3/2/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

mitigatory actions has yet to be determined, examples would include: purchasing fee -title or development rights to undeveloped beachfront properties, restoring the coastal dunes and vegetation, renourishing eroded beaches with beach -quality sand outside of sea turtle nesting season, conducting an appropriate nest monitoring program of all non -state & federal lands(t15 miles of shoreline), enforcing a beach lighting ordinance, and educating beachfront residents -and others about sea turtles and threats to their survival. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS In order to develop a HCP, hiring an environmental consultant would be required. The professional services agreement would likely cost $150,000-$200,000. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has indicated that they would be willing to contribute up to 50& of the cost to develop the HCP, not to exceed $100,000 and would provide technical assistance through the Bureau of Protected Species Management. Any monitoring costs associated with the HCP will be eligible for cost sharing by the FDEP through the scheduled beach restoration projects(Beach Preservation Plan). These monitoring costs could range from $75,000-$125,000/year if all non -state and federal lands are included. It is foreseen that the monitoring program resulting from the HCP process would _overlap much of the monitoring requirements anticipated in the County's Beach Preservation Plan. The alternatives are as follows: Alternative No. 1 Approve the Interim Agreement and Memorandum of Agreement; and commit to paying 50% of the cost to develop the Habitat Conservation Plan, not to exceed $100,000. Funding to be from the Beach Preservation Plan. The cost consequences once the HCP is complete is not known at this time. Alternative No. 2 Deny the Interim Agreement and Memorandum of Agreement; and contend with the pending litigation. Alternative No. 3 Staff has received copies of letters from County residents requesting that the proposed agreements be routed to the Beach Committee and/or be scheduled for Public Hearing. Table action at this time and proceed to workshop the item before the committee. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING The HCP is not required for implementation of the Beach Preservation Plan. If the Interim Agreement and MOA are approved, the County may incur costs not required under the Beach Plan. From an environmental perspective and to assist the Summerplace Property Owners and County currently under litigation, the HCP is desirable. From solely a legal perspective staff does not recommend entering into the interim agreement nor MOA if the sole reason is to dissolve the litigation, since the financial consequences to the County of losing the lawsuit are far less than the cost of the HCP. From a Coastal Engineering perspective, staff does not recommend approval since the scope of work would be greater than that required under the Beach Preservation Plan. MARCH 29 1999 -31- L` BOOK 10PAGE 485