6/2/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

measurable loss to the resources of the Indian River Lagoon, because mitigation included in the project does not compensate for the time lost for the shoreline to reestablish a community of organisms. He conceded that staff made the point that the USFWS letter came out prior to some changes in the mitigation; nonetheless, Fish and Wildlife has recommended denial of the permit. Whether there are snook, reds, and manatee that pass through the area but do not necessarily make it their habitat, there is some reason for them to be there and maybe that reason is because they live on juvenile mullet that are found there. Maybe it's not that at all, but Fish and Wildlife has announced that there is a reason not to do that. Mr. Evans reported two great horned owls seen in the area and thought the Commissioners should consider that the exotic and nuisance vegetation that is proposed to be removed may be the habitat for those owls and should be taken into consideration. Attorney Evans addressed the prohibition against alteration of a shoreline which is adjacent to the aquatic preserve and "adjacent" calls for interpretation by the Board in deciding whether to issue the permit. Mr. Evans argued that if the Commissioners reach the conclusion that this lagoon is adjacent to the aquatic preserve, the permit should not be issued because of the tidal movement in the lagoon. The lagoon was determined to be in a dtate of degradation and apparently is grandfathered in to that state of degradation. Mr. Evans felt the lagoon is not being dredged to satisfy the public interest but to satisfy a private interest, and that private interest is satisfied by creating homesites. He contended that the homesites will impact more greatly the recently restored lagoon than probably impacted it in the forty years since it was dredged. Mr. Evans addressed the issue of alternative of least impact. The only way to justify not taking the alternative of least impact is by reaching the conclusion that the public interest is served by curing the lagoon which has suffered degradation, but Mr. Evans argued that a subdivision that allows more living area, more people, more nutrients, contemplation of boats, fuel, soap, water run off, and making a lagoon deeper will have a greater impact. He described the project as dredging a lagoon and putting some dirt up there so the private land owner can create a lot high enough to build homes. Even without a structure in that exact spot and calling it a yard, we have more land. The policy of staff to allow a private land owner whose lagoon is grandfathered in to a state of degradation to cure that state of 18