Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Lower Florida Keys
National Wildlife Refuges
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
October 2009
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
LOWER FLORIDA KEYS 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
October 2009
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 3
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3
Purpose and Need For The Plan .................................................................................................. 3
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...................................................................................................... 6
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 6
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 8
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 8
II. REFUGES OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................... 11
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 11
Description of Refuges and History of Their Establishment ....................................................... 11
Key West National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................... 11
Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge ..................................................................... 11
National Key Deer Refuge ................................................................................................ 12
Refuge Purposes ........................................................................................................................ 12
Key West National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................... 13
Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge ..................................................................... 13
National Key Deer Refuge ................................................................................................ 13
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 14
Ecosystem Context and Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives ....................................... 18
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 19
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 19
Geology ............................................................................................................................. 19
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 19
Physiography .................................................................................................................... 20
Hydrology and Freshwater Resources .............................................................................. 20
Water Quality and Quantity ............................................................................................... 20
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 21
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 21
Flora – Plant Communities and Cover Types ................................................................... 21
Fauna – Fish and Wildlife .................................................................................................. 26
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 36
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 38
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 47
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 47
Priority Resource Issues ............................................................................................................. 47
Overarching Issue (applies to all refuges across most program areas) ..................................... 48
Fish and Wildlife Population Management ........................................................................ 48
Habitat Management ......................................................................................................... 50
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 51
Resource Protection .......................................................................................................... 52
Refuge Administration ....................................................................................................... 52
ii Lower Florida Keys Refuges
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ....................................................................................................... 55
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 55
Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 55
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 55
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 57
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 63
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 73
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 77
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 79
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................ 83
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 83
Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 83
Fish And Wildlife Population Management ....................................................................... 83
Refuge Administration and Resource Protection .............................................................. 87
Visitor Services, Wildlife-Dependent Recreation, and Environmental Education ............. 88
Staffing and Funding .................................................................................................................. 89
Partnership Opportunities........................................................................................................... 89
Proposed Poject Costs ............................................................................................................... 89
Monitoring and Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 96
Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 96
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................. 97
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED .............................................................. 109
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ............................. 123
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 135
Summary of Public Scoping ..................................................................................................... 135
Summary of Public Comment on the Draft CCP ...................................................................... 137
Fish and Wildlife population management ...................................................................... 149
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 159
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 166
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 168
Environmental Assessment ............................................................................................ 173
APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS .............................................................. 183
APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................... 193
APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................. 217
APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ............................................................................................ 231
APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA ........................................................................................................ 233
Table of Contents iii
APPENDIX J. BUDGET REQUESTS ................................................................................................ 273
APPENDIX K. LIST OF PREPARERS .............................................................................................. 275
Planning Team ................................................................................................................ 275
Biological Review ............................................................................................................ 275
Visitor Services and Public Use Review ......................................................................... 276
Wilderness Review .......................................................................................................... 276
Fire Management Program Review ................................................................................ 276
APPENDIX L. LIST OF PARTNERSHIPS ........................................................................................ 277
APPENDIX M. INVENTORYING AND MONITORING EFFORTS BY REFUGE STAFF AND
PARTNERS ...................................................................................................................................... 281
APPENDIX N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .......................................................................... 287
I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 287
Purpose and Need .................................................................................................................... 287
Proposed Action ....................................................................................................................... 287
II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................ 289
III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................... 291
Formulation and Description of Alternatives ............................................................................. 291
Alternative A - (Current Management - No Action) ......................................................... 291
Alternative B - (Proposed Alternative) ............................................................................. 292
Alternative C .................................................................................................................... 293
Features Common to all Alternatives ....................................................................................... 294
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................................... 309
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 309
Effects on the Physical Environment ........................................................................................ 310
Soils ............................................................................................................................... 310
Hydrology ........................................................................................................................ 310
Water Quality .................................................................................................................. 311
Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 311
Noise Pollution ................................................................................................................ 311
Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................ 312
Facilities .......................................................................................................................... 312
Effects on the Biological Environment ...................................................................................... 312
Native Habitats Affected By The Plan ............................................................................. 312
Wildlife and Protected Species ....................................................................................... 314
Research and Monitoring ................................................................................................ 316
Effects on Wilderness ..................................................................................................... 316
Public use, Access, and Recreation ................................................................................ 317
Ecotourism ...................................................................................................................... 318
Tax Revenue ................................................................................................................... 318
iv Lower Florida Keys Refuges
Effects Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................... 318
Health and Safety ........................................................................................................... 319
Regulatory ...................................................................................................................... 319
Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 319
Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 319
Revenue Sharing ............................................................................................................ 320
Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 320
Effects on the Physical Environment .............................................................................. 320
Effects on the Biological Environment ............................................................................ 321
Effects on the Socio-Economic Environment .................................................................. 322
Unavoidable Adverse Effects ................................................................................................... 322
Mitigation measures ................................................................................................................. 323
User Group Conflicts....................................................................................................... 323
Water Quality from Soil Disturbance and Use of Herbicides .......................................... 323
Vegetation Disturbance .................................................................................................. 323
Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 323
Effects on Adjacent Landowners .................................................................................... 324
Land Ownership .............................................................................................................. 324
Site Development ........................................................................................................... 324
Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ....................................................................... 324
Summary Statement ................................................................................................................. 325
APPENDIX O. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................................................. 327
Alternative A - (Current Management - No Action) ......................................................... 327
Alternative B - (Preferred Alternative) ............................................................................. 328
Alternative C ................................................................................................................... 330
Table of Contents v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Florida Keys Refuges ............................................................................................................ 4
Figure 2. Boundaries of Lower Florida Keys Refuges .......................................................................... 5
Figure 3. Florida National Wildlife Refuges ......................................................................................... 7
Figure 4. Conservation Context .......................................................................................................... 15
Figure 5. Wilderness Areas ................................................................................................................. 17
Figure 7. Lower Florida Keys Refuges Visitor Services Facilities ....................................................... 43
Figure 8. Boating zones and restrictions ............................................................................................. 45
Figure 9. Proposed organization structure for the management of the
Lower Florida Keys Refuges ................................................................................................ 92
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Federally Listed Threatened (T), Endangered (E), and Candidate (C)
Species of the Lower Florida Keys Refuges ......................................................................... 29
Table 2. Residents on islands now within the National Key Deer Refuge, circa 1870 ........................ 39
Table 3. Monroe County – population, housing units, area, and density ............................................ 40
Table 4. Income and population statistics ........................................................................................... 41
Table 5. Monroe County demography statistics .................................................................................. 41
Table 6. Summary of project costs (in 2009 dollars) ........................................................................... 90
Table 7. Approximate annual costs of proposed new staff positions in 2009 dollars .......................... 91
Table 8. Lower Florida Keys Refuges step-down management plans and completion
dates in chronological order .................................................................................................. 95
Table 8. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for the
Lower Florida Keys Refuges ............................................................................................... 295
vi Lower Florida Keys Refuges
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
Executive Summary
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)
to guide the management of three national wildlife refuges in the Florida Keys, as mandated by the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The refuges include Key West, Great
White Heron, and National Key Deer Refuges. These refuges are administered as a complex and
headquartered on Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. These refuges, known as the “Lower Florida
Keys Refuges” are a collection of low-lying, subtropical islands between the Gulf of Mexico and the
Atlantic Ocean that protect all the vital habitats representative of the Florida Keys ecosystem, including
the globally imperiled pine rockland and tropical hardwood hammock. These geologically and climatically
distinct islands provide a haven for a diversity of native flora and fauna, including endemic, threatened,
endangered and candidate species. The CCP outlines management strategies and corresponding
resource needs for the next 15 years to protect, enhance, and restore the natural diversity and integrity of
the ecological landscapes of the Lower Florida Keys Refuges, and provides unique opportunities for
research and compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses in cooperation with our partners.
Specifically, the CCP will be implemented through the funding and initiation of 19 projects as outlined in
Chapter V of the CCP. Five new staff positions are proposed to take on new work and projects. They are
shown in Table 6 and Figure 9 of Chapter V of the CCP.
Before the Service began planning, it conducted a biological review of the refuge complex’s wildlife
and habitat management program and a visitor services review of its outreach and environmental
education and interpretation programs. An interagency team of government partners and public
scoping meetings were held in 2005, to solicit opinions on the priority resource issues the CCP
should address. The team subsequently developed and analyzed three alternatives to address these
issues. Public meetings were held in Big Pine Key and Key West in 2008, to solicit public reaction to
the proposed alternatives presented in a Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental
Assessment.
The CCP provides a description of the environment and priority resource issues that were considered
in developing the objectives and strategies that guide management over the next 15 years. It
promotes the enhancement of wildlife populations by maintaining and enhancing a diversity and
abundance of habitats for native plants and animals, especially imperiled species that are only found in
the Florida Keys. Many of the objectives and strategies are designed to maintain and restore native plant
communities and ensure the biological integrity across the landscape. Strategies are designed to
restore and maintain the fire-dependent pine rocklands and to enhance habitat features of selected
salt marsh transition and freshwater wetland communities that benefit priority species in the National
Key Deer Refuge. Prescribed fire and mechanical or manual vegetation treatments will be used as
habitat management tools to reduce wildland fuels and enhance habitat diversity where appropriate.
Research and monitoring will provide essential information for implementing an adaptive management
approach to strategic landscape conservation, providing flexibility in management strategies in order to
incorporate new information and changing environmental conditions. This CCP also provides for
obtaining baseline data and monitoring indicator species to detect changes in ecosystem diversity and
integrity related to climate change.
Since a primary purpose of the refuges is to provide sanctuary for nesting and migratory birds,
protection from human disturbance will be enhanced, particularly at colonial nesting bird rookeries
and at beach habitats in the backcountry islands of the Key West and Great White Heron Refuges.
2 Lower Florida Keys Refuges
Additional limitations to public use may be implemented in sensitive beach areas important for
shorebirds, terns, sea turtles, and butterflies as needed. Ongoing research to identify causal reasons
for the marked, long-term decline in the great white heron nesting population, as well as studies on
the impacts of sea level rise on wading birds, will be expanded.
Exotic plant control will continue as an ongoing operation within the refuges in order to maintain the
natural integrity of habitats and to prevent new infestations. Cooperative efforts will be sought to
control seed sources from private lands and to increase coordinated mapping and monitoring of
areas with known infestations. Control of invasive exotic animals through an integrated predator
management program will be implemented for the benefit of threatened and endangered species.
A primary focus of the visitor services program is to enhance environmental education and outreach
efforts through existing venues and expanded partnerships to reach a diversity of local residents,
businesses, students, educators, and visitors. This CCP focuses on increasing public awareness,
understanding, and support for the refuges’ conservation mission. It places priority on wildlife-dependent
recreational uses, such as wildlife observation and wildlife photography. Non-wildlife
dependent forms of recreation, such as beach picnicking and sunbathing, will be limited or restricted
in sensitive areas. Awareness efforts will be expanded to inform visitors about protecting wilderness
values. The construction of a new visitor center on U.S. Highway 1 on Big Pine Key is proposed to
enhance the Service’s ability to inform and educate the public about the unique fish and wildlife
resources of the Lower Florida Keys Refuges.
The CCP calls for the development of 11 step-down management plans in specific program areas,
such as visitor services and fire management. Much of the implementation of the CCP will be done
through the development and approval of these plans. Some will provide opportunities for additional
public review and comment. The CCP will be assessed yearly. It will be used and implemented
through the development of annual work plans and budgets. At 5-year intervals, or as needed, the
CCP will be assessed for revision. If major changes are not warranted or needed, the CCP will be
revised within 15 years.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
The Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuge 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’ Comprehensive
Conservation (CCP) 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 CCP document has been prepared for the three Lower
Florida Keys Refuges. This CCP contains background information on the refuges and presents a
description of the planning process and the desired future conditions. The CCP states the refuges’ vision,
goals, and management actions necessary to achieve these goals and conditions.
Guiding the development of the CCP 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 CCP 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 refuges will consult with Ecological Services prior to implementation of any plans or actions identified
in the CCP due to the potential to affect federally listed species and federal candidate species.
Specifically, section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult
with the Service to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, permit, or otherwise carry out will not
jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitats.
Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA charges federal agencies to aid in the conservation of listed species.
The major issues addressed in this CCP 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
environmental assessment (EA). From these alternatives, the Service selected a preferred
alternative, which is described in Chapter IV of this CCP. Implementation of the preferred
management action is discussed in Chapter V.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purposes of this CCP are to identify the role these refuges will have in support of the mission of
the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) and to provide guidance in refuge
management and public use activities. This CCP describes the Service’s management direction (i.e.,
goals, objectives, and strategies) for the next 15 years.
4 Lower Florida Keys Refuges
Figure 1. Florida Keys Refuges
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
Figure 2. Boundaries of Lower Florida Keys Refuges
6 Lower Florida Keys Refuges
The CCP:
 Provides a clear statement regarding future management of the refuges;
 Provides refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials and other stakeholders with an
understanding of the Service’s management actions on and around the refuges;
 Ensures that refuge management actions are consistent with the purposes of the refuges and
the mandates of the Refuge System;
 Provides long-term guidance and continuity for refuge management; and
 Provides a basis for the development of budget requests relative to the refuges’ operational,
maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
U.S. 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
The National Wildlife Refuge System, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is the world's
premier system of public lands and waters set aside to conserve America's fish, wildlife and plants.
Since President Theodore Roosevelt designated Florida's Pelican Island as the first wildlife refuge in
1903, the Refuge System has grown to more than 150 million acres, 550 national wildlife refuges and
other units of the Refuge System, plus 37 wetland management districts. Most of these lands are in
Alaska, with only about 20 percent situated within the other 49 states. There are also extensive
waters within island territories designated as National Monuments in the Western Pacific Ocean. The
Service manages 28 national wildlife refuges in Florida (Figure 3) that comprise approximately
964,992 land and water acres.
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 pursuing those activities (USFWS and Census Bureau 2007).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
Figure 3. Florida National Wildlife Refuges
8 Lower Florida Keys 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
North American Bird Conservation Initiative
Begun in 1999, the North American Bird Conservation Initiative is a continent-wide 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.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
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.
Important Bird Areas
All three refuges are designated as Important Bird Areas (IBA). 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 IBA program is to create public awareness of these sites and to obtain
resources to protect them.
10 Lower Florida Keys Refuges
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
II. Refuges Overview
INTRODUCTION
DESCRIPTION OF REFUGES AND HISTORY OF THEIR ESTABLISHMENT
KEY WEST NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Key West National Wildlife Refuge (Key West NWR) is among the first refuges established in the United
States. President Theodore Roosevelt created the refuge in 1908 as a preserve and breeding ground
for colonial nesting birds and other wildlife, during the period when widespread plume hunting was
devastating bird populations throughout Florida. Key West NWR is west of Key West, Florida, and
accessible only by boat. Key West NWR consists of the Marquesas Keys and 13 other keys distributed
across over 375 square miles of open water (Figure 2). The refuge encompasses 208,308 acres of
land and water, with only 1 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 freshwater 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 10 wading bird species that nest in the refuge. Other notable imperiled species
include the Miami blue butterfly and sea turtles. Waters within the refuge’s administrative
boundaries are important developmental habitat for green, loggerhead, and hawksbill 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.
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 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 117,720 acres of land and water
with 6,300 acres of land (Figure 2), of which 1,900 acres of land were designated Wilderness in
1975 under Public Law 93-632. While 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
12 Lower Florida Keys Refuges
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.
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 10
wading bird species, including the reddish egret and 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. Data are lacking on the frequency of
Kemp’s ridley turtles in the Great White Heron NWR, but this rare species is likely a sporadic visitor.
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 84,834 acres with 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 continue 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, and hawksbill 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 occur
annually. Data are lacking on the frequency of Kemp’s ridley turtles in this refuge, but this rare
species is likely a sporadic visitor.
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 CCP has been designed with consideration of the distinct purposes of each refuge.
The purposes of the refuges are as follows:
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
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]
14 Lower Florida Keys Refuges
 “... 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
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. For more information
on OFWs, see: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/ofw.htm.
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/.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
Figure 4. Conservation Context
16 Lower Florida Keys Refuges
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 acres in National Key Deer Refuge. They are shown 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.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
Figure 5. Wilderness Areas
18 Lower Florida Keys Refuges
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT AND REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan
The purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to protect and recover imperiled species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend. 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. Recovery plans are developed for federally
listed threatened or endangered species with the objective of recovery, or restoring the species to a
healthy population. For federally listed species in south Florida, the Service (USFWS 1999) developed
a multi-species plan, referred to as the South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan (SFMSRP). Given
the large habitat areas managed by the refuges for federally listed species in the Keys, many of the
recovery tasks in the SFMSRP pertain directly to refuge lands. For more inforation on the SFMSRP
see: http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/.
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. For more information on the
FKNMS Management Plan, see: http://floridakeys.noaa.gov/regs/welcome.html.
Coastal Barrier Resources Act
The Coastal Barrier Resources 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. For more information on the Coastal Barrier Resources Act
see: http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html
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 as “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 south of Big Pine Key and encompasses 4,600 acres of
seagrass meadows, hardbottom communities, mangrove wetlands, and coral patch reefs. For more
information on Florida’s Aquatic Preserves see: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/programs/aquatic.htm.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
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 (FWC 2006). 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.
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. The warmest mean monthly temperature is 84 degrees F and 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, 10 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. In the Lower Keys,
Key Largo limestone is exposed only in a narrow band on the extreme southeast end of Big Pine Key.
Elsewhere in the Lower Keys, it is overlain by Miami oolite, formed during the Pleistocene era in a
high-energy, shallow-water environment containing an abundance of calcium carbonate. The
configuration of limestone strata in the Lower Keys allows for the development of the freshwater
lenses found there.
SOILS
Physical and chemical properties of soils in Monroe County have been described 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. The relationship between soil productivity and different forest
cover types in the Florida Keys was studied by Ross et al. (2003).
20 Lower Florida Keys Refuges
PHYSIOGRAPHY
While refuge islands range in size from less than 1/4-acre (e.g., Hurricane Key) to nearly 6,300 acres
(Big Pine Key), the majority of islands are under 100 acres. Elevation ranges from sea level on
inundated mangrove islands (e.g., Little Crane Key) to approximately 9 feet above sea level (Big Pine
Key) according to LiDAR-derived digital terrain maps (Keqi Zhang, Forida International University,
personal communication, 2008). 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
Except for limited shallow pooling following a rainstorm, freshwater is absent from Key West NWR
and from nearly all backcountry islands (i.e., 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. The
distribution of surface freshwater on refuge islands was 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. Rainwater collects and is held chiefly in shallow, impermeable limestone
basins and solution holes distributed throughout the island’s hardwood hammocks and pine rocklands. At
slightly lower elevations amidst these habitats are freshwater wetland communities.
Big Pine Key is underlain by two distinct subterranean 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 changes occurring seasonally due to tidal influences and rainfall-dependent
freshwater recharge. 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 (Langevin
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 freshwater and saltwater (Wightman 1990). Additionally, there are more
than 60 miles of ditches on Big Pine Key alone that were dug in the 1960s to drain freshwater
wetlands for mosquito control. These ditches criss-cross nearly every inhabited island along the
Overseas Highway, and they have likely had a substantial impact on the natural hydrology and flow
patterns across the island landscape.
WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY
Studies of surface and nearshore water quality have been performed in the Florida Keys (Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation 1985; 1987; Kruczynski 1999; Lapointe and Clark 1990).
Florida International University’s Southeast Environmental Research Center maintains a long-term
water quality monitoring network for the marine waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary,
including several sampling points within the backcountry waters of the refuges. For more information,
see: http://serc.fiu.edu/wqmnetwork. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection also
conducts semi-annual monitoring of water quality in several wells in the Florida Keys. For more
information, see: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/monitoring/index.htm.
Both the surface and subterranean freshwater resources of refuge lands on Big Pine Key are
vulnerable to contamination because of sea level rise, runoff of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides
from lawns, and the outflow from septic tanks (Wightman 1990). The latter are a constant source of
pollution (Paul et al. 1991) because of the 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
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
set for areas unlike Big Pine Key where suitable soils are present (Saarinen 1989). Storm surges,
such as that experienced in Hurricane Wilma in 2005, cause a short-term spike in salinity levels of
freshwater solution holes, but normal levels are recovered over time.
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. The 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
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 – PLANT COMMUNITIES AND COVER TYPES
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). Upland vegetation is primarily of West
Indian origin (Dickson 1955, Weiner 1979). 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) (Gann et al. 2007a, b, c). Federally listed species include the Key tree cactus (endangered)
and Garber’s spurge (threatened), with six candidate species under consideration for listing. On-line
floristic databases maintained by the Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants (http:// www.plantatlas.usf.edu)
and Institute for Regional Conservation (http://www.regionalconservation.org/) provide additional
information on plant communities and species.
The Florida Keys are a disturbance-based ecosystem, affected periodically by wind and flooding
events associated with hurricanes, drought, and fire. Due to the small size of the islands, flat
topography, low elevation, depth to groundwater, close proximity to the sea, and geological substrate,
very slight differences in elevation yield marked differences in plant communities (Ross et al. 1992).
Major cover types described below include pine rockland, tropical hardwood hammock, freshwater
wetlands, salt marsh transition, mangrove forest, inland salt ponds, beach ridge hammock, beach and
dune, and marine (Figure 6). Each of these major cover types includes multiple plant communities,
providing for a diverse mosaic of habitats across the island landscapes.
22 Lower Florida Keys Refuges
Pine Rockland
Pine rockland is a globally endangered plant community found only in the Lower Florida Keys,
Everglades National Park, and in scattered parcels in Miami-Dade County, representing less than 3
percent of its original extent due to conversion to other land uses, significant ecological degradation,
and outright destruction (Noss et al. 1995). Pine rocklands consist of an open canopy of slash pines
with patchy understory and groundcover layers. The south Florida slash pine (Pinus ellioti var.
densa) and palms (Coccothrinax argentata, Thrinax morrisii, Thrinax radiata, and Serenoa repens)
are fire-adapted and dependent on periodic fires for their long-term persistence (Snyder et al. 1990).
Sub-canopy layers include a diverse assemblage of tropical and temperate shrubs, palms, grasses,
and herbs (Folk 1991). Pine rocklands occur at an elevation 3 to 8 feet above mean sea level and
are usually underlain by a freshwater lens. Pine rocklands have the highest plant diversity of all plant
communities in the Florida Keys. A total of 250 species of plants has been identified in the pine
rocklands of south Florida and the Lower Keys. This community contains 14 herbs endemic to south
Florida, 5 of which occur only in these Lower Keys settings (Avery and Loope 1980). Common plants
associated with pinelands include long-stalked stopper, blackbead, Keys thatch palm, silver palm,
locustberry, and poisonwood. Pine rocklands contain significant freshwater resources, including
widespread freshwater solution holes and marshes that are important to Key deer.
Pine rocklands are dependent on fire to maintain the diverse assemblage of plants. Radiocarbon
dating on soil samples taken from two water holes on Big Pine Key reveal repeated, local fires during
the past ca. 450–500 years, documenting the long importance of fire in the Florida Keys’ pine
rocklands (Horn 2008). Pine rocklands typically burn once or twice every decade (Hofstetter 1974).
Fire frequency has been shown to be an important parameter affecting the abundance and diversity
of endemic herbs and the vegetation structure of pine rocklands (Lui et al. 2005, Bradley and Saha
2009, others). In the absence of fire, pine rocklands will succeed to hardwood hammock
approximately within a 50-year-timeframe (Dickson 1955).
Pine rocklands are intolerant of saltwater. Of all refuge plant communities, flooding events from
hurricanes and sea-level rise pose the greatest risks for the pine rocklands (Klimstra 1986). Flooding
by sea water occurs only periodically due to storm surges associated with strong tropical storms. In
the wakes of hurricanes in 1998 (Georges) and 2005 (Wilma), many slash pines were killed by this
form of saltwater intrusion. Ross et al. (1994) reported that a 1/2-foot rise in sea level over a 70-year
period reduced the size of the pine rocklands on Upper Sugarloaf Key by 66 percent.
Tropical Hardwood Hammock
Tropical hardwood hammocks are the climax terrestrial plant community in the Florida Keys.
Occurring on uplands 2 to 8 feet above sea level, hammocks are hardwood forests consisting of a
wide diversity of evergreen and semi-deciduous trees and shrubs, many of West Indian origin. These
include 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 tropical
hardwood hammocks are not fire-maintained communities, fire may periodically enter hammocks
from a nearby pineland wildfire, especially during extreme drought conditions (Klimstra 1986).
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, deleteriously affecting forest nesting birds and fruit foragers, such as
the state-listed white-crowned pigeon (Bancroft and Bowman 1994, Bancroft et al. 1995).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
Freshwater Wetlands
Freshwater wetlands are primarily isolated features in the Lower Keys, occuring in shallow basins or
lowlands either surrounded by higher upland forests or between upland areas and transition zones.
Within this category, there are natural mosaics of subtypes related to depressions, elevations,
bedrock surface exposure, soil types, and fire regimes. 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 (Cladium sp.),
buttonwood, white-top sedge, and leather fern. These wetlands are important to amphibians, reptiles,
insects, mammals, birds, and crustaceans. Freshwater wetlands reach their greatest extent and
distribution on Big Pine Key, but refuge lands on Cudjoe, No Name, Upper Sugarloaf, Big Torch, Little
Pine, and Howe Keys also contain freshwater wetlands year-round. Freshwater wetlands are absent
in Key West NWR; however, ephemeral puddling occurs on a very small scale where limestone
caprock is exposed on Boca Grande Key.
Salt Marsh Transition
This cover type includes salt marsh and transitional communities including buttonwood transition
zones. Salt marsh communities consist of halophytic (salt tolerant) species that have developed
biological and physiological mechanisms to adjust to a range in environmental conditions. In the
Lower Keys, salt marsh transition communities occur primarily in the elevational transition zone
between coastal mangrove forests and upland hardwood hammocks and pine rockland forests.
Common plants include cordgrass, sea oxeye, saltgrass, saltwort, glasswort, buttonwood,
joewood, saffron plum, key grass, Christmas berry, and sea purslane. The predominant
characteristics of salt marsh transition vary among a broad range of subtypes that are distributed
along even finer elevation gradients within this zone, depending on their tolerance and
adaptability to salinity changes and periodic inundation. The range of subtypes includes open
scrub salt marsh, buttonwood-dominated scrub salt marsh, and cordgrass (Spartina sp.) salt
marsh. The salt marsh transition communities are used by a variety of resident and transient
taxa. It is important habitat for the endangered Lower Keys marsh rabbit.
Mangrove Forest
Mangrove communities range from tall, coastal forest to low, dense scrub communities, each variety
providing different physical habitats, topology, niches, microclimates, and food sources for a diverse
assemblage of animals. This community type is dominated by black mangrove, white mangrove, or
red mangrove. Elevation ranges from shallow submerged land to about 4 inches above sea level.
The roots of these trees are usually either constantly submerged or inundated daily by the tides.
Mangrove communities are among the most biologically productive ecosystems in the world (Lugo
and Snedaker 1974). These forests are a vital component of the estuarine and marine environment,
providing a major detrital base and essential nutrients to organic food chains; important habitat for
arboreal, intertidal, and subtidal organisms; brooding areas for juvenile fish and crustaceans; nesting
sites; cover and foraging sites for birds; and habitat for some reptiles and mammals, notably the sliver
rice rat. Mangrove wetlands are excellent filters of runoff, and provide a protective barrier that
diminishes the intensity of storm surges on interior upland habitats.
24 Lower Florida Keys Refuges
Figure 6. Land Cover
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Inland Salt Pond
Salt ponds are high-salinity, non-vegetated, shallow-water areas of at least an acre in size that occur
landward of 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. Seasonally, it is used 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 Key West NWR.
Beach Ridge Hammocks
These hardwood hammocks occur on high sand berms, within a few feet above sea level, created by
storm surge and wind events. Although many 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 or calcareous gravel substrate with low
freshwater retention and are usually long, narrow linear features immediately adjacent to beaches.
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, 4-acre stand on
Boca Grande Key provides an example. Of all berm hammocks in Key West NWR, 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.
Beach and Dune
The beach and dune communities are closest to the high-energy shoreline. Within this high-energy
zone, there are a number of naturally reoccurring events, such as wave action, tidal fluctuations, sand
burial, and salt spray. 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 and on Ohio 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; hawksbill turtles nest occasionally on Key
West NWR. The beaches also afford important nesting, foraging, and loafing habitat for a variety of
shorebirds, including the threatened roseat tern and 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. Small patches of coastal prairie communities also
occur among beach and dune systems in Key West NWR. The beach-dune interface is an important
ecological front that produces sustained levels of biological activity. The beach and dune may
function in a state of equilibrium with the nearshore system such that alteration of one of these
elements may 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, the extent of which depends on dune size and profile,
quantity and type of flora, beach characteristics, and surrounding water depth (Liddle and Greig-
Smith 1975, McDonnel 1981, Nickerson and Thibodeau 1983).
26 Lower Florida Keys Refuges
Marine
The marine zone extends out from the shoreline’s high water mark to the open gulf and ocean.
Marine habitats include tidal flats, seagrass meadows, patch corals, and the coral reef tract. Bank
reefs are considered unique due to the presence of elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata), coral zonation
by depth, and seaward-oriented spur-and-groove formations. Soft corals are the predominant
organisms on the Florida Keys reefs. The sea whips and sea fans are a unique Caribbean feature.
Coral reef systems serve as barriers, protecting many coastal populations and developments from
storm damage; they support commercial fisheries; they serve as major tourist attractions; and they
hold the possibility of unimagined medicinal compounds in the diverse life forms within them. A
portion of the main reef tract is located near Sand Key in the southeastern corner of Key West NWR.
The backcountry of the Lower Florida Keys Refuges is predominantly shallow water habitat with
seagrass beds, scattered coral heads, and small patch reefs. There are several types of seagrasses
in the Keys, with turtle, manatee, and shoal grass being most common. The depths at which
seagrasses grow are limited by water clarity, which determines the amount of light reaching the plant.
The seagrass beds provide important foraging habitat for sea turtles. Tidal flats provide essential
foraging habitat for wading birds that hunt small fish and crustaceans during low tide cycles.
FAUNA – FISH AND WILDLIFE
For a listing of the wildlife known to occur in the Lower Florida Keys Refuges, see Appendix I.
Fish
Although marine reef fishes in the Florida Keys have been studied extensively (Bohnsack et al.
1998), those inhabiting freshwater and brackish wetlands on refuge lands have received little
attention. There is no freshwater in Key West NWR. Freshwater is absent on nearly all islands in
Great White Heron NWR and occurs sparingly (excepting Little Pine Key) on a few islands which are
located within the overlapping boundaries of the National Key Deer Refuge. Thus, the following
discussion pertains only to National Key Deer Refuge. Freshwater resident fish are largely limited to
small freshwater holes (also known as solution holes), freshwater wetland ponds and man-made
mosquito ditches. The few published works have been species-specific and narrowly focused (Travis
et al. 1990, Turner 1992). The Florida Audubon’s Tavernier Science Center, on behalf of the Keys
Environmental Trust Fund, conducted a baseline inventory of non-tidal fish habitats on Big Pine Key
and surrounding islands and sampled fish assemblages in 16 mosquito ditches. A total of 13 fish
species were identified, including 2 species listed as Species of Special Concern by the State of
Florida, the mangrove gambusia (Gambusia rhizophorae) and mangrove rivulus (Rivulus
marmoratus) (Faunce et al. 2001, Hobbs 2003). Periodic monitoring of the status of resident fish is
needed, including detection and removal of invasive exotic fish.
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 in 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.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
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.
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. With the
exception of the wood stork, the refuges harbor all species of Florida wading birds as either nesters
or vagrants. Known nesters include all Florida herons and egrets, as well as the white ibis. The
refuges are particularly important to nesting great white herons. A peak of 336 nests was
documented in 1998, but thereafter nesting declined yearly to less than 100 (Wilmers 2003; 2008).
Other birds that nest in the refuges include the brown pelican and double-crested cormorant. Brown
pelican nesting has declined markedly in Key West NWR since 1987. The historic (1986-2005) nesting
colony in the Marquesas Keys was abandoned in 2005, with no sign of nesting activity in 2006-2008.
In 2008, only one rookery near Key West was active and no young were produced. Non-nesting, fish-eating
birds include various tern and gull species. Descriptions of piping plover, roseate tern, and red
knot can be found under the section on Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species.
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 and American kestrels 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.
Waterfowl
Waterfowl do not nest in the Lower Florida Keys Refuges. Apart from small numbers of
overwintering red-breasted mergansers and blue-winged teal seen annually, other migratory
waterfowl are rarely observed.
Resident Landbirds
Red-bellied woodpeckers, red-winged blackbirds, gray kingbird, black-whiskered vireo, white-crowned
pigeon, and mangrove clapper rail 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. The mangrove cuckoo is a species
of concern, but data are lacking on its status and ecology in the Florida Keys.
28 Lower Florida Keys Refuges
Neotropical Migratory Birds
Neotropical migratory birds are species that breed in North America and winter in Mexico, Central
America, the Caribbean, and South America. These species are of keen interest to birdwatchers and
conservationists because they migrate remarkable distances in all weather conditions, and they provide a
diversity of viewing opportunities during the spring and fall migration, more than doubling the number of
species seen in the Florida Keys compared to the nesting season. 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.
Mammals
As with many island chains, few land-dwelling species occur in the Florida Keys. Most of the native
mammals represent sub-species of those found on mainland Florida, but they have become genetically
distinct due to thousands of years of geographic isolation. Key deer and raccoons are the most
commonly seen native mammals in the Lower Florida Keys Refuges. Marsh rabbits and silver rice rats
occur in low numbers and due to their behavioral habits, are rarely seen. Native mammals are absent
from Key West NWR. Bottlenose dolphins are the most common sea-dwelling mammal within the
refuges’ boundaries. The Florida manatee is a rare, transient visitor. Descriptions of Key deer, Lower
Keys marsh rabbit, and silver rice rat can be found under the section on Endangered, Threatened, and
Candidate Species.
Amphibians
Amphibians require freshwater and therefore are absent in Key West NWR and most of the back
country islands in the Great White Heron NWR. They occur on National Key Deer Refuge, most
notably in freshwater solution holes, wetland ponds and man-made mosquito ditches on Big Pine
Key. At least seven native amphibians occur on this refuge. The most common is the southern
leopard frog. Inventories are needed 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; however, many are non-native. The American
alligator, American crocodile, Big Pine ringneck snake, eastern diamondback rattlesnake, and
eastern indigo snake (likely extirpated) are among the noteworthy native species. The green,
loggerhead, and hawksbill sea turtles are nesting species, while Kemp’s ridley forages in waters
surrounding the refuges. Box turtles inhabitat upland areas of National Key Deer Refuge (Verdon
2004). Inventories are needed to establish baseline data on the status and distribution of reptiles as
only sea turtles have been the subject of long-term monitoring. Descriptions of marine turtles and
eastern indigo snake can be found under the section on Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate
Species.
Invertebrates
No attempt has been made by the Service to catalogue the entire suite of invertebrate species on the
Lower Florida Keys Refuges, although other researchers have studied certain species or groups of
tree snails, dragonflies, and butterflies. There are a variety of Liguus tree snails that inhabit similar
hammock communities that merit attention and conservation. Currently, there is little substantively
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
known about the numbers of the Liguus snails on Big Pine Key, which are likely phenotypes of the
Florida tree snail (Liguus fasciatus) (Close 2000, Hillis et al. 1991). Butterfly assemblages have been
studied (Minno and Emmel 1993, Minno et al. 2005). At least eight resident butterflies have
disappeared from the Keys since the late 1970s, and another eight species of butterflies found in the
lower Keys are highly imperiled (M. Minno pers. comm. 2008). The causes of this widespread decline
are likely due to many factors, especially habitat destruction and fragmentation, as well as mosquito
control spraying, exotic predatory ants, hurricanes, and poaching. The application of insecticides to
control adult mosquitoes is known to deleteriously impact butterfly populations (Emmel 1991, Salvato
2002). The Service must continue to build a cooperative relationship with the Florida Keys Mosquito
Control District in an effort to further reduce or eliminate the use of broad-spectrum adulticides on
refuge lands. Three federal candidate butterflies that occur in the refuges (Bartram’s hairstreak,
Florida leafwing, and Miami blue) are described in more detail in the section under Endangered,
Threatened, and Candidate Species below.
Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species
Table 1 depicts species that are federally listed as threatened or endangered, as well as
candidate species. “Endangered” means a species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. “Threatened” means a species is likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future. “Candidate” species are those for which the Service has enough
information to warrant proposing them for listing but is precluded from doing so by higher listing
priorities; however, the Service carries out priority conservation actions for these species to
prevent further decline and possibly preclude the need to list. Most 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 refuges can contribute to species
recovery goals and benefit other plants and animals dependent on the unique and imperiled
ecosystems in the Florida Keys. 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
NWR
KW
NWR 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)
30 Lower Florida Keys Refuges
NKDR GWH
NWR
KW
NWR 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
(U.S. Distinct Population
Segment)
Pristis pectinata E, NMFS
INVERTEBRATES
* Stock Island tree snail Orthalicus reses
(not including
nesodryas)
T
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
NKDR GWH
NWR
KW
NWR SPECIES LATIN NAME FEDERAL
STATUS
* Possible Possible Bartram’s hairstreak
butterfly
Strymon acis
bartrami
C
* Possible Possible Florida Leafwing Anaea troglodyta
floridalis
C
* Possible * Miami blue butterfly Cyclargus
thomasi
bethunebaker
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 var. keyensis
C
* Wedge spurge Chamaesyce
deltoidea spp.
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
32 Lower Florida Keys Refuges
The South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan referenced in Chapter I provides a description of all
federally listed species and ecological communities 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 use all cover types, including
those normally above tidal influence (pine rockland, hardwood hammock, freshwater wetlands), as
well as tidally influenced types (mangrove, salt marsh transition). They also use residential areas
extensively where they feed on ornamental plants and grasses and seek freshwater. The Key deer
remains listed as endangered due to its restricted range, sea level rise, habitat fragmentation, and
high human-related mortalities and disturbances.
The Key deer population increased markedly during the 1990s and now likely exceeds habitat carrying
capacity in areas of high animal densities on No Name Key and parts of Big Pine Key. The result has
been degradation of native plant communities and loss of habitat diversity, with probable but as yet
unstudied impacts on other wildlife species. Several once-common plant species that are 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 burgeoning numbers are due to the reproductive output of a large number of
resident does, the availability of ornamental plants for feeding, and feeding by tourists and residents.
Deer roadkill numbers have increased steadily with deer population growth, with annual mortality
sometimes exceeding 100 animals. Despite this elevated mortality, deer numbers have remained high
and are offset by annual population recruitment.
Although deer numbers have increased on Big Pine and No Name Keys, there was a reduction or
extirpation in other parts of the deer’s range, including Johnson, Cudjoe, and Sugarloaf Keys. More
than 30 deer were translocated to suitable habitat on Cudjoe and Sugarloaf Keys in recent years.
The fate of these herds must be monitored over time to assess the efficacy of translocation as an
effective management strategy to ensure the long-term viability of the species. Deer on backcountry
islands also need to be monitored. To date, detailed demographic studies have only been conducted
on the core population on Big Pine and No Name Keys.
Lower Keys marsh rabbit. The Lower Keys marsh rabbit is a subspecies of the marsh rabbit,
which is more widely distributed in the southeastern United States. This subspecies originally
ranged throughout the Lower Florida Keys, including Key West. The current range appears to
consist of three separate metapopulations: the Boca Chica area (Boca Chica, Geiger, East
Rockland and Saddlehill Keys), the Sugarloaf area (Sugarloaf and Saddlebunch Keys), and the Big
Pine area (Big Pine, Annette, East Water, Howe, Johnson, Little Pine, Mayo, Newfound Harbor,
Porpoise, and No Name Keys) (Forys and Humphrey 1999a). Lower Keys marsh rabbits are
predominantly found in salt marsh transition communities that have dense ground cover created by
a clump grass, cordgrass (Spartina spartinae). Rabbits are also widely distributed among
freshwater wetlands and they travel through all cover types, including pine rockland. Habitat for
rabbits provides for forage, nest cover, and predator avoidance. The amount of thick ground cover
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
within a patch of habitat was the single most important variable in predicting whether a patch would
be consistently occupied by marsh rabbits (Forys and Humphrey 1999b). Although habitat loss
from human development is responsible for the original decline of the Lower Keys marsh rabbit,
current threats include predation by cats, encroachment of woody overstory into grassy habitats,
and road mortalities caused by vehicles (USFWS 2007).
Silver rice rat. The silver rice rat is a primarily nocturnal, semi-aquatic, wetland rodent that
forages in intertidal zones, feeding on fish, crabs, grasses and forbs (Perry et al. 2005).
Compared to other small mammals, silver rice rats inhabit large home range areas. Its habitat
includes areas of contiguous mangrove swamps and salt marsh transition. Populations are found
at extremely low densities on at least 13 islands, ranging from Big Pine Key to Lower Sugarloaf
Key. Silver rice rats were listed as endangered due to habitat destruction from human
development. Loss of mangrove habitats was greatly curtailed after the passage of the Clean
Water Act of 1974 that restricted development in wetlands; however, threats due to sea level rise
are an emerging concern for silver rice rat conservation.
Florida manatee. Manatees are rare in the Lower Florida Keys Refuges, partly because freshwater
outflows into the nearshore marine waters are lacking. The Service staff provide 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. Data is lacking on this species, but it likely
occurs at least sporadically in the waters within the boudaries of the Lower Florida Keys Refuges.
Green sea turtle. This large sea turtle inhabits marine coastal and oceanic waters and occurs in
Florida year-round. Nesting occurs on four beaches in the Key West NWR: 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. Since 1990, nest
numbers have remained stable on Boca Grande and Sawyer Keys thus far, despite progressive
degradation of nesting habitat from wave action caused by storm events and boat traffic. Climate
change effects, such as sea level rise and more frequent storms, could have a substantial impact on
nesting habitat for sea turtles.
Hawksbill sea turtle. This is a small-to-medium-sized sea turtle that is found throughout Key West
NWR in hard-bottom 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.
Key tree cactus. The Key tree cactus is endemic to the Florida Keys, and grows in hardwood
hammocks. It was listed as endangered due to severe population declines caused by destruction of
upland areas. Historically distributed from Key Largo to Key West, the species presently occurs only on
Big Pine Key in the National Key Deer Refuge, Long Key State Park, Dagney Johnson Key Largo
Hammock State Botanical Park, and private lands on Upper and Lower Matecumbe Keys. The Key
tree cactus population continues to decline even on public conservation lands, attributed to saltwater
intrusion from recent hurricanes and maturing hammocks that may be shading out seedlings and young
plants. Its ability to persist in light of climate change may be tenuous without direct intervention, such
as assisted migration to suitable habitat at higher elevations or captive propagation.
34 Lower Florida Keys Refuges
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, and the Marquesas Keys in Key West NWR, and Ohio Key in National
Key Deer Refuge. A peak of 29 piping plovers was observed on Woman Key in February 1998.
Roseate tern. Roseate tern nesting is rare in the United States. The location of roseate tern
breeding sites is dependent on the distribution and abundance of islands with open sandy or broken
coral substrates. Other important factors include the absence of predators and minimal amounts of
human disturbance. One of the most crucial and recurring mortality factors is human interference
during nesting, which may cause birds to abandon their nests and young. Fewer than 100 pairs of
roseate terns nest in the entire Florida Keys, including the Dry Tortugas, in 2007. Nesting occurred
annually outside refuge boundaries on Pelican Shoal, but that island was obliterated by hurricanes in
2004 and 2005. For the first time on record in 2006 and again in 2007, roseate terns nested within
the Key West NWR on Wilma Key, a small sand island that was created by Hurricane Wilma;
however, this island is eroding and may prove to be ephemeral. In 2005, Hurricane Wilma also
created a large expanse of sand on the interior of Boca Grande Key that may be marginally suitable
for roseate tern nesting. In July 2007, 82 non-nesting roseate terns were observed in this area.
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
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 to less than 30 nests (Wilmers pers. comm.). 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 in
the marine waters of Key West NWR.
Eastern indigo snake. This large, stout-bodied, shiny black snake can grow 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-dominated
scrub salt marsh. There have been no confirmed sightings within the Keys in more than a decade.
So, although its status has not been assessed, it is thought to be extirpated from the Florida Keys.
Stock Island tree snail. The Stock Island tree snail is 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 protecting hardwood hammocks will benefit the Stock Island tree snail.
Garber’s spurge. Populations of Garber’s spurge in the Florida Keys historically occurred on beach
dunes, coastal rock barrens, hammock edges and canopy gaps, and to a lesser extent pine rockland.
Populations on dunes have the potential to be threatened by trampling from beach goers. Small
isolated populations could become extirpated due to a number of factors, including natural events,
such as hurricanes and tidal surges, or manmade factors, such as mowing or herbicide application. It
probably occurs on less than half of the islands where it once occurred in the Florida Keys.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Candidate Species
Bartram’s hairstreak. The Bartram’s hairstreak is a small butterfly approximately 1 inch (in) (25
millimeters [mm]) in length with a forewing length of 0.4 to 0.5 in (10 to 12.5 mm) and has an
appearance (i.e., color, size, body shape) characteristic of the hairstreak genus (Minno and Emmel
1993). The Bartram’s hairstreak requires pine rockland that retain its hostplant, pineland croton. The
mainland population is within Long Pine Key in Everglades National Park, with sporadic and localized
occurrences within pine rockland fragments on lands owned by Miami-Dade County. In the Florida
Keys, the butterfly occurs only on Big Pine Key within National Key Deer Refuge, private, state, and
other lands (Salvato and Hennessey 2003; M. Salvato, Service, pers. comm. 2008).
Florida leafwing. The Florida leafwing butterfly is a medium-sized butterfly approximately 2.75
to 3 inches (in) (76 to 78 millimeters [mm]) in length with a forewing length of 1.3 to 1.5 in (34 to
38 mm) and has an appearance characteristic of its genus (Minno and Emmel 1993). The upper-wing
(or open wing) surface color is red to red-brown, the underside (closed wings) is gray to tan,
with a tapered outline, cryptically looking like a dead leaf when the butterfly is at rest. As with the
Bartram’s hairstreak, the Florida leafwing occurs only within pine rocklands that retain its
hostplant, pineland croton. The Florida leafwing has not been seen on Big Pine Key since 2006
(M. Salvato, Service, pers. comm. 2008).
Miami blue butterfly. The Miami blue is a small, brightly colored butterfly approximately 0.8 to 1.1
inches (1.9 to 2.9 centimeters) in length with a forewing length of 0.3 to 0.5 inches (8.0 to 12.5
millimeters) (Minno and Emmel 1993). Wings of males are blue above (dorsally), with a narrow black
outer border and white fringes; females are bright blue dorsally, with black borders and a red and
black eyespot near the anal angle of the hindwing. There are two distinct wild metapopulations, with
one in Bahia Honda State Park and the other on several islands within the Key West NWR (Cannon
et al. 2009). The Miami blue is a coastal butterfly reported to occur in and around the edges of
hardwood hammocks near the coast, including landscapes prone to frequent natural disturbances
immediately adjacent to the coast (e.g., coastal berm hammocks, dunes, and scrub), but also tropical
pinelands and along trails, using open sunny areas. In the Keys, it was most abundant near
disturbed hammocks where weedy flowers provided nectar (Minno and Emmel 1993, 1994).
Blodgett’s silverbush. On the mainland, Blodgett’s silverbush grows in pine rockland and edges of
rockland hammock (Bradley and Gann 1999). In the Keys, this species grows in pine rockland,
rockland hammock, coastal berm, and on roadsides, sometimes disturbed areas in close proximity to
a natural area, especially in sunny gaps or edges (Bradley and Gann 1999). The pine rockland
habitat where it occurs in Miami-Dade County and the Florida Keys requires periodic fires to maintain
an open sunny understory with limited hardwoods. Occupied sites within the National Key Deer
Refuge currently include Cactus hammock, Long Beach coastal berm, Koehn’s subdivision, and
Watson’s hammock.
Big Pine partridge pea. The Big Pine partridge pea is a small prostrate to ascending herbaceous
shrub with yellow flowers and pinnately compound leaves. Big Pine partridge pea occurs mostly in
pine rockland on Big Pine Key and Cudjoe Key, where it is widely but unevenly distributed (Bradley
2006). Plants also occur on conservation lands owned by the State of Florida, Monroe County, and
The Nature Conservancy. Additional sites occur on county and state road rights-of-way and private
properties. Big Pine partridge pea is fire-adapted, and fire history and time since fire are important
parameters that affect the abundance of this species (Lui et al. 2005a). While the storm surge from
Hurricane Wilma in 2005 resulted in significant population declines in all areas, post-hurricane
recovery has been greater in burned plots, suggesting that fire may have a positive impact on the
recovery of candidate species and species richness (Bradley and Saha 2009).
36 Lower Florida Keys Refuges
Wedge spurge. Wedge spurge is a small prostrate perennial herb. The stems are slender and
numerous, radiating out from the tap root. Wedge spurge is known only from pine rockland
vegetation on Big Pine Key (Small 1933, Long and Lakela 1971, Wunderlin 1998, Ross and Ruiz
1996). Most of the range is encompassed within the National Key Deer Refuge. The remainder
occurs on State of Florida, Monroe County, and private lands, including the Terrestris Preserve
owned by The Nature Conservancy. A similar relationship between fire and hurricanes exists for
wedge spurge as was discussed above for the Big Pine partridge pea (Bradley and Saha 2009).
Cape Sable thoroughwort. Bradley and Gann (2004) found Cape Sable thoroughwort on five
islands in the Keys (Upper Matecumbe Key, Lignumvitae Key, Big Munson Island, Boca Grande,
Long Key) and one small area in Everglades National Park. The only large population is on Big
Munson Island, a privately owned island adjacent to Big Pine Key (Bradley and Gann 2004). It
occurs in Key West NWR on Boca Grande Key. This herb has been observed most commonly in
open sun to partial shade at the edges of rockland hammock and in coastal rock barren. It was
historically known from coastal berm along the northern edges of Florida Bay. Periodic storm events
may be responsible for maintaining the community (Bradley and Gann 1999).
Sand flax. Sand flax is a wiry, yellow-flowered herb found in pine rockland, disturbed pine rockland,
marl prairie, roadsides on rocky soils, and disturbed areas (Bradley and Gann 1999; Hodges and
Bradley 2006). There are 11 extant occurrences in the Florida Keys and extreme south Florida, with
only 3 of these sites located on public conservation lands. The largest population in Monroe County
is located on Big Pine Key within National Key Deer Refuge and surrounding lands (Gann et al. 2002;
Bradley 2006; Hodges and Bradley 2006).
Florida semaphore cactus. The Florida semaphore cactus is an erect, trunk-forming cactus
endemic to the Florida Keys. The branches may grow in one or multiple planes from the trunk. The
spines are not barbed. There is only one naturally occurring population in the Lower Keys, on The
Nature Conservancy’s Torchwood Hammock Preserve on Little Torch Key. There are outplanted
populations on north Key Largo, Big Pine Key, and at the Key West Tropical Forest and Botaincal
Garden. This cactus grows close to saltwater on bare rock with a minimum of humus-soil cover in
hammocks near sea level (Small 1933, Benson 1982). It occurs in buttonwood-dominated scrub salt
marsh areas between rockland hammocks and mangrove swamps and possibly other habitat such as
openings in rockland hammocks (Gann et al. 2002). Like the Key tree cactus and other cactus
species in the Lower Keys, its ability to persist in light of climate change may be tenuous without
direct intervention.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
At the end of the late Pleistocene, Florida’s shoreline extended 100 to 125 miles seaward of its
current location. Pollen profiles from south Florida indicate that the area supported an arid scrub-shrub
habitat between 14000 to 10000 before present (B.P.). Evidence of Florida’s earliest
inhabitants is very limited. Less than 100 Paleoindian sites are known statewide; none of these are
located in the Keys. The Cutler-Fossil Site in Miami-Dade County yielded bones of humans and late
Pleistocene fauna, a possible hearth, and stone and bone tools. The hearth yielded a radiocarbon
date of about 9,670 B.P. The site is situated on the Atlantic Coastal Ridge and overlooked forested
and open savannahs, open marshes, and wetlands. Like for the region’s later occupants, potable
water was a limiting factor for settlement and population size (Borremans 1990).
By 4000 years ago, sea level had risen and formed the modern shorelines, and the Florida Keys were
established as a chain of islands off the southern tip of Florida. The establishment and spread of
shellfish species, such as conch, whelk, oyster, and clam, began in this period. The Archaic Period
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
(10000-3000 B.P.) is denoted by the presence of large coastal shell middens, often containing fiber-and
sand-tempered pottery, and interior black earth middens situated on hardwood hammocks or
along natural drainages. To date, no archaeological sites dating to the Archaic Period have been
identified on uplands in the Keys. The now-submerged landscape holds a higher probability for sites
dating to the Paleoindian and Archaic Periods (Borremans 1990; Mathewson 1992).
The best-documented precolumbian site in the Keys is the Upper Matecumbe Key Site (Goggin
1944). Decorated pottery recovered from the site shows its occupation during the later part of the
Glades II Period (750 – 1200 A.D.) and the Glades III Period (1200 – 1500 A.D.). The
Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc., has conducted large-scale archaeological and
historical reconnaissance of the Keys, documenting a number of historic properties or verifying
the locations of previously identified sites (Carr, Allerton, and Rodriguez 1987; Carr and Fay
1990; Carr and Rodriguez 1988).
Ethnohistoric accounts dating to the 16th century indicate the Keys were occupied by groups either
affiliated with the Tequesta or the Calusa. The Tequesta primarily occupied the area around
Biscayne Bay, but they were also present throughout most, if not all, of southeastern Florida (Wheeler
2004). The Calusa was a maritime-based chiefdom centered in the Charlotte Harbor region, but
whose reach extended well into the Ten Thousand Islands area. These chiefdoms relied heavily on
the rich estuarine and maritime resources of south Florida (Marquardt 1992; Widmer 1988).
Fontaneda, a Spanish sailor shipwrecked on the Florida coast in the mid-16th century, listed the
caciques or political leaders, as well as the provinces and towns that they controlled. Three caciques
listed as being in the ��land of the Martines” are Guarungunve, Cuchiyaga, and Matecumbe (Worth
1995). In 1675, Bishop Calderon visited the Viscaynos, the Matacumbeses, the Bayahondos, and
the Cuchiagaros. The Viscaynos are thought to have occupied the area around Biscayne Bay; the
Matacumbeses occupied either Upper or Lower Matacumbe Key; the Bayahondos occupied Bahia
Honda Key or Key Vaca; and the Cuchiagaros occupied Big Pine Key (Griffin, Fryman, and Miller
1979). By the late 18th century, the Keys and much of south Florida appeared to have been
abandoned by the Calusa, the Tequesta, and other Indian groups.
The Miccosukees, Seminoles, and their Oconee and Creek ancestors began to move into Florida
from Georgia and Alabama during the mid-1700s. It does not appear that either tribe ever occupied
the Keys, though the Seminole established the town of Ochupocrassa near Biscayne Bay about 1820
(Leynes and Cullison 1998).
Prior to the Spanish cession of Florida to the United States in 1821, the Keys had no permanent
settlements. The Straits of Florida were an important, but treacherous, passage from the Gulf of
Mexico to the North Atlantic and Europe. Native American, Spanish, Bahamian, and American
“wreckers” established temporary camps to salvage cargo from ships that had run aground and would
occasionally refloat seaworthy vessels. The construction of the Florida Reef lighthouses between
1852 and 1878 lead to the industry’s decline. Havana, Cuba, was the center of the salvage industry
during the period of Spanish dominance in the Caribbean and Florida. By the 17th century, the
industry’s efforts shifted to New Providence and Nassau in the Bahamas. The United States
Congress passed legislation in 1825 that required any wreck salvaged in American waters be brought
to an American port for adjudication. A number of Bahamians moved to the Keys following the
establishment of a U.S. Navy base and federal court on Key West (Leynes and Cullison 1998).
These early immigrants became known as “Conchs” and made their living primarily by exploiting
maritime resources, such as fish, sponges, turtles, and ship wrecks (Griffin, Fryman, and Miller 1979).
38 Lower Florida Keys Refuges
Until the late 1870s, the Keys’ economy continued to focus on the sea, although hunting, charcoal
production, and small-scale agricultural operations were becoming more important (Table 2). The
Watson Homestead, located on Big Pine Key and within the present National Key Deer Refuge,
provides a glimpse into this period. Robert B. Watson and his family, who owned a 107-acre tract
from 1905 to 1924, grew limes, plantains, guavas, tomatoes, and onions. Bee-keeping and operating
a small grocery store augmented their income (Carr and Fay 1990).
The earliest “plantations” produced fruits and vegetables for the market in Key West. Shortly after
1900, pineapples became a lucrative crop, leading to the deforestation of scrubby woods and mature
hardwood hammocks for fields. Aiding the commercial success of pineapple and lime plantations
was the extension of Florida East Coast Railway from Miami to Key West. Railroad construction
began in 1900 and was completed by 1912. Pineapple production was in decline by 1906. Clearing
of the pine rockland and hammocks for fields led to erosion that left “old stony fields.” Limes were
introduced by Dr. Henry Perrine from the Yucatan in 1838; the first trees were planted on Indian Key
and possibly nearby keys. The Conchs used the limes for seasoning and medicinal purposes.
Although wild limes sold for very high prices, the lime industry only took off following the demise of
the pineapple plantations, reaching peak production in 1923. A hurricane in 1926 devastated most of
the Keys’ lime groves. Competition from West Indies and Mexican growers slowed recovery.
Production in 1935 was only a quarter of 1923 yield (Griffin, Fryman, and Miller 1979; Leynes and
Cullison 1998; Windhorn and Langley 1974).
The Hurricane of 1935 destroyed the Florida East Coast Railway, but not access to the Keys.
Construction of the Overseas Highway began in the early 1920s. By 1928, the highway ran from Miami
to within 40 miles of Key West, with the remainder connected by ferry runs between islands. Following
the 1935 hurricane, the former railway bridges and landfill islands supported the remaining stretch of
the Overseas Highway to Key West. The Highway opened up the Keys to the emerging saltwater
fishing, recreational, and tourist markets (Griffin, Fryman, and Miller 1979; Windhorn and Langley, 1973
and 1974). Residential and commercial development expanded quickly after World War I.
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Purpose
The purpose of this section is to provide information on (1) the current 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
Refuges.
Background
Monroe County includes the Florida Keys and a section of the southwest tip of the Everglades. This
report is only concerned with the socioeconomics of the Florida Keys. The Florida Keys are sparsely
populated compared to Florida as a whole.