Laserfiche WebLink
the possibility of off-site mitigation. He felt this at least <br />would put us in a better negotiating position where we could take <br />a look at other property that might be more feasible and more <br />cost effective. <br />Commissioner Bird had questions about the mitigation <br />required and wished to know if we have to create wetland that is <br />not presently wetland. <br />Director Davis explained that there are different types of <br />mitigation and what we are proposing is rotational impoundment <br />management of Impoundment #22. Historically that area was a <br />wetland, but Mosquito Control came in and diked off the area and <br />closed if off to flushing from the Indian River; so, it has been <br />altered and closed off to the river for many years. DER wants us <br />to reopen it, but they want 10 acres of impoundment opened <br />every 1 acre we are filling. <br />Commissioner Scurlock again argued for the alternative of <br />going offsite for mitigation, and Director Davis further ex- <br />plained that if you are looking at using an impoundment, it has <br />to be completely diked off from the river with no culverts <br />connecting the impoundment to the river. If not, you need to <br />look at scraping uplands down to create wetlands, and you can use <br />a 2 to 1 ratio on something like that. Our positionfis that the <br />wetlands we are filling are a diked area, not an area of pristine <br />wetlands; so, they should not hold us to the 10 to 1 ratio, and <br />Director Davis felt the DER is coming around on this to some <br />extent. <br />Discussion. continued regarding technical details, <br />flashboards, etc., and Commissioner Scurlock stressed that he <br />would like to see us try to hold on the 5/1 mitigation to put us <br />in a better negotiating position. <br />up for <br />DEC: 5 1989 <br />49 IlODK 78 PAF. 554 <br />