The Issue The issue for consideration at the hearing was whether the Respondent, Roger Harloff, should be issued a consumptive use permit to withdraw and use ground water from the wells on his property, and if so, in what amount and under what conditions.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Roger Harloff, owns several farms in southeastern Manatee County, Florida which, taken together, make up an irregular 8,500 acre tract located approximately 2 1/2 miles north of the City of Sarasota's Verna Wellfield. Mr. Harloff grows vegetables on much of this tract, of which approximately 1,500 acres is devoted to tomatoes. This tomato crop is the prime crop produced by Mr. Harloff, and provides the raw material for the Harloff packing plant which is dependent upon the tomato crop in order to stay in business. Mr. Harloff also operates a plant nursery at which he produces many if not most of the seedling plants utilized in his vegetable growing operations. In order to be economically feasible and remain operative, Mr. Harloff must farm approximately 3,800 acres during the Spring growing season and approximately 3,000 acres during the Fall. These acres are made up of tomatoes and other vegetables. The packing plant and the plant nursery are dependent upon the farm operation and without adequate water, the farm operation cannot be successfully carried on. In September 1988, Mr. Harloff applied to the District for a consumptive use permit to withdraw water from twelve wells located on his property, requesting an annual average rate of 12,995,606 gpd, and a maximum daily rate of 47,520,000 gpd. The consumptive use permit application filed by Mr. Harloff was assigned District Number 204467.04. After evaluation of the application in conjunction with its needs and policies, the District issued a staff report and proposed agency action on the application which recommended issuance of the permit authorizing water to be drawn from the 12 wells at a rate approximating that requested in the application. Thereafter, the City of Sarasota, which operates the nearby Verna Wellfield, considering that the proposed withdrawal would have a substantial adverse impact on its wellfield operations, filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing objecting to the issuance of the permit to Mr. Harloff. Though Mr. Harloff has owned much of the property which make up the 8,500 acre tract in question here, at the time of his application, he did not own, but had under contract, a substantial portion. He closed on the purchase of that remainder after he received notice of the District's intention to issue the permit in question but prior to the City's filing its Petition For Formal Hearing. The purchase price of the property in question was $9,000,000.00 which carries an interest payment on the financed portion of $52,000.00 per month. The wells pertinent to the issues in this proceeding are as follows: # Cons. Depth Cas. Lin. Diam. Cap. Loc. 1 1978 1185' 200' 220-490' 12" 2000 gpm SE 2. 1988 1320' 210' 210-480' 16" 3000 gpm SE 9. 1974 1130' 390' 16" 3000 gpm C 10. 1976 1232' 231' 283-400' 16" 3000 gpm NW 11. 1979 1120' 210' 260-480' 12" 2000 gpm NW 12. 1976 1180' 480' 12" 2000 gpm SW 3. 1989 1434' 460' 16" 3000 gpm SE 5. 1989 1374' 610' 16" 3000 gpm W 8. 1989 1292' 548' 16" 3000 gpm NW 13. 1989 1310' 635' 16" 2000 gpm NE Well No. 8 was used as the pump test well for the constant rate discharge test and Well No. 13 was the deep observation well for that test. Wells 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, and 12 have all been previously permitted by the District and No's 1, 2, 9 and 10 are currently permitted under two other permits, while 11 and 12 were permitted under a different permit. Wells No. 3, 5, 8 and 13 have been authorized for construction but not, as yet, to produce water. Wells 4, 6 and 7 have not yet been constructed. The intention is to drill them to a depth of 1,300 feet and case them to 600 feet. Each will have a pump capacity of 3,000 gpm. Number 4 will be in the southeast portion of the tract, number 6 in the central portion, and number 7 will be located just north of number 6. Wells 1, 2, 9, and 10 currently have a combined permitted maximum daily rate of 13,680,000 gallons under permits number 204467.03 for 1 and 2, and 204630 for 9 and 10. The former was issued on December 29, 1987 and will expire on December 29, 1993, and the latter, issued on October 7, 1981, will expire on that same day in 1991. The permit previously issued for wells 11 and 12 authorized withdrawal at a maximum daily rate of 2,160,000 gallons. That permit, number 204374, expired on September 9, 1986 and was not renewed. After the City filed its Petition challenging Mr. Harloff's proposed permit, Mr. Harloff, on June 26, 1989, filed an amended application to withdraw water at an average annual rate of 10.99 mgd and a maximum daily rate of 48.96 million gallons. This amended application refers to an additional proposed well, Number 13. The District, however, had previously approved wells 3 - 8 and 13, and pursuant to this authorization, wells 3, 5, 8, and 13 were built. Mr. Harloff submitted additional amendments to his application on August 7 and 9, 1989. The former requests a seasonal average daily rate of 25.34 mgd and a seasonal maximum daily rate of 32.79 mgd. The latter requests a seasonal average rate of 26.18 mgd, an annual average rate of 15.18 mgd, and a seasonal maximum rate of 31.56 mgd. In that regard, a seasonal rate is the same as an annual rate, (average or maximum) when applied to a growing season as opposed to a year. The additional amendments to the application were evaluated by District staff who, on August 18, 1989, issued a revised staff report and a proposal to issue to Mr. Harloff a consumptive use permit authorizing an average annual withdrawal of 11.1. mgd, an average seasonal withdrawal of 15.6 mgd, and a seasonal maximum withdrawal of 20.1 mgd. The proposed permit also contains terms and conditions which, the District contends, will, inter alia, permit Mr. Harloff to withdraw more water than he is currently authorized without additional adverse impact on the City's Verna Wellfield. It is to some of these terms and conditions that Mr. Harloff objects. Since the issuance of the revised staff report and intent to issue, the parties have negotiated on the various terms and conditions in question and have agreed to some and the amendment of others. Mr. Harloff has no objection to conditions number 1, 2, 3, 7 - 14, 23, 24, 26, 28 - 30, 32, and 34 & 35. The parties agree that other conditions, as indicated herein, should be amended as follows: Condition 19, on the third line, should be changed to read, " up to 20 inches tapering to 12 inches." Condition 22, on the second line, should be changed from "30 days" to "10 days". Condition 25, on the first line, should be changed from "within 60 days" to within 120 days". Condition 31, on the third line, starting with "following month" should be changed to "following months: January, April, July and October". Also, under Sampling Frequency, "Monthly" should be changed to "Quarterly". Condition 33, on the ninth line, insert the work "economically" before the word "feasible" in the phrase "specific operation and irrigation improvements are feasible". Mr. Harloff objects to conditions 4, 5, 15 - 17, 20 & 27. He does not object to the proposed new standards for new wells. Taken together, the parties then disagree only on the requirement for abandonment or refurbishment of existing wells and the quantities of water Mr. Harloff will be allowed to draw. The City supports the District's position on both issues. The City of Sarasota owns and operates a public water system to serve between 50 to 75 thousand people located in Sarasota County. The primary source of water for this system is the Verna Well field which is also owned by the City and which accounts for approximately 60 percent of the City's water needs. The City also operates a reverse osmosis, (R.O.) water desalinization facility, and has back-up wells at St. Armond Key and at the Bobby Jones Wellfield. The Verna Wellfield is located about 17 miles east of the Sarasota city limits on approximately 2,000 acres of land in northeastern Sarasota County. It consists of two tracts of land: Part "A", which is approximately 1/2 mile wide by 4 miles long; and Part "B", which is approximately 1 mile square located about 500 feet southeast of Part "A". The Verna Wellfield's permitted allocation is based on whether the R.O. facility is producing at capacity. If it is, the Verna daily allocation is 7 mgd, and if not, 9.5 mgd. The R.O. facility's capacity is 4.5 mgd and the backup wells have a capacity of 1.7 mgd. The wellfield contains 39 permitted production wells, 30 of which are in Part "A" and 9 of which are in Part "B." One of them, well 30, is currently inactive. The wellfield has been in operation as a part of the City's public water system since September 1966. When the Verna Wellfield was constructed in 1965-1966, its original design specified casing on most wells down to 140 feet with pump bowl settings at 125 feet. Each pump was to have a total dynamic head, (TDH) of 200 feet. Over the years, the City has decreased the TDH of the pumps at Verna from 200 feet to 175 feet. This has resulted in a reduction of the pumps' ability to produce water with sufficient pressure to carry it to the discharge point. This decline has been caused by an increase in withdrawal of water regionally, and not solely because of withdrawals from the Verna Well field. Verna is impacted by the use of water outside the boundaries of the wellfield. The City has an ongoing program calling for the refurbishment of 2 to 3 wells per year at the Verna Wellfield. It is the City's intent to convert the pumps to 200 feet TDH on all well refurbishments in the future. In August 1977, a program requiring permits for the consumptive use of water was implemented in both Sarasota and Manatee Counties. At that time, the Verna Wellfield had a production rate of 6.9 mgd annual average daily rate. On January 6, 1978, the City applied for a permit for Verna and on April 3, 1979, the District issued permit number 27804318 to allow the City to draw water from the Verna Wellfield. The City applied for a renewal of that permit in October 1983 and thereafter, in January 1985, the District authorized the continued withdrawal of water from Verna by the issuance of permit 204318 which, at Condition 18, placed limitations on the City's use of water from the wellfield. Specifically, the permit limited withdrawals from Verna to: ...6,000,000 gallons per day average and 7,000,000 gallons per day maximum, except during those times when ... [the R.O. process is reduced or to facilitate maintenance or repairs]. At such times, ... [withdrawals) may be increased to provide additional supplies not to exceed 8,000,000 gallons per day average annual and 9,500,000 gallons per day maximum. This condition clearly provides for additional supplies to be drawn to increase the Verna Well field production to a total of 8,000,000 and 9,500,000 mgd, respectively, not in addition to the regular permitted amount, by those quantities. The City's permit has been neither suspended nor revoked nor is any violation enforcement action currently under way. The current permit expires January 9, 1991. The water pumped from the Verna wells is held in a 1,000,000 gallon reservoir at the wellfield. This reservoir, which is topped at approximately 22 to 23 feet, electronically controls the pumping activity at the well field by turning on and shutting off pumps, in series, as the water level in the reservoir rises and falls. The water, when needed, is transmitted to another reservoir near the City's treatment plant in downtown Sarasota by gravity flow through a 30" diameter, 92,000 foot long pipe. The flow rate is approximately 5,000 gpm normally. When the treatment plant needs more water, a pump at the well field forces the flow at a rate of between 7,200 to 8,200 gpm, depending upon the level of water in the receiving reservoir. A flow of 8,200 gpm would draw 11.8 mgd from the wellfield. The operating capacity of the Verna Wellfield, in August 1988, was 17.9 mgd. Harloff's experts assert, and there is no concrete evidence to rebut it, that if all wells at Verna were pumping during a 24 hour period in May 1989, the reservoir could have been maintained at full level. However, though there is a manual override of the automatic reservoir/pump control system, it is unrealistic and unwise to expect full production on a 24 hour basis for any lengthy time period. Water under both Mr. Harloff's property and the Verna Well field is found at various levels known by different names. These include, in order of descent, the Surficial Aquifer, the Intermediate Aquifer, the Upper Floridan Aquifer, and the Lower Floridan Aquifer. The Surficial Aquifer extends from the surface down to between 20 and 60 feet below the surface. A 20 foot thick bed of clay separates the water in this aquifer from that in the aquifer immediately below it, the Intermediate Aquifer, which extends from approximately 80 feet down to approximately 420 feet below the surface. In the lower part of the Intermediate Aquifer, permeability decreases until a confining unit separating the bottom of the Intermediate Aquifer from the top of the Upper Floridan Aquifer is formed. There is such a confining unit between 420 and 500 feet. There is no well-defined confining unit between the Upper and Lower Floridan Aquifers. There is, however, a substantial difference in the transmissivity in each zone. "Transmissivity" is defined as the amount of water that will exist through a section of the aquifer that is the same width from the top to the bottom. The lower the transmissivity rate, the deeper the cone and the narrower the radius of effect. The higher the rate, the shallower the cone and the broader the radius. The Lower Floridan Aquifer has an extremely high transmissivity. Its top is found at a range of from 1,050 to 1,200 feet below the surface on Mr. Harloff's property. The water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer is of higher quality than that in the Lower. It is more readily usable for drinking than that in the Lower, but the Lower water is quite acceptable for agricultural purposes. What confining layer exists between the Upper and Lower Floridan Aquifers is made up of relatively impermeable anhydrides and gypsum. Because of this, there is little likelihood of the highly mineralized water from the Lower Floridan Aquifer rising into the better quality water in the Upper. If, therefore, water for agricultural purposes is drawn from the Lower Floridan Aquifer, with its high transmissivity and narrower cone radius, and if the wells utilized to procure this water are cased down to within the Lower aquifer, there is little chance of a negative impact on the better quality water, used for drinking by the City, within the Upper Floridan and Intermediate Aquifers. Mr. Hardin, an expert geologist and hydrogeologist testifying for Mr. Harloff, concluded, utilizing certain commonly accepted computer models, that Mr. Harloff's requested additional withdrawals would not have a significant effect on the Verna Wellfield's ability to produce water sufficient for the City's needs. This conclusion was based on 1989 seasonal use figures including an average rate of 21.95 mgd, a maximum rate of 27.04 mgd, and a maximum rate of 29 mgd under a "run time" calculation and the fact that during that period, the City was able to pump at least its permitted quantity from its wells at Verna. The City and the District do not accept this conclusion as reasonable, however, because, they claim, the withdrawal figures cited are not meter readouts but estimates based on the number of acres farmed and the number of pump operating hours during the period in question. The City's experts contend the data used by Hardin and Prochaska in their opinions is not that which other experts in the field would reasonably rely upon. They do not appear to be unrealistic, however, and, therefore, Mr. Hardin's opinion is accepted as but one factor to be considered. On the other hand, Mr. Anderson, also a Harloff expert hydrogeologist, claims the requested withdrawals would result in only an additional 1.7 foot drawdown in the Upper Floridan Aquifer underlying the Northeast corner of the Verna Well field. To be sure, this is only one small portion of the wellfield in issue. There has, however, been a continuing history of declining groundwater levels in this area over the past several years. After the 1975 drought, the City started to experience declining water levels at Verna which, because of the reduction in ability to produce water, required a lowering of the pump elements in some wells, and also caused the City to develop an R.O. facility in an effort to reduce dependence on well water. This drop in capability occurred again during the 1985 drought and this time the City modified the pump motors to shut off prior to cavitation and initiated a schedule of operating times for wells, so that water is drawn from different and geographically separated areas in a sequence designed to allow periodic regeneration of an area's supply. Nevertheless, water supply remains a concern at Verna, and the problems previously experienced continue to occur during periods of drought. In May 1989, the Verna Wellfield was periodically "unable" to meet it's short term peak demands at times even though all operating wells were pumping. This means that at the times in question, more water was being drawn from the Verna reservoir than could be replaced by pumping activities. It does not mean that the reservoir ran dry and water could not be furnished to the treatment plant. However, this condition is serious and indicative of a more serious shortage in the future unless appropriate safeguards are instituted. Mr. Balleau, the City's expert in hydrology and hydrogeology, and the District's experts all believe the Verna Wellfield is in trouble. It is operating well beyond its design range and the imposition of additional demands on it would seriously and adversely affect its ability to produce water. This position is supported by the facts and found to be accurate. There appear to be several options open to the City to contend with the Verna problem potential. These include: drill deeper wells at Verna to tap the Lower Floridan Aquifer. (This will produce the lower quality water found there and require additional treatment facilities. construct a linear wellfield along the pipeline from Verna to the treatment facility. (This will require additional permitting to draw the water, high construction and operating costs, and still result in low quality water requiring treatment. redevelop the downtown wells currently supplying the R.O. facility. (This will require satisfaction of regulatory issues, adversely impact on the users of the upper aquifers, possibly result in poor water quality and in contamination from nearby landfills.) develop a new well field southeast of Verna. (This will experience regulatory issues and high construction costs, with an unknown water quality result.) buy water from Manatee County. (This is expensive, may result in transmission and compatibility problems, and would be only a short term solution. lower pump assemblies; replace existing pumps and modify the pump circuits. (These are all unreliable, short term solutions of minimal benefit.) Mr. Harloff and the City/District disagree on the appropriate amount of water needed for the successful growing of the crops produced by his operations. Both agree, however, that the heaviest demands for water come in the spring growing season including April and May. Tomatoes require the most water. Peppers require nearly as much. This is because the short root systems require a higher water table in the soil to supply needed moisture. In its analysis of Mr. Harloff's application, the District, referring to tables developed for the purpose of allocation and relating to Harloff's watering history during the period from August 15, 1988 to June 7, 1989, subtracted the fall season recorded application of 20.7 acre-inches from the total 10 month figure of 50.92 acre-inches and concluded he would need 30.22 acre-inches for peppers during the spring, 1989 season. Unless shown to be totally unreasonable, however, (not the case here), the applicant's water need figures should be accepted. Mr. Harloff's operation constitutes an important part of Manatee County's agricultural economy, and agriculture utilizes 68.9 percent of the land in the county. Agricultural products sold in Manatee County in 1987 were valued at $145,655,000.00, which ranked Manatee County third among all Florida counties in vegetable production. Agriculture is the fourth largest employer in Manatee County, employing an average of 4,692 people per month. Through his farm operation alone, Harloff employes as many as 1,050 people, with 200 employed on a full-time basis. Experts estimate that the loss of the Harloff operation would cause a reduction of between 16 and 18 million dollars in agricultural sales in the county with an additional loss in jobs and income to his suppliers. This estimate is not at all unreasonable. Florida produces approximately 95 percent of all tomatoes grown in this country for the fresh tomato market during the winter growing season. Tomatoes are the single largest vegetable crop grown in the state and accounted for 39.7 percent of the total value of vegetables produced in Florida during the 1987-1988 growing season. Mr. Harloff produced 4.8 percent of the total shipment of tomatoes from this state during that period. Water, primarily through irrigation, is an indispensable portion of the farming operation for this crop. Mr. Harloff currently irrigates the majority of his non-citrus crops by use of a "semi-closed ditch irrigation system", as opposed to a "drip system." The drip system is considerably more efficient than the semi-closed system having an efficiency rating, (amount of water actually used by the plants) of between 80 to 90 percent, as opposed to 40 to 60 percent for the other. While Mr. Harloff could reduce his water needs considerably and achieve substantial savings on pump fuel by conversion to a drip system for all or a part of his crops, such an undertaking would be quite costly. One of the conditions proposed by the District for the approval of Harloff's permit, as amended, is the refurbishment of several of the existing wells utilized by Mr. Harloff to make them more efficient and to promote the withdrawal of water from the Lower Floridan Aquifer, in which there appears to be adequate water and from which the Verna Well field does not draw. Currently, Mr. Harloff has seven wells which do not meet the standards of this proposed condition. They are not drilled to 1,300 feet below mean sea level and are not cased to 600 feet. To bring these wells into compliance, they would have to be drilled to the 1,300 foot level, or to a level which has a specific capacity of 400 gpm, and the casings in each would have to be extended to 600 feet. Extending the casings would be a complicated procedure and Harloff's experts in the area cannot guarantee the procedure would successfully achieve the desired end. Assuming the retrofit was successful, the cost of the entire process would be approximately $15,000.00 to $16,000.00 per well. In addition, the process would, perforce, require reducing the diameter of the well from 10 to 8 inches, thereby necessitating increasing the pump capacity to produce sufficient water. The cost of this is substantial with an appropriate new pump costing somewhere between $10,000.00 and $15,000.00 each. Consequently, the anticipated cost of bringing the existing wells up to condition standards would be between $25,000.00 to $31,000.00 per well, while the cost of constructing a new well is between $40,000.00 and $50,000.00 per well. Mr. Harloff feels it would be more prudent for him to replace the existing wells rather than to retrofit them. This may be correct. Harloff experts also claim that extending the casings on the existing wells down to 600 feet would not provide a significant benefit to the aquifer nor cause any significant reduction in drawdown impact at Verna. The District and City experts disagree and, taken on balance, caution and the interests of the public indicate that a conservative approach is more appropriate. While Mr. Harloff proposes to convert the areas served by wells 1, 9, 11, and 12 to the growing of citrus which requires much less water than tomatoes, this would not be sufficient mitigation to offset the need for some modification if large amounts of water will still be drawn. The entire area under the District's jurisdiction has been experiencing a water shortage due to a lack of rainfall. As a result, in June 1989, the District adopted a resolution identifying an area, including the area in question here, as a "water use caution area." This was done because the Floridan Aquifer has been subjected to large seasonable drawdowns of the potientiometric surface, the level to which water in a confined aquifer can rise in a well which penetrates that acquifer. This drawdown is directly related to increased water use in the area, much of which is for agricultural purposes. As a result of the District's action, special conditions on well construction for consumptive use applicants have been imposed on a permit by permit basis to insure, as much as possible, that the applicant uses the lowest quality water appropriate for his intended purpose. These conditions are not unreasonable. While accepting the District's and City's conclusion that his wells, if permitted, would have some impact on the Verna Wellfield, Mr. Harloff does not concede that the impact is significant. Specifically, the difference in impact resulting from an increase from his currently permitted use of 13.68 mgd seasonal maximum and his requested use of 31.56 mgd seasonal maximum for wells 1, 2, 9, and 10 would be a maximum increased drawdown of 1.1 feet at the Intermediate aquifer and 1.8 feet at the Upper Floridan Aquifer. Both figures relate to that portion of the wellfield found in the northeast corner of Part A. If the anticipated usage for crops predicted by Mr. Harloff's experts for the spring of 1989 is accurate, the drawdown would be 0.2 feet for the intermediate aquifer and 0.4 feet for the Upper Floridan Aquifer measured at the northeast corner of Part B of the Verna We1lfield. Harloff's experts contend that additional impacts for the spring of 1989 included, the increased usage will not have a significant effect on Verna's ability to produce its permitted daily maximum withdrawal of 9.5 mgd. While this is an educated speculation, it should be noted that during May 1989, the Verna field was able to produce up to 8.3 mgd without using all wells during any 24 hour period. This does not consider, however, the problems encountered by the City as indicated by the wellfield personnel, and the fact that some of the City wells are not pumping water.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Roger Harloff be issued a consumptive use permit, No. 204467.04, as modified, to reflect authorization to draw 15.18 mgd annual average, not to exceed 31.56 mgd seasonal maximum, conditioned upon compliance with the conditions found in the conditions portion of the permit, as modified to conform to the quantities as stated herein, and to include those requirements as to acre-inch and crop-acre limitations, well usage and abandonment schedules, well modification standards, and record keeping, as are contained therein. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE No. 89-0574 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to s. 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: City of Sarasota, joined by the District 1 & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8-12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14-22. Accepted and incorporated herein. 23-25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27 & 28. Accepted and incorporated herein. 29-33. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of party position. & 36. Accepted. 37. & 38. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on opponent's satisfaction of its burden of proof. 42-44. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as a misstatement of fact. Water service was never interrupted. The deficiency was in the City's inability to keep its wellfield reservoir filled. 47-54. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected for the reasons outlined in 41. 57-62. Accepted and incorporated herein. 63. Rejected for the reasons outlined in 41. 64-66. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected for the reasons outlined in 41. Rejected. & 70. Accepted and incorporated herein. 71. & 72. Accepted and incorporated herein. 73. Accepted and incorporated herein. 74 & 75. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of party position. Rejected. Accepted. Irrelevant. 81-84. Rejected. 85. & 86. Accepted and incorporated herein. 87 & 88. Accepted and incorporated herein. 89. Accepted and incorporated herein. 90 & 91. Accepted and incorporated herein. 92. & 93. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Roger Harloff 1-9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10-13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14 & 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16-25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26-28. Accepted and incorporated herein. 29 & 30. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not proven. 35 & 36. Accepted and incorporated herein. 37 & 38. Accepted and incorporated herein. 39-41. Accepted and incorporated herein. 42 & 43. Accepted and incorporated herein. 44. Accepted. 45 & 46. Accepted and incorporated herein. 47 & 48. Accepted and incorporated herein. 49. Accepted. 50 & 51. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. & 56. Accepted and incorporated herein. 57. Accepted. 58-60. Accepted and incorporated herein. 61 & 62. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as unproven. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. 67-68. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but an interpretation of party po Accepted. Rejected. 72 & 73. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire de la Parte, Gilbert and Gramovot, P.A. 705 East Kennedy- Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33602 Edward B. Helvenston, Esquire SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Douglas P. Manson, Esquire Blain & Cone, P.A. 202 Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner and developer of a parcel of land located on the eastern side of the northern end of Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida. Located in the middle of that parcel is a dead-end east-west canal approximately two feet deep at its eastern end where it opens to the Atlantic Ocean and approximately twenty feet deep at its western dead-end. The canal is approximately fifty feet wide. A plug at the mouth of the canal previously prevented boat traffic from entering and exiting the canal. Petitioner's predecessor in title permitted the plug to partially erode, and Petitioner's president had some of the boulders which helped form the plug removed. The digging of the canal, the placement of the plug, and the partial removal of the plug were performed without benefit of state and federal permits. Petitioner's development plan is that twenty single-family homes will surround the canal, with each home being serviced by a septic tank and a boat dock. On the oceanside of the partial plug is a small depressed area which was dredged at the same time that the canal itself was dredged. Surrounding that depressed area is very shallow water. Petitioner proposes to remove the plug from the existing canal and shallow the canal to a uniform depth of -10 feet and two years later to a uniform depth of -6 feet. Petitioner further proposes to dredge an access channel from the mouth of the canal northward for a distance of approximately 480 feet where it would join with an existing channel. The access channel proposed to be dredged would be approximately fifty feet wide and six feet deep at low tide. The area to be dredged to create the access channel is classified as Class III waters, is within the Florida Keys Special Waters, and is also classified as Outstanding Florida Waters. The waters outside the existing canal where Petitioner proposes to dredge the access channel are also located within John Pennekamp State Park, the site of a natural coral reef. Due to the disparity in depths between the shallow waters outside the existing canal which are only one or two feet deep and the depth of the existing canal which is as deep as twenty feet, the canal itself experiences a very long flushing time. The lengthy flushing time causes the waters in the existing canal to fall below minimum state water quality standards The area proposed to be dredged for the navigational access channel is thickly vegetated by a productive seagrass and algae community. The area is in excellent condition, and the seagrass and algae community is very healthy. The seagrass and algae communities serve as habitat for thousands of organisms, including juvenile lobster and other small plants and animals; serve as a food source for animals; stabilize sediments through their root structures; reduce pollution by filtering pollutants from the water; are a natural feature of the John Pennekamp State Park, and are part of the ecological unit that is important for the survival of reef corals. The proposed dredging of the access channel would destroy an area of approximately one-half acre. Excessive turbidity is often a problem with dredge and fill activities, and reef coral need clear water for survival. Once dredged, the proposed access channel would not be expected to revegetate. Further, the proposed dredged channel will violate state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen. The proposed navigational access channel would connect the mouth of the existing canal with the Post channel to the north of Petitioner's property. The Post channel dug in approximately 1971 is also six feet deep, violates state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen, and has never revegetated even though replanting of vegetation has been attempted. The destruction of the one-half acre area of healthy productive habitat would adversely affect fish and other marine wildlife, resulting in a decrease in fishery production and marine productivity. The residential subdivision will be a source of pollutants from, among other things, septic tanks, fertilizers, stormwater run-off from paved areas, boats, and boat engines, into the existing canal in violation of state water quality standards for Class III waters and would lower the ambient water quality of the adjacent Outstanding Florida Waters. The long flushing time of the canal, even if shallowed as proposed, will result in the waters of the canal failing to meet state water quality standards. Any pollutants or organic material entering or blown into the canal will remain in the canal to be broken down by bacteria which consume oxygen, resulting in low dissolved oxygen in violation of state water quality standards. Further, pollutants will be exported periodically into the receding waters outside the canal, resulting in degradation of those Outstanding Florida Waters. The project is not in the public interest since the project will result in water quality violations and in the destruction of an area of highly productive shallow water habitat. The adverse cumulative impacts of allowing riparian landowners along the Florida Keys to dredge access channels are overwhelming.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: Denying Petitioner's application for a permit for its proposed project, and Dismissing Intervenor Izaak Walton League, Mangrove Chapter, as a party to this proceeding. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of November, 1989. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 30th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 88-1813 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1 and 2(a) have been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2(b) and 2(d) have been rejected as not being Supported by the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 2(c) has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-10 and 12-22 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The Department's proposed finding of fact numbered 11 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Intervenor's proposed findings of fact numbered 1- 13, 16, 18, 20, and 21 have been adopted either verbatim or in Substance in this Recommended Order. Intervenor's proposed finding of fact numbered 15 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues in this cause. Intervenor's proposed finding of fact numbered 19 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Pamela P. Garvin, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Cayetano F. Alfonso, President Sunland Estates, Inc. 17400 Northwest 17th Avenue Miami, Florida 33056 Maureen B. Harwitz, Esquire 2390 Bayview Lane North Miami, Florida 33181 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the Respondents, Florida Department of Transportation (“FDOT”) and Palm Beach County (also referred to as “the Applicants”), are entitled to the issuance of an Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) to construct an extension of State Road 7 (“SR 7”) and its associated surface water management system in Palm Beach County.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The City is a municipality incorporated under Florida law. The District is a regional agency with the authority to regulate the construction, operation, and maintenance of any surface water management system pursuant to chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Titles 40E and 62. FDOT is an agency of the state of Florida charged with the establishment, maintenance, and regulation of public transportation. It is a co-applicant for the ERP permit. Palm Beach County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and is a co-applicant for the ERP permit. Background State Road 7 Extension The ERP was issued by the District for an 8.5-mile extension of SR 7 between Okeechobee Boulevard and Northlake Boulevard in Palm Beach County. The purpose of the proposed roadway is to relieve traffic now moving through rural residential areas and two large residential developments known as The Acreage and Jupiter Farms. The proposed roadway would also improve hurricane evacuation by providing additional capacity and connectivity, and reduce emergency response time in the rural residential areas. The proposed roadway alignment was selected by FDOT after a multiyear corridor study under a National Environmental Protection Policy Act process. Four corridors were considered using federal selection criteria that addressed social, environmental, property, physical, and financial impacts. There are two segments of the proposed roadway covered by the ERP. The southern segment would add two more lanes to the existing two-lanes of SR 7 from Okeechobee Boulevard North to 60th Street North, just south of the M-Canal. This segment is 4.4 miles long. The southern segment is not at issue in this case. The northern segment would extend four lanes of SR 7 east from 60th Street North about one mile, and then north 3.1 miles to Northlake Boulevard. This is the roadway segment challenged by Petitioner. Hereafter, all references to “the Project” are to the northern segment. The Project includes a raised roadway, median, sidewalks, bike lanes, and stormwater swales. It also includes a bridge over the M-Canal and a bridge over a water control outfall. The Project would be constructed in an existing right- of-way (“ROW”). FDOT owns a ROW that is approximately 200 feet wide. The County owns an adjacent 120-foot-wide ROW, so that the total width of the Project ROW is 320 feet. Running north/south within the ROW is a dirt service road, a ditch, and a fence. Much of the vegetation in the ROW is dominated by invasive and exotic plant species, including Melaleuca, Carolina Willow, Brazilian Pepper, and Australian Pine. The Ibis Development West of the Project ROW is the 1,958-acre Ibis Golf and Country Club residential development (“Ibis”). In 1989, an ERP was issued for Ibis’ surface water management system (“the Ibis system”). The Ibis system includes almost 300 acres of interconnected lakes that provide water management and water quality treatment for Ibis. The 1989 permit required the Ibis system to be sized to receive and treat runoff from a segment of Northlake Boulevard and from an existing two-lane road off of Northlake Boulevard that serves the commercial area of Ibis, which is directly north of the Ibis residential area. The Ibis system was also required to receive and provide water treatment and storage for the stormwater runoff from 46.8 acres of the ROW for SR 7. The parties introduced evidence about modifications to the 1989 permit, which the City contends reduced the treatment capabilities of the system. It is found from the preponderance of the evidence that the original system and its modifications continued to meet design requirements to store and treat future runoff from 46.8 acres of the SR 7 ROW.1/ When the water in the Ibis lakes reaches elevation 17.5 feet NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum), pumps at two pump stations at the south end of Ibis begin pumping water over a berm into Ibis Preserve, a 366-acre natural area directly south of Ibis. Water is retained in Ibis Preserve unles it exceeds an elevation of 18.5 feet, when it then passes over an outfall structure into the Grassy Waters Everglades Preserve (“Grassy Waters”) to the east. Ibis Preserve provides additional water quality treatment for the water pumped from Ibis, but this additional treatment was not part of the calculation of water quality management for Ibis. The Ibis system was required to meet District permitting criteria before discharge to Ibis Preserve. The North Palm Beach County Improvement District (“Improvement District”) owns and has operational and maintenance responsibility for the Ibis system. It also owned and managed Ibis Preserve, but transferred ownership and management of Ibis Preserve to the City in 2004. Grassy Waters/Water Catchment Area To the east of the Project is the City-owned “Water Catchment Area,” which covers about 14,700 acres or 23 square miles. The Water Catchment Area is owned by the City and is part of its public drinking water supply system. Water in the Water Catchment Area flows to Lake Mangonia where it is withdrawn, treated, and then delivered to residents and businesses in the City, the Town of Palm Beach, and the Town of South Palm Beach. There is a statement in the Project application that Grassy Waters refers only to the open water marsh within the Water Catchment Area. The Water Catchment Area includes other habitat types besides open marsh. Most of the information in the record indicates that Grassy Waters and the Water Catchment Area have the same boundaries. Therefore, in this Recommended Order, Grassy Waters and the Water Catchment Area are treated as being two names for the same area. Grassy Waters was once connected to the Everglades and large portions of it have the same characteristics, being an open water marsh with an extended hydroperiod. It is oligotrophic, meaning it is low in nutrients and has an ecosystem adapted to low nutrient conditions. It was undisputed that most areas of Grassy Waters are of high or even pristine environmental quality. Grassy Waters has periphyton, an assemblage of algae that only survive in phosphorous levels of less than 10 parts per billion (“ppb”). Periphyton is the base of the food chain in the open water marsh area of Grassy Waters and is consumed by apple snails and many invertebrates and fish. Grassy Waters has a visitor and nature center and provides recreational opportunities, such as canoeing, hiking, and bird watching. There appeared to be disagreement about whether the Project ROW is located in Grassy Waters or adjacent to it. The ROW is not within Grassy Waters, it is adjacent. However, the wetlands and other surface waters within the ROW are hydrologically connected to Grassy Waters. In the western part of Grassy Waters, which ends at the Project ROW, there are hammock islands and hydric pine flatwoods. The City contends these areas and the rest of the ROW were historically open water marsh, but were changed by human activities. The more persuasive evidence is that this western area was not all open marsh, historically. It was an area of natural transition from open water marsh to other habitat types. Ibis Impacts to Grassy Waters The parties disputed whether the Ibis system is a “failed system.” This is not a technical or defined term. The relevant issue is whether the Ibis system is operating in conformance with the requirements of its permit. The City contends the Ibis lakes are eutrophic and that sediment accumulation in the lakes is releasing phosphorus back into the water, which ends up in Grassy Waters. However, the City’s expert witness, Dr. Harper, admitted that the phosphorus concentration being discharged from the Ibis system, about 40 ppb, is typical for surface water management systems serving large residential developments, although that concentration is at the high end of the range. The phosphorus concentration is closer to 30 ppb in discharges from Ibis Preserve into Grassy Waters, showing that Ibis Preserve provides additional treatment to the waters coming out of Ibis. The characterization of the nutrient loading from the Ibis system as “typical” did not address the additional nutrients in the drainage that the Ibis system is required to accept from the SR 7 ROW. The record does not show that the nutrient concentrations from the Ibis system would still be typical if all of the ROW drainage were added without pre-treatment, as was contemplated by the 1989 Ibis permit. Because Grassy Waters is an oligotrophic ecosystem, it can be adversely affected by phosphorus levels above 10 ppb. When phosphorus is introduced into an oligotrophic system in concentrations over 10 ppb, the system begins to change to denser wetland vegetation, which can include invasive and nuisance species, such as cattail. There is denser vegetation and cattails in Grassy Waters near the Ibis Preserve outfall. There is also more phosphorus in sediments near the outfall. These effects decrease with distance from the outfall, but some effects were detected as far as a half mile from the outfall. The City’s expert witness, Dr. Gaiser, testified that periphyton is dissolved by high nutrient levels and replaced by weedy algae. She found adverse effects on periphyton near the outfall. Dr. Gaiser also found microcystis near the outfall. Microcystis is a toxic algae caused by high elevations of phosphorous. Microcystis comprised over 10 percent of the cell density of the algal community near the outfall. The District’s witness, Mr. Waterhouse, conceded that there is a problem with nuisance vegetation at the discharge point into Grassy Waters. He said the District was not aware of the problem before information was developed for this case. No evidence was presented about what consideration the District gave in 1989, when Ibis was permitted, to the potential adverse impacts of discharging phosphorus into the oligotrophic ecosystem of Grassy Waters. Based on the evidence that a phosphorus concentration of 30 ppb is expected for this kind of surface water management system, it must be concluded that the Ibis system was not designed to prevent harm to oligotrophic receiving waters. Respondents presented evidence to show that phosphorus loadings from the M-Canal could be the cause of the adverse impacts found near the Ibis Preserve outfall. The M-Canal was constructed by the City for the primary purpose of delivering water from Lake Okeechobee, via connection to the L-8 Canal, to the Water Catchment Area for public water supply. For most of its length, the M-Canal runs through Grassy Waters. The City generally maintains the water level in the M-Canal below the elevation of Grassy Waters so water in the canal will not flow into Grassy Waters. However, on some occasions, water flows from the M-Canal into Grassy Waters. High phosphorus concentrations have been recorded in the M-Canal; as high as 300 ppb. Nuisance vegetation is growing in the area where the M-Canal connects to the Water Catchment Area. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the adverse impacts described by the City’s experts in the area of the Ibis Preserve outfall are caused primarily by discharges from Ibis Preserve. There are three other developments adjacent to Grassy Waters that occasionally discharge to Grassy Waters. These discharges are likely to contain some nutrients, but the amount of nutrients and their effects, if any, on Grassy Waters were not described in the record. The Water Catchment Area is a Class I waterbody because it is used for public water supply. The water quality standard for phosphorus and other nutrients in a Class I waterbody is set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.530(48)(b): In no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna. Grassy Waters was designated by the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) as a stream. Rule 62-302.531(2)(c) states that the narrative criterion “shall be interpreted as being achieved in a stream segment where information on chlorophyll a levels, algal mats or blooms, nuisance macrophyte growth, and changes in algal species composition indicates there are no imbalances in flora or fauna.” The City presented some evidence regarding nuisance macrophyte growth and changes in algal species composition in Grassy Waters near the Ibis Preserve outfall. Little evidence was presented regarding the practice of DEP or the District in the application of the narrative nutrient standard, but the preponderance of the evidence indicates the agency practice is to consider a stream segment as a whole to determine whether it exhibits an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna.2/ During the course of this proceeding, the District issued administrative complaints against the Improvement District and the City, which include Orders for Corrective Action. The complaints were issued pursuant to section 373.119, Florida Statutes, which authorizes such action when a water management district believes that a violation of any provision of chapter 373 or district rule has occurred. However, at the final hearing, the District was reluctant to say the Improvement District had violated any law or permit condition. The Improvement District did not challenge the enforcement action against it and, therefore, the District’s enforcement order became final. The Improvement District is required to address the accumulation of sediment in the Ibis Lakes, develop a nutrient source control plan, eliminate and reduce the use of herbicides containing copper sulfate, and reassess pumping schedules. There is no target nutrient limit specified in the District’s Orders for Corrective Action. The District’s enforcement action against the City seeks to require the City to increase secondary treatment and retention in Ibis Preserve, provide a plan to remove the exotic/invasive vegetation at the outfall, provide a vegetation monitoring plan, and develop source control measures for residential developments that discharge into Grassy Waters. The City challenged the enforcement action and it remains pending. Snail Kites The Everglades snail kite gets its name from its primary food, the apple snail. In the Everglades, snail kites also feed on an exotic island snail, which occurs there in about equal numbers as apple snails. There was no evidence presented that there are exotic island snails in Grassy Waters. Snail kite habitat is dependent on conditions conducive to apple snails, which are the open marsh and oligotrophic conditions where periphyton flourish. If a sufficient number of apple snails are present, snail kites will find suitable nesting nearby. Dense wetland vegetation is not good forage for snail kites because, even if apple snails are present, the apple snails will be difficult or impossible for the snail kites to see. Dr. Welch, who was the state snail kite conservation coordinator at the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and wrote the snail kite management plan for Florida, testified for the District, where he is now employed as a senior scientist. He said field surveys of snail kite nests in Grassy Waters indicate their numbers are relatively low compared to other areas where snail kites are found. There were only ten successful nests (eggs laid) observed from 2000 to 2016. The City’s Everglades expert, Dr. Lodge, speculated that the low nest counts could be due to difficulty in seeing the nests, but he was not familiar with the survey techniques used and, therefore, his opinion that the numbers could be materially underestimated is not credited. Snail kites nest throughout the Water Catchment Area, but primarily in the open marsh areas of the central and eastern portions of the Water Catchment Area. Over 90 percent of snail kite nests are more than a mile from the Project ROW. Dr. Lodge said there are four snail kite nests within 800 feet of the Project, but he was not more specific about their locations. Most nests are closer to Northlake Boulevard, State Road 710, and the Florida Turnpike. The major factor that adversely affects successful nesting by snail kites and production of offspring is predation, usually by raccoons and rat snakes. “Cold snaps” and drought are also factors. Impacts of The Proposed Project Water Quantity Impacts Water storage for the Project, which was going to be handled in the Ibis system under the 1989 Ibis permit, would be provided in the roadside swales. The Project is designed to retain water volumes greater than typically required for roadways. Stormwater would not flow out of the Project into the Ibis system except in unusually large storm events, in excess of six inches of rainfall. The City did not dispute the Project’s compliance with the applicable water quantity criteria in the District rules. Water Quality Impacts To address the City’s concerns about adverse impacts caused by the Ibis system, the Applicants expanded the roadside swales by ten feet and raised the outfall elevation by 0.05 feet. With these modifications, the Project would provide water quality treatment for its stormwater and no longer rely on the Ibis system for treatment. The swales would provide treatment in excess of the treatment required by District rules. Respondents contend that, when the treatment provided by the Ibis system is added, the total treatment provided for the Project stormwater is more than twice as much as required by District rules. The City, on the other hand, claims that no additional water quality treatment can be provided by the Ibis system because the Ibis Lakes are eutrophic. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Project runoff to the Ibis system would receive additional water quality treatment in the Ibis system and in Ibis Preserve before flowing to Grassy Waters. The effect of the Project’s on-site treatment of its stormwater is that the amount of nutrients that would otherwise flow into the Ibis system from SR 7 would be reduced. Therefore, the effect of the Project is to reduce the nutrient load that the Improvement District was permitted to discharge to Ibis Preserve and Grassy Waters. The City did not dispute the Applicants’ evidence that the Project exceeds the District’s design criteria for water quality. The City focused instead on its contention that, despite its compliance with water quality design criteria, the Project would result in additional nutrient loading to Grassy Waters, which would cause additional adverse impacts to its flora and fauna. The Applicants and the City performed nutrient loading analyses even though such analyses are only required by the District when the receiving waters have been designated by the Department as “impaired” by nutrients or in the case of certain other specially designated waters. Grassy Waters does not have any of these special designations. The Applicants’ nutrient loading analysis concluded that the post-development loading of phosphorus and nitrogen from the Ibis system would be less than the pre-development condition, so there would be a net decrease in nutrients discharged into Grassy Waters. Petitioner’s expert witness, Dr. Harper, believes the Project would increase nutrient loading to Grassy Waters, even if stormwater from the Project did not carry additional nutrients, because the increased volume of water moving through the Ibis system would entrain more nutrients from sediments in the Ibis lakes. Dr. Harper believes the Project would also cause nutrient loading via groundwater seepage through the roadway swales into Grassy Waters. The preponderance of the evidence does not support his opinion that groundwater seepage would cause additional nutrient loading.3/ Dr. Harper believes another source of nutrient loading from the Project would be from surface flow down the roadway embankments. On the eastern embankment, this flow would enter the mitigation area 150 feet from Grassy Waters. Dr. Harper’s estimated total loading from all sources is not persuasive. The estimate gives a false sense of precision. It is based on a number of variable assumptions, some of which are not widely known or in use by experts in the field. In addition, Dr. Harper’s opinion did not appear to appropriately account for the modifications to the Project’s storage capacity. Dr. Harper’s estimated loading was not translated into physical effects in Grassy Waters. The Applicants’ estimate of total nutrient loading also gives a false sense of precision, but it is based on a well-known and widely used methodology. The City failed to prove that the Project would result in more nutrient loading to Grassy Waters than is currently contributed by the ROW. Because the Project would not rely on the Ibis system for stormwater treatment, the Project would reduce the loading that the Improvement District was permitted to discharge to Grassy Waters. To address potential vehicular spills into Grassy Waters, FDOT produced a Spill Response Plan. The swales would capture and contain any material spilled on the roadway or swale. The curb and gutter, a guardrail, gravity wall, and fence also provide protection against spills. The bridge over the M-Canal would use a 54-inch traffic barrier, which is higher than FDOT specifications for the design speed for the bridge. The City did not present evidence to show that the protective measures proposed by the Applicants are less than what is usually considered adequate under similar circumstances, or fails to meet a relevant safety standard. Wetland Impacts Direct Impacts The Project would directly impact 52.37 acres of wetlands and 7.86 acres of surface waters. The impacted wetlands are fresh water marsh, mixed shrubs, and hydric pine flatwoods. The surface waters affected consist of vegetated ditches and un- vegetated channels or canals. The impacted wetlands include 11.77 acres of freshwater marsh. The impacted surface waters are ditches. Most of these wetlands are disturbed and their functional values have been reduced. Secondary Impacts District rules require an applicant to account for the secondary impacts caused by a project that could adversely affect the functions of adjacent wetlands or other surface waters. The Applicant’s Handbook defines secondary impacts to include impacts on wetland functions, water quality, and endangered species, including impacts on areas needed by endangered species for foraging. Part of the Applicants’ assessment of secondary impacts of the Project was made by reviewing the effects of the Acreage Reliever Road on Pond Cypress Preserve, a 1,737-acre conservation area managed by the County that is immediately south of the proposed Project. The County has been monitoring the effect of the Acreage Reliever Road on hydrology, vegetation, and species compensation ever since the road was built. The County found no adverse secondary impacts caused by the road. The species that use the wetlands near the road, including wading birds, appear to be unaffected by the road. The scoring of secondary impacts for the Projects, using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (“UMAM”), was conservative, meaning that assumptions were made at the high side of the potential range of impacts. This resulted in more mitigation being required. The Applicants claim the Project would “maintain a 300-foot buffer between the project’s construction boundary and [Grassy Waters].” This appears to be a misstatement. The Applicants’ combined ROW is only 320 feet wide. Going east from the limits of construction, it is 160 feet to Grassy Waters. The Project’s buffer is 160 feet wide. The District accounted for secondary impacts to wetland dependent species, including snail kites, from noise and lights that might discourage use of the area. The Project would provide a tree buffer that will reduce noise and light impacts to Grassy Waters. The roadway lighting plan is also intended to reduce light penetration into Grassy Waters. Most of the threatened and endangered bird species are tolerant of roadways for foraging and roosting, but not for nesting. Section 10.2.7 requires the Applicants to provide reasonable assurances that any future phase of a project or project-related activities will not result in adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or water quality violations. The Applicants satisfied this requirement by releasing of FDOT ROW north and south of the Project. Cumulative Impacts An applicant must provide reasonable assurance that a regulated activity will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters within the same drainage basin as the regulated activity for which a permit is sought. Some of the proposed mitigation for the Project is out- of-basin. If an applicant proposes to mitigate impacts in another drainage basin, District rules require consideration of factors such as “connectivity of waters, hydrology, habitat range of affected species, and water quality” to determine whether there are unacceptable cumulative impacts. The Project is located in the eastern Palm Beach County Basin, which has approximately 21,000 acres of wetlands. About 89 percent of the wetlands in the basin are publicly-owned conservation lands, which means their wetland functions will continue into the future. The cumulative impact analysis was conservative, meaning that the actual impacts are likely to be fewer. Petitioner contends that Respondents’ cumulative impact analysis did not account for the unique nature of the Grassy Waters ecosystem as the only remaining low nutrient oligotrophic wetland in the region. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the historical wetland types in the Project area were not all like the open marsh found in the central and eastern portion of Grassy Waters. Respondents accounted for the loss of open water marsh that would be caused by the Project. On-Site Mitigation There would be 52.4 acres of on-site mitigation within a 160-foot-wide strip of land along the eastern limits of proposed construction. This area of the ROW would be managed by removing or treating the exotic vegetation, such as Brazilian Pepper and Maleleuca. Removing the exotic vegetation seed source would prevent further spread of these nuisance species into Grassy Waters. Where native habitats have been altered with ditches and berms, the land would be graded to create a slope from the limits of construction eastward to the edge of the ROW. The eastern elevation would be similar to the adjacent marsh or hydric pine areas of Grassy Waters. Then, native vegetation would be planted. The habitats enhanced, restored, or created would include freshwater marsh, hydric pine flatwoods and mixed forested wetlands, including cypress. The planting of mixed, forested species would provide sound and light buffering for snail kites and other species in Grassy Waters. Two wildlife passages would be created underneath the Project with fencing designed to direct wildlife to use the wildlife passages. Slats would be placed in the roadway fencing to prevent small animals from going through the fence and onto the roadway. The on-site mitigation was scored using UMAM and determined to result in functional gain. The UMAM analysis was conservative, meaning that the actual functional gain is likely to be greater. The City did not contest the UMAM scoring. Off-site Mitigation FDOT is applying mitigation credits from 210 acres at the Pine Glades Natural Area (“Pine Glades”) to offset impacts to 15.7 acres of herbaceous marsh and 26.78 acres of forested wetland impacts. Pine Glades is a regional off-site mitigation area located in the Loxahatchee River Basin and is owned and operated by Palm Beach County. Pine Glades consists of a mix of wet prairie, depression marshes, hydric pine flatwoods, and mesic flatwoods. The restoration work in Pine Glades has already been completed. Pines Glades implements a detailed management plan that provides regional ecological value. Robbins testified that Pine Glades has similar habitats to Grassy Waters. Pine Glades has periphyton, apple snails, snail kites, wood storks, and sand hill cranes. Pine Glades has some areas with oligotrophic conditions. Additional off-site mitigation to offset 52 acres of wetland impacts caused by the Project would be provided at the DuPuis Reserve (“DuPuis”). DuPuis is a regional off-site mitigation area located between the L-8 Canal and the C-44 Canal in western Palm Beach and Martin Counties, and is owned and operated by the District. DuPuis would provide mitigation with 34.71 acres of herbaceous wetlands and 43.8 acres of forested wetlands. DuPuis is appropriate to offset the impacts associated with the Project because it provides similar habitats with similar values of functions for similar wildlife. DuPuis implements a detailed management plan that provides regional ecological value. The City argues that there is little similarity between the Grassy Waters ecosystem and Pine Glades or DuPuis, so the mitigation there cannot offset the unique assemblage of plants and animals that would be lost in Grassy Waters. It is unnecessary for Pine Glades and DuPuis to be dominated by open water marshes like Grassy Waters. It is only necessary that they have some of these areas to offset Project impacts to open water marsh. Proposed snail kite mitigation would provide 52.5 more acres of snail kite habitat than would be directly impacted by the Project. The mitigation for snail kites will be located in FDOT ROW adjacent to the Project, south of the M-Canal, and north of Northlake Blvd. Erwin expressed concern about fragmentation of the ecosystems that would be caused by the Project. The areas that would be affected by the Project have already been fragmented by berms, ditches, and fences. Grassy Waters is surrounded by berms, a canal, and highways. The Project would cause fragmentation, like all roads. However, the fragmentation was reduced where practicable, and the City did not show that the roadway would cause the loss of any significant “greenway” now used by wildlife. Snail Kite Impacts Section 10.2.2(a) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that a proposed activity would not impact wetlands and other surface waters so as to reduce the abundance and diversity of listed species. Snail kites, wood storks, sandhill cranes, white ibises, and little blue herons are listed species that have been observed within the Project corridor. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, the UMAM process is designed to mitigate for wetland functional losses, not snail kite functional losses. However, the potential impact to any listed species warrants close attention to the issue of whether function-for-function wetland mitigation would be provided. There will be 11.5 acres of direct impacts to snail kite habitat within the footprint of the Project area. Dr. Welch believes secondary impacts to wetland functions associated with snail kites could extend 800 feet east of the ROW. Mitigation for snail kites would be located in the Rangeline corridor south of the M-Canal and north of Northlake Boulevard. Dr. Welch estimated there were about 64 acres of snail kite habitat in the Rangeline corridor similar to the 11.5 acres of habitat located in the Project footprint. Dr. Welch conceded that he has no evidence that snail kites currently use the Rangeline, but he believes the habitat is suitable and is appropriate mitigation. Petitioner claims there are studies of “similar birds” indicating that snail kites avoid highways due to noise. However, the studies were not of similar birds. More weight is given to Dr. Welch’s testimony that snail kites are not particularly sensitive to roadway noise. Dr. Welch stated that Pine Glades would likely have value for snail kites because it is near the Hungryland Wildlife Management Area, which has the same number of successful snail kite nests as Grassy Waters. The City contends that Pine Glades is too far away from Grassy Waters to mitigate Project impacts to snail kites. However, snail kites range long distances to forage; several hundred miles in a few days. Satellite telemetry of snail kites shows snail kites from Grassy Waters are using Pine Glades for feeding. Dr. Welch reviewed snail kite nesting data to determine whether roads deterred nesting and found that snail kites frequently nested within 500 feet of major roadways. Dr. Welch refuted the idea that Grassy Waters provided snail kite refuge during drought conditions, because Grassy Waters is also subject to drought conditions that adversely affect snail kites. There are conditions in the permit to limit potential impacts to snail kites during construction of the Project. If snail kite nesting is observed within 1,640 feet of construction, all Project construction must cease. Thereafter, monitoring of the nest and notification of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required. Construction cannot resume until that nest has been considered finished. FDOT would place a conservation easement over 82.6 acres in the FDOT ROW between Okeechobee Boulevard and the M-Canal, south of the Project area that is the subject of this proceeding. The conservation easement would maintain connectivity between the Pond Cypress Natural Area and Grassy Waters and ensure that no future southern extension of the roadway will be constructed. A conservation easement would be placed on the FDOT ROW between Northlake Boulevard and SR 710, an area of approximately 43.5 acres. Preserving this area protects a hydrologic connection between Loxahatchee Slough Natural Area and Grassy Waters. It also ensures no future northern extension of the roadway. A conservation easement would be placed on a portion of the FDOT ROW between SR 710 and Jupiter Farms, an area of 44.5 acres. This section of ROW is in the Loxahatchee Slough and the release of the ROW would be a direct benefit to Loxahatchee Slough. The preservation of these areas would benefit fishing and recreational values in the Pond Cypress Natural Area, Grassy Waters, and the Loxahatchee Slough Natural Area. These conservation areas did not receive UMAM credits to reduce the wetland acreage needed to offset wetland functional losses, but they were included in the mitigation credit for benefits to snail kites and other wildlife. Summary The preponderance of the evidence established that the proposed mitigation offsets the impacts to wetlands and other surface waters that would be caused by the Project and exceeds the requirements of District rules. Practicable Design Modifications District rules require an applicant to consider alternatives that would avoid or reduce wetland impacts. The City claims the Applicants failed to comply with this rule because FDOT selected a roadway corridor that was expected to have greater environmental impacts than some of the other three corridors that were being considered. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, this argument is misplaced. The District’s review of the Applicants’ measures to avoid or minimize wetland impacts was appropriately confined to Corridor 3, the corridor selected by FDOT where the Project is proposed. The Applicants reduced and eliminated impacts of the Project in several ways. For example, the footprint of the road was narrowed from six lanes to four lanes, wildlife underpasses were provided, retaining walls were used to narrow stormwater features, the median was reduced in size, and the design speed limit was reduced for the bridge at the M-Canal crossing. Under two circumstances, District rules allow an applicant to avoid the requirement to implement practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate wetland impacts, which are referred to as the “opt-out” provisions. Section 10.2.1.2, Volume I, of the Applicant’s Handbook (“A.H.”) provides: The ecological value of the functions provided by the area of wetland or other surface water to be adversely affected is low, based on a site specific analysis using the factors in section 10.2.2.3, below, and the proposed mitigation will provide greater long term ecological value than the area of wetland or other surface water to be adversely affected, or The applicant proposes mitigation that implements all or part of a plan that provides regional ecological value and that provides greater long term ecological value than the area of wetland or other surface water to be adversely affected. The District determined that the Applicants meet both tests. The preponderance of the evidence supports the District’s determination. The ecological value of the functions provided by the affected wetlands and surface is low and the proposed mitigation would provide greater long-term ecological value than the area being impacted. Pine Glades and DuPuis are part of a plan to restore the ecological value of Northern Palm Beach County and create an “ocean to lake” system of preserves and natural areas.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order approving Permit Number 50-05422-P on the terms and conditions set forth in the amended Staff Report, and the complete application for the Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2017, 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 31st day of March, 2017.
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
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
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 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 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 The issues to be resolved in this proceedings concern whether Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 4-109-0216-ERP, should be modified to allow construction and operation of a surface water management system (project) related to the construction and operation of single-family homes on "Marshall Creek" (Parcel D) in a manner consistent with the standards for issuance of an ERP in accordance with Rules 40C-4.301 and 40C-4.302, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Project The project is a 29.9-acre residential development and associated stormwater system in a wetland mitigation area known as "Parcel D." It lies within the much larger Marshall Creek DRI in St. Johns County, Florida, bounded on the northeast by Marshall Creek, on the south and southeast by a previously permitted golf course holes sixteen and seventeen, and on the north by the "Loop Road." The project consists of thirty residential lots of approximately one-half acre in size; a short segment of Loop Road to access Parcel D; an internal road system; expansion of previously permitted Pond N, a wet detention stormwater management pond lying north of the Loop Road and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 1.15 acres of wetlands are located on the Parcel D site. The project plan calls for filling 0.63 acres of the wetlands for purposes of constructing a road and residential lots for Parcel D. Part of that 0.63-acre impact area, 0.11 acres, is comprised of a 760-foot-long, narrow drainageway, with 0.52 acres of adjacent wetland. Downstream of the fill area, 0.52 acres of higher quality wetland is to be preserved. Hines proposes to preserve 4.5 acres of existing wetland and 2.49 acres of upland, as well as to create .82 acres of forested wetland as mitigation for the proposed impact of the project. Additionally, as part of the project, Hines will implement a nutrient and pesticide management plan. The only pesticides to be used at the project will be approved by the Department of Agriculture for use with soil types prevailing at the site and only pesticides approved by the Environmental Protection Agency may be used on the site. All pesticides to be used on the project site must be selected to minimize impacts to ground and surface water, including having a maximum 70-day half-life. Stormwater Management System The majority of surface runoff from Parcel D will be diverted to a stormwater collection system and thence through drainage pipes and a swale into Phase I of Pond N. After treatment in Pond N, the water will discharge to an upland area adjacent to wetlands associated with Marshall Creek and then flow into Marshall Creek. The system will discharge to Marshall Creek. In addition to the area served by Pond N, a portion of lots fourteen though twenty drain through a vegetated, natural buffer zone and ultimately through the soil into Marshall Creek. Water quality treatment for that stormwater runoff will be achieved by percolating water into the ground and allowing natural soil treatment. The fifty-foot, vegetated, natural buffer is adequate to treat the stormwater runoff to water quality standards for Lots 14, 15 and 20. Lots 16, 17, 18 and 19, will have only a twenty-five foot buffer, so additional measures must be adopted for those lots to require either that the owners of them direct all runoff from the roofs and driveways of houses to be constructed on those lots to the collection system for Pond N or placement of an additional twenty-five foot barrier of xeriscape plants, with all non- vegetated areas being mulched, with no pesticide or fertilizer use. An additional mandatory permit condition, specifying that either of these measures must be employed for Lots 16, 17, 18 and 19, is necessary to ensure that water quality standards will be met. Pond N is a wet detention-type stormwater pond. Wet detention systems function similarly to natural lakes and are permanently wet, with a depth of six to twelve feet. When stormwater enters a wet detention pond it mixes with existing water and physical, chemical and biological processes work to remove the pollutants from the stormwater. Pond N is designed for a twenty-five year, twenty-four- hour storm event (design storm). The pre-development peak rate of discharge from the Pond N drainage area for the design storm event is forty cubic feet per second. The post-development peak rate of discharge for the design storm event will be approximately twenty-eight cubic feet per second. The discharge rate for the less severe, "mean annual storm" would be approximately eleven cubic feet per second, pre-development peak rate and the post-development peak rate of discharge would be approximately five cubic feet per second. Consequently, the post-development peak rate of discharge does not exceed the pre- development peak rate of discharge. Pond N is designed to meet the engineering requirements of Rule 40C-42.026(4), Florida Administrative Code. Because the pond is not designed with a littoral zone, the permanent pool volume has been increased by fifty-percent. Additionally, because Pond N discharges to the Class II waters of Marshall Creek, an additional fifty-percent of treatment volume is included in the pond design. The system design addresses surface water velocity and erosion issues through incorporation of best management practices promulgated by the District to prevent erosion and sedimentation, including; designing side slopes of 4:1; siding and seeding disturbed areas to stabilize soil; and the use of riprap at the outfall from Pond N. During construction, short- term water quality impacts will be addressed through installation of silt fences and hay bales. The majority of the eighteen-acre drainage basin which flows into the Parcel D wetland lies to the south and southwest of Parcel D. In accordance with the prior permit, water from those off-site acres will be intercepted and routed to stormwater ponds serving golf course holes sixteen and seventeen. The system design will prevent adverse impacts to the hydroperiod of remaining on-site and off-site wetlands. The remaining wetlands will be hydrated through groundwater flow. Surface waters will continue to flow to the wetlands adjacent to lots fourteen through twenty because drainage from those lots will be directed across a vegetated, natural buffer to those wetlands. There is no diversion of water from the natural drainage basin, because Pond N discharges to a wetland adjacent to Marshall Creek, slightly upstream from the current discharge point for the wetland which is to be impacted. This ensures that Marshall Creek will continue to receive that fresh-water source. An underground "PVC cut-off wall" will be installed around Pond N to ensure that the pond will not draw down the water table below the wetlands near the pond. Pond N has been designed to treat stormwater prior to discharge, in part to remove turbidity and sedimentation. This means that discharge from the pond will not carry sediment and that the system will not result in shoaling. There will be no septic tanks in the project. The system is a gravity flow system with no mechanical or moving parts. It will be constructed in accordance with standard industry materials readily available and there will be nothing extraordinary about its design or operation. The system is capable of being effectively operated and maintained and the owner of the system will be the Marshall Creek Community Development District (CDD). Water Quality Water entering Pond N will have a residence time of approximately 200 days or about fifteen times higher than the design criteria listed in the below-cited rule. During that time, the treatment and removal process described herein will occur, removing most of the pollutants. Discharge from the pond will enter Marshall Creek, a Class II water body. The discharges must therefore meet Class II water quality numerical and anti-degradation standards. The design for the pond complies with the design criteria for wet detention systems listed in Rule 40C-42.026(4), Florida Administrative Code. In addition to meeting applicable design criteria, the potential discharge will meet water quality standards. The pond will have low levels of nitrogen and phosphorous resulting in low algae production in the pond. The long residence time of the water in the pond will provide an adequate amount of time for pesticides to volatilize or degrade, minimizing the potential for pesticide discharge. Due to the clear characteristics of the water column, neither thermal stratification nor chemical stratification are expected. Periodically, fecal coliform and total coliform levels are exceeded under current, pre-development conditions. These are common natural background conditions. Because the detention time in the pond will be an average of 200 days, and because the life span of fecal coliform bacteria is approximately seven to fourteen days the levels for coliforms in the pond will be very low. Discharges from the pond will enhance water quality of the Class II receiving waters because the levels of fecal coliform and total coliform will be reduced. The discharge will be characterized by approximately 100 micrograms per liter total nitrogen, compared with a background of 250 micrograms per liter presently existing in the receiving waters of Marshall Creek. The discharge will contain approximately three micrograms per liter of phosphorous, compared with sixty-three micrograms per liter presently existing in Marshall Creek. Total suspended solids in the discharge will be less than one-milligram per liter compared with seventy-two milligrams per liter in the present waters of Marshall Creek. Biochemical oxygen demand will be approximately a 0.3 level in the discharge, compared with a level of 2.4 in Marshall Creek. Consequently, the water quality discharging from the pond will be of better quality than the water in Marshall Creek or the water discharging from the wetland today. The pollutant loading in the discharge from the stormwater management system will have water quality values several times lower than pre-development discharges from the same site. Comparison of pre-development and post-development mass loadings of pollutants demonstrates that post-development discharges will be substantially lower than pre-development discharges. Currently, Marshall Creek periodically does not meet Class II water quality standards for dissolved oxygen. Construction and operation of the project will improve water quality in the creek concerning dissolved oxygen values because discharges from Pond N will be subjected to additional aeration. This results from design features such as discharge from the surface of the system, where the highest level of dissolved oxygen exists, and the discharge water draining through an orifice and then free falling to a stormwater structure, providing additional aeration. Discharges from the system will maintain existing uses of the Class II waters of Marshall Creek because there will be no degradation of water quality. Discharges will not cause new violations or contribute to existing violations because the discharge from the system will contain less pollutant loading for coliform and will be at a higher quality or value for dissolved oxygen. Discharges from the system as to water quality will not adversely affect marine fisheries or marine productivity because the water will be clear so there will be no potential for thermal stratification; the post-development discharges will remain freshwater so there will be no change to the salinity regime; and the gradual pre-development discharges will be replicated in post-development discharges. Several factors minimize potential for discharge of pesticide related pollutants: (1) only EPA-approved pesticides can be used; (2) only pesticides approved for site-specific soils can be used; (3) pesticides must be selected so as to minimize impacts on surface and groundwater; (4) pesticides must have a maximum half-life of 70 days; and (5) the system design will maximize such pollutant removal. Archaeological Resources The applicant conducted an archaeological resource assessment of the project and area. This was intended to locate and define the boundaries of any historical or archaeological sites and to assess any site, if such exists, as to its potential eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). Only a portion of one archaeological site was located on the project tract. Site 8SJ3473, according to witness Anne Stokes, an expert in the field of archaeological assessment, contains trace artifacts dating to the so-called "Orange Period," a time horizon for human archaeological pre-history in Florida dating to approximately 2,300 B.C. The site may have been only a small campsite, however, since only five pottery fragments and two chert flakes, residuals from tool-making were found. Moreover, there is little possibility that the site would add to knowledge concerning the Orange Period or pre-history because it is a very common type of site for northeast Florida and is not an extensive village site. There are likely other campsites around and very few artifacts were found. No artifacts were found which would associate the site with historic events or persons. The applicant provided the findings of its cultural resource assessment, made by Dr. Stokes, to the Florida Division of Historical Resources. That agency is charged with the responsibility of reviewing cultural resource assessments to determine if significant historic or archaeological resources will be impacted. The division reviewed the survey techniques used by Dr. Stokes, including shovel testing, sub-surface testing and pedestrian walk-over and investigation. The division determined that the site in question is not of a significant historical or archaeological nature as a resource because it does not meet any of the four criteria for inclusion in the National Register.1 Thus the referenced agency determined that the site in question is not a significant historical or archaeological resource and that construction may proceed in that area without further investigation, insofar as its regulatory jurisdiction is concerned. Wetlands The wetlands to be impacted by the project consist of a 1,000 foot drainage-way made up of a 0.11 acre open-water channel, approximately four feet wide, and an adjacent vegetated wetland area of approximately 0.52 acres containing fewer than 30 trees. The open-water channel is intermittent in that it flows during periods of heavy rainfall and recedes to a series of small, standing pools of water during drier periods. The Parcel D wetland is hydrologically connected to Marshall Creek, although its ephemeral nature means that the connection does not always flow. The wetland at times consists only of isolated pools that do not connect it to Marshall Creek. Although it provides detrital material export, that function is negligible because the productivity of the adjacent marsh is so much greater than that of the wetland with its very small drainage area. Because of the intermittent flow in the wetland, base flow maintenance and nursery habitat functions are not attributed to the wetland. The Parcel D wetland is not unique. The predominant tree species and the small amount of vegetated wetland are water oak and swamp bay. Faunal utilization of the wetland is negligible. The wetland drainage-way functions like a ditch because it lacks the typical characteristics of a creek, such as a swampy, hardwood floodplain headwater system that channelizes and contains adjacent hardwood floodplains. The location of the wetland is an area designated by the St. Johns County comprehensive plan as a development parcel. The Florida Natural Areas Inventories maps indicate that the wetland is not within any unique wildlife or vegetative habitats. The wetland is to be impacted as a freshwater system and is not located in a lagoon or estuary. It contains no vegetation that is consistent with a saltwater wetland. The retaining wall at the end of the impact area is located 1.7 feet above the mean high water line. Wetland Impacts The proposed 0.63 acre wetland impact area will run approximately 760 linear feet from the existing trail road to the proposed retaining wall. If the wetland were preserved, development would surround the wetland, adversely affecting its long-term functions. Mitigation of the wetland functions is proposed, which will provide greater long-term ecological value than the wetland to be adversely affected. The wetland to be impacted does not provide a unique or special wetland function or good habitat source for fish or wildlife. The wetland does not provide the thick cover that would make it valuable as Black Bear habitat and is so narrow and ephemeral that it would not provide good habitat for aquatic-dependent and wetland-dependent species. Its does not, for instance, provide good habitat for woodstorks due to the lack of a fish population and its closed- in tree canopy. Minnow sized fish (Gambusia) and crabs were seen in portions of the wetland, but those areas are downstream of the proposed area of impact. Mitigation Mitigation is offered as compensation for any wetland impacts as part of an overall mitigation plan for the Marshall Creek DRI. The overall mitigation plan is described in the development order, the mitigation offered for the subject permit and mitigation required by prior permits. A total of 27 acres of the more than 287 acres of wetlands in the total 1,300-acre DRI tract are anticipated to be impacted by the DRI. Approximately 14.5 acres of impacted area out of that 27 acres has already been previously authorized by prior permits. The overall mitigation plan for the DRI as a whole will preserve all of the remaining wetlands in the DRI after development occurs. Approximately one-half of that preserved area already has been committed to preservation as a condition of prior permits not at issue in this case. Also, as part of prior permitting, wetland creation areas have been required, as well as preserved upland buffers which further protect the preserved wetlands. The mitigation area for the project lies within the Tolomato River Basin. The development order governing the total DRI requires that 66 acres of uplands must also be preserved adjacent to preserved wetlands. The overall mitigation plan for the DRI preserves or enhances approximately 260 acres of wetlands; preserves a minimum of 66 acres of uplands and creates enhancement or restores additional wetlands to offset wetland impacts. The preserved wetlands and uplands constitute the majority of Marshall Creek, and Stokes Creek which are tributaries of the Tolomato River Basin, a designated Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). Preservation of these areas prevents them from being timbered and ensures that they will not be developed in the future. The overall DRI mitigation plan provides regional ecological value because it encompasses wetlands and uplands they are adjacent to and in close proximity to the following regionally significant resources: (1) the 55,000 acre Guana- Tolomato-Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve; (2) the Guana River State Park; (3) the Guana Wildlife Management Area; (4) an aquatic preserve; (5) an OFW; and (6) the 22,000 acre Cummer Tract Preserve. The mitigation plan will provide for a wildlife corridor between these resources, preserve their habitat and insure protection of the water quality for these regionally significant resources. The mitigation offered to offset wetland impacts associated with Parcel D includes: (1) wetland preservation of 0.52 acres of bottom land forest along the northeast property boundary (wetland EP); (2) wetland preservation of 3.98 acres of bottom land forest on a tributary of Marshall Creek contained in the DRI boundaries (Wetlands EEE and HHH); (3) upland preservation of 2.49 acres, including a 25-foot buffer along the preserved Wetlands EEE and HHH and a 50-foot buffer adjacent to Marshall Creek and preserved Wetland EP; (4) a wetland creation area of 0.82 acres, contiguous with the wetland preservation area; and (5) an upland buffer located adjacent to the wetland creation area. The wetland creation area will be graded to match the grades of the adjacent bottomland swamp and planted with wetland tree species. Small ponds of varying depths will be constructed in the wetland creation area to provide varying hydrologic conditions similar to those of the wetland to be impacted. The wetland creation area is designed so as to not de-water the adjacent wetlands. All of the mitigation lands will be encumbered with a conservation easement consistent with the requirements of Section 704.06, Florida Statutes. The proposed mitigation will offset the wetland functions and values lost through the wetland impact on Parcel D. The wetland creation is designed to mimic the functions of the impact area, but is located within a larger ecological system that includes hardwood wetland headwaters. The long-term ecological value of the mitigation area will be greater than the long-term value of the wetland to be impacted because; (1) the mitigation area is part of a larger ecological system; (2) the mitigation area is part of an intact wetland system; (3) the wetland to be impacted will be unlikely to maintain its functions in the long-term; and (4) the mitigation area provides additional habitat for animal species not present in the wetland to be impacted. Certain features will prevent adverse secondary impacts in the vicinity of the roadway such as: (1) a retaining wall which would prevent migration of wetland animals onto the road; (2) a guard rail to prevent people from moving from the uplands into wetlands; and (3) a vegetated hedge to prevent intrusion of light and noise caused by automotive use of the roadway.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered granting the subject application for modification of Permit 4-109-0216A-ERP so as to allow construction and operation of the Parcel D project at issue, with the addition of the inclusion of a supplemental permit condition regarding the vegetated natural buffers for Lots 16 through 19 described and determined above. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 9th day of April, 2001.
The Issue On June 7, 1991 the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) released its intent to issue Permit No. DC05-194008, authorizing Florida Cities Water Company (FCWC) to construct a 300-acre restricted public access spray irrigation system for the land application of treated domestic wastewater (Sprayfield Permit). And, on August 6, 1991 DER released its intent to issue Permit No. MS05-194894, relating to stormwater management and management and storage of surface waters (MSSW Permit) for the sprayfield site. Petitioners Brevard Groves, Inc. and H & S Groves, Inc. (Groves), Parrish Properties, Inc., Parrish Management, Inc. (Parrishes), Atico Financial Corp. (Atico) and David and Eleanor Shreve (Shreve), each requested a formal administrative hearing challenging the issuance of the sprayfield permit. Groves requested a hearing challenging the issuance of the MSSW Permit. The ultimate issue is whether FCWC is entitled to these permits.
Findings Of Fact FCWC is a private utility company, with headquarters at 4837 Swift Road, Suite 100, Sarasota, Florida, 34231. FCWC's Barefoot Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant (the WWTP) provides water and wastewater service to the Barefoot Bay development in southern Brevard County, Florida. DER, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2900, is an agency of the State of Florida which regulates domestic wastewater treatment and disposal facilities and permits their construction and operation. For domestic wastewater projects, DER is also charged with reviewing applications for stormwater management and management and storage of surface water pursuant to an operating agreement between DER and St. Johns River Water Management District. David and Eleanor Shreve are beekeepers who live approximately a quarter-mile from the proposed sprayfield. They maintain beehives in the groves and woods surrounding the proposed site. The remaining Petitioners own citrus groves that are adjacent to, or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site. These groves are producing and are actively maintained. The WWTP has a treatment capacity of 0.9 million gallons per day (MGD). As of July, 1990, the WTTP was treating and disposing of effluent from approximately 4,200 residences in the Barefoot Bay development. At buildout, within the five-year life of the Sprayfield Permit, the WWTP will serve 5,000 residents, and will generate approximately 0.6 MGD of wastewater. Disposal of treated effluent is presently achieved by a 40-acre sprayfield, storage ponds and direct discharge of pond overflow to the San Sebastian Drainage District Canal (Canal). In 1986, DER issued FCWC a warning notice to the WWTP regarding an unlawful discharge to the Canal. FCWC met with DER to discuss options to correct the discharge. In 1988, FCWC entered a Consent Order that would allow FCWC to discharge treated effluent into the Canal until a deep injection well could be built for alternative disposal. FCWC also discussed other alternatives with DER, such as golf course irrigation. The Consent Order was amended in 1991 to provide for land application in lieu of deep injection. In accordance with the amended Consent Order, FCWC has submitted monthly monitoring reports to DER, for the WWTP and for the storage (percolation) ponds. DER has never issued a notice of violation to FCWC for failure to comply with monitoring in the Consent Order. The Site The proposed sprayfield site is divided into two large tracts, the "northern parcel" and the "southern parcel." The site is primarily citrus groves. Although some citrus trees were damaged by a freeze in recent years, most are still viable. Most of the areas between the trees and limited areas without trees are covered with dense grasses and weeds. The site, and the surrounding groves, have been significantly altered to provide sufficient drainage for citrus trees, which require well-drained conditions. The area is covered by shallow ditches (swales), between mounded rows of earth comprising beds for the trees. These citrus mounds, created by soil cast up during excavation of the swales, occur on 60-foot centers and rise 2 1/2-3 feet above the bottom of the swales. The swales have pipes at each end, which discharge into an agricultural collection ditch or the Canal. Each block of citrus is surrounded by a collection ditch some 8-10 feet deep. All collection ditches ultimately discharge into the Canal, which borders the site on the north and is approximately 20 feet deep and 100 feet wide. The collection ditches and Canal prevent the entrance of offsite surface water run- off into the site and receive surface water run-off and groundwater seepage from the site. The Sprayfield Project The project is proposed in two phases. Phase I meets total annual effluent disposal needs of 0.55 MGD, using both the proposed sprayfield and the existing 40-acre sprayfield, which will continue in operation for both phases of the project. Phase II meets the total annual effluent disposal needs of 0.6 MGD at build-out. This results in an average annual application rate of 0.54 inch/week or approximately 28 inches per year on the proposed sprayfield. The project is designed to eliminate the current discharge to the Canal. The effluent will be given secondary treatment with basic disinfection. The treated effluent will be pumped from the WWTP to storage ponds and then to the proposed sprayfield. The existing ponds will be retrofitted as storage ponds for Phase I. An additional storage pond will be constructed at the proposed sprayfield for Phase II. The spray irrigation system will operate primarily with four traveling gun sprinklers. Two sets of fixed-head sprinklers will also be used for the two small triangular portions of the site. The traveling sprinklers will be operated for approximately 5.9 hours/day during Phase I and 6.5 hours during Phase II. The four traveling sprinklers will run simultaneously on four of the thirty-three travel lanes (tracks) located between the swales covering the site. Ordinarily each track will be sprayed every eighth day. To make up for days when irrigation is not possible, additional disposal capacity can be obtained by operating the sprinklers for extra shifts on tracks not previously irrigated that day. The site will be mowed regularly, and any accumulated grasses or debris will be removed. Any areas presently in weeds, or the areas not covered by vegetation are reasonably expected to fill in with dense grasses when irrigation commences. Maintaining the grass cover in the swales will prevent erosion of soil and debris into the swales and reduce the need for maintenance of clogged swale outlet pipes. The system is designed and will be operated to avoid ponding or direct surface run-off of sprayed treated effluent. However, there may be some very limited potential for droplets of treated effluent clinging to vegetation being washed into the swales by a heavy storm event immediately following an application. Therefore, the sprinklers will not be operated when the water table is closer than four inches from the bottom of the swales. Operators will know when to spray by reading automatic groundwater elevation monitoring gauges installed in several places throughout each block of citrus, including the middle. In addition, an automatic device will shut off sprinklers during a rainfall, so that no significant amount of treated effluent will leave the site mixed with stormwater. The site is bordered on three sides by groves and on one side by undeveloped vacant land. The width of the proposed buffer zone from the sprayfield wetted area to the site property line is at least 100 feet, as required in Rule 17-610.421(2), F.A.C., and is substantially wider for extensive lengths of the project border. The buffer is approximately 130 ft. wide on the eastern boundary of the northern parcel, approximately 250 to 235 ft. wide on the western boundary of the northern parcel, and approximately 225 to 160 ft. on the western border of the southern parcel. The distance between the wetted area and adjacent property owners' boundaries is much greater than 100 ft. for other portions of the sprayfield borders due to linear features that provide additional buffering. It is over 200 ft. from the wetted area to the nearest property owner on the northern border of the northern parcel because of the San Sebastian Canal, and 160 ft. on the southern border of the northern parcel and the southern and eastern borders of the southern parcel because of the 60-foot wide Micco Road right-of-way. Aerosal Drift and Other Off-Site Impacts While Petitioners allege that their groves would be contaminated by aerosol drift from the site, they presented no expert or other competent, substantial evidence on the extent or volume of such drift. FCWC air modelling expert, Dr. Robert Sholtes, used the EPA Industrial Source Complex Model (ISC), the most commonly used predictive model in the air pollution community, to evaluate the project's aerosol drift. While the sprinklers are planned to be operated a maximum 6.5-hour shift, a conservative 7.0-hour shift was used. Other data inputs to the ISC Model were hourly windspeeds at the Daytona Beach weather station for five years; sprinkler nozzle size and pressure; and droplet size, distribution and settling rates obtained from the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. The model yielded the annual average deposition of sprayed effluent in grams per square meter (gm/m2) outside the wetted area for one sprinkler as it moves along its track. The accumulated deposition off the site property line, considering operation of all tracks, can be predicted using these results. Because heavy deposition of droplets settles out fairly rapidly, the aerosol from tracks farther into the site does not significantly affect the maximum impact shown for one track. Due to the prevailing east and west coastal winds, heaviest deposition will occur off the eastern and western property line of the site. The volume of treated effluent that will be blown offsite is not substantial. The greatest volume is approximately 1000 millimeters/square meter/year (ml/m2/yr) off the eastern property line out to approximately 50-75 feet, and 500 ml/m2/yr off the western property line out to approximately 75 feet. A maximum of 100 ml/m2/yr is predicted and a maximum of 50 ml/m2/yr is predicted off the southern and northern lines, respectively. In practice, volumes of aerosol drift off-site will be below the predicted levels in areas where trees occur in the buffers. Most significantly, there are existing rows of citrus trees along the eastern border of the northern parcel within the buffer area, which is the area of heaviest predicted drift. In addition, aerosol drift will be minimized by operating procedures. Wind speed and direction will be monitored at the site. If the wind is over 20 miles per hour, there will be no spraying. For winds of lesser speeds, the spray tracks on the edges of the sprayfield will not be used during a strong directional wind, e.g., for a wind blowing east, the track on the eastern border will not be utilized. The tracks are on approximately 240-foot centers. Therefore, elimination of spraying for the track on the edge of the site will have the effect of withdrawing the aerosol drift deposition pattern 240 feet further into the sprayfield. Considering that the farthest extent of the maximum 1000 ml/m2/yr levels of drift is 75 feet, such a program will be very effective in minimizing drift. Because no motors will be required to operate the site, significant noise is not expected. The treated effluent will not contain significant amounts of odor-causing constituents, and odors are not expected. Finally, lighting is not planned on the proposed sprayfield, so this is not expected to be a source of offsite impact. Assurances for Proposed Application Rate A determination of the site's ability to accept treated effluent at the maximum proposed application rate of 0.54 inch/week without adverse effects was based on (1) the hydraulic loading capacity of the site to receive the applied water, considering soil permeability and other physical site conditions, and (2) the allowable nitrogen loading rate, considering the ability of the vegetation to uptake the nitrogen contained in the treated effluent. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes a general manual for technical assistance in designing land application systems across the United States. This manual, "Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater - Process Design Manual" (EPA Manual), is cited as a general technical guidance source in DER Rule 17- 610.300(4), F.A.C. The EPA Manual contains formulae for the calculation of both the hydraulic loading capacity and the allowable nitrogen loading rate. The EPA Manual recommends use of the more restrictive of the hydraulic loading capacity or the allowable nitrogen loading rate as the hydraulic loading rate for the project. Hydraulic Loading Capacity. A hydraulic loading capacity of 0.63 inch/week for the proposed sprayfield was determined based on field exploration, laboratory testing, hydrogeological conditions and engineering evaluation, summarized in a report included in the application. This 0.63 inch/week hydraulic loading capacity is above the maximum proposed application rate of 0.54 inch/week and substantially below the maximum rate of 2 inches/week allowed by DER Rule 17-610.423(4), F.A.C. EPA Equation 4-3 for hydraulic loading capacity balances the volume of water that enters the site with the volume of water that leaves the site. Values in Equation 4-3 are evapotranspiration, which is the water released to the atmosphere from soil surfaces and by vegetation (ET); precipitation rate (rainfall); and Pw, which is water removed by vertical percolation downward through the soils. Due to the high vertical permeabilities of the sandy soils at this site, unrefined use of EPA Equation 4-3 would give a very high hydraulic loading capacity for this project, on the order of 10 times that proposed by FCWC. Therefore, a more detailed input/output water balance formula was used to determine annual hydraulic loading capacity (applied effluent in the formula) of 0.63 inch/week: rainfall + applied effluent + groundwater inflow = evapotranspiration, + groundwater outflow + surface run-off + evaporation + irrigation losses. The average annual rainfall, based on data from the U.S. NOAA weather station at Melbourne, is 48.17 inches. Due to the isolating effect of the deep ditches surrounding the site, groundwater inflow is considered to be so negligible that it was not assigned a value for the equation. ET, based on standard scientific references, is 45 inches/year for citrus trees. An additional 20 inches/year loss is attributable to grasses covering soil surfaces. In lieu of vertical percolation, groundwater outflow laterally through the surficial aquifer was projected to be 1.8 inches per year, based on hydraulic conductivity and soil permeabilities for the site. Surface run-off of stormwater was estimated to be 10 inches per year. Irrigation losses were estimated at 15% of the amount of applied effluent. Pond Storage Capacity. The proposed application rates for the two phases of the project are annual averages. The volume of storage needed for occasions when conditions preclude application must be determined. DER requires the calculation of storage by analytical means for the 10-year rainfall recurrence interval, using 20 years of rainfall data, and accounting for all water inputs on a monthly basis, using site-specific data. A minimum storage volume equal to three days application is required. Rule 17-610.414 (2), F.A.C. Calculations presented in the application met these requirements and showed storage needs of 8.08 million gallons (MG), or approximately 15 application days' volume, for Phase I; and 15 MG, or 25 application days for Phase II. Additional storage calculations, reflecting the monthly variations of wastewater inflow due to the seasonal population, were prepared for Phase I. These calculations reflected the same storage requirements. Petitioners' Allegations Regarding Application Rate and Storage Although they had prepared no analyses, performed no calculations, conducted no laboratory tests and undertaken only one field test (test hole for groundwater level), Petitioners' witnesses asserted that site conditions precluded successful operation of the sprayfield at the maximum proposed application rate of 0.54 inch/week. They asserted that swale pipes would plug and a clay "hardpan" at the bottom of the swales would prohibit percolation of stormwater. Thus, the swales would be full of water for long periods and further application would be precluded. They also asserted that significant volumes of treated effluent would leave the site as run-off. They alleged treated effluent would enter the swales directly from accumulation of spray and indirectly from seepage from the sides of the citrus mounds. Finally, Petitioners asserted 15 days of storage was inadequate because the site would be too wet for application for at least a month. FCWC presented testimony and evidence based on site reviews, numerous field and laboratory tests, computer modelling, and calculations that successfully refuted these allegations. Petitioners' expert in grove management and local soil conditions, Mr. Burnette, stated that extremely wet conditions required pumping of swales for weeks at a time in nearby groves. FCWC's experts asserted that the proposed sprayfield site currently has, and will continue to have, under proper maintenance, much better drainage than Mr. Burnette's groves, where regular grading of swale inverts and herbicide applications denude soil and cause erosion which plugs pipes and backs up water in the swales. In addition, unlike the situation described in Burnette's groves, the proposed site contains no swales that are lower in elevation than the collection ditches, thereby facilitating stormwater run-off. The top layer of soil comprising the citrus mounds and the swales is relatively clean sand. Petitioners' so-called "hardpan" is a slightly clayey to clayey fine sand layer which separates the upper sand from a thick layer of very clean, beach-type sand. FCWC geotechnical experts determined the clayey sand layer was 18 to 24 inches below the bottom of the swales. Without any field testing, Petitioners' expert hydrogeologist, Mr. Oros, asserted that the clayey sand layer was at the bottom of the swales. In contrast, Mr. Burnette stated that the clayey sand layer occurs four to eight inches below the bottom of the swales on the adjoining groves, where the graded swales are 10 to 14 inches deeper than the shallow swales on the proposed sprayfield site. Thus, Mr. Burnette's testimony supports the FCWC conclusion that this layer is found up to 2 feet below the swales on the proposed site. Moreover, contrary to Petitioners' assertions that the layer acts as a "hardpan", water can pass relatively freely through it and the water table will not "perch" above it. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS) reports a permeability value for this soil type of one to 12 feet per day. Dr. John Garlanger, FCWC expert in subsurface investigation and soil mechanics, conducted a field inspection of the soil and reviewed grain size distribution analyses. He determined that the permeability of the clayey sand layer is about one foot of water per day. Petitioners' expert hydrogeologist concurred that the layer could have this permeability rate. Soil is at the "wilting point" when its water content is too low for plants to transpire additional water. Soil is at "field capacity" when added water "fills up" the soil and it becomes saturated. The "water table" is the level at which the soil is totally saturated. Petitioners erroneously assert that 90% of the 0.54 inch of treated effluent will travel straight down to the water table. Instead, due to capillary action, the first foot of the sandy soil at the site can store about 0.6 inch of water between the wilting point and field capacity. If there is no rain between applications, 100% of the 0.54 inch will be transpired by vegetation out of the first foot of soil. This "resets" the soil moisture content to the wilting point in preparation for another application. If heavy rains cause the soil to remain at field capacity rather than returning to the wilting point through ET, the soil can still absorb up to 2.25 inches of water per foot, or three-fourths to one inch of water per four inches of soil, before it reaches saturation. Therefore, even if the soil is saturated up to 4 inches below the swales, the top 4 inches of soil will still absorb the 0.54 inch of treated effluent without reaching total saturation or causing any run-off. If subsequent heavy rains saturate the remaining soil and raise the water table to the bottom of the swales, the excess rainwater which falls on the saturated surface will run off as stormwater, and most of the treated effluent will remain stored within the soil. Furthermore, because the water table is proposed to be measured at centers of the blocks where, due to distance from the drainage ditches, the water table is closest to the surface, soil storage capacity across the site will exceed these projected levels. Petitioners' experts also asserted that if it rains after the 0.54 inch application, the groundwater will "mound" up below the citrus mounds, creating a hydraulic gradient or head differential (between the water table under the citrus mounds and the water table below the swales) sufficiently great to cause the treated effluent in the mound to flow toward the swales and seep into them from the sides of the citrus mounds. Mr. Golding admitted that such seepage would not occur when the groundwater table is below the bottom of the swales. Nevertheless, he opined that seepage of treated effluent would be considerable because he believed, based on opinion and experience alone, that the water table would be at the bottom of the swales or higher for at least 30 days straight in a "wet year." FCWC's experts successfully refuted these assertions. A significant portion of the treated effluent falling onto the citrus mounds will be stored in the soil as described above. The treated effluent (only applied when water level is 4 inches below the swales) that actually reaches the water table will cause only a very slight "water mound" (only 2 inches in 30 feet) which will not produce any appreciable "head" or lateral flow to the swales. On only three occasions (a total of 8 days) during the wettest year in ten did the "water mound" rise above the bottom of the swales resulting in any groundwater seepage from the citrus mounds into the swales. Thus, during the entire wettest year in ten, less than one-half of 1% (0.12 inch of the approximately 28 inches) of annual applied treated effluent, very diluted with groundwater, might seep from the mounds into the swale. Contrary to Petitioners' expert's assertion that the seasonal high water level (SHWL) was not provided by FCWC, this information was supplied in the application and was reaffirmed by calculations of Dr. Garlanger at rebuttal. The importance attached to the SHWL for this project was not adequately explained by Petitioners. FCWC experts explained that the SHWL is the average (NOT maximum) height of the groundwater during the two to six wettest months of the year. Because the water table varies throughout the year, it is the calculation of the position of the water table from month to month that is significant and is required by DER. This monthly changing water table was the basis of storage water balance calculations contained in the application. Even though the monthly storage calculation in the application meets the DER/EPA requirements, Petitioners' witnesses asserted that the application did not indicate how many days the water table would rise to four inches below the swales and thus how many days spraying was precluded and storage was required. Dr. Garlanger analytically calculated the water table beneath the site, using Darcy's Law, and known parameters at the site, such as the depths of the ditches, the geometry and relative distances, and the thickness and permeability of the soil layers. Thus, although never required for any of the 100 land application projects he has evaluated, Dr. Garlanger performed computer modelling and calculations to predict the daily level of the water table beneath the swales for both Phase I and II during the wettest year in ten. Water inputs in his model included treated effluent and daily rainfall from an actual year (1969) when rainfall reached the levels of the statistically wettest year in ten. Water losses were soil storage, ET, distribution losses, deep percolation and run-off. Treated effluent was not applied when the model predicted that the water table would be higher than four inches below the bottom of the swales and when there was significant rainfall (more than one-hundredth of an inch). This modelling predicted that 6.1 MG/11-day storage was needed for Phase I. Thus, the project as proposed has substantially more storage than needed, with a proposed 8.1 MG/15-day storage. The model produced similar results for Phase II, showing a total 10.1 MG/18-day storage need compared with the proposed 15 MG/25-day storage. Petitioners also challenged various "irrigation efficiency" figures used by FCWC experts. All water leaving a water source, in this case the WWTP, does not reach the roots of the crops for which it is intended. "Irrigation efficiency" expresses this fact as the percentage of water pumped that is used by the vegetation. In the monthly storage water balance calculations the applicant used an "irrigation efficiency" of 70% of the total applied treated effluent, which is recommended in IFAS Bulletin 247 and in the USDA, SCS, "Florida Irrigation Guide"; 15% of the applied treated effluent was attributed to "irrigation losses" in the calculations in the application to determine the hydraulic loading capacity; and Dr. Sholtes stated that data he used indicated that 94% of "the water that came out of the nozzle reached the ground" within the wetted area of the site and the remaining 6% was aerosol drift and evaporation. Petitioners' expert questioned whether an irrigation efficiency of 70%, 85% or 94% should have been used and suggested that the calculations should be redone. The expert misunderstood the terms, comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. With a 70% irrigation efficiency, 30% treated effluent is lost to the plants. Only a small portion of this 30% loss is attributable to aerosol drift and evaporation in the air. Most of the 30% treated effluent hits the ground but is still lost to the plants through evaporation of treated effluent intercepted on plant leaves, losses from the distribution system, e.g., leaky fittings at the WTTP, and percolation of water below the reach of plant roots. The "irrigation losses" (15%) in the application include all of those types of losses, except the treated effluent losses through percolation. This approximately 15% of the total treated effluent appeared as a separate value from "irrigation efficiency." Water Quality Assurances Nitrogen Loading Rate. Because nitrogen is generally the constituent of most concern for sprayfields, EPA Equation 4-4, which is intended to produce a conservative result, projects nitrogen loading possible without exceeding the groundwater standard for nitrate. Two FCWC experts calculated the allowable nitrogen loading rate. James Christopher, project engineer and expert in water quality and chemistry, adjusted the EPA equation to reflect stormwater leaving the site, which is a more technically correct refinement of the equation and has the effect of lowering the allowable rate. A "U value" (the variable for rate of nitrogen uptake by crop)of 100 kilograms/hectare/year (kg/ha/yr) was used by James Christopher. Dr. Harvey Harper, another FCWC water quality expert, an environmental engineer, who has taught numerous university courses in wastewater treatment and has been involved in scientific studies of pollution removal, also calculated the nitrogen loading rate for the annual average rainfall and the wettest year in ten. He did not adjust EPA Equation 4-4 for stormwater run-off, because Petitioners had questioned any deviations from the formula. He used a U value of 150 kg/ha/yr, because he considered a value of 100 too low to be realistic. He used the highest nitrogen value in data from the WWTP. Other values he used in the equation were nearly identical to those of Mr. Christopher. The results were an allowable nitrogen loading rate of 0.75 inch/week for a year of average rainfall and 0.93 inch/week for the wettest year in ten. These rates are substantially higher than the proposed gross hydraulic loading rate of 0.54 inch/week. Petitioners' expert, Dr. J. P. Subramani, asserted that a U value of 0 kg/ha/yr should have been used, although he admitted that a site with a U value of 0 kg/ha/yr would be bare sand devoid of vegetation. The U values of 100 and 150 kg/ha/yr used by FCWC were extremely conservative. The EPA Manual provides U value ranges for forage grasses, at a low of 130-225 kg/ha/yr for bromegrass, to a high of 400-675 kg/hayr for coastal bermuda grass. Ignoring the testimony of FCWC witnesses that the grass would be mowed and removed from the site, Dr. Subramani supported his opinion only with the unfounded contrary assertion that the vegetation on site will not be harvested and removed as a crop. Petitioners alleged that discharges from the site would contaminate surface and ground waters and otherwise adversely affect water quality; inadequate renovation of pollutants would take place in the soil; and the receiving waters were already below standards. Petitioners' experts did no studies or analyses, nor did they predict expected concentrations for any parameters for sprayed treated effluent leaving the site as surface waters or groundwaters. Petitioners' exhibits regarding water quality issues consisted of two single-day monitoring reports for the existing WWTP discharge and the Canal and a set of 1990-91 water quality report sheets for the WWTP. FCWC's expert, Dr. Harper, analyzed the project's impacts on groundwater and on surface waters (the Canal) if the treated effluent were to leave the site as surface run-off in the swales, as groundwater seepage into the collection ditches, or as aerosol drift. Based on 1990-91 water quality monitoring of the WWTP's existing treated effluent, Dr. Harper projected the concentrations of parameters of concern for the treated effluent to be sprayed at the site. Although monitoring of heavy metals is not required at the WWTP, he also projected levels for these parameters based on EPA figures and existing data from two larger domestic wastewater treatment plants. Because those two plants have contributions from industrial and commercial components not found at the WWTP, the projections substantially over-estimated heavy metals expected for the WWTP. Groundwater Impacts. Dr. Harper estimated the pollution removal efficiencies for treated effluent traveling through approximately one foot of soil by reference to the EPA Manual and a study he had performed. He then applied these efficiencies to the projected concentrations for the sprayed treated effluent. Even at maximum projected concentrations, the results showed that projected constituents would be at or better than groundwater quality standards after renovation in the soil. Thus, due to low levels of constituents of concern, including those for which no numerical standard is provided in the rules, the project will not cause groundwater water quality violations and will have no adverse effect on the biological functions in the groundwaters directly underlying the site. Contrary to Petitioners' assertions, DER witnesses stated that DER does not interpret provisions of Rules 17-600.530(4) and 17-610.310(3)(c)4, F.A.C., as requiring background groundwater samples in the application. Because research has shown that groundwater quality results for sprayfields are generally very good, DER routinely defers such sampling until after permit issuance. Thus, the groundwater monitoring plan in the application and in the draft sprayfield permit provides that all monitoring wells will be sampled to establish background water quality and results submitted to DER prior to spray irrigation. DER's expert witness in environmental engineering and wastewater land application design, Christianne Ferraro, as well as John Armstrong, DER's environmental specialist in site contamination clean-up, stated that they had reviewed groundwater monitoring currently provided by FCWC for the WWTP. They found no nitrogen violations. Surface Water Impacts. The preponderant evidence showed that treated effluent will not flow directly into the swales. Therefore, FCWC proved it will not leave site as surface run-off. However, in order to project the worst-case water quality evaluation for droplets greatly diluted by rainwater or groundwater which may enter the swales, it was assumed that all treated effluent landing within swales "made of glass" would run off directly into the Canal. In addition, uptake, removal or dilution likely to occur in the collection ditches was ignored. Pollution removal efficiencies for grassed swales (based on a year-long study) were applied to the projected concentrations for the treated effluent. After renovation in the swales, any treated effluent leaving the site would contain concentrations for parameters of concern at or better than surface water quality standards. Therefore, water quality in the receiving surface waters will not be violated. Due to removal efficiencies for soils, the treated effluent leaving the site as groundwater seepage into the collection ditches is expected to meet surface water quality standards. In addition, the trace quantity of effluent (0.12 inch for wettest year in ten) which may seep into the swales will reach the San Sabastian Canal only after being greatly diluted within the groundwater and filtered and purified in the soil in the citrus mounds and grassed swales. Even projecting ten times the amount of aerosol drift predicted for the project, the water quality impact of any sprayed treated effluent entering the Canal as drift is so small as to be insignificant. Ambient Water Quality. The existing discharge is having minimal effect on the water quality of the Canal. Furthermore, by eliminating the direct discharge, the project will reduce the present impacts on the Canal by 92-99%. Nonetheless, Petitioners suggest that the project may further degrade ambient waters which they allege are already below standards. Dr. Harper assessed the ambient water quality characteristics of the Canal, which is Class III fresh surface water and the ultimate receiving water for the site. Even including water quality data for the Canal put in evidence by Groves, the Canal is not currently at or below any state water quality standards for Class III waters, except for occasional Dissolved Oxygen (DO) levels. Levels of DO in sprayed treated effluent are expected to be very high. Even if groundwater seepage into the collection ditches and the Canal from the proposed sprayfield contains low levels of DO due its travel underground, it will not lower levels of DO in the ambient waters because the groundwater will also be low in BOD, which depresses DO. Thus, groundwater seepage is expected to have a neutral effect on ambient DO or to increase DO levels due to its diluting effect on BOD. Groundwater inflow to the site is negligible but outflow occurs at a significant measured rate. The only significant inputs are sprayed treated effluent and rainfall. Therefore, the groundwater under the site will eventually reach a stable condition where its constituent levels are the average of the constituent levels in rainwater and the treated effluent. The treated effluent to be applied on this site is at or above state groundwater standards. Necessarily, regardless of the condition of the existing groundwater it cannot possibly be degraded by the treated effluent to below state standards and may well be improved by it. Thus, FCWC has provided reasonable assurances that Rule 17- 600.530(4), F.A.C., has been met, without monitoring of ambient groundwaters in the application. The deposition of treated effluent will not violate the standard that all waters of the state shall be free from components which, alone or in combination with other substances, are present in concentrations that are carcinogenic or teratogenic to humans, animals or aquatic species or that pose a serious threat to public health, safety or welfare. Human Health Risk and Contamination. Petitioners allege that the sprayfield poses a hazard for contamination of their properties. They produced no witness or evidence of contamination other than experts in grove management, citrus production and management, and Petitioners themselves, who expressed scientifically unsubstantiated fears of the impact of the sprayfield on human health or the marketing of their fruit and honey. FCWC expert Dr. Christopher Teaf, who teaches biology, toxicology and risk assessment at Florida State University and is also president and principal toxicologist with a firm doing hazardous substance and waste management research, determined that the project poses no off-site contamination hazard. Pathogens. Fecal coliform is a standard measure for the health hazards of treated effluent based on an indicator group of microbiological organisms, present in the intestinal tracts of all warm-blooded animals as well as a number of insects and cold-blooded species. These organisms do not themselves ordinarily cause human disease, but may indicate the presence of other pathogenic organisms. Coliform bacteria are common in water bodies in general, and the state limit for these bacteria is 200/100 ml. Rule 17- 302.560(6), F.A.C. The World Health Organization has concluded that levels as high as 1,000/100 ml constitute an adequate standard and will not be associated with human disease. Only extremely limited numbers of bacteria can survive the hazardous journey from the WTTP to the Petitioners' property. First, required chlorination at the WWTP will reduce the coliforms to no more than 200/100 ml. At that level, pathogenic bacteria are negligible, if present at all. Pressures during ejection from the spray heads will cause a 70-90% mortality rate. Once airborne, bacteria will be killed because of temperature, ultraviolet radiation and desiccation. As water drops evaporate, constituents become more concentrated and the drops become toxic environments for bacteria. Bacteria falling to earth are filtered in the first few inches of surface soils. Any organisms borne off site will find that, due to the antibacterial qualities of citrus peel and fruit and the plethora of chemical agents routinely applied, the adjacent groves are an extremely inhospitable environment. Too few bacteria will survive at FCWC's proposed application levels, or at 10 times those levels, to constitute an infective dose and contribute to the incidence of human disease. Thus, treated effluent in the form of aerosol drift will have no adverse effect on the health of humans or otherwise cause contamination of areas adjacent to the proposed sprayfield. Consumption of Fruit. Bacteria are not taken up by the plant roots and the aerosol drift will not have any effect on the actual health of the citrus trees themselves. The minimal deposition from spray will be removed through washing required by governmental standards to remove dirt, grime and other contamination, such as fungicides, herbicides and pesticides applied as a normal practice in the citrus industry. Based on fifteen years of scientific literature, including the EPA Manual, crops irrigated with treated effluent do not contribute to human health problems in populations that consume those crops. With application of treated effluent with bacterial concentrations, even 10,000 to 100,000 times higher than the standard, there has been no incidence of human disease related to the consumption of such crops. Part II of Rule 17-610, F.A.C., "Reuse: Slow rate land application systems; restricted public access;" governs the type of sprayfield proposed by FCWC. Petitioners alleged that, due to the proximity of their groves and beekeeping activities, higher levels of treatment than those in Part II should be required. They argued that "advanced wastewater treatment" (AWT), defined in Section 403.086(4), F.S., would be more appropriate. This statute gives DER the discretion to require AWT when it deems necessary. Section 403.086(1)(a), F.S. However, AWT would not meet the requirements of Part III of Rule 17-610, which governs irrigation ("direct contact") of edible food crops and requires Class I reliability for treatment which is not required for AWT. Section 403.086(4), F.S.; Rule 17-610.460 and 17-610.475, F.A.C. Adjacent land uses were a part of the permit review for this project required in Part II. Buffer restrictions provide protection from the sprayfield so that levels of deposition are negligible compared to those when spray irrigation is applied directly at the food crop site. Thus, by its decision to issue this permit, DER recognized that minimal aerosol drift is not the "direct contact" envisioned in Part III and that because the project did not pose a hazard to adjoining groves higher levels of treatment are not necessary. Aerosol drift from treated effluent will have no effect on human health due to contamination of honey or adverse effects on the Shreve's bees located near the proposed sprayfield. Natural enzymes in unpasteurized honey are hostile to bacteria. The Shreves have never experienced a problem with the existing forty acre sprayfield even though it is accessible to their bees and has been in the area as long as the bees have. Petitioners allege that the sprayfield will attract birds, creating an aviation hazard to airplanes using the grass airstrip owned by Petitioner, Parrish Properties. Mr. Parrish, who is a licensed pilot, asserted that water ponding on the site and the mowing operation will attract birds. Both the proposed sprayfield and the surrounding groves will be mowed and irrigated and thus will provide the same type of mixed grass and citrus tree habitat as presently found in the groves. Therefore, Petitioners are currently attracting the same type and number of birds to their groves as FCWC's proposed sprayfield will attract. FCWC's expert in botany and ornithology, Mr. Noel Wamer, observed no large birds at the site, the existing 40-acre sprayfield or the surrounding citrus groves. He did observe small birds such as northern cardinals, towhees, and warblers, typical of citrus grove habitats. Cattle egrets might also be expected in the groves and the proposed sprayfield, particularly during mowing operations. Wading birds would only be attracted if water remained on the site for approximately one week or more to allow development of aquatic organisms as a food source. Birds present on the proposed sprayfield are very unlikely to fly up and collide with planes. The grass airstrip is used infrequently, with only 12 landings in the past year. For a number of years Mr. Wamer has observed bird behavior at the Tallahassee sewage treatment plant sprayfields near the Tallahassee Airport. The one-half mile distance between the runway and sprayfields in Tallahassee is nearly the same as the distance between the Petitioners' grass airstrip and the site. Planes landing at the Tallahassee airport are at an altitude of between 500 and 600 feet over the sprayfields, the same height as predicted over the site. Regardless of the size of planes, the birds, primarily cattle egrets, do not react, but continue feeding or resting. Stormwater and Surface Water Management Activities. On April 3, 1991, FCWC submitted an application with DER to modify and operate the existing stormwater and surface water management system on the sprayfield site (MSSW system). The Notice of Intent to Issue the MSSW Permit was published in the Florida Today newspaper on July 27, 1991. Minor activities are proposed to improve the existing system: (1) culverts at the ends of swales will be cleaned to restore full flow capacity; (2) obstructions and excess vegetation will be removed from the collection ditches to restore their original flow lines; and (3) any depressions in the swales will be filled and regraded to attain a minimum swale bottom elevation of 20.2 feet above mean sea level. As asserted by DER's expert in surface water management, the stormwater discharges will not be a combination of stormwater and domestic waste sufficient to trigger review of stormwater under DER rules as required by Rule 40C-42.061(3), F.A.C. Considering all proof adduced, particularly that stormwater will be treated to applicable standards in the grassed swales, water quality will not be violated, and the post- development peak discharge will not exceed the pre-development peak discharge from the site, FCWC provided reasonable assurances that the proposed MSSW system would not be harmful to the water resources in the area and would not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district. Summary of Findings and Permit Conditions FCWC has established that the sprayfield, as proposed, will meet the applicable regulatory requirements for the sprayfield and MSSW permits. Included in the specific conditions attached to the notice of intent to issue the sprayfield construction permit is the requirement that the site be operated to preclude saturated ground conditions or ponding. (FCWC Exhibit #3, paragraph 13, specific conditions). Witnesses for the applicant described certain proposals to assure this condition is met, and those proposals should be incorporated into the condition. Those proposals include the cessation of spraying during a rain event and the installation of devices to automatically turn off the sprinklers when rain occurs, the cessation of spraying whenever the groundwater level is within four inches of the bottom of the swales, and the installation of ground water gauges to determine when this level is reached. In order to minimize aerosol drift, the applicant proposes to establish wind gauges indicating the direction and speed of wind at the site. It was suggested that spraying would cease when the wind reaches 20 miles an hour, and sprinklers should be positioned to avoid spraying the downwind perimeter of the site when drift is likely to occur. This condition should also be incorporated in the permit. If the operational adjustments cannot be made automatically it will be necessary to require that the plant be staffed at all times that the spray system is turned on, notwithstanding the minimum six hours, five days a week required in Rule 17-602.370, F.A.C. and referenced in the intent to issue. Engineering computations in the application rely on the assumption that the vegetation onsite will be harvested (mowed and removed). Since spray irrigation treatment of wastewater depends on renovation or removal of effluent by the soil vegetation system, periodic mowing and removal of the vegetation should also be included as a permit condition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered issuing permits number DC05-194008 and MS05- 194894, with the additional conditions addressed in Finding of Fact paragraphs 60 and 61, above. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by Petitioners, Groves and Shreve: Rejected as unsupported by competent evidence (as to the allegation of irresponsible plant operation). 2.-4. Rejected as irrelevant. 5.-7. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in paragraph 9. 10.-11. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence as to "irrigation efficiency". 12.-13. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and mischaracterization of the witness' testimony. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as statement of testimony, not finding of fact, which testimony is outweighed by other evidence. 17.-18. Adopted in paragraph 3. 19. Adopted in paragraph 28. 20.-21. Adopted in paragraph 8. 22.-23. Adopted in substance in paragraph 22. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Average annual application rate of .54 inches/week yields 28 inches a year. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 26.-29. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 30.-31. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 19. Addressed in paragraph 36; adopted in substance. 38.-39. Rejected as unnecessary. 40. Adopted in paragraph 31. 41.-47. Rejected as unnecessary, or contrary to the weight of evidence as to "irrigation efficiency". 48.-49. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 50. Adopted in paragraph 34. 51.-52. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. The grass will be mowed and removed. The "U" value was based on the grasses, not the citrus. 53. Rejected as contrary to the evidence, as to "unknown density and type". 54.-57. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Adopted in paragraph 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. 63.-64. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 65. Rejected as confusing, as to the term "unsuitable conditions". 66.-69. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 70. Rejected as confusing. 71.-72. Rejected as unnecessary. 73.-74. Rejected as a mischaracterization of the witnesses' testimony. 75.-82. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 84.-85. Rejected as unnecessary. 86.-87. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 88.-89. Rejected as unnecessary. 90.-94. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 95.-97. Rejected as unnecessary. 98.-99. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 100.-103. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 104.-109. Rejected as a mischaracterization of the testimony or misunderstanding of the term "irrigation efficiency". 110.-112. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 113.-114. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 117.-118. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to the law and evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 16 by implication. Rejected as unnecessary and misunderstanding of the testimony. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 124.-126. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted by implication in paragraph 21. 129.-130. Rejected as unnecessary. 131. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 132.-134. Rejected as unnecessary. 135.-138. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 139.-141. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire OERTEL, HOFFMAN, FERNANDEZ & COLE, P.A. P. O. Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Harry A. Jones, Esquire EVANS, JONES & ABBOTT P.O. Box 2907 Titusville, FL 32781-2907 Kathleen Blizzard, Esquire Richard W. Moore, Esquire P.O. Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Douglas MacLaughlin Asst. General Counsel Dept. of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Dept. of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
