Findings Of Fact The City currently operates a wastewater treatment plant providing "secondary treatment," and the effluent from that plant is discharged into Whitaker Bayou, an arm of Sarasota Bay. The Federal NPDES Permit and State Temporary Operating Permit for the wastewater treatment plant require the City to cease this discharge by July, 1988 due to pollution problems in the Bay, but the specific means through which this must be accomplished is not specified in the NPDES or Temporary Operating Permit. Any emergency discharge into Whitaker Bayou after July, 1988 would be violative of both state and federal- permits. On August 14, 1984, the City applied to the Department for a permit (File No. 58-0912689) for the following activities in the waters of the state in connection with the development of a 2,462 acre site as a wastewater spray irrigation facility; (1) the construction of a 36" diameter pipeline approximately 16 miles long from the existing wastewater treatment plant to the proposed sprayfield site with a total of 13 wetland crossings; (2) the construction of a wastewater retention pond; (3) the construction of a center pivot spray irrigation and underdrain system based on 15 center pivot points; (4) the creation of mitigation wetland areas of 20 acres; 33 acres, 72 acres, 27 acres and 46 acres: (5) the construction of a weir across East Ditch with an invert elevation to the top of the weir crest set at 34.5 feet to retain water in the existing on-site marsh system; (6) the construction of three other weir structures to control the run-off from the mitigation wetlands to East Ditch with crest elevations of 38.0 feet in the Northernmost area and two at 34.0 feet in the Southeast corner of the site, and one at 26.0 feet in the Southwest corner of the site with a crest elevation of 26.0 feet to control the run off to Howard Creek; (7) rerouting East Ditch 500 feet to the East; (8) rerouting Howard Creek and East Ditch into Vanderipe Slough through a new ditch with a berm; (9) closing the connection from Vanderipe Slough to the Myakka River; (10) replacing the existing double 30" culverts with a triple 60" culvert for the drainage crossing of the Florida Power and Light right-of-way through Vanderipe Slough; (11) the construction of a system of two-lane, shell-bed service roads on the project site with culverted wetland crossings; (12) dredging approximately 3,363,775 cubic yards of material and; (13) filling with approximately 1,578,850 cubic yards of material. This application, as well as plans and specifications, was prepared by a professional engineer, registered in Florida, and was deemed complete on May 1, 1985. On November 1, 1984, the City applied to the Department for a permit (File No. DC58-095055) to construct improvements to the wastewater treatment plant, a wastewater transmission line and a wastewater spray irrigation facility. This application was certified by a professional engineer, registered in Florida, as were plans and specifications. These facilities will permit the City to spray-irrigate 13 million gallons a day of chlorinated effluent and to discharge the effluent from sprayfield underdrains to on-site wetlands for further treatment. Surface run-off from these wetlands will flow into Howard Creek and East Ditch. This application was deemed complete on May 28, 1985. On January 24, 1985, the City filed with the Department a Petition for an Exemption to Provide for the Experimental Use of Wetlands for Low Energy Water and Wastewater Recycling (File No. VE-58-206). The Petition requests alternative criteria for Class III dissolved oxygen and nutrient standards in the on-site wetlands, which would receive a wastewater discharge from the sprayfield underdrains. Bishop and Kehn filed petitions with the Department challenging the application for a permit for activities in the waters of the state (File No. 58-0912689) and the Petition for An Exemption to Provide for the Experimental Use of Wetlands for Low Energy Water and Wastewater Recycling (File No. VE-58-206). Sefton and Peters filed petitions with the Department challenging the application for a permit for activities in the waters of the state (File No. 58-0912689). Myakka filed petitions with the Department challenging the application for a permit to construct wastewater treatment plant improvements, the wastewater transmission line and the wastewater spray irrigation facility (File No. DC58-095055) and the application for a permit for activities in the waters of the state (File No. 58-0912689). Myakka also filed a petition to intervene in the challenges filed by Bishop and Kehn to the Petition for an Exemption to Provide for the Experimental Use of Wetlands for Low Energy Water and Wastewater Recycling (File No. VE-58-206). In its prehearing stipulation filed on May 23, 1986, the Department noticed its change of position and intent to deny the City's applications. By separate stipulation executed May 12, 1986, following a status conference, the City and Myakka acknowledged that the Department would change its position in these proceedings, and would do so in the context of its prehearing stipulation. A formal administrative hearing to consider these matters was conducted from May 27 to June 5, 1986, at which evidence from the parties as well as public testimony was received. The City of Sarasota has proposed to expand and improve its sewage treatment plant from its present approved capacity of 9.1 million gallons per day (MOD) to an average daily flow of 13 MGD, with a peak capacity of 25 MGD. The City estimated it will not reach an average daily flow of 13 MGD until after the year 2000, although currently peak flow does reach 13 MGD. A transmission line is proposed for construction from the expanded sewage treatment plant, using city easements, to a city-owned parcel located in the eastern portion of Sarasota County. The parcel was acquired in 1981. The transmission line will be constructed underground using thirty-six inch force main, will cover a distance of approximately sixteen miles. and is designed to carry an average daily flow of 13 MGD. Effluent will be pumped through the transmission line from the treatment plant to the city-owned parcel. The line will not intersect water or storm mains, will not cross any canals or waterways subject to maintenance dredging, and will not allow for the introduction of stormwater or other sources of wastewater. The city-owned parcel which will be at the end of the transmission line was formerly known as the Hi-Hat Ranch. It is an area consisting of 2,462 acres which is currently comprised of wetlands, wooded hammocks and uplands used for cattle grazing, and is located fourteen miles east of the City of Sarasota and two miles south of Highway 780. The parcel has been fertilized to some extent in the past, although the amount and frequency of application has not been established. The City proposes to construct a spray irrigation project on the site to dispose of effluent from its sewage treatment plant. Myakka River State Park is located to the east of the proposed spray site a residential area known as Myakka Valley Ranches Subdivision is located to the south: and Vpper and Lower Lake Myakka, the Myakka River, and Vanderipe Slough are located south-east of the proposed spray irrigation site. East Ditch runs through the east side of the parcel and Howard Creek parallels the western boundary. Surface and ground water presently flows from the proposed spray site to the south-southwest into Howard Creek, a class III water body, and to the south-southeast into East Ditch, a class III water body, which then converge and flow into Vpper Lake Myakka, a class I water body and a designated Outstanding Florida Water. From Upper Lake Myakka, water flows into Vanderipe Slough, a class III water body, and Lower Lake Myakka; a class I water body and Outstanding Florida Water, via the Myakka River. The geologic materials presently found at the Hi-Hat Ranch Site are sedimentary in origin and consist of sands, silts, sandy phosphatic clays and limestone. There are 343 acres of natural herbaceous wetlands on the site, but only 140 acres have been determined by the Department to be "jurisdictional." Herbaceous wetlands are more sensitive to changes in water and nutrient levels than hardwood wetlands. The natural wetlands serve as fish and wildlife habitat, recharge areas, and as assimilation areas for nutrients. The proposed project will preserve 96 acres of natural wetlands on the East Ditch and create a total of 196 acres of artificial or mitigation wetlands. In order to provide the necessary degree of wetland treatment for the applied effluent, 150 acres of these mitigation wetlands, along with the 96 acres of preserved natural wetlands, for a total of 246 acres of mitigation and natural wetlands, will be utilized for treatment as part of the spray irrigation project. Plant communities on-site will be substantially and adversely altered in creating the mitigation wetlands, and this will alter wildlife habitat presently associated with the natural wetlands on-site. It was not established that wildlife presently on-site will be able to survive the project's affects and remain on- site. The City proposes to construct a spray irrigation project on the Hi-Hat Ranch property to dispose of sewage effluent. The project will consist of a holding pond into which effluent will initially flow from the transmission line, a pump station to transmit the effluent from the holding pond to the sprayfield where it will be sprayed on fifteen spray sites, an underdrain system under the spray sites to carry water that has filtered through the soils to drainage ditches which will then carry the water to four of five artificial or mitigation wetland areas on the site. As indicated above, a total of 246 acres of mitigation and natural wetlands will be utilized to provide the necessary degree of wetlands treatment for the applied effluent. From the wetlands areas, the flow will be discharged into Howard Creek and East Ditch. After intersecting East Ditch, a diversion of Howard Creek is proposed so that it will flow directly into Vanderipe Slough, instead of its current course into the Myakka River State Park and Upper Lake Myakka. (a) The proposed holding pond will encompass 120 acres and consist of three cells. Its design is based on the City's review of 72 years of climatological data to determine the greatest number of consecutive days that rainfall will prevent spraying. Its purpose will be to store wastewater initially entering the site from the transmission line prior to being pumped to the spray fields, and to even out surges in this in- flow. Additionally, some nutrient removal will take place through volatilization and settling. Test soil borings of the holding pond site, excluding its eastern side, indicate that a natural clay layer, along with additional clay to be placed on site, will form a barrier layer under the holding pond and thereby result in a minimal average permeability rate of .03 inches per day. Insufficient borings were done in the northeastern part of the holding pond to make a determination of permeability. There will be one large cell to allow a longer detention time of 8 1/2 days at 13 MGD, and two smaller cells with a detention time of 4 1/3 days each at 13 MGD. In-flow of effluent from the transmission line will be alternated among the cells depending on the rate of flow and the water level in the cells. Each cell is designed to retain two feet of water at all times to discourage mosquitos and aquatic weeds, with a designed maximum depth when in use of eight feet. The maximum operating capacity of the holding pond is approximately 220 million gallons, which represents approximately 17 days of flow from the treatment plant at 13 MGD assuming no rainfall into the pond during this time. In the event that the holding pond is at maximum capacity and can accept no more effluent, the City proposes to either divert the effluent for discharge into Whitaker Bayou, or to spray directly onto the spray fields, by passing the holding pond. The holding pond is designed with walls that will have an additional three feet elevation over the designed maximum water depth of eight feet. but there is a potential for overflow if water depth exceeds eight feet. If the holding pond were to be filled to the top of the side walls, it would then, hold four hundred million gallons of effluent. No emergency discharge device has been provided in the design of the holding pond, although it is required by the Department's Land Application Design Manual. A potable water well will be placed onsite within 500 feet of the holding pond, although such placement is prohibited by the Land Application Design Manual. (a) Effluent will be pumped to the fifteen spray sites from the holding pond using a pumping station located next to the holding pond and a distribution system connected to fifteen center pivot irrigation systems. The pump station has a design capacity to pump 13 MGD of effluent in 16 hours. Effluent will alternately be sprayed on the fifteen sites by means of a rotating, center pivot spray. The system is designed to average 2.6 inches of spray per week on each spray site. The Department's Land Application Design Manual requires that no more than 2 inches be sprayed per week. A crop of Coastal Bermuda grass, supplemented with winter rye, will be grown on each spray site. An underdrain system will be installed under each spray site to receive sprayed effluent that has filtered through the soils, and to maintain the water table at three feet, which will be below the root system of the Bermuda and rye grasses and thereby provide proper soil conditions and aeration for root growth. The fifteen spray sites will encompass a total area of 1,296 acres. The City has not provided the Department with an operational plan for the sprayfield to address loading and resting periods, harvesting periods and the spray rotation schedule. It has not been established by competent substantial evidence that the City can operate the sprayfield to allow in the same operation harvesting of the grass crop, drying of the mitigated wetlands, prevention of soil saturation and sheet flow of effluent during rainfall events and maintenance of the hydrologic balance of the system. An underdrain system will be constructed using perforated polyester piping enveloped in a fabric and surrounded by course sand. The piping will be spaced between 75 and 150 feet apart. It is designed to receive 13 MGD while maintaining the three foot water table. The underdrains will empty into a series of ditches located throughout the project site which will then carry the effluent, along with rain water runoff to four of the five mitigation wetlands. The fifth mitigation wetland and natural wetlands remaining on-site will receive stormwater runoff only. Additionally, sheet flow will occur in an area composed of wetlands and upland vegetation along East Ditch. A five year storm was considered in the design of culverts in the ditches receiving underdrain discharge. (a) The City proposes to construct the mitigated wetland areas to replace natural wetlands that will be destroyed in the preparation and construction of the spray irrigation project. All of the mitigation wetlands will be marsh habitats, but a non-marsh, woody wetland will be destroyed in the area of the holding pond which will therefore not be mitigated. Some effluent treatment will take place in the mitigated wetlands which will also serve to control the flow of effluent and runoff leaving the project to the southwest, south and southeast. The mitigated wetlands have been designated for a 24 hour storm event that would be expected to occur once in 25 years. A system of ten foot wide wooden weirs with inch notches will be used to control the flow of water through the mitigated wetlands. Wooden boards will be placed in the notches to regulate the flow, but it has not been shown that the hydroperiods or detention times of the pre-construction natural wetlands will be duplicated in the mitigated wetlands. It appears that the detention time necessary for effluent treatment is inconsistent with the natural wetland hydroperiods. Currently the natural wetlands on site are dry for periods throughout the year: however, the mitigated wetlands are designed to have a constant two foot minimum depth and there are no plans to periodically and regularly draw-down the mitigated wetlands. Construction of the mitigated wetland areas will take several weeks, during which time vegetation presently on site will be removed by excavation, the land dried and contoured, berms constructed, and a mulching technique will then be used in an attempt to replace vegetative species found in the natural wetlands. However, testimony shows that a mulching technique is only successful if it is completed in two to three weeks, including establishment of a correct seasonal hydroperiod, and also only if a weed control program is carried out for two years. In this case it is unlikely that construction and mulching could be completed in three weeks, and the City has note proposed an effective weed control program. Berms to be constructed along the southern and western end of the project site around the mitigated wetlands will be ten feet in width at their top and approximateIy three feet above existing grade, or approximately eight feet above the bottom of the mitigated wetland: they will be constructed of clay and sand materials found on site. Reasonable assurance has not been given that the berms as designed will prevent uncontrolled runoff of water to neighboring land to the south and west of the project site. It has also not been shown with reasonable assurance that the mitigation wetlands will replicate plant zonation or community, or the type, function or form of all existing natural wetlands to be destroyed. Finally, reasonable assurance has not been given that the project will preserve a large hardwood swamp, primarily pop ash, on the eastern half of the site, or that an oak hammock in the northeast corner of the site will be saved from flooding as a result of the project. Flows leaving the mitigated wetlands will empty into Howard Creek and East Ditch. Culverts at the outfalls into Howard Creek and East Ditch were designed using a 25 year, 24 hour storm event. These water bodies are currently clear flowing with no algae. The rate of flow through Howard Creek and East Ditch varies currently from a slight trickle to flood conditions due to seasonal rainfall variations. The spray irrigation project will increase the flow into Howard Creek and East Ditch in low flow conditions. The City contends the project should reduce storm discharges and nutrient loading into these water bodies when it is operating under design conditions, but this has not been established by competent substantial evidence. The areas of Howard Creek, East Ditch and Vanderipe Slough which the City seeks to use in the project are privately owned or state property. The City currently has no legal interest in, or authority to use: the privately owned areas of Howard Creek in Myakka Valley Ranches Subdivision (MVRS) for transmission of its discharge from the spraysite to the Howard Creek diversion inside Myakka River State Park: the privately owned areas and drainage way of East Ditch in MVRS for effluent transmission from the spraysite to the Howard Creek diversion inside Myakka River State Park: any portion of Myakka River State Park as part of its wastewater disposal program: or the privately owned areas of Vanderipe Slough for which it seeks permits for the transmission and treatment of sewage effluent. The City proposes to remove a dike, constructed almost fifty years ago, which currently prevents Howard Creek from flowing directly into Vanderipe Slough, and divert the Creek from its present course which is into Upper Lake Myakka. This would restore the natural course of the Creek into the Slough, and eliminate any flow from the Creek into Upper Lake, by constructing a berm between the Creek and Upper Lake within the state park. However, this diversion would destroy a pop ash swamp, some of which is inside the state park, and no mitigation is proposed for this loss. The City has not established that the flow lost by this diversion will not adversely affect water quality of Upper Lake Myakka, or wetlands in the state park. Vanderipe Slough encompasses an area of approximately 500 acres, a portion of which is within the Myakka River State Park, and is therefore an Outstanding Florida Water. At various times of the year, depending upon seasonal rainfall, it is dry to a significant extent, or else is completely flooded such that it overflows Shep's Island and joins with the Myakka River as they flow into Lower Lake Myakka. It is a nutrient limited system with substantial vegetative matting in normal flows. Large areas of the Slough are herbaceous wetlands. The project will cause more water to flow into the Slough in low and medium flow conditions, and under high flow conditions there will be at least as much flow into the Slough as at the present. Water carrying the entire nutrient load of Howard Creek and East Ditch will enter the Slough through a channel that will be cut in its northern end, and will then flow southward at a relatively slow velocity, with a detention time in the Slough of approximately 2.8 days. Channelization or scouring in the Slough will not occur under design conditions due to this relatively slow flow velocity. Flow velocities will be greater through the artificial channel and rip-rap will be used to avoid scouring at this point of entry into the Slough. Approximately 280 acres of Vanderipe Slough will be regularly, and almost continuously, inundated after the project. Under high flow conditions from 400 to 500 acres will be inundated. Nitrogen levels will increase and be converted to usable forms, with a resulting increase in plant growth and decrease in dissolved oxygen content of the water. This is reasonably expected to cause and contribute to existing water quality violations in the Slough, and alter its use as a wildlife habitat to a more aquatic habitat due to increased water levels. Several obstructions or hindrances to the flow of water through the Slough currently exist. These include culverts thirty and forty-two inches wide, which the City proposes to replace with three sixty inch culverts, and berms two to three feet above the Slough floor which are six to ten feet in width. The City has not proposed removal or modification of all obstructions to flow through the Slough. Elevations in the area range from approximately twenty feet above sea level at the sewage treatment plant, with a twenty foot rise along the transmission line to an average elevation of approximately forty feet at the project site, to an elevation of approximately thirteen feet at the present dike which diverts Howard Creek directly into Upper Lake Myakka. Elevations along the eastern edge of Myakka Valley Ranches average twenty feet. Howard Creek falls sixty Eeet in elevation from a point ten miles upstream to the point at which it presently enters Upper Lake Myakka. There is no set back along the southern edge of the property to protect property owners from excessive groundwater flows from the project site which could occur in flood conditions. Sheet flow from the site to other property is likely to occur if watertables in the sprayfield are raised above three feet due to spraying, rainfall or increased groundwater levels. Several Petitioners and members of the public who testified expressed concern about increased flooding and stormwater runoff as a result of the project. The addition of the City's discharge from the sprayfield will impair and adversely affect drainage of property in Myakka Valley Ranches Subdivision through East Ditch, Howard Creek and Vanderipe Slough, and will reasonably be expected to cause flooding. Wetland areas on the eastern boundary of the site may also overflow and discharge into the state park. There is no competent substantial evidence that the City will control increased mosquito populations which will result from flooding and which may cause a health problem and adversely affect the use of these water bodies for recreational and conservation purposes. Security around the spray field site will be provided by three strands of barbed wire on the east, west and north sides of the parcel. On the south side next to Myakka Valley Ranches Subdivision, a six foot high hog wire fence with three strands of barbed wire above it will provided. Gates at all entrance points will allow for locking. The property will also be posted with "no trespassing" signs. This does represent adequate restriction of public access to the site. There was extensive testimony concerning the current water quality and nutrient levels existing on the project site and surrounding water bodies, and the affect of this spray irrigation project on existing wetlands and surrounding waters. In its initial application, the City predicted effluent leaving the treatment plant would contain 12.4 mg/1 nitrogen. In fact, the current average concentration of nitrogen in effluent leaving the plant is 20 mg/1. The stronger concentrations in the City's effluent will continue after completion of the project. Effluent leaving the plant will have achieved basic disinfection, with 90 per cent or more of the Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) having been removed prior to discharge into the holding pond. Basic disinfection produces effluent containing up to 200 colonies of fecal coliform per 100 ml. Chlorine contact in the transmission line will reduce bacteria and viruses in the effluent entering the holding pond, but fecal coliforms will still be present in the effluent on- site. Total nitrogen in the holding pond effluent will be volatized, assimilated and absorbed to a degree in the sprayfields. However, the City has incorrectly concluded that the total nitrogen in the underdrain discharge will be in trace amounts, since its analysis began with incorrect assumptions about nitrogen loading from the plant, and also assumed excessive nitrogen uptake from sprayfield grass crops. Nitrogen concentration from the underdrains will be as high as three mg/l. At this level, the underdrain discharge will cause or contribute to new violations of water quality standards for nutrients and dissolved oxygen in the natural and mitigated wetlands. In order to determine if a particular wetland can assimilate nutrient loading, a water budget for that wetland must be prepared. The City has failed to provide adequate wetland water budgets from which it could be determined if the wetlands will assimilate nutrients since none of the water budgets proposed or relied upon by the City accounted for the addition of stormwater or groundwater flow onto the site from offsite. The discharge from the wetlands will introduce nutrients into waters of the state in Howard Creek, East Ditch, Vanderipe Slough and Lower Lake Myakka causing further nutrient enrichment of waters presently high in nutrient concentrations and sensitive to further concentrations and loadings. Sewage effluent will be the only water pollution source affecting these water bodies, for which the City has not sought site specific alternative criteria. The addition of discharge from the spraysite will result in a lowering of dissolved oxygen levels in Howard Creek and East Ditch causing new, or contributing to continuing, violations. These impacts on water quality will be measurable. Howard Creek, East Ditch, and Vanderipe Slough have existing dissolved oxygen violations, and the diversion of Howard Creek and East Ditch into the Slough will cause or contribute to existing DO violations in the Slough. The QUAL/2E Model, as used by the City in this case to predict post-project levels of dissolved oxygen, is not reliable because it is only appropriate for use in determining dissolved oxygen levels in a flowing riverine system, which this is not, and also because there was an insufficient data base. Separating the holding pond from the existing groundwater is a natural clay layer which will be pierced at some points by the excavation of the holding pond. This will allow seepage from the holding pond into the groundwater and the City has not shown that this seepage will meet primary and secondary drinking water standards. Various endangered species are now found in Vanderipe Slough, and the project will adversely impact the habitat of these species which include woodstorks, bald eagles and Florida panthers. Residents of Myakka Valley Ranches, including the Petitioners and several members of the public who testified, currently use portions of Howard Creek, Upper LaXe Myakka and Vanderipe Slough for canoeing, fishing, birdwatching, camping, hunting, boating and picnicking, and the project will adversely impact on such use due to the introduction of effluent and nutrient loading into these areas, as well as the potential for flooding. Upper and Lower Lake Myakka and the Myakka River connecting these two lakes are all located in the Myakka River State Park, and are in state ownership. The City has not affirmatively demonstrated a net improvement to Upper Lake Myakka as a result of the Howard Creek diversion and the project. To the contrary, the City's use of the state park will adversely affect the conservation related uses of the state park, and recreational use of Upper Lake Myakka as it presently exists due to the elimination of boating access from Howard Creek. The City published notice of the Department's Intent to Issue the construction permit in the February 14, 1986 edition of the Sarasota Herald Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in Sarasota County. The notice of Intent to Issue the application for a wetlands exemption was published in the June 21, 1985 edition of the Sarasota Herald Tribune. The notice of Intent to Issue the dredge and fill permit application was published in the January 16, 1986 edition of the Sarasota Herald Tribune. The only hearing provided for was the opportunity for this formal administrative hearing, but public testimony was received in this hearing. Myakka timely filed petitions under Sections 120.57(1) and 403.412(5), Florida Statutes, concerning the dredge and fill, and construction permit applications. The individual Petitioners timely filed petitions under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, challenging the application for wetlands exemption since their petitions were filed on July 8, 1985, the first available business day after July 5, 1985, on which the Department's offices were closed; and which would otherwise have been the last day for filing such petitions. Myakka subsequently timely intervened in the individual Petitioners' proceeding under Sections 120.57(1) and 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. Myakka is a not-for-profit Florida corporation consisting of approximately 300 families who own property to the south of the project site. In addition, Myakka owns portions of Howard Creek which the City proposes to use to transmit effluent discharged from the project site, and also owns a conservation area immediately adjoining Myakka River State Park through which Howard Creek flows. This is used by residents and members, including the individual Petitioners, for recreational and conservation purposes. Myakka also has exclusive drainage rights for portions of East Ditch which the City proposes to use to transmit effluent from the spray site. The individual Petitioners are residents of Myakka Valley Ranches Subdivision whose homes and property abut the southern border of the project site, Howard Creek, East Ditch, Vanderipe Slough and the conservation area referred to above and who will therefore be substantially affected by the City's project due to its adverse affects on these water bodies and conservation area. Myakka has established that one of its main purposes and interests is to protect water quality, wildlife and other natural resources in Howard Creek, East Ditch, Vanderipe Slough, and Upper and Lower Lake Myakka. Sarasota County's local pollution control ordinance requires advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) which is: five milligrams per liter (mg/l) or less of Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD): five mg/1 or less of suspended solids: three mg/1 of total nitrogen as nitrogen: and one mg/1 of total phosphorous as phosphorous. The City's spray irrigation project is intended to achieve AWT prior to discharge into state waters but it has not been established by competent substantial evidence that it will meet this goal. Secondary treatment currently provided reduces the BOD and suspended solids concentrations in the effluent discharged into Whitaker Bayou to 20 mg/1. As applied for, the City's project places portions of several sprayfields and some of the mitigated wetlands within the 500 foot vegetated buffer zone which has been required for the spraysite by Sarasota County. (a) The findings of fact set forth above are made after considering the evidence introduced, as well as the qualifications, credibility and demeanor of all witnesses who testified. Specifically, the expert testimony of the following witnesses was deemed particularly persuasive and credible: George T. Baragona, expert in hydrology William M. Kutash, expert in biology with special expertise in wetland biology, mitigation of natural wetlands, wetland hydroperiods and water quality impacts in state waters Larry Schwartz, expert in wetland ecology and wetland modeling David Bickner, expert in wetland ecology; and Jan Mandrup-Poulsen, expert in water quality modeling and analysis. The testimony of Donald Deemer, who was recognized as an expert in sanitary engineering with special expertise is waste water treatment and land treatment of wastewater, was outweighed, rebutted and discredited through the testimony of Jan Mandrup-Poulsen and Paul Larsen, who was accepted as an expert in environmental engineering. The testimony of Andrew Huggins, who was recognized as an expert in water quality modeling with special expertise in water chemistry, hydrology and ecology necessary to discuss modeling, was outweighed, rebutted and discredited through the testimony of Larry Schwartz. Geroge Milton, who was accepted as an expert in civil and sanitary engineering with special expertise in wastewater treatment facility design and operation, as well as Douglas Taylor; Superintendent of the City's Treatment Plants, presented credible testimony concerning the City's sewage treatment plant, the proposed transmission line and design of the spray irrigation system. John E. Garlanger, who was accepted as an expert in civil engineering and geology with special expertise in experimental and applied soil mechanics, soil exploration and testing, and land application of water and wastewater, testified regarding his recommendations about the holding pond and underdrains, as well as site soil characteristics: however, the weight given his testimony was lessened since he testified he was not familiar with the City's applications at issue in this case and also did not know if the project was designed consistent with his recommendation. Donald Mauer, who was accepted as an expert in sanitary and civil engineering, testified about his design of the sprayfield, as well as his opinions regarding the treatment plant, transmission line and other off-site project activities: however, his rebuttal testimony lessened the weight given to his testimony generally. The testimony of the following expert witnesses was considered but given less weight due to the witnesses' lack of site specific data, personal knowledge or experience on the site and conflicting testimony of other witnesses; Lloyd Horvath, who was accepted as an expert in hydrology and civil engineering with expertise in water resource modeling; Andre Clewell, expert in botany with special expertise in restoration of wetland habitats and aerial photo interpretation of vegetation; Eduardo Aguilar, expert in geology and groundwater hydrology: and Forrest Dierberg, expert in environmental chemistry with special expertise in wetland biology and chemical processes. All additional testimony and evidence presented by the parties and through public testimony was considered and weighed in the preparation of these findings of fact.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order denying the City of Sarasota's Application for Wetlands Exemption (VE-58-206), Application for Construction Permit (DC-58-095055) and Application for Dredge and Fill Permit (File No. 58-092689). DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of July, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31 day of July, 1986. APPENDIX Rulings on Individual Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact. 1,2 Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Rejected since it is not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Rejected since it is not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. 8,9 Rejected as irrelevant and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Findings of Fact 18, 24, 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Rejected in Finding of Fact 14. 14-17 Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 18,19 Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. 20 Rejected since it is not based on competent substantial evidence. Rulings on Myakka's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1,2 Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 3, 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 10-13 Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. 14-15 Rejected since they are not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 18,19 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 20-22 Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 23,24 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 25 Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 26-28 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 29-31 Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. 32-33 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 34-36 Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 37,38 Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. 41,42 Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 43-45 Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. 46-48 Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 51-56 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Rejected in Finding of Fact 2r 3. Rejected since it is not based on competent substantial evidence. 62,63 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 64 Adopted in part and rejected in part in Finding of Fact 17. 65,66 Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as cumulative. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 74,75 Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 78-80 Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. 81 Adopted in Findings of Fact 11, 12. 82,83 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 84 Adopted in Finding of Fact-21. 85-87 Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 88-91 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 18, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 92-95 Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 96-97 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 17, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 98-99 Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 103-106 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 109,110 Rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. 111 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 17. 112-120 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 121-126 Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 127 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 128-130 Rejected as unnecessary. 131-168 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. 172-174 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 176-179 Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary, and cumulative. 180 Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. 181-184 Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary, and cumulative. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected in Finding of Fact 20. 187,188 Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. 192,193 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 194 Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. 195-198 Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. 199,200 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 201 Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 202,203 Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 204-206 Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. 207 Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 208-211 Adopted in Findings of Fact 21, 22, 27. 212,213 Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. 214 Rejected as irrelevant and cumulative. 215-218 Adopted in Findings of Fact 21. 22, 27. 219-223 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 27, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary, cumulative and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. 224,225 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 226,227 Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. 228 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 229,230 Rejected as cumulative. 231-233 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 234,235 Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. 236 Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 237-243 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 28-30, but otherwise rejected as cumulative and not based on competent substantial evidence. 244-246 Rejected as cumulative and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. 247,248 Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. 249-259 Adopted in Findings of Fact 2-5, 32. 260-262 Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 263 Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. 264 Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 265-267 Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. 268,269 Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Findings of Fact 25. 29, 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. 276,277 Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. 281-283 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 284 Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. 285 Adopted in Findings of Fact 29, 32. 286 Adopted in Findings of Fact 19. 32. 287,288 Rejected as unnecessary and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. 289-296 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rulings on City's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. 5 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 6-11 Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 12-14 Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 15 Rejected as irrelevant. 16 Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 17 Rejected as irrelevant. 18 Adopted in Findings of Fact 27, 33. 19-21 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 22-30 Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and otherwise contrary to Finding of Fact 27. 31 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 32,33 Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 3, 7. 34,35 Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 36-44 Rejected as unnecessary and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. 45-52 Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 53-55 Rejected as unnecessary. 56-58 Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 59 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 60-62 Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 63,64 Rejected as unnecessary. 65 Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 66-69 Rejected as irrelevant and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. 70-84 Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected as irrelevant and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 87-92 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Rejected as unclear. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 95-100 Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. 101 Rejected in Finding of Fact 14. 102-104 Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact-16. Adopted in part and rejected in part in Finding of Fact 27. 110,111 Rejected in Finding of Fact 27. 112 Rejected as irrelevant. 113-118 Rejected in Finding of Fact 27. 119,120 Adopted substantially in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 124,125 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence and otherwise irrelevant. 126-130 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 2. 16, but otherwise rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 131-135 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 17 but otherwise rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 136-140 Rejected in Finding of Fact 17. Rejected in Findings of Fact 11, 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 143-148 Rejected in Finding of Fact 27 and otherwise unnecessary. 149 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 150,151 Rejected in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in part and rejected in part in Finding of Fact 18. 155,156 Rejected in Finding of Fact 17. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected in Findings of Fact 13, 14. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 163-165 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 166-169 Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. 170-173 Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in part and rejected in part in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected in Finding of Fact 27. 178-188 Rejected in Finding of Fact 27, and otherwise irrelevant, unnecessary and not based on competent substantial evidence. 189,190 Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. 193-195 Rejected as unnecessary and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. 196 Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 197-199 Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. 200,201 Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and not based on competent substantial evidence. 202-206 Rejected in Finding of Fact 27, and otherwise irrelevant and unnecessary. 207,208 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 21. 209-217 Rejected in Findings of Fact 21, 22, 27, and otherwise irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 222-224 Rejected in Finding of Fact 27. and otherwise irrelevant and unnecessary. 225 Rejected as unnecessary and not based on competent substantial evidence. 226 evidence. Rejected as not based on competent substantial 227,228 Rejected as irrelevant. 229-232 Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 233 Rejected as irrelevant. 234,235 evidence. Rejected as not based on competent substantial 236 Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 237,238 Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 239 Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 240-243 Rejected as irrelevant. 244-246 Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. 247-250 Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 251 evidence. Rejected as not based on competent substantial 252,253 Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 254,255 Rejected as irrelevant and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. 256,257 Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. 258-260 Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 261 Rejected as irrelevant. 262 Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 263 Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 264 Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 11. 265-267 Rejected as irrelevant. 268 Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 269-272 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 273,274 Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. 275-278 Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and not based on competent substantial evidence. 279-284 Rejected in Finding of Fact 32. Rulings on the Department's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1 Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 2,3 Adopted in Findings of Fact 2. 3, 4. 4 Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 5-8 Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 9 Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. 10-12 Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 13 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 14,15 Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. 16-23 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected since this is a conclusion of law rather than a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as unclear. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. 27-30 Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Rejected as speculative and not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. 35,36 Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 37,38 Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 17, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11, 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 47,48 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 51,52 Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 53-55 Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 56-59 Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 63,64 Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. 65-73 Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Rejected in Finding of Fact 20. 76,77 Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. 78-82 Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21._ Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 87,88 Rejected as a conclusion of law rather than a proposed finding of fact. 89,90 Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 91-93 Rejected as unnecessary. 94 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 21. 95,96 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 22. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 21, 22. 99-103 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Rejected as unclear. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 107,108 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 109 Adopted in Finding of Fact 22.. 110,111 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 112-114 Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 115-117 Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 118 Rejected as cumulative. 119-121 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 122 Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 123-136 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. COPIES FURNISHED: Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Greg D. Sefton 5781 Old Ranch Road Sarasota, Florida 34241 Edward P. de la Parte, Jr. Attorney at Law 705 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Ralph A. Kehn Route 1, Box 74-170 Rockinghorse Lane Sarasota, Florida 34241 Wyatt S. Bishop Route 1, Box 74-203 Sarasota, Florida 34241 C. Anthony Cleveland, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Judith Kavanaugh, Esquire 2831 Ringling Boulevard Suite C209 Sarasota, Florida 33577 Dorisanna L. Peters 5793 Old Ranch Road Sarasota, Florida 34241
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.
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 Joyce K. Anderson and Thomas Barnett have filed an application for issuance of a permit to dredge and fill a small area in the littoral, or "near shore," zone of Gillis Pond, a "sandhill lake" lying in what is known as the "sandhill region" of Central Florida, generally northeast of Gainesville. The dredging and filling as now proposed would be on and waterward of two lakefront lots jointly owed by the permit applicants. They seek by their application, authorization to dredge and fill at only one site on the waterward margin of the two lots with that modified project area reduced in size to a dimension of 12 feet by 25 feet. Fifteen feet of the project would be waterward of the shoreline. The Respondent, the Department of Environmental Regulation, is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the duty of enforcing, as pertinent hereto, the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-3 and 4, Florida Administrative Code, enforcing the water quality standards contained therein as they relate to dredge and fill projects of this sort, with concomitant permitting jurisdiction over such projects. The permit applicants desire this dredge and fill permit in order to make a safe, comfortable swimming area for Mrs. Anderson's family and friends. Mrs. Anderson desires to remove the tree stumps, roots and vegetation existing in the littoral zone area of the above dimensions in order to make access directly from the shore more comfortable and pleasant, especially for small children who are unable to swim in the deep water off the waterward end of the existing dock. Mrs. Anderson already has a 56 foot dock extending from her property into the lake. The water is 7 feet deep at the waterward end of the dock and the littoral zone containing aquatic vegetation extends beyond the length of the dock in a waterward direction. The project area would extend waterward of the shoreline, a distance of 15 feet, and would parallel the shoreline approximately a distance of 12 feet. The littoral zone vegetation at the site, however, extends waterward from the shoreline 50 to 60 feet. The proposed area to be dredged is quite small in size in relation to the total linear shoreline of the subject lake of approximately 4,000 feet. The dredged material would be excavated to a depth of approximately 6 inches over that 12 by 15 foot area and replaced with clean sand fill. The dredged material removed from the site would be secured on an upland site such that nutrient pollutants from that dredged material could not be leached or carried back into the lake through storm water runoff. Approximately one-third of the shoreline of the lake is bordered by a marsh or wet prairie which is approximately as large in area as the lake itself. The dominant vegetative species in the project area and surrounding the lake, including the marsh, are submerged freshwater species listed in Rule 17- 4.02(17), Florida Administrative Code, including maidencane, sawgrass and a rare aquatic plant, websteria confervodies. Gillis Pond is a Class III water of the state, although its water quality parameters, or some of them, clearly exceed in quality, the minimum standards for Class III waters. Gillis Pond is what is termed an "ultra- oligotrophic lake, which means that its waters are characterized by a high level of transparency and very low nutrient content, that is to say that they are essentially pristine in nature. An oligotrophic lake such as this is very sensitive to any addition of nutrient pollutants. Even a small addition of nutrients to such water can cause an imbalance in the fauna and flora which have evolved to become dependent upon a low nutrient aquatic environment. Specifically, the rare aquatic plant named above is very sensitive to any enhanced nutrient levels and thus serves as a barometer of the water quality in this body of water. The addition of any nutrient pollutants to the lake, even in small amounts, might alter the chemical balance of the water in a derogatory manner so that the websteria confervodies might be eliminated. The elimination of this species from the littoral zone vegetation band surrounding the lake would likely result in other forms of vegetation supplanting it, altering the balance and makeup of the community of fauna and flora native to the lake and possibly hastening the progress of the lake toward eutrophication and degradation. The present water quality in the lake is such that dissolved oxygen and other criteria are better than the Class III water quality standards. The vegetation in the littoral zone of the lake and extending out as much as 50 to 60 feet waterward performs a significant function in uptaking and fixing nutrient pollutants that wash into the lake from storm water runoff from the surrounding uplands. Inasmuch as 30 to 40 feet of this belt of littoral zone vegetation would remain waterward of the dredged and filled area if the permit is granted, the nutrient uptake function of the vegetation in the littoral zone would not be significantly degraded. There are two locations where littoral zone vegetation has been removed in a similar fashion and water quality and flora and fauna communities characteristic of an oligotrophic lake are still present and healthy. Further, there is an extremely low nutrient level in the lake at the present time, and no significant amount of nutrient pollutants are leached or washed into the lake through septic tanks, storm water runoff or other sources. There is no question that the project as proposed would result in some slight, transitory degradation of water quality in the form of increased turbidity and reduced transparency. Turbidity will be caused during and shortly after the dredging and filling operation itself, caused by stirring up of bottom peat or sediments and by removal of a 12 by 15 foot area of aquatic vegetation in the littoral zone of the lake. Turbidity curtains in still waters such as involved here, can substantially reduce the spread of turbidity caused by the stirring up of bottom material and can substantially reduce the period of its suspension in the water by containing it at the dredged site. The vast majority of the littoral zone vegetation surrounding and waterward of the area to be dredged will remain such that the nutrient uptake function will be essentially undisturbed, thus any adverse impact on water quality will be insignificant. In terms of cumulative effect of allowing a multiplicity of such projects, not even a 10 percent loss of the littoral zone band of vegetation in the lake, which would be the maximum possible loss if all riparian land owners were allowed a similar size dredged and filled area on the front of their lots, would cause a violation of Department water quality standards. Parenthetically, it should be pointed out that such riparian owners cannot be prevented by any water quality criteria in Chapter 403 or Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code, from having access to the lake in front of their lots. Such human traffic will have the gradual affect of destroying a significant amount of the littoral zone vegetation on and waterward of those lots (which is a cause and result the Department is powerless to regulate). By confining the destruction of littoral zone vegetation to such a small area as that involved in the application at bar and thus guaranteeing adequate, comfortable access for the riparian owner, the survivability of the remaining critical littoral zone vegetation will be significantly enhanced.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the application of Joyce K. Anderson and Thomas Barnett for a dredge and fill permit as described in the modified and amended application be GRANTED; provided, however, that turbidity curtains are used during all dredging and filling activity and for a reasonable time thereafter until turbidity caused by the project has settled out of the water column. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Tim Keyser, Esquire Post Office Box 92 Interlachen, Florida 32048 Dennis R. Erdley, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joyce K. Anderson and Thomas Barnett 6216-B, Southwest 11th Place Gainesville, Florida 32601 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination is whether the Petitioner has met the requirements of Sections 403.918 and 403.919, Florida Statutes, for the issuance of a dredge and fill permit within the waters of the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Department takes exception to the Hearing Officer's statement in Finding of Fact No. 5 that the fill "over time will become inhabited by the types of life which live at the edge of the water and land." The Department argues that the record contains no competent, substantial evidence to support such a finding of fact. The law prohibits me, as agency head, from rejecting any finding of fact in a recommended order that is supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence, but I can and should reject findings of fact which are not supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence. Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Florida Statutes. In this case I must agree with the exception. A review of the entire record reveals no competent, substantial evidence to support the finding of fact. The only record evidence remotely bearing on the matter is that portion of the testimony of Dr. Peebles where he stated that "there probably are some small animals and little salamanders and whatever that live in that area, but I don't believe that they would all die. I think they migrate out into the other natural area that I'm leaving." (Tr. at 21) 2/ This testimony does not support the finding of fact, and the record contains no other evidence even remotely bearing on the matter. Therefore, I reject this finding of fact and accept the exception of the Department. The Department next takes exception to Finding of Fact No. 11 in which the Hearing Officer states that "However, this effect [on the life cycle of fish] will be minimal and would not itself cause significant damage to fishing or the lake." Once again, the Department contends that there is no competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the finding. Dr. Peebles testified: I can't honestly believe that me filling 14.3 percent, of my frontage is going to effect the health, safety, welfare and property of other people. The same goes for . . . whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Now, this is a case where to argue that on a factual basis would require expert witnesses that would say yes and others that would say no. I think we would find conflicts on all of these subjects. (Tr. at 19) Dr. Peebles also testified that "14.3 percent of the shoreline for the use of the owner is not a serious thing. So I don't think any far reaching serious impacts will occur by granting [the permit]." (Tr. at 75) The only other statement in the record which arguably supports the finding of fact is a statement made by Dr. Peebles while questioning the Department's witness. There Dr. Peebles stated that "I know for a fact -- I'm a fisherman. I fish in the lake. It's a good fishing lake, and with all the construction that's already taken place you've still got good water quality." (Tr. at 70-71) Whether the proposed project and the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future similar projects will have a minimal or significant impact on fishing and the lake is an area requiring specialized knowledge, skill, experience or training. Although the lay opinion of Dr. Peebles may be helpful in supporting expert testimony, lay opinion standing alone may not under law establish what the impacts would be. Dr. Peebles acknowledges that he is not an expert in ecology or the environment, and admits that expert testimony is needed to determine whether granting the permit will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife. (Tr. at 19) Therefore, Dr. Peebles' opinion that there will be no adverse effect on conservation of fish and wildlife (Tr. at 19) and that the filling of "14.3 percent" of the shoreline for the use of the owners will not have "any far reaching serious impacts" (Tr. at 75) is not supported by expert testimony and is not sufficient evidence to support the finding of fact. Section 90.701(2), Florida Statutes; Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence 387 (2d ed. 1984); Husky Industries v. Black, 434 So. 2d 988, 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) ("Expert testimony is not admissible at all unless the witness has expertise in the area in which his opinion is sought.") Furthermore, the statement that Dr. Peebles made while questioning the Department's witness is not evidence. To the extent that it might be liberally construed as evidence in view of the fact that he was not represented by counsel, the existing fishing quality of the lake is not relevant to the impact of future filling of wetlands around the lake. On the other hand, Mr. Jeremy Tyler, accepted as an expert in the areas of the environment and water quality, (Tr. at 52) testified that the cumulative impact of granting Dr. Peebles' permit and similar permits reasonably expected would result in an adverse impact on conservation of fish and wildlife, (Tr. 35-41, 49-51, 54-55) and ultimately would result in a violation of water quality standards. (Tr. at 60, 64 and 69) Therefore, not only is there no competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the finding of fact, but there is uncontroverted expert testimony to the contrary Therefore, I accept this exception. The Department also takes exception to any implication in Finding of Fact No. 11 that the Department's only concern is with cumulative impacts. I do not read the Recommended Order as making any such implied finding. The record shows that the Department concluded that reasonable assurance had been provided that the instant project, standing alone, would not result in water quality violations, (Tyler, Tr. at 51, 60, 64) but that water quality violations will occur and the project is contrary to the public interest when the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future permit applications are taken into consideration. (Tyler, Tr. at 35-41, 49-51, 54-55, 60, 64 and 69) This does not suggest that the Department's only concern in such permitting decisions is cumulative impacts. It only means that under the facts of this application, the only remaining concern is the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future permit applications. The exception is rejected. The Department takes exception to Finding of Fact No. 12 to the extent that the statement "Mitigation of the impacts to fishing is not practical" implies that the only negative impact of the proposed project is to fishing. As noted in my discussion of Point 3 above, the record contains competent, substantial evidence that when the cumulative impacts of reasonably expected future projects are considered, water quality violations will result and the proposed project will be contrary to the public interest. I have reviewed the entire record and find no competent, substantial evidence to support a finding that the impact of the proposed project and cumulative impact of reasonably expected future projects would be limited to fishing quality. To the extent that the Recommended Order implies such a limited impact I reject the implication and accept the exception. The Department's final exception to findings of fact argues that Finding of Fact No. 14 improperly implies that the proposed project would not impair water quality. Finding of Fact No. 14 states, "The amount of fill proposed in this application would not place the lake at risk or impair fishing; however, if additional such permits are approved it may at some point impair the waters and fishing." Although some semantic difficulties arise out of the Hearing Officer's use of the terms "place the waters at risk" and "impair the waters," the finding of fact is consistent with - testimony of Mr. Tyler that reasonable assurance had been provided that this proposed project, standing alone, would not violate water quality standards. (Tr. at 51) The finding is also consistent with the testimony that when the cumulative impact of this project and similar reasonably expected projects are considered, reasonable assurance had not been provided that water quality standards will not be violated and that the project is not contrary to the public interest. (Tr. at 60, 64 and 69) However, the impact of the project on the water quality of the lake is a matter that requires expert testimony. As in the case with the impact on conservation of fish and wildlife discussed above, Dr. Peebles introduced no expert testimony regarding the impact of the project on water quality. On the other hand, the Department's expert witness testified that although reasonable assurance had been provided that the project, standing alone, would not violate water quality standards, (Tyler, Tr. at 51) he also testified that the project by itself would have some adverse impact on water quality. (Tyler, Tr. at 51) Therefore, any implication that the project by itself would not impair the water quality of the lake lacks support in competent, substantial evidence and is contrary to unrebuted expert testimony. To the extent the Hearing Officer's finding implies that the project will not impair water quality, such a finding can not affect the outcome of this case because impairment of water quality is not a proper legal criterion for deciding whether to grant or deny the permit. The proper criterion is whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not violate water quality standards. Cf. Houle v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 10 FALR 3671 (DER Final Order, June 13, 1988), per curiam aff'd, 538 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Brown v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 9 FALR 1871, 1875 (DER Final Order, March 27, 1987), per curiam aff'd, 531 So.2d 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Since the implied statement of the Hearing Officer does not affect the outcome of this case, any error is harmless and I reject the exception. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Burden of Proof The Department contends that the Hearing Officer erred in not placing the burden of proof on Mr. Peebles to show that the project is not contrary to the public interest when the cumulative impact of reasonably expected similar future projects are taken into consideration. An applicant for a permit has the burden of proof or persuasion to show entitlement to the permit. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). In order to show entitlement to a dredge and fill permit, an applicant must show that he has provided reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated and that the project is not contrary to the public interest, and both of those tests must take into consideration the cumulative impacts of similar projects which are existing, under construction, or reasonably expected in the future. Sections 403.918(1), (2) and 403.919, Florida Statutes; Caloosa Property Owners' Ass'n v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 462 So.2d 523 - (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). 3/ The applicant's burden of proof includes the burden of giving reasonable assurance that cumulative impacts do not cause a project to be contrary to the public interest or to violate water quality standards. Concerned Citizens League of America, Inc., v. IMC Fertilizer, Inc., et al., 11 FALR 4237, 4244 (DER Final Order, March 29, 1989); Brown v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 9 FALR at 1877. At the hearing, the Department introduced expert testimony that reasonable assurance had not been provided that the project would not cause violations of water quality standards and was not contrary to the public interest when the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future projects were considered. (Tyler, Tr. at 35-41, 49-51, 54-58, 60, 64 and 69) Dr. Peebles, who bore the burden of persuasion, introduced no competent, substantial evidence to show that when cumulative impacts had been considered the necessary reasonable assurances had been provided. 4/ Dr. Peebles argues that his project will only fill in 14.3 percent of his shoreline, and only increase the percentage of the lake's wetlands that have been filled to 31.6 percent from the already existing 30 percent. However, it is not the incremental increase that causes the project to be not permittable, it is the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future projects, and Dr. Peebles failed to carry his burden of persuasion as to the cumulative impacts. Since Dr. Peebles did not carry his burden of persuasion he was not entitled to the permit as a matter of law, and the Hearing Officer erred in concluding that the permit should issue. Therefore, the Department's exception is accepted. Cumulative Impacts The Department takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that: Application of the cumulative effect principle denies the applicant a permit because of the destruction of wetlands by other landowners. The lack of emphasis on enforcement creates a disincentive to comply with the state's regulation of the waters. If those landowners who illegally filled the waters of the state were required to restore the wetlands they destroyed, then new applicants also could fill small portions of wetlands to enhance their use of their property without worrying about cumulative effects. (Recommended Order at 6) At this point it may be helpful to explain the role of cumulative impact analysis. The Department is required to take into consideration the cumulative impacts of similar projects which are existing, under construction, or reasonably expected in the future. Section 403.919, Florida Statutes; Brown v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 9 FALR 1871, 1876 (DER Final Order, March 27, 1987) (cumulative impact analysis is mandatory). Cumulative impact is not a third test, but rather a factor to be considered in determining whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not result in violations of water quality standards and will not be contrary to the public interest. Concerned Citizens League of America, Inc. v. IMC Fertilizer Inc., 11 FALR 4237 (DER Final Order, March 29, 1989). As my predecessor Secretary Tschinkel observed: Without the ability to consider long-term impacts of a project (in combination with similar projects in the area considered "reasonably likely"), DER would be helpless to prevent gradual worsening of water quality and piece-meal elimination of biological resources inflicted by a proliferation of small projects. Morales v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 7 FALR 4786 (DER Final Order, September 18, 1985). The cumulative impact doctrine was originally developed as policy by the Department. It was subsequently codified by the Legislature in 1984 as Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. Chipola Basin Protective Group, Inc. v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 11 FALR 467, 476 (DER Final Order, December 29, 1988). - The doctrine was approved by the courts in Caloosa Property Owners Association v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 462 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The cumulative impact statute, Section 403.919, is entitled "Equitable distribution." As the title suggests, the purpose of cumulative impact analysis is to distribute equitably that amount of dredging and filling activity which may be done without resulting in violations of water quality standards and without being contrary to the public interest. In order to determine whether the allocation to a particular applicant is equitable, the determination of the cumulative impacts is based in part on the assumption that reasonably expected similar future applications will also be granted. It does not necessarily follow, however, that all similar future applications must be granted if the current application is granted. Although the Department must be consistent in its permitting decisions to the extent possible and consistent with the public interest, (Rule 17-103.160, Fla. Admin. Code) each future application must stand on its own merit and must provide anew the necessary reasonable assurances subject to cumulative impact analysis. Manasota- 88, Inc, v. Agrico Chemical Co., et al., 90 ER FALR 043 (DER Final Order 1 February 19, 1990). In this case Dr. Peebles argued and the Hearing Officer concluded that the application of cumulative impact analysis is inequitable because previous unpermitted and allegedly illegal filling of wetlands around the lake now results in permits being denied which would have been granted but for the previous filling. There was testimony that about 30 percent of the original wetlands around the lake had been filled in the past, (Tyler, Tr. at 67) that all of the past filling was unpermitted, and that some of it may have been illegal. (Tyler, Tr. at 46, 61-62, 66-67, 72) However, the record contains no competent, substantial evidence showing how much, if any, previous filling was illegal. Furthermore, Section 403.919(2) requires the Department to consider the impacts of "projects which are existing", and does not draw a distinction between legal or illegal projects. As to the Hearing Officer's recommendation that cumulative impacts not be considered in this application, I note that Section 403.919, Florida Statutes mandates that such an analysis be conducted for every dredge and fill permit. Section 403.919 states that "The department in deciding whether to grant or deny a [dredge and fill] permit for an activity which will affect waters, shall consider [cumulative impacts]." See also Brown, supra, 9 FALR at 1876 (cumulative impact analysis is mandatory). Therefore, to the extent that the Hearing Officer is recommending cumulative impact analysis not be applied to Dr. Peebles' application, the recommendation is contrary to the law and must be rejected. The issue then remains of how past fill, whether legal or illegal, should be considered in the cumulative impact analysis. The Hearing Officer's recommendation in effect would require the Department to conduct a cumulative impact analysis under the assumption that previously filled wetlands should be treated as functioning wetlands. If I were to accept this view it would require the Department to take enforcement action in every case or abandon the protection of water quality of certain waters of the state. Such an interpretation would strip from the Department's hands the ability to exercise its discretion in allocating its limited enforcement resources, and result in the Department's enforcement priorities being set by permit applicants rather than by the Department. I note that the record contains competent, substantial evidence that the Department lacks sufficient resources to enforce every violation, (Tyler, Tr. at 45) although such a fact scarcely needs proof. Acceptance of the Hearing Qfficer's recommendation would place the Department in the dilemma of having to choose to withdraw enforcement resources from more environmentally significant projects or to abandon altogether the protection of less significant projects. Acceptance of the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law would also result in requiring the Department in all cases to determine whether violations had occurred and to take enforcement action for prior violations before it could consider cumulative impacts. Aside from the lack of sufficient enforcement resources, such enforcement' proceedings seldom, if ever, could be commenced and completed within the 90 days within which the Department must act on an application. Section 403.0876, Florida Statutes. The result would in effect limit the scope of Section 403.919 to pristine water bodies, and render the statute largely meaningless. I cannot accept that the Legislature intended such interpretations of Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. Although the result of the application of cumulative impact analysis to the facts of this case may seem harsh, the record indicates that Dr. Peebles may still obtain access the waters of the lake by means of a private dock that would not even require a permit if it had 1000 square feet or less of surface area and met the other provisions of Rule 17-312.050(1)(d), Fla. Admin. Code. Dr. Peebles' existing planned dock is 452 square feet. Therefore, Dr. Peebles could extend that portion of the dock that bridges the wetlands to the uplands by an additional 548 square feet of surface area. For example, the four foot wide bridge to the dock could be extended an additional 137 feet, which is more than enough to reach the upland portion of the lot. (Joint Exhibit No. 1) For the reasons state above, I reject the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law and accept the exception. Public Interest Test The Department also takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the project is not contrary to the public interest. In conducting the public interest test the Department must balance the criteria as specified by the Legislature. Section 403.918(2)(a) states: In determining whether a project is not contrary to the public interest, or is clearly in the public interest, the department shall consider and balance the following criteria: Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of 5.267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The Department introduced evidence that criteria 1, 3 and 6 were neutral, (Tyler, Tr. at 54-56) that criteria 2, 4, 5 and 7 were negative, (Tyler, Tr. at 35-36, 54, 56, 57) and that when all the criteria were balanced there was a negative value to the project. (Tyler, Tr. at 57-58) Dr. Peebles argued at the hearing and in his response to exceptions that the Department's methodology in weighing each criteria in the public interest balancing test is incorrect. I disagree, and note that Dr. Peebles bore the burden of proof on the public interest test, and was free to introduce competent, substantial evidence on each criteria. As discussed in Part II above, Dr. Peebles did not introduce any competent, substantial evidence as to any of the above. The Hearing Officer's conclusion of law lacks competent, substantial evidence to support it, and is contrary to unrebuted competent, substantial evidence. Therefore, I reject this conclusion of law.
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 Petitioner to place fill in the waters of the state be approved in accordance with the drawings submitted with the application. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida1 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3725 The Agency filed proposed findings of fact which were read and considered. The Agency's findings were adopted or rejected for the reasons indicated as follows: Paragraphs 1-10 Adopted Paragraph 11 Adopted that it will damage fishing; however, this damage will be insignificant and will not truly affect tee fishing on the lake. Paragraph 12 Adopted The Applicant's letter was read and considered as oral argument on the issues presented at hearings. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Dr. Peyton Z. Pebbles, Jr. 6527 Northwest 42nd Place Gainesville, FL 32606 William H. Congdon, Esq. Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Harold Click and Harold Peterson, Petitioners, are sole owners of property which borders Dunn's Creek, one of the largest tributaries to the St. John's River in Putnam County, and which is described as Lots 80, 88, and 89, Section 38, Township 11 South, Range 27 East. Dunn's Creek is a Class III water body of the state. Petitioners applied for a dredge and fill permit initially in 1980 but Respondent issued an Intent to Deny in January, 1981. A second permit application was submitted in 1982 on behalf of Petitioners following a site visit by representatives of Respondent in June, 1981, but again an Intent to Deny was issued in September, 1982. A third application was submitted on or about May 3, 1984, following another site visit by Respondent's representatives, but the Intent to Deny which resulted in this hearing was issued on December 5, 1984. During these site visits, Respondent's representatives offered suggestions about what might be an acceptable project but gave no assurances that the application, as submitted on May 3, 1984, would be permitted. The project which Petitioners now propose would include the placement of pilings and other fill materials within the waters and landward extent of the waters of the state which would result in the alteration of at least 10,000 square feet of the swamp floodplain community of Dunn's Creek. This proposed filling will degrade the water quality of the areas affected by replacing periodically inundated wetlands with uplands. Although the project also includes construction of a fill road with a bridge over a natural slough on Click's lot, Respondent's expert witness Tyler testified that this portion of the project alone would not have resulted in the Intent to Deny. According to Tyler, the key area of objection was the .23 acres Petitioners proposed to fill which was within Respondent's jurisdiction and which would have widened an already existing berm. This widening would have allowed the placement of two septic tanks and two, dwellings on pilings on the property and an access driveway through Click's portion of the property to Peterson's. As proposed, fill was to be placed over a total of .35 acres, with .23 acres being in the waters of the state or to the landward extent of waters of the state. Bald cypress trees or other species listed in Rule 17-4.02(17), Florida Administrative Code, are present in part of the wetland area occupied by the project site in greater numbers, biomass, and aerial extent than competing plant species or communities. Without appropriate pollution control measures, the proposed project could reasonably be expected to result in an adverse change in the biological integrity, bacteriological quality, biochemical oxygen demand and the concentration of dissolved oxygen, turbidity and nutrients in some of the waters on the project site, in Dunn's Creek, and in discharge areas elsewhere. The filling associated with the project can be expected to have a long- term detrimental impact on water quality and biological resources, according to Respondent's expert witness Deuerling. Natural habitats and rainwater storage areas would be destroyed or detrimentally altered, as would the natural filtration function performed by the swamp areas to be filled. In the immediate vicinity of Petitioners' lots, Respondent has denied two dredge and fill permits and there are an additional two permit applications which are pending. Deuerling has also performed site visits at three other locations along Dunn's Creek in the immediate vicinity of Petitioners' lots, and it can be expected that other permit applications for similar projects will be submitted if Petitioners are granted a permit.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioners' application for a permit. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of September, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter B. Heebner, Esquire 523 North Halifax Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32018 Ross S. Burnaman Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue This cause concerns a dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondents concerning whether a permit ("dredge and fill") and water-quality certification should be issued by the Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (hereinafter referred to as "Department" or "DER"), authorizing the construction of a private dock with terminal deck and platform, in conjunction with the construction of a 250-foot "privacy fence" in the adjacent salt marsh, and whether construction, installation and operation of the facility will violate State water-quality standards and the public-interest standards embodied in Section 403.918, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact LaRae Hays, the Respondent/applicant, owns real property to be used for residential purposes, which adjoins a salt marsh and tidal creek contiguous to the Nassau River in Duval County, Florida. The Respondent/applicant applied for a permit and water-quality certification so as to authorize the construction of a private dock with a terminal deck and "stepdown" platform. The applicant also seeks authority to construct a 250-foot by 8-foot wooden ??privacy fence", parallel to that dock. The structures are to be built on a tidal creek and within a salt marsh contiguous to the Nassau River. The application is opposed by the Petitioner, who is an adjoining property owner. The Petitioner opposes the application for the reasons referenced in the above Preliminary Statement. The Department is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating and permitting activities which may be sources of pollution, such as the instant project, which are constructed, operated or installed in waters of the State, as defined in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Title 17, Florida Administrative Code. The Department is charged, as pertinent hereto, with reviewing applications, such as the subject application, to insure that the water-quality standards and public-interest standards embodied in Section 403.918, Florida Statutes, as well as Chapters 17-3 and 17-312, Florida Administrative Code, are complied with before issuing a permit authorizing the construction of the proposed facility. Mr. Tyler was called as the first witness for the Department. The parties stipulated that the Department could put on its case first in the order of proof. Mr. Tyler was accepted as an expert witness in the field of the "impact of dredge and fill projects on the environment~?. It was thus established that the Respondent/applicant's project is proposed for a piece of property in the adjacent salt marsh on Black Hammock Island in Duval County, Florida. The Respondent/applicant proposes to construct a private dock, 184 feet by 4 feet, with a 12-foot by 12-foot terminal deck and a 12-foot by 5-foot "stepdown" platform. A portion of the dock is already constructed and is included in the permit sought. The deck is proposed to be surrounded on three sides with a six-foot-high lattice wall covered with a pitched roof. During the course of the proceeding, however, the Respondent/applicant conceded that she would abandon the proposal to construct the lattice walls, would rather leave the terminal deck and roofed area open so that the neighbors' view of the salt marsh and river would not be obstructed and that she would rather install blinds which can be raised or lowered for the roofed portion of the proposed terminal deck. The Respondent/applicant previously dredged and placed fill on a portion of the wetlands in question and dredged a drainage ditch along the perimeter of the wetlands and the Respondent/applicant1s property. The fill was for the purpose of creating a sort of "causeway" leading from the upland property owned by the Respondent/applicant to the landward extent of the already-existing dock. Pursuant to informal enforcement action by the Department, the Respondent/applicant agreed to, and has, removed that fill material and corrected, or is about to correct, the dredging activity done without permit in the drainage ditch in question. The proposed project is located in Class II waters, classified as "conditionally approved" for shellfish harvesting. Normally, under the provisions of Rule 17-312.080(7), Florida Administrative Code, a dredge and fill permit for the proposed project and its construction could not be authorized in such Class II shellfish harvesting waters. However, the Department has granted a variance from that rule so that the activity sought to be permitted can be authorized as a result of the instant permit application, by its notice of intent to grant the variance entered on June 5, 1990. That variance became embodied in a Final Order of the Department authorizing it, entered on July 31, 1990. No interested party responded to due and appropriate notice of the intent to grant the variance, hence, the Final Order approving it. The variance was accompanied by mandatory conditions involving the protection of historical or archaeological artifacts, the prohibition of more than two boats being moored at the dock; of any overboard discharges of trash, animal or human waste or fuel; against any non-water dependent structure such as gazebos or fish-cleaning stations, which must be located on the uplands and against boat shelters having enclosed sides. Additional conditions were that any dock over grass beds should be constructed as to allow for maximum light penetration and that water depth at the mooring area for the dock shall be sufficient to prevent bottom scouring by boat propellers. Additionally, in the notice of intent to grant document, the Department has required that in order for the permit at issue to be granted, in addition to the general conditions applicable to any such permit, the following specific conditions shall be observed by the Respondent/applicant during and after construction: Historical and archeological artifacts shall be reported to the Department, as well as the Bureau of Historic Preservation, Division of Archives History and Records; Prior to commencement of the work, the permittee shall provide written notification of commencement to the Department; turbidity control shall be utilized throughout the project to contain any turbidity generated; The waterward end of the dock shall be marked by a sufficient number of reflectors as to be visible from the water at night by reflected light; All work shall be done during periods of average or low water in order to minimize turbidity; All disturbed areas shall be re-vegetated with indigenous vegetation in order to prevent erosion or unstabilized material entering into State waters; and Finally, that the project shall comply with applicable State water- quality standards. The Respondent/applicant has agreed to these conditions. Moreover, the testimony of Mr. Tyler establishes that no water-quality violations of the standards contained in Chapter 17-312 and 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, will be occasioned by the construction or operation of this facility. The pilings necessary to perform the construction involved will be installed at periods of low or average tide, such that the installation area will not generate turbidity in the State waters involved at the site. The dock is so designed that maximum light penetration will occur so that deleterious shading of the marsh grasses involved at the site and under the footprint of the dock will not occur. Moreover, the dock and the proposed fence, for that matter, would have a beneficial effect on benthic species diversity by encouraging aquatic invertebrates to attach and form colonies on the posts and pilings where they enter State waters. It was also established, through the Department's evidence, as well as the testimony of the Respondent/applicant's witnesses, that there is a sufficient water depth in the creek located at the waterward end of the proposed dock and ~?stepdown?? platform, such that the small boats which would be able to navigate the creek, being of sufficient shallow draft, will not occasion propeller scouring or propeller-generated turbidity when operated at prevailing water depths for boats which will be moored at the end of the proposed facility. In summary, it has been demonstrated that no State water-quality standards will be violated by the installation and operation of the proposed facility, given the conditions which the Respondent/applicant and the Department have already agreed upon and the Respondent/applicant has accepted on the record in this case, including the condition concerning no gazebo-type structures located on the dock and no fish cleaning facilities or fueling equipment or facilities on the dock or platforms. Such conditions should be incorporated in any Final Order and permit resulting from this proceeding. In addition to the water-quality considerations discussed above, it must be determined whether reasonable assurances have been provided by the permit applicant that the proposed project will meet the "public interest" standards of Section 403.918(2)(a)1-7, Florida Statutes. In this regard, it has been demonstrated by the evidence and testimony adduced by the Respondent/applicant and the Department that the project will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others in the context of the various environmental concerns addressed and regulated by Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Title 17, Florida Administrative Code. The unrefuted testimony of expert witness, Tyler, establishes that the project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species or their habitats. The project will not adversely affect navigation, the flow of water, or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. Mr. Tyler's testimony establishes that the ecosystem in the vicinity of the project consists of a natural intertidal saltwater marsh, which is currently in excellent condition and has a high relative value of functions as a habitat and nursery area for marine and estuarine vertebrate and invertebrate species. The project will not adversely affect fishing or marine productivity in the area involved nor have an adverse effect on the current condition and relative functional value of the marsh area in terms of habitat for, and the conservation of, fish and wildlife and in terms of its value as a marine and estuarine habitat and the marsh system's function in protecting water quality. Although the project will not adversely affect fishing or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project, the proposed "privacy fence" has not been shown to be "not contrary to the public interest'1 in terms of adverse effect on recreational values??. The "privacy fence" will not pose any of the other adverse consequences in terms of the above-discussed seven (7) public- interest standards nor will it impose a detrimental impact on water quality, especially since it will be elevated approximately a foot above the surface of the soil in the marsh area, preventing any impediment to normal tidal flows and flushing. The fence will, however, impose a detrimental effect on the recreational value of the State waters involved in the subject marshland area by impeding the aesthetic qualities of the view of the marshland and river system for adjoining landowners, specifically, the Petitioner. The fence will clearly impede this "passive recreational value" and reasonable assurances that it will not do so have not been provided in the testimony and evidence of record. The desire of the Respondent/applicant to install the fence is certainly understandable in view of the hostile relations between the Respondent/applicant and the Petitioner, caused to a great degree by the Petitioner's persistence in installing and operating an overly-bright nighttime security light and, more particularly, because of the Petitioner's habit of constantly photographing, with a video camera, the Respondent/applicants or her invitees while they are using the present dock. Because the fence will impede the recreational value of the marshland in terms of the aesthetic nature of the view of the marsh of the Petitioner, the permit should not include authorization for installation of the fence. The relevant and more peripheral facts established in this record prove the wisdom of the words of the poet, Robert Frost, who wrote that "good fences make good neighbors". The parties' dispute concerning the use of the security light and video camera more properly sounds in the circuit court, however. A proceeding involving disputed environmental permitting issues cannot serve to resolve all the "life management" disputes between the parties. In summary, the unrefuted evidence of record demonstrates that, with the exception of the last above mentioned consideration concerning the proposed fence, that the water quality standards and the public interest standards embodied in Section 403.918(1) and (2), Florida Statutes, will not be violated by the proposed project if the conditions mentioned above and those provided for in the Department's Exhibit 3, which are incorporated in these findings of fact by reference, are imposed on any grant of a permit. A grant of the permit should also be conditioned upon periodic monitoring of the installation of the proposed project, which the Department has agreed in this record to do.
Recommendation Accordingly, in view of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation granting the subject dredge and fill permit and water quality certification sought by the applicants provided that grant of the subject permit should include the general and specific conditions incorporated in the Department's Exhibit 3, as well as the conditions found to be necessary in the above findings of fact. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: David Sangillo 15665 Shellcracker Road Jacksonville, FL 32226 LaRae Hays 1574 Menlo Avenue Jacksonville, FL 32218 William H. Congdon, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent Land Trust #97-12 (“Land Trust”) is entitled to an Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) for its proposed project on Perico Island in Bradenton, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Joseph McClash is a resident of Bradenton, Florida, who uses the waters in the vicinity of the project for fishing, crabbing, boating, and wildlife observation. Petitioner Manasota-88, Inc., is an active Florida nonprofit corporation for more than 20 years. Manasota-88 has approximately 530 members, most of whom (approximately 300) reside in Manatee County. The mission and goal of Manasota-88 includes the protection of the natural resources of Manatee County, including Anna Maria Sound and Perico Island. Petitioner FISH is an active Florida nonprofit corporation in existence since 1991. FISH owns real property in unincorporated Cortez in Manatee County and maintains a Manatee County mailing address. FISH has more than 190 members and more than 150 of them own property or reside in Manatee County. The mission and goal of FISH includes protection of the natural resources of Manatee County, including Anna Maria Sound and Perico Island. Intervenor Suncoast Waterkeeper, Inc., is an active Florida nonprofit corporation in existence since 2012. The mission of Suncoast Waterkeeper is “to protect and restore the Suncoast’s waterways through enforcement, fieldwork, advocacy, and environmental education for the benefit of the communities that rely upon coastal resources.” Suncoast Waterkeeper provided the names and addresses of 25 members residing in Manatee County. A substantial number of the members of Suncoast Waterkeeper use the area and waters near the proposed activity for nature-based activities, including nature observation, fishing, kayaking, wading, and boating along the natural shorelines of Anna Maria Sound and Perico Island. Intervenor Sierra Club, Inc., is a national organization that is a California corporation registered as a foreign nonprofit corporation in Florida. Sierra Club has been permitted to conduct business in Florida since 1982. The mission of Sierra Club includes protection of the natural resources of Manatee County, which include Anna Maria Sound and Perico Island. Sierra Club provided the names and addresses of 26 members who live in Manatee County. A substantial number of the members of Sierra Club use the area and waters near the proposed project for nature-based activities, including observing native flora and fauna, fishing, kayaking, wading, and boating along the natural shorelines of Anna Maria Sound and Perico Island. Respondent Land Trust is the applicant for the challenged ERP and owns the property on which the proposed project would be constructed. Respondent District is an independent special district of the State of Florida created, granted powers, and assigned duties under chapter 373, Florida Statutes, including the regulation of activities in surface waters. The proposed project is within the boundaries of the District. The Project Site The project site is 3.46 acres of a 40.36-acre parcel owned by Land Trust. The parcel includes uplands, wetlands, and submerged lands, on or seaward of Perico Island, next to Anna Maria Sound, which is part of Lower Tampa Bay. Anna Maria Sound is an Outstanding Florida Water. The project site is adjacent to a large multi-family residential development called Harbour Isles, which is currently under construction. Access to the Land Trust property is gained through this development. The Land Trust parcel contains approximately seven acres of high quality mangroves along the shoreline of Anna Maria Sound. They are mostly black and red mangroves, with some white mangroves. The mangroves on the project site amount to a total of 1.9 acres. Mangroves have high biological productivity and are important to estuarine food webs. Mangroves provide nesting, roosting, foraging, and nursery functions for many species of wildlife. Mangroves also provide a buffer from storm surge and help to stabilize shorelines. Wildlife species found on the project site include ibises, pelicans, egrets, spoonbills, mangrove cuckoos, bay scallops, fiddler crabs, mangrove tree crabs, horseshoe crabs, marsh rabbits, raccoons, mangrove bees, and a variety of fish. No endangered species have been observed on the project site, but mangroves are used by a number of listed species. The Proposed Project The proposed project is to construct a retaining wall, place fill behind the wall to create buildable lots for four single-family homes, construct an access driveway, and install a stormwater management facility. The stormwater management facility is a “Stormtech” system, which is an underground system usually used in situations where there is insufficient area to accommodate a stormwater pond. Riprap would be placed on the waterward side of the retaining wall. The retaining wall would be more than 35 feet landward of the mean high water line in most areas. Petitioners contend the proposed retaining wall is a vertical seawall, which is not allowed in an estuary pursuant to section 373.414(5). “Vertical seawall” is defined in section 2.0(a)(111), Volume I, of the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook (“Applicants Handbook”) as a seawall which is steeper than 75 degrees to the horizontal. It further states, “A seawall with sloping riprap covering the waterward face to the mean high water line shall not be considered a vertical seawall.” The retaining wall is vertical, but it would have riprap covering its waterward face and installed at a slope of 70 degrees. The retaining wall is not a vertical seawall under the District’s definition. Stormwater Management Stormwater in excess of the Stormtech system’s design capacity would discharge into Anna Maria Sound. Because Anna Maria Sound is an Outstanding Florida Water, District design criteria require that an additional 50 percent of treatment volume be provided. The Stormtech system meets the District’s design criteria for managing water quality and water quantity. Projects which meet the District’s design criteria are presumed to provide reasonable assurance of compliance with state water quality standards. Petitioners’ evidence was not sufficient to rebut this presumption. Petitioners contend the District waiver of water quality certification for the proposed project means that Land Trust was not required to meet water quality standards. However, that was a misunderstanding of the certification process. All state water quality criteria are applicable. Petitioners contend water quality monitoring should be imposed for this project. However, section 4.7 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume II, provides that if the applicant meets the District’s design criteria, water quality monitoring is not required. Petitioners failed to prove the proposed stormwater management system cannot be constructed, operated, or maintained in compliance with applicable criteria. Wetland Impacts In order to create buildable lots, 1.05 acres of the 1.9 acres of mangroves on the project site would be removed and replaced with fill. A swath of mangroves approximately 40 feet wide would remain waterward of the retaining wall. The proposed direct and secondary impacts to the functions provided by wetlands were evaluated using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (“UMAM”) as required by Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-345. UMAM is used to quantify the loss of functions performed by wetlands considering: current condition, hydrologic connection, uniqueness, location, fish and wildlife utilization, time lag, and mitigation risk. The District determined the filling of 1.05 acres of wetlands would result in a functional loss of 0.81 units and the secondary impacts resulting from installation of the retaining wall would result in a loss of 0.09 units for a total functional loss of 0.9 units. Petitioners contend the functional loss would be greater. Petitioners contend the wetland delineation performed by Land Trust and confirmed by the District did not extend as far landward as the hydric soils and, therefore, the total acreage of affected wetlands would be greater. However, Petitioners did not produce a wetland delineation for the project site, and their evidence was not sufficient to rebut Land Trust's prima facie evidence on this issue. Petitioners’ experts believe the secondary impacts caused by the proposed project would be greater than calculated, including fragmentation of the shoreline mangrove system, damage to the roots of mangroves near the retaining wall, and scouring effects caused by wave action associated with the retaining wall. Respondents assert that the analysis by Petitioners’ expert Jacqueline Cook relied on federal methodology and that “the science used in her analysis is not contained in the state or district rule criteria.” Reliance on science is always appropriate. However, Ms. Cook’s use of a federal impact assessment methodology creates doubt about whether her scoring is consistent with UMAM. Despite the unreliability of Ms. Cook’s UMAM score, it is found that Respondents’ UMAM score under-calculated secondary impacts due to scour and other effects of changed water movement that would be caused by the retaining wall. It was not explained how the loss of storm buffering and erosion prevention functions of wetlands are accounted for in the UMAM score. Elimination or Reduction of Impacts Section 10.2.1 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume I, states that in reviewing a project the District is to consider practicable design modifications to eliminate or reduce impacts to wetland functions. Section 10.2.1.1 explains: The term “modification” shall not be construed as including the alternative of not implementing the activity in some form, nor shall it be construed as requiring a project that is significantly different in type or function. A proposed modification that is not technically capable of being completed, is not economically viable, or that adversely affects public safety through the endangerment of lives or property is not considered “practicable.” A proposed modification need not remove all economic value of the property in order to be considered not “practicable.” Conversely, a modification need not provide the highest and best use of the property to be “practicable.” In determining whether a proposed modification is practicable, consideration shall also be given to cost of the modification compared to the environmental benefit it achieves. Land Trust originally proposed constructing a surface water retention pond. The Stormtech stormwater management system would cause less wetland impact than a retention pond. Land Trust contends the use of a retaining wall reduces wetland impacts because, otherwise, more mangroves would have to be removed to account for the slope of the waterward side of the fill area. However, this proposition assumes the appropriateness of the size of the fill area. Land Trust also contends wetland impacts are reduced by using the adjacent development to access the proposed project site, rather than creating a new road. However, the evidence did not establish that Land Trust had a practicable and preferred alternative for access. Unlike the Stormtech system, the retaining wall and access driveway were not shown to be project modifications. The proposed project would cause fewer impacts to wetlands if the fill area was reduced in size, which was not shown to be impracticable. Reducing the size of the fill area would not cause the project to be significantly different in type or function. Land Trust did not demonstrate that it implemented reasonable design modifications to eliminate or reduce impacts to wetland functions. Mitigation Land Trust proposes to purchase credits from the Tampa Bay Mitigation Bank, which is 17 miles north of the proposed project site. The Tampa Bay Mitigation Bank is in the Tampa Bay Drainage Basin. The project site is in the South Coastal Drainage Basin. Pursuant to section 10.2.8 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume I, if an applicant mitigates adverse impacts within the same drainage basin, the agency will consider the regulated activity to have no unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters. However, if the applicant proposes to mitigate impacts in another drainage basin, factors such as “connectivity of waters, hydrology, habitat range of affected species, and water quality” will be considered to determine whether the impacts are fully offset. The parties disputed whether there was connectivity between the waters near the project site and the waters at the Tampa Bay Mitigation Bank. The more persuasive evidence shows there is connectivity. There was also a dispute about the habitat range of affected species. The evidence establishes that the species found in the mangroves at the project site are also found at the mitigation bank. However, local fish and wildlife, and local biological productivity would be diminished by the proposed project. This diminution affects Petitioners’ substantial interests. The loss or reduction of storm buffering and erosion prevention functions performed by the mangroves at Perico Island cannot be mitigated for at the Tampa Bay Mitigation Bank. Cumulative impacts are unacceptable when the proposed activity, considered in conjunction with past, present, and future activities would result in a violation of state water quality standards, or significant adverse impacts to functions of wetlands or other surface waters. See § 10.2.8.1, Applicant’s Handbook, Vol. I. Section 10.2.8(b) provides that, in considering the cumulative impacts associated with a project, the District is to consider other activities which reasonably may be expected to be located within wetlands or other surface waters in the same drainage basin, based upon the local government’s comprehensive plan. Land Trust did not make a prima facie showing on this point. Land Trust could propose a similar project on another part of its property on Perico Island. Anyone owning property in the area which is designated for residential use under the City of Bradenton’s comprehensive plan and bounded by wetlands could apply to enlarge the buildable portion of the property by removing the wetlands and filling behind a retaining wall. When considering future wetland impacts in the basin which are likely to result from similar future activities, the cumulative impacts of the proposed project would result in significant adverse impacts to wetland functions in the area. Public Interest For projects located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the project will not be contrary to the public interest, or if such activities significantly degrade or are within an Outstanding Florida Water, are clearly in the public interest, as determined by balancing the criteria set forth in rule 62- 330.302(1)(a), and as set forth in sections 10.2.3 through of the Applicant’s Handbook. Rule 62-330.302, which is identical to section 373.414, Florida Statutes, lists the following seven public interest balancing factors to be considered: Whether the activities will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activities will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activities will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activities will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activities will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activities will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, F.S.; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed regulated activity. The Parties stipulated that the proposed project would not have an adverse impact on public health, navigation, historical resources, archeological resources, or social costs. Land Trust proposes to give $5,000 to the City of Palmetto for an informational kiosk at the City of Palmetto’s public boat ramp. A District employee testified that this contribution made the project clearly in the public interest. Reasonable assurances were not provided that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest because of the adverse cumulative effects on the conservation of fish and wildlife, fishing and recreational values, and marine productivity of Anna Maria Sound, an Outstanding Florida Water.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District issue a final order that denies the Environmental Resource Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 June, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Christian Thomas Van Hise, Esquire Abel Band, Chartered Post Office Box 49948 Sarasota, Florida 34230-6948 (eServed) Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 7601 Highway 301 North Tampa, Florida 33637 (eServed) Douglas P. Manson, Esquire MansonBolves, P.A. 1101 West Swann Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 (eServed) Joseph McClash 711 89th Street Northwest Bradenton, Florida 34209 (eServed) Ralf G. Brookes, Esquire Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway, Suite 107 Cape Coral, Florida 33904 (eServed) Justin Bloom, Esquire Post Office Box 1028 Sarasota, Florida 34230 (eServed) Robert Beltram, P.E., Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899
The Issue The issue is whether the 100 foot separation of respondents/applicants sewage treatment plant from the surface water management system is adequate.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following supplemental findings of fact are determined: Background Respondents/applicant, John D. Remington and Bolton S. Drackett (applicants), are the owners of record of approximately two thirds, or around 2,700 acres, of Keewaydin Island (Key Island), which lies just south of the mainland portion of the City of Naples, Florida. In conjunction with a planned luxury development of forty-two homes on Key Island, applicants have filed an application with respondent, South Florida Water Management District (District), seeking the issuance of a permit authorizing the construction and operation of a surface water management system (system) through which stormwater runoff from the project will be directed and controlled. Petitioner, Florida Audubon Society (FAS), has initiated this proceeding to contest the issuance of a permit. In an earlier and separate proceeding (DOAH Case No. 90-2415), applicants applied for a permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) to construct a wastewater treatment plant (plant) to serve the planned development. The permit was issued on January 2, 1990, and because all appeals by FAS in Case No. 90-2415 have been concluded, that proceeding is now final. Although the wastewater treatment plant has not yet been constructed, the parties agree that it will be situated more than one hundred feet from the surface water management system. This distance (100 feet) is the minimum amount of space allowed by District rule between the plant and system. Even so, the purpose of the remand proceeding is to determine whether that amount of separation is adequate. Thus, the factual issue here is whether the treated wastewater from the plant and filter fields will enter the surface water management system and cause a violation of applicable water quality standards and other relevant District criteria. In support of their respective positions on this issue, the parties have presented the testimony of a number of experts. In resolving the conflict in their testimony, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive testimony which is embodied in the findings below. A Brief Description of the Development and System The proposed development and surface water management system were described in detail in the prior recommended order entered in this case. For purposes of this Supplemental Recommended Order, it need only be noted that Key Island now has a lodge, guest quarters and recreation facilities, all presently served by septic tanks. Access to the island is provided by motor launch from an existing shore station. Subaqueous utility crossings from the mainland provide electric power and potable water to the island. The planned development includes the construction of forty-two large luxury homes and an expansion of the lodge facilities to accommodate the needs of the new residents. The homes will be built in phases with approximately ten to be built in the first year. The entire project may take as long as seven or eight years to complete. The proposed surface water management system was designed to handle a seventy-five residential unit development. However, by virtue of a reduction in size imposed by the City of Naples, the project has been reduced to forty-two homes. Even so, the capacity of the system has not been downsized. Therefore, the system as designed will more than accommodate all proposed development on the island. The development area has been divided into seven surface water management basins based upon seven existing natural water sheds on the upland portion of the project. Each basin will have a system of inlets, culverts and swales which will direct runoff to control structures. The dry swales are approximately one foot deep and five to ten feet wide and run parallel on both sides of the cart paths that link the various portions of the project. The cart paths, which will be at an elevation of 5.5 feet above mean sea level (NGVD), will have culverts running underneath to aid in maintaining the natural flow of water and limit impounding of water. The swale bottoms are designed to be one foot below the cart path elevation, or at 4.5 feet NGVD, and will be dry, except during significant rain events, because they are designed so that the bottom of the swale is at least one foot above the average wet season water table. Both the cart paths and swale system utilize a design system that is common to residential developments. Once the water reaches a specified height, it goes over the control structure and is discharged downstream into spreader swales from which the water is dispersed into either interior, low wetland areas or into two artificial lakes (7.3 and 1.0 acres in size) created for wet detention. Basins one, two, three, four and seven are designed to treat water quality by the dry detention method, that is, by the unlined swales that parallel cart paths, while water quality is accomplished in basins five and six by best management practices and wet retention, that is, the two artificial lakes. The Wastewater Treatment Plant The DER permit was issued on January 2, 1990, and carries an expiration date of January 2, 1995. It authorizes applicants to: construct a 0.035 MGD extended aeration process wastewater treatment plant with reclaimed water to dual absorption fields located at the project site as depicted on Wilson, Miller, Barton, Soll & Peek, Inc. design drawings, project number 6270, sheets 1 thru 5 of 5, dated March 20, 1989, revised October 16, 1989 and received October 19, 1989. The design drawings were submitted in support of construction application, engineering report, hydrologeolic characteristics and hydraulic modeling for effluent disposal report and related documents, dated March 20, 1989. The hydraulic capacity of the plant is limited to 0.030 MGD based on the reclaimed water disposal system. The collection system shall not exceed the 0.030 MGD hydraulic capacity as well. The wastewater treatment plant is designed to meet all DER water quality, health and safety standards. For example, the plant must achieve 90% removal of biological oxygen demand (BOD) and 90% removal of total suspended solids from the raw wastewater, or effluent levels below 20 parts per million for BOD and 10 parts per million suspended solids, whichever is more stringent. The plant must also have twenty-four hour detention in the aeration chamber and four hours detention in the clarifer. Further, a chlorine chamber contact time of fifteen minutes is required. In addition, DER has issued the permit with certain specific conditions. Among others, these include standards as to effluent chlorine residuals, the requirement that a professional engineer inspect the construction, operation requirements, sampling schedules, defined perameter levels, and the establishment of a hydraulic plant load (permitted maximum daily flow) at 30,000 gallons per day. By issuing the permit, DER has concluded that up to 30,000 gallons per day of sewage effluent can be treated and disposed of by the plant filter fields without violation of applicable DER water quality, health and safety standards. The wastewater treatment plant will be located on a centralized utility site within basin seven of the system. There are also gravity sand filters and a drainfield effluent disposal system located in basin six, which is the northeastern corner of the project. The plant will provide a high degree of treatment and disinfection for the effluent before it is discharged to the filter field. The filtered (treated) effluent will flow by gravity main to the filter fields located in an adjacent basin. Two filter fields will be used in disposing of the treated wastewater effluent. Constructed as sand mounds at a grade level of two or three feet above the existing island elevation, each filter will have dimensions of twenty feet wide and four hundred feet long. The filter fields will be constructed as a bed of gravel wrapped in filter cloth and placed within a mound of soil. A perforated four-inch pipe will be installed within the gravel bed at 5.5 feet NGVD to distribute the effluent through the filter beds. The effluent will then percolate downward and laterally away from the bed and into the groundwater table. At that point, the effluent will become indistinguishable from the groundwater Because the total daily flow will be pumped alternately into one part of the two sections of the drainfield, this allows one filter field to "rest" for a seven-day period during the use of the other filter field, thereby avoiding saturation. Therefore, the average theoretical maximum input into a filter field over a one year period at the plant's maximum capacity is 15,000 gallons per day. The plant was designed and permitted for maximum daily flows at all times of the year. However, the actual operating conditions will reflect significantly less flows due to the seasonality of the population and occupancy levels. More specifically, the plant was designed and permitted for seventy- five dwelling units and ancillary uses with an estimated maximum design flow of 28,450 gallons per day. The approved planned development will contain only forty-two dwelling units and ancillary uses with a maximum design flow of 21,200 gallons per day. Therefore, the permitted plant will treat the wastewater to a higher level due to the reserve capacity, and the plant will rarely be used at over fifty percent of its available capacity. Revised projected wastewater flows will range from daily loads of 2,325 gallons per day during the months of August and September to a high of 15,137 gallons per day during the month of February. This projected usage is consistent with historical occupancy and usage trends in the Naples area which show that occupancy of homes is at its peak during the dry season (the cooler winter months) and substantially lower during the wet season (the hot summer months). Applicants' projected wastewater flows are found to be reasonable and are hereby accepted. In making this finding, the undersigned has rejected the contention by FAS that the daily wastewater flows will be higher than that projected by the applicants and the plant will operate at maximum capacity for sustained periods of time. The system plans reflect that there will be swales within basin six located between one hundred ten and one hundred twenty feet to the west of the filter fields. These swales run parallel along a cart path and flow to the north discharging into an artificial lake at the north end of the project. The swales in this basin have a bottom elevation of 4.5 feet NGVD and decrease to an elevation of 3.5 feet NGVD at the point of discharge into the artificial lake. Adequacy of Separation Between Plant and System Rule 40E-4.091, Florida Administrative Code, adopts and incorporates by reference a document known as the "Basis for Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District - September 1989" (Basis for Review). Section 3.2.2.8 of the Basis for Review reads as follows: Sewage treatment percolation ponds. Above ground pond dikes shall not be within 200 feet of water bodies or 100 feet of dry detention/ detention areas. Additional calculations by the applicant may be necessary in unusual cases requiring deviations from these dimensions. The purpose of the above section is to provide adequate separation between above-ground percolation ponds and surface water management systems in case the percolation pond dike fails. For example, above grade percolation ponds contain large volumes of sewage treatment plant effluent. If a pond dike should fail, a large portion of effluent would be quickly released into the adjacent ground. The minimum 100-foot separation is designed to provide adequate distance for percolation into the ground prior to infiltrating the surface water management system. However, filter fields contain lesser volumes of effluent than do percolation ponds, and should a filter field fail, the effluent will trickle out the side of the field with a much lower rate of effluent release than from a failed pond dike. In accordance with the District rule, applicants have proposed to locate the surface water management system more than one hundred feet from the wastewater treatment plant and filtration beds. Even though the rule standards have been met, the purpose of this remand proceeding is to determine whether that amount of separation is adequate to prevent adverse impacts to the water quantity and water quality functions of the system from the operation and location of the filter fields. The Computer Models As a part of their application filed with DER in 1989, applicants' witness Missimer prepared and submitted a report known as "Hydrogeologic Characteristics and Hydraulic Modeling for Effluent Disposal at Keewaydin Club". The report was based on a computer model known as "Modflow" and was designed to show the increase in elevation of the water table for a loading rate of 30,000 gallons per day alternating between the two filtration beds. The purpose of the modeling analysis filed with DER was to investigate whether the plant would continue to discharge effluent to the drainfields under the most extreme conditions. The model demonstrated that the effluent discharge would not be impaired even under conditions that are beyond any reasonable or probable operating conditions. After reviewing the model, DER accepted those results and issued a permit. Utilizing in large part the underlying assumptions and parameters of the Missimer model, and without performing any independent field evaluation on the site, FAS witness Chin ran the model to investigate the impact of the operation of the plant on the system. Because the model used by Dr. Chin was not constructed for the design of a surface water management system, but rather was constructed for the purpose of designing an adsorption field, without modification it provided a more than worst case scenario of impacts associated with the operation of a plant. In this case, Dr. Chin utilized the ultra- conservative assumptions used in designing the adsorption field and made no revisions to the model. Thus, it is found that the model as used by Dr. Chin, and any conclusions drawn from the model alone, are not a sufficient or reasonable basis for evaluating the impact of the plant on the system. The model used by Dr. Chin is not representative of the natural occurring conditions on the island or the reasonably expected plant flow rates. Moreover, in developing the worst case scenario, as opposed to reasonable expectations, both the Chin and Missimer models incorporated the simultaneous occurrence of certain conservative assumptions including an impermeable flow boundary, a year round wet season water table elevation, a conservative rate of transmissivity, and a constant rate of evapotranspiration. The use of these assumptions caused the model output to grossly overstate the effects of the plant on the system in the following manner. First, by assuming a flow barrier on the island, the model had the effect of overestimating the height of the groundwater mound from operation of the plant than would occur if no boundary were used. Second, the assumption of a year-round wet season groundwater level is unrealistic since groundwater levels fluctuate seasonally, receding to near zero NGVD on the island during the dry season. Thus, the model overestimated the height of the groundwater level. Further, by using only the upper ten feet of the water table aquifer in calculating the rate of transmissivity, the model incorporated a much lower rate than would be attained had the entire thickness (74 feet) of the aquifer been used. This also resulted in an over-estimation in the height of the mound from the operation of the plant. Finally, by assuming a constant rate of evapotranspiration, the model "grossly exaggerated" the impact to the groundwater level from operation of the plant. In reality, as the water table increases, the loss of water from evapotranspiration increases significantly and constitutes a major output of a water budget. Besides the foregoing assumptions, the Chin model also assumed a continuous loading rate of 30,000 gallons per day for a period of up to one year. While the District should properly consider the permitted flow rate of the plant in evaluating a worst case of potential impact, there was no evidence substantiating any likelihood of the plant actually producing 30,000 gallons per day for 365 consecutive days in conjunction with all other conservative assumptions discussed above. The more reasonable and accepted method of analyzing the impact of plant flows is to examine the peak month's average day flow over a six-month period. As noted earlier, for the proposed forty-two units, the peak day flow is estimated to be approximately 21,200 gallons per day. Therefore, it is highly probable that actual flow rates will be much lower than the maximum plant capacity of 30,000 gallons per day. By failing to use the more reasonable and realistic reduced flow rates, the Chin model overestimated the elevation of the groundwater level from the operation of the plant. In contrast, the Missimer analysis demonstrates that it is extremely unlikely that the plant output will ever elevate groundwater to the extent that it would reach the system swales by either surface water or groundwater flow. The foregoing modeling assessments, including the criticisms of the Chin model, were concurred in by the District expert. Water Quantity Impacts There is no credible evidence to support a finding that the operation of the plant will adversely impact the ability of the system to provide adequate flood protection and drainage. Indeed, the more credible evidence shows that an alteration of existing drainage patterns will not occur by virtue of the operation of the plant, and the post-development discharge rates will not exceed the pre-development discharge rates. Therefore, the undersigned's previous finding that applicants have provided reasonable assurance that the the system provides adequate protection and drainage is not altered after considering the operation and location of the plant. There is insufficient credible evidence to support a finding that the plant's operation will adversely impact the system functions in such a way as to cause adverse water quantity impacts on receiving waters and adjacent lands. Indeed, the post-development discharge rate approximates the pre-development discharge rate on receiving waters, the ultimate receiving water body (the Gulf of Mexico) has an infinite capacity to receive water, and there are no adjacent lands subject to flooding from discharge of the system regardless of whether there is any impact of the plant on the system. There is no credible evidence to support a finding that the plant will cause the system to have an adverse impact on surface and groundwater levels and flows. Rather, the more persuasive evidence shows that the plant's operation will not result in groundwater elevation in the area of the system that would cause the impoundment of water or prevent the percolation of water into the soil. In addition, the overflow levels for control structures will operate as designed to insure against over-drainage or flooding. Finally, the operation of the filter fields will not cause adverse impacts on surface and groundwater levels and flows. Water Quality Impacts The operation of the plant will not impair the water quality functions of the system. This is because the swales will continue to detain the first flush of run-off allowing the majority of the suspended solids and other pollutants to settle out regardless of the operation of the plant. Further, in the unlikely event the treated wastewater effluent reached the system, it would be indistinguishable from the stormwater or rainfall due to the high level of treatment from the plant, the filter fields and dilution from groundwater and rainfall. The operation of the plant will not cause adverse water quality impacts on the receiving waters. In making this finding, the undersigned notes initially that the plant is permitted by DER, and therefore it is assumed to comply with all DER water quality standards. Second, there is no evidence that the system will impact the operation of the plant. In the event the groundwater mixed with treated effluent resurfaces, there would be no adverse impact to the surface water quality. This is because the treated effluent from the plant exceeds state water quality standards. Once the treated effluent becomes a part of the groundwater, it is unlikely that it will resurface again in the areas of the swales, which are more than one hundred ten feet away. Indeed, in order for the groundwater with effluent to travel that distance, it would have been in the groundwater system for at least one hundred days. This period of time is more than sufficient for the denitrification and adsorption processes to remove all nutrients. Even if the worst case scenario became a reality and the groundwater reached the swale bottoms, it would only result in a wetting of the ground and would not be of sufficient quantity to create a flow of water in the swale to travel off-site impacting a receiving water. In any event, at that point, any groundwater resurfacing that distance away would no longer be effluent. Finally, during abnormal conditions, such as a hurricane or large storm event, the groundwater may rise to the surface and mix with the surface water and enter the system. However, any effluent already significantly diluted under normal circumstances would be indistinguishable from the stormwater or rainfall. Adverse Environmental Impacts There is no credible evidence that the operation of the plant filter fields will adversely impact the system in such a manner as to cause an adverse environmental impact. In so finding, the undersigned rejects the contention that the system will act as a conduit for treated effluent to travel off-site to the ponds, marsh, mangrove areas or receiving waters. The evidence shows that the design of the filter fields and high permeability of the island soils will prevent the surface flow of effluent to the system swales. The elevation of the swales above the groundwater table level will prevent the introduction of effluent into the swale system. In the unlikely event the groundwater reaches the bottom elevation of the swale, there would be no significant environmental impact because the quality of effluent would be indistinguishable from the groundwater due to the high level of treatment and dilution, and such water would still be further treated by the system before discharge to receiving bodies. The location of the plant and system will not have an adverse impact on the gopher tortoise population on the island. Rather, the system should enhance the gopher tortoise population by providing mananged land with vegetation suitable for gopher consumption. Further, the general development on the island will reduce the number of raccoons which prey on gopher eggs and young gophers. Miscellaneous During the remand hearing, FAS presented evidence concerning the impact of tides and mean sea level rise and saline lakes on the island. This evidence was essentially the same as that presented in the prior hearing and was rejected in favor of the more credible evidence presented by the applicants on this issue. Nothing was presented during the remand hearing which would alter these prior findings. During the hearing, and in response to a question by District counsel, witness Missimer agreed it would not be unreasonable to install a few monitoring wells to insure that the system is operating properly. Because this requirement is not unreasonable, will serve a valuable purpose, and has been utilized by the District as a special condition on numerous prior occasions, it should be incorporated into the permit conditions. Even though the evidence clearly shows that seasonal tidal fluctuations would not have an adverse impact on the functioning of the system, if such a tidal incursion were to occur, the placement of a check valve device on the water control structures would prevent sea water from flowing back into the system. Such a device would be a minor addition to the system, would not otherwise affect its design, and if deemed necessary by the District, should be incorporated into the permit conditions. Prior to hearing, the District retained the services of an outside consultant to assist it in preparation for trial. The consultant did not testify at final hearing and prepared no reports. He did make several computer runs, none of which are a part of this record. Among other things, District witness Rogers relied upon the computer runs in formulating his opinion on the issue presented on remand.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting the requested permit in accordance with the agency's proposed agency action dated March 28, 1990. DONE and ENTERED this 22 day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22 day of March, 1991.
Conclusions On May 11, 2007, the Division of Administrative Hearings (‘DOAH’) submitted a _ Recommended Order (“RO”) to the Department of Environmental Protection (‘DEP’) i in . these consolidated proceedings. Copies of the RO were served upon the Petitioners, Mellita A. Lane, Jacqueline M. Lane, Peter A. Lane, (“Lane Petitioners”); Friends of Perdido Bay,.Inc., and James A. Lane (“FOPB”); and the Co-Respondent, International Paper Company (“IP” ). On May 29, 2007, all Petitioners and Respondent IP filed Exceptions to the RO. Respondent DEP filed Exceptions to the RO and Motion for Remand. ; On June 8, 2007, the FOPB filed a Reply to IP’s Exceptions and a Response to DEP’s Motion for Remand and Exceptions. The Lane Petitioners filed their Response to iP’s and DEP’s Exceptions. Respondent DEP filed Responses to the Exceptions filed . by the FOPB, the Lane Petitioners and IP. Respondent IP filed Responses to the Exceptions of FOPB, the Lane Petitioners and DEP. This matter is now before me for. final agency action. . _ BACKGROUND » Florida Pulp and Paper Company first began operating the Cantonment paper mill in. 1941. St. Regis Paper Company (St. Regis” ) acquired the mill in 1946. In 4984, Champion International Corporation (“Champion”) acquired the mill. Champion changed the product mix in 1986 from unbleached packaging paper to bleached products such a as printing and writing grades c of paper. In 2001, Champion merged with IP, and IP took over operation of the mill. The primary product of the mill continues to | be printing and writing paper. ' The mill s wastewater effluent i is discharged into Elevenmile Creek, which is a tributary of Perdido Bay. The creek flows southwest into the northeastern portion of Perdido Bay. Elevenmile Creek is a freshwater stream for most of its length but is . sometimes tidally affected one to two miles from its mouth. Elevenmile Creek is designated as a Class I water. Perdido Bay is approximately 28 square miles in area and is bordered by Escambia County on the east and Baldwin County, Alabama, on the west. The dividing line between ‘the states runs north and south in the approximate middle of Perdido Bay. U.S. Highway 98 crosses the Bay, going east and west, and forms the boundary between what is-often referred to as the “Upper Bay” and “Lower Bay.” The Bay is relatively shallow, especially | in the Upper Bay, ranging in depth between five and ten feet. Perdido Bay i is designated asa Class ill water. Sometime around 1900, a manmade navigation channel was cut through the narrow strip of land separating Perdido Bay from the Gulf of Mexico. The channel, called Perdido Pass, allowed the salt waters of the Gulf to move with the tides up into Perdido Bay. Depending on tides and freshwater inflows, the tidal waters can move into the most northern portions of Perdido Bay and even further, into its tributaries and wetlands. The Perdido River flows into the northwest portion of Perdido Bay. Itis primarily a freshwater river but itis sometimes tidally influenced at and near its mouth. The Perdido River was designated an Outstanding Florida Water (“OFW’) in 11979. At the north end of Perdido Bay, between Elevenmile Creek and the Perdido River, isa large tract of land owned by IP called the Rainwater Tract, The northern part of the tract is primarily freshwater wetlands. The southern partis a tidal marsh. Tee and Wicker Lakes are small (approximately 50 acres in total surface area) tidal ponds within the tidal marsh. Depending on the tides, the lakes can be as shallow as one foot, or several feet deep. A channel through the marsh allows boaters to gain access to Tee and Wicker Lakes from Perdido Bay. | ' Before 1995, the mill had to have both state and federal permits. The former Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (‘DER’) issued St. Regis an industrial wastewater operating permit in 1982 pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") issued St. Regis a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“ NPDES") permit i in 1983 pursuant to the Clean Water Act. When it acquired the facility in 1984, Champion continued to operate the mill under these two permits. In 1986, Champion obtained a construction permit from DER to install the oxygen delignification technology and other improvements to its wastewater treatment plant (‘WWTP’) in conjunction with the conversion of the production process from an unbleached to a modified bleached kraft production - process. In 1987, Champion applied to DER for an operating permit-for its modified WWITP and also petitioned for a variance from the Class iI water quality standards in Elevenmile Creek for iron, specific conductance, zinc, and transparency. DER's . subsequent proposal to issue the operating permit and variance was formally challenged. In 1988, while the challenges to the DER permit and variance were still pending, Champion dropped its application for the operating permit and requested a . temporary operating permit ("TOP"), instead. In December 1989, DER and Champion entered into Consent Order No. 87-1398 (‘the 1989 Consent Order’). The 1989 Consent Order included an allegation by DER that the mill's wastewater discharge was causing violations of state water quality standards in Elevenmile Creek for dissolved oxygen (“DO”), un-ionized ammonia, and biological integrity. The 1989 Consent Order authorized the continued operation of the mill, but established a process for addressing the water quality problems in Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay and bringing the mill into compliance in the future. Champion was required to install equipment to increase the DO in its effluent within a year. Champion was also required to submit a plan of study and, 30 months after DER's approval of the plan of study, to submit a study report on the impacts of the mill's effluent on DO in Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay and recommend measures for reducing or eliminating adverse impacts. The study report was also supposed to address the other water quality violations caused by Champion. A comprehensive study of the Perdido Bay system was undertaken by a team of 24 scientists lead by Dr. Robert Livingston, an aquatic ecologist and professor at Florida State University. The initial three-year study by Dr. Livingston's team of scientists was followed bya series of related scientific studies, which are referred to collectively in the RO as “the Livingston studies.” The 1989 Consent Order had no expiration date, but it was tied to the TOP, , which had an expiration date of December 1, 1994. Champion was to be in compliance with all applicable water quality standards by that date. The mill was not in compliance with all water quality standards in December 1 994. No enforcement action was taken by the Department and no modification of the 1989 Consent Order or TOP was formally proposed that would have provided a point of entry to any members of the public who might have objected. instead, the Department agreed through correspondence with . Champion to allow Champion to pursue additional water quality studies and to investigate alternatives to its discharge to Elevenmile Creek. - In 1994 and 1995, Champion applied to renew its state and federal wastewater permits, which were about to expire. The Department and EPA notified Champion that its existing permits were administratively extended during the review of the new permit applications. Today, the Cantonment mill is still operating under the 1989 TOP which, due to the administrative extension, did not terminate in December 1994, as stated on its face. In November 1 995, following EPA's delegation of NPDES permitting authority to the Department, the Department issued an order combining the state and federal ‘operating permits into a single permit identified as Wastewater Permit Number FLO002526-002-IWF/MT. During the period from 1992 to 2001, more water quality studies were conducted and Champion investigated alternatives to discharging into upper Elevenmile Creek, including land application of the effluent and relocation of the discharge to lower Elevenmiie Creek or the Escambia River. . In September 2002, while Champion's 1994 permit renewal application was still pending at DEP, IP submitted a revised permit renewal application to upgrade the WWTP and relocate its discharge. The WwTP upgrades consist of converting toa. modified activated sludge treatment process, incteasing aeration, constructing storm surge ponds, and adding a process for pH adjustment. The new WWTP would have an average daily effluent discharge of 23.8 million gallons per day (‘MGD’). IP proposes to convey the treated effluent by-pipeline 10.7 miles to the 1,464-acre wetland tract owned by IP (contained within-the larger Rainwater Tract), where the effluent would be distributed over the wetlands as it flows to lower Elevenmile Creek and Upper Perdido Bay. IP revised its permit application again in October 2005, to obtain authorization to: reconfigure the mill to produce unbleached brown paper for various grades of boxes. If the mill is reconfigured, only softwood (pine) would be used in the new process. On April 12, 2005, the Department published notice of its intent fo issue a proposed permit, consent order, experimental wetland exemption, and waiver. The — Department authorizations would allow IP to change its industrial wastewater treatment system at the mill, construct an effluent distribution system within the wetland tract, construct the 10.7-mile pipeline to transport its treated wastewater to the wetlands, and discharge the treated wastewater into the wetlands. In April 2005, Mellita A. Lane, Jacqueline M. Lane, Zachary P. Lane, Peter A. Lane, and Sarah M. Lane (“Lane Petitioners”) filed identical petitions challenging the Department authorizations on numerous grounds. The Department forwarded the petitions to DOAH for assignment of an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The Lane Petitioners subsequently amended their petitions. In May 2005, Friends of Perdido Bay, Inc., and James Lane filed a petition for | hearing to challenge the Department authorizations. The FOPB petition was forwarded to DOAH and the pending cases were consolidated for the fi nal hearing. The FOPB petition was subsequently amended. In October 2005, while the cases were pending, IP applied for a revision to its NPDES permit renewal application. The cases were abated so that the DEP could review and act on the permit revision. In January 2006, DEP issued a proposed revised | NPDES permit and a corresponding First Amendment to Consent Order. On July 26, 2006, the Department filed without objection a revision to the Consent Order. On July 31, 2006, the Department filed Joint Trial Exhibit 18 that integrated the Consent Order dated April 12, 2005, the First Amendment to Consent Order dated January 11, 2006, and the Department’s Notice of Minor Revision {o Consent Order filed on July 26, 2006. The DOAH Administrative Law Judge CALL") held a lengthy final hearing in these consolidated cases on May 31, June 1, 2, and.26 through 30, and July 17, 27, and 28, 2006. Prior to the hearing, the parties filed their Joint Pre-Hearing sit on May 24, 2006. The ALJ subsequenty submitted his RO on May 11, 2007. -
