be substantial. Shiny cowbirds, now present in Key West NWR, and the Gambian
pouch rat, established some 30 miles from refuge boundaries, are notable species to monitor.
Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species
Table 1 depicts species that are federally listed as threatened or endangered, as well as candidate
species. Many of these species are declining or experiencing severe population losses due to
alteration and/or degradation of their habitats. By perpetuating intact natural communities, restoring
degraded natural communities and processes and eliminating adverse human impacts, the refuge
can contribute to species recovery goals and benefit other plants and animals dependent on these
endangered ecosystems. Monitoring efforts of sufficient intensity and duration to determine refuge-specific
status and trends of federally listed species are needed.
Table 1 - Federally Listed Threatened (T), Endangered (E), and Candidate (C) Species of the
Lower Florida Keys Refuges
NKDR GWH KW SPECIES LATIN NAME FEDERAL
STATUS
MAMMALS * = occurs at this refuge (CH) = critical habitat
* * Key deer Odocileus
virginianus clavium
E
* * Lower Keys marsh rabbit Sylvilagus palustris
hefneri
E
* * Silver rice rat Oryzomys palustris
natator
E (CH)
* * * West Indian manatee Trichecus manatus E (CH)
28 Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges
NKDR GWH KW SPECIES LATIN NAME FEDERAL
STATUS
BIRDS
possible possible possible Kirtland’s warbler Dendroica kirtlandii E
* * * (CH) Piping plover Charadrius melodus T (CH)
possible possible * Roseate tern Sterna dougallii
dougallii
T
* * * Red knot Calidris canutus
rufa
C
REPTILES
* * American Alligator Alligator
mississippiensis
T (S/A)
* American crocodile Crocodylus acutus T (CH)
* Eastern indigo snake Dymarchon corais
couperi
T
* Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas E (CH)
* Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys
imbricata
E (CH)
* Kemp’s ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii E
* Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys
coriacea
E (CH)
* Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta T
FISH
* * * Smalltooth sawfish (United
States Distinct Population
Segment)
Pristis pectinata E, NMFS
INVERTEBRATES
* Stock Island tree snail Orthalicus reses T
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
NKDR GWH KW SPECIES LATIN NAME FEDERAL
STATUS
(not including
nesodryas)
* Possible Possible Bartram’s hairstreak
butterfly
Strymon acis
bartrami
C
* Possible Possible Florida Leafwing Anaea troglodyta
floridalis
C
* Possible * Miami blue butterfly Cyclargus
(=Hemiargus)
thomasi
bethunebakeri)
C
Staghorn coral Acropora
cervicornis
T, NMFS –
Listed May 9,
2006 (71 FR
26852)
Elkhorn coral Acropora palmata T, NMFS –
Listed May 9,
2006 (71 FR
26852)
PLANTS
* Blodgett’s silverbush Argythamnia
blodgettii
C
* Big Pine partridge pea Chamaecrista
lineata keyensis
C
* Wedge spurge Chamaesyce
deltoidea serpyllum
C
* * Garber’s spurge Chamaesyce
garberi
T
* Cape Sable thoroughwort Chromolaena
frustrata
C
* Sand flax Linum arenicola C
* Florida semaphore cactus Consolea corallicola C
* Key tree cactus Pilosocereus robinii E
30 Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges
The South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan referenced in Chapter I provides a description of all
imperiled species located within the Lower Florida Keys Refuges. A brief description of selected
federally listed threatened and endangered species follows.
Endangered Species
Key deer. The Key deer is the smallest subspecies of the North American white-tailed deer. It
historically ranged from Key Vaca to Key West, but the current range includes approximately 26
islands from Big Pine Key to Sugarloaf Key, with the center of its population on Big Pine and No-
Name Keys. Most lands within its current range, including privately owned lands, lie within the
administrative boundaries of National Key Deer Refuge. Key deer utilize all habitats within their
range, including pine flatwoods, pine rocklands, hardwood hammocks, buttonwood, mangrove, and
freshwater wetlands. They also use residential and commercial areas extensively where they feed on
ornamental plants and grasses and seek freshwater. The Key deer remains federally listed due to its
restricted range, continued loss of habitat, and high human-related mortalities and disturbances.
Lower Keys marsh rabbit. The Lower Keys marsh rabbit is a subspecies of the marsh rabbit, a
species widespread in the southeastern United States. While this species originally ranged
throughout the Lower Florida Keys, the marsh rabbit is known from only thirteen sites on Lower
Sugarloaf, Welles, Annette, Hopkins, Geiger, Boca Chica, and Big Pine Keys. Its habitat includes
coastal and freshwater marshes.
Silver rice rat. The silver rice rat is a small, primarily nocturnal, wetland rodent with large home
ranges that are adapted to the unique island habitats of the Lower Florida Keys. Critical habitat
includes areas containing contiguous mangrove swamps, saltmarsh flats, and buttonwood transition
vegetation. Populations are found at extremely low densities on twelve islands and were listed as
endangered because their wetland habitat has been destroyed by development.
Florida manatee. Manatees are rare in the Lower Florida Keys. The refuge staff provides logistical
assistance to local and state wildlife agencies, as needed, if sick, injured, or dead animals are found.
Kemp’s ridley sea turtle. This is a small to medium-sized turtle with a nearly circular shell. Primarily
a Gulf of Mexico species, it inhabits marine coastal waters with sand or mud bottoms. Juveniles
frequent bays. Nesting occurs on Gulf beaches in south Texas and northern Mexico,
although a few nests have been confirmed in Florida.
Green sea turtle. This large sea turtle inhabits marine coastal and oceanic waters and occurs in
Florida year-round. Nesting occurs on four beaches: Boca Grande Key, Sawyer Key, and two
beaches in the Marquesas Keys. The number of nests in the Marquesas Keys has doubled since
1998, with as many as 20 nests recorded in a single year. Nest numbers have been stable on Boca
Grande and Sawyer Keys since 1990, despite progressive degradation of nesting habitat.
Threatened Species
Piping plover. The piping plover is found on open, sandy beaches and on tidal mudflats and sand
flats, and winters along both coasts of Florida. Piping plovers have been observed on four refuge
islands – Boca Grande, Woman, Marquesas, and Ohio Keys. A peak of 29 piping plovers was
observed on Woman Key in February 1998.
Loggerhead sea turtle. This large sea turtle inhabits marine coastal and oceanic waters and is
present in Florida year-round. Nesting has been monitored annually since 1990 and occurs yearly in
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Key West NWR on Woman, Boca Grande, and the Marquesas Keys and on Sawyer Key in Great
White Heron NWR. A peak of 70 nests was found in Key West NWR in 1995, but has declined
sharply since then (Wilmers 2003). Only 18 and 26 nests were found during the 2005 and 2006
nesting seasons. Begun in 2003, an ongoing project by the Inwater Research Group is assessing the
genetic origin, health, demographics, and species composition of the sea turtle populations in
developmental habitats and adult turtle wintering areas of Key West NWR.
In Great White Heron NWR, annual nesting on the 200-meter beach at Sawyer Key has been low
both for loggerhead nests (0-9) and green sea turtle nests (0-7) since 1990. This beach was severely
eroded during a March 1993 storm and is being overtaken by encroaching mangrove trees.
Hawksbill sea turtle. This is a small-to-medium-sized sea turtle that is found throughout Key West
NWR in hard-bottomed and reef habitats containing sponges. Nesting is rare and has only been
documented once on Boca Grande Key and several times in the Marquesas Keys. On the latter
island, nesting has been restricted to the fall and winter months.
Eastern indigo snake. This large, stout-bodied, shiny black snake can be up to 8 feet long. It is
docile, non-poisonous, and occurs throughout Florida, but is rare in the Lower Keys. It is a habitat
generalist inhabiting the pine rocklands, tropical hardwood hammocks and buttonwood transition
zones. It requires large tracts (over 5,000 acres) to survive. The status of the eastern indigo snake
in the Lower Florida Keys has not been assessed. Since there have been no confirmed sightings in
numerous years, they may be extirpated throughout the Lower Florida Keys.
Stock Island tree snail. The Stock Island tree snail is an arboreal snail found in hardwood
hammocks in the Florida Keys. The snail historically occurred on Stock Island and Key West where it
is virtually extirpated. Habitat loss and a major decline in the original Stock Island population led snail
collectors to move snails to other hammocks throughout the Keys. The translocation of snails
successfully prevented extinction of the species, but several of the few remaining populations are at
risk due to continuing habitat loss to development. The National Key Deer Refuge contains one of
the last established populations of this snail. Strategies for hardwood hammock habitat restoration
will benefit the Stock Island Tree Snail.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
A detailed description of the history and cultural heritage of Monroe County is found in Section II of
The Florida Keys Environmental Story: A Panorama of the Environment, Culture and History of
Monroe County, Florida (Gallagher 1997).
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Purpose
The purpose of this section is to provide information on (1) the social and economic status of Monroe
County and its residents; (2) the economic value of wildlife-dependent recreation; and (3) the
Service’s recreation opportunities and environmental education programs in the Lower Florida Keys.
32 Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges
Background
Monroe County includes the Florida Keys and a small section of the south west tip of the Everglades.
This report is only concerned with the socioeconomics of the Florida Keys. According to the U.S.
Census Bureau, for the year 2000, compared to the state as a whole, the county represents only a
half percent of the state population and has less than a percent (0.7 percent) of the state’s housing.
The Keys represent only 5.6 percent of Monroe County’s total area, 1.8 percent of the state’s land
area, and 23 percent of the state’s waters. The Florida Keys are sparsely populated compared to
Florida as a whole. Many of the islands are semi-rural though there are several large, developed
islands - Islamorada, Marathon, and Key West.
There is still much undeveloped land that is in private ownership. The county has restricted development
to prevent the human population from exceeding the carrying capacity of the water, electric, and sewage
services. There is a concern for hurricane evacuations of the current resident and tourist populations with
the present road and bridge infrastructure. With many private lands in the Lower Florida Keys containing
threatened or endangered species, habitat loss from development is also a concern.
The economy of the Keys is supported primarily by tourism. There is extensive service support for the
tourist industry and local resident needs. Almost every island accessible by U.S. Highway 1 has one or
more developments, trailer parks, RV parks, and/or campgrounds. Water-based sports (e.g., sport fishing,
diving, and kayaking) and the night life of Key West have also become a major draw to the area with their
associated economic gains. Also important to the economy of the Keys is real estate—the renting, selling,
and buying of homes, many of them to seasonal residents.
Regional Demographics and Economy
Information for 2000 is available for Monroe County from the following websites:
http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html and
http://www.census.gov/census2000/states/fl.html.
Table 2 compares the population, housing units, land area, and density of the Florida Keys to that of
the State of Florida. The population density of the Keys is approximately one-quarter of the rest of
Florida, and the housing unit density is approximately one-third of the rest of Florida.
Table 2 - Monroe County – population, housing units, area, and density
Area in Square Miles Density per square
mile of land area
Population Housing
Units
Total Area Water Area Land Area Population Housing
Units
FLORIDA
15,982,378 7,302,947 65,754.59 11,827.77 53,926.82 296.4 135.4
MONROE COUNTY
79,589 51,617 3,737.15 2,740.24 996.91 79.8 51.8
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 American Community Survey, page 1.
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Monroe County residents enjoy a higher average income than other areas of the United States and
Florida; however, income figures may be inflated due to a higher percentage of very wealthy
residents. The overall cost of living is higher with housing costs in particular being very high for
working class residents.
Table 3 - Income and population statistics
*Median Family Income (2005) Percent of Population over 65
United States $55,832 United States 12.1%
Florida $50,465 Florida 16.6%
Monroe County $62,638 Monroe County 15.6%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 American Community Survey, page 1.
Table 4 - Monroe County demography statistics
CHARACTERISTICS 2000 2005 PERCENT
CHANGE
Population 79,589 75,074 - 6.0%
Age 18 – 65 65,984 62,178 - 5.8%
Age 65+ 11,648 11,740 + 0.8%
Median family income $ 50,734 $62,638 + 19.0%
Per capita income $ 26,102 $36,963 + 29.0%
Families below poverty level 1,403 N/A N/A
Median value of homes $241,200
N/A Not applicable
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and http://enwikipedia.org./wikiMonroe County, Florida
The average age of residents over 65 living in the Florida Keys is higher than the U.S. average; there
has been a decline in population of residents between the ages of 18 to 65. The Florida Keys are
experiencing a decline of local residents who grew-up with the knowledge of the intrinsic and
economic value of the Keys’ natural resources. This is pertinent to the refuges in terms of the
continuing effort needed to educate the public about natural resources and the needs of endangered
and imperiled species, especially with a large, seasonal influx of visitors.
34 Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges
Economic Contribution of Recreating Visitors to the Florida Keys/Key West
The tourist industry activities of boating, fishing, scuba diving/snorkeling, and sightseeing generate
$147 million per year. All of these activities are available on the three refuges. The Monroe County
Tourist Development Council conducted a survey of over 3,000 visitors from March 2005 – February
2006. Visitors were asked to choose among 10 categories of activities as reasons for their visit to the
Keys. Thirty-six percent of respondents indicated that diving, snorkeling, wildlife viewing, and boating
as their primary visitor activities.
Recreation Use and Visitor Services
The National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation has been conducted
about every five years since 1955. It provides information on the number of participants in fishing,
hunting, and wildlife watching (observing, photographing, and feeding wildlife), and the amount of
time and money spent on these activities. The 2006 survey report should be available by 2008.
The 2001 survey found that over 82 million U.S. residents 16 years old and older fished, hunted, or
watched wildlife in 2001: 34 million people fished, 13 million hunted, and 66 million participated in at
least one type of wildlife-watching activity. Wildlife recreators' avidity was reflected in their spending,
which totaled $108 billion in 2001, and amounted to 1.1 percent of the gross domestic product.
Wildlife watchers spent $38 billion on trips, equipment, and other items.
The 2007 Banking on Nature report states, “Recreational visits to national wildlife refuges generate
substantial economic activity. In Fiscal Year 2006, more than 34.8 million people visited refuges in
the lower 48 states for recreation. Their spending generated more than $1.7 billion of sales in
regional economies. As this spending flowed through the economy, nearly 27,000 people were
employed and $542.8 million in employment income were generated. About 82 percent of total
expenditures were by non-consumptive activities on the refuges.”
According to the Monroe County Tourist Development Council, the Florida Keys receive
approximately 1.9 to 2 million visits by car annually. An important part of the revenue income in the
Lower Florida Keys is related to the three refuges, which collectively receive about 861,750 visits
annually: National Key Deer Refuge--139,000 visits; Key West NWR--436,500 visits; and Great White
Heron NWR--286,250 visits. The estimate for National Key Deer Refuge is based on actual counts
taken with an electronic counter. About 10,000 visits are at the Visitors Center in the Big Pine Key
Plaza. The estimates for Key West and Great White Heron NWRs are estimated from a decade-old,
unofficial survey and in-house estimates of customers to the diving, snorkeling, fishing, and kayaking
industries.
The Improvement Act of 1997 established six priority wildlife-dependent public uses on national
wildlife refuges if they are compatible with the purpose of each refuge: hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. Hunting is
prohibited both in the refuges and Monroe County. Collectively, the three refuges provide
opportunities for the other five wildlife-dependent activities. The refuge areas that are open to public
access are free of charge and open seven days a week. Hours are from a half-hour before sunrise to
a half-hour after sunset.
Much of National Key Deer Refuge is on the mainline keys (islands that are accessible by vehicles)
and open to the public access via fire roads and other trails. These lands are located on the following
keys-- Ohio, No Name, Big Pine, Middle Torch, Big Torch, Cudjoe, and Upper and Lower Sugarloaf
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Keys. The backcountry refuge islands that have Key deer are designated as wilderness and are only
open to public access with a special use permit.
Environmental education opportunities are provided for local students on Big Pine and Sugarloaf
Keys, though teachers can bring students elsewhere on the refuge. The refuge provides extensive
interpretive information on Big Pine Key (Figure 7) at the Visitors Center, the Blue Hole, the 2/3-mile
Watson and the 1/8-mile Mannillo nature trails, the latter of which is accessible for persons using
wheel chairs. The Blue Hole is an old quarry with an observation deck and partial trail that provides
viewing of a variety of turtles, fish, nesting green herons and other birds, insects, Key deer, raccoons,
invasive exotic iguanas, and the occasional alligator. Throughout the refuge, opportunities are
provided to view wildlife and wildlife habitat and for photography. Many visitors come to the refuge to
see the endangered Key deer; most of the population is found on Big Pine and No Name Keys.
There are other designated wildlife viewing areas on Big Pine Key off Long Beach Road, and the
newly designated Buttonwood Marsh Trail at the north end of Key Deer Boulevard. Other trails are
open on Cudjoe and Lower and Upper Sugarloaf Keys (Figure 8). Ohio Key also has beach access.
Fishing on any of the three refuges is not listed as a permitted activity in the Code of Federal
Regulations. This activity occurs along the shoreline and in state-owned marine waters adjacent to
refuge lands on Ohio Key and occasionally in marine canals on No Name Key. Some non-priority
uses have been allowed on the refuge, for example, horseback riding has been permitted on the
refuge for over 15 years.
Key West and Great White Heron NWRs contain over 300,000 acres of marine waters, dozens of
mangrove islands, and several islands with pristine undeveloped beaches that are designated as
wilderness. The marine waters are some of the best waters for saltwater sport fishing in the North
America. Visitors come from all over the world to fish these waters and numerous tournaments are
held to catch and release these sport fish. The dozens of mangrove islands and shallow waters are
home for nesting, feeding, and resting birds, such as pelicans, cormorants, herons, egrets, plovers,
and frigate birds, to name a few. Due to an abundance of birds, the refuges are a haven for birders.
Boaters travel to the pristine beaches of Woman and Boca Grande Keys to enjoy a leisurely day in a
secluded beach setting.
Management of the marine waters is limited as they are state-owned waters. This limited authority is
granted by the State via the Management Agreement, which allows the Service to regulate access
within 300 feet of specifically mentioned islands, to enforce boating speed zones and no-entry areas,
and to prohibit the use of personal water craft, seaplane landings, hovercraft, airboats, and
waterskiing within the administrative boundaries of the two refuges (Figure 9). All other marine
activities (e.g., fishing) are controlled by the State.
The visitor services’ park ranger is involved in several organizations and/or sites and their activities
including, but not limited to, the Monroe County Environmental Education Advisory Council, the
Florida Keys Birding and Wildlife Festival, the Florida Keys Scenic Highway Initiative, and the
interagency Florida Keys Eco-Discovery Center. Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the
success of the National Wildlife Refuge System. In 2005, nearly 38,000 volunteers contributed 1.4
million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at more than $25 million. The Lower Florida
Keys Refuges depend on a volunteer base of about 80 individuals, work-campers, and inerrant
workers from alternative spring breaks (e.g., colleges) and other organized programs, who
contributed almost 4,000 volunteer hours in 2006.
36 Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges
Figure 7. Lower Florida Keys Refuges visitor services facilities
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
Figure 8. Lower Keys trails
38 Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges
Figure 9. Boating zones and restrictions
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
III. Plan Development
SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES
This Draft CCP/EA was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
This law requires the Service to include public involvement in environmental planning. A public notice
announcing that the comprehensive planning process had begun was published in the Federal
Register on May 9, 2003, with the initiation of the Crocodile Lake NWR CCP. In 2003, a Visitor Services’
program review was conducted for National Key Deer Refuge. In 2005, a review of the Service’s
biological programs and resources was conducted for the Lower Florida Keys Refuges. A wilderness
review of these refuges was conducted in 2006. These professional reviews were done to determine
issues of importance to be addressed in the long-term plan. A list of experts from the Service and
partnering agencies that participated in the reviews is included in Section B, Chapter V. The
information garnered from the reviews helped the Service’s planning team analyze and develop
recommendations for the Draft CCP/EA.
In preparation for the Draft CCP/EA, public scoping meetings for the Lower Florida Keys Refuges
were conducted in March 2005. The March 8 meeting was held on Big Pine Key at the local
charter school with approximately 40 people in attendance. The March 9 meeting was held in
Key West at the Board of County Commissioners’ meeting room with approximately 20 people in
attendance. Meeting notices were published in the local newspapers and flyers were displayed at
several locations, such as the post office and supermarkets. The public provided comments on
issues that should be addressed in the 15-year CCP. A summary of the comments from these
meetings is included in Appendix D.
In June 2006, a core CCP planning team of Service staff started meeting regularly to develop the
Draft CCP/EA for the Lower Florida Keys Refuges. The team considered all public and
interagency comments. The team prioritized the most critical issues to be addressed by the
refuges over the 15-year life of the CCP.
PRIORITY RESOURCE ISSUES
OVERARCHING ISSUE (APPLIES TO ALL REFUGES ACROSS MOST PROGRAM AREAS)
1. Managing a complex of islands.
A unique challenge to the management and operation of the Lower Florida Keys Refuges results from
their geography. The three refuges are comprised of islands that are scattered across an expanse of
water extending from the Seven Mile Bridge nearly 75 miles north of the Marquesas Keys. The
refuges’ approved acquisition boundaries cover vast amounts of land and water. Road access is
limited to only a few mainline islands connected by U.S. Highway 1. Boat access to the majority of
islands is dependent on weather and tides and requires local knowledge and planning.
This complex of islands creates jurisdictional challenges as well. All of the Lower Florida Keys Refuges
fall within the boundary of the FKNMS administered by NOAA, and all of the waters and submerged lands
below mean high tide are owned by the State of Florida. The Service has limited authority over certain
state waters in Key West and Great White Heron NWRs under its Management Agreement with the State
of Florida, which restricts public access to protect wildlife. Additionally, within the administrative boundary
of National Key Deer Refuge, there is a patchwork of conservation lands owned and managed by multiple
40 Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges
agencies and groups, interspersed with vacant private lands, residential subdivisions, and commercial
zones. In addition to refuge-owned lands, the National Key Deer Refuge has management authority over
select parcels owned by the state or county under lease agreements.
VISITOR SERVICES
2. Changing public use attitudes, needs, and demands.
There is a need to continually educate the public about the needs and management of imperiled
species and their habitats in the Lower Florida Keys Refuges. Seasonal residents, mostly retired
individuals, comprise approximately 35 percent of the population. Tourists make up the bulk of
visitors inquiring about the refuges. A unique and varied approach for environmental education and
awareness programs is necessary to reach an ever-changing public audience. New residents and
tourists are often unaware or unconcerned about the illegality of feeding Key deer or the problems
associated with exotic invasive species.
Changes in public use attitudes, needs, and demands constrain the refuges’ ability to ensure quality,
appropriate, and compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities and facilities. The priority
wildlife-dependent public uses for the Lower Florida Keys Refuges are fishing, wildlife observation,
wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. Hunting is prohibited in
Monroe County. Equally important are efforts to curtail inappropriate and non-compatible recreation
in order to maintain resource protection and integrity. In particular, there is an increasing demand for
non-priority public and commercial uses of the few beaches in the Key West and Great White Heron
NWRs, which also provide critical habitat for sea turtles and migratory birds. Management strategies
implemented 10 to 20 years ago when there were fewer people using the backcountry may no longer
be adequate to protect wildlife or preserve the wilderness character today with more users. The
impacts of visitor use on wildlife, plants, and habitats, and the human carrying capacity in specific
areas of the refuges have not been assessed. These impacts need to be evaluated and appropriate
measures developed and implemented to minimize adverse impacts.
Violations that occur from public use on the Lower Florida Keys Refuges include trespassing in
closed areas, personal watercraft use in the backcountry, dumping of garbage on refuge lots, drug
and immigrant smuggling, digging for antiquities, vandalism, poaching, and feeding wildlife. The
refuges currently have two full-time law enforcement officers to patrol all the refuge islands situated
across 545 square miles of land and water. Law enforcement is crucial to prevent and investigate
illegal activities, in addition to ensuring visitor and employee safety and protecting the refuges’ wildlife
resources, wilderness values, cultural resources, and government facilities.
HABITAT MANAGEMENT
3. Habitat fragmentation.
A primary threat to upland habitats in the Florida Keys is loss and fragmentation of habitats and the
resultant loss of ecosystem function due to residential and commercial development. Canals,
mosquito ditches, surface fill, and roads have altered natural hydrologic processes on islands
connected by the road system. Residential development has impacted management capabilities for
fire-adapted pine rockland habitats by expanding the wildland-urban interface. The result has been
an alteration of natural fire processes and a demand for fire suppression. While there has been
substantial restoration of freshwater wetlands, which are critical for native mammals, birds and
reptiles within the National Key Deer Refuge, more is needed. Wetland and upland restoration is
needed to help mitigate habitat loss elsewhere.
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
4. Climate change.
Meteorological and climatological events, such as hurricanes (e.g., Wilma 2005) and sea level rise,
also pose challenges for refuge management. Low-lying islands, such as the Florida Keys, will face
substantial impacts from global climate change, particularly rising sea level and coastal storms. Such
effects have already been experienced in the past; however, these events may become more
frequent and severe within the 15-year time period covered by this CCP based on recent projections
by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Saline intrusion into the subsurface freshwater lens from sea level rise and saltwater inundation of
surface freshwaters from storm surges can alter pine rocklands and freshwater marshes resulting in
more salt-tolerant plant communities. Species that are found only in pine rockland may consequently
disappear as the pine forests die out. Storm events can cause considerable physical damage to
beach berms and native vegetation in the vulnerable coastal habitats. The most immediate action
that the Service can take is to gather the best scientific data possible for understanding natural
processes in their current state, modeling possible impacts and subsequent changes from sea level
rise, and developing adaptive management strategies for future conservation needs.
5. Fire management.
National Key Deer Refuge protects the majority of globally imperiled pine rocklands, a fire-adapted
habitat that requires periodic burning to maintain an open understory and diversity of herbaceous
plants. Fire is also an appropriate habitat management tool to maintain and restore grassland and
saltmarsh habitats. As land use patterns changed and development intensified along refuge borders,
the wildland-urban interface became more of a consideration for both prescribed fire management
and wildfire suppression given the inherent risk that a fire could escape to a populated area and
threaten lives and property. Further, there are aesthetic concerns among residents along refuge
boundaries due to fuel management projects. While smoke exposure for residents is an issue, the
benefit to them is substantial in that reduced fuel loads will lessen the threat of wildfires.
The lack of a consistent burn regime in the fire-dependent pine rockland community increases fuel
loads and undesirably alters natural species composition and community processes. Prescribed fire
is the primary tool for effectively managing and restoring pine rocklands. Prescribed fire is also an
appropriate tool to manage the encroachment of overstory vegetation and to restore open habitat
features of coastal salt marsh and freshwater marsh habitats. To date, prescribed burns in the
National Key Deer Refuge have focused on pine rocklands yielding differing results; however, there
has been no comprehensive post-burn monitoring to quantify whether habitat management objectives
were achieved. Future habitat management strategies need to include measures of the effectiveness
of prescribed fire treatments. Such monitoring is essential for an adaptive management process to
maintain and restore habitat. A continued outreach effort will also be needed to increase the public’s
awareness and understanding about this management technique.
FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT
6. Lack of inventorying and monitoring.
Wildlife populations need to be adequately inventoried and monitored to establish baseline data,
determine population trends, identify management needs, set priorities, and evaluate the impacts of
management actions. There are many imperiled species and a small staff dedicated to biological
work. Past emphasis has been placed primarily on studying the Key deer and monitoring nesting sea
turtles, white-crowned pigeons, and key wading bird species. As a result, baseline data are lacking
42 Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges
for many species that now require attention. The Service needs to prioritize its work allocation to
carefully choose indicator species representative of all habitat types and to establish monitoring
protocols that will document and quantify data for these species over the long-term.
At a minimum, baseline inventory data of flora and fauna are needed at a level to detect changes
from catastrophic wildfires, hurricanes, and other events in order to determine if a management
response is necessary. Hurricane effects are generally being assessed for some species of interest,
such as great white herons, white-crowned pigeons, and sea turtles. Long-term ecological monitoring
is essential to properly determine population trends, identify management needs, set priorities, and
evaluate if management actions have the desired results, such as prescribed fire, wetland restoration,
and exotic species control.
7. Recovery of imperiled species.
The Lower Florida Keys Refuges provide habitat for 21 threatened and endangered species, as well
as a growing number of candidate species being considered annually for listing under the
Endangered Species Act. The Service has limited financial resources to address all imperiled
species, therefore establishing baseline inventories and setting priorities is essential. Key deer in
particular have long been protected as an umbrella species and consequently benefited from habitat
management programs since the establishment of National Key Deer Refuge. Today, the Key deer
population is currently at or above the habitat’s carrying capacity in the core areas of Big Pine and No
Name Keys, increasing the likelihood of density-dependent disease transmission and over-browsing
of native plants. The Service needs to evaluate the effects of over-browsing on native plant
communities, reestablish viable populations of Key deer on other islands, and consider other
strategies to protect both the Key deer and their habitats. More emphasis is also needed for other
imperiled species, such as the Lower Keys marsh rabbit, Key tree cactus, other rare plants, and
butterflies. The effects of pesticide applications to control nuisance mosquitoes on non-target
species, such as butterflies and insect-pollinated plants, needs to be fully evaluated. The refuges
must balance the need for single species management to enhance recovery of imperiled species with
an overall landscape approach to maintain and restore habitats that support biological diversity and
ecological integrity.
8. Controlling injurious, invasive, and exotic species.
Exotic, invasive plant species cause habitat loss by disrupting natural communities on the refuge.
They displace native species and alter ecosystem functions. There are at least 25 terrestrial exotic
invasive plant species known to occur on the refuges. The most widespread and problematic species
include Brazilian pepper, Australian pine, Asiatic colubrina, seaside mahoe, lead tree, and non-native
grasses. The Service has invested substantial time and money in removing exotics. Continual
monitoring and maintenance treatment is required to keep exotics under control, prevent new
infestations, and detect new species invasions. The refuges must remain vigilant since adjacent
private lands and the Overseas Highway and other road rights-of-way serve as seed sources that
may re-infest refuge lands. The use of non-native, invasive plants in landscaping causes the
introduction of exotics to refuge lands. Hurricanes can wipe out native plants, allowing for the
invasion of exotics on disturbed sites.
The distribution and impact of exotic and feral animals on native plants and wildlife within the refuge
are poorly known. Feral and free-roaming domestic cats are a predator of the endangered Lower
Keys marsh rabbit, silver rice rat, and native birds and reptiles. Free-roaming dogs can attack and
injure or kill Key deer. There are several other exotic species of concern that need to be monitored
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
and controlled. Public education, awareness, and cooperation on the topics of exotic species
management and control are needed.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION
9. Administrative resources.
Resources are needed to fulfill the refuges’ missions and purposes and to implement the vision for
these refuges over the next 15 years. Refuge management is increasingly dependent on
partnerships and the use of volunteer labor to carry out essential refuge functions. Establishing
partnerships with universities, other government agencies, and non-governmental organizations is
critical for assessing and monitoring resources and for evaluating wildlife habitat and population
management techniques over time. More coordinated effort is needed to work with Monroe County,
the FDEP, and the FKNMS to cooperatively address shared issues, such as marine debris and
declining water quality in Florida Bay. Maintaining and training a steady, active volunteer corps is
necessary, but challenging for a small staff without a designated volunteer coordinator position.
Wilderness Review
Refuge planning policy requires a wilderness review as part of the comprehensive conservation
planning process. The Service inventoried other refuge lands within the planning area and found no
areas that meet the eligibility criteria for a wilderness study area as defined by the Wilderness Act.
Therefore, the suitability of refuge lands for wilderness designation is not further analyzed in the Draft
CCP/EA. The results of the wilderness review are included in Appendix H.
44 Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45
IV. Management Direction
INTRODUCTION
This section outlines the provisions of the Draft CCP/EA for managing the three refuges for the next
15 years. According to the Service’s mission for wildlife refuges, this Draft CCP/EA places wildlife
conservation first as its priority for management of the refuges. This Draft CCP/EA contains the
goals, objectives, and strategies that will be used to achieve the collective vision of the refuges.
VISION
The Lower Florida Keys Refuges are a collection of low-lying, subtropical islands between the Gulf of
Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean that prot