7/5/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M M Staff also recommends that the Board- consider U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's recommendation that a +5.5 acre conservation area be established at the north end of the R.O. Plant property, providing for future placement of a well and water transmission mains, as needed. Additionally, staff recommends that the Board authorize staff to coordinate with the FWS and other appropriate agencies to manage the conservation areas, including prescribed burning and/or mechanical management. Chairman Tippin expressed his concerns about the gopher turtle in a controlled burning. The gopher turtle is an endangered species also. He didn't believe a gopher turtle could dig deep enough or fast enough to escape the heat from the flames if he is caught away from his burrow. If a fire is set 300 feet from his burrow, odds are that he won't get back to his burrow. With the proposed management plan, we would have this control burning for the scrub jays who can fly away. He believed that the time, energy, and money we are spending on this issue is ridiculous. Commissioner Bird asked if U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services' interpretation of taking has ever been challenged successfully in the Federal Court system? Deputy County Attorney Will Collins advised that there are several cases in the western United States, California, and Hawaii where the interpretation of taking was taken to court and upheld at the Federal Appellate court level. There was some modification to the regulatory definitions of harm to the endangered species in some of those cases, but when they went back to court, the courts still interpreted the regulation broadly because Congress wrote the language broadly. Community Development Director Keating noted that the Utilities Department is opposed to a conservation site on the water plant site, and Attorney Collins explained that they are looking for the maximum utilization of their property. Commissioner Macht emphasized the issue is that the citizens of Indian River County have put up a huge sum of money in recognition of the need to conserve habitat and to conserve species, and they have more then met their obligation. The amount of land in question is insignificant for the purpose of conservation. The $26 -million bond issue will produce significant areas. The County should retain the park site and utilities site for the use intended and represented to the citizens. JUL 51994 27 80OF 1 FIU F.:1 :AL