HomeMy WebLinkAboutA. Growth ManagementBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: November 12.2010 Division: Growth Management
Bulls Item: Yes _ No X Department: Planning & Environmental Res
CPA9 Staff Contact Person/Phone #: Christine Hurley 289 -2517
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Direct staffto take steps regarding the April, 2010 Biological Opinion and Reasonable and Prudent
Alternatives (RDA's) to avoid jeopardy to Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species related to actions by (FFMA) for
issuance of flood insurance in Monroe County.
ITEM BACKGROUND: Updated and revised FWS Biological Opinion regarding the implementation of the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) by FEMA in Monroe County. The RPA's in the Opinion require the County to implement Endangered
Species Act (ESA) protection and enforcement measures as conditions for participation in the NFIP, and places responsibility for ESA
enforcement on the County rather than FWS. The following are specific issues that Staff has identified as unfavorable to Monroe
County: The RPAs would shift enforcement of ESA from FWS to the County by requiring the County to include FWS conditions in
building permits with full enforcement when future insurability of existing residents through the NFIP hinges on performance of
permitting and enforcement of FWS review. Possibility of community-wide suspension (including existing development) for the
County's noncompliance with the RPAs, as opposed to suspension of flood insurance for new development.
1. Administrative expense of complying with the RPAs, including additional review, permitting, and enforcement.
2. The RPAs make the County, not FWS, the entity responsible for requesting FEMA to remove an individual's flood insurance
for non - compliance with environmental conditions.
3. Using Keys for species without specific review by FWS, when non - adherence of conditions could jeopardize existing
citizens' eligibility for NFI.
4. Table 18 of the BO indicates the number of FEMA Action Impact Acres that can be disturbed or cleared without jeopardy to
each species. These acreages have not been divided up between County and incorporated Cities making applicability
impossible for future implementation. In addition, the BO is not clear in explaining that only the acreage that is actually
impacted will be subtracted from the overall acreage, instead of the acreage of the parcel that is receiving a permit.
5. Table 18, Cumulative Impact (acres) column is for projects Monroe County doesn't approve (School Board, Electric, FKAA,
etc); therefore, Monroe County should not be subject to implementation or enforcement of this provision.
6. If either the FEMA Impact Acres or Cumulative Impact acres are exceeded, then Monroe County becomes the agency that
will deny the permit, shifting the `regulatory taking" risk to the County from FWS.
7. FWS and FEMA have indicated they will not testify in Code Enforcement proceedings and that Monroe County staff will be
the experts to enforce the Federal conditions of permit issuance.
8. The BO would allow an existing owner to create a situation of non - compliance, sell the property to an unknowing buyer who
ends up with the violation that the County is required to prosecute.
9. The timeline in the BO is unrealistic. The BO requires ordinances to be written, passed and implemented within unreasonable
time periods.
10. FWS has not published maps of the focus areas or applicable buffer area that are included in this BO. They have given the
County GIS layers of focus areas to include in its computer system; while it is FWSs determination of which geographical
areas this should be implemented in. No buffer areas are known- County staff submitted maps that indicate the difference m
their geographic areas and the Tier System with no response for any changes that might be made to the FWS focus area maps.
Options:
1. File another m otion to intervene with the federal district cou rt that will be reviewing the BO and communicate objections to
the RPAs. /e
2. Recommend the RPA's be revised to address items 1 -13 and:
a. require each private or public property owner seeking development approval to consult with the FWS and obtain (a)
necessary Section 10 or other approvals and (b) certification of ESA compliance from FWS prior to the issuance of
Monroe County building permit; and
b. require FWS to directly enforce the terms and conditions of Section 10 or other approvals granted by the agency to
the property owner.
3. Recommend FEMA directly review individual requests for flood insurance and deny those requests where the new
development would adversely affect endangered species.
4. Recommend that FEMA, by regulation, prohibit Federal Flood Insurance in the suitable or known habitat of all endangered
species, except the eastern indigo snake.
5. Recommend expansion of Coastal Barrier Resource System to include focus areas, except the eastern indigo snake.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: n/a
CONTRACT /AGREEMENT CHANGES: n/a
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
TOTAL COST: Increased staff resources will be needed to implement the RPA's Costs unknown at this time Computer software
or hardware maybe necessarv. COST: N/A BUDGETED: Yes No X
DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE:
COST TO COUNTY: SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes _ No AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty _ OMB/Purchasing _ Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Reasonable & Prudent Alternatives (RPA's)Included X Not Required
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM # A