Laserfiche WebLink
� <br />� <br />" 4.4 Alternatives Considered <br />Three alternatives were considered by the Applicant waddress the needs of the <br />~~ <br />proposed action. Each o|mmadva oona|dnvod the biological requirements of Uhe scrub <br />habitat indicator species, the Rv,ida`pcmhiay' the legal mandates of the FYS. and <br />the concerns of the Applicant with regard to resolving private land use conflicts in tile <br />� <br />Sebastian Highlands residential subdivision. <br />4.4.1 � <br />Under Alternative 1 the �VV� would not �ouo �e " <br />~ ' ��� _ -- �__'--�— —_ -- � <br />� <br />Applicant would not implement proposed habitat management and m*xxuVon ) <br />� <br />actions on 418± uo/na of publicly -owned lands for purposes of enhancing Florida <br />� <br />scrub -jay demographic su000xo by optimizing habitat suitability and by facilitating <br />� <br />dispersal and rocu\onbadonofrestored and uninhabited habitat. <br />� - <br />Individual owners of the one-quarter acre lots located within the platted residential <br />� ~ amuu of the Sebastian Highlands auhdivis|on that are currently, o/ in the h/tum' <br />designated by tho FVVS an potentially occupied by Florida scrub -jays vvnuW be <br />� <br />unduly by preparation an individual HCP to construct o single-family <br />� rexdontid home o, would risk nxpuovm to a violation of 8ouhoh 8 of iho ESA if <br />� - <br />they initiated construction without an UP. Tile City of Sebastian wmu|da|oo'iak <br />L~ <br />exposure »oSection 9violations if this local Oovnmmomissued clearing orbuilding <br />pnnniu for residential hmne cona/wxhzn that was subsequently do,onninnU to � <br />have resulted in the "taking" of Florida scrub -jays, If the individual Sebastian ^ <br />Highlands |cn npmao dooNod not to vpoatruut. then they would have Vmo ^ <br />difficulty selling their lots at fair market value duo to imposed ESA constraints to <br />development. |sauaono of multiple individual HCPu Would result in piecemeal <br />� <br />— <br />mitigation by |omvmg small ^hmdOomnm" of vegetation on each |n« since t»e ^ <br />individual lot owner likely could not afford to contribute funds for the purchase of <br />^ ' xon/h within aFVVSapproved Florida nnmhiaymitigation area. � <br />_ <br />Proaumwhnn of small "hedgerows" of vegetation on indivWoa| |mo are not as <br />dliniaro, mapo0mvNe, o, viable for ycmh-jay persistence as comprehensive <br />mitigation and menagmmootactions on in0e: more contiguous tracts ofhabitat. If ` <br />mitigation funds worm collected from individual Gobosdmn Highlands lot n,vnam, <br />�~ <br />they would probably be directed into Brevard County since the FW8 has not <br />identified anacceptable Florida oorob-joymitigation area in Indian River Comn\yduo <br />to the high-level of hahhe/ |num, dnOrado/ion, and fragmentation presently ` <br />' <br />characterizing this area. <br />� <br />� <br />Potential environmental onnooqoonoom of the No 4^Uun Alternative wwvN be <br />relatively minimal the short-term because nnadditional *rmk-vagmumd lots would <br />U�e he o|en(eg. However, the bencUm or protecting the existing ncrub'ioy families .� <br />witliin the severely fragmented Sebastian Flighlands residential subdivision <br />65 <br />