Findings Of Fact Collier Development Corporation, Naples, Florida, owns a triangular tract of land consisting of approximately 16 acres in Naples, Florida. In 1958, the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund conveyed by quitclaim deed to Collier Development Corporation all its interests in the property. A 1958 affidavit of Collier's surveyor who prepared the legal description of the land was filed in the Collier County public records and states that the land conveyed by the quitclaim deed was "high land" erroneously shown as bay bottom land according to the original government survey, and that the deed was executed in exchange for the conveyance of certain parcels of bay bottom land in Naples Bay to the Trustees. (Exhibits 1-2) In 1976, Petitioner executed an option agreement with Collier Development Corporation to purchase the land in question, contingent upon certain conditions including a requirement to obtain any required fill permits. On December 27, 1976, Petitioner assigned the option agreement to Michael S. Spiegel and himself as joint tenants. On March 14, 1977, a "short form" application was filed by Petitioner, as authorized by Collier Development Corporation, with Respondent to fill the land above the mean high water line to building grade for future residential, multi-family, or commercial uses. The application reflected that 400 cubic yards of rock riprap would be placed at least five feet upland of the designated mean high water line along the boundary of the property that faced the Gordon River and Rock Creek. The riprap revetment is designed to provide a method of containing upland fill material. The application contemplates that a fabric-like material "Mirafi" will be placed on the ground and wrapped over the riprap barrier. The application further provides that approximately 90,000 pounds of fill material will be trucked into the site and placed behind the riprap material to fill the land to a minimum elevation of four feet. It is also proposed to slope the fill material behind the riprap and plant grass seed thereon. In October, 1977, Petitioner filed a "long form" application which merely amplified the original application. The mean high water line was established by a survey performed under standard procedures and which utilized the existing bulkhead line as a point of reference. The survey was conducted in 1977 and 1978, and the procedures used were approved by and the survey filed in the Department of Natural Resources on June 26, 1978. (Testimony of Park, Lawson, Exhibits 4, 6, 8, 11) By letter dated January 26, 1978, Respondent provided notice of its intent to deny the permit application pursuant to Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and Public Law 92-500. The reasons stated for the proposed denial generally were that filling the land would destroy mangrove vegetation which provides a major input of organic material to estuarine tropic webs, and filters and assimilates pollutants from upland runoff. It was stated that the proposed project would eliminate approximately 15 acres of submerged lands and transition zones, as defined in Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, which would reduce the quality and quantity of the state's marine resources adjacent to Class II waters and "tend to cause degradation of water quality conditions." Thereafter, on January 25, 1978, Petitioner submitted a petition for hearing wherein the jurisdiction of the Respondent in the matter and its grounds for the proposed denial were challenged. (Exhibit 5) The land in question is located south and adjacent to the confluence of the Gordon River and Rock Creek along the north side of U.S. Highway 41. The Gordon River and Rock Creek are tributaries of Naples Bay and all are Class II waters. The area is vegetated by red mangroves with a lesser number of white and black mangroves. A pond of about one-half acre surrounded by red mangroves is located in the southern section of the tract which occasionally overflows into a ditch running parallel to U.S. 41 located within the highway right-of- way. There is a berm alongside the ditch designed to prevent highway runoff from flowing onto Petitioner's land. During high tides, most of the land is inundated to varied depths ranging from two to eight inches. Certain marine vegetational species are present on portions of the land, such as sea grape, sea purslane, sea daisy, and button wood. Certain marine animal life is present in the mangrove area, including coffee bean snails, ribbed mussels, marsh clams, mangrove crabs, fiddler crabs, and mosquito fish. Other marine species, such as common oysters, scorched mussels, and barnacles inhabit the Rock Creek shore line. There is sparse bird population on Petitioner's land that may in part be due to the proximity of Naples Airport. (Testimony of Lawson, Park, Carroll, Fields, M. Spiegel, Exhibits 3, 7, 10) The quality of water in the Gordon River and Rock Creek is adversely effected to some degree by receipt of sewage plant effluent, discharge from nearby canals and runoff from residential and commercial areas. As a result of high bacterial count in these waters, shell fishing and swimming is not permitted. The mangrove forest on Petitioner's property is in a stressed condition as evidenced by the thinness of the canopy. It is probable that this condition was caused primarily by the introduction of fresh water from canals into the surrounding waters. (Testimony of Carroll, Fields, Erwin, Yokel) Mangrove wetlands are an important component of the estuarine ecosystem which provide nutrient stabilization and transformation in the supply of an organic base to the estuarine food chain, filtration of upland runoff, and storage of storm waters. They are a nursery for fish and invertebrate species, and a fish and wildlife habitat. The mangrove system on Petitioner's property is productive and contributing to the needs of marine life in the Naples Bay area. In this respect, most of the detritus produced by the mangrove system occurs below the mean high water line. However, the tidal flow during storm conditions at certain times of the year can release accumulated organic matter from the higher areas. This generally occurs in late summer and early fall when feeding demands of organisms are high. (Testimony of Erwin, Yokel) Although no system for containing surface water runoff was set forth in Petitioner's permit application, it is planned that such runoff will be retained on the site by a site drainage plan that would be accomplished by grading and the use of the existing pond or other means of retention, in addition to the natural percolation into the sandy fill material. (Testimony of Park) The application did not specify the precise distance from the mean high water line at which fill would be placed, but Petitioner clarified this point at the hearing. Fill material will not be placed closer than 100 feet upland of the mean high water line. The mangrove area left intact below that point will enable the ecological system to survive. However, due to the fact that the Naples Bay area does not produce sufficient organic matter to fully support animal life in the area, the loss of a substantial portion of mangroves will impact on the detrital food chain to some extent. (Testimony of Carroll, Yokel)
Recommendation That Respondent issue the requested permit to Petitioner, subject to the modification thereto made at the hearing with regard to the 100' setback as set forth in paragraph 8 of the foregoing Findings of Fact. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of February, 1979. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Ray Allen, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard Horowitz, Esquire 3550 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 402 Miami, Florida 33137 William Blackwell, Esquire 3003 North Miami Trail Naples, Florida
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The 626-acre site of the proposed Riverbay development is currently undeveloped land located in Manatee County in the western portion of the City of Bradenton. Specifically, the property lies in Sections 22, 24, and 26. Township 34 South, Range 16 East, Manatee County. The site is owned entirely by Boyd, with the exception of the northern portion for which Boyd has a valid option to purchase. Tampa Bay lies to the north of the site and Perico Bayou lies to the west. Both are natural Class III water bodies. Boyd proposes to develop approximately 325 acres of the site primarily as residential, with an 18-hole golf course and recreational facilities, a commercial/professional area, lakes and attendant streets. The remainder of the site, approximately 300 acres, will be retained as a natural mangrove preserve pursuant to a conservation easement to be executed by Boyd upon receipt of the permit sought in these proceedings. The proposed project has been approved by Manatee County as a planned development residential district with a maximum total number of units not to exceed 957. The Riverbay site has been disturbed by human activity and has been subject to numerous alterations, including extensive mosquito control ditching, dirt roads, borrow pits and a perimeter dike with culverts and flapgates. The government- approved mosquito control ditches resulted in overdrainage of freshwater from adjacent uplands and allowed the incursion of saltwater into the uplands. In order to facilitate and enhance agricultural utilization of the site, and to protect the land from unusually high waters from the Bay, the perimeter dike was constructed with culverts and flapgates in the early 1970's. This dike and other internal drainage systems were designed to reduced interstitial soil salinity so that the land could be utilized for agricultural purposes. The primary site of concern in this proceeding is a sandy area located south of the northern mangrove area and separated from that area by the perimeter dike. Prior to the construction of that dike, the area was inundated by high tides. Since construction of the dike, inundation of the sandy area by marine waters has been limited to unusual storm surges that overtopped the dike or to those occasions when the flapgates required maintenance or adjustment. Over the years following the dike construction, the sandy area has been intermittently planted with grasses, mowed, disked and, when agricultural activities were temporarily reduced in that area, overtaken with some exotic vegetation and other weedy species. The salt tolerant vegetation in the sandy area is currently patchily distributed, and the area has basically little or no productivity in its present state. This is primarily due to the lack of tidal inundation and tidal exchange, which renders the sandy area minimally valuable as habitat for either terrestrial or aquatic organisms. Functioning salt marsh flats, also referred to as salt pans, salterns, salt barrens of salt flat wetlands, constitute an integral part of the life cycles of some fishes, such as snook, mullet and ladyfish. Juvenile fish rely upon these areas for food and protection during this early period of development. High, shallow salt marsh areas are also utilized for feeding purposes by wading birds and shore birds, such as the great egret, white ibis, tricolor heron, green heron and wood stork. While the salt fish flat area on the Boyd site could have value for fish and wildlife if it were returned to tidal influence, its is not currently a productive area from wither a fisheries or wildlife standpoint. Fiddler crab burrows were observed on the site, but these were found mainly around the ditches or existing culverts. The existing site is not conducive in its present state to the feeding, nesting or resting or rare, threatened or endangered species. The original DER jurisdictional determination was performed on the Riverbay site in May of 1983, and resulted in an inclusion of approximately 46 acres, some 35 or which were situated in the sandy area in the northern part of the property. This determination was validated in May of 1985. In the Spring of 1984, Boyd entered into discussions with the DER prior to filing its dredge and fill permit application, and a mutually acceptable site plan and mitigation package was developed. Boyd then submitted its application in February of 1985. After a hearing was requested, DER revisited its prior jurisdictional determination and concluded that it was in need of revision. Utilizing the jurisdictional criteria which existed prior to October 1, 1984, DER reduced the extent of its jurisdictional determination by including only about 16.5 acres of the sandy area, and again noticed its intent to issue the requested permit. At the time DER performed its new jurisdictional, it was its policy to utilize the pre-Henderson vegetation listing to determine jurisdictional wetlands when a grandfathered applicant with a validated jurisdictional line timely requested a reevaluation of that line. The mitigation plan originally proposed by Boyd was not altered as a result of the reduction of impacted jurisdictional acreage to 16.5 acres. The project as proposed by Boyd includes the filling of 16.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands located in the sandy area discussed above. In mitigation, Boyd proposes to create approximately 17 acres of wetlands from natural uplands located adjacent to undisturbed wetlands in the western portion of the property. Of these 17 acres, 1 1/2 to 5 acres are proposed for a saltern of salt pan habitat. The creation of a salt pan is experimental, but several experts attested to a high probability of success once proper elevations for vegetative plantings are determined. The remainder of the 17 acres of wetlands creation will be graded to the proper elevations, allowed to be inundated with tides and vegetated either naturally with mangroves or will be supplemented with hand plantings. The mitigation plan proposed by Boyd also includes some engineering measures to improve flushing in the northern mangrove area, which was found to be somewhat stressed, a surface water management plan which meets relevant criteria and a perpetual conservation easement to the DER of approximately 300 acres of mangrove areas on the northern and western boundaries of the property. This mangrove fringe will serve as a buffer between the open waters of Tampa Bay and Perico Bayou and the project site. Due to the existence of the perimeter dike, the area to be filled is isolated from Tampa Bay and the adjacent mangroves. The culverts can be sealed during construction to retain all fill materials and turbidity will be controlled. The stormwater system for the project site has received the approval of the Southwest Florida Water Management District and complies with the design and performance criteria set forth in Chapter 17-25, Florida Administrative Code. In its final configuration, the proposed project will contain various freshwater wetlands located landward of the perimeter dike. These include three existing borrow pits and the proposed stormwater retention ponds. These water bodies, as well as the attendant littoral zones surrounding them, will serve as habitat for aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Boyd will utilize state-of-the-art preserved pilings for any wooden structures located in jurisdictional wetlands. Such pilings will be treated in a manner that both prevents deterioration and prohibits the leeching of compounds into the water. At present, DER has no promulgated rule concerning mitigation for dredge and fill projects. Its policy is to review all projects on a case-by-case basis to determine the acceptability of the mitigation package offered by an applicant. DER's goal is to replace the environment with the same benefits to be lost from a particular wetland. DER has no established ratio between the extent of the mitigated area and the area to be filled. The area ultimately accepted in mitigation is dependent upon the existing condition of the area to be filled, in terms of its current form, function and vitality. As opposed to a "like- for-like" mitigation policy, it is DER's policy to review the similarity in form and function between the area to be lost and the area to be created or enhanced by the project. If the area to be lost or filled is stressed or damaged in its existing state, less mitigation is required. When evaluating a proposed dredge and fill project, it is DER's policy and practice to review the current situation on the site. If the site has been altered in a manner which did not require an environmental permit, DER looks at the land as it presently exists, for both jurisdictional purposes and to determine its form, function and viability for mitigation purposes. Neither flapgate maintenance nor mowing requires a DER permit. A DER official could not recall an instance when DER has required a permit for disking. Projects in the area surrounding the Boyd site present no adverse cumulative impacts in relation to the proposed Riverbay project. Indeed, the proposed conservation easement will serve to reduce the impact of this and similar projects on this site and adjacent, wetland areas. Manasota-88, Inc. is incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida as a charitable public interest non-profit corporation and has properly authorized this pending litigation pursuant to its charter and/or bylaws.
Findings Of Fact Background Respondent Telese is the owner and developer of Egret Woods Subdivision on real property contiguous to state waters in Pinellas County, Florida. The property is near the incorporated areas of Indian Shores and Largo. A residential subdivision borders the project locale to the east, and tidal mangrove swamps fringe the property to the west. An intracoastal connecting waterway known as the "Narrows" lies to the west of the swamps. These state waters connect Boca Ceiga Bay and Clearwater Harbor. The proposed subdivision area is an upland strip between the existing subdivision and the tidal swamp adjacent to the "Narrows". The uplands are predominantly vegetated by live oak, saw palmettos and slash pines. In order to develop the property, and to reconfigure lots from a previously platted subdivision, Respondent Telese applied for a permit from DER to fill 0.12 acres of DER jurisdictional wetlands located at the development site. The application for the permit represents that 340 cubic yards of clean, non-deleterious sandy loam is needed to fill disturbed high marsh areas and other low areas on the proposed lots. Respondent Telese has also requested permission to install culverts in the two conveyance/mosquito ditches that run through the lots before they reach their discharge points outside of the proposed lot lines. The Petitioners are owners of single-family homes within the subdivision to the east known as Whispering Pines Forest, 5th Addition. These property owners filed a Petition in which they disputed the appropriateness of the Notice of Intent to Issue filed by DER on August 21, 1990. In support of their position, the Petitioners identified a number of areas of controversy they contend should cause DER to reverse its preliminary decision to grant the "dredge and fill" permit on this project. Elimination of Natural Drainage The first area of controversy is the Petitioners' contention that their interests are substantially effected by the elimination of natural drainage from their subdivision into the uplands referred to as Egret Woods Subdivision. The entire area was owned by the same developer prior to the creation of Whispering Pines Forest 5th Addition. Essentially, the Petitioners allege that a subservient estate was created on these adjacent lands for their surface water drainage purposes which the proposed development eliminates. A review of the Notice of Intent to Issue reveals that culverts are to be placed in two of the open conveyance ditches currently transporting surface water runoff from Whispering Pines Forest 5th Addition through the uplands of Egret Woods into the wetlands. While this proposed change in the means of conveyance of the surface water may not affect the volume of water conveyed, it could adversely effect the quality of the water at the discharge points into the wetlands. At hearing, the Petitioners were unable to clearly articulate their concerns about this water quality issue. However, it is intricately interwoven into the surface water management issues. The water quality concern was obliquely referred to in the Biological and Water Quality Assessment Report where DER's application appraiser commented that the proposed conservation easements and the mitigation plantings, which replace the high marsh removed for lot reconfiguration, are sufficient to offset the potential adverse impacts of the requested fill and culvert changes to the existing water quality at the project site. Although this particular water quality issue was properly addressed by DER in its review of the permit application, it was not clearly set forth in the Notice of Intent to Issue. There is no way for a person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed permitting decision to determine that DER had considered mitigation measures to prevent this adverse effect. A decrease in surface water quality would have been caused by the marsh elimination and the placement of culverts if the marsh had not been replanted, and other mitigative measures had not occurred at the locale. The Petitioners properly requested a formal administrative hearing to address surface water management issues as DER's consideration of the matter was not made clear to them in the Notice of Intent to Issue. The written report that discusses water quality as it relates to the mitigation plan was provided to Petitioner's post-hearing, after a copy of the written appraisal was sent to the Hearing Officer and all parties by DER. Planned Roadway The second area of controversy is the Petitioner's concern about the effects of the planned roadway on their properties. As the planned roadway involves the county, it is not a matter considered in the dredge and fill permit. Neither DER nor the Hearing Officer has subject matter jurisdiction. The Petitioners did not pursue this area of controversy or the road location at hearing based upon the Hearing Officer's ruling that it was not relevant to this permit review. High Water Mark and the Setting of the DER Jurisdictional Line The third area of controversy raised by Petitioners involves their collective concern about a variance in the height of the Mean High Water Line on the property on different documents presented to different agencies. The current survey for DER completed by the surveyor shows the Mean High Water Line at 1.16, while the survey submitted to Pinellas County in 1981 from the same surveyor reads the Mean High Water Line at 1.25. This was explained at hearing by the surveyor. It was his opinion as a professional surveyor that there is no basic difference between these two mean high water lines. Since the survey to the county in 1981, the Mean High Water Line has varied between 3 - 3 1/2 feet in some areas. The same methodology and simple mathematical formula was used by him during the two different surveys which were about eight years apart. The difference in the two surveys is within the tolerance level accepted within the industry and needs no further reconciliation. As a correlative issue, Petitioners raise a concern about the change in DER's jurisdictional line on various documents involving this same site over a number of years. DER's jurisdictional lines have changed since the "Hendersons Wetland Act" enacted on October 1, 1984. The jurisdictional line as depicted on this permit application was established by dominant plant species as defined in Rule 17-301.400, Florida Administrative Code, just prior to the application submission. This was the correct way to determine jurisdiction on the property at this particular point in time. Although the mean high water line may have been determinative of DER's jurisdiction on earlier permits, only the current law applies to the facts of this case. DER reviewed the jurisdictional lines as depicted on the property by Respondent Telese's consultant and found them to be properly placed during the processing of the permit application. Historical DER jurisdictional lines and permit reviews are irrelevant to this permit review as it is based upon the agency's current rules the applicable statutory criteria, and current site conditions. Fill Calculations The fourth area of controversy involves the Respondent's request to place fill on the site. When Petitioners used an engineer's scale to measure the areas to be filled on the permit drawings, their volume calculations reveal that more fill will be needed than represented on the permit application. Petitioners are concerned that this error could cause DER to approve a permit which does not accurately depict site conditions. The actual fill calculations were done by the professional engineer with a computer model based upon average elevations, depth and area. In his professional engineering opinion, his calculations were accurate, which was given great weight by the Hearing Officer. The drawings used by the Petitioners to calculate the required fill for the area were pictorial communications of what the Respondent Telese intended to accomplish at the site. These drawings were designed for descriptive purposes only and were not scaled to the extent that they could be accurately used for fill calculations in the manner applied by Petitioners. The computer modeling used by the professional engineer was the more prudent approach to the on-site fill requirements. De Novo Permit Review Although the wetlands resource permit requested by Respondent Telese is commonly referred to as a "dredge and fill" permit, there is no dredging associated with the project. The proposed placement of fill in the high marsh area of tidal wetlands on the property and the culvert placement requires construction activity in Class III Waters. Water quality impacts to the area will be a short term problem as water turbidity should take place only during construction. Specific conditions regarding construction techniques have been placed in the permit as permit conditions to minimize the impacts. There is no factual dispute as to whether the proposed conservation easement, the replacement and enlargement of the high marsh in another location, the removal of exotics such as Brazilian Pepper trees, and the planting of black mangroves will sufficiently mitigate the adverse impacts on water quality and the public interests at the proposed development. Without the replacement of the disturbed high marsh with high marsh plantings at a 1.91:1 ratio, the enhancement of the property through exotic removal, and the conservation easements at a 132:1 ratio, the Respondent Telese is unable to provide reasonable assurances that the project is not contrary to the public interest under the statutory criteria established in Section 403.918, Florida Statutes. The proposed project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. The flooding anticipated by the Petitioners is speculative, and has not been directly related to the fill placement and the culverts in the two conveyance/mosquito ditches. Conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats, will not be adversely affected due to the high marsh replacement and the fact that the area provided only marginal wetland habitat prior to the permit application due to the invasion of exotics at the site. Any impact from the proposed project on this public interest criterion is offset by the mitigation plan. The project will not adversely affect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. The proposed plantings of black mangroves and the removal of exotics, along with the new high marsh swamp should enhance the productivity of the area. No future projects of a similar nature can be developed at this locale due to the conservation easements the Respondent Telese has consented to provide over the remaining undeveloped property owned by him in the area. These easements will allow the Department to limit and control activities that may be undertaken in these tidal waters to prevent degradation of the site from an environmental standpoint. The mitigation planting schedule provides reasonable assurances that water quality standards will not be violated in the area as a result of culvert placement in the two conveyance/mosquito ditches that transport surface water to Class III waters of the state. Balancing of Interests In the "dredge and fill" permit application appraisal, site review, and Notice of Intent to Issue, DER considered and balanced all of the required statutory criteria to determine that the project is not contrary to the public interest or applicable water quality standards. Area of Controversy All of the areas of controversy raised by the Petitioners which are within the Division of Administrative Hearings' jurisdiction, have been sufficiently met by the reasonable assurances of Respondent Telese and the permit conditions required by DER. Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, it is concluded that the harms anticipated by Petitioners will not occur. Recommendation Regarding the Assessment of Attorneys Fees and Costs Petitioners did not participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose. The Notice of Intent to Issue was vague as to how interests were balanced and how the mitigation would offset the adverse impacts that concerned Petitioners. The petition was filed and prosecuted in good faith and addressed legitimate concerns of concerned citizenry who reside on adjacent lands.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended: That a Final Order be entered approving Respondent's Telese's dredge and fill permit number 521715273, pursuant to the Notice of Intent to Issue filed August 21, 1990. That Petitioners should not be assessed attorney fees and costs as they did not participate in these proceedings for an improper purpose. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-7035 Petitioners' proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #11. Rejected. Does not allow for change in seasons or conditions. See HO #11. Accepted. See HO #11. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. Rejected. Not within Hearing Officer's subject matter jurisdiction. Irrelevant to this proceeding. Accepted. See HO #3. Respondent Telese's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1, #2 and #18. Accepted. See HO #1, #2, #20 and #23. Accepted. See HO #20 and #21. Accepted. See HO #21. Accepted. See HO #22 - #27. Accepted. See HO #13 and #16. Denied. Contrary to fact. See HO #4 - #17. DER's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Accepted. See HO #1 and #2. 2. Accepted. See HO #1. 3. Accepted. See HO #1 - #3. 4. Accepted. See HO #2, #18 and #20. 5. Accepted. See HO #20, #21 and #24. 6. Accepted. 7. Accepted. 8. Accepted. 9. Accepted. 10. Accepted. 11. Accepted. 12. Accepted. 13. Accepted. 14. Accepted. 15. Accepted. 16. Accepted. 17. Accepted. See HO #19. 18. Accepted. 19. Accepted. See HO #19. 20. Accepted. See HO #21. 21. Accepted. See HO #18. COPIES FURNISHED: Ines D. Degnan 8410-144th Lane North Seminole, Florida 34636 David R. Chirington 8400-144th Lane North Seminole, Florida 34646 Alton Jeffcoat 8340-144th Lane North Seminole, Florida 34646 Carol B. Newton 8450-144th Lane North Seminole, Florida 34646 Steven M. Siebert, Esquire JOHNSON BLAKELY POPE BOKOR RUPPEL & BURNS, P.A. 911 Chestnut Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of five acres of undeveloped real property in Henderson Creek Basin, Naples, Collier County, Florida. The property is dominated at the tree canopy level by medium-sized cypress. The mid-story plant association is made up of a varying mix of wax myrtle, dahoon holly, seedling cypress, and a lesser amount of slash pine. Hypercium, stillingia, poverty grass, and xyris are the major components of the ground cover. In the vicinity of the proposed homesite, the ordinary mean water depth averages 2-4 inches, as indicated by the water marks on the stems of cypress, stillingia, and cypress knees. Based upon the dominant vegetation, the project site is within the jurisdiction of the Respondent for the regulatory purposes set forth by law. The Petitioner intends to build a house on the property for his personal use. In order to construct the residence, the Petitioner applied to the Respondent for a dredge an fill permit. In the application,, the Petitioner seeks a permit which would allow him to place 1,200 cubic yards of sand fill over a .17 acre area of the submerged land. The proposed location for the housepad, septic tank and drainfield is the center of the five acre parcel. This is the predominant area in which the Petitioner seeks to place the fill. A large portion of this part of the property is low and consists of wetlands. The project, as it is designed in the permit application, does not provide the Respondent with reasonable assurance that the applicable water quality standards for the geographical area will continue to be met. In fact, the proposal demonstrates that a violation of the standards will occur. The Petitioner recently cleared 14,340 square feet of the wetlands in the proposed homesite area. The cypress trees which ware removed acted as a pollution filtration system and aided in the cleansing of the standing waters on site. These waters eventually percolate down to the aquifer to become an important source of fresh water for the state. Without the trees, the water will lose an important aid in the natural purification process. In addition to the adverse impact on water quality, the project will interrupt the natural water flow and filtration which has historically occurred when the water located in the low wetland area on the property has overflowed and eventually run into Henderson Creek. The Respondent is required to consider this natural condition in its determination as to whether or not a permit should be issued. The Respondent has indicated that certain changes should be made to the project in order to make it eligible to receive a permit. The Respondent suggested that the Petitioner relocate the fill area for the house pad eighty- five feet to the west of the proposed site. The septic tank and drainfield should be moved one hundred and ten feet to the west. The drive should be reduced to a single lane which leads directly to the housepad. In addition, three culverts should be placed under the drive. The purpose of these modifications would be to minimize the impact of the project on the wetland site. The movement of the project away from the cypress area would minimize the damage to water quality that would occur if the septic system were placed in the wetlands. If the design for the lane and driveway were modified, the harm to the natural sheet flow of the water through the area on its route to the creek would be greatly reduced. Another suggested modification was to remove exotic vegetation which has been planted or which has begun to dominate in some areas because of the clearing of the property which took place before and after the Petitioner purchased the property. The Respondent also seeks a construction plan from the Petitioner which demonstrates that the fill areas will be adequately stabilized and that turbidity will be controlled during construction. The final modification suggested by the Respondent was for the Petitioner to place a deed restriction on the property which would protect the planting areas and the remainder of the wetlands on the site. The Petitioner's expert, Gary L. Beardsley, has recommended that the proposed circular entrance driveway be eliminated and that a single and straightened lane be substituted its place. He further recommended that one 12" diameter culvert should be installed under the lane near the housepad in order to facilitate or equalize any sheet flow on the downstream side. This recommendation is made to substitute for the agency's proposal that three culverts be placed under the straightened lane. In addition, the Petitioner's expert recommended that the septic drainfield be moved 30 feet westward to reduce the fill slope requirements by abutting the house and septic fill pads. The Petitioner should also be required to replant 5,265 square feet of wetland area that he cleared on site with the approval of the Collier Natural Resource Management Department, but without the approval of the Respondent. The Petitioner has not agreed to any of the proposed modifications, including those proposed by his own expert. The Respondent's request for a deed restriction is not necessary to the agency's regulatory function. There was no reason for the request presented at hearing by the agency.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD, or District) should issue a Modification to Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 11- 02055-P, Application No. 060713-9, to G.L. Homes of Naples Associates II, Ltd. (G.L. Homes, or Applicant), which authorizes modifications to the surface water management system (SWMS) for a residential development known as Saturnia Falls (the Project).
Findings Of Fact PARTIES The District is a water management district with the power and duty to exercise regulatory jurisdiction over the administration and enforcement of ERP criteria, pursuant to the provisions of Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, and Sections 373.413, 373.414, and 373.416, Florida Statutes. G.L. Homes is an entity with the administrative, legal, and financial capabilities of undertaking the activity in accordance with the terms and conditions of the 2006 ERP, meeting the criteria in Rule 40E-4.301(1)(j). The Conservancy was duly incorporated in 1966 under the laws of the State of Florida as a not for-profit corporation and has it headquarters in Collier County, Florida. G.L. Homes contests the Conservancy's assertion of "associational standing." But there is no question as to the Conservancy's "citizen standing" under Section 403.412(6), Florida Statutes. The Conservancy has approximately 6,200 members, with approximately 4,200 residing in Collier County. Twenty-five current members in good standing who reside in Collier County were identified during the hearing. The Conservancy's purpose is to "protect and sustain the natural environment of southwest Florida through advocacy, education, research, land acquisition and other lawful means." Specific purposes relevant to the subject matter of this case include: "to acquire and protect sanctuaries, greenbelts, parks, and beaches"; "to assist governing bodies to remedy present pollution and to prevent future pollution of water, air, and our waterfronts and beaches"; and "to encourage and stimulate the interests of residents and visitors to the area, to increase their knowledge of, and to promote the preservation of the southwest Florida natural environment." The Conservancy also asserts standing under Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. In furtherance of its corporate purpose, the Conservancy owns approximately 300 acres of land for preservation in Collier County, including a 46-acre parcel located on the Cocohatchee River downstream from the proposed Saturnia Falls development. The Conservancy also conducts scientific research in the waters of the Wiggins Pass Estuary downstream from the proposed Saturnia Falls development, including water quality monitoring and research on seagrass restoration. Further impacts to the water quality in the Cocohatchee River would affect the value of the Conservancy's property for conservation and would affect its interests in research in the area. These interests of the Conservancy would be adversely affected if the 2006 ERP were issued improperly. The Conservancy's assertion of "associational standing" is based on the testimony of eight of its members who engage in various recreational activities, including boating, fishing, bird-watching, nature study, and observation of wildlife. Some visit Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary and the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) to view endangered wood storks and other wildlife. Some also visit and recreate in downstream waters, such as the Wiggins Pass Estuary, for fishing, boating, or wildlife observation. These interests would be adversely affected if the 2006 ERP were issued improperly. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PERMITTING HISTORY The Project site is located one mile north of Immokalee Road, approximately 2 miles east of 1-75 and lies near the CREW lands in Collier County. The entire Project site consists of approximately 646 acres, of which 533.1 acres are wetlands. The Project has a permitting history dating back to 1997, when the previous owner, Robert Vocisano, applied to construct a development called Wildewood Lakes. The Wildewood Lakes application was denied in 1998, at least in part because wetland impacts were not reduced and eliminated to the extent practicable, and was mediated pursuant to Section 120.573, Florida Statutes. After three years of responding to additional requests for information, the application was submitted to the Governing Board for approval in May 2002. This ERP, referred to as “the 2002 ERP,” authorized the construction and operation of a SWMS to serve a residential and golf course development, discharging to the Cocohatchee Canal via a conveyance channel/Flow-way known as the Mirasol Flow-way (Flow-way). The Flow-way feature was to be built on lands owned by three different property owners, one of whom was the owner of the Terafina Project, and was intended to address flooding and storage criteria in the BOR and alleviate flooding problems in the region that resulted from previous drainage and development projects that altered the natural sheet-flow through the region to the Cocohatchee and Imperial Rivers, and on to the Gulf Coast. As reported in the Staff Report for the 2004 ERP, studies current at the time indicated that, during the initial part of the rainy season, the wetland systems in the vicinity of the proposed Flow- way carried the flow between the Corkscrew Swamp and the Cocohatchee Canal with the peak stages contained with the limits of the wetland areas. However, as the wet season progressed, the wetland vegetation impeded the conveyance of flow and resulted in elevated water stages that inundated properties adjacent to those wetlands, including portions of the eastern half of the Project. There were approximately 288 acres of direct impacts to wetlands under the 2002 ERP. There was a total of 291.20 acres of onsite preserve, including 259.97 acres of wetlands and 31.23 acres of uplands. Part of the Flow-way was to be located within the eastern third of the property (225.74 acres, including 217.80 acres of wetlands and 7.94 acres of uplands), which would be preserved after construction of part of the Flow- way in 23 of those acres. There also would be off-site mitigation in the form of a payment of $1,232,000 "specifically for the purchase of 154 acres . . . of land within CREW, a project within the District's Save Our Rivers Program." Of that total, $712,404 was to be deposited in an account for the land purchase, $437,206 in an account to pay for restoration work within the CREW project, and $82,390 in an escrow account for general operations and maintenance costs incurred by the District within the CREW project. On March 10, 2004, the Governing Board approved a modification to the 2002 ERP authorizing the construction and operation of the Project, at the time known as the Terafina PUD. This ERP is referred to as “the 2004 ERP.” The 2004 ERP removed the golf course and proposed a residential development within the same 646-acre parcel. It also discharged to the Cocohatchee Canal via the Flow-way. The 2004 ERP modified the Project to consist of: single-family residential areas; a recreation area; internal roadway; onsite wetland preserve areas within the development of approximately 73.99 acres; and 210 acres of wetland preserve east of the development, which included the Flow-way, and is referred to as the Eastern Preserve. The 2004 ERP proposed to impact approximately 280 acres of wetlands, slightly less than in the 2002 ERP. To mitigate for the impacts, the 2004 ERP authorized onsite mitigation consisting of the preservation and enhancement of 253.04 acres of wetlands, preservation of 31.27 acres of uplands, creation of 0.1 acres of wetlands, and offsite mitigation by a payment to the District for the purchase, restoration, and management of lands in CREW. Apparently by mistake, the amount of the CREW payment was reduced to $1,001,000, with $418,404 to go into the purchase account, $437,206 to go into the restoration account, and $82,390 to go into the escrow account for general operations and maintenance. In addition, the time for deposit of the funds was extended to June 30, 2004. The District included Special Condition No. 18 in the 2004 ERP, delaying any construction under the 2004 ERP until the Flow-way was completed. However, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) refused to permit construction of the Flow-way. On July 13, 2006, G.L. Homes submitted an application to modify the 2004 ERP (the 2006 Application), which is the subject of this proceeding. (A letter modification was issued on October 5, 2006, authorizing installation of a 48" outfall pipe within the Logan Boulevard right-of-way to convey the discharge from the Project to the Cocohatchee Canal. This letter modification was not challenged by the Conservancy and is not at issue in this proceeding.) On November 9, 2006, SFWMD proposed issuance of the 2006 ERP authorizing the construction and operation of the residential development now known as Saturnia Falls (the 2006 ERP). The 2006 Staff Report proposes elimination of the Flow- way, and enhancement and preservation of the 23.5 acres that would have been located in the eastern third of the Project area, similar to the rest of the Eastern Preserve. The SWMS also was altered, and the Staff Report noted that the CREW payment was made in June 2004 in the amount of $1,260,000 "as funding for the off-site mitigation in CREW," which was said to have "provided a substantial amount of up-front mitigation in CREW." The Conservancy did not challenge the 2002 ERP or the 2004 ERP but did challenge the 2006 ERP. THE MODIFIED SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM In addition to removal of the 23.5-acre segment of the Flow-way from the Eastern Preserve, the current proposal would modify the SWMS under the 2004 ERP by replacing the 80-foot weir at Lake 9, which was the sole final outfall under the 2004 ERP, with two operable Water Control Structures (WCS), located at the eastern (WCS-2) and western (WCS-1) boundaries of the Project, as the final outfall structures. The 80-foot weir in the 2004 ERP consisted of a rectangular notch in the 17.7 foot NGVD berm between Lake 9 and the Eastern Preserve, with a crest elevation of 13.8 foot NGVD and a 5 foot wide, .4 foot deep rectangular notch (that is, with an invert elevation of 13.4 foot NGVD) within the 80-foot weir, which served as a bleeder for water quality. The structure was fixed, and water was to pass freely through the bleeder and over the weir depending on the water levels on either side of the structure. In contrast, the structures proposed in the 2006 ERP are operable based on water levels in the Eastern Preserve. WCS- 1 is located in Lake 4 and discharges to the Cocohatchee Canal via a 48" reinforced concrete pipe located in the Logan Boulevard right-of-way. WCS-2 is located to the east of the development and discharges to the Eastern Preserve and then ultimately to the Cocohatchee Canal. As modified under the 2006 ERP, the SWMS continues to consist of eleven controlled sub-basins with a total area of 397.46 acres. The remainder of the proposed Project also is the same as under the 2004 ERP, including road alignments, type and number of houses, lots, lakes and grading information, and wetland impacts. It is the position of the Applicant and the District that the mitigation proposal also is identical; but Petitioner takes the position that proposed onsite mitigation will be adversely affected by the proposed modifications and that offsite mitigation no longer has the same benefit, so that mitigation no longer fully offsets the wetland impacts. The SWMS is set at the control elevation of 13.4 feet NGVD, which represents the wet season water table (WSWT) for the currently existing wetlands. The seasonal high water level for the wetlands was determined to be approximately 14.0 feet NGVD. When water levels in the Eastern Preserve are below 14.00 feet NGVD (typically in the dry season), the SWMS discharges to the Eastern Preserve through WCS-2, which is located in the perimeter berm to be constructed with sloping banks and a crest elevation of 17.7 feet NGVD between the Eastern Preserve and one of the western wetland preserves, called preserve P-5. WCS-2 consists of a 23-foot weir fitted with an operable bleeder at the control elevation of 13.40 feet NGVD, and a fixed discharge V-Notch weir with an invert elevation of 14.20 feet NGVD, and a crest elevation of 15.40 feet NGVD. This discharge will flow southerly through the Eastern Preserve to the receiving waterbody, the Cocohatchee Canal. WCS-1 will be closed during these periods. The maximum discharge rate under these conditions will be 15.28 cubic feet per second (cfs) to the Eastern Preserve. Based on the hydraulic modeling results, the Eastern Preserve experiences levels below 14 feet NGVD approximately 70% of the time on an annual basis. When water levels in the Eastern Preserve are above 14.00 feet NGVD (typically in the wet season), the SWMS will discharge predominately to the west via WCS-1 to the Cocohatchee Canal. When the water level in the Eastern Preserve reaches 14.00 ft NGVD, the operable bleeder on WCS-2 will close and the operable bleeder/discharge structure on WCS-1 will open. During the 25- year 3-day storm, the maximum discharge rate through WCS-1 is 13.50 cfs. During these conditions, discharge will also occur through the fixed 60-degree V-notch in WCS-2, with a maximum discharge of 2.10 cfs, ensuring bidirectional flow of water so long as the water level in the SWMS stays above 14.20 feet NGVD. The total discharge rate from both structures under this condition is 15.61 cfs. During the 25-year 3-day storm event, water levels in the Eastern Preserve fluctuate from 13.40 feet NGVD to 15.31 feet NGVD. When the water levels in the Eastern Preserve are higher than 14.20 feet NGVD, and the water level in the SWMS is lower than 14.20 feet NGVD, water from the Eastern Preserve will enter into the SWMS through the 60-degree V-Notch in WCS-2. The SWMS is designed to receive water from the Eastern Preserve to provide flood storage and hydrology to the onsite wetlands within the development. THE ERP PERMITTING CRITERIA In order to obtain an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions for issuance set forth in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. In this case, the evidence must be viewed under Rule 40E-4.331(2)(a), pertaining to modification of permits, which requires the District to review permit modification applications “using the same criteria as new applications for those portions of the project proposed for, or affected by, the modification.” The test in this case is not whether the District properly evaluated the 2004 ERP, but whether the areas proposed to be modified or affected by the modification meet the applicable conditions for issuance. Rule 40E-4.301(1) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a SWMS: Will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; Will not cause adverse flooding to on- site or off-site property; Will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; Will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters; Will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the water quality standards set forth in Chapters 62- 4, 62-302, 62-520, 62-522, 62-550, F.A.C., including any antidegradation provisions of paragraphs 62-4.242(1)(a) and (b), subsections 62-4.242(2) and (3), and Rule 62-302.300, F.A.C., and any special standards for Outstanding Florida Waters and Outstanding National Resource Waters set forth in subsections 62-4.242(2) and (3), F.A.C., will be violated; Will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources; Will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows established pursuant to Chapter 373.042, F.S.; Will not cause adverse impacts to a work of the District established pursuant to Section 373.086, F.S.; Will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed; Will be conducted by an entity with the sufficient financial, legal and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, if issued; and Will comply with any applicable special basin or geographic area criteria established in Chapter 40E-41, F.A.C. The parties stipulated that the Project either complies with Rules 40E-4.301(1)(g),(h),(j), and (k), and Sections 4.3.8, 7.5, and 9.0 of the BOR, or that those rules are not applicable. THE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT CRITERIA Water Quantity (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a)) As indicated, the 2006 modifications eliminate the Flow-way and change the manner in which water flows in and out of the proposed SWMS. Otherwise, there are no changes to the engineered features of the SWMS. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a) requires that G.L. Homes demonstrate that the Project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands, and not exceed the capacity of the downstream receiving water bodies. Section 6.2 of the BOR requires that a project be designed so it is consistent with the downstream carrying capacity of the receiving waters. The receiving waterbody for this Project is the Cocohatchee Canal. The allowable discharge rate for the Cocohatchee Canal is 15.9 cfs. The Project’s calculated rate of discharge is 15.6 cfs, so the Project does not exceed the allowable discharge rate. The Project's discharge rate is lower in 2006 (15.6 cfs) than it was in the 2004 ERP (291 cfs). Petitioner argued that the significant difference in discharge rates between the 2006 and the 2004 ERPs violated the District’s water quantity criteria. But the discharge rate calculated in 2004 was associated with the Flow-way and entailed a different overall analysis for the entire area served by the Flow-way. G.L. Homes provided reasonable assurances that the discharge rate allowed for its Project would not be exceeded, as required in Section 6.2 of the BOR. G.L. Homes complied with Section 6.3 of the BOR which requires the 25-year, 3-day storm event to be used when computing the discharge rate for the Project. Section 6.8 of the BOR is entitled “Offsite Lands.” Compliance with this Section requires that a project allow the passage of drainage from offsite areas to downstream areas, which is necessary to demonstrate that off-site receiving waterbodies are not being adversely affected. G.L. Homes complied with Section 6.8 by conducting a hydrologic analysis, using the 25-year, 3-day storm event, which demonstrated that discharge would be directed to WCS-1 and WCS-2, allowing for the passage of drainage from offsite areas to the downstream areas. Section 6.10 of the BOR requires that the design of the Project conserve water and not over-drain wetlands. There is nothing about the modifications that violate Section 6.10. In this case, the control elevations have been set at 13.4 feet NGVD, which is the average WSWT. The WSWT was established using biological indicators to determine the average elevation in the Project’s wetlands during the wet season. Setting the control elevation at the WSWT does not violate Section 6.10. To the contrary, when water levels are at or above the control elevation, the design helps prevent the wetlands from being drawn down below 13.4 feet NGVD, and not over-drain them. The WSWT of 13.4 was permitted in the 2004 ERP. The structures also allow for the interchange of water from the Eastern Preserve into the preserve wetlands within the SWMS. This exchange of water helps preserve the Project’s environmental values. Setting the control elevation at 13.4 also reduces unnecessary runoff from the Project, retaining the water for recharge. In addition, the ability of the SWMS to accept flows from the Eastern Preserve also conserves freshwater by preventing that water from being discharged downstream. As indicated, when water levels in the Eastern Preserve are below the control elevation, no water will enter the SWMS from the Eastern Preserve. During those times, it is possible that wetlands within the SWMS will be drained into the deep lakes dug as part of the project. However, that would not be the result of 2006 modifications but would be inherent in the previously-approved SWMS. The 2006 modifications do not re-open the soundness of that previously-approved part of the design. Section 6.10 also requires that a project not lower water tables so that the existing rights of others would be adversely affected. Again, by setting the control elevations at the WSWT, the water table is not expected to be lowered so as to affect the existing rights of others. The Project also must demonstrate that the site’s groundwater recharge characteristics will be preserved through the design of the SWMS. G.L. Homes complied by setting the control elevations at the WSWT, allowing standing water in the wetland preserves to recharge the groundwater. Section 6.11 addresses Detention and Control Elevations which are intended to assist in complying with the provisions of Section 6.10. By designing WCS-1 and WCS-2 at control elevation 13.4, the Project maintains the detention component and the control (wetland protection) elevations under the previously-approved SWMS. The Required Design Information and Assumptions are contained in Section 8.0 of the BOR. This Section includes various assumptions and information regarding the design of the SWMS. By incorporating these assumptions into the Project, G.L. Homes complied with Section 8.0. Flooding (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(b)) This Rule requires G.L. Homes to demonstrate that the Project will not cause adverse flooding to onsite or offsite property. Section 6.4 requires that building floors be designed to be protected from a 100-year, 3-day storm event. G.L. Homes complied with this provision by providing construction plans demonstrating that the building floors are being built higher than the 100-year, 3-day storm event. Likewise, Section 6.5 pertains to providing flood protection for the Project’s roads and parking lots. G.L. Homes complied with this provision by exceeding the District’s 5-year design criteria, and instead designing the roads and parking lots using the 25-year, 3-day storm event. G.L. Homes was required to comply with the Historic Basin Storage provision in Section 6.7, which requires the Project to replace or otherwise mitigate the loss of historic basin storage provided by the site. In this case, the amount and extent of historic storage that is being displaced by the 2006 ERP is the same as that in the 2004 ERP. However, the replacement or mitigation for loss of historic basin storage is reduced due to elimination of the Flow-way. Instead of relying on the Flow-way to address this criterion, G.L. Homes relied on the “Saturnia Falls Slough Hydraulic Study” prepared by Taylor Engineering, the “Taylor Report” (RJ Ex. 32), which demonstrates the current flood levels in the Eastern Preserve and other adjacent properties and wetlands, and that the Project’s configuration would not affect the basin’s historic storage. Lastly, to demonstrate that the Project will not cause adverse flooding to offsite properties, G.L. Homes was required to comply with Section 6.9, Minimum Drainage. This provision requires that the SWMS recover, consistent with the environmental criteria in 6.10 of the BOR, within 12 days or less. The Taylor Report also demonstrated that the Project will recover from the design storm event in time to provide the required attenuation for the next storm event, while preserving environmental or wetland features. There may be times when the recovery may exceed 12 days, but the need to protect the hydrology of the wetlands required the control elevations to be set at 13.4 ft NGVD. Balanced against Section 6.10, G.L. Homes still complies with Section 6.9. Accordingly, G.L. Homes provided reasonable assurances demonstrating that the 2006 ERP will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, satisfying Rule 40E- 4.301(1)(b). Storage and Conveyance (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c) requires that an applicant demonstrate that the proposed development will not adversely impact existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. In order to accomplish this demonstration, applicants are to consider the capability of the adjacent properties to both store and convey stormwater runoff from their developments. Section 6.6 of the BOR, entitled Floodplain Encroachment, specifies the parameters by prohibiting a net encroachment into the floodplain, between the average WSWT and the 100-year event, which will adversely affect the existing rights of others. G.L. Homes addressed this criterion through the analysis submitted and contained in the Taylor Report. The Taylor Report used the hydrologic model, HEC-HMS, and hydraulic model, HEC-RAS, to provide a simulation of flood stages propagating through the Eastern Preserve and the adjacent wetland system. This analysis assessed the existing flood stages within the offsite areas, starting at the Cocohatchee Canal and ending approximately 2-3 miles northeast of the eastern boundary of the Project. The analysis captured the expected flood levels during both the 25-year, 3-day and the 100-year, 3-day storm events in the area's current condition, and then compared the analysis of the two storm events considering the Project in its development condition. The analysis relied on the Project’s proposal to remove the current melaleuca infestation from the Eastern Preserve as part of the Project’s post-development condition. The Taylor Report concluded that the removal of such exotics would remove a flow impediment and allow the water to flow through the Eastern Preserve at a higher rate, and therefore at lower flood stages. The Taylor Report made these conclusions while accounting for the development as well as the mitigation-required plantings. The Taylor Report, along with Mr. Hull’s testimony, demonstrated that even with the mitigation reaching full maturity, the removal of melaleuca results in lower flood stages than the study area is currently experiencing. The evidence was that the model used by Taylor Engineering, the HEC-RAS model, is an appropriate model to determine flood stages and to calculate the floodplain conveyance. Furthermore, although Petitioner attacked the choice of inputs, mainly the “Manning’s n coefficients” used to determine the roughness or the friction provided by current and post-development vegetation, the balance of the evidence supports the coefficients contained in the Taylor Report as reasonable and within the ranges of the cited data and models. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Van Lent, who conducted no analysis of his own, admitted that HEC-RAS was an accepted tool to use for floodplain conveyance and that the other models he suggested are either inappropriate or rarely used by ERP applicants. The Applicant provided reasonable assurances demonstrating that the 2006 ERP will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, satisfying Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c). However, that is not to say that the 2006 ERP replaces the storage and conveyance capabilities that would have been provided under the 2004 ERP with the proposed Flow-way, which also required removal of melaleuca and required the same mitigation plantings except within the Flow-way itself. To the contrary, storage and conveyance capability under the 2004 ERP clearly would have been greater. Wetland Impacts (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d)) This Rule provision, while typically associated with the wetland ERP criteria review, also applies to the SWMS through Section 6.12 of the BOR, which requires that a lake system be designed so that an adverse gradient is not created between the lakes and wetland areas. G.L. Homes complied with this criterion by setting the control elevation at 13.4 feet NGVD, the WSWT, for the lake system, the SWMS wetland preserves and the Eastern Preserve, ensuring no gradient (or difference in elevation) between the wetland elevation and the lake elevation. Petitioner argued that additional analysis regarding the timing and levels of inundation in the wetland preserves is necessary to fully determine the impacts to the wetlands. Contrary testimony indicated that setting the control elevations within the development area at the WSWT protects the onsite wetlands and ensures that those wetlands will function as expected. Mr. Waterhouse testified that additional analysis, such as groundwater or evapotranspiration, is not necessary because the Project was designed so that the control elevation that affects the lake levels and the wetlands are the same. The testimony was that, since the control elevation was set using the WSWT, the timing and levels within the wetlands will not be affected by the revised SWMS, and that no additional modeling, as recommended by Dr. Van Lent, is necessary because the SWMS complies with Section 6.12. As indicated, it is questionable on this record whether wetlands within the SWMS will be drained during dry conditions by adjacent deep lakes. No such analysis was presented in evidence in this case. However, such an impact on the wetlands within the SWMS would not be the result of 2006 modifications but would be inherent in the previously-approved SWMS. The 2006 modifications do not re-open the soundness of that previously-approved part of the design. As for the 2006 modifications, the evidence was persuasive that no additional analysis regarding the timing and levels of inundation in the wetland preserves is necessary to determine that the elimination of the 80-foot weir and its replacement with WCS-1 and WCS-2 will not impact the wetlands. Water Quality (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the Project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that water quality standards will be violated. Section 5.2 describes the District’s standard water quality criteria. This provision, requiring a minimum of one inch detention of stormwater, is referred to as a “presumptive criterion” because it is presumed that if an applicant provides the required one inch of detention, Class III water quality standards and rule requirements will be met. In this case, G.L. Homes provides one inch of detention in its lake system in the exact manner it did in the 2004 ERP. A difference from the 2004 to the 2006 ERP is the classification of the Cocohatchee Canal, the Project’s receiving waterbody, as impaired for iron and dissolved oxygen (DO). Therefore, G.L. Homes was also required to comply with Section 4.2.4.5 of the BOR to demonstrate that it is not contributing to the impairment. See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.301(2). Section 4.2.4.5, entitled "Where Ambient Water Quality Does Not Meet State Water Quality Standards," states as follows: If the site of the proposed activity currently does not meet state water quality standards, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the water quality standards by meeting the provisions in 4.2.4.1, 4.2.4.2, and 4.2.4.3, as applicable, and for the parameters which do not meet water quality standards, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed activity will not contribute to the existing violation. If the proposed activity will contribute to the existing violation, mitigation may be proposed as described in subsection 4.3.1.4. To comply, G.L. Homes must show that neither short- term (4.2.4.1) nor long-term (4.2.4.2) water quality impacts will occur. G.L. Homes complied with the short-term requirements by submitting the Construction Pollution Prevention Plan (CPPP), detailing how water quality will be protected during the construction process. In addition to the inch of treatment, the long-term water quality requirement was addressed, in part, by the Urban Stormwater Management Plan (USMP), which details various source controls or best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented once the Project is built and operating. These BMPs help keep pollutants out of the lake system. In addition to the BMPs, the USMP requires G.L. Homes to institute a water quality monitoring plan and submit results to the District for review after the Project is developed. Dr. Harper concurred with Petitioner that the USMP as proposed (in R.J. 28, § 6.0) was deficient in certain respects and recommended that it be clarified or supplemented to specify testing for oxygen, iron, nitrogen, phosphorus, hardness, and a few heavy metals, namely copper, lead, and zinc. Dr. Harper also concurred and recommended that that samples should be collected at both WCS-1 or WCS-2, not just at one of them, depending on which structure is discharging water at the time of sampling. (Dr. Harper confirmed the propriety of testing three times per year, which is a common frequency for monitoring in situations like this.) Mr. Waterhouse agreed with Dr. Harper's additions/clarifications and testified that the USMP, as supplemented and clarified, would comply with District’s criteria. G.L. Homes accepted Dr. Harper's additions/clarifications to the USMP. Another component of Section 4.2.4.5 requires additional assurance for parameters that do not meet water quality standards. The District prepared the “Terrie Bates Water Quality Memo dated June 11, 2004,” referred to as “the Bates Memo,” to provide guidance on the implementation of Section 4.2.4.5 for projects which discharge into an impaired waterbody. The Bates Memo suggests that an additional 50 percent of treatment, among other BMPs, be incorporated into a SWMS. G.L. Homes complied with the Bates Memo because runoff from the lakes, after meeting the one inch detention treatment requirement, spills into the wetland preserves within the SWMS for an additional 50 percent of treatment. In terms of operation of the SWMS, this is no different from the 2004 ERP, but the 2006 ERP simply calculates and takes credit for the additional treatment that was also provided by the onsite wetlands in the 2004 ERP. It is uncontested that the wetland preserves within the development are not impaired and are only required to meet Class III water quality standards. When the stormwater spills into the SWMS wetland preserves, it is presumed to meet Class III water quality standards due to the one inch of detention treatment. Accordingly, the SWMS wetland preserves can be used to provide the additional 50 percent of treatment. The Bates Memo also lists seven BMPs as potential options to consider, in addition to the extra 50 percent treatment volume. G.L. Homes is implementing 6 of the 7 items as follows: (1) the CPPP, which is a stormwater pollution prevention plan; (2) an operation plan or long-term plan addressing routine maintenance is included in the USMP; (3) planting littoral zones; (4) some utilization of onsite wetlands for additional treatment downstream of the SWMS by discharging into the Eastern Preserve wetland system through WCS-2 at times; (5) a site-specific water quality evaluation for the Project’s pre- and post-development conditions is addressed by the Harper Report (RJ Ex. 25); and (6) a Water Quality Monitoring Plan, which is required under the USMP. Petitioner erroneously argued that the Bates Memo does not allow the 50 percent treatment to occur in the preserve wetlands within the development. The argument stems from the phrase “in addition to the extra 50% treatment volume” at the bottom of page 3 of the memo, and bullet No. 5 on page 4, which recommends “treatment in wetlands downstream of the SWMS.” Absent any analysis of her own or any experience in the application of the Bates Memo, Ms. Hecker contended that the Bates Memo precludes the use of onsite wetlands. The argument is contradictory and confusing because Hecker admits that the preserve wetlands within the development are not downstream of the SWMS, and acknowledges that the Eastern Preserve is the wetland downstream of the SWMS. Ms. Hecker, along with Mr. Boler, ultimately admitted that criteria exist allowing the use of wetlands as part of the SWMS. Mr. Waterhouse, who has vastly more experience with the District’s water quality criteria than Ms. Hecker, and participated in the drafting of the Bates Memo, refuted Ms. Hecker’s position about the intent of the Bates Memo, citing to Section 5.3.1 of the BOR as additional support for the use of onsite wetlands for water quality treatment. In addition to these water quality submittals, G.L. Homes also provided a water quality analysis specific to the Project prepared by Dr. Harvey Harper. The analysis, entitled “Evaluation of Water Quality Issues Related to the Saturnia Falls Project” (RJ Ex. 25), referred to as the “Harper Report,” analyzed the Project’s pre- and post-development pollutant loads to help demonstrate that the Project would not contribute to the impairment of the Cocohatchee Canal. The Harper Report estimated the removal efficiency of the SWMS lakes to determine how much pollutant removal would be achieved by the lakes on the Project. Dr. Harper relied solely on the lakes without accounting for any of the additional treatment expected to occur in the wetlands or from the source control BMPs contained in the USMP, which means his report errs on the conservative side in those respects. Although the Canal is impaired for dissolved oxygen (DO), it is uncontested that a nutrient analysis is the appropriate method to assess DO conditions. The Harper Report, as summarized in the table below, concluded that the Project would result in lower post-development loading rates than the pre-development loading rates for nutrients. Nitrogen (N) Pre-Development Total N Load 390.6 kg Post-Development Removal (Dry4) Total N Load 204.99 kg Post-Development Removal (Wet5) Total N Load 194.69 kg Phosphorus (P) Pre-development Total P Load 15.12 kg Post-Development Removal (Dry) Total P Load 5.29 kg Post-Development Removal (Wet) Total P Load 4.49 kg The Harper Report compared the Post-Development Total Basin Loading numbers for P (136.43 kg) and for N (922.57 kg), on an average annual basis, coming from the residential areas (roads and lots) to the Post-Development Removal Loads for P [5.29 kg (dry) and 4.49 kg (wet)] and for N [204.99 kg (dry) and 194.69 kg (wet)] discharging from the lakes after treatment. The calculations demonstrated that approximately 77 percent of N would be removed by the lakes in the dry season conditions and approximately 78 percent would be removed in the wet season conditions. Approximately 95 percent of P would be removed by the lakes in both the dry and wet season conditions. Additional removal and treatment above these percentages is expected due to a number of other source control measures not accounted for in the Harper Report. The Harper Report also concluded that iron discharges from the SWMS would be extremely low and substantially less than the Class III standard of 1 mg/l. Petitioner presented no evidence to counter this conclusion. Petitioner questioned the validity of Harper Report’s use of wetlands as part of the loading calculations, and attacked his underlying methodology. Petitioner's witnesses called it "bad science" to attribute pollutant loading to wetlands because wetlands remove nutrients from the water column and because attributing nutrient loading to wetlands would make it easier to obtain a permit to destroy wetlands. However, none of Petitioner's witnesses were able to credibly defend the position that wetlands cannot contribute to the loading calculations and at times conceded to this fact. Generally, wetlands can in fact contribute some nutrients that pass through without being taken up by wetland vegetation, either because the water is moving through the wetlands too fast or because the nutrient load in the wetland overtaxes the wetland's ability to take up nutrients. That does not necessarily mean that the nutrient load attributable to a wetland will be greater than the load attributable to other post-development land uses. Indeed, the only post-development land use characterized by Dr. Harper as having a lower pollutant load than a wetland was low- intensity commercial, and that was only for total nitrogen. (Dr. Harper's use of data from some distance away in Corkscrew Swamp as the basis for characterizing the pollutant loadings for the onsite wetlands, instead of data from a closer monitoring station in the Cocohatchee Canal weir, was justified; his use of that data instead of collecting data onsite was a valid criticism, but there was not enough evidence in support of that criticism to undermine the additional assurance derived from Dr. Harper's work.) As for the argument that the "Harper method" makes it easier to obtain a permit to destroy wetlands, there are many regulatory criteria other than just water quality that are supposed to be considered before a permit is issued to impact wetlands. Another component of Petitioner’s attack on the Project’s water quality compliance included vague references to an 80 percent removal efficiency. In actuality, the 80 percent removal efficiency is not adopted or incorporated into any District rule criteria. In any event, the Harper Report and other evidence give reasonable assurance that, along with other source controls, the proposed SWMS probably will remove 80 percent of pollutants on an average annual basis. Lastly, the District clarified why Section 4.2.8 of the BOR, regarding cumulative impacts for water quality, was not applicable in this case. Since no contribution or impacts to water quality are expected, a cumulative impacts analysis is not necessary to assess the extent of the impacts. The combination of all these water quality measures, when taken together, give reasonable assurance that the 2006 ERP will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that State water quality standards will be violated, and that Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) will be satisfied. Engineering Principles (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the SWMS will be capable, based on generally-accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed. Section 7.0 of the BOR specifies implementation of the Rule. Since WCS-1 and WCS-2 are proposed as operable structures, the District is requiring that G.L. Homes enter into an operable Control Structure Agreement with the Big Cypress Basin Board. The agreement provides for the Big Cypress Basin Board to operate and maintain the two operable structures, instead of the Saturnia Falls Homeowners Association. As Mr. Waterhouse explained, this is a reasonable and logical requirement. WETLAND ERP CRITERIA As with the SWMS criteria, the wetland criteria review of this modification compares the Project to 2004 ERP. Functions To Fish & Wildlife And Listed Species (Subsection 40E- 4.301(1)(d)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances to demonstrate that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, or abandonment of a SWMS will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Section 4.2.2 of the BOR provides further specificity to ensure that a project will not impact the abundance and diversity of fish, wildlife and listed species. The 2006 ERP makes no changes or modification to the 280 acres of wetland impacts allowed in the 2004 ERP. Since the impacts remain the same, the 2006 ERP does not modify or affect the values the wetlands provide to either the abundance or diversity of fish and wildlife, compared to the 2004 ERP. Review of this criterion was determined in the 2004 ERP and should not be re- opened. Section 4.2.2.3 of the BOR addresses the functional assessment of the values provided by the Project’s wetlands. The wetland values were not reassessed in the 2006 ERP because the wetland impacts remain the same as in the 2004 ERP. The evidence was that the current value of the wetlands remains low due to heavy melaleuca infestation, with 75 percent coverage in most locations. While Petitioner may disagree with how the current wetlands were evaluated, nothing in this modification request requires a reassessment of their value. Accordingly, the value of the wetlands currently onsite has not changed, and this criteria should not be re-opened. Section 4.2.2.4 of the BOR requires that a regulated activity not adversely impact the hydroperiod of wetlands or other surface waters. Specifically, the criterion states as follows: [An] applicant must provide reasonable assurances that the regulated activity will not change the hydroperiod of a wetland or other surface water, so as to adversely affect wetland functions or other surface water functions as follows: Whenever portions of a system, such as constructed basins, structures, stormwater ponds, canals, and ditches, are reasonably expected to have the effect of reducing the depth, duration or frequency of inundation or saturation in a wetland or other surface water, the applicant must perform an analysis of the drawdown in water levels or diversion of water flows resulting from such activities and provide reasonable assurance that these drawdowns or diversions will not adversely impact the functions that wetlands and other surface waters provide to fish and wildlife and listed species. Increasing the depth, duration, or frequency of inundation through changing the rate or method of discharge of water to wetlands or other surface waters or by impounding water in wetlands or other surface waters must also be addressed to prevent adverse effects to functions that wetlands and other surface waters provide to fish and wildlife and listed species. Different types of wetlands respond differently to increased depth, duration, or frequency of inundation. Therefore, the applicant must provide reasonable assurance that activities that have the potential to increase discharge or water levels will not adversely affect the functioning of the specific wetland or other surface water subject to the increased discharge or water level. Whenever portions of a system could have the effect of altering water levels in wetlands or other surface waters, applicants shall be required to: monitor the wetland or other surface waters to demonstrate that such alteration has not resulted in adverse impacts; or calibrate the system to prevent adverse impacts. Monitoring parameters, methods, schedules, and reporting requirements shall be specified in permit conditions. Subsection (a) applies if the Project was expected to reduce the depth, duration, or frequency of inundation or saturation in any of the Project’s wetlands. Subsection (b) applies if the Project is expected to increase the depth, duration, or frequency of inundation through changing the rate or method of discharge of water to wetlands or other surface waters. Subsection (c) requires monitoring of the wetlands to determine the effects of the hydrological changes. Persuasive engineering and biological testimony demonstrated that no change (neither a reduction nor an increase) in the hydrology on the preserved wetlands or the Eastern Preserve will occur from what was permitted in the 2004 ERP. By analyzing the various biological indicators onsite, control elevations within the SWMS and the wetlands (both the Eastern Preserve and onsite preserve wetlands) were set at 13.4 feet NGVD, which is the WSWT. This matched the control elevation under the 2004 ERP. Ms. Bain and Mr. Passarella both testified that the hydroperiods in the wetlands would remain the same as in the 2004 ERP during normal conditions, the most important indicator of wetland success, and that the wetlands would be unaffected by the modifications. The WSWT is a common indicator of average wet season water levels in a wetland, which generally is the best indicator of maintaining appropriate hydrology and thereby maintaining the expected level of wetland function. However, as indicated, the deep lakes next to preserved wetlands within the SWMS could draw down those wetlands during dry conditions; but the potential lake effect was present in the 2004 ERP. Both Dr. Van Lent and Jason Lauritsen conceded that, with the elimination of the Flow-way, the hydrology in the Eastern Preserve would be better in the 2006 ERP than in the 2004 ERP. But, as indicated, there was no detailed analysis of wetland impacts from the 2006 modifications because G.L. Homes and the District took the position that no detailed analysis was necessary since the control elevation remained unchanged. Petitioner attempts to cast doubt as to the level of data reviewed by the District to conclude that no changes will occur in the hydrology of the wetlands. But the additional modeling recommended by Petitioner is unnecessary and unwarranted in the face of the biological indicators collected from the Project site over several years. These biological indicators are reliable and customary information to use when ensuring compliance with Section 4.2.2.4. They also resulted in the same control elevation that was set in the 2004 ERP. Petitioner never disputed the credibility of the biological indicators, nor did they present any contrary evidence (either a model or otherwise) that purported to show the wetlands would not function as permitted in the 2004 ERP based on these indicators. Instead, they simply asserted that additional analysis should be done. Although not precipitated by this criterion, G.L. Homes will conduct monitoring of the wetlands by implementing the Monitoring Plan as additional reasonable assurances that the wetlands will not be affected. Secondary Impacts To Water Resources (Subsection 40E- 4.301(1)(f)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f) and Section 4.2.7 of the BOR require a demonstration that the proposed activities will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. No secondary impact analysis was done because the site plan and wetland impacts remained unchanged from the 2004 ERP. Additional Wetland Provisions (Subsection 40E-4.301(3) and 40E- 4.302 Subsection 40E-4.301(3) addresses the remaining wetland criteria in the BOR, including mitigation and elimination or reduction of impacts. Rule 40E-4.302(1)(b) addresses the cumulative impacts analysis contained in Section 4.2.8 of the BOR. No assessment of elimination and reduction of wetland impacts was done because the wetland impacts remain unchanged from the 2004 ERP. The 2006 modifications do not warrant another elimination and reduction analysis. No cumulative impacts analysis is necessary because, as in the 2004 ERP, all proposed mitigation for wetland impacts are within the same drainage basin (West Collier) as the impacts. Logically, if the mitigation proposed for the 2006 modifications fully offsets the wetland impacts, there will be no impacts to cumulate with others impacts of other development activities. On the other hand, if the mitigation does not fully offset the impacts, the application will be denied for that reason, without the need for a cumulative impacts analysis. Section 4.3 of the BOR specifies criteria for mitigation proposed as part of an ERP application. Both G.L. Homes and the District took the position that, similar to the wetland impacts, the proposal for both onsite and offsite mitigation did not change from the 2004 ERP, and that no detailed analysis of the mitigation proposal, or comparison to wetland impacts, was required. Indeed, the onsite mitigation proposal--which includes preservation, restoration of wetlands by removing melaleuca, and the creation of four shallow depressional areas for wood stork habitat--remains unchanged from the 2004 ERP, including the Grading and Planting Plan, the Monitoring Plan, and Mitigation, Monitoring and Maintenance Plan. It was proven that the Flow- way footprint never was considered to be either a wetland impact or a part of the mitigation proposal, and that its removal from the Eastern Preserve does not decrease the amount or the value of the mitigation. (Actually, its removal probably increases the value of the mitigation, but the amount of any such increase was not analyzed or quantified.) It also was proven that the onsite wetlands will not be adversely affected as a result of the 2006 modifications so as to decrease their mitigation value, as Petitioner contended. Petitioner also raised the concern that the wetland mitigation within the SWMS would not function as permitted in the 2004 ERP due to the storage of the additional 50 percent within those wetlands, thereby affecting the mitigation assessment. However, as already indicated, when the water reaches those internal wetland preserves, it will have been treated to Class III water quality standards. In addition, operationally, the water also would have been stored in those wetlands under the 2004 ERP; the only difference is that the 2006 modifications calculate and claim credit for the storage, which was not necessary or done for the 2004 ERP. In addition to the onsite mitigation, G.L. Homes previously had been permitted to provide offsite mitigation in the form of a $1.26 million cash payment to the District. The payment was for the purchase, restoration, and enhancement of 154 acres of lands within the boundaries of the District’s environmental restoration project called CREW. Payment of cash for use by the District is addressed in Section 4.3.1.8 of the BOR. These types of offsite mitigation opportunities are referred to as a regional offsite mitigation areas or “ROMAs.” Unlike most mitigation banks, ROMAs, such as CREW, involve a land acquisition component and are owned and operated by the District. G.L. Homes and the District take the position that, under Section 4.3.1.8 of the BOR, and the previous 2004 ERP, G.L. Homes’ responsibilities ended when it paid the cash donation to the District. They take the position that the mitigation is unaffected by the modification, and that re- opening of the offsite mitigation requirement is unwarranted. However, while the Staff Report characterizes the $1.26 million payment as "a substantial amount of up-front mitigation for the proposed wetland impacts," no land in CREW has been purchased as of yet. In addition, the evidence was that, as a result of the passage of time and market forces, it unlikely that 154 acres of land within CREW can be purchased, enhanced, and maintained with the funds paid to the District under the 2004 ERP. Indeed, for a number of reasons, including the lack of willing sellers to participate in the CREW ROMA, in 2004 the District stopped accepting payment of funds to purchase land in CREW as an acceptable form of mitigation for wetland impacts. As a result, it no longer can be said that the proposed mitigation package, which includes and relies on the use of the funds to purchase, enhance, and maintain 154 acres in CREW, fully offsets the proposed wetland impacts. (In addition, under Rule 40E- 4.331(2)(a), any new mitigation proposal would have to analyzed using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology, Rule 62- 345.100.) Finally, if the offsite mitigation outside the drainage basin is used, a cumulative impact analysis will be necessary. Public Interest Test (Rule 40E-4.302(1) In addition to complying with Rule 40E-4.301, since the Project is located in, on, or over wetlands, G.L. Homes must also address the criteria contained in the Public Interest Test, Rule 40E-4.302 and Section 4.2.3 of the BOR, by demonstrating that the Project is not contrary to the public interest. (Since the Project is not within an OFW or does not significantly degrade an OFW, the higher standard of “clearly in the public interest” does not apply.) The District considers and balances the following seven factors in determining compliance with the test: Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others (40E-4.302(1)(a)1.); 93. G.L. Homes provided reasonable assurances that the Project will not cause any onsite or offsite flooding, nor will the Project cause any adverse impacts to adjacent lands because the SWMS is designed in accordance with District criteria and the post-development peak rate of discharge does not exceed the allowable discharge rate. The Project is considered neutral as to this factor. However, it appears from the evidence that the 2002 ERP and the 2004 ERP viewed those proposals as positive as to this factor due to the inclusion of the Flow-way in an effort to alleviate regional flooding. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats (40E-4.302(1)(a)2.); 94. As indicated, the Project proposes onsite mitigation which has not changed from the 2004 ERP, but passage of time and market conditions have changed the offsite mitigation proposal. As a result, it no longer can be said based on the evidence in this case that the overall mitigation proposal offsets potential impacts to fish and wildlife, including wood stork habitat, even though the mitigation plan for the Eastern Preserve would improve wood stork habitat from its current melaleuca-infested condition. For these reasons, the Project cannot be considered positive as to this factor. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling (40E-4.302(1)(a)3.); 95. The Project will not adversely affect navigation. In addition, no evidence was introduced to suggest that the Project’s construction would result in harmful erosion or shoaling. The balance of the testimony pertaining to the flow of water in the Project indicated that it will not be adversely affected. Although there will be reduced discharge to the Eastern Preserve as a result of the 2006 modifications, the Project is considered neutral as to this factor. In contrast, it appears from the evidence that the 2002 ERP and the 2004 ERP would have viewed those proposals as positive as to this factor due to the inclusion of the Flow-way in an effort to alleviate regional flooding. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity (40E-4.302(1)(a)4.); 96. The Project does not provide any fishing, recreational values, or marine productivity. Therefore, the Project is neutral as to this factor. Whether the regulated activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature (40E-4.302(1)(a)5.); 97. The Project is permanent in nature and is considered neutral as to this factor because reasonable assurances have not been given that mitigation will fully offset the permanent wetland impacts. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, F.S. (40E- 4.302(1)(a)6.); 98. There are no significant archeological or historical resources that will be adversely affected by the Project. In addition, no new information was received by the District indicating that historical resources would be impacted. Therefore, the Project is considered neutral as to this factor. The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed regulated activity (40E-4.302(1)(a)7.); As found, reasonable assurance has not been given that the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by the areas affected by the Project will be fully offset by mitigation. Therefore, the Project should be considered negative as to this factor. On balance, the Project, overall, is negative when measured against these criteria. Accordingly, it must be determined that reasonable assurance has not been given that the Project, as a whole, is not contrary to the public interest.
Conclusions DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. Under Section 403.412(6), Florida Statutes: Any Florida corporation not for profit which has at least 25 current members residing within the county where the activity is proposed, and which was formed for the purpose of the protection of the environment, fish and wildlife resources, and protection of air and water quality, may initiate a hearing pursuant to s. 120.569 or s. 120.57, provided that the Florida corporation not for profit was formed at least 1 year prior to the date of the filing of the application for a permit, license, or authorization that is the subject of the notice of proposed agency action. It is concluded that use of virtually the identical statutory language is not mandatory for standing under this statute and that the Conservancy meets the requirements for standing under this statute. Party status under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, also can be based on proof that "substantial interests will be affected by proposed agency action." § 120.52(12)(b), Fla. Stat. This requires proof of "an injury in fact which is of sufficient immediacy and is of the type and nature intended to be protected" by the substantive law. § 403.412(5), Fla. Stat. See also Agrico Chemical Co. v. Dept. of Environmental Reg., 406 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). An organization like the Conservancy may allege and prove either that its own substantial interests or those of a substantial number of its members will be affected. See Florida Home Builders Ass'n v. Dept. of Labor and Employment Security, 412 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1982); Farmworker Rights Organization, Inc. v. Dept. of Health, etc., 417 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). In addition, Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes, provides: No demonstration of special injury different in kind from the general public at large is required. A sufficient demonstration of a substantial interest may be made by a petitioner who establishes that the proposed activity, conduct, or product to be licensed or permitted affects the petitioner's use or enjoyment of air, water, or natural resources protected by this chapter. The Conservancy made a sufficient demonstration under this statute that the proposed 2006 ERP will affect its use or enjoyment of water and natural resources protected by Chapter 403. As a result, the Conservancy also proved standing under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. Because the Conservancy has "citizen standing" under Section 403.412(6), Florida Statutes, as well as standing under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, it is not necessary to decide G.L. Homes' challenge to the Conservancy's "associational standing." It also is unnecessary and premature to determine whether any party would be entitled under Section 120.68(1), Florida Statutes, to judicial review of the final order entered in this case as "a party who is adversely affected." It is believed that such a determination, if it becomes necessary, can be made upon the evidence in the record. BURDENS OF PROOF AND PERSUASION This is a de novo proceeding designed to formulate final agency action. See Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So. 2d 778, 786-787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); and § 120.57(1)(k), Fla. Stat. As an ERP applicant, G.L. Homes has the ultimate burden of proof and burden of persuasion. See J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So. 2d at 786-789. In light of the evidence presented in this case, the option suggested in the J.W.C. case to shift the burden of presenting evidence was not useful. ERP CRITERIA The permitting criteria for G.L. Homes' proposed Project are found in Parts I and IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-345, Florida Administrative Code Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302, and the BOR, which is adopted by reference in Rule 40E-4.091(1)(a). For its proposed Project to be permitted, G.L. Homes must give reasonable assurance of compliance with those criteria. Issuance of an ERP must be based solely on compliance with applicable permit criteria. See Council of the Lower Keys v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 429 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Reasonable assurance contemplates a substantial likelihood that the project will be successfully implemented. See Metropolitan Dade County v. Coscan Florida Inc., 609 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Absolute guarantees are not necessary, and a permit applicant is not required to eliminate all contrary possibilities or address impacts that are only theoretical and cannot be measured in real life. See City of Sunrise v. Indian Trace Community Development District, et al., DOAH Case No. 91- 6036, 1991 Fla. ENV LEXIS 6997, 92 ER FALR 21 (DOAH 1991, SFWMD 1992); Manasota-88, Inc. v. Agrico Chemical Co. and Department of Environmental Regulation, DOAH Case No. 87-2433, 1990 Fla. ENV LEXIS 38 (DOAH Jan. 5, 1990; DER Feb. 19, 1990). The test in this case is not whether the District properly evaluated the 2004 ERP, but whether the areas proposed to be modified or affected by the modification met the applicable conditions for issuance. When a permittee seeks to modify an existing permit, the District’s review includes only that portion of the existing permit that is proposed to be modified or is affected by the modification. Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.331(2). See also Friends of the Everglades, Inc., v. Dep't. of Envt'l. Reg., 496 So. 2d 181, 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Behrens v. Boran, ORDER NO. SWF 02-052, ER FALR 257 (SWFWMD Aug. 27, 2002), DOAH Case No. 02-0282, 2002 Fla. ENV LEXIS 192 (DOAH July 29, 2002); Kunnen v. Southwest Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., ORDER NO.: SWF 02-003, DOAH Case No. 01-2571, 2002 Fla. ENV LEXIS 4 (DOAH Dec. 17, 2001; SWFWMD Jan. 29, 2002). The "reasonable assurance" requirement applies to the activities for which permitting is presently sought and, except to the extent affected by the proposed modification, does not burden the applicant with "providing 'reasonable assurances' anew with respect to the original permit." Friends of the Everglades, supra at 183. Accordingly, Petitioner’s arguments that certain criteria must be revisited because they were not properly addressed in previous permits is irrelevant to this proceeding; but previously-decided criteria must be reviewed again to the extent that proposed modifications affect those criteria. CONSIDERATION OF THE ERP CRITERIA In order to provide reasonable assurances that a Project will not be harmful to the water resources of the District, the applicant must satisfy the conditions for issuance set forth in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. In this case, the evidence must be viewed under the rule pertaining to modification of permits. Rule 40E-4.331(2)(a) requires the District to review permit modification applications “using the same criteria as new applications for those portions of the project proposed for, or affected by, the modification.” Surface Water Management Criteria Water Quantity and Flooding Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a) and (b) address adverse water quantity to receiving water bodies and flooding either onsite and offsite. As found, G.L. Homes complied with the applicable criteria to satisfy both of these rules. Storage and Conveyance Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c) requires G.L. Homes to provide reasonable assurances that the Project will not adversely impact storage and conveyance capabilities. As found, the submittal of the Taylor Report provides reasonable assurances that the Project will not adversely affect the conveyance of water. Moreover, although some criticism was aimed at the choice of the friction coefficients used in the Taylor Report, the evidence as a whole proves that the coefficients in the Taylor Report are reasonable and scientifically defensible. Water Quality Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) requires G.L. Homes to provide reasonable assurances that the Project will not result in adverse water quality impacts. As found, coupled with the clarifications/additions to the USMP suggested by Dr. Harper and accepted by G.L. Homes, the numerous water quality submittals demonstrated compliance with this Rule, including assurances regarding the impairment status of the Cocohatchee Canal. While Petitioner leveled numerous criticisms against the Project’s ability to comply with water quality, none of the criticisms rose to the level of “contrary evidence of equivalent quality.” Taken as whole, and balanced against Petitioner’s lack of equivalent evidence and credible witnesses, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that, with the Monitoring Plan additions/clarifications, G.L. Homes meets the District’s water quality criteria. Engineering Principles As required by Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i), G.L. Homes has provided reasonable assurances to demonstrate that the SWMS will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and functioning as proposed. Wetlands Criteria Elimination and Reduction, Secondary and Cumulative Impacts 115. Rules 40E-4.301(1)(f) and (2) and 40E-4.302(1)(b) require G.L. Homes to demonstrate compliance with the following District criteria pertaining to wetland impacts: (1) elimination and reduction; (2) secondary impacts; and (3) cumulative impacts. As found, the 2006 ERP proposes no changes or modifications to the wetlands impacts approved in the 2004 ERP. Therefore, Petitioner’s arguments that these assessments were either not done or done improperly in the previous permit are not valid bases to relitigate those issues. Accordingly, elimination and reduction, secondary impacts, and cumulative impacts addressed in the 2004 ERP are not properly litigated in this modification proceeding, except to the extent that they are affected by the proposed modifications. While the proposed modifications do not affect either elimination and reduction or secondary impacts, they could affect cumulative impacts, depending on whether offset mitigation needed to fully offset wetland impacts is accomplished in the West Collier drainage basin. Wetland Values and Functions to Fish and Wildlife Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d) requires G.L. Homes to provide reasonable assurances that the Project will not adversely impact the value and functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands. Rule 40E-4.301(3) requires an applicant to comply with the District’s mitigation provisions in the BOR. As found, Petitioner’s contention that the revised SWMS affected the values and functions provided to fish and wildlife, particularly the wood stork, was not supported by the weight of the evidence as to onsite mitigation. However, the passage of time and market conditions affected the offsite mitigation proposed and presumably evaluated for the 2004 ERP, and the impacts and mitigation were not re-evaluated for the 2006 ERP. Under Rule 40E-4.331(2), they must be re-evaluated using UMAM, as required by Rule 62-345.100. Public Interest Test The public interest test is limited in scope to only the seven factors set forth in Rule 40E-4.302(2). As found above, after a balancing of the factors, reasonable assurance was not provided that the Project is not contrary to the Public Interest.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the proposed 2006 ERP be denied. If it is granted, it should include the additions/clarifications to the USMP suggested by Dr. Harper and accepted by G.L. Homes. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 2007.
The Issue The issues are whether to (a) issue an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) to the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Martin County (County) authorizing construction and operation of a surface water management system to serve a project known as the Indian Street Bridge; (b) issue DOT a letter of modification of ERP No. 43-00785-S authorizing roadway and drainage modifications to the Kanner Highway/Indian Street intersection; and (c) issue DOT a letter of modification of ERP No. 43-01229-P authorizing roadway and drainage modifications to Indian Street between the intersections of Kanner Highway and Willoughby Boulevard.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties Petitioner Citizens for Smart Growth, Inc., is a Florida 501(c)(3) corporation with its principal place of business in Palm City, Florida. It was formed by Odias Smith in August 2001, who serves as its president. The original directors were Kathie Smith, Odias Smith, and Craig Smith, who is the Smiths' son. The composition of the Board has never changed. According to the original Articles of Incorporation, its objectives are "preserving and enhancing the present advantages of living in Martin County (Quality of Life) for the common good, through public education, and the encouragement of reasonable and considered decision making by full disclosure of impacts and alternatives for the most appropriate use of land, water and resources." The exact number of members fluctuates from time to time. There are no dues paid by any member. At his deposition, Mr. Smith stated that no membership list exists; however, Kathie Smith stated that she currently has a list of 125 names, consisting of persons who at one time or another have made a contribution, have attended a meeting, or asked to be "kept informed of what's going on or asked to be on a mailing list or a telephone list, so they could be advised when we have meetings." No meetings have been held since 2006. Therefore, the Petitions filed in these cases have never been discussed at any meetings of the members, although Ms. Smith indicated that telephone discussions periodically occur with various individuals. Kathie Smith believes that roughly 25 percent of the members reside in a mobile home park north of the project site on Kanner Highway on the eastern side of the St. Lucie River, she does not know how many members reside on the western side of the St. Lucie River, and she is unaware of any member who resides on the South Fork of the St. Lucie River immediately adjacent to the project. Although the three Petitions allege that "seventy percent of the members . . . reside and/or recreate on the St. Lucie River," and in greater detail they allege how those members use that water body or depend on it for their livelihood, no evidence was submitted to support these allegations that 70 percent (or any other percentage of members) use or depend on the South Fork of the St. Lucie River for recreational or other activities. Petitioners Odias Smith and Cathie Smith reside in Palm City, an unincorporated community just south of Stuart in Martin County. They have opposed the construction of the new bridge since they moved to Palm City in 2001. It is fair to infer that Mr. Smith formed the corporation primarily for the purpose of opposing the bridge. Their home faces north, overlooking the South Fork of the St. Lucie River, from which it is separated by Saint Lucie Shores Drive and a narrow strip of common-ownership property. A boat dock extends from the common-ownership property into the St. Lucie River, providing 5 slips for use by the Smiths and other co-owners. The home is located three blocks or approximately 1,000 feet from the proposed western landfall of the new bridge. Due to the direction that the house faces (north) and the site of the new bridge, the surface water management system elements associated with the bridge will not be visible from their property. Mr. Smith believes, however, that when looking south through a veranda window on the second floor of his home, he will be able to see at least a part of the new bridge. From the front of their house, they now have an unobstructed view of the existing Palm City Bridge, a large structure that crosses the St. Lucie River approximately six- tenths of a mile north of their home, and which is similar in size to the new bridge now being proposed by the Applicants. The Smiths' home is more than 500 feet from the Project's right- of-way, and they do not know of any impact on its value caused by the Project. While the Smiths currently engage in walking, boating, running, fishing, and watching wildlife in the neighborhood or the South Fork of the St. Lucie River, there was no credible evidence that the Project would prevent them from doing so after the bridge and other improvements are constructed. Also, there was no evidence showing that the ERP Letter Modifications will cause them to suffer any adverse impacts. In fact, as noted below, by DOT undertaking the Project, the neighborhood will be improved through reduced flooding, improved water quality, and new swales and ponds. The County is a political subdivision of the State. It filed one of the applications at issue in this proceeding. DOT is an agency of the State and filed the three applications being contested. The District has the power and duty to exercise regulatory jurisdiction over the administration and enforcement of ERP criteria pursuant to Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E of the Florida Administrative Code. The Department of Environment Protection (DEP) has delegated certain authority to the District, including the authority to authorize an applicant to use sovereign submerged lands via a public easement within the District's geographic jurisdiction. The Project Construction of a new bridge over the St. Lucie River has been studied extensively by the Applicants for over twenty years. DOT has awarded the contract and nearly all of the right-of-way has been purchased. The Project will begin as soon as the remaining permits are acquired. The Project is fully funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and County funding. The Project is located in the County and includes 62.06 acres of roadway bridge development and 12.45 acres of sovereign submerged lands. The Project begins on the west side of the St. Lucie River on County Road 714, approximately 1,300 feet west of Mapp Road in Palm City and ends on the east side of the St. Lucie River approximately 1,400 feet east of Kanner Highway (State Road 76) on Indian Street. It includes construction and operation of a surface water management system to serve the road and bridge project. The total length of the Project is approximately 1.96 miles (1.38 miles of roadway and 0.58 miles of bridge) while the total area is approximately 74.51 acres. After treatment, surface water runoff will discharge to the tidal South Fork of the St. Lucie River. The Project encompasses a bridge crossing the South Fork of the St. Lucie River and the Okeechobee Waterway. Both are classified as Class III waters. The bridge transitions from 4 to 6 lanes east of the Okeechobee Waterway and will require a 55-foot vertical clearance and a 200-foot horizontal clearance between the fender systems at the Okeechobee Waterway. The bridge will cross over a portion of Kiplinger Island owned and preserved by the County. A part of the island was donated to the County in 1993-1994 by The Kiplinger Washington Editors, Inc., and the Kiplinger Foundation, Inc. Audubon of Martin County owns another part of the island. The transfer of title to the County does not include any restriction on the use of the island for conservation purposes only. Documentation submitted at hearing refers to a "two hundred foot wide road right-of-way" easement that the bridge will cross and allows the County to designate where on the island parcel such an easement would be. Therefore, spanning the bridge over a portion of the island owned by the County is clearly permissible. The Project also includes the roadway transition and widening/reconstruction of (a) County Road 714 from the beginning of the Project to Mapp Road from 2-lane to a 4-lane divided roadway; (b) Southwest 36th Street from Mapp Road to the beginning of the bridge from a 2-lane rural roadway to a 4-lane divided roadway with wide roadway swales; and (c) Kanner Highway (along Indian Street) from a 4-lane to a 6-lane divided urban roadway. Drainage improvements on both sides of the St. Lucie River are associated with the roadway construction. DOT proposes to provide both on-site and off-site mitigation for wetland and surface waters impacts pursuant to a mitigation plan approved by the District. The ERP Permitting Criteria In order to obtain an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions for issuance set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. Besides these rules, certain related BOR provisions which implement the rules must also be considered. The conditions for issuance primarily focus on water quality, water quantity, and environmental criteria and form the basis of the District's ERP permitting program. The parties have stipulated that the Project either complies with the following rule provisions or they are not applicable: Rules 40E-4.301(1)(a), (b), (g), (g), (h), and (k), and 40E- 4.302(1)(a)3. and 6. All other provisions remain at issue. Where conflicting evidence on these issues was submitted, the undersigned has resolved all evidentiary conflicts in favor of the Applicants and District. Based on the parties' Stipulation, the following provisions in Rule 40E-4.301(1) are in dispute and require an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, or abandonment of a surface water management system: will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters; will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the water quality standards set forth in chapters 62- 4, 62-302, 62-520, 62-522, 62-550, F.A.C., including any anti-degradation provisions of paragraphs 62-4.242(1)(a) and (b), subsections 62-4.242(2) and (3), and rule 62-302.300, F.A.C., and any special standards for Outstanding Florida Waters and Outstanding National Resource Waters set forth in subsections 62-4.242(2) and (3), F.A.C., will be violated; will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources; will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed; will be conducted by an entity with sufficient financial, legal and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, if issued; These disputed criteria are discussed separately below. Surface Water Storage and Conveyance Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c) requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that a proposed activity will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Through unrefuted evidence, this requirement was shown to be satisfied. The evidence also establishes that the surface water in and around the Project will actually improve if the Project is constructed as permitted. Further, it will create improved and upgraded surface water management and treatment in areas that now lack features such as swales, retention/detention ponds, curbs and gutters, and improve the overall surface water storage and conveyance capabilities of the Project and surrounding areas. In its current pre-development condition, flooding has occurred in certain areas adjacent to and within the Project area due to poor conveyance, low storage volume, and high tailwater conditions that result from high tides. The Project will remedy historic flooding issues in the Old Palm City area which lies adjacent to a portion of the Project alignment. Surface water runoff will be captured, controlled, and treated by a system of swales, weirs, and retention/detention facilities for pretreatment prior to discharging into the South Fork of the St. Lucie River. Reasonable assurances have been given that existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities will not be adversely affected. Value of Functions to Fish, Wildlife, and Species Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d) requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that a proposed activity will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. BOR Section 4.2.2 further implements this provision. For the following reasons, the rule and BOR have been satisfied. The evidence shows that the existing functions to fish and wildlife were assessed and analyzed by a number of federal and state fish and wildlife agencies. There were extensive review and site inspections by the District, DOT, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Army Corps of Engineers, and National Marine Fisheries Commission to assess the existence of, and potential impact on, fish and wildlife that may result from the Project. These studies revealed that while portions of the South Fork of the St. Lucie River provide potential habitat for aquatic or wetland-dependent or threatened species of special concern, no nesting or roosting areas within the vicinity of the Project were observed. The evidence further supports a finding that "other surface waters" over and under the Project will not receive unacceptable impacts due to their current condition, the detrimental influences of Lake Okeechobee discharges, and tidal impacts. Many of the wetlands to be impacted by the Project were shown to have been impacted by historic activities, and they provide diminished functions to fish and wildlife. The wetland functions were assessed through the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM). The UMAM is a standardized procedure for assessing the functions provided by wetlands and other surface waters, the amount that those functions would be reduced by a proposed project, and the amount of mitigation necessary to offset that loss. Detailed UMAM assessments were prepared by the Applicants and the District. They demonstrate that while certain functional units will be lost, they will be fully offset by the proposed mitigation. No credible evidence to the contrary was presented. Water Quality of Receiving Waters Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that a project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that State water quality standards will be violated. BOR Section 4.2.4 implements this rule and requires that "reasonable assurances regarding water quality must be provided for both the short term and long term, addressing the proposed construction, . . . [and] operation of the system." The receiving water body is the South Fork of the St. Lucie River, which is designated as an impaired water body. The evidence establishes that the Applicants will avoid and minimize potential short-term impacts to water quality by using silt screens and turbidity barriers, and implementing other best management practices to contain turbidity during construction of the Project. They will also use a temporary trestle rather than barges in the shallow portions of the South Fork to avoid stirring up bottom sediments. Finally, a turbidity monitoring plan will be implemented during construction and dewatering activities for all in-water work. All of these construction techniques will minimize potential impacts during construction. The evidence further establishes that water quality standards will not be violated as a result of the Project. In fact, in some cases water quality will be enhanced due to the installation and maintenance of new or upgraded surface water management features in areas where they do not exist or have fallen into disrepair. Over the long term, the Project is expected to have a beneficial effect on water quality. By improving existing surface water management and adding new surface water treatment features, the Project will provide net improvement to water quality. Wetland Delineation and Impacts The Project includes unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. A total of 18.53 acres of wetlands and other surface waters within the Project site will be impacted by the Project, including 3.83 acres of wetlands that will be directly impacted and 14.7 acres of wetlands and other surface waters that will be secondarily impacted. The delineated wetlands are depicted in the Staff Report as wetlands 2a, 19a, 19b, 22, 25-29, 30a, 30b, and 30c, with each having a detailed UMAM assessment of its values and condition. (Impacts to wetland 25 are not included in this Project because they were accounted for in a separate permit proceeding.) Using a conservative assessment and set of assumptions, the District determined that, with the exception of wetlands 19a, 19b, 22, and 27, all wetlands would be impacted by the Project. However, the wetlands that would be impacted suffer from varying historical adverse impacts that have compromised the functions and values they provide to fish, wildlife, and species. This is due to their proximity to urban development, vegetative connectivity, size, historic impacts, altered hydroperiod, and invasive plant species. Likewise, even though the wetlands to be impacted on Kiplinger Island provide certain resting and feeding functions for birds, the value of these functions is comparatively lower than other wetlands due to the presence of invasive species and lack of management. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the Project will not cause adverse impacts to fish, wildlife, or listed species. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.301(1)(d). Secondary Impacts Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f) and BOR Sections 4.1.1(f) and 4.2.7. require a demonstration that the proposed activities will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, both from a wetlands and water quality standpoint. Secondary impacts are those that occur outside the footprint of the project, but which are very closely linked and causally related to the activity to be permitted. De minimis or remotely-related secondary impacts, however, are not considered unacceptable. See § 4.2.7.(a). There will be secondary impacts to 6.83 acres of freshwater wetlands and 7.87 acres of mangroves, or a total of 14.7 acres. To address these secondary impacts, the Applicants have established extensive secondary impact zones and buffers along the Project alignment, which were based in part on District experience with other road projects and another nearby proposed bridge project in an area where a State Preserve is located. While Petitioners' expert contended that a 250-foot buffer on both sides of the roadway's 200-foot right-of-way was insufficient to address secondary impacts to birds (who the expert opines may fly into the bridge or moving vehicles), the greater weight of evidence shows that bird mortality can be avoided and mitigated through various measures incorporated into the Project. Further, the bird mortality studies used by the expert involved significantly different projects and designs, and in some cases involved projects outside the United States with different species concerned. Engineering and Scientific Principles Rule 40E-301(1)(i) requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that a project "be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed." Unrefuted evidence establishes that the proposed system will function and be maintained as proposed. Financial, Legal and Administrative Capability Rule 40E-4.301(1)(j) requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that it has the financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the permit. The evidence supports a finding that Applicants have complied with this requirement. Elimination and Reduction of Impacts Before establishing a mitigation plan, Rule 40E- 4.301(3) requires that an applicant implement practicable design modifications to eliminate and reduce wetland and other surface water impacts. In this case, there are unavoidable, temporary wetland impacts associated with the construction of the Project, as well as unavoidable wetland impacts for direct (project footprint), secondary, and cumulative impacts of the Project. The record shows that the Applicants have undertaken extensive efforts to eliminate and reduce wetland and other surface water impacts of the Project. For example, DOT examined and assessed several innovative construction techniques and bridge designs to eliminate and avoid wetland impacts. To eliminate and reduce temporary impacts occurring during construction, DOT has reduced the effect of scour on the pier foundation and reduced the depth of the footing to minimize the amount of excavation on the mangrove island. Also, during construction, the contractor is prohibited from using the 200- foot right-of-way on the mangrove island for staging or stockpiling of construction materials or equipment. The majority of the bridge width has been reduced to eliminate and avoid impacts. Also, the Project's alignment was adjusted to the north to avoid impacts to a tidal creek. Reasonable assurances have been given that all practicable design and project alternatives to the construction and placement of the Project were assessed with no practicable alternatives. Public Interest Test Besides complying with the requirements of Rule 40E- 4.301, an applicant must also address the seven factors in Rule 40E-4.302(1)(a)1.-7., which comprise the so-called "public interest" test. See also § 373.414(1)(a), Fla. Stat. In interpreting the seven factors, the District balances the potential positive and negative effects of a project to determine if it meets the public interest criteria. Because Petitioners agree that factors 3 and 6 of the rule are not at issue, only the remaining five factors will be considered. For the following reasons, the Project is positive when the criteria are weighed and balanced, and therefore the Project is not contrary to the public interest. Public Health, Safety, and Welfare The Applicants have provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not affect public health, safety, and welfare. Specifically, it will benefit the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens by improving traffic conditions and congestion, emergency and hurricane evacuation, and access to medical facilities. In terms of safety, navigation markers are included as part of the Project for safe boating by the public. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)1. Conservation of Fish and Wildlife The activity will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. The mitigation projects will offset any impacts to fish and wildlife, improve the abundance and diversity of fish and wildlife on Kiplinger Island, create mangrove habitat, and add to the marine productivity in the area by enhancing water quality. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-302(1)(a)2. Fishing or Recreational Values The Project has features that allow for pedestrian and bicycle utilization and observation areas which should enhance recreational values. The Old Palm Bridge, approximately one mile north of the Project, has had no adverse impact on the fishing recreation along the South Fork of the St. Lucie River. Navigation will not be affected due to the height and design of the new bridge. Finally, the bridge is expected to be a destination for boating, kayaking, fishing, and bird watching. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)4. Whether the Activity is of a Permanent Nature The parties have stipulated that the Project is permanent in nature. No future activities or future phases of the project are contemplated. Temporary and permanent impacts are all being fully mitigated. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E- 4.302(1)(a)5. Values of Functions Being Performed in Affected Areas Due to historic impacts to the areas affected by the Project, the current condition is degraded and the relative value of functions is minimal. Although Kiplinger Island will have temporary impacts, that island is subject to exotic species and has no recreational use or access by boaters or members of the public. The Applicants propose mitigation which will improve and enhance these wetland functions and values in the areas. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)7. Summary The evidence supports a finding that the Project is positive as to whether it will affect the public health, safety, welfare, or property of others; that the Project is neutral with respect to navigation, erosion and shoaling, and water flow, as well as to historical and archaeological concerns; and that the Project is positive as to conservation of fish, wildlife, recreational values, marine productivity, permanency, and current values and functions. When weighed and balanced, the Project is not contrary to the public interest. Cumulative Impacts Rule 40E-4.302(1)(b) requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that a project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters as set forth in BOR Sections 4.28 through 4.2.8.2. Cumulative impacts are the summation of unmitigated wetland impacts within a drainage basin. An analysis is geographically based upon the drainage basins described in BOR Figure 4.4.1. Petitioners' contention that Figure 4.4.1 is inaccurate or not representative of the basin in which the Project is located has been rejected. In this case, the North St. Lucie Basin was used. To assess and quantify any potential unacceptable cumulative impacts in the basin, and supplement the analyses performed by the Applicants, the District prepared a Basin Map that depicted all the existing and permitted wetland impacts as well as those wetlands under some form of public ownership and/or subject to conservation restrictions or easements. The District's analysis found that the wetlands to be mitigated were of poor quality and provided minimal wildlife and water quality functions. Cumulative impacts from the Project to wetlands within the basin resulted in approximately a four percent loss basin-wide. This is an acceptable adverse cumulative impact. Therefore, the Project will not result in unacceptable cumulative impacts. Mitigation Adverse impacts to wetlands caused by a proposed activity must be offset by mitigation measures. See § 4.3. These may include on-site mitigation, off-site mitigation, off- site regional mitigation, or the purchase of mitigation credits from mitigation banks. The proposed mitigation must offset direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts to the values and functions of the wetlands impacted by the proposed activity. The ability to provide on-site mitigation for a DOT linear transportation project such as a bridge is limited and in this case consists of the creation of mangrove and other wetlands between the realigned St. Lucie Shores Boulevard and the west shore of the St. Lucie River, north and south of the proposed bridge crossing. BOR Section 4.3.1.2 specifically recognizes this limitation and allows off-site mitigation for linear projects that cannot effectively implement on-site mitigation requirements due to right-of-way constraints. Off-site mitigation will offset the majority of the wetland impacts. Because no single on-site or off-site location within the basin was available to provide mitigation necessary to offset all of the Project's impacts, DOT proposed off-site mitigation at two established and functioning mitigation areas known as Dupuis State Reserve (Dupuis), which is managed by the County and for which DOT has available mitigation credits, and the County's Estuarine Mitigation Site, a/k/a Florida Oceanographic Society (FOS) located on Hutchinson Island. Dupuis is outside the North St. Lucie Basin and was selected to offset direct and secondary impacts to freshwater wetlands. That site meets the ERP criteria in using it for this project. The FOS is within the North St. Lucie Basin and was selected to offset direct and secondary impacts to estuarine wetlands. Like Dupuis, this site also meets the ERP criteria for the project. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the on-site and off-site mitigation projects fully offset any and all project impacts, and in most instances before the impacts will actually occur. Sovereign Submerged Lands and Heightened Public Concern Chapter 18-21 applies to requests for authorization to use sovereign submerged lands. The management policies, standards, and criteria used to determine whether to approve or deny a request are found in Rule 18-21.004. For purposes of granting a public easement to the Applicants, the District determined that the Project is not contrary to the public interest and that all requirements of the rule were satisfied. This determination was not disputed. The only issue raised by Petitioners concerning the use of submerged lands is whether the application should have been treated as one of "heightened public concern." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.0051(5). If a project falls within the purview of that rule, the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board), rather than the District, must review and approve the application to use submerged lands. Review by the Board is appropriate whenever a proposed activity is reasonably expected to result in a heightened public concern because of its potential effect on the environment, natural resources, or controversial nature or location. Id. In accordance with established protocol, the ERP application was sent by the District to DEP's review panel in Tallahassee (acting as the Board's staff) to determine whether the Project required review by the Board. The panel concluded that the Project did not rise to the level of heightened public concern. Evidence by Petitioners that "many people" attended meetings and workshops concerning the Project over the last 20 years or so is insufficient to trigger the rule. Significantly, except for general project objections lodged by Petitioners and Audubon of Martin County, which did not include an objection to an easement, no adjacent property owner or other member of the public voiced objections to the construction of a new bridge. Revised Staff Report On October 20, 2010, the District issued a Revised Staff Report that merely corrected administrative errors or information that had been previously submitted to the District. Contrary to Petitioners' assertion, it did not constitute a material change to the earlier agency action either individually or cumulatively. Therefore, it was properly considered in this proceeding. Letter Modifications The Letter Modifications were used as a mechanism to capture minor alterations made to previously issued permits for Kanner Highway and Indian Street. Neither Letter Modification is significant in terms of water quality, water quantity, or environmental impacts. Both were issued in accordance with District rules and should be approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order granting Application Nos. 091021-8, 100316-7, and 100316-6. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol Ann Wehle, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007 Jeffrey W. Appel, Esquire Ray Quinney and Nebeker, P.C. 36 South State Street, Suite 1400 Salt Lake City, Florida 84111-1401 Bruce R. Conroy, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 David A. Acton, Esquire Senior Assistant County Attorney Martin County Administrative Center 2401 Southeast Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34996-3397 John J. Fumero, Esquire Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, P.A. 950 Peninsula Corporate Circle Suite 2020 Boca Raton, Florida 33487-1389 Keith L. Williams, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road Mail Stop 1410 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007
Findings Of Fact 1. Ivan J. Russell owns land on the northern shore of Clear Lake which lies between the St. Johns River and Crescent Lake in southern Putnam County. The Petitioner is the owner's son-in-law. The owner authorized the Petitioner to excavate two "ponds" on the marshy part of the property nearest to Clear Lake. The Petitioner testified that he had in mind raising an okra crop on the area, and wished to fill part of the area so that his tractor would not bog down, and to use the resulting ponds as an irrigation source. The Petitioner also indicated that he desired to provided better access to Clear Lake. Despite his original intention to farm the area, he testified that he and the owner would be willing to dedicate the land to non-agricultural use in order to obtain a permit for the excavations. The excavations are each 30 feet wide by 150 feet long, and are three to four feet deep. Spoil material from the excavations was placed on the property adjacent to them. The excavations are clearly depicted in aerial photographs which were received in evidence as Department Exhibits 7- They are actually dead end canals which extend from Clear Lake to the upland portions of the property through what had been a marshy littoral zone. At the time that the excavations were undertaken the waters of Clear Lake were apparently quite low, and the excavations were not physically connected with the lake. At the time of the hearing, however, the waters of the lake were considerably higher and water flowed unimpeded from the lake into the excavations. The excavations are now separated from the lake only by a narrow fringe of vegetation. Clear Lake is located in an area which is described in geologic terms as a "sandhill area." The lake is classified as a sandhill lake. Such areas are typified by sandy, highly leached soils of coastal origin. Sinkholes are common. When a sinkhole develops, ground water seeps into it, forming a lake such as Clear Lake. Precipitation levels regulate the water levels of the lake, however, the water level will respond only gradually to high or low precipitation periods. In other words, the lake will gradually decrease in depth during drought periods, and will rise gradually in response to heavy rainfall periods. Where the shoreline of a sandhill lake slopes gradually, broad marsh areas are typical. The Petitioner's project was undertaken in such a marsh. The excavations were made in an area which is dominated by both transitional and submerged vegetation. This indicates that during periods when the water level is high the area is submerged, and during periods when the water level is low it is a transitional zone. At no time could the marsh be considered an upland area. At the time of the hearing the marsh was in fact a part of Clear Lake. A broad marshy area surrounding a sandhill lake performs a significant function to maintain the water quality of the lake, and to provide a food supply and habitat for fish and wildlife. The marsh vegetation serves to filter excess nutrients from the waters of the lake, and to filter excess nutrients from runoff that enters the lake. The marsh also constitutes and essential part of the food chain for fish resources of the lake, and during the early stages of development, fish will use the marsh area as a habitat. The Petitioner's excavations effectively obliterate a significant portion of the marsh on the northern side of Clear Lake. The marsh has been replaced with two dead end canals which are adjoined by sandy, dry areas. The project will have an adverse impact upon water quality in the lake. The filtering function, which vegetation in such a zone performs, has been eliminated. The project will also have an adverse impact upon fish resources in the lake, because a significant habitat has been lost. There has been considerable development around the shore of Clear Lake. Most of the development has occurred on the southern portion of the lake where the shoreline is more steep, and where the marshy littoral zone is narrow. The fact that the littoral zone surrounding the lake is not uniformly broad renders the broad areas that do exist especially significant. The existence of development around the lake augments the significance. The adverse impacts of the Petitioner's project may not be readily apparent. If it and other such projects were permitted, however, the water quality of Clear Lake will inevitably deteriorate. The Petitioner did not consult engineering or environmental consultants before undertaking the project. Neither did he seek nor obtain any permit from the Department or from any other governmental entity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying the Petitioner's application for an after-the-fact permit, and requiring the Petitioner to restore the area to its original condition, taking care that such restoration be accomplished in such a manner to cause as little disruption to the waters of Clear Lake as possible. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March 1979 in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Terry Cole, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John M. Ruzicka Post Office Box 342 DeLeon Springs, Florida 32028 Mr. Jacob D. Varn, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION JOHN M. RUZICKA, Petitioner, CASE NO. 78-1358 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Introduction Respondent, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD or District), is a creature of the legislature having been created under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (1985). It has jurisdiction over and administers all "waters in the District", including the regulation of the management and storage of surface waters. According to the map depicted in Rule 40E-1.103, Florida Administrative Code, the SFWMD's jurisdiction appears to extend over all of Monroe, Dade, Broward, Collier, Palm Beach, Martin, Lee, Hendry and Glades Counties and portions of St. Lucie, Okeechobee, Osceola, Charlotte and Orange Counties, Florida. A precise legal description of its boundaries is found in Subsection 373.069(2)(e), Florida Statutes (1985). Under the District's surface water management permitting authority, a permit is required for the construction of any works that impound, impede, obstruct or otherwise impact the flow of water, irrespective of whether the property contains a wetland of any nature. To implement the above jurisdiction, the District has adopted by reference in Rule 40E-4.091(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, a technical manual entitled "Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Application within the South Florida Water Management District" (Basis for Review). The manual was first adopted in 1977 and has been readopted with various modifications since that time. The most recent version became effective in July 1986. The manual contains criteria to be used by the District when reviewing permit applications for the construction and operation of surface water management systems within its jurisdictional boundaries. These criteria specify the manner in which an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that a project meets SFWMD objectives, and include both water quantity and quality considerations as well as environmental standards designed to protect fish and wildlife. One feature of the Basis of Review is a provision allowing an applicant to submit and implement innovative project designs as long as they meet District objectives. Many of the principles embodied in the Basis of Review have been carried forward into the challenged rules. An applicant may apply for a conceptual approval or a construction and operation (C&O) permit. The conceptual approval is a permit for a master plan when the applicant is not ready to submit all detailed drawings necessary to obtain a C&O permit. It is especially appropriate for large projects developed in phases. A conceptual approval does not authorize construction of a surface water management system, but rather authorizes a master plan with which subsequent construction and operation must be consistent. Once a conceptual permit has been issued, the individual C&O permits are then applied for and issued consistent with the terms of the conceptual permit. In 1986 the Legislature enacted Section 373.414, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986). That section requires the District, not later than March 31, 1987, to "adopt a rule which establishes specific permitting criteria for certain small isolated wetlands which are not within the jurisdiction of the department (of environmental regulation) for purposes of regulation of dredging and filling." The statute goes on to require that the rule include the following: One or more size thresholds of isolated wetlands below which impacts on fish and wildlife and their habitats will not be considered. These thresholds shall be based on biological and hydrological evidence that shows the fish and wildlife values of such areas to be minimal; Criteria for review of fish and wildlife and their habitats for isolated wetlands larger than the minimum size; Criteria for the protection of threatened and endangered species in isolated wetlands regardless of size and land use; and Provisions for consideration of the cumulative and offsite impacts of a project or projects. The statute further provides that until the District adopts specific isolated wetland rules, its review of fish and wildlife impacts in small isolated wetlands is limited to: Wetlands that are 5 acres in size or larger; or Wetlands that are used by a federal or state designated threatened or endangered species; or Wetlands located within an area of critical state concern designated pursuant to chapter 380; or Wetlands that are less than 5 acres in size having a cumulative total acreage greater than 30 percent of the total acreage proposed for development, within a development project greater than 40 acres in size. In response to the foregoing legislation, and after a series of meetings and workshops, on November 7, 1986 the District proposed to amend existing Rules 40E-4.091 and 40E- 4.301, Florida Administrative Code. The text of the amended portion of Rule 40E-4.301 reads as follows: 40E-4.301 Conditions for Issuance of Permits. (1)(m) is not against public policy, and will meet the general and specific criteria in the document described in Rule 40E-4.091(1)(a), and will meet the criteria for isolated wetlands, which are found in Appendix 7 of the document described in Rule 40E-4.091(1)(a) (Underscored words represent the proposed amendment.) In conjunction with the foregoing, the District prepared an economic impact statement (EIS) which read as follows: SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATE OF ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE RULE: 1. COST TO THE AGENCY: The proposed rule largely reflects existing policy and procedure but enunciates the specific guidelines the District applies in permitting decisions. The rule strikes a balance between specific quantitative guidelines and administrative flexibility with regard to permitting decisions. While there may be some initial implementation costs to the District, a minimal total cost increase to the agency is expected. The specific quantitative guidelines provided in the Appendix are expected to facilitate agency decisions regarding required mitigation- compensation, so that in the long run costs may actually decline as a result of implementation of the new criteria. There are no plans to change the size of District regulatory staff as a result of implementation of the standards in Appendix To the extend that additional staff is required in the future to address the impacts of permitting decisions on wetland habitat on threatened and endangered species, this impact can more correctly be attributed to the adoption of Section 373.414, F.S., by the Florida Legislature than to this rule. COSTS AND BENEFITS TO THOSE DIRECTLY AFFECTED: Appendix 7 provides the applicant with the choice of either meeting specific quantitative project design criteria or proposing a unique project design which will be reviewed by a qualitative standard to ensure that the proposed project complies with the District's objective of protecting isolated wetlands and their associated fish and wildlife functions and values. The requirements that project applications which proposed to impact wetlands provide reasonable assurances, such as mitigation/compensation, maintenance plans, monitoring and a guarantee of performance, is expected to result in some cost increases to permittees. Such require- ments are likely to improve the effectiveness of District protecting the water and related land resources of the District. IMPACT ON COMPETITION AND THE OPEN MARKET FOR EMPLOYMENT: No significant impact on competition and the open market for employment is expected. IMPACTS ON SMALL BUSINESS: The quantitative criteria in the Appendix set differential standards on the basis of isolated wetland size rather than firm size. Large projects are expected to have slightly greater flexibility in meeting the reasonable assurance requirements than small projects; however, the differential impact on small business, as defined in Section 288.703, Florida Statutes, is not expected to be significant. DATA AND METHODS USED: Data from the computer files of the District's Resource Control Department were the primary source of data used. Appendix 7 adopted by reference in amended Rule 40E- 4.301(1)(o) is a document entitled "Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District - Appendix 7 - Isolated Wetlands" (Appendix 7). As originally proposed for adoption, the Appendix contained sections 1.0 through 6.0 covering the following subjects: introduction (1.0), glossary (numbered as 2.0 and containing sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.7., 2.9 and 2.10), size threshold (3.0), review procedures for projects which propose to impact isolated wetlands (numbered as 4.0 and containing sections 4.1-4.5), review criteria (5.0), quantitative design criteria (5.1.1., 5.1.2., 5.1.3, 5.1.4, 5.1.5, 5.1.7 and 5.1.8), qualitative criteria (5.2-5.2.3) and project guarantee criteria (numbered as 6.0 and containing sections 6.1-6.3). For purposes of surface water management permitting, Appendix 7 applies only to activities in isolated wetlands while all other activities are subject to the criteria embodied in the Basis of Review. On November 26, 1986 petitioners, Orlando Central Park, Inc. (OCP), Real Estate Corporation of Florida, N.V. (REC), and National Association of Industrial and Office Parks, Region IV (NAIOP), filed a Petition for Administrative Determination of Invalidity of Proposed Rules wherein they sought to have declared invalid proposed rules 40E-4.091(1) and 40E-4.301(1)(o). In their petition, petitioners generally challenged all or portions of sections 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 5.1., 5.2 and 6.0-6.4 in Appendix 7 as well as the sufficiency of the EIS. In light of the above petition having been filed, the District again considered its proposed rules on January 8, 1987 and amended Appendix 7 in a number of respects. The revised Appendix has been received in evidence as joint exhibit number 2. As a result of those revisions, and as reflected in their post- hearing pleadings, petitioners have limited their attack to sections 2.2, 4.2b, 4.3, 4.4, 5.1.1a, 5.1.1b, 5.1.1d, 5.1.2, 5.1.3 and 5.1.7 in Appendix 7 and the adequacy of the EIS. On January 15, 1987 intervenor/respondent, The Florida Audubon Society (intervenor or FAS), filed a petition to intervene. This petition was granted conditioned upon intervenor proving up at final hearing its standing in the proceeding. Standing In order to challenge a proposed rule, a party must generally demonstrate that its substantial interests will be affected by the challenged rule. To do so, petitioners presented evidence on this issue at final hearing. In the same vein, the standing of intervenor was also questioned, and it too presented evidence to demonstrate its right to have access to this proceeding. REC - REC is the owner and developer of a residential and commercial development consisting of approximately 2,400 acres known as the Buenaventura Lakes Planned Unit Development between Kissimmee and St. Cloud in Osceola County. The project has been subdivided into what is known as Basins 1, 2 and 3, of which the undeveloped acreage lies within the latter Basin. The corporation has plans to develop the remaining acreage into single family and multi-family residential and commercial developments but has not yet obtained the necessary environmental permits for the undeveloped tract. Through the testimony of an REC representative, the undeveloped acreage was described as having open grasslands, wooded areas and low, marshy areas. Some portions of the land were also described as a "wet, marshy, boggy area." However, their specific size was not disclosed, and there was only conjecture on the part of petitioners' expert that the areas were in fact isolated wetlands as defined in the proposed rule. The representative fears that if jurisdictional isolated wetlands are located within Basin 3, and the rules are adopted, it will impact upon REC in that more restrictive permits will be required prior to any further development of the land. The District has previously issued construction and operation permits for Basins 1 and 2 and necessary Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) permits have also been obtained. None have been sought or issued for Basin 3, and there was no evidence that a letter of conceptual approval covering drainage in Basin 3 has been issued by the District. Had one been issued, the project might be grandfathered and exempt from the pending rules. Even so, the record does not support a finding that isolated wetlands as defined in the proposed rule are definitely located within Basin 3 so as to make REC's substantial interest affected by this proceeding. NAIOP - The NAIOP is a national non-profit organization of developers, consisting of some 6,000 members nationwide. In Florida, it has four chapters (Jacksonville, Fort Lauderdale, Orlando and Tampa) and "several hundred" members. As developers of office, industrial and commercial real estate, it is necessary that its members obtain permits from the District on certain projects within the District's jurisdiction. The association monitors all rulemaking proceedings affecting its members, and has actively lobbied the legislature on environmental matters. It has appeared before the District and DER concerning rules and policy, especially those that affect the permitting process. According to an NAIOP representative, Eric B. Eicher, approximately 30 percent of its state members do business in SFWMD jurisdictional territory. However, Eicher had no first-hand knowledge as to how many members owned property within the District, or whether any members are intending to develop isolated wetlands which would be subject to the proposed rule. Indeed, he admitted that only two members had even talked to him about the proposed rules. As such, the NAIOP has not demonstrated any immediate and discernible impact that the proposed rule would have on its members. OCP - The OCP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Martin-Marietta Corporation, a large corporation with offices in the Orlando area. However, Martin-Marietta is not a party in this proceeding. OCP itself is the owner and developer of an office, industrial and commercial park known as Orlando Center Park in Orange County, Florida. In addition, OCP acts as the developer of certain properties owned by Martin-Marietta. At the present time, OCP has approximately 2,400 acres in its own name which it intends to develop. They are generally located in an area west of the Florida Turnpike, south of Sand Lake Road, north of the Beeline Expressway and east of 1-4. Various aerial photographs and maps of the area were received in evidence as petitioners' exhibits 5, 8 and 9. It is undisputed that this property lies within the territorial jurisdiction of the SFWMD. On November 17, 1977 the District issued a permit granting conceptual approval of a master plan for the development of certain properties owned by OCP. However, the permit itself (petitioners' exhibit 15) did not include a review of impacts on wetlands for OCP's property. Therefore, the project is not grandfathered under proposed rule 4.1, and is subject to the new rules. If the proposed rules are adopted, OCP would have to modify its master plan and reduce the amount of its sellable or developable property. In two jurisdictional determinations performed by DER in 1983 and 1984, DER identified various isolated wetlands on OCP's property not subject to DER jurisdiction. These are located on what are identified as phases 8-B and 9 of the undeveloped tract of land (petitioners' exhibits 8 and 13). Since it is undisputed that OCP intends to develop this land, OCP is substantially affected by the proposed rules. FAS - Intervenor, which supports the rule amendments, is a non-profit association with principal headquarters in Maitland, Florida. Its membership numbers some 30,000, of which a large part live in Southeastern Florida and within the territorial jurisdiction of SFWMD. Although only one member (its president) testified at final hearing, it was the president's contention that "most" of its members support the proposed rules and the perpetuation of the isolated wetland as a function for wildlife. Through documentation offered in evidence as intervenor/respondent's exhibit 1, it was established that FAS owns various tracts of undeveloped land in Lee, St. Lucie and Collier Counties, which lie within SFWMD's boundaries. A part of these lands are isolated wetlands, and other parts are adjacent to wetlands areas. Although FAS expressed a fear that adjacent wetlands may be developed if the proposed rules are invalidated, it offered no proof of impending developments on isolated wetlands, or that such development would occur on properties adjacent to its own. Therefore, any adverse impact is remote and speculative, and has no immediacy or reality. The FAS has entered into a contract with the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission to administer the Florida Breeding Bird Atlas Program. Under the program, FAS has contracted to establish a baseline of the numbers and types of breeding birds in the State. The FAS fears that if the rule amendments are not adopted, the destruction of wetlands will occur, thereby interfering with its ability to carry out the contract. Again, however, it offered no proof of impending developments on adjacent isolated wetlands, or otherwise established that its substantial interests under the contract would be affected. Economic Impact Statement Other than the introduction of the EIS into evidence as joint exhibit 4, there was no relevant factual evidence presented by the parties concerning the insufficiency or inaccuracy of the EIS. It is noted, however, that the District merely estimated that the proposed rules would "result in some cost increases to the permittees", and did not attempt to precisely identify the economic impact. Respondent offered into evidence various documents upon which it relied in preparing the EIS. However, such documents are hearsay, and it was not shown what competent evidence, if any, they were intended to supplement and explain. The Challenged Rules Petitioners' real concern lies with portions of Appendix 7 which has been adopted and incorporated by reference by Rule 40E-4.301(1)(o), Florida Administrative Code. That document spells out in detail the criteria that will apply to applications for surface water management permits where the proposed activity affects isolated wetlands. As noted earlier, the Appendix is divided into a number of sections, which for ease of discussion will be referred to as "rules." Each challenged "rule" will be dealt with separately. Rule 2.2 - This rule defines an "isolated wetland" as follows: Any wetland not under the jurisdiction of the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for the purposes of regulation of dredging and filling. Multiple individual wetlands normally connected by surface flow during a wet season with average rainfall shall be presumed to be an isolated wetland. The first sentence of the rule simply provides that any wetland not subject to DER dredge and fill jurisdiction is to be considered an isolated wetland and subject to Appendix 7 criteria. Conversely, if a wetland is subject to DER jurisdiction, any District regulated activity affecting that land must be considered under the existing Basis of Review criteria. Petitioners' concern is with the second sentence of the rule and is that whenever multiple isolated wetlands are connected by surface flow during the wet season, they believe the rule would confer jurisdiction in SFWMD not only over the isolated wetlands themselves, but also the uplands that lie adjacent to and between the individual wetlands. But, through credible and persuasive testimony, it was established that this is not the intent or result of the proposed amendment. Indeed, it was established that jurisdiction is intended to lie only over the wetlands themselves, and not the connecting uplands. Petitioners also object to the District aggregating small isolated wetlands into a single larger isolated wetland for jurisdictional purposes. However, such aggregation is necessary because of the biological interaction between the small wetlands. Petitioners further voiced some criticism of the provision in the rule that connected wetlands shall be presumed to be an isolated wetland. Even so, the rule allows an applicant to present evidence to contradict this presumption. Finally, despite suggestions to the contrary, there was no evidence of any conflicting DER policy or concept regarding isolated wetlands, how such wetlands are defined by DER, or that DER prefers the District to follow such policy or definition. Rule 4.2b. - This rule prescribes certain information that must be filed by an applicant for a permit whenever the project impacts isolated wetlands. As is pertinent here, Section b. requires the following to be filed with the application: b. A list of all plant and animal species listed as endangered, threatened or of special concern pursuant to 50 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 17.12, and Rules 39-27.03, 39-27.04 and 39-27.05, Florida Administrative Code, which are incorporated by reference and made a part of this rule which utilize the area and an evaluation of the probable significance of the area to the listed species. Petitioners object to the requirement that an applicant submit a list of all plant species of special concern as defined by Rule 39-27.05, Florida Administrative Code. This rule was promulgated by the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and designates some forty-three plant "species of special concern". Petitioners' objection is based on the premise that the term "species" does not include plants, and that plant species are accordingly outside the purview of the District's permitting authority. However, they presented no evidence to support this construction of the term. In contrast, through testimony from a National Audubon Society employee, it was established that the term "species" not only includes animals, but plants as well. Mitigation/Compensation Rules - A number of rules within Appendix 7 make reference to mitigation and compensation proposals to be submitted by applicants whose projects impact isolated wetlands. As is relevant here, they include rules 4.3, 4.4, 5.1.1a., b. and d., 5.1.2, 5.1.3 and 5.1.7, all challenged by petitioners. These rules generally require or provide for mitigation when an applicant intends to impact or destroy all non-exempt isolated wetlands 0.5 acre to 5.0 acres in size. It is petitioners' contention that the District has no authority to require or otherwise provide for mitigation or compensation as a permit criterion. Mitigation is defined in rule 2.8 as "remedying isolated wetland impacts by restoring or enhancing affected habitat, or by creating similar habitat of equal or greater function". Compensation is defined in rule 2.9 as the "replacement of isolated wetlands with a mixture of wetland/upland habitat, unique upland habitat, or otherwise provide overall benefits to the natural system". Mitigation is a common practice in environmental permitting and has been routinely used by the District in its existing Basis for Review. Indeed, at the present time ``most'' applicants include a mitigation plan with their applications for permits. Even petitioners' expert conceded that the use of mitigation is "a reasonable practice" and has resulted in "better projects", and "better" protection of the water resources. Rules 4.3 and 4.4 require applicants who propose mitigation or compensation to submit certain information with their applications. This information is necessary to insure that the mitigation/compensation plan will be successful. It is also noted that mitigation is not used or required for every project, and can be avoided where a project has other built-in compensation features. The new rules simply continue existing agency policy. Rules 5.1.1a. and b. provide the following presumptions concerning mitigation and compensation: Mitigation or compensation for elimination of isolated wetlands between 0.5 and 5.0 acres in size, pursuant to Section 5.1.2 below, shall be presumed to maintain wetland functions. There is no presumption that the function of isolated wetlands over 5.0 acres in size can be maintained by measures other than protection as defined in Section 2.4 above. Protection of isolated wetlands over 5.0 acres in size shall be the preferred method of providing the required reasonable assurance, however, other reasonable alternatives proposed by the applicant will be considered. Section a. creates a presumption in favor of the applicant that mitigation or compensation, in ratios specified within the rules, shall be presumed to maintain the functions of isolated wetlands between .5 and 5 acres in size. Section b. eliminates this presumption for isolated wetlands over five acres in size since the District's experience has been that applicants have not generally been successful in mitigating larger wetlands, and that it is more difficult to mitigate and compensate for larger projects. Even so, the rule allows an applicant to present "other reasonable alternatives" to mitigation. Petitioners object to the presumption in Section b. since they contend it reposes in the District the authority to preserve isolated wetlands over 5.0 acres in size. However, this "authority" comes into play only when the criteria cannot be met, and the applicant fails to present "other reasonable alternatives". Rule 5.1.1d. provides as follows: (d) Protection of isolated wetlands or incorporation of isolated wetlands into surface water management systems in favored over isolated wetland destruction and mitigation or compensation. Wetland destruction and mitigation or compensation shall be considered only when there are no feasible project design alternatives for the particular site. Reasonable project design alternatives to isolated wetland impacts shall be considered. This rule essentially favors the protection of isolated wetlands as opposed to their destruction. It goes on to permit destruction and mitigation/compensation whenever there are no "feasible project design alternatives". In other words, the District has established a first priority of preserving wetlands whenever possible, and allowing destruction only when no "reasonable project design alternatives" are available. Under the latter situation, mitigation/compensation will then be required. Petitioners assert the term "feasible project design alternative" is not readily understood, or comprehensible to the average person. However, even their engineer stated he could "apply it", and that he "normally" goes about designing projects consistent with the terms of the rule. It was further established that the District construes the terms "feasible" and "reasonable" to be synonymous, and that the rule would not require an applicant to present a proposal that was prohibitively expensive, or technically unfeasible. Rule 5.1.2 also deals with mitigation/compensation and addresses mitigation ratios to be used by applicants. It reads as follows: Isolated wetland mitigation shall be implemented based upon ratios of acres wet- lands created, or restored to acres of wet- lands destroyed which provide reasonable assurance that the mitigation will be successful. The following ratios shall be presumed to provide such reasonable assurance for type-for-type mitigation: Forested swamp, non-cypress dominated-2. 5:1 Forested swamp, cypress dominated---2.0:1 Freshwater marshes 1.5:1 Ratios for mitigation with unlike habitat, including expanded littoral zones, or compen- sation shall be determined on a case-by-case basis. When type-for-type mitigation is provided as defined in Section 2.8 and accepted by the District prior to isolated wetland impacts, a one-to-one ratio shall be presumed to provide such reasonable assurance. The rule explains that the prescribed mitigation ratios provide reasonable assurance that the creation or restoration will be successful. It is a natural corollary to the District's mitigation/compensation policy. Testimony established that these ratios were reasonable, favor an applicant, and are consistent with the different natural communities to which they apply. Higher ratios of wetlands created to wetlands destroyed are necessary because of the time required for an artificially created replacement system to provide all of the previous native functions. Finally, the use of a one-to-one ratio when type-for- type mitigation is used reduces the amount of land required by an applicant for mitigation, and provides flexibility from the otherwise specified ratios. Rule 5.1.3 prescribes the use of mitigation/compen-sation where disturbed wetlands are impacted by a project. It reads as follows: Disturbed isolated wetlands may be developed and their loss compensated for by: Mitigation at ratios less than those required in 5.1.2, based on the degree of disturbance and the remaining functional qualities. Mitigation through restoration or other disturbed wetlands is preferred over wetland creation. Preservation of unique uplands or in- clusion of developable uplands within an up- land/wetland protected system. Mitigation or compensation shall not be required for isolated wetlands which do not provide fun- ctions and values as expressed above in Sections 1.0 and 5.0. Unlike rule 5.1.2., this rule provides for mitigation ratios based upon the degree of disturbance and the remaining functional qualities of the wetland. It is too is a natural corollary of the District's stated policy. It recognizes that some wetlands have been disturbed, and that the ratios prescribed in rule 5.1.2. are inappropriate and too rigid for a previously disturbed wetland. Rule 5.1.7 - The final rule challenged by petitioners provides for the establishment of "buffer zones" under certain conditions. It is petitioners' contention that, like many of the other cited rules, the District has no authority to adopt the rule because buffer zones in upland areas are not a part of the surface water management system. A buffer zone is defined in rule 2.7 as "an area adjacent to the isolated wetland which protects wetland function and minimizes adverse impacts of upland development on wetland function". The challenged rule reads as follows: Buffer zones may be required around all isolated wetlands that are to be protected or incorporated into a surface water management system to protect wetland function and mini- mize adverse impacts of upland development on wetland function. Actual delineation of the buffer zone may vary according to site specific conditions. Buffer zones which extends (sic) at least fifteen feet landward from the edge of the wetland in all places and averages twenty-five feet from the landward edge of the wetland will be presumed to be adequate. Prior to issuance of Construction and Operation permits, buffer zones shall be field verified and delineated in the field. Buffer zones may consist of undisturbed uplands, open water bodies, wildlife corr- idors or other natural or structural features which serve the purpose stated in Section 2.7 as appropriate for the particular site. Upland areas or wildlife corridors adja- cent to buffer zones may be incorporated as compensation areas, provided they are in excess of the minimum buffer zone and meet all other requirements for compen- sation areas. Under current District policy, buffer zones are required around wetlands whenever they are necessary to maintain the integrity of the wetland. They are a reasonable tool in the District's arsenal to protect water, fish and wildlife resources. Testimony established that they are particularly essential when an applicant proposes to build a project immediately adjacent to a wetland so that erosion or destruction of the wetland may be avoided. The rule merely extends the District's existing policy to isolated wetlands.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether the applicants, William Guererro and Christina Bang, a/k/a Christina Guerrero (Applicants), are entitled to issuance of a Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and State Lands Approvals for various structures on the Applicants’ property at 58458 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners Bernard Spinrad and Marian Spinrad are the owners of adjoining parcels of property with the addresses of 58418 and 58420 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. They acquired the property in December 2001. They recently completed construction of two residential structures on the properties. The structure at 58418 Overseas Highway is currently listed for sale. The structure at 58420 Overseas Highway is a vacation rental property. Neither structure is Petitioners’ permanent residence. The DEP is the state agency with the power and duty to regulate activities in waters of the state pursuant to chapter 373, Florida Statutes. The DEP also serves as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (“Board of Trustees”) to review and act on activities on state sovereignty submerged lands under chapter 253. The Applicants, are the owners of adjoining parcels of property with the address of 58478 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida (the Property). They purchased the Property in June 2010. The structures that are the subject of the Permit are to be constructed near or waterward of the shoreline of the Property. The Property The Property is located on Grassy Key, an island in the middle Florida Keys, within limits of the city of Marathon, Monroe County, Florida. U.S. Highway 1 passes through Grassy Key. The Property -- as is that of Petitioners -- is situated between U.S. Highway 1 and the open waters of the Atlantic Ocean. In the early part of the 20th century, a portion of Grassy Key was platted as the Crains Subdivision. The properties owned by Applicants and Petitioners are within the Crains Subdivision. During the periods of time directly relevant hereto, the Property has been owned by Burgess Levine, who owned the property during the period prior to the October 2006, landfall of Hurricane Wilma until June 2010, and by Applicants, who have owned the Property since June, 2010. Grassy Key Grassy Key is three-miles long, and has 6800 feet of beaches, none of which are designated as critically eroded. The island fronts the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and the more protected waters of Florida Bay to the west. The waters along the Atlantic Ocean shoreline of Grassy Key in the area at issue are shallow, with an extremely flat bottom having a very gradual slope of approximately 1 to 30, meaning there is a one foot vertical change over 30 horizontal feet. The mean tide range at the Property is about 1.7 feet. Under normal conditions, the stretch of Grassy Key at issue is fairly characterized as a zero-wave energy shoreline. Waves break well offshore and there is negligible wave energy propagating beyond that point. What shoreline energy exists is produced by small tide currents and wind-shear on the water surface that moves water along the shoreline. The direction of the water movement is dependent on tides and wind direction, with the predominant direction being from north to south. Erosive and other significant changes to the shoreline of Grassy Key, including that stretch fronting the Property, are event driven, meaning when there is a coastal storm that causes a rise in the water level, substantially higher than the astronomical tide, waves can propagate onto the shoreline of Grassy Key. The wind and waves can come from virtually any direction depending on the storm. A storm of greater intensity will create higher energy-wave conditions. Although storm conditions may only occur over 1 to 3 percent of a given year, with the rest of the year having zero-wave energy, on average the coastline may be considered to be of moderate-wave energy. The beach sediment along the Grassy Key shoreline in all areas pertinent hereto consists of calcareous material, made up of the breakdown of corals and coralling algae, with a significant fraction of other detrital marine material. The upper beaches of Grassy Key, including that on the Property, generally consist of coarse, calcareous sand with a small fraction of calcareous silt-size particles. The inter-tidal areas along Grassy Key consist of predominantly fine calcareous sand, with a greater fraction of calcareous silt. Extending out into the nearshore area all along Grassy Key, including that fronting the properties owned by Petitioners and Applicants, the sediment becomes a very fine calcareous sand, with a greater fraction of the material being calcareous silts and clays, and with a substantial amount of organic mud of a marine origin, classified as Islamorada muck. Since at least the 1970s, one wading in the nearshore waters along Grassy Key could expect to sink into the surface muck to a depth of anywhere from six inches to two feet. The depth of muck becomes less as one moves further out and approaches the offshore Thalassia beds. Although some areas offer more resistance than others, it is routine to experience difficulty in walking and wading along the coast of Grassy Key because of the high percentage of clays and silts in the substrate. The band of muck narrows as one proceeds towards the northern stretches of Grassy Key, until one reaches the furthest areas to the northeast where the nearshore transitions to exposed rock and hard bottom. The surface muck that exists in the nearshore waters of Grassy Key, having a sizable component of decaying organic material, gives off an odor of hydrogen sulfide when disturbed that some find to be unpleasant. The odor is a naturally- occurring condition of the sediment, and is common in mucky areas all around the southern coasts of Florida. The suggestion that the shoreline in the vicinity of the Petitioners’ property, and that of Applicants, was a naturally occurring white, sandy beach is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. To the extent the shoreline at Petitioners’ property may have been temporarily altered by the overwash from Hurricane Wilma as discussed herein, Petitioners’ own post-Wilma man-made efforts at beach stabilization, or the redistribution of sediments occasioned by Hurricanes Isaac and Sandy in 2012, the evidence demonstrates the “mucky” condition described herein to be more consistent with the natural and long-standing conditions of Grassy Key. Thus, as Grassy Key exists in the present time, one may expect to encounter six inches to two feet of loose muck anywhere along the nearshore area. Close to shore of Grassy Key are scattered beds of Halodule, a species of seagrass that tends to emerge and grow in shallow waters. The growth of Halodule is influenced by the nature of the sediments, the salinity temperature, and clarity of the water. Storm events have a significant effect on its growth. Given its transient nature, Halodule may vary in any given area from nonexistent, to spotty, to well-established beds. As one moves further offshore, the Halodule transitions to large, continuous beds of Thalassia. Thalassia grows in deeper water, and is common to a depth of about 12 feet. Being deeper and less affected by storm energy, the line of the Thalassia beds off of Grassy Key has not substantially changed over time. As wind and waves come across the grass beds, and as tides ebb and flow, grass blades are cropped. The amount of grass varies seasonally to a degree. The cropped and dislodged seagrasses, along with other organic material entrained therein, are naturally carried by the tides and wind and stranded along the shoreline. The stranded material is known as wrack, and the line of stranded material is known as the wrack line. Grassy Key is well known for the large seagrass wracks that pile up on the shoreline. A wrack line is a normal and natural occurrence in marine environments like that of Grassy Key, and can be a good indicator of the upper edge of the water action at a particular time. The cropping and dislodging of seagrass is accentuated during major or minor storm events. During Hurricane Rita in 2005, a very large seagrass wrack was blown onto the shoreline of Grassy Key. It was subsequently blown back out to sea by the overwash from Hurricane Wilma. The decomposition of the seagrass and other organic materials creates a significant odor that is not uncommon. That odor of decomposing material is well-recognized as being associated with Grassy Key. Areas along the shoreline of Grassy Key have been used by sea turtles for nesting. However, the nature of the substrate in the area of the Property is not optimal for nesting. Generally, sea turtles require a nesting site with 15 to 20 inches of sand above the water table so as to allow them to dig a suitably deep and dry cavity for their eggs. The natural substrate along the section of Grassy Key at issue is coarser and more difficult to dig into, and does not have the depth of sand for the best chance of a successful nest. Despite the nature of the substrate, Petitioner testified as to her observation of turtle nests along her property in each year from 2006 through 2010. Since the SW Groin, the Mid-bulkhead, and the NE Groin were all in existence and functioning during that period, with work to the SW Groin having been completed by 2008, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that those structures have no effect on the success or failure of sea turtles to nest along the property. To the extent nesting has been disrupted since 2011, the most logical inference that can be drawn from the evidence is that such disruption is the result of the Mid-Jetty Extension, which is slated for removal under the terms of the Permit. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the structures and activities authorized by the Permit will have no adverse effect on sea turtles. Hurricane Wilma In October, 2005, Grassy Key was pounded by Hurricane Wilma. The storm passed to the north, and created a substantial storm surge that moved from west to east across Grassy Key. The storm surge created a “ridge and runnel” effect on the Atlantic facing shoreline, with the channelization of the storm tide flow creating erosion and gullies on upland shore-adjacent properties. The storm surge and flooding across Grassy Key caused substantial wash-outs of sand; transported a large volume of sandy, upland sediments into the nearshore waters of the Atlantic Ocean; and created washover “fans” of material along the shoreline of Grassy Key. The effects of the Hurricane Wilma storm surge manifested just north of the Property, became substantial at the Property, and continued south down the shoreline for a considerable distance. At the Property, sand was pushed from 50 to 100 feet waterward from the existing shoreline, and a substantial runout was created running parallel and north of the SW Jetty. The sand pushed into the water buried everything in its path, including seagrasses. In short, the post-Wilma shoreline from the Property south along Grassy Key was left in a completely disrupted state. The nearshore waters fronting the properties owned by Petitioners and Applicants were affected by the deposition of sandy, upland sediments, which temporarily created areas of substantially harder-packed sediment. Over time, as the shoreline equilibrated and the sandy sediment distributed through a broader area, more typical shoreline conditions returned. The photographic evidence demonstrates that the Mid- bulkhead and the SW jetty structures were impacted by the Hurricane Wilma storm surge. In addition, the sandy area between the mid-bulkhead and the SW jetty was pushed seaward from its previous location. The scars from Hurricane Wilma remain evident through the most recent aerial photographs received in evidence. It is visually apparent that seagrass, though reappearing in patches, has not reestablished in the nearshore areas along the affected shoreline of Grassy Key -- including the areas in front of the Property and the property owned by Petitioners -- to the extent that it existed prior to the storm. Post-Wilma Activities When Hurricane Wilma hit, the Property was owned by Burgess Lea Levine. Not long after Hurricane Wilma, Ms. Levine shored up the SW Jetty, and performed work in the “beach” area between the mid-bulkhead and the SW jetty. The photographic evidence also supports a finding that the rock outline of the Mid-jetty was reestablished to its pre-Wilma configuration. The repairs to the SW Jetty resulted in a structure that is virtually indistinguishable in size and shape to the SW Jetty as it presently exists. The wrack line at the beach area after it was “worked” following the passage of Wilma, shows the area in which work was done to be generally consistent with -- though slightly seaward of -- the 2005 post-Wilma shoreline. In 2008, Ms. Levine applied for a series of exemptions and for consent of use for state-owned lands for “shoreline repair, replace earthen ramp with a concrete ramp, repair wood deck, replace mooring piles & maintenance dredge existing channel w/in Atlantic Ocean.” On September 19, 2008, the DEP issued a regulatory authorization and proprietary submerged land approval. The Rights of Affected Parties that accompanied the September 19, 2008, notice provided that “[t]his letter acknowledges that the proposed activity is exempt from ERP permitting requirements” and that “this determination shall expire after one year.” The notice of Rights of Affected Parties did not apply to the proprietary authorization. At some time after issuance of the regulatory authorization, Ms. Burgess initiated additional work to repair the SW Jetty. The photographic evidence, which is persuasive, indicates that the work on the SW Jetty, including the concrete cap, was complete by the end of 2008. When Applicants purchased the Property, the determination of exemption issued in 2008 had, by application of the notice of Rights of Affected Parties, expired. Shortly after the Applicants purchased the property, they had the existing family home demolished. Applicants intend to construct a winter vacation home for their personal use on the property. 2012 Storms In August and October 2012, Grassy Key was subject to event-driven conditions as a result of the passage of Hurricanes Isaac and Sandy. Those storms redistributed large areas of sediments that had been moved offshore by the effects of Hurricane Wilma. The Proposed Permit The February 20, 2013, Permit provides that the structures described herein do not require the issuance of an Environmental Resource Permit, subject to the criteria and conditions in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.051. The Permit provides that the boat ramp is eligible to use the general permit in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-330.417, the repair and replacement of the dock is exempt pursuant to section 403.813(1)(b), Florida Statutes, the maintenance dredging of the Channel is exempt pursuant to section 403.813(1)(f), and that the repair and replacement of the NW Jetty, the SW Jetty, and the Mid-bulkhead are exempt because the structures are “historic in nature and pre-dates Department regulations.” In addition to the regulatory authorizations, the Permit granted proprietary authorization by Letter of Consent for the dock pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 18- 21.005(1)(c)4., and for the Channel, the NW Jetty, the SW Jetty, and the Mid-bulkhead pursuant to rule 18-21.005(1)(c)7. The Permit established the mean high-water line as that existing in 1974 and depicted on the “Richmond Survey.” Proprietary authorization for the boat ramp was determined to be unnecessary due to its location above the mean high-water line. Finally, proprietary authorization for the “Sandy Area” or beach between the Mid-bulkhead and SW Jetty was granted by Letter of Consent pursuant to rule 18-21.005(1). On September 20, 2013, the DEP filed a Notice of Additional Grounds for Exemption Determination, in which it found each of the structures subject to the regulatory review to “have only minimal or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on water resources” and to thus be exempt from the need to obtain an Environmental Resource Permit pursuant to section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes. On December 12, 2013, Applicants filed a Notice of Filing Proposed Changes to the Pending Agency Action in which they agreed to certain additional conditions, and which referenced the October 1, 2013, repeal of rule 40E-4.051, and its replacement by the “Statewide ERP rules.” For purposes of this de novo proceeding, the proposed Permit at issue includes the February 20, 2013, Permit; the September 20, 2013, Notice of Additional Grounds for Exemption Determination; and the December 12, 2013, Notice of Filing Proposed Changes to the Pending Agency Action. The Proposed Structures Groins There has been some confusion relating to the names of the structures that are subject to the proposed Permit. Two of the structures are referred to as jetties, the NE Jetty and the SW Jetty, and the middle structure is referred to as the Mid- bulkhead. A jetty is a navigation structure that is constructed at a barrier inlet. Its purpose is to stabilize the inlet and prevent shoaling by “jetting” current and wave-driven sand further offshore, such that the offshore bar is moved into deep enough water to allow navigation in and out of the tidal inlet, and allowing the tidal current between the ocean and the receiving body of water to keep the inlet scoured and open. There are 48 jetties on the open coast of Florida, none of which are in the Florida Keys. A groin is a structure designed for shore protection purposes. A groin is typically aligned perpendicular to the shoreline, or “shore normal.” The structures identified in the Permit as the NE Jetty and the SW Jetty are clearly groins, and not jetties. The mid-bulkhead is a groin, generally for shore confinement, with a channel-facing bulkhead. For purposes of continuity, the structures will be identified by the names given them in the Permit. Since there is negligible wave energy along the shoreline normal conditions, the groins have little or no day- to-day effect on longshore transport. Under storm conditions, the structures affect longshore transport, as evidenced by accretional “fillets,” and function as shoreline protection and confinement structures. The rock groins provide shelter, habitat and structure for corals, sponges, lobster, and fish in the area. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the groins authorized by the Permit will have no adverse effect on fish and wildlife resources. NE Jetty The NE Jetty was originally constructed in the early 1960s, likely concurrent with the dredging of the navigational channel. The quality of the aerial photographs of the period make it difficult to tell if the NE Jetty was a loosely-placed rock embankment or a more well-designed and constructed structure. However, the fillet of sand accreted to the north of the Channel demonstrates that the jetty was in existence and functioning as a shore-protection structure. By the 1970s, the NE Jetty had become overwhelmed by longshore sediment transport from the northeast. Sediment overtopped the NE Jetty and filled in the landward reaches of the Channel. At that point, ability of the NE Jetty to perform as a shore protection structure was compromised to the point that it could no longer hold the shoreline out of the basin or the landward portion of the Channel. The Mid-bulkhead became the dominant structural control over the shoreline and started to accrete the shoreline to the northeast. At some time between 1977 and 1981, the Channel was maintenance dredged pursuant to a permit issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation, DEP’s predecessor agency. The NE Jetty appeared on the plans for the maintenance dredging. Thus, the most reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence is that the NE Jetty was repaired and restored in conjunction with the approved maintenance dredging. By 1981, the NE Jetty had been restored as the dominant shore protection structure north of the Channel, and a fillet of accreted material had been reestablished. The aerial photographs from that period are not sufficiently distinct to determine the precise size, shape, and configuration of the NE Jetty at that time. However, there is no evidence of additional work having been performed on the NE Jetty between 1981 and 1985. By 1985, the NE Jetty existed in substantially the size, shape, and configuration as it existed at the time of Hurricane Wilma. Between 1981 and the 2005 arrival of Hurricane Wilma, the evidence is convincing that the NE Jetty was holding up the shoreline to the northeast and preventing sediment from filling in the upper reaches of the Channel. Although the evidence suggests that the NE Jetty had, by 2005, begun to show its age, the continuous presence of an accretional fillet demonstrates that it continued to serve its function as a shore-protection structure. Although the NE Jetty suffered damage from Hurricane Wilma, it continued to perform its shoreline protection function. Aerial photographs taken in 2009 and 2011 show a relatively distinct structure with a well-defined accretional fillet. Thus, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that, at the time of its repair in May 2011, the NE Jetty was a functional groin. The NE Jetty, as repaired in 2011, is of substantially the same size, shape, and location as the structure depicted in aerial photographs taken in 1985, 2009, and early 2011. Although the elevation of the structure was increased over its pre-repair elevation, the increase was that reasonably necessary to prevent the function of the structure from being compromised by the effects of age and weather. The work performed on the NE Jetty, consisting of new rock laid on top of the existing rock, constituted repair and maintenance of the existing structure. Since 2005, and at the present time, the shoreline north of the NE Jetty has reached a state of equilibrium and stability, and is not expected to change significantly from its current condition. The preponderance of the competent, substantial evidence demonstrates that the effect of the NE Jetty on the shoreline and water resources of Grassy Key in the vicinity of the properties owned by Applicants and Petitioners is minimal and insignificant. The sand and sediment accreted to the north of the NE Jetty since 1981 is in the range of 250 square feet. SW Jetty The aerial photographs from 19647/ demonstrate that some form of structure then existed at the location of the current SW Jetty. The structure is indistinct due to what appears to be sidecast material from a small channel in front of the property to the immediate south of the Property. By 1971, the SW Jetty had become more distinct. From that time forward, the SW Jetty, and its accompanying fillet of accreted material, appears in roughly the size and shape of the structure as it appeared immediately prior to the arrival of Hurricane Wilma. The SW Jetty was heavily impacted by Hurricane Wilma. The overwash from the storm created a substantial runout alongside the SW Jetty, and the post-storm aerials suggest that the jetty boulders were undermined and shifted from their more uniform 2003 appearance. Immediately after Hurricane Wilma, the owner of the Property commenced restoration and repair activities. As part of the activities, the SW Jetty was repaired with the addition of boulders, which were often three feet and every now and then as much as four feet across. The boulders, being irregularly shaped, could not be stacked like Legos®, so the repairs were not neatly within the precise pre-Wilma footprint. However, the repaired SW Jetty was substantially in the length and location as existed prior to Hurricane Wilma, though it may have had a slightly wider cross-section. By 2007, the work on the SW Jetty was complete, and it had assumed its present appearance with the addition of a concrete cap. Its appearance -- i.e. length, width, and location -- in 2007 and 2008 was not dissimilar from its appearance in 2003. As repaired, the SW Jetty effectively constitutes the same structure that it has been since its initial construction. From a coastal engineering perspective, the work that was performed on the SW Jetty, consisting generally of new rock laid on top of the existing rock, constituted repair and maintenance of the existing structure. Dr. Lin testified that between 1974 and 2011, the area to the southwest of the southwest jetty was “about equalized,” though it was “accreting a little bit.” Thus, the effect of the SW Jetty on the shoreline of Grassy Key in the vicinity of the properties owned by Applicants and Petitioners from 1974 to 2011 was minimal and insignificant. Dr. Lin testified that, since 2011, the same area had eroded. The only substantive shoreline change that logically accounts for that subsequent erosion is the Mid-bulkhead extension, which is slated for removal under the terms of the proposed Permit. Petitioner testified that she observed no adverse effects from activities on the Property until after February 2011.8/ Since work on the SW Jetty was complete by no later than 2008, Petitioner’s testimony supports a finding that the SW Jetty has had no measurable effect on the water resources in the vicinity of the properties owned by Applicants and Petitioners. The preponderance of the competent, substantial evidence demonstrates that the effect of the SW Jetty on the shoreline and water resources of Grassy Key in the vicinity of the properties owned by Applicants and Petitioners is minimal and insignificant. Mid-bulkhead The structure of the Mid-bulkhead first appeared as part of the sidecast material from the excavation of the navigation channel in 1964. It coalesced into a defined but smaller and more rudimentary structure in the 1971-1972 time period. At that time, it was acting as the predominant shore protection structure due to the overtopping of the NE Jetty with sediment, which also filled in the landward reaches of the Channel. By 1981, after the maintenance dredging of the Channel, the Mid-bulkhead had assumed substantially the size, shape, and location that it has currently. The Mid-bulkhead has a navigation function of protecting the landward extent of the Channel from the collapse of adjacent sand and sediment, and a shore protection and compartmentalization function. Those functions have been consistent since 1981. The Mid-bulkhead appears to have been subjected to the overwash of sand and sediment from Hurricane Wilma, though it maintained its shape and form. The outline of the Mid-bulkhead appears to be more well-defined after the initial post-Wilma repairs. In any event, the configuration and size of the Mid-bulkhead is substantially the same as it had been since 1981. At some point, the interior section of the Mid- bulkhead was topped with soil that is inconsistent with that naturally occurring in the area. That fill was confined, and brought the Mid-bulkhead to a more even grade with the rock outline, but could have had no measurable effect on the shoreline and water resources of Grassy Key in the vicinity of the properties owned by Applicants and Petitioners. The preponderance of the competent, substantial evidence demonstrates that the effect of the Mid-bulkhead is minimal and insignificant. Channel In 1961, the Department of the Army authorized dredging of a navigation channel at the Property. The approved channel was to be 700 feet long, 30 feet wide, and to a depth of five feet below mean low water. The Florida Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund issued a letter of no objection. By 1964, the Channel that is the subject of this proceeding had been dredged, though not to the 700-foot length approved. Rather, the Channel was dredged to a length of approximately 290 feet. Much, if not all of the dredge spoil was sidecast, creating a rock structure alongside the Channel. Measurements taken during the course of this proceeding demonstrate that the initial dredging resulted in near vertical side slopes, which shows that the bailing of the bedrock was accomplished to the limits. The width of the Channel is from 28 feet to 32 feet wide, which is within an acceptable tolerance of the 30-foot approved width. In 1976, the then-owner of the Property sought a permit from the DEP’s predecessor, the Department of Environmental Regulation, to maintenance dredge the Channel to a dimension of 290 feet long and 30 feet wide, to a depth of minus 8-feet mean high water, and to construct a new rock jetty to extend 230 feet waterward from the existing terminus of the NE Jetty. Given the mean tide range of 1.7 feet at the Property, the depth of the proposed dredging would have been minus 6.3 feet mean low water, or 1.3 feet deeper than originally approved. The permit drawings depict the existing NE Jetty, the Channel boundary, the outline of the Mid-bulkhead, and the sidecast rock structure alongside the southern side of the Channel. The permit was denied. In 1977, the owner of the property reapplied for a permit to maintenance dredge the Channel to a dimension of 290 feet long and 30 feet wide, and to a depth of minus 4.0 feet below mean low water nearshore to minus 6 feet below mean low water at the waterward end. The proposal to construct an extension of the NE Jetty was deleted. The permit was issued, and a severance fee for the dredged material was paid based on a projected 700 cubic yards of material removed. The permit drawings and photographs depict the existing NE Jetty, the nearshore Channel boundary, and the general outline of the Mid- bulkhead. By 1981, aerial photographs demonstrate that the maintenance dredging of the Channel was complete, the NE Jetty was in place and functioning to protect the shoreline as evidenced by the accretional fillet, and the Mid-bulkhead had assumed its approximate current shape and configuration. Although the Channel has varied in depth over the years since the maintenance dredging and Hurricane Wilma, the greater weight of the evidence, including photographic evidence, indicates that the Channel was well-defined and remained navigable during that period. The Channel is an open-water exposed channel. Water in the Channel mixes due to direct tidal flow and the sheet flow of water due to shear wind stress. As water passes over the Channel, it sets up gyre, which is a mixing process. The open- water exposed Channel is subject to a high degree of mixing, even on normal waveless conditions, because of the wind transport of water and the tidal transport of water. The Channel is not a semi-enclosed basin. A semi- enclosed basin does not receive the direct forcing functions that an open-water channel receives. A semi-enclosed basin has no direct connection to open waters, but is connected to open waters by a narrower opening. Although a semi-enclosed basin exchanges water via every tidal cycle, the flushing process is one of slow mixing, in which a little bit of water is added to and withdrawn from the larger basin through the narrow opening during each tidal cycle. In such a case, a flushing analysis may be necessary to determine how much time and how many tidal cycles it may take to effect a complete exchange of the water in the semi-enclosed basin, and thus, for example, to dilute a pollutant to an acceptable level. A flushing analysis is not needed in this case because the Channel is an open-water, openly-exposed location subject to a high degree of mixing under normal day-to-day tidal processes. There is no greater basin connected by a restricting connection as with a semi-enclosed basin. Rather, the Channel has direct exposure to the tides, along with wind shear stress moving the water. The evidence in this case is substantial and persuasive, because the Channel is highly exposed to the open water and the tides, and a well-mixed and well-flushed aquatic system, that a flushing analysis is neither required nor necessary. Dock The dock made its first obvious appearance in 1981. It appears in a consistent shape and appearance through 2011. Aerial photographs taken in 2012, after the maintenance dredging of the Channel was conducted, show the dock had been removed. At the time of the hearing, the Applicants had installed new pilings and vent boards for the replacement dock, but the decking had not been installed. Work to complete the replacement of the dock was halted due to the pendency of the litigation challenging the structures. The proposed dock is less than 500 square feet. It is proposed for non-commercial, recreational activities. It is the sole dock proposed on the Property. The proposed dock will not impede the flow of water or create a navigational hazard. Boat Ramp Since the issuance of the 2008 approval, the boat ramp site was graded and stabilized in limerock material. The concrete ramp was not completed due to the pendency of the litigation challenging the structures. However, Applicants propose to pave the ramp with concrete. Based on Mr. Clark’s observations during his site visits, the boat ramp is landward of the mean high waterline depicted on the survey. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the proposed boat ramp will provide access to the Channel, which provides a minimum navigational access of two feet below mean low water to the ramp. Applicants have agreed to install depth indicators at the ramp to identify the controlling depths of the navigational access. The work on the ramp involves no seagrass beds or coral communities. The ramp as proposed will require no more than 100 cubic yards of dredging. The total width of the ramp is to be 20 feet and the ramp surface will be no wider than 12 feet. Beach Area The area between the SW Jetty and the Mid-bulkhead is an accreted beach-type area that has been confined and protected by the Mid-bulkhead and the SW Jetty. The shoreline landward of the mean high water line, from the dry beach and to the upland, is somewhat steeper than adjacent unprotected shorelines, which is indicative of the grooming of the upper beach sediment and the stability of the shoreline between the Mid-bulkhead and the SW Jetty. As a result of the Hurricane Wilma storm surge, a substantial amount of sediment was swept across the Property and into the Atlantic waters. The beach area was inundated with sand and sediment from the overwash, which appears to have moved the shoreline well waterward of its previous position. Along the northern side of the SW Jetty, a substantial channelized gully was created. The configuration of the shoreline post-Wilma suggests that efforts were made by the then-owner of the Property to fill in the gully on the northern side of the SW Jetty, and to groom and restore the shoreline by redistributing sand and sediment on the Property. It is typical, and allowable under DEP emergency final orders, for affected property owners to redistribute overwashed deposits and place them back within the beach system. In that regard, the DEP encourages the redistribution of clean beach sand back onto the beach. The then-owners of the Property were not alone in taking steps to address the effects of Hurricane Wilma on their adjacent shorelines. The photographic evidence demonstrates that Petitioners engaged in similar restorative activities, which included bringing in material purchased from a contractor to fill in a gully created on their property by the overwash. Observation of representative soil samples from the beach area demonstrate that the soils are consistent with those in the upper beach areas found throughout the area. The only areas of inconsistent soils were found in the interior of the rock structure of the Mid-bulkhead, which contained a four to six-inch layer of soil with a different consistency and darker brown color, and small area of similar soil directly adjacent thereto and well above the mean high water line. The greater weight of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence demonstrates that there was no substantial amount of “fill” from off-site placed on or adjacent to the beach area. Rather, the nature, appearance, and composition of the soils suggests that the temporary increase in the size of the beach area after Hurricane Wilma was the result of grooming and redistribution of sand and sediment pushed onto the Property and into the nearshore waters by the Hurricane Wilma storm surge. In the years since Hurricane Wilma, the influence of normal tidal and weather-driven events has returned the beach area between the mid-bulkhead and the SW jetty to roughly the configuration that existed prior to the passage of Wilma, though it remains somewhat waterward of its pre-Wilma location.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order approving the February 20, 2013, proposed Permit, as conditioned by Applicants’ December 12, 2013, Proposed Changes to the Pending Agency Action. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 2014.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the record owner of certain contiguous lots in Escambia County, Florida, which were part of a subdivision originally platted and recorded in 1926. Three of those lots, contiguous to each other, are waterfront lots lying along the southern shore of Bayou Garcon in Escambia County. A portion of the northern boundary of those lots, as originally platted and recorded and conveyed to Petitioner, extends beyond the current upland and into the waters of Bayou Garcon, a Class III Florida Water body. That portion of the lots extending into the bayou is roughly triangular in shape, measuring approximately 125 feet from the northwest corner of the property eastwardly to the shoreline and approximately 40 feet from the northwest corner of the property south to the shoreline. See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit C. Immediately adjacent to the inundated portion of Bayou Garcon, that is the shoreline, is a so-called "beach berm," consisting of a sand deposit historically built up by wave action. This beach berm is well vegetated, primarily with juncus and also with spartina patens. Immediately landward of this beach berm, and physically separated by it from the open waters of Bayou Garcon, is a so-called juncus marsh. This juncus or salt-brackish marsh is vegetated predominately with black needle rush (juncus roemerianus), which is gradually supplanted by sawgrass (cladium jamaicense) near the junction of the marsh area with the landward upland of the three lots. This marsh area extends almost all the way across all three lots in a region running roughly parallel to the course of the bayou. The marsh area terminates in upland, however, on the most easterly lot so that a portion of that lot's upland runs continuously from the landward boundary along Gorham Road to the edge of the open waters of Bayou Garcon on the waterward edge of the beach berm in question. While the beach berm serves to isolate the marsh area to some extent from the open waters of Bayou Garcon, vegetation is continuous from the marsh across the beach berm to the waters of the bayou in a number of places or for most of its length across the waterward boundary of the three lots in question. The open waters of Bayou Garcon and the waters present in the marsh do exchange. The evidence was uncontroverted that the beach berm is overflowed by tidal waters during occasional storm tides, during the course of a typical year, and by other unusually high tides, such as Spring tides. The berm appears to be more frequently inundated from a point lying at the northwesterly corner of the three lots even at normal high tides. Thus, although there is some conflicting evidence regarding the frequency with which the waters of the bayou exchange with the marsh waters, there is no question that this exchange of waters does occur and thus that water salinity varies in the marsh and in Bayou Garcon as a result of this exchange and that the various characteristic elements of the marshes' biological productivity are exported to the waters of the bayou thereby. The marsh and the adjacent littoral zone underlying Bayou Garcon currently perform a number of relevant biological functions. These include the uptake of nutrients from upland runoff, fertilizers, heavy metals and the like and the production of detrital material, which is exported from the marsh during periods of tidal exchange to form part of the nourishment of the estuarine food chain. The marsh and the adjacent littoral zone of the bayou also constitute an important habitat for marine life forms and other wildlife. It constitutes a nursery ground for fish, shrimp, crabs, amphipods, worms, mollusks and other species. The smaller species are in turn fed upon by larger predators such as wading birds, larger fin fishes and the like. The marsh and its littoral zone is thus important to commercial and recreational interests involving fisheries, both sport and commercial. The Petitioner's proposed project consists of the erection of a bulkhead faced with "riprap" along the northerly boundary of the three contiguous lots, running approximately 125 feet, which boundary and proposed bulkhead would include part of the waters of Bayou Garcon waterward of the current shoreline. The Petitioner then proposes to place 1,745 cubic yards of fill in the area landward of that bulkhead extending across the littoral zone of the waters of the bayou, across the beach berm referenced above and back-filling the entire marsh to the upland portion of the subject lots. The placement of this bulkhead, riprap and associated back-filling will eliminate essentially all of the biological and ecological functions performed by the marsh, as well as the adjacent intertidal and littoral zones across the water frontage of the three lots. The project, as currently proposed, would replace these functions with a new source of negative impacts to Bayou Garcon, Perdido Bay and related State waters, including the deposition of additional nutrients such as lawn fertilizers and septic tank leachates associated with development, which can fertilize and cause excessive algae growth and resultant retardation of dissolved oxygen levels in the waters involved. Resultant development of the filled lots will cause additional water quality degradation in the form of pesticides and coliform bacteria emanating from septic tank leachate, associated with the upland development. Development of waterfront land in the Bayou Garcon area has increased in recent years. Much of the development occurring in the past involved filling marshes, such as that involved in the case at bar. Substantial areas of salt marsh have been filled and substantial areas remain in a relatively natural state along the bayou in the area of the proposed project. The cumulative effect of development in the area, that is the bayou, its littoral zone and adjacent salt marshes, of the type and in the manner proposed by the Petitioner, will result in significant degradation of water quality, as well as a substantial loss of the biological functions previously described and delineated in Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, with resulting substantial adverse impact on the public interest. Prior to the filing of the permit application, the Petitioner's consultants met with a representative of the Department at the project site, whereupon the Department's representatives advised them that the Department had certain objections to the project as it was then proposed. They discussed these problems concerning the adverse environmental impact of the project, and the Department proposed modifications, during the free-form review stage of the permit application, intended to lessen the environmental impacts while still protecting the existing shoreline from erosion, which was one of the objects of the Petitioner in applying for the permit. The Petitioner, however, elected not to modify the design of the project to incorporate the changes or all of the changes suggested by DER, so that, after a review of the application the Department issued a notice of its intent to deny it. A permit had been issued by the Department for the same property on November 9, 1978, which authorized a dredge and fill project similar in scope and configuration to that sought in the instant proceeding, contingent upon receipt of all necessary State and Federal governmental authorizations. The Department did not assert jurisdiction over the subject marsh area at that time, apparently taking the position that there was a break in the continuity of the jurisdictional vegetation across the middle of the beach berm, which constituted a continuous gap across the entire waterward frontage of the property, so as to sever the vegetative connection to State waters. That 1978 permit authorized construction of a seawall along the waterward side of the berm and around a group of trees growing at the northeast corner of the property, immediately proximate to the shoreline. It also authorized the placement of fill landward of the seawall and in the subject marsh area. That marsh area was designated as an area "to be filled" on the relevant permit drawings. The Petitioner began installation of that project, pursuant to that 1978 permit, in July 1978, after obtaining the necessary authorization from the United States Army Corps of Engineers on May 18, 1978. Construction continued under the 1978 permit until the Petitioner received a Cease and Desist Order from the Corps of Engineers and a Notice of Violation and an Order for Corrective Action from the Department of Environmental Regulation. Factual details and legal conclusions concerning the enforcement action are summarized in the Recommended Order of Hearing Officer Benton entered May 20, 1983, which was adopted by the Secretary of DER on June 6, 1983, affirmed by the First District Court of Appeal in Lord vs. DER, supra, and officially recognized in this case. As a result of that enforcement action, the Petitioner was allowed to leave the vertical bulkhead around the trees at the northeast corner of her property but was required to remove a promontory that had been constructed by placing unconsolidated fill into the waters of the bayou. The Hearing Officer noted: "Respondent also contends that permit number 17-11736-IE authorized this deposition of fill west of the bulkhead out into the waters of Bayou Garcon. The permit clearly does no such thing. The permit contemplated bulk- heading and back-filling, not road building. The amount of unconsolidated fill exposed to wave action is at least 2 1/2 times what was authorized by the permit to be put behind bulkheads. . . Filling in the waters of the State requires a permit pursuant to Rule 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code, and Respondent had no permit authorizing placement of the fill so as to build the promontory." See page 8 of 1983 Recommended Order. The 1978 permit expired on May 18, 1982. Before its expiration date, the Petitioner did not place significant amounts of fill in the subject juncus marsh behind the beach berm although the permit authorized her to. When the application for the current permit was filed, the promontory fill in the waters of the bayou had been removed in accordance with the enforcement proceeding and Final Order therein, and only the northeast corner of the property around the subject stand of pine trees remains bulkheaded. The Petitioner has not attempted, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Rule 17-4.022(8), Florida Administrative Code, to have the Department validate the jurisdictional determination which it made in connection with the 1978 permit application. The time has now expired for such a validation of the Department's 1978 determination of the landward extent of State waters, using the vegetative index adopted June 10, 1975. Such a validation would have had to have been made within six months of October 1, 1984, the effective date of the amendments to Chapter 403, commonly known as the "Warren S. Henderson Wetlands Act". Since that six month deadline mandated by the above-cited rule has long since passed, that prior 1978 jurisdictional determination, which resulted in the 1978 permit authorizing the filling of the marsh, can no longer have any material effect in this proceeding. The record establishes no representations or acts on the part of the Department or its representatives occurred during the life of that 1978 permit such that representations or actions of the Department during the life of that permit would have prevented the Petitioner from filling the marsh, landward of the berm or, in fact from completing the other work authorized by the permit, such as constructing the bulkhead across the front of the lots in accordance with the terms of the permit. The only thing interfering with the Petitioner's work on the project involved in the 1978 permit was the above-mentioned enforcement case, which stemmed from the Petitioner exceeding the authorization of that permit in the first place. No agency action or representation by any of its employees or agents prevented the Petitioner from filling the marsh area landward of the beach berm before the 1978 permit expired.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the application of Joyce L. Lord for a dredge and fill permit as described above, be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3033 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1 & 2. Accepted. 3-5. Accepted, but not dispositive of any material issue presented for the reasons enumerated in the body of the Recommended Order. Accepted in part, but rejected as to its material overall import as not being in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Accepted as to its chronology of events only; rejected otherwise as being not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence and as immaterial to the disposition of the material issues presented. Rejected as to its material import and as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officers Findings of Fact on this subject matter. 12 & 13. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter and as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the testimony and evidence. 14. Accepted, but not in and of itself dispositive of material issues presented. 15 & 16. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter and as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the testimony and evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-13. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory Paul Farrar, Esquire Paul Shimek, Jr., Esquire 311 North Spring Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 David A. Crowley, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
