The Issue The ultimate issue is whether Celebrity Resorts, Inc., (Celebrity) is entitled to a Management and Storage of Surface Waters (MSSW) permit for a surface management system to serve its proposed development in Marion County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact PROPOSED PROJECT Celebrity is seeking a District MSSW permit to construct a surface water management system to serve a proposed recreation vehicle (RV) park. The facility is to be located in northern Marion County on the southern border of Orange Lake, an Outstanding Florida Water. The entire site is within the geographic boundaries of the District. The RV park is to be located on 75 acres of land, and is to contain 372 RV and "park model" sites, four bath houses, a clubhouse, and an expanded boathouse. There is a "break" in the watersheds of the Celebrity property caused by a ridge across the approximate center of the project site. The effect of this "break" is that approximately one-half of the property drains toward the lake while the approximate southerly half of the property drains into an independent depression creating a watershed separate from the lake. Parts of Marion County and Alachua county have been designated as Sensitive Karst Area Basin by the District. The project site is located in the designated area. The existing land use is open pasture. The property was previously used for citrus groves. STANDING Concerned Citizens of Orange Lake Area is an unincorporated group of approximately 76 individuals who want to prevent pollution of Orange Lake. Of the 76 members, three members were present and testified at the hearing. The members attending the hearing were an artist (Riley), a photographer (Suto), and a bass guide (Solomon). Ms. Suto testified that she lives about 1 to 1 1/2 miles from the site. Ms. Riley testified that she lives next door to Ms. Suto and determined that to be over two miles away from the site. Mr. Solomon testified that he lives on the southeast side of Orange Lake approximately 1 to 1 1/2 miles from the project site. No witness testified that any member has a property interest in the subject property. Of the members who testified, none use the subject property. There was no testimony that other members use the property. Twenty-six members wrote letters of concern to the District. Ms. Suto testified to the existence of high levels of lead in her well water. WATER QUANTITY The existing land use, pasture, was used to determine the pre- development peak rate and volume of discharge. The existing surface drainage of the 75-acre project site is divided into two basins. On the north side of the property, the surface water flows toward Orange Lake. This basin is designated on the plans, sheet 3 of 16, by a "2." The south portion of the property is contained within the landlocked drainage basin which is designated on the plans, sheet 3 of 16, by a "1." The post-development flow of surface water will be in the same direction as the pre-development flow. There are no proposed development plans or encroachments into the 100- year floodplain. Therefore, there is no increase in potential for damages to off-site property or persons caused by floodplain development or encroachment, retardance, acceleration, displacement, or diversion of surface waters. There is no reduction in natural storage areas and, in fact, the proposed project increases the natural storage on site. Drainage Basin 2 The District's criterion for systems discharging to basins with an outlet is that the post-development peak rate of discharge for the 25-year, 24- hour storm event shall not exceed the pre-development peak rate of discharge for the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. The District's criteria also require that the post-development volume of discharge not exceed the pre-development volume of discharge. The retention system which ultimately discharges to Orange Lake is designed to retain the entire 25-year, 24-hour storm event through the series of basins on site. The pre-development peak rate of discharge for the drainage basin which flows to the lake is 55 cubic feet per second (cfs) during the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. The post-development peak rate of discharge from drainage basin 2 is 4 cfs. The post-development peak rate of discharge is less than the pre- development peak rate of discharge. Runoff from each RV site will be collected in an individual, ten-inch- deep retention basin. Runoff from the road will be collected in roadside swales. Runoff from the clubhouse, country store, and associated parking lots will be conveyed to drainage retention area (DRA) No. 8. The individual retention basins have the capacity to retain the 25- year, 24-hour storm event without discharging. Any surface water discharges from the individual retention basins in Basins 2A, 2B, and 2C as designated on sheet 3 of 16 will flow to DRA Nos. 4, 5, and 7, respectively. In Basin 2D, runoff from the road and RV park model sites will flow to DRA No. 6. The discharge from DRA No. 6 in the 25-year, 24-hour storm will be zero (0) cfs. In larger storms, any discharge from DRA No. 6 will flow to DRA No. 7. In the event DRA No. 7 overflows, the runoff will flow to DRA No. 5. Basins 2G and 2F are located around two existing sinkholes which currently collect stormwater runoff. In the proposed project, Basins 2G and 2F continue to drain the same area as pre-development. However, additional impervious surfaces will be placed in the drainage area. For this reason, an additional three to five feet of clean fill will be placed in the bottom of each sinkhole for filtration purposes. Basins 2H and 2I are less than one acre and currently drain off site. Berms are proposed around the property line at the basin to keep the stormwater on site. Basins 2H and 2I retain 3/4 inch of runoff over the individual basin. The runoff from Basins 2E1 and 2E flows to DRA No. 8 via a drainage swale. DRA No. 8 will retain 3/4 inch of runoff from the drainage area and is an off-line retention basin. The DRA No. 8 is equipped with a diversion box which allows the 3/4 inch of runoff to enter the DRA and then diverts the runoff from larger storms around the DRA so that the treatment volume of runoff (3/4 inch) continues to be treated in DRA No. 8 and does not mix with and discharge from DRA No. 8 during larger storms. Drainage Basin 1 Drainage Basin 1 as designated on plan sheet 3 of 16 is a landlocked basin which does not discharge to Orange Lake. In Drainage Basin 1, as in Basin 2, the runoff from the RV sites flows to the individual retention basins which retain the 25-year, 96-hour storm event. The runoff from the road flows to swales. Overflow from the basins and swales flow to the DRAs. Drainage Basin 1 does not discharge during the 100- year, 24-hour or the 25-year, 24-hour storm event, pre-development or post- development Drainage Basin 1 is designed to retain the 100-year, 24-hour storm, which is an 11 inch storm event. Drainage Basin 1 is also designed to retain the 25-year, 96-hour storm event. The 25-year, 96-hour storm event is 143% of the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. WATER QUALITY Design Criteria The District's design criteria for water quality are set out in Section 40C-42.025, Florida Administrative Code. The District's retention criteria require that a proposed system have a treatment/pollution abatement volume of 1/2 inch of runoff from the site. For discharges to an OFW, the pollution abatement volume is increased by fifty percent. Therefore, the system must have the volume to retain 3/4 inch of runoff from the site. Each retention basin retains a minimum of 3/4 inch of runoff from the site. The District's criteria regarding quantity of water discharged require a larger volume of runoff to be retained than the District's criteria regarding quality. Therefore, the retention system exceeds the District's criteria regarding quality in order to meet the criteria regarding quantity. The District's retention criteria require that the basin recover the treatment volume within 72 hours. Most of the retention basins retain more than the required treatment volume of 3/4 inch, and most will also recover, or become dry, within 72 hours. The retention basins are capable of being effectively maintained in that the side slopes and bottom of the basins can easily accommodate mowing equipment. For erosion control, staked hay bales and silt screens will be utilized on site during construction to prevent the off-site transport of soil material. Following construction, the retention basins will be vegetated with sod to prevent erosion. The District's criteria require that facilities which receive stormwater runoff from areas with greater than fifty percent of impervious surface shall include a baffle or other device for preventing oil and grease from leaving the system. DRA Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 8 are equipped with an oil and grease removal device called a baffle. The baffle is an acceptable engineering design for the removal of oil and grease from stormwater in a retention basin. The facility operation is uncomplicated. If the individual basins did fill due to a storm event greater than the 25-year, 24-hour or the 25-year, 96- hour in the landlocked basin, they would simply overflow into a DRA. No structures are involved to prevent flooding in large storm events. Water Quality Impacts The individual retention basin at each RV site is considered off-line because it does not discharge in the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. DRA Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are considered off-line because they do not discharge during the design storm. DRA No. 8 is considered off-line because of the diversion box which provides for the retention of the treatment volume and diversion of the larger storms. Off-line retention systems generally show greater pollutant treatment efficiencies than other types of stormwater treatment. The first 1/2 inch of runoff or the "first flush" of rainfall contains ninety percent of the pollutants from the site. SURFACE WATER Utilizing information and methodologies generally accepted by experts in the field of water quality, the District analyzed and projected the average surface water and groundwater quality of the discharge from the surface water management system for the proposed project. No data on runoff concentrations currently exists for RV parks. This analysis was based on a review of existing data on untreated runoff concentrations from three multifamily developments and one highway study. Because data from studies of multifamily residential and highway projects was used, the District's estimates of the untreated runoff concentrations for this project are conservative in that the actual concentrations are probably less than estimated. The District's analysis of the average quality of the discharge from the proposed system was also based on projecting the treatment efficiencies associated with the system. This analysis was done by reviewing data from documented studies previously conducted to ascertain the treatment efficiency of retention methods of stormwater treatment. Generally, retention of the first 1/2 inch of runoff removes eighty percent of the pollutants. On this project, a treatment efficiency of ninety-five percent was assumed based on the fact that the system is off-line treatment and a minimum of 3/4 inch of runoff from the site will be retained in the basins prior to discharge. The expected average untreated runoff concentrations were then educed by the expected treatment efficiencies to project post-treatment water quality of the discharge from the proposed system. These numbers were then compared to Chapter 17-302, Florida Administrative Code, water quality standards for Class III water bodies, and ambient water quality in Orange Lake. Orange Lake is classified as an OFW. Therefore, the proposed project cannot be permitted if it will cause degradation of that water body. The background data or ambient water quality data for phosphorous and nitrogen was taken from the Orange Lake Biological Report by the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission in 1986. The ambient water quality for the other parameters in Table 2 of District Exhibit 2 was computed using eight years of data from a District monitoring station on Orange Lake. The projected average concentration for each constituent in the discharge from the system is less than the ambient water quality of Orange Lake. Therefore, the proposed surface water discharge will not violate state water quality standards in waters of the state. The post-development pollutant loading rates should be equal to or better than the pollutant loading rates from the use of the property as citrus or pastureland because the runoff is being retained on site and treated before being discharged. GROUNDWATER Groundwater discharges were reviewed by assessing the type of soil below the retention basin and the distance to the water table. The soil on the site contains some organic matter which is beneficial for treatment purposes. Based on the borings submitted by Celebrity, the water table, if any, is five feet or more below the bottom of any proposed retention basin. Runoff in the basin will percolate through the soil. Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus will be taken up by the vegetation in the bottom of the basins. Metals will bind to the soil material below the basin. Oils and greases will be broken down through microbial degradation into nontoxic material. Groundwater discharges from the proposed system will not violate any applicable state groundwater quality standards. These standards will be met within the first three feet below the treatment basins. The standards will also be met by the time the groundwater discharge moves to the edge of the zone of discharge which is at the property boundary. The discharge from the proposed Celebrity project will not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards in the receiving waters. SINKHOLES Sinkholes may form on the site. Sinkholes that form will probably be "cover subsidence" sinkholes. Cover subsidence sinkholes are those in which a void below the surface fills with the soil from above, causing a depression in the ground surface. There are four relict sinkholes on site. They are cover subsidence sinkholes. The sinkhole nearest the lake has water in the bottom. Stormwater runoff is directed away from the sinkhole. Any water which enters the sinkhole from the land surface or above will enter from the sky. The District has proposed criteria for stormwater systems in designated Sensitive Karst Area Basins. Those criteria are that 1) the water in the basins shall be no deeper than ten feet deep; 2) there should be at least three feet of unconsolidated material between the bottom of the basin and the top of the water table; and 3) the basins should be fully vegetated. The District currently applies these criteria as policy. In this project, the basins are shallow, ranging from ten inches deep at the RV sites to 2 1/2 feet in the DRAs. The basins have at least three feet of unconsolidated material between the bottom of the basin and the top of the water table. In the soil borings performed by Celebrity, the water table was shown to exist between five and fifty feet below land surface. The proposed project design meets or exceeds the proposed criteria for Sensitive Karst Area Basins. The basins will be fully vegetated or sodded with grass. Lineations or lineaments are solution features which may indicate a fracture of the underlying limestone. There may be a lineament on the site. There are other sinkholes in the area. If a cover subsidence sinkhole develops in an individual retention basin or DRA, stormwater, if any, will seep or percolate through the several feet of soil prior to reaching an aquifer. Most of the pollutants in the retention basin will meet groundwater quality standards prior to percolation and further treatment in the soil. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Special conditions Nos. 13, 14, and 15 on the permit will require Celebrity to inspect the system monthly for sinkhole development. If a sinkhole develops, Celebrity must notify the District within 48 hours of its discovery. Celebrity must submit a detailed repair plan within 30 days for written approval by the District. Celebrity proposes to repair any sinkholes that develop by a District- approved method. Celebrity Resorts, Inc., is a legally established corporation registered in Delaware and owns the subject property. Celebrity does not intend to subdivide the property but to sell memberships to use the property on a time-share basis. Celebrity will administratively operate the site by employing a park manager who will remain on the property 24 hours a day. If any problems occur with the basins, either he or his designee will be on site to respond quickly to the situation. The park manager will have a full-time maintenance staff which will operate the park. Celebrity will financially operate and maintain the proposed system using funds currently raised and in the future by membership fees. Celebrity is a publicly held corporation. Funds raised from the sale of stock, approximately $3,500,000, have paid for legal and administrative fees as well as the land purchase. Approximately $400,000 has been reserved to operate the facility. It will cost approximately $15,000 per month to run the park. Memberships will be sold for $300 per year. Part of the membership fees will go toward the general maintenance of the site. Maintenance of the proposed system will include regular mowing and monthly inspection for sinkholes and repair if necessary. WETLANDS IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT The property contains waters of the state wetlands and isolated wetlands. The waters of the state wetlands are those along the shore of Orange Lake. One isolated wetland exists on site in the sinkhole which is closest to the lake. The sinkhole has standing water in which lemna, or duckweed, is growing. Duckweed is a listed plant species in Section 16.1.1(2) of the Handbook. No construction is proposed in either the waters of the state wetlands or the isolated wetland. The District criteria require the review of impacts to off-site aquatic and wetland dependent species relative to the functions currently provided by the wetlands to these types of fish and wildlife. Since there will be no construction in the wetlands, there will be no impacts to the habitat, abundance and diversity, or food sources of off-site aquatic and wetland dependent species from this proposed project. No threatened or endangered aquatic and wetland dependent species were observed on site. The proposed permit application will not adversely affect natural resources, fish, or wildlife in a manner which is inconsistent with the District criteria. The proposed permit application will not adversely affect hydrologically-related environmental functions in a manner which is inconsistent with the District criteria.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition filed by Concerned Citizens of Orange Lake Area be dismissed for lack of standing and that Celebrity Resorts, Inc., be issued a MSSW permit for its system as designed and proposed. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 19th day of July, 1991. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Concerned Citizens of Orange Lake Area 1. Proposed findings of fact 1-6 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Celebrity Resorts, Inc. 1. Proposed findings of fact 1-38 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1&2(1); 3-7(4-7); 8-20(8- 20); 21(2); 22-31(21-30); 32(16); and 33-107(31-105). COPIES FURNISHED: Crawford Solomon Qualified Representative Concerned Citizens of Orange Lake Post Office Box 481 Citra, FL 32681 William L. Townsend, Jr. Attorney at Law Post Office Box 250 Palatka, FL 32178-0250 Nancy B. Barnard Attorney at Law St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Henry Dean, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429
Findings Of Fact Upon a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing in this cause, the following pertinent facts are found: 1/ By application number 25793, the applicant seeks a permit to construct and operate a proposed surface water management system to serve a 2,541 acre project within the St. Johns River Basin in Indian River County. The proposed system will consist of a perimeter dike, a central canal with interior laterals and four discharge pumps. The applicant will be discharging into the St. Johns Marsh and seeks a discharge capacity of 139,000 GPM. Three of the discharge pumps are to be located at the southeast corner of the property and a two-way 25,000 GPM pump is to be located at the intersection of the central canal and the western boundary of the property. By application number 25794, the applicant seeks a permit for the use of surface and artesian water for the irrigation of the same 2,541 acres of pasture and truck crops. The applicant requests to withdraw surface water from the St. Johns Marsh by means of a two-way 25,000 GPM pump located at the intersection of the central canal and the western property boundary and to withdraw water from the Floridan aquifer by means of eight eight-inch artesian wells. The amount requested is 5,294 acre-feet per year with a maximum monthly pumpage of 1.47 billion gallons. A staff report of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District (FCD) concluded that the major problem with the permit applications is the impact on water quality of the receiving bodies of water and that nutrients and other pollutants will be introduced into runoff waters discharged into the St. Johns Marsh, which is the source of the public water supply for South Brevard County. The staff therefore recommended that the applicant institute a water quality and quantity monitoring program to monitor discharges to the Marsh. The staff further recommended that the applicant not be allowed to discharge from the western property boundary nor irrigate from the ditch on the western property boundary. It was recommended that the two-way 25,000 GPM pump be installed adjacent to the other pumps located at the southeast corner of the property. More specifically, the staff found that if a permit were to be issued pursuant to application number 25793, it should be subject to the conditions that: the allowable discharge capacity to be 104,000 GPM, with discharges to be east to the St. Johns Marsh by means of one 44,000 GPM pump, one 35,000 GPM pump and one 25,000 PM two-way pump to be located at the southeast corner of the property; the applicant notify the FCD prior to any excavation of materials from land lying east of the east property boundary and, if such excavation is done, a discontinuous borrow ditch be created by either leaving 25 foot portions of undisturbed marsh or by placing 25 foot earthen plugs at approximately 500 foot intervals (this was later modified at the hearing to 1,000 foot intervals); and the applicant submit monthly reports of total daily discharges and water quality, the samples to be taken at the southeast corner of the property. With regard to application number 25794, the staff recommended that if such permit were to be issued, it be subject to the following conditions: for the use of surface water, an annual allocation of 2329.3 acre- feet per year and for the use of artesian water, an annual allocation of 2518.5 acre-feet per year, with a maximum monthly pumpage from all sources of 355.3 million gallons; no withdrawal of surface water from the St. Johns Marsh when the water level in Blue Cypress Lake drops to 22.0' msl.; surface water to be withdrawn by means of a 25,000 GPM two-way pump located at the property's southeast corner; artesian waters to be withdrawn by eight eight-inch wells with effective and operative controls placed thereon and analyses of water samples from the water discharge of each the submission of monthly reports of total monthly pumpages and total monthly flows; and permit for the withdrawal of surface and artesian water to expire on January 15, 1979. At the hearing, the applicant agreed to the recommended conditions placed upon the permits by the staff report with the exception of: the amount of the allowable discharge (staff recommending 104,000 GPM as opposed to a desired 139,000 GPM); the location of the 25,000 GPM two-way pump (staff recommending southeast corner as opposed to a proposed site on the western boundary of the property); the expiration date of January 15, 1979. The Environmental Protection Bureau of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Commission requested the FCD to delay issuance of permits for all projects in the Upper St. Johns River basin until a comprehensive water management plan for the area is formulated. Read into the record was a resolution adopted by the Commission on May 16, 1975, recommending that "the further destruction of the marsh be curtailed and a plan be formulated for the return of the diverted waters as a management tool for restoration of fish and wildlife resources." On behalf of the Florida Audubon Society, Mr. Charles Lee contended that, because of this resolution and request of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and that agency's constitutional status, the FCD is precluded from issuing the subject permits. Intervenors and members of the general public who were opposed to the issuance of the instant permits expressed the following concerns: the low water quality and quantity of the St. Johns River and its marshes; the decline in hunting and fishing because of agricultural activities in the St. Johns River valley; the loss of marsh land due to agricultural activity; the lack of a basic water management program for the area; the lack of remedial measures should degradation of the water occur; and the lack of an expiration date for the surface water management system permit.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is the recommendation of the hearing officer that application numbers 25793 and 25794 be granted, subject to those special conditions set forth in the Staff Report as modified by the following: In paragraph number 3 on page 14 of the Staff Report, substitute the words "1,000 foot intervals" for "500 foot intervals;" Add as paragraphs 6 on page 15, paragraph 6 on page 16 and paragraph 7 on page 18 the following: "Should the data in the monthly reports submitted by the applicant indicate the occurrence of a degradation of the waters utilized, the applicant will be required to remedy the situation causing the de- gradation." Add as paragraph 7 on page 15 the following: "7. This permit shall expire on January 15, 1979." Respectfully submitted and entered this 25th of March, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
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 The issues for determination in this proceeding, are as follows: Whether St. Johns' Rules 40C-2.301(4)(d), and (i), F.A.C. [adopted, as well, in the Applicant's Handbook as Sections 10.3(D),(H) and (I)] are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority, because of vagueness and arbitrariness. because, to the extent water quality is regulated, St. Johns has exceeded its statutory authority. Whether St. Johns utilizes an unwritten, and, therefore, invalid rule for determining allowable parts per million of phosphorus and nitrogen. Whether St. Johns' policy of reliance on Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) Rule Chapter 17-3, F.A.C., constitutes an invalid rule. MATERIAL ADMISSIONS AND STIPULATIONS In Stipulations filed at or before the hearings on November 22, 1988 and February 27, 1989, the parties have agreed as follows: Zellwood Drainage and Water Control District and the individual Petitioners in this case have standing to bring this Section 120.56, F.S., rule challenge. Zellwood filed a timely consumptive use permit application with St. Johns, as an existing use. St. Johns classified the application as one for an existing use. The review of the application occurred in December 1985. The sole basis of St. Johns' recommended denial is Zellwood's alleged non-compliance with Rules 40C-2.301(4)(d), (h), and (i), F.A.C., and those same provisions found in Section 10.3(D), (H) and (I) of the Applicant's Handbook. The factual basis of St. Johns' denial of Zellwood's consumptive use permit application is the quality of the water discharged into Lake Apopka and the effect the discharge has on the lake. In its admissions filed at the February 27, 1989 hearing, St. Johns admits that unless an applicant has an operation permit issued by DER, St. Johns uses the State Water Quality standards in Chapter 17-3, F.A.C. (DER's rule) in deciding whether a use of water causes serious harm to the water quality of source or receiving waters, pursuant to Rules 40C-2.301(4)(h) and (i), F.A.C., and whether a use of water has reduced environmental or economic harm to an acceptable amount pursuant to Rule 40C-2.301(4)(d), F.A.C.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Zellwood Drainage and Water Control District was created as a special district in Orange County, Florida, by act of the Legislature, Chapter 20714, Laws of Florida, in 1942. The district is located south and west of the town of Zellwood, along the northeast shore of Lake Apopka, and comprises approximately 8700 acres. The district is governed by a board of governors; William Rex Clonts, Jr. is currently Chairman. Plainly stated, the purpose of the district is to make its lands suitable for farming by maintaining pumps, canals, a dike, roads and other improvements. The land within the district is lower than the level of the lake and surrounding land. Without drainage, the land could not be farmed. The individual petitioners are farmers owning land and farms within the district. There are approximately twelve farms, primarily family-owned, growing broccoli, carrots, celery, leaf lettuce, radishes, greens, sweet corn and sod. The farms within the district, utilizing the improvements of the district, pump water from Lake Apopka for nematode control and for irrigation in times of dry seasons. Except when the water is allowed to evaporate off the fields, water is then discharged back into Lake Apopka. Water is also discharged for flood control. When water is used as described above, it moves across the lands and it tends to pick up nutrients depending on the composition of the soil and the concentrations of the soil in the water. Almost every consumptive use of water has an associated discharge. From a regulatory standpoint, water quality and water quantity are intertwined. Both withdrawal from and discharge to a waterbody can degrade the water quality of that body. The only consumptive use permit applications denied by St. Johns on the basis of the quality of the discharge water are Zellwood's, Duda Farms', and other neighbors of Zellwood near Lake Apopka. However, in cases other than these St. Johns has recognized water quality problems and has issued water use permits with conditions which would help remedy the problem. When reviewing a consumptive use permit application such as Zellwood's, St. Johns applies, among others, these relevant provisions of its Rule 40C- 2.301, F.A.C.: 40C-2.301 Conditions for Issuance of Permits. To obtain a consumptive use permit for a use existing on the effective date of implementation, the applicant shall apply for a permit under the provisions of Section 373.226, Florida Statutes, and Rule 40C- 2.04(2), Florida Administrative Code, and shall establish that it is a reasonable beneficial use and is allowable under the common law of Florida. * * * The following criteria must be met in order for a use to be considered reasonably beneficial: The use must be such quantity as is necessary for economic and efficient utilization. The use must be for a purpose that is both reasonable and consistent with the public interest. The source of the water must be capable of producing the requested amounts of water. The environmental or economic harm caused by the consumptive use must be reduced to an acceptable amount. To the degree which is financially environmentally, and socially practicable, available water conservation and reuse measures shall be used or proposed for use. The consumptive use should not cause significant saline water intrusion or further aggravate currently existing saline water intrusion problems. The consumptive use should not cause or contribute to flood damage. The water quality of the source of the water should not be seriously harmed by the consumptive use. The water quality of the receiving body of water should not be seriously harmed by the consumptive use. A valid permit issued pursuant to Rule 17-4.240 or Rule 17- 4.260, Florida Administrative Code, shall establish a presumption that this criterion has been met. (emphasis added) Rules 17-4.240 and 17-4.260, F.A.C. are DER rules relating to operation permits for water pollution sources, and permits for sewage works, respectively. Zellwood contends that the standards in 40C-2.301(4)(d), (h) and (i), F.A.C., above, have no scientific meaning, do not put the applicant on notice as to what discharge would be permitted, and leave too much discretion to the agency. Sanford "Sandy" Young is an environmental consultant who testified on behalf of Zellwood. He specializes in limnology, the study of physical, chemical and biological aspects of fresh water. Young claims that the language of the rules is too vague to allow him to advise a client. He contrasts these rules with the DER water quality standards in Chapter 17-3, F.A.C., adopted by the Environmental Regulation Commission, which do include specific numbers where possible. St. John's department of resource management is responsible for reviewing and processing permit applications, including applications for consumptive use permits. In addition to using its own staff of engineers, hydrologists, and environmental specialists, the Department consults with its sister department of water resources, the district's program and research department, for additional technical expertise. On matters related to water quality, St. Johns' staff also consults with DER staff. St. Johns uses the provisions of DER rule Chapter 17-3 to measure the "serious harm" referenced in St. Johns' rules. Rule 17-3.121(19), F.A.C., sets the standard for nutrients in surface waters classified as Class III, such as Lake Apopka, as follows: (19) Nutrients - 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 and fauna. The nutrient standard provided in Rule 17-3.121, F.A.C., above, requires a site specific determination of the volume and concentrations of the nutrients that are discharged. The point at which an imbalance would be created is different from different bodies of water. Nutrients behave in a very site specific fashion, and in order to derive a scientific estimate of nutrient criteria for a specific body of water, the characteristics of that body have to be taken into account. It would be impossible to develop a numerical standard which would apply to all. The nutrient standard in Rule 17C-3.121, F.A.C. is applied, therefore, on a case-by-case basis. In permit application review, when there is not sufficient time to do actual field samplings and to run an exhaustive model of nutrient loading, the staff relies on available data, available literature and what is provided in the application itself, to make a recommendation to the district board regarding approval or denial. The staff's recommendation as to Zellwood was based on published literature on Lake Apopka and its existing water quality conditions and on available data from consultants on the quality and quantity of discharge and quantity from the Zellwood farms. As a rule of thumb, in this case, and not as an official district policy, the staff felt that .1 milligram per liter phosphorus, and 2 milligrams per liter nitrogen, would be an acceptable working level for discharge into Lake Apopka. That level itself would also depend on the amount of water being discharged. The .1 milligram and 2 milligrams level assumes a discharge of 20 billion gallons per year. The staff, in establishing such levels in consumptive use permits, strives to establish a discharge that will not contribute to the water quality of the receiving body staying below Class III standards (when that Class has been designated by DER). St. Johns has not adopted the nutrient level described above as a rule, but neither does it apply the level generally to other permit applications. Without a given volume of water, without knowledge of the ecological state of the receiving body, it is impossible to determine whether a given nutrient concentration, such as the parts per liter of nitrogen and phosphorus described above, would cause an imbalance of natural flora and fauna in the receiving body. St. Johns has adopted Rules 40C-2.301(4)(d), (h) and (i), F.A.C., in accordance with the rulemaking provisions of Section 120.54, F.S. In addition, Chapter 40C-2, F.A.C., has been reviewed by DER and accepted without objection as consistent with Chapter 17-40, F.A.C., the state water policy, and other applicable statutory standards.
The Issue The issue in this matter is whether Respondent, Polk County Board of Commissioners (Polk County or County) has provided Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), with reasonable assurances that the activities Polk County proposed to conduct pursuant to Standard General Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 4419803.000 (the Permit) meet the conditions for issuance of permits established in Rules 40D-4.301, and 40D-40.302, Florida Administrative Code. (All rule citations are to the current Florida Administrative Code.)
Findings Of Fact Events Preceding Submittal of ERP Application The Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system dates back to at least the 1920's, and has been altered and modified over time, especially as a result of phosphate mining activities which occurred on OFP property in the 1950's-1960's. The system is on private property and is not owned and was not constructed by the County. Prior to 1996, the Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system was in extremely poor repair and not well- maintained. The Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system originates at Eagle Lake, which is an approximately 641-acre natural lake, and discharges through a ditch drainage system to Lake Millsite, which is an approximately 130-acre natural lake. Lake Millsite drains through a series of ditches, wetlands, and ponds and flows through OFP property through a series of reclaimed phosphate pits, ditches and wetlands and ultimately flows into Lake Hancock, which is an approximately 4500-acre lake that forms part of the headwaters for the Peace River. The drainage route is approximately 0.5 to 1 mile in overall length. The Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system is one of eight regional systems in the County for which the County and SWFWMD have agreed to share certain funding responsibilities pursuant to a 1996 letter agreement. To implement improvements to these drainage systems, Polk County would be required to comply with all permitting requirements of SWFWMD. During the winter of 1997-1998, Polk County experienced extremely heavy rainfall, over 39 inches, as a result of El Nino weather conditions. This unprecedented rainfall was preceded by high rainfalls during the 1995-1996 rainy season which saturated surface waters and groundwater levels. During 1998, Polk County declared a state of emergency and was declared a federal disaster area qualifying for FEMA assistance. Along the Lake Eagle and Millsite Lake drainage areas, septic tanks were malfunctioning, wells were inundated and roads were underwater. The County received many flooding complaints from citizens in the area. As a result of flooding conditions, emergency measures were taken by the County. The County obtained SWFWMD authorization to undertake ditch cleaning or vegetative control for several drainage ditch systems in the County, including the Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system. No SWFWMD ERP permit was required or obtained for this ditch cleaning and vegetative control. During its efforts to alleviate flooding and undertake emergency ditch maintenance along the Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage route, the County discovered a driveway culvert near Spirit Lake Road which was crushed and impeding flow. The evidence was unclear and contradictory as to the size of the culvert. Petitioner's evidence suggested that it consisted of a 24-inch pipe while evidence presented by the County and by SWFWMD suggested that it was a 56-inch by 36-inch arched pipe culvert. It is found that the latter evidence was more persuasive. On February 25, 1998, the County removed the crushed arched pipe culvert at Spirit Lake Road and replaced it with two 48-inch diameter pipes to allow water to flow through the system. The replacement of this structure did not constitute ditch maintenance, and it required a SWFWMD ERP. However, no ERP was obtained at that time (although SWFWMD was notified prior to the activity). (One of the eight specific construction items to be authorized under the subject ERP is the replacement of this culvert.) Old Florida Plantation, Ltd. (OFP) property also experienced flooding during February 1998. OFP's property is situated along the eastern shore of Lake Hancock, and the Eagle- Millsite-Hancock drainage system historically has flowed across the property before entering Lake Hancock. In the 1950's and 1960's, the property was mined for phosphate. The mining process destroyed the natural vegetation and drastically altered the soils and topography, resulting in the formation of areas of unnaturally high elevations and unnaturally deep pits that filled with water. OFP purchased the property from U.S. Steel in 1991. The next year OFP initiated reclamation of the property, which proceeded through approximately 1998. In 1996, OFP applied to the County for approval of a development of regional impact (DRI). OFP blamed the flooding on its property in 1998 on the County's activities upstream, claiming that the property had never flooded before. But upon investigation, the County discovered a 48-inch diameter pipe on OFP property which, while part of OFP's permitted drainage system, had been blocked (actually, never unopened) due to OFP's concerns that opening the pipe would wash away wetlands plants recently planted as part of OFP's wetland restoration efforts. With OFP and SWFWMD approval, the County opened this pipe in a controlled manner to allow flowage without damaging the new wetlands plants. Following the opening of this blocked pipe, OFP property upstream experienced a gradual drop in flood water levels. When the water level on OFP's property stabilized, it was five feet lower and no longer flooded. Nonetheless, OFP continues to maintain not only that the County's activities upstream caused flooding on OFP property but also that they changed historic flow conditions. This contention is rejected as not being supported by the evidence. Not only did flooding cease after the 48-inch pipe on OFP's property was opened, subsequent modeling of water flows also demonstrated that the County's replacement of the crushed box culvert at the driveway on Spirit Lake Road as described in Finding 8, supra, did not increase flood stages by the time the water flows into the OFP site and did not cause flooding on OFP property in 1998. (To the contrary, OFP actions to block flows onto its property may have contributed to flooding upstream.) On October 6, 1998, the County entered into a contract with BCI Engineers and Scientists to initiate a study on the Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system, identify options for alleviating flooding along the system and prepare an application for an ERP to authorize needed improvements to the system. Prior to the County's submittal of an ERP application, SWFWMD issued a conceptual ERP to OFP for its proposed wet detention surface water management system to support its proposed DRI on the OFP property. OFP's conceptual permit incorporated the Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system and accommodated off-site flowage into the system. Before submitting an ERP application to SWFWMD, the County had communications with representatives of OFP concerning an easement for the flow of the drainage system through OFP property. In March 1999, the County reached an understanding with OFP's engineering consultant whereby OFP would provide the County with an easement across OFP lands to allow water to flow through to Lake Hancock. In turn, the County would: construct and pay for a control structure and pipe east of OFP to provide adequate flowage without adversely affecting either upstream or downstream surface waters; construct and upgrade any pipes and structures needed to convey water across OFP property to Lake Hancock; and provide all modeling data for OFP's review. The ERP Application Following completion of the engineering study, the County submitted ERP Application No. 4419803.000 for a Standard General ERP to construct improvements to the Eagle-Millsite- Hancock drainage system on August 18, 1999. Eight specific construction activities are proposed under the County's project, at various points along the Eagle- Millsite-Hancock drainage system as follows: 1) Add riprap along channel bottom; 2) Modify culvert by replacing 56-inch by 36- inch arch pipe by two 48-inch pipes (after-the-fact, done in 1998, as described in Finding 8, supra); 3) Add riprap along channel bottom; 4) Add box, modify culvert by replacing existing pipe with two 48-inch pipes, add riprap along channel bottom; 5) add riprap along channel bottom; 6) Add weir, modify culvert by replacing existing 24-inch pipe with two 48-inch pipes, add riprap along channel bottom; 7) Add box and modify culvert by replacing existing 24-inch pipe with two 48-inch pipes; 8) Modify existing weir. Under the County's application, construction activities Nos. 6, 7, and 8 would occur on OFP property. In addition, it was proposed that surface water would flow across OFP's property (generally, following existing on-site drainage patterns), and it was indicated that flood elevations would rise in some locations on OFP's property as a result of the improvements proposed in the County's application. (Most if not all of the rise in water level would be contained within the relatively steep banks of the lakes on OFP's property--the reclaimed phosphate mine pits.) In its application, the County stated that it was in the process of obtaining easements for project area. As part of the ERP application review process, SWFWMD staff requested, by letter dated September 17, 1999, that the County clarify the location of the necessary rights-of-way and drainage easements for the drainage improvements and provide authorization from OFP as property owner accepting the peak stage increases anticipated in certain OFP lakes as a result of the County's proposed project activities. On September 28, 1999, OFP obtained a DRI development order (DO) from the County. In pertinent part, the DRI DO required that OFP not adversely affect historical flow of surface water entering the property from off-site sources. Historical flow was to be determined in a study commissioned by the County and SWFWMD. The DO appeared to provide that the study was to be reviewed by OFP and the County and approved by SWFWMD. Based on the study, a control structure and pipe was to be constructed, operated and maintained by the County at the upstream side of the property that would limit the quantity of off-site historical flow, unless otherwise approved by OFP. OFP was to provide the County with a drainage easement for this control structure and pipe, as well as a flowage easement from this structure, through OFP property, to an outfall into Lake Hancock. The DO specified that the flowage easement was to be for quantitative purposes only and not to provide water quality treatment for off-site flows. The DO required OFP to grant a defined, temporary easement prior to first plat approval. In its November 11, 1999, response to SWFWMD's request for additional information, the County indicated it would obtain drainage easements and that it was seeking written acknowledgment from OFP accepting the proposed increases in lake stages. During the ERP application review process, the County continued efforts to obtain flowage easements or control over the proposed project area and OFP's acknowledgment and acceptance of the increase in lake stages. At OFP's invitation, the County drafted a proposed cross-flow easement. But before a binding agreement could be executed, a dispute arose between OFP and the County concerning other aspects of OFP's development plans, and OFP refused to enter into an agreement on the cross- flow easement unless all other development issues were resolved as well. On August 4, 2000, in response to SWFWMD's request that the County provide documentation of drainage easements and/or OFP's acceptance of the increased lake stages on OFP property, the County submitted a proposed and un-executed Perpetual Flowage and Inundation Easement and an Acknowledgment to be signed by OFP accepting the increased lake stages. On August 7, 2000, the OFP property was annexed by the City of Bartow (the City). On October 16, 2000, the City enacted Ordinance No. 1933-A approving OFP's DRI application. The City's DO contained essentially the same provision on Off- Site Flow contained in the County's DO. See Finding 18, supra. However, the City's DO specified that the historical flow study was required to be reviewed and approved by OFP (as well as by the County and by SWFWMD). OFP has not given formal approval to historical flow studies done to date. On October 6, 2000, SWFWMD issued a Notice of Final Agency Action approving Polk County ERP No. 4419803.000. Permit Specific Condition No. 7 provides that "all construction is prohibited within the permitted project area until the Permittee acquires legal ownership or legal control of the project area as delineated in the permitted construction drawings." As a result of this permit condition, the County cannot undertake construction as authorized under the Permit until any needed easement or legal control is obtained. Precise Easement Route Approximately two months before final hearing, a dispute arose as to the precise cross-flow easement route proposed by the County. OFP had understood that the County's proposed route was based on a detailed survey. But closer scrutiny of the County's proposed route indicated that it cut corners of existing lakes on OFP's property, crossed residential lots proposed by OFP, and veered north into uplands (also proposed for residential use) in the western portion of the route before looping south and then north again to the outfall at Lake Hancock. Information subsequently revealed in the course of discovery suggested that the County's proposed route may have been based on pre-reclamation topography of OFP's property. After OFP recognized the implications of the cross- flow easement route being proposed by the County, OFP provided the County with several different alternative easement routes through the OFP property. While agreement as to the precise route has not yet been reached, the precise route of the easement is not significant to the County, as long as water can flow across OFP property to Lake Hancock and so long as the County does not have to re-locate existing ditches. Such adjustments in the location of the proposed flowage easement would not affect SWFWMD staff's recommendation for permit issuance, as long as it covered the defined project areas. In addition, OFP's current site plan is a preliminary, conceptual plan subject to change before it is finalized. Regardless what cross-flow easement route is chosen, it will be temporary and subject to modification when OFP's development plan is finalized. If the County is unable to not negotiate a flowage easement across OFP property, it could obtain whatever easement is required through use of the County's eminent domain powers. The County's acquisition of an easement to accommodate a flowage route and anticipated increased stage on OFP property gives reasonable assurance that any stage increases will not cause adverse impacts to OFP property and gives reasonable assurance that the County will have sufficient legal control to construct and maintain the improvements. Project Area The County applied for a Standard General Permit and specified a total project area of 0.95 acre. This acreage reflects the area required for actual construction and alteration of control structures and drainage ditches in the preexisting Eagle-Millsite-Hancock system. It does not reflect the entire acreage drained by that system (approximately 1,800 to 2,000 acres). It also does not reflect the area of the cross-flow easement, which the County has yet to obtain. When determining project size for purposes of determining the type of permit applicable to a project, SWFWMD staff considers maximum project area to be limited to the acreage owned or controlled by the applicant. In addition, since this is a retrofit project for improvement of an existing drainage system not now owned or controlled by the County, SWFWMD staff only measured the area required for actual construction and alteration of control structures and drainage ditches. Future easements necessary for future maintenance of the system were not included. When OFP applied for its conceptual ERP for its proposed DRI, the project area was considered to be the acreage owned by OFP. The rest of the basin draining through OFP's property to Lake Hancock (again, approximately 1,800 to 2,000 acres) was not considered to be part of the project area. Water Quantity Impacts The County's project will retrofit certain components of the same drainage system which OFP will utilize for surface water management and treatment pursuant to its conceptual ERP. Modeling presented in the County's application demonstrates that there will be some rises and some lowering of some of the lake levels on OFP's property during certain rain events. Anticipated rises are lower than the top of banks authorized in OFP's conceptual permit; hence the system will continue to function properly. While there are some differences in the County's permit application and OFP's conceptual permit application concerning modeling estimates of flow rates through OFP property, the differences are minor and are attributed to differences in modeling inputs. The County used more detailed modeling information. Any such differences are not significant. Differences in flow rates provided in the County's proposed permit and in OFP's conceptual permit do not render the permits as incompatible. If the County's permit were issued, any modeling undertaken in connection with a subsequent application by OFP for a construction permit would have to be updated to include the County's improvements to the system. This outcome is not a basis for denial of the County's permit. While the rate at which water will flow through the system will increase, no change in volume of water ultimately flowing through the drainage system is anticipated as a result of the County's proposed improvements. The increased lake stages which are anticipated to occur on OFP property as a result of the County's project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to the receiving waters of Lake Hancock or adjacent lands. The project will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property. The project will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. The project will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows established pursuant to Chapter 373.042, Florida Statutes. Water Quality Impacts No adverse impacts to water quality on OFP property are anticipated from the County's proposed drainage improvements. The project will not add any pollutant loading source to the drainage system and is not expected to cause any algae blooms or fish kills in OFP waters or cause any additional nutrient loading into OFP's surface water management systems. As reclaimed phosphate mine pits, the lakes on OFP's property are high in phosphates. Meanwhile, water quality in upstream in Millsite Lake and Eagle Lake is very good. Off-site flow of higher quality water flushing the OFP lakes will improve the water quality on the OFP site. The County's project will have no adverse impact on the quality of water in the downstream receiving of Lake Hancock (which currently has poor water quality due in large part to past phosphate mining). Upstream of OFP, the project will not cause any adverse water quality impacts and is anticipated to result in positive impacts by lessening the duration of any flooding event and thereby lessening septic tank inundation from flooding. This will have a beneficial impact on public health, safety, and welfare. Thus, there is a public benefit to be gained in having the County undertake the proposed drainage and flood control improvements now, rather than waiting for OFP to finalize its plat and construct its development project. The County's proposed improvements do not require any formal water quality treatment system. The improvements are to a conveyance system and no impervious surfaces or other facilities generating pollutant loading will be added. Upstream of OFP, the Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system flows through natural lakes and wetlands systems that provide natural water quality treatment of the existing drainage basin. OFP expressed concern that the County's improvements to drainage through these areas (including the ditch maintenance already performed in 1998) will increase flow and reduce residence time, thereby reducing natural water quality treatment. But ditch maintenance does not require an ERP, and the County gave reasonable assurances that reduction in natural water quality treatment will not be significant, especially in view of the good quality of the water flowing through the system out of Eagle Lake and Millsite Lake. As a result, it is found that the County's proposed project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that any applicable quality standards will be violated. Indeed, OFP's expert consultant conceded in testimony at final hearing that OFP has no reason to be concerned about the quality of water at present. Rather, OFP's real concern is about water quality in the future. Essentially, OFP is asking SWFWMD to require the County to guarantee OFP that future development in the area will not lead to any water quality problems. Requiring such a guarantee as a condition to issuance of an ERP would go far beyond SWFWMD requirements and is never required of any applicant. Besides being speculative on the evidence in this case, future development in the area will be required to meet applicable SWFWMD water quality requirements. SWFWMD permitting required for such future development would be the proper forum for OFP to protect itself against possible future reduction in water quality (as well as possible future increase in water quantity). Environmental Impacts The drainage ditches to be improved by the County's project were originally constructed before 1984. These upland cut ditches were not constructed for the purpose of diverting natural stream flow, and are not known to provide significant habitat for any threatened or endangered species. The County provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project will not change the hydroperiod of a wetland or other surface water, so as to adversely affect wetland functions or other surface water functions. The functions of the wetlands and surface waters to be affected by the proposed project include conveyance, some water quality treatment, and possibly some wildlife movement or migration functions between the wetlands served by the ditches. Wetland impacts from the project consists of .63 acre of permanent impacts and .21 acre of temporary impacts, for a total of .84 acre of impact. The permanent impacts consist of the replacement of pipes with new structures in the ditches and the addition of rip rap in areas to prevent sedimentation and erosion. The proposed project's anticipated increase in the rate of flow is expected to lessen the duration of any flooding event at the upper end of the drainage system, and at the downstream end is expected to create a subsequent rise in some of the lakes and storage areas on the OFP property during certain rain events. The anticipated rise in some of the reclaimed lakes on OFP property is not anticipated to have any adverse impact on the functions that those surface waters provide to fish, wildlife or any threatened or endangered species. The reclaimed lakes subject to rise in water levels for certain rain events are steep-sided and do not have much littoral zone, and little, if any, loss of habitat will result. The County's application provides reasonable assurance that the anticipated stage increase in affected wetlands or surface waters will not adversely affect the functions provided by those wetlands or surface waters. The County provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project will not violate water quality standards in areas where water quality standards apply, in either the short- term or the long-term. Long-term effects were addressed in Finding 43-51, supra. Short-term water quality impacts anticipated during the construction of the proposed improvements will be addressed through the use of erosion and sediment controls. The proposed project also will not create any adverse secondary impacts to water resources. The project will not cause any adverse impacts to the bird rookery located to the north on OFP property. The project will not cause any adverse impacts to the bass in OFP's lakes, a concern expressed by OFP relatively recently. To the contrary, since the project will improve water quality in OFP's lakes, the impact on OFP's bass is expected to be positive. OFP raised the issue of a bald eagle nesting site located on its property. The evidence was that a pair of bald eagles has built a nest atop a Tampa Electric Company (TECO) power pole on the property in October of each year since 1996. Each year the pair (which is thought to be the same pair) has used a different TECO power pole. Most of the nests, including the one built in October 2000, have been on poles well south of any construction proposed under the County's ERP and clearly outside of the primary and secondary eagle management zones designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. But one year, a nest was built on a pole farther north and possibly within the secondary eagle management zone. OFP presented testimony that U.S. Fish and Wildlife would require OFP to apply for an "incidental take" in order to build homes within the primary eagle protection zones around any of the four poles on which eagles have built nests since 1996; timing of construction of homes within the secondary protection zones may be affected. Even accepting OFP's testimony, there was no evidence as to how U.S. Fish and Wildlife would view construction of the County's proposed drainage improvements on OFP property within those zones. In addition, the evidence was that, in order to accomplish its DRI plans to build homes in the vicinity of the TECO power poles that have served as eagle nests in recent years, without having to apply for an "incidental take," OFP plans to place eagle poles (more suitable for eagle nests than power poles, which actually endanger the eagles) in another part of its property which is much more suitable habitat in order to encourage the eagles to build their nest there. The new location would put the County's proposed construction activity far outside the primary and secondary eagle management zones. Other Permitting Requirements The County's proposed project is capable, based on generally accepted scientific engineering and scientific principles, of being effectively performed and of functioning as proposed. The County has the financial, legal, and administrative capability of ensuring that the activity proposed to be undertaken can be done in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project will cause adverse impacts to any work of the District established under Section 373.086, Florida Statutes. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the project will not comply with any applicable special basin or geographic area criteria established under Chapter 40D-3, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order issuing Standard General Environmental Resource Permit No. 4419803.000. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 17th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda L. McKinley, Esquire Polk County Attorney's Office Post Office Box 9005, Drawer AT01 Bartow, Florida 33831-9005 Gregory R. Deal, Esquire 1525 South Florida Avenue, Suite 2 Lakeland, Florida 33803 Margaret M. Lytle, Esquire Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 E. D. Sonny Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
Findings Of Fact Parties Respondent Sun East is a corporation who seeks to create a Planned Unit Development, PUD 89-25, on its property located in Polk County, Florida. Petitioner Hirt owns and resides on property adjacent to the Planned Unit Development. The only geographical boundary between the proposed project and Petitioner's property is Watkins Road. Respondent SWFWMD is the water management district with permitting authority over the 5.36 acres involved in the permit application which is the subject of these proceedings. Jurisdictional Areas of Controversy Respondent Sun East began the application process for a surface water management general construction permit from SWFWMD for Phase I of its proposed development of PUD 89-25 on July 1, 1991. SWFWMD determined the application was complete on July 24, 1991. The permit which was issued the next day authorized Respondent Sun East to perform the work outlined in the permit and shown by the application, approved drawings, plans, and other documents on file with SWFWMD. Petitioner Hirt timely filed a formal administrative complaint in which he disputed the appropriateness of the permit issued. In support of his position, Petitioner identified a number of areas of controversy and alleged that the application and review process was insufficient. Petitioner's allegations in his complaint, which are properly before the Hearing Officer, are as follows: The approved surface water management system will cause surface water runoff from the project to flood Petitioner's property. One potential cause of such anticipated flooding is the lack of proper percolation design in the surface water management storage areas. Contrary to permit representations, the property and the retention pond required by SWFWMD are in the 100 year flood plain. The project is in an environmentally sensitive area. Respondent Sun East has neither complied with all local requirements nor obtained all necessary federal, state, local and special district authorizations prior to the start of any construction authorized by the permit. Site Information The parcel of land on which the project will be located lies partially within the geographical limits of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The remaining land lies within the boundaries of the Southwest Florida Water Management District. Originally, SFWMD gave Respondent Sun East a permit to construct Phase I of the project, along with conceptual approval for Phase II. The decision by Sun East to file the application for a surface water management general construction permit with SFWMD instead of SWFWMD was based upon advice from personnel at SWFWMD. When it was later determined that SWFWMD would need to review an application for Phase I in order for the project to be properly permitted, SWFWMD acted quickly to reduce any potential delay to the project which could be attributed to its prior incorrect jurisdictional analysis. The agency's efforts were unrelated to any political connections or family relationships the former landowner, Jack Watkins, may have with past or current members of the Florida Legislature or Congress. The grading plan for Phase I of the project coupled with the pre- development and post-development 25 year storm event analysis, assessed drainage concerns associated with Phase I of the PUD. Water flow analysis for the site that considered existing conditions and proposed improvements, demonstrates that the property west of Watkins Road is not part of the surface water management system for this project. The cross drain beneath Watkins Road to the south of the proposed project deals with a different, natural conveyance system to Lake Pierce which is utilized by property owners such as Petitioner Hirt on the east side of the roadway. The proposed surface water management system for Phase I will not affect the drainage conveyance system utilized by property owners on the east side of Watkins Road. The stormwater management collection and conveyance system for Phase I was designed to convey the stormwater runoff from a 25 year 24-hour rainfall event, as required. It was not overdesigned to deal with a more intense, longer rainfall or storm event. Essentially, stormwater treatment and attenuation will be provided by the two proposed detention ponds A & B, as depicted on the site plan. Runoff from the first inch of rainfall will be filtered through a proposed side berm filter system in Pond A. The Polk County Soil Survey and field observations were used to assist in the weir control structure design. The weir was designed to restrict the post-development 25 year discharge to the pre-developed 25 year runoff rate. The project does not rely on percolation to offset post-development changes in the surface water management system design. As a result, percolation rates are not a factor to be dealt with in a design review. Flood Plain The 100 year elevation of 79 feet above mean sea level delineates the 100 year flood plain on the property in Phase I. According to the contour map, the existing Ponds 1 and 2 have depression contours below the flood plain. The water level in Existing Pond 1 is 78.24 feet. The water level in Existing Pond 2 is 78.14 feet. These ponds are not a major or significant part of an existing, natural surface water storage system in the area. They are just minor surface depressions. None of the lots contained in Phase I encroach upon the 100 year flood plain level. Environmental Concerns The parties stipulated at hearing that SWFWMD rule criteria relating to wetland and natural resource impacts were met by Sun East's general surface water management permit application. Local Requirements Prior to making application to SWFWMD for a permit in this case, Respondent Sun East obtained approval for Phase I of PUD 89-25 from Polk County. Since that time, the zoning approval was quashed by the circuit court. Respondent Sun East was ordered to obtain the SWFWMD permit before reapplying for zoning approval. The limiting conditions which are part of the permit issued by SWFWMD state: The permittee shall comply with all applicable local subdivision regulations and other local requirements. In addition the permittee shall obtain all necessary Federal, State, local and special district authorizations prior to the start of any construction or alteration of works authorized by this permit. The permit limiting conditions do not require that all other permits be acquired prior to the application for this permit. Instead, the limiting conditions advise that all other necessary permits must be acquired prior to construction or alteration of works begun pursuant to this permit. Petitioner began construction authorized by the permit after SWFWMD issued its permit approval on July 25, 1991. The Petitions for Certiorari on the final approval for Phase I from Polk County was already filed when the application for a permit from SWFWMD was requested by Sun East. The completed application does not reflect that the Polk County zoning approval was being challenged, and SWFWMD was not made aware of the possibility that it could be overturned at a later date. The permit issued by SWFWMD was timely challenged by Petitioner, before the approval became final agency action. Sun East did not comply with the limiting condition in the permit that requires a permittee to obtain all necessary authorizations prior to construction as the zoning approval was still unsettled when construction began. Petitioner's challenge to the SWFWMD permit was filed in good faith as numerous disputes of fact existed regarding this permit prior to resolution in this Recommended Order. Based upon the information and documentation given to Petitioner when the permit was issued, it reasonably appeared that his substantial interests were affected by the proposed drainage plan associated with the development.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That SWFWMD issue the general construction permit for the surface water management system for Phase I, within the limits indicated in the intent to issue, subject to conditions contained therein. That SWFWMD initiate an inspection of the stormwater management system at its expense to ensure conformity with the approved plans and specifications. That appropriate action be taken under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, to prevent the continued violation of the limiting condition in the permit relating to construction starts. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 24th day of March, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5689 Joint Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Respondents are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #20. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #19. Accepted. See HO #19. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #25. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #28. COPIES FURNISHED: ROBERT PERSANTE ESQ MERKLE & MAGRI 7650 W COURTNEY CAMPBELL CAUSEWAY - STE 1120 TAMPA FL 33607 ANDREW R REILLY ESQ REILLY & LASSEIGNE PO BOX 2039 HAINES CITY FL 33845 EDWARD B HELVENSTON ESQ DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL SOUTHWEST FL WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2379 BROAD ST BROOKSVILLE FL 34609 6899 PETER G HUBBELL/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SOUTHWEST FL WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2379 BROAD ST BROOKSVILLE FL 34609 6899 CAROL BROWNER/SECRETARY DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION TWIN TOWERS OFFICE BLDG 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400
The Issue Whether the application of Telegraph Cypress Water Management District to modify an existing surface water management system permit should be granted.
Findings Of Fact The South Florida Water Management District (District) is a public corporation in the State of Florida existing pursuant to Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40E, Florida Administrative Code. The District is a multipurpose water management agency with principal offices in West Palm Beach, Florida. Telegraph Cypress Water Management District (TCWMD) is a water control district organized pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes. Agricultural operations have been conducted within the TCWMD for more than 30 years by the landowner, Babcock Florida Company. The TCWMD is the permittee of record. James D. English, Jr., owns, along with other members of his family, an orange grove and pasture in Lee County, Florida. The English family has owned the property for approximately 120 years. On November 10, 1992, James D. English, Jr., and the Panacea Timber Company filed a petition for formal administrative hearing challenging the District's intent to issue SWM Permit Modification No. 08-00004-S. Cypress Creek Partnership is a Florida General Partnership of which James D. English, Jr., is a principal. The partnership engages in agricultural activities in Lee County, Florida. The Alva Cemetery, Inc., is a Florida not-for-profit corporation which owns and manages a cemetery facility in Lee County Florida. The cemetery has been in active use for approximately 120 years. In recent years, Alva Cemetery has experienced occasions of excess water encroaching onto the cemetery property. On November 12, 1992, Alva Cemetery, Inc., filed a petition for administrative hearing challenging the District's intent to issue SWM Permit Modification No. 08-00004-S. James D. English, Jr., Cypress Creek Partnership and Alva Cemetery, Inc., are herein referred to as Petitioners. The TCWMD and the Petitioner English share a common property boundary. The Alva Cemetery is surrounded by the English property. All lands involved in this matter historically drain towards the Caloosahatchee River. The TCWMD includes approximately 89,120 acres of land located in Charlotte and Lee Counties, Florida. The land uses within the TCWMD include agricultural, cattle, and timber operations. Generally, the fields have been leased to third party farmers who use the field for several years. When the fields are not actively farmed, they are returned to a fallow state and used as pasture land until fertility is restored at which time they are reactivated for farming. Active farms fields are generally surrounded by a perimeter ditch and dike system. Pumps may be used to water and de-water the fields. When the field is returned to a fallow state, the ditch and dike system are not maintained and become less prominent either by action of weather or by intent. Pumps are not present. All of the TCWMD lies generally north to northwest of the property owned by the Petitioners. Surface waters flow onto the Petitioners' lands from the north. The Telegraph-Cypress system is unique and is the largest of its kind in South Florida Water Management District jurisdiction. The TCWMD system includes storage/detention facilities, control structures, pumping stations and an extensive network of internal canals. There are nine separate water management basins within the TCWMD. The Petitioners asserted that the water management basins identified by the District and the TCWMD are incorrect. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the District's identification and delineation of the nine basins is based on historical hydrologic characteristics of the TCWMD and is a reasonable determination of basin boundaries. The land encompassed by the instant application for permit modification includes three of the nine basins and encompasses approximately 51,400 acres of the TCWMD. Surface water discharge from the relevant farm fields flows via the internal canal network and sheet flow to the three common detention basins: Telegraph Swamp, North Telegraph Swamp ("Telegraph North") and Curry Lake. The Telegraph North basin lies to the north of and discharges into the Telegraph Swamp basin and includes 13,799 acres of which 4,094 acres are farm fields. The drainage into the Curry Lake basin does not impact either the Telegraph North or Telegraph Swamp basins or the Petitioners' properties. The evidence establishes that as to the Telegraph North and Curry Lake drainage basins, the permit modification meets applicable permitting criteria. There is no credible evidence to the contrary. Telegraph Swamp is the largest of the three relevant detention systems. The Telegraph Swamp basin includes a total of 32,707 acres of which 4,381 acres are farm fields. Telegraph Swamp is a 4,390-acre wetland vegetated by cypress trees and sawgrass, with a base of muck soils, humus, topsoil, leaf litter and other organic material. Located at the south end of Telegraph Swamp are surface water management control structures (the Big Island Dike) built in 1975 and permitted in the original 1980 permit. The structures include three broad-crested weirs and one flash-board weir. Telegraph Swamp has been compared to a "sponge" capable of absorbing vast quantities of surface water discharges within the TCWMD before the control structures at the south end of the swamp are over-topped. Water discharged from the control structures flows through canals and creeks to the Caloosahatchee River. During storm events water is discharged over the control structures and into a swamp area south of Big Island Dike. From there, the water flows southerly, into Telegraph Creek, Big Island Canal and Cypress Creek and then into the Caloosahatchee. The Petitioners expressed concern that TCWMD could inappropriately discharge water from the control gates in the Telegraph Swamp weir. Based on evidence admitted at the hearing, the permit modification should include the following special condition: Discharge structures in the Telegraph Swamp basin shall remain fixed so that discharge cannot be made below the control elevations, except that structure gates and weirs may only be removed during emergency conditions upon notification to and consent by the District's Fort Myers Service Center regulatory area manager or designee. The Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District--September 1989, incorporated into Chapter 40E, Florida Administrative Code, provides the applicable water quantity permitting criteria relevant to this proceeding. The Petitioners assert that the control gates are required to be locked in accordance with Basis of Review section 3.2.4.1.b, which states: Discharge structures shall be fixed so that discharge cannot be made below the control elevation, except that emergency devices may be installed with secure locking devices. Either the District or an acceptable govern- mental agency will keep the keys for any such devices. The Petitioners are correct. The rule requires secure locking devices. Such condition should be added to the permit The keys may remain with the TCWMD as "an acceptable governmental agency." In 1980, the District issued Surface Water Management Permit No. 08- 00004-S for the TCWMD to operate an existing surface water management system for an existing agricultural operation. The 1980 permit specifically authorizes "[o]peration of a water management system serving 89,120 acres of agricultural lands by a vast network of internal drainage and irrigation canals, a major dike, a major canal and 4 water control structures discharging via small tributary creeks and sloughs into the Caloosahatchee River." Although the permit has been subsequently modified, the authorization to operate the system has not been amended. While District enforcement staff have occasionally noted "performance deficiencies" on the TCWMD property, there have been no permit violations by the permittee. Deficiencies which have been called to the TCWMD's attention have been resolved. Special condition number five to the 1980 permit provides that "[d]ischarges of water onto adjacent lands may be continued to the extent that increased problems are not caused by such discharges." The Petitioners assert that the District has failed to acknowledge that water discharged from the Telegraph Cypress system flows into the Cypress Creek canal and has failed to consider the impact on the Cypress Creek receiving body. However in the staff report to the 1980 permit states as follows: The Telegraph Cypress basin has three major drainage outlets. These are Trout Creek on the west, Telegraph Creek in the center and Cypress Creek to the east. There is a fourth outlet in the northeastern corner of the property known as Jack's Branch, however, this outlet is small compared to the three major ones. Much of Telegraph's southeastern area was previously drained by Spanish Creek and County Line Canal. This historical drainage pattern was blocked when a company which is presently known as Golden Grove constructed a dike across their northern boundary. This dike causes increased flow in a westerly direction around the west end of the dike, thence southerly towards Cypress Creek. This increased flow has caused excess water problems to property owners downstream. In addition, the dike has blocked virtually all flow to Spanish Creek. The evidence fails to establish that, as asserted by the Petitioners, the District has failed to acknowledge the discharge of water to Cypress Creek or to consider the condition of the Cypress Creek receiving body. In the instant case, the condition of the Cypress Creek receiving body was not re- addressed because the permit modification being sought will cause no additional adverse impacts on existing conditions. Although not individually numbered and identified in the original 1980 permit, the evidence establishes that in 1980, all of the farm fields which are subject to this permit modification application were in existence. The applicant seeks no new water control structures. Other than that required to reactivate fallow farm fields, there is no new construction proposed in the instant application. The Petitioners assert that the instant permit modification application will result in construction of new farm fields. The evidence is contrary to the assertion. Proposed permit special condition No. 10 states that the permit does not include the construction of any new farm fields. The farm fields covered in the staff report would be permitted for reactivation from a fallow state without further permitting activity in the future, and without individual retention for each farm field. The modifications to the original 1980 permit have increased the total farm land area. There is no evidence that, except as specifically permitted and approved by the District, there has been alteration of historical discharge rates or routes. There has been considerable confusion regarding the permitting status of the operations as farm fields have been reactivated. Such reactivation entails grading and leveling fields, reconstruction of ditches and dikes and installation of pumping equipment. In order to provide for standardization in farm field reactivation, and to better monitor such activities, the District requested that the TCWMD seek to modify the existing permit. On February 8, 1991, the TCWMD submitted an application to modify the existing permit for the purpose of reactivating the existing farm fields located within the Telegraph North, Telegraph Swamp, and Curry Lake drainage basins. The proposed SWM permit modification authorizes the continued use of the previously permitted surface water management system for existing active and fallow farm fields and allows the reactivation of currently fallow farm fields without further permit modification by the District. Proposed SWM permit special condition No. 16 states that the District requires notification in letter form 30 days prior to all farm field reactivation activities. The proposed modification of the permit will provide the District with an enhanced ability to inspect the reactivated farm fields. Inherent in such reactivation is ditching and diking of the fields. Such operations have been authorized since the 1980 permit was issued. The work associated with field reactivation will be conducted in accordance with existing design criteria as set forth in the application. Based on evidence admitted at the hearing, the permit modification should include the following special condition: Ditches and dikes associated with the farm fields encompassed by this authorization shall be constructed/maintained in conformance with the "Typical Field Layout And Detail Sheet," revised 10/12/93. The evidence establishes that the operations of the TCWMD as proposed by the permit modification application are within the authorization of the existing permit as previously modified. Otherwise stated, the award of this modification will have no substantial impact on the operation of the permitted surface water management system. The modification will result in no additional discharge of surface water from the control structures. The District has established water quantity criteria intended to insure that adverse impacts do not occur due to excess discharge. (Based upon the Hearing Officer's ruling on a District's Motion in Limine, water quality issues were not addressed at hearing.) The criteria are set forth at Chapter 40E-4.301, Florida Administrative Code, and in the Basis of Review. In relevant part, the District criteria require an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the surface water management system provides adequate flood drainage and protection, that the system will not cause adverse water quantity impacts on receiving waters and adjacent lands, and that the system will not cause adverse impacts on surface and groundwater levels and flows. Modification of a permit must not result in additional adverse off-site impacts. In this case, reasonable assurances have been provided that the proposed modification will not exacerbate the historical and current drainage conditions. The permit modification application at issue does not propose to alter the rates or routes of water currently authorized for discharge from Telegraph Swamp. Reactivation of the farm fields will not impact receiving bodies in any manner different from that which presently exists under previous permits. In providing reasonable assurances, the TCWMD analyzed the water storage capacity available in the detention basins, performed flood routing projections and calculated peak discharge rates for the permit area. As required by the district, the TCWMD utilized a standard hypothetical 25-year/3- day storm event in order to determine whether sufficient capacity was available to handle the resulting stormwater. The projections provide reasonable assurances that the common detention areas have the capacity to provide adequate flood drainage and protection and are accepted. Rule 40E-4.091(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, incorporates by reference a document identified as the "Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District--September 1989" Section 3.2.1.2.b requires that: the proposed project modification must meet the allowable discharge rate; and the allowable discharge rate for a previously permitted project is that which was set in the previous permit. The TCWMD prepared and submitted discharge calculations establishing that the post-development discharges will not exceed the discharge rate previously accepted by the District. Since 1984, the District has previously accepted a peak allowable discharge rate of 39 cubic feet per second per square mile (csm). The csm figure is based upon the historical TCWMD discharge rate within the Caloosahatchee River basin. As previously stated, reactivation of the farm fields will not impact the receiving bodies in any manner different from that which presently exists under previous permits. The District asserts that the 39csm discharge rate has been "permitted" since the 1984 modification was approved. The Petitioner asserts that the 39csm discharge rate has never been "permitted" by the District. The evidence establishes that since the 1984 application for permit modification, the discharge rate of 39csm has been utilized by TCWMD and has been accepted by the District, but that the actual permits do not specifically identify the discharge rate as 39csm. In projecting discharge rates, the TCWMD used a time of concentration of one hour. The time of concentration (T.O.C.) is the time in which water would move from the farm fields to the control structure in each sub-watershed. Otherwise stated, a projected T.O.C. of one hour means that the storm water would move from the field to the control structure in one hour. The T.O.C. of one hour is a conservative estimate and likely substantially overestimates the speed at which the water will move. The three basin areas contain a total of more than 80 square miles. Water will travel an average distance of two miles from field to detention basin through ditches, swales and existing low areas. Again conservatively, the TCWMD did not include projected travel time through such conveyances, resulting in a longer T.O.C. and resulting in a higher peak discharge rate than is probable. Although there appeared to be some confusion on the part of the District staff as to the application of the T.O.C. by the TCWMD, the TCWMD engineer who performed the calculation testified at hearing and was qualified as an expert witness in civil engineering, hydrology and surface water management. His testimony and projections are reasonable and are credited. Proposed SWM permit modification special condition No. 11 states that farm field discharge shall be directed to and conveyed via existing ditches, wetlands and/or sheetflow areas per existing site conditions. No new outfall ditches are permitted under this modification. Flood routings were calculated assuming all farm fields would be activated simultaneously and pumping the maximum capacity of 390 gallons per minute per acre (the equivalent of 20-21 inches of surface water pumped from each field daily). It is highly unlikely that all farm fields would be active simultaneously or that stormwater would continue to fall with such velocity to permit continued pumping at maximum capacity for an extended period. Even based on the conservative assumptions utilized by the TCWMD engineers, the projected peak discharge rate at the Telegraph Swamp control structure is 37csm to 38.5csm, within the maximum of 39csm previously accepted by the District. The computer modeling performed by the TCWMD engineer in calculating the peak discharge rate is accepted as reasonable. The TCWMD did not include offsite inflow in its analysis of projected capacity or discharge rates. There is anecdotal evidence that on occasion, water may flow into TCWMD from Jack's Branch or from across roadways to the north and west of the TCWMD; however, given the vast storage capacity of the TCWMD detention areas, there is no evidence that the quantity of offsite inflows is of such significance as to render the TCWMD projections unreasonable. As previously stated, the TCWMD calculations are reasonable and are accepted. The evidence establishes that the peak discharge rate resulting from approval of the instant permit modification will not exceed 39csm. The Petitioners offered their own peak discharge rate calculations, based on a "worst possible case scenario." The assumptions on which the Petitioners' projections are based are unreasonable and are rejected. Based on recommendations received at the hearing, the permit modification should include the following special condition: Pumped discharge from farm fields for which pumps are not currently installed shall be limited to 75 gallons per minute per acre of farmed area. Pumps are currently installed in fields number 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 24 north and south, 28, east half of 34, 64, 67, 68, 69 and 80. The Petitioners assert that the system is currently causing adverse impacts to their properties in the form of flooding. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the system presently does not cause adverse water quantity impacts on receiving waters and adjacent lands, and does not cause adverse impacts on surface and groundwater levels and flows. The evidence establishes that award of the application for permit modification will not adversely alter the current operations. It is clear that the Petitioners have been impacted by changes in the historical drainage patterns in the area; however, such changes had substantially occurred by 1980 when the original permit was issued. The greater weight of the credited evidence establishes that such impacts are not the result of the activities authorized in the original 1980 permit and in subsequent modifications, but instead are the result of unrelated actions by third parties not involved in this administrative proceeding. There is no credible evidence that the permit modification sought in the instant proceeding will adversely affect the Petitioners. The 1980 permit addresses existing water quantity problems in the area of the TCWMD project. For example, the construction of the Golden Grove Dike resulted in blockage of historical drainage towards Spanish Creek and the diversion of excess waters into Cypress Creek. During the 1980's the District required that culverts be installed in the Golden Grove Dike which eventually restored some surface water flow through the dike construction and on towards the south, although during some storm events water flow continues around the dike and into Cypress Creek. The Petitioners offered anecdotal evidence as to reduced water flows in some local creeks and increased flows thorough Cypress Creek. The Respondent offered evidence indicating that water flow through Cypress Creek may be less than 30 years ago, due to the digging of a canal between Spanish Creek and Cow Slough and the extension of the Clay Gully Canal's diversion of water into Telegraph Swamp. None of the evidence on this point was persuasive, however it is not relevant. Clearly, the instant permit modification application will not adversely affect the existing situation in the receiving bodies. The Petitioners assert that other receiving waterways have become clogged with vegetation, debris or soil, have accordingly reduced capacities, and are unable to accommodate historical discharge levels. Based on the lack of capacity, the Petitioners suggest that waters move towards the eastern portion of Telegraph Swamp and are discharged, flow towards, into and over the banks of Cypress Creek, and flood their properties. The TCWMD conducted a study of backwater profiles based upon credited field data. The study is found to be reasonable and is credited. Based upon the study, approximately 90 per cent of the water discharged from Telegraph Swamp is conveyed to the Caloosahatchee via Big Island Canal, Telegraph Creek and the swamp area south of the control structure. The remaining 10 per cent of the water enters the Bullhead Strand-Lightered Canal-Cypress Creek watercourse. Water flows from Telegraph Swamp into Cypress Creek via Bullhead Strand and the South Lightered Canal, however, the canal has become so restricted by vegetation that it provides little direct water flow between the strand and the creek and is more properly regarded as an area of enhanced sheet flow. The evidence does not establish that the surface water traveling from Bullhead Strand to Cypress Creek is of significance. Coupled with the existence of the Big Island Canal (which connects Telegraph Swamp to Telegraph Creek) it is unlikely that post-development surface water discharged from the Telegraph Swamp into Cypress Creek exceeds pre-development discharges. The Petitioners claim that two culverts in the Big Island canal restrict the flow of water through the canal and result in increased discharge to the east and to Cypress Creek. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that during period of time when the culverts are unable to accommodate water flow, the water travels into a broad flood plain, around the culverts and returns to the Big Island Canal. The evidence establishes that the proposed modification will not result in additional adverse off-site impacts. The adverse conditions affecting Cypress Creek existed at the time of the 1980 permit and are addressed in the staff report to that permit and to subsequent permit modifications. There is no credible evidence that modification of the permit as sought in this case will result in adverse impacts beyond those which have existed at the time of the award of the original permit. The Petitioners assert that the fields included within the permit modification application lack individual retention areas. The lack of individual detention areas is immaterial in this case where sufficient downstream detention capacity is available through the common detention areas. The Petitioners asserts that the Telegraph Swamp is an "above-ground impoundment" and that as such is fails to comply with requirements related to such water storage systems. The Telegraph Swamp is not a typical "above-ground impoundment" as that term is routinely applied by the District. The regulations addressed by the Petitioners clearly state that they are not intended to be inclusive and are intended to provide guidelines and basic performance criteria for commonly encountered south Florida situations. Telegraph Swamp is not a commonly encountered south Florida situation. There is no evidence that the decision not to apply the "above-ground impoundment" regulations to the Telegraph Swamp is unreasonable. The Petitioner suggest that the TCWMD application for permit modification is deficient and fails to provide information in compliance with the Basis of Review. The Basis of Review is directed towards applications for new construction. The District reasonably does not interpret the all elements of the Basis of Review to apply to existing operations. The original staff report for this permit modification application fails to acknowledge that Cypress Creek is a receiving body. However, as stated previously, the 1980 application and subsequent modifications have clearly addressed the fact that Telegraph Swamp waters discharge to Cypress Creek via intervening waterways. The failure to include the reference in the staff report to this application for modification is irrelevant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order issuing Surface Water Management Permit Modification No. 08-00004-S including the additional permit conditions set forth herein, to the Telegraph Cypress Water Management District. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of April, 1994 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 1st day of April, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASES NO. 92-6900 and 92-6901 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioners James D. English and Cypress Creek Partnership The proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioners James D. English and Cypress Creek Partnership consist of unnumbered paragraphs. Pages forty-five through fifty-nine of the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioners James D. English and Cypress Creek Partnership were stricken as set forth in the Order On Motion To Strike issued March 29, 1994. The paragraphs of pages five through forty-four of the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioners James D. English and Cypress Creek Partnership have been consecutively numbered and are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 1-2. Rejected, argument, not findings of fact. 7-9. Rejected, argument, not findings of fact. The staff report is not dispositive. 10-12. Rejected. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that, although the 39csm figure is not set forth in the permit, as of the 1984 modification, the TCWMD calculations have been based on a peak discharge rate of 39csm and that the District has accepted the calculations previously. The applicable criteria in the instant case require that the allowable discharge rate for a previously permitted project is that which was set in the previous permit. 13. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. 15-16. Rejected, argument, not finding of fact, irrelevant, cumulative. 17-18. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. 19. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence which establishes that 39csm has been the peak discharge rate accepted by the District since 1984. The flow rate projected by the TCWMD does not exceed the accepted peak discharge rate. 24. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. 26-28. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. 29-30. Rejected, argument, not finding of fact. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected, argument, not finding of fact. Rejected, irrelevant. The greater weight of the credible and persuasive evidence establishes that 39csm has been the District's accepted peak discharge rate and that this modification will not result in peak discharge rates in excess of that which has been previously accepted. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. The assumptions underlying the Petitioners' calculation of theoretical maximum discharge are rejected as unreasonable. Rejected, unnecessary. 36-45. Rejected, irrelevant. The anecdotal evidence fails to establish that offsite inflows are of such quantity as to render the TCWMD projections unreasonable. The proposed findings also consist of recitation of testimony or argument and are not findings of fact. 46-52. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. The evidence fails to establishes that the swamp is an "above-ground impoundment" as that term is routinely applied by the District. The proposed findings also consist of recitation of testimony or argument and are not findings of fact. 53-67. Rejected, irrelevant. An applicant for a permit modification is not required to supply every item on the checklist. An application for a modification to an existing permit often need not contain all the items described. 69. Rejected, cumulative. 70-71. Rejected, argument, not finding of fact. 72-81. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence which establishes that the identification and delineation of the nine basins is based on historical hydrologic characteristics of the TCWMD and is a reasonable determination of basin boundaries. The proposed findings also consist of recitation of testimony or argument and are not findings of fact. 82. Rejected, subordinate. 83-85. Rejected, irrelevant. The confusion on the part of District staff as to what T.O.C. was utilized by the TCWMD engineer is irrelevant. This proceeding is not a review of preliminary staff activity. The applicant must establish entitlement to the permit at the hearing. 86-87. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. Rejected. The confusion on the part of District staff as to what T.O.C. was utilized by the TCWMD engineer is irrelevant. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. 91-94. Rejected, irrelevant, the discharge projections calculated by the TCWMD as explicated at the hearing are credited. In any event, the evidence establishes that this modification will result in no additional discharge of surface water from the control structures. 95-97. Rejected, irrelevant. The evidence establishes that this modification will result in no additional discharge of surface water from the control structures. Petitioner Alva Cemetery Petitioner Alva Cemetery's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 4-5. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected, irrelevant. This is a de novo hearing, not a review of preliminary staff work. The evidence at hearing establishes that the permit modification will not cause additional adverse affect on existing receiving bodies. Rejected, irrelevant. The evidence fails to establish that Hall Creek and Fichter Creek are receiving bodies of such capacity that their omission from staff report is material. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected, irrelevant. The evidence fails to establish that offsite inflows are of such quantity as to be relevant. 11. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. The Applicant's analysis is credited. As to T.O.C., even the less conservative T.O.C. projections indicate a peak discharge rate within that previously accepted by the District. 12-13. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected, irrelevant. Such return overflows are unnecessary in this situation where the detention areas have the capacity to provide adequate flood drainage and protection. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 18-20. Rejected, cumulative. 21. Rejected, immaterial. There is no evidence that this permit modification application will cause additional adverse impact on receiving bodies. The failure to address nonexistent impacts is immaterial. Rejected, errors in staff report are irrelevant. The evidence admitted at hearing is accepted as correct. First paragraph is rejected, cumulative. Second paragraph is rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected, anecdotal testimony is not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected. The greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence establishes that all farm fields affected by this permit modification application were in existence by the 1980 permit. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. The assumptions underlying the Petitioners' calculation of theoretical maximum discharge are rejected as unreasonable. Rejected, irrelevant. The greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence fails to establish that the cemetery flooding is related to actions by the TCWMD. Further, the evidence fails to establish that, even if the flooding was related to the TCWMD, the instant permit modification application will cause additional adverse impacts. Respondent Telegraph Cypress Water Management District Respondent Telegraph Cypress Water Management District's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 18. Rejected, subordinate. 19-20. Rejected, not credited and unnecessary. Rejected as to assertion that the 39csm discharge rate was set in the 1984 permit modification, not supported by the evidence. Review of the document admitted into evidence as the 1984 modification fails to reveal that the figure of 39csm is set forth therein. Rejected, cumulative. Rejected, unnecessary. Respondent South Florida Water Management District Respondent South Florida Water Management District's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 30. Rejected as to assertion that the 39csm discharge rate was set in the 1984 permit modification, not supported by the evidence. Review of the document admitted into evidence as the 1984 modification fails to reveal that the figure of 39csm is set forth therein. Pages 17-19 of the Proposed Recommended Order set forth revisions to the staff report which originally form the basis for the preliminary agency action in this matter. As the hearing is a de novo review of this matter, it is unnecessary for this Recommended Order to address the revision of the staff report, which has limited probative value. COPIES FURNISHED: Tilford C. Creel Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 Melville G. Brinson, Esquire 1415 Hendry Street Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Frank A. Pavese, Sr. Esquire 1833 Hendry Street Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Scott Barker, Esquire Post Office Box 159 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 John J. Fumero, Esquire Toni M. Leidy, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
Findings Of Fact In September, 1985, Armand J. Houle purchased an 80 acre tract located eight miles east of the Naples toll booth on State Road 84 and approximately two miles north of Alligator Alley. The purpose of buying the property was to mine the limestone rock thereon, through a borrow pit, for the purpose of selling it as road base to the State of Florida Department of Transportation for use in the construction of 1-75 (Alligator Alley extending from Naples to the Florida east coast). While no contract has existed or currently exists, correspondence between the Department of Transportation and counsel for the Petitioner indicates that approximately 800,000 cubic yards of fill will be required in the immediate area and that Petitioner's proposed borrow pit would be the ideal source of this rock. Prior to making the purchase, Mr. Houle's associate, Raymond Chester, contacted both the Department of Transportation concerning the potential use of the rock and representatives of the Department of Environmental Regulation. The response he received from these agencies led him to, believe that a borrow pit might well be permitted and the effort should be pursued. After Mr. Chester and Mr. Houle became partners in the property, they contacted county officials and received zoning and other local permits for the facility. It was only after this, when DER was approached again that the applicants were advised a permit would not be issued. Mr. Houle agrees that, if the permits as requested were granted, he would accept a prohibition against further development of the property after removal of the rock and fill, would allow access to the restored lakes to the public for fishing and recreation; would agree to an appropriate restoration plan for the site; and would ensure compliance with the restoration plan stipulated by the Department. After the property was purchased in late 1985, Mr. Houle approached Daniel W. Brundage, the vice-president of an engineering firm in Naples, with a view toward developing the property in question as a borrow pit. Plans were developed for application for permits with the County and Mr. Brundage, consistent therewith, visited the site on several occasions. He found some vegetation off from the site which could be related to wetlands and contacted a representative of DER with whom he went to the site to look it over. This agency representative, Mr. Beever, concluded that the property was a jurisdictional wetland. Mr. Brundage nonetheless felt confident enough to begin work with the County to secure a permit to convert this land, classified as agricultural, to mining property. Consistent with his efforts, the request for conversion went through a four step process on the way to the County Commission which included approval by (1) the Water Management Advisory Board, (2) the Environmental Advisory Council which recommended same changes accepted by the Petitioner, (3) the Subdivision Review Committee, and (4) the Coastal Area Planning Council. All four subagencies recommended approval and thereafter the County granted its permit for work to begin. Assuming all permits are issued, the property will be developed in two stages. In stage one the site will be cleared of vegetation, and the top soil on Phase I, the western 40 acre parcel, removed and used to construct a berm around the entire perimeter of the site as well as between the two 40 acre parcels. The berm will be entirely within property boundaries and used to isolate any water removed from the active phase within the site so that it does not flow onto adjoining property. The eastern 40 acre tract, (Stage II) will be used for water storage during the excavation of Stage 1. It is anticipated that no water will leave the site during construction of either stage with the exception of extraordinary waterfall during rainfall or hurricane. Before any water is discharged, it will go into a storage configuration so that any sediment therein would settle to the bottom before discharge. The discharged water will be filtered through hay bales or filter screens to avoid any turbidity in the surrounding water. The design of this holding capacity in the filter system is sufficient to accommodate the water of a 25 year storm. As Stage I is completed, Stage II will be opened, and the ground water from Stage II pumped back to Stage I for storage. A similar storage and filtration system will be utilized around Stage I. Primary access to the property will be along the western boundary of 8 Mile Canal, but if this is not allowed, Petitioner proposes to build a single span bridge across the 8 Mile Canal at 40th Street to allow access to the property. After the lime rock has been excavated, the berm will be removed and the side of the property graded to form the banks of a 56 acre lake for recreational purposes. The edge of the lake will be a meandering slope at a ratio of 10:1 which will be assured by survey to be in compliance with the County plan. The lake, which will have a maximum depth of 20 feet, will be excavated at a depth ratio of 2:1 from the edge of the slope to the bottom of the lake. During excavation and prior to restoration, heavy equipment will be used for the removal of the rock such as drag lines, back hoes, motor graders, and bulldozers and an area within the boundaries of the site will be isolated and set up for fueling and maintenance. It will be floored with a membrane to prohibit oil and fuel from getting into the ground as a result of accidental spills. Storage tanks for fuel and oil will be above ground and available for immediate inspection. Waste facilities will be in the form of porta-potties and any water falling in this maintenance area will be drained to a low sump within the membraned area for storage until evaporation or safe removal. In the event of a heavy rainfall, water can be stored and anti-sedimented and cleaned and, if necessary, operations can be temporarily stopped. Mr. Brundage indicates that he has never seen any standing water on the site during his five visits nor has any standing water ever been reported to him. He is aware of no historical or archaeological sites on the property, and at no point would rock be mined within 50 feet of the property line. Dr. Durbin Tabb, a botanist, was retained by the Petitioner to prepare a plan for restoration of the site after mining operations were complete. In preparing his plan, he visited the site on several occasions finding varying plant life, much of which was grasses and rushes. In the north was a pine lowland where he saw palmettos scattered in the grassland as well as a few dwarf cypress trees. He also observed a small cluster of cabbage palms in the southern portion of the eastern tract and noted that the currently existing berm along the eastern boundary of the eastern tract is currently being invaded by exotic plant life including the Brazilian pepper. Dr. Tabb found little evidence of recent surface water accumulation; mollusk residue showed no evidence of recent viability; and he found no crawfish burrows which, if present, would show a water table near the surface. Other visitors to the site, however, did find crawfish burrows. The marsh soil shows that, at some time in the past, it was wet enough to support a soil-forming community. This is no longer' the case according to, Dr. Tabb. The process was stopped by the formulation of the Golden Gate Canal System in the 1960's. The existing marsh does, however', hold sufficient water to support the growth of muhli grass. Dr. Tabb's restoration plan is his best estimate of how the property can be restored to its previous condition by replanting native species found in the area. The program will include littoral zone vegetation to provide shelter and a feeding zone along the water's edge which does not now exist. The plan calls for the saying of the marsh soil. Since neither DER nor the client responded to his plan, when submitted, with any suggestions or corrections, he assumed it was approved. Dr. Tabb, who is also an expert in estuarian biology and zoology, concluded that the area on which this site is located is a very poor habitat for deer and panther. The red cockaded woodpecker has no trees on the property which it specifically desires and the property is a poor or nonexistent habitat for the indigo snake and the Everglades snake. It might, however, constitute a habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow, but this bird has never been seen in this inland area. Panthers cross the area as do bears, but the presence of the excavated lake would be no more hindrance to them in their crossing than would the presence of Alligator Alley and the proposed 1-75. The area with sawgrass and muhli grass, which is dominant throughout the Golden Gate area, is called a "dry prairie" as opposed to a "wet prairie." While some of the same plants exist, it is somewhat different in that there are no viable wetlands wildlife organisms currently existing on the property. In Dr. Tabb's opinion, the property has lost its wetlands characteristics and only the marsh soil's water retention permits the life of the grasses currently existing. Wading birds would use the site later but do not currently utilize the area where excavation would take place. In Dr. Tabb's restoration plan, the slope to the lake would be replanted with saw and muhli grasses down to the litoral zone. From there on to the water, a palette of normal wet grasses would be planted to serve as feeding sites and roasting sites for the birds. In addition, an island planted with willows would be constructed off shore in the lake. Deer currently visit the area. They are not currently supported on the land though Mr. Barnett, of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, indicated that they come out of the pine flats at night to feed on the grasses on the prairie. These deer form a large portion of the food chain for the panther, and Dr. Tabb does not consider it conceivable that the project, replanted and restored, would in any way adversely impact the Florida panther or the birds in issue here. In Dr. Tabb's opinion, it is questionable whether the site comes under the jurisdiction of DER based on the grasses present because he cannot find the water connection to confer jurisdiction. Dr. Tabb has not seen standing water on the site as he has seen on two other sites within the area where DER has granted permits for rock pits. On a site like this, the vegetation changes with the seasons. This site is not now connected to the canal along Alligator Alley by vegetation. There may have been a vegetation connection in the past, but as one goes up toward the site from the canal, the grass changes gradually from low pineland grasses found on higher ground to the lower sawgrasses found on the site in question. In Dr. Tabb's opinion, if Mr. Houle's property is to be considered a wetland, it is a transitional wetland. Turning to the issue of loss of habitat, if one assumes that portion of the property that will be converted to a lake will be denied to the panther, this is not the case for the deer which, in this area, is considered to be aquatic. Any denial of the lake area would constitute a very small negative impact compared to what is going on in other areas of Collier County. Admitting that there is a requirement to consider the cumulative impact of a project, in Dr. Tabb's opinion, this project would constitute a "may impact" situation. There is no definitive evidence as to what would happen, and he would be more concerned if the area were now a good panther habitat. It is not, however, and in fact it is no more than a habitat for the grasses which grow there. As to the wetlands issue, the only sign of exotic plant invasion is in the disturbed area around the canal which was installed approximately 18 years ago. The absence of these exotic species is, in Dr. Tabb's opinion, a clear indication that there is no flowing or standing water since the site is too dry for the germination of the seeds. There will be some removal of the biomass by the excavation of the lake. This biomass, consisting of grass primarily, is consumed by fire every year or so and insects eat it as well. Admittedly, some of the biomass is being eaten by animals of some nature and that which is converted to a lake will be removed. There is a trade-off, however. Dr. Martin Roessler, a marine biologist, prepared a report, on the water quality of the adjacent 8 Mile Canal, and other water bodies in the area. In preparation of his report, he took water samples in the areas in question, read literature on the water quality in the area, and looked at water quality data provided by U.S. government agencies and private companies. On the several visits he made to the site, he has not seen any surface water. The first time he could get water only in the adjacent canal, and he also got some water from the land borings done by Dr. Missimer on the site. Dr. Roessler is familiar with State standards for water quality and, in his opinion, the turbidity standards would not be disturbed because there was no water on the ground to be sheet flow. All water was at least three feet underground and, in addition, Petitioner has agreed to properly sod or otherwise treat the berms he will build to prevent erosion and any resultant turbidity either off-site or in the 8 Mile Canal. Dr. Roessler also does not believe the project would violate the oil and grease standards. There is nothing inherent in the mining process to bring into play oils and greases except for the possible problem in refueling and maintenance operations. In that regard, Petitioner has shown how he will provide against that by placing a membrane to prevent any oil, grease or other contaminant from getting into the ground. This area does not contain the organic mulch which produces natural oils and greases. The water near the surface of the lake will contain sufficient dissolved oxygen to meet State standards without problem. In the summer months when the dissolved oxygen count is low, generally, the lake bottom water may not meet State standards, but that happens quite frequently, naturally, across the entire area. Dr. Roessler believes that the dissolved oxygen requirements of 2.5 at the surface and .5 at the bottom will most likely be met in the lake created by this project. Concerning the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), he concludes the operation in the quarry will not artificially decrease the available oxygen below the required amount. The BOD demand in this area would not be threatened by the lake. As to the iron standard and other toxic substances, Dr. Roessler does not believe that the project will create a violation of the standard nor will any runoff increase dissolved iron in adjacent waters. Hydrogen sulfide and pharasulfide standards will similarly not be violated. Sulfides are found only in trace amounts, if at all, in natural waters. In deep limestone lakes the chemical structure is not conducive to the formation of the acidic compounds. In short, Dr. Roessler believes the water in the mine would be very similar to that found in other rock quarries in the area. These lakes are a dominant portion of the recreational fresh water fishing availability. This instant lake also will, in time, upon development of the food chain for the fish, become an equivalent fishing habitat. Dr. Roessler concurs with Dr. Tabb regarding the flora on the site, which he observed himself. This site is 15 to 18 miles from marine or estuarian waters and to reach them one would have to go down a series of canals and past a saline dam to the coast. Any runoff from the site in question would have, if any, a minuscule effect on marine waters. This site was originally a wet prairie which was drained by the Golden Gate Canal System. As such it is a relatively poor habitat for life forms generally found in cypress wetlands. Creation of this lake will, in the opinion of Dr. Roessler, enhance the game, fish, and recreational activity of the area. It would be a benefit to the animal population to have a water source for drinking during drought. There would be no adverse effect on public health, safety or welfare. Turning to the major issue of water, Dr. Thomas Missimer, a hydrogeologist specializing in ground water, visited the site, examining the canal on the east side, and the soils and rocks exposed. He took soil borings and examined the site hydrology to see what fluctuations occurred in the water levels due to rainfall. Mr. Missimer, took numerous readings from September 18 through November 5, 1987 during a period of wet weather including a tropical storm. He carefully compared the site geology to other sites he had studied and compared the flow of water through the soil. He compiled existing information on chemistry in the streams in the area to see what the natural conditions were. He looked at other man-made lakes in the area which were previously borrow pits. As a result of his studies, he concluded that the groundwater level throughout the entire period never got higher than three feet below the land's surface and often was five feet below. During the previous July through September, 34 inches of rain fell in the area which was, in his opinion, average to above average. There is some evidence, however, to indicate that rainfall in the area was approximately 33 percent below average during the period. Nonetheless, Mr. Missimer took a measurement the day after a tropical storm had deposited three inches of water on the land. The water level at that time was still three feet below land level, and there was no standing water. Both the three foot and the five foot level are well below the top of the berm sloped at 10:1 as is proposed in the restoration plan submitted by Dr. Tabb. This site has, from a hydrological standpoint, been greatly affected by the installation, of the 8 Mile Canal and the canal system to the north. As, a result of this activity, standing water has not existed for many, years since the dredging of those canals. If de-watering is a necessary portion of the mining plan, any waters removed thereby would be retained in the impoundment area described by Mr. Brundage and switched back and forth. As proposed, the plan can completely avoid any impact to off-site property by water runoff. Construction of the pit and the lowering of the water level thereby will not have a major impact on the groundwater in the surrounding areas. Any effect would taper off as the distance increased from the site and would be of little significance. This proposal would also have little, if any, impact on groundwater quality. In Mr. Missimer's opinion, water quality is currently good and will stay good. This type of rock mine is very common in the area incident to construction. Some have been used as a source of potable water by The City of Naples; by Deltona Utility Company for Marco Island; and the south area of the County. These resources are still being used. There is little difference between those currently being used as potable water sources and the proposed lake here. Mr. Missimer also indicates the project will have little impact on the sheet flow of water. Sheet flow no longer exists here because of the canals and roads already existing. If there were a sheet flow created by a very heavy rain, this pit would have no impact on it. The water level in the lake will be approximately the same as exists in the ground currently and in the 8 Mile Canal. There should be no shoaling in the canal due to the project, and the presently existing spoil bank on the west side of the canal already prevents flow into the, canal from this land. If this pit is properly constituted and maintained, and if proper mining procedures are followed there should be no effect on the 8 Mile Canal to the east or the Alligator Alley Canal to the south. There is no surface water connection currently existing between this site and either canal. As to the issue of dissolved oxygen, the currently existing groundwater on the site and in the surrounding area has little or no dissolved oxygen in it. Water coming into the lake will be groundwater low in dissolved oxygen, which is identical to the water which currently goes into the canal system. The canal gets very little oxygen from the wind because it is so narrow. The lakes to be constructed, on the other hand, will get a large amount of oxygen from the 56 acres of water exposed to the open air. Consequently, construction of the lakes would increase the dissolved oxygen content of the water in the area, at least in the lakes, down to a level of several feet. This is a positive factor. Mr. Missimer recognizes, however, that during the dry seasons, when the lake is fed solely by groundwater generally low in dissolved oxygen, the lake water which has been converted to surface water may fail to meet the Department's surface water standards for dissolved oxygen. Warmer weather generally results in lower dissolved oxygen readings and, admittedly, Respondent's readings were taken in December when the dissolved oxygen levels are higher. As a result, the comparative samples which were taken in December are not necessarily indicative of what will be the situation in the lake, year- round. Respondent's witnesses present a more dismal picture of the effect of Petitioner's proposed project. Mr. Bickner, an Environmental Supervisor with DER's Bureau of Permits and himself an expert in water quality, zoology, and ecosystem biology, first became involved with this project while the permit request was being processed in late 1986. This application was a standard form project because of the quantity of material to be excavated. As a part of his processing, Mr. Bickner requested evaluations of the project from other agencies and divisions within DER and, on the basis of his personal evaluation and the recommendations he received, concluded that the application was not permittable. He recommended it be denied. Mr. Bickner considered Petitioner's application under the provisions of Chapter 403.918, Florida Statutes, which requires a two step evaluation. In the first step, the project must be determined to meet water quality standards. If it does, as a second stage, the project must be determined not to be contrary to the public interest. The major water quality standard in issue here was that of dissolved oxygen along with that concerning BOD and other deleterious substances. The water body involved was classified as a Class III Water under the provisions of Rule 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code, since it was designed to be a recreational, fish and wildlife habitat. The standards contained in the statute and the rule relate to surface water as opposed to groundwater and, as to the public interest question, Chapter 403 provides a list of seven factors which must be evaluated. In this determination the agency has wide latitude and no one factor is controlling. In evaluation, agency personnel try to look at the project overall. Specifically, the project cannot cause or contribute to an existing water quality violation. In evaluation, agency personnel do not look at the project by itself. They must keep in mind that other projects exist or are proposed for the area. This is known as the cumulative impact of the project which is provided for in Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. As to the variance requested, this is also provided for by statute. The criteria require that the petition be based on some specific ground. In the instant case, the ground utilized by Petitioner was that there was no alternative to the dissolved oxygen level proposed. Granting of a variance is totally within the discretion of the Department even if Petitioner can show grounds therefor. Mr. Bickner was at the site only once. He approached from the south. At the low end of the approach was a mixture of wetlands and upland vegetation, but as he got toward the site the upland species dropped off and only the wetland species only remained. These were primarily sawgrass, cattails, and the like. He was satisfied that there was no obvious break in jurisdiction, and the testimony of Mr. Beever confirmed that jurisdiction over the site was gained through the wetlands character of the property from the site down to the Alligator Alley Canal, which is considered a water of the state. The site consists primarily of sawgrass and muhli grass with minor amounts of other grasses. The site seems to rise toward the 8 Mile Canal where there is an invasion of Brazilian peppers and other exotic species. Mr. Bickner was looking for upland species and found only one specimen of one species, a few of another, and no invasion of slash pine on the site at all. As a result, he concluded that the site was not an upland site. There was no standing water on the site at the time Mr. Bickner visited it, but the soil was wet to the surface. In addition, there was a large number of recently dead shells in low spots which had held water. There were some tracks of a large animal and a large number of smaller animal tracks and scats (scats are animal droppings). He also saw some birds which were too far away to identify and observed what he thought were crayfish tunnels near the cypress trees. Mr. Bickner found evidence of dried periphyton widely scattered over the site. Periphyton, an algae which attaches itself to other plants and which in times of inundation, forms sheets across the water connecting one plant to another, is a sign of previous inundation. The other plants on the site were not showing water deprivation stress, and there was no evidence of upland species invasion. All of this leads Mr. Bickner to conclude that the area has plenty of water and this opinion was enhanced by the lushness of the plants' growth. This, along with the high diversity of plant life, indicated to him a healthy ecosystem. To Mr. Bikner, the fact that the area was not currently inundated is not significant. In this particular area there are wet and dry seasons and, even in the dry season such as existed at the time of his visit, the soil was wet. The signs he saw indicated to him there has to be standing water on the site at some time. His visit was in January, which is well within the dry season. As to water quality, Mr. Bickner does not believe that the water quality standards will not be violated. In fact, by the nature of the project, Petitioner has, in Mr. Bickner's opinion, assured that it will be violated. A 20 foot deep pit must, in his opinion, result in low levels of dissolved oxygen below standards. Any water below seven foot in depth has little dissolved oxygen. Most dissolved oxygen is in the surface water, and there is little exchange between deep and surface waters. As a result, he concludes that the groundwater has low dissolved oxygen, a fact confirmed by Mr. Missimer. Dissolved oxygen is the only source of oxygen for fish and aquatic animals. Without dissolved oxygen, the fish die. There are currently no fish on the property. Mr. Bickner was also concerned with the biochemical oxygen demand which would further reduce the oxygen levels in the water. He was further concerned with the hydrogen sulfide levels coming from deterioration of plant material in the bottom of the pit, and iron which he found to be already in the groundwater. Mr. Bickner contends that during construction of the pit petro- chemicals will be introduced into the water, and that during the construction period the on-site water will have increased turbidity which will most likely be transmitted off-site as the pit is de-watered. There are management procedures which can reduce the risk, but none can avoid it entirely. Mr. Bickner is satisfied that the water quality standards will not be met. It is so found. Mr. Bickner also evaluated the property from the public interest standpoint, and in that regard he is satisfied there is a substantial potential for damage to adjacent properties by de-watering. Based on his experience and observation of other projects, he is satisfied there is no way to keep people employed on the site from using adjacent property for parking and vehicle maintenance. The witness believes that the 56 acres of habitat removed by the lake, and the remaining acres, which will be replanted, will be permanently impacted. While he admits that the property as it currently exists, may not be a prime habitat for the panther, there is some evidence which indicates panthers do cross it. He is concerned that the applicants submission here does not sufficiently answer all the questions as to impact on the public interest. The mechanics of the maintenance yard, soil storage and other potential areas of trauma are not explained satisfactorily, and Mr. Bickner does not see how all that is proposed can fit on the site. As a result, in his opinion, there must be some off-site impact. As to cumulative impact, since the valuable rock does not lie only under Petitioner's property, owners of the surrounding property may want to mine their properties as Petitioner proposes to do. If that happens, Mr. Bickner cannot explain how the Department can deny these subsequent applications. If the current application is permitted, taken together with the others, there would be a serious effect on the panther population. This opinion is not supported by evidence, however. If the public interest test is the only basis for disqualification of the project, (here the water quality test is also not met) a permit can still be granted if the applicant agrees to take appropriate mitigation steps at the site. Mr. Bickner is of the opinion that the applicant's mitigation plan to create the 100 foot wide shelf around the lake is not the same type of system which currently exists, will not fulfill the same function as the present property, and is not sufficiently large to replace what is being lost. One basis for granting the variance suggested by the Petitioner was the public interest, (the material was to be used for a public road), and the other was that there was no alternative way to get the material. While it is possible the rock would be used for public road, Mr. Bickner was concerned no assurances were given by the Petitioner that it would be. No contract has been signed yet, and Mr. Bickner is not satisfied that the letter from the Department of Transportation, indicating the rock there would suit its purpose, is sufficient indication that a contract would be signed. There is a possibility of making the pit shallower, which would permit the dissolved oxygen content of the lake water to meet state standards, but even if that problem were solved, Mr. Bickner is not satisfied that Petitioner has met the public interest test. Respondent has granted three permits and a variance to the Department of Transportation to build a portion of I-75 across Alligator Alley in Collier County. These permits are for the dredging of canals parallel to the roadway and to develop a borrow lake of 73.1 acres to be excavated to a depth of from 6 to 9.7 feet. The variance in question applies to all three projects and relates to the dissolved oxygen level. The DOT variance was applied for on the basis that no practical means for avoidance of the pollution existed. The Department of Transportation did not request a variance for BOD or for toxic and deleterious substances or iron. Mr. Bickner, admitted that these permitted projects would possibly have the same problem of oils and greases as he foresees with Petitioner's project. Nonetheless, he concludes that Petitioner's project should not be permitted, even though the Alligator Alley canals are already below standards, because to do so would contribute to a currently existing violation. Mr. James Beever, an Environmental Specialist with the Department of, Environmental Regulation, visited the site on several occasions, both on the ground and from the air. He observed much of the same flora and fauna observed by the other visitors who testified in this case and took color photographs of the area which portray the character of the property. All of the plants he discovered on the site are on the DER jurisdictional list and, on at least one occasion, from the air, he saw standing water on the site. In his opinion, the property is a fresh water wet prairie system which is admittedly drier than it should be. The plants he saw on the site indicate the jurisdiction of DER if there is a connection to other waters of the state, and in Mr. Beever's opinion, there is connection through the flow of sheet water south from the site to the I-75 (Alligator Alley) canal; then, east to the 8 Mile Canal; then south to the Fuqua Union Canal which empties southwest to the Gulf of Mexico. In his opinion, therefore, this is definitely jurisdictional land, and it is so found. The site supports an underground system of roots as well as the upper portion of the, plants existing thereon. He observed periphyton and many other animal tracks and scats. He also saw signs of regular inundation such as numerous snail shells, and he is satisfied there is no indication of a change in the area from the wetlands to an upland area. Admittedly, the area has been dry for a while. Even after Hurricane Floyd in 1987, there was no standing water. The site is, in his opinion, definitely productive, however. The vegetation existing thereon stabilizes the soil and provides food for snails, insects and crayfish which are on the bottom of the foodchain for other life forms on the property. The grasses provide a habitat for animals such as cotton rats, roosts for birds, pollen for insects, all which, themselves, become food for the larger animals. This wetland is a part of a large wetland prairie system and part of the Fuqua Union drainage basin, and acts as a filter for the water system for the area. According to Mr. Beever, most borrow pits like this are located on uplands which then provide rain water lakes. The instant pit, however, is in a wetlands area and if built, he believes, will engender violations during the mining operation. Groundwater coming in will contain iron and hydrogen sulfide which will combine with the dissolved oxygen in the water and further deplete the already low oxygen levels. All of this will constitute a violation of the rules regarding waters of the state since the waters within the pit would fall within that category. Mr. Beever is also concerned with the `bridge over the 8 Mile Canal and the turbidity connected with its construction and removal. In substance, Mr. Beever is convinced that construction of the project will create violations of the water quality standards for the area. As to the public interest, the wetlands character of the site will be completely lost. The vegetation will be removed, and the animals utilizing it will either leave or be destroyed. After, construction, some natural healing will occur, but a long-term maintenance program will be required to provide even different functions for the land than those which currently exist. In that regard, Mr. Beever is convinced that the applicant's proposed restoration plan is not acceptable. It will not replace the lost functions of the site; it will replace the species removed with a different ecosystem; it will provide a habitat for different species of animals and birds; it will adversely affect the shoaling and erosion in the lake itself (this is found to be without merit); it will have some adverse effect on the property of others; and will have an adverse cumulative impact on the area. The habitat will not be used any more by endangered species such as the wood stork and the panther. Even assuming, arguendo, the plans were suitable, in Mr. Beever's opinion, the project would not work here because of the lack of information on what the actual water level of the lake will be. The plant species proposed may not remain because of possible changes in water level in the lake. In addition, the marl berms will dry out over the three years of their life while the pit is being worked, and form a location for a lot of invasive upland plants. Much of Mr. Beever's concern is shared by Mr. Barnett, of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, who indicated that birds now frequently use the area for nesting and feeding because of its wetlands character. Endangered species such as the Florida panther cross it from time to time as does the Florida black bear. Human encroachment reduces the panther's territory and reduces the area for forage of deer, which are the principal food of the panther. The bigger issue, however, is the cumulative impact. The 80 acres is not so important by itself, but to permit its removal would set a precedent for future encroachment by others. Mr. Barnett's experience is that restoration plans are quite often not successful. Even the successful ones, however, replace the removed system with a different system, and the species which now use the property would find it much less desirable as changed. Specifically, the bear, the deer, and the panther would find it unusable as proposed. At the present time, the deer spend their days in the pines forest to the north of the property, coming out onto the area, in question only at night to feed. It is during the night that the panther stalks. As presently constituted, this property is of no benefit to the wood stork or the red cockaded woodpecker. The Cape Sable sparrow could use it but does not. The development of Golden Gate Estates to the north and east and south of the property has a two pronged effect on the area in question. The southern portion of Golden Gate Estates has been abandoned, but the central and northern portions will be developed. On the one hand, it is likely that the increased population to the north and east will make the Petitioner's property less desirable and make access to it more difficult for the wildlife currently utilizing it. On the other hand, removal of the northern and central portions of Golden Gate from usable area for the panther and other species make it more important that Petitioner's area, which Barnett claims is not likely to be developed, remain as an animal habitat to offset the encroachment of the development area. There is no evidence to support this prediction of non- development, however. History tends to indicate otherwise.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Petitioner be issued a dredge and fill permit as requested and a variance to the state water quality standards as identified in the request. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1469 AND 87-4404 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By the Petitioner 1 - 2. Accepted. 3 - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. Accepted. 8. Accepted. 9 - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. Accepted. 16 - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18 - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. Accepted. 21 - 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. 24. Not a Finding of Fact. 25 - 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27 - 28. Accepted and incorporated herein, except for finding it is likely that more wildlife will use the site after construction. Rejected as speculation. 29 - 30. Accepted and incorporated herein. 31 - 33. Accepted and incorporated herein. 34. Accepted and incorporated herein. 35. Accepted and incorporated herein. 36 - 38. Accepted and incorporated herein. 39. Accepted and incorporated herein. 40. Accepted and incorporated herein. 41. Accepted and incorporated herein. 42. Accepted. 43 - 44. Rejected as contra to the evidence. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. For the Respondent 1 - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4 - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10 - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18 - 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. 21. Accepted and incorporated-herein. 22 - 25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26 - 33. Accepted and incorporated herein. 34 - 35. Accepted and incorporated herein. 36. Rejected as contra to evidence presented. 37 - 40. Accepted and incorporated herein. 41. Accepted and incorporated herein. 42 - 43. Rejected. 44. Accepted and incorporated herein. 45 - 47. Accepted and incorporated herein. 48 - 60. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected. Accepted in part - (temporary). Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Unproven. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Routa, Esquire ROBERTS, EGAN & ROUTA, P.A. 217 South Adams Street Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Richard Grosso, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
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 THE PARTIES The Respondent is the successor agency to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and has permitting authority over the subject project pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The Respondent's file number for this matter is 311765419. Petitioner, Alden Pond, Inc., is a subsidiary of First Union National Bank of Florida and is the successor in interest to Orchid Island Associates. John C. Kurtz is the designated property manager for this project and appeared at the formal hearing as Alden Pond's authorized agent. THE PROPERTY AND THE VICINITY Petitioner has record title to all of Government Lot 9 in Section 15, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, less the Jungle Trail Road right of way, and all of Government Lots 2, 3, 6, and 7, Section 22, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, less the road right of way for State Road 510. Petitioner does not own land below the mean high water line of the Indian River, which forms the western boundary of the property. Much of the property, approximately the northern half, abuts a part of the Indian River that has been leased by the State of Florida to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as part of the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge. The Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge was the first national wildlife refuge established in the United States and has been declared to be a water of international importance. Upland of the proposed project is a golf course and residential development. The Indian River at the project site is within the Indian River Aquatic Preserve, which is classified as Class II Outstanding Florida Waters. The Indian River in the vicinity of the project is part of the Intercoastal Waterway system, is navigable by large vessels, and is an important travel corridor for manatees. The Indian River in the vicinity of the project is a healthy estuarine system. Minor deviations from Respondent's dissolved oxygen standards have been recorded. These minor deviations are typical and represent natural conditions for this type of system. Water quality sampling from March 1994 yielded no samples in which deviations from Respondent's dissolved oxygen standards were observed. THE ORIGINAL PROJECT On February 21, 1990, Orchid Island Associates submitted to the Respondent an application for a wetland resource permit to construct a boat basin and canal on its property adjacent to the Indian River. The artificial waterway that Petitioner proposes to construct on its property will, for ease of reference, also be referred to as a canal. Petitioner proposes to dredge from the north terminus of the canal to the Intercoastal Waterway a channel, which will be referred to as the hydrological channel. Petitioner proposes to dredge from the south terminus of the canal to the Intercoastal Waterway a channel, which will be referred to as the access channel. The original project involved, among other features, a canal approximately 6,400 feet long, the dredging of the hydrological channel and the access channel, the construction of 44 docks to be located along the eastern side of the canal, and the dredging of an area adjacent to the canal for a 58 slip marina. The width of the canal was to range between 100 and 200 feet. The original project required the filling of 4.72 acres of wetlands and the dredging of 8.81 acres of wetlands for a direct impact on 13.53 acres of wetlands. On January 15, 1991, Respondent issued a preliminary evaluation letter pertaining to the initial application that contained the following conclusion: "the project cannot be recommended for approval." On September 12, 1991, Respondent issued a Notice of Permit Denial dated September 12, 1991, which stated that the application would be denied. This denial letter did not suggest any revisions that would make the project permittable and represented a strong position by the Respondent that the project as originally proposed should be denied. The September 12, 1991, Notice of Denial correctly described the project site and the initial proposal as follows: . . . The proposed project is located north of and adjacent to County Road 510, north and east of Wabasso Bridge and adjacent to the eastern shore of the Indian River. The Indian River at the project site is within the Indian River Aquatic Preserve, which is classified as Class II, Outstanding Florida Waters. The Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, also an aquatic preserve and an Outstanding Florida Water, is immediately west of the project site. Historically, the site of the marina and its associated upland development consisted of a wetland adjacent to the Indian River and a large citrus grove. Subsequently, the wetland was surrounded by a dike and impounded for mosquito control purposes. At some point in the past, a borrow pit 1/ was excavated within the landward (eastern) edge of the impounded wetland. Most of the citrus grove has been converted to a residential community associated with a golf course. * * * The proposed project included excavation of a 6,400 linear ft. canal along the upland/wetland edge between the impoundment and the adjacent upland, dredging the existing borrow pit to a depth of -8 ft. NGVD to create a boat basin that will connect it to the excavated canal, construction of 58 boat slips within the excavated boat basin, excavation of two flushing channels through a portion of the impoundment dike and wetlands within the impoundment to connect the excavated channel to the Indian River and a natural lake within the impoundment, excavation of a 700 ft. long access channel to connect the excavated canal to the Intercoastal Waterway through the seagrass beds along the southern boundary of the project site, filling of 4.72 ac. of wetlands at three locations within the impoundment to create uplands, and construction of a boardwalk along the southern edge of the excavated canal through the wetlands in the impoundment to provide access to the marina basin. To mitigate for the loss of wetlands, the applicant proposes to enhance 68 ac. of wetlands within the mosquito impoundment by returning the impoundment berm to grade and implementing a rotary ditching project and open marsh mosquito management to improve the hydrology of the wetlands in the impoundment, planting high marsh species, and donating the enhanced wetlands to the State of Florida for incorporation into the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge through a lease to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The September 12, 1991, Notice of Denial provided, in pertinent part, the following reasons for the denial of the project: The Department hereby denies the permit for the following reasons: Water quality data for the Indian River adjacent to the project site indicates that the dissolved oxygen (D.O.) standard is not currently being met. The proposed 8 ft. deep canal and marina basin to the Indian River would be expected to result in introduction of additional low D.O. waters into a system which already does not meet the D.O. standard, thereby resulting in further degradation of the water quality in the Indian River. In addition to the D.O. problem, the project would result in water quality degradation due to the pollutant loading of marina related pollutants from the boats docked at the 58 slips that are proposed as part of the project in the marina basin. Additional water quality degradation also may result from boats that are moored at docks that may be constructed at a later date by the owners of the 44 lots adjacent to the canal, pursuant to the exemption in Section 403.813(2)(b), Florida Statutes. This exemption provides that private docks in artificially constructed waters are exempt from dredge and fill permitting and may be constructed without a permit providing they meet the size criteria listed in the statute and provided they do not impede navigation, affect flood control, or cause water quality violations. The boats in the canal system and boat basin would be a chronic source of pollutants for the life of the facility. The proposed water depths and slip sizes will make the basin accessible for use by large boats which can be expected to have on-board sanitation devices. The hydrographic report submitted by the applicant indicates the proposed waters will flush with a 2.6 hr. duration. Although this flushing rate will prevent water quality pollutants from being concentrated in the waters of the basin, it also will have the effect of transporting boat related pollutants to the Indian River, thereby causing degradation of the Outstanding Florida Water. The project site is within Class II Waters, prohibited for shellfish harvesting, but is adjacent to Class II Waters, approved for shellfish harvesting. Discussion with the Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Regulation and Development, indicates that the pollutant loading from the project would probably cause the adjacent waters to be reclassified as "prohibited for shellfish harvesting." The reclassification of the adjacent waters would lower the existing use of the waterbody. Rules 17-302.300(1), (4), , and (6), Florida Administrative Code, state that: Section 403.021, Florida Statutes, declares that the public policy of the State is to conserve the waters of the State to protect, maintain, and improve the quality thereof for public water supplies, for the propagation of wildlife, fish and other aquatic life, and for domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational, and other beneficial uses. It also prohibits the discharge of wastes into Florida waters without treatment necessary to protect those beneficial uses of the waters. * * * Existing uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be fully maintained and protected. Such uses may be different or more extensive than the designated use. Pollution which causes or contributes to new violations of water quality standards or to continuation of existing violations is harmful to the waters of this State and shall not be allowed. Waters having water quality below the criteria established for them shall be protected and enhanced. However, the Department shall not strive to abate natural conditions. If the Department finds that a new or existing discharge will reduce the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them or violate any Department rule or standard, it shall refuse to permit the discharge. As a result of the above cited factors, degradation of water quality is expected. The applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the immediate and long-term impacts of the project will not result in the degradation of existing water quality in an Outstanding Florida Water and the violation of water quality standards pursuant to Rules 17-312.080(1) and (3), Florida Administrative Code, and Rule 17-4.242(2)(a)2.b, Florida Administrative Code. Specific State Water Quality Standards in Rules 17-302.500, 17-302.510 and 17-302.550, Florida Administrative Code, affected by the completion of the project include the following: Bacteriological Quality - the median coliform MPN (Most Probable Number) of water shall not exceed seventy (70) per hundred (100) milliliters, and not more than ten percent (10 percent) of the samples shall exceed a MPN of two hundred and thirty (230) per one hundred (100) milliliters. The fecal coliform bacterial level shall not exceed a median value of 14 MPN per 100 milliliters with not more than ten percent (10 percent) of the samples exceeding 43 MPN per 100 milliliters. Dissolved Oxygen - the concentration in all waters shall not average less than 5 milligrams per liter in a 24-hour period and shall never be less than 4 milligrams per liter. Normal daily and seasonal fluctuations above these levels shall be maintained. Oils and Greases: Dissolved or emulsified oils and greases shall not exceed 5.0 milligrams per liter. No undissolved oil, or visible oil defined as iridescence, shall be present so as to cause taste or odor, or otherwise interfere with the beneficial use of waters. In addition the applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that ambient water quality in the OFW will not be degraded pursuant to Rule 17-4.242(2)(a)2.b, Florida Administrative Code. In addition, pursuant to Rule 17-312.080(6)(a), Florida Administrative Code, the Department shall deny a permit for dredging or filling in Class II waters which are not approved for shellfish harvesting unless the applicant submits a plan or proposes a procedure to protect those waters and waters in the vicinity. The plan or procedure shall detail the measures to be taken to prevent significant damage to the immediate project areas and to adjacent area and shall provide reasonable assurance that the standards for Class II waters will not be violated. In addition to impacts to water quality, the project is expected to adversely affect biological resources. A portion (estimated at between 0.4 and 0.5 ac.) of the access channel alignment is vegetated by seagrasses, the dominant species being Halodule wrightii (Cuban shoal weed). Seagrass beds provide important habitat and forage for a variety of wildlife species. The loss of seagrass beds will result in a loss of productivity to the entire system that would be difficult to replace. The 4.72 ac. of wetlands proposed to be filled and the excavation required for the proposed channels (approximately 38 ac.) are productive high marsh and mixed mangrove wetlands which are providing wildlife habitat and water quality benefits. These wetlands have been adversely impacted by the freeze of 1989, but they appear to be recovering well. The proposed mitigation would provide some benefits through exotic removal and increased hydrologic connection to the Indian River. However, these benefits would not be adequate to offset the adverse impacts of the proposed wetland losses for this project. The project site and the adjacent Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge are used for nesting and foraging by a variety of species, including little blue heron (Egretta caerulea) (Species of Special Concern (SSC)--Florida Game and Fresh Water fish Commission (FGFWFC)), reddish egret (E. rufescens) (SSC-FGFWFC), snowy egrets (E. thula) (SSC-FGFWFC), tricolored herons (E. tricolor) (SSC-FGFWFC), brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis) (SSC-FGFWFC), roseate spoonbills (Ajaja ajaja) (SSC-FGFWFC), least tern (Sterna antillarum) (threatened-FGFWFC), and wood storks (endangered-FGFWFC). The construction of the project and the increased boating activity due to the project would result in the disturbance of those species that use the wetlands in the project area. The Indian River adjacent to the project site is used by the West Indian Manatee (endangered-FGFWFC). The increased boat traffic would increase the chance of manatee deaths due to boat impact. In addition, the excavation of the access channel through the seagrass beds would decrease the available forage for manatees in the project area. For the above reasons, this project is also not clearly in the public interest, as required pursuant to Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, because it is expected to: adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; be permanent in nature; diminish the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the project is clearly in the public interest. On September 12, 1991, the owner and holder of the mortgage on the Orchid Island development (which includes the real property on which the Petitioner hopes to construct the project at issue in this proceeding) instituted foreclosure proceedings. The circuit judge who presided over the foreclosure proceeding soon thereafter appointed an interim receiver to manage the property until a receiver who would manage the property for the duration of the foreclosure proceeding could be appointed. THE PROJECT MODIFICATIONS AND FACTS AS TO ESTOPPEL On October 31, 1991, representatives of Orchid Island Associates met with Respondent's staff to discuss this application. Trudie Bell, the Environmental Specialist assigned to supervise this application, and Douglas MacLaughlin, an attorney employed by Respondent, attended the meeting. Those attending the meeting on behalf of Orchid Island Associates included the interim trustee, the attorney for Orchid Island Associates, and Darrell McQueen, who at all times pertinent to this proceeding was the project engineer. Mr. McQueen was upset that the project was going to be denied and wanted to know what could be done to make it a permittable project. In response to Mr. McQueen, Ms. Bell, without making any promises, suggested the following modifications to the project that might make it permittable: moving the canal more upland, elimination of the boat basin/marina, reducing the depth of the artificial waterway, and increasing the width of the littoral zone. On November 11, 1991, the representatives of Orchid Island Associates responded to the Respondent's suggested modifications and agreed to make the modifications. In an effort to design a project that would be acceptable to Respondent, Orchid Island Associates proposed to the Respondent to make certain modifications to the design of the project. Petitioner has agreed to those modifications which include the following: Elimination of the boat basin and associated 58 dock marina and clubhouse, but with the addition of 18 relatively narrow residential lots, each of which would have a dock on the south end of the waterway. 2/ Reduction of the depth of the artificial waterway to -7 feet NGVD from the proposed -8 feet NGVD. Realignment of the artificial waterway as depicted on the sealed drawings submitted to Respondent and dated January 28, 1993. Increasing the width of the littoral zone to be created along the length of the artificial waterway to 40 feet on the west side and 10 feet on the east side. On November 12, 1991, John C. Kurtz was appointed the receiver of the Orchid Island Associates property and remained the receiver until the property was conveyed to Petitioner at a foreclosure sale on July 31, 1993. After it acquired the property, Petitioner employed Mr. Kurtz to manage the subject property. Mr. Kurtz has been active in the project since his appointment as the receiver of the property. On November 21, 1991, Petitioner met with Respondent's staff, including Ms. Bell, to discuss the modifications. At that meeting, the Respondent's staff reacted favorably to the modifications agreed to by Petitioner. Ms. Bell described the revisions as "excellent" and "a great idea" and stated that the project was "a nice project" and that it looked like the project was heading in the right direction. Ms. Bell also represented that the Respondent would grant the Petitioner extensions of time to allow for a formal revision if the project was deemed permittable. Ms. Bell kept her superiors informed of the status of her review. On December 11, 1991, Charles Barrowclaugh, an employee of the Respondent, made an inspection of the site and informed representatives of the Petitioner that he had briefed Carol Browner, who was Secretary of the Department of Environmental Regulation, as to the project and the proposed modifications. Mr. Barrowclaugh stated that he believed the project was permittable. Petitioner was encouraged by Mr. Barrowclaugh's comments and by the fact that he would incur the expenses of traveling to the site. Between December 11, 1991, and November 13, 1992, Petitioner provided information to Respondent pertaining to the revised project. This additional information included a description of the revised plan and a revised schematic drawing, but it did not include detailed drawings of the revised project. On November 13, 1992, Ms. Bell wrote to Mr. McQueen a letter that stated, in pertinent part, as follows: The Bureau of Wetland Resource Management has reviewed the revised plan and additional information submitted on September 16. The revised proposal appears to address all of the issues that made the original proposal unpermittable. The detailed 8.5 by 11 inch permitting drawings will have to be revised to reflect the revised proposal and submitted to the Bureau for review. Kelly Custer and Orlando Rivera will be reviewing the project in the future. Petitioner interpreted that letter to mean that the Respondent intended to permit the project. At the time she wrote the letter of November 13, 1992, Ms. Bell thought the revised project would be permitted. Petitioner relied on the oral representations made by Respondent's staff and on the November 13, 1992, letter in continuing pursuit of a permit. Absent these encouraging comments by Respondent's staff, Petitioner would have discontinued pursuit of the permit. Although Petitioner was understandably encouraged by the discussions its representatives had with Respondent's staff, it knew, or should have known, that the favorable comments it was receiving from members of Respondent's staff were preliminary and that additional information would be required and further evaluation of the project would take place. Petitioner's representatives knew that the staff with whom they were having these discussions did not have the authority to approve the application, but that they could only make recommendations to their superiors. In late 1992, Kevin Pope, an Environmental Specialist employed by Respondent, was assigned as the primary reviewer of the revised project. At the time he became the primary reviewer of the project, Mr. Pope did not make an immediate, independent evaluation of the project, and relied on what other staffers who had been involved in the review told him. Until he conducted his own review of the project, Mr. Pope believed that the project was "clearly permissible". Mr. Pope informed a representative of the Petitioner of that belief and told the representative that he was prepared to start drafting the permit once he received final drawings documenting the modifications to the project. Subsequent to that conversation, Mr. Pope received the drawings he requested. After he received and reviewed the final drawings, Mr. Pope determined that all issues raised by the denial letter had not been addressed. Among the concerns he had was the fact that the project would dredge into the Indian River to the Intercoastal Waterway and that part of the dredging activity (at the north end of the project) would be in Class II shellfish approved waters. Mr. Pope again contacted the state and federal agencies that had originally commented on the project, described the proposed modifications to the project, and requested comments. Most of the agencies continued to object to the project. On August 5, 1992, Mr. Pope held a meeting with the commenting agencies and with representatives of the Petitioner to discuss the objections to the project. 3/ The agencies provided additional comments after this meeting and most continued to oppose the project. Mr. Kurtz testified that on June 1, 1993, Stacey Callahan, an attorney employed by Respondent, told him that she was attempting to draft the permit for the project. Ms. Callahan asked for sample wording for a restrictive covenant or for an easement that would limit the number of boats that could use the proposed docks. Subsequent to that inquiry, Petitioner was informed by Mr. Pope that the project would be denied. Petitioner has not made any specific proposal to assure a limitation on the number of boats that will be able to dock in the proposed canal. In June of 1993, a large number of objections to the project were filed with Respondent by members of the public. In early July, 1993, Secretary Wetherell responded to those objectors with a letter stating, in part, that the "Department's letter of November 1992 indicating an intent to issue for the project was imminent appears to have been premature." On September 20, 1993, Mr. Pope informed Petitioner's attorney that the Respondent was not going to change its position that the project, even with the modifications, should be denied. The decision not to permit the modified project was made by Mr. Pope. The only permit application filed by the Petitioner was the application for the initial permit. No formal amended application that incorporates all of the changes that Petitioner discussed with Respondent's staff was filed. A total of $74,735 was spent on behalf of the applicant on this project between December 26, 1991, (the date of the meeting with Mr. Barrowclaugh) and July 31, 1993, (the date the property was conveyed to Petitioner). From July 31, 1993, through April of 1994, Petitioner spent an additional $47,488 on the application for this project. The expenditures after July 31, 1993, included engineering costs that were incurred before that date. These figures do not include the costs of this proceeding. THE REVISED PROJECT The revised project may be summarily described as follows: Petitioner proposes to construct a canal that will be approximately 6,400 feet long, up to 200 feet wide, and -7 NGVD deep as depicted on drawings that have been submitted into evidence. There will be a littoral zone 40 feet wide on the west side of the canal and a littoral zone 10 feet wide on the east side. A hydrological channel, proposed from the north terminus of the canal to the Intercoastal Waterway to enable a proper flow of water through the canal, will be some 200 feet wide, 70 feet in length, and -3 NGVD. Petitioner proposes to construct a barrier at the north terminus of the canal to prevent manatees and boats from entering the canal from the north and has agreed to maintain that barrier. An access channel, proposed from the south terminus to the Intercoastal Waterway to enable boats access to the canal, will be some 200 feet wide, 700 feet in length, and -7 NGVD. A total of 62 docks are proposed. The project includes a mitigation plan that will be discussed below. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE The construction of the hydrological channel would be in Class II conditionally approved shellfish waters. Dredging in Class II conditionally approved shellfish waters is prohibited unless a variance is issued by Respondent that would permit this otherwise prohibited activity. Petitioner's attorney submitted a letter to the Respondent on August 18, 1993, for a variance to construct the channel from the north terminus of the canal to the Intercoastal Waterway. That letter stated, in pertinent part, as follows: DEP Rule 17-312.080(17) states: "Permits for dredging or filling directly in Class II or Class III waters which are approved for shellfish harvesting by the Department of Natural Resources shall not be issued." This provision is applicable to the pending application by Orchid Island Associates. Accordingly, we discussed Orchid Island requesting a variance pursuant to Section 403.201, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-103.100, Florida Administrative Code, as a means of overcoming this prohibition. Since the dredge and fill application is pending, you indicated it would be appropriate for Orchid Island to ask, during final review of this application, that the Department also consider a request for a variance pursuant to the above mentioned statute and rule. Please consider this letter that request. . . . Petitioner did not submit along with its request the fee required by Respondent to process that request. Respondent did not advise Petitioner that it would not process its request without the requisite application fee until the prehearing stipulation was prepared for this proceeding shortly before the formal hearing. There was no evidence that Petitioner attempted to check on the status of its request for a variance or that it expected Respondent to act on the request for a variance independent of its final review of the overall project. As of the time of the formal hearing, Petitioner had not submitted to Respondent the fee that Respondent asserts is required before the request for the variance will be processed. Respondent asserted that position in the prehearing statement that was filed shortly before the formal hearing. The evidence as to the flow of water through the proposed canal assumed the existence of the hydrological channel from the north terminus of the proposed canal to the Intercoastal Waterway and the existence of the access channel from the south terminus of the proposed canal to the Intercoastal Waterway. CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT The revised version of the artificial waterway will be excavated primarily from uplands, but the excavation will require that 3.6 acres of wetlands be filled and 7.1 acres of wetlands be dredged. The direct impact on wetlands will be at least 10.7 acres. The mitigation plan proposes that the berms around the mosquito impoundment will be leveled, the berm ditches will be filled, and certain rotary ditches will be dredged. The amount of wetlands to be impacted by that proposed activity was not established. The artificial waterway will be constructed utilizing a series of separate construction cells, a rim ditch, and filtration chambers. All excavated material will be disposed of on uplands. The construction system will filter most solids. Turbidity suppression devices will be used to minimize any turbidity associated with the excavation of the access channel at the south terminus and the hydrological channel at the north terminus. Petitioner established that its proposed construction techniques are consistent with best management practices. The small body of water that is referred to as the former borrow pit in the denial letter of September 12, 1991, is known as Boot Lake. Petitioner proposes to dredge the eastern end of Boot Lake, consisting of an area 800 feet by 180 feet (3.3 acres), to create part of the canal. The access channel at the south terminus of the canal will be approximately 700 feet in length and will have to be hydraulically excavated in the Indian River to connect the canal to the Intercoastal Waterway. The hydrological channel at the north terminus of the canal will be hydraulically excavated to connect the canal to the Indian River. The connection will require approximately 70 feet of dredging to -3 NGVD, which is the minimum necessary to maintain the proper flow of water through the canal. HYDROLOGY OF THE CANAL The artificial waterway will function as a flow-through system driven by a difference in the water surface elevation (the head difference) between the north terminus and the south terminus. The flushing of the artificial waterway far exceeds the Respondent's flushing requirement benchmark, which is a flushing time of four days. If a hypothetical pollutant's concentration is reduced to 10 percent of its initial concentration in four days, the flushing is considered to be acceptable. The flushing time for the system is approximately 2.6 hours, which will produce five total volume replacements per tidal cycle. The predicted flushing of the artificial waterway is quite rapid and energetic. The predominate flow of water in the artificial waterway is from north to south. At times, however, the flow will be from the south to the north. At the request of the Respondent, Petitioner conducted a tracer dye study within the Indian River at the proposed south terminus of the artificial waterway. No tracer dye study was requested for the north terminus. Although there was some disagreement as to the import of the tracer dye study, it established that pollutants introduced into the Indian River from the canal would be rapidly dispersed in the Indian River. WATER QUALITY - THE CANAL The artificial waterway will be classified as Class III waters of the State. Water quality within the artificial waterway will reflect the current water quality in the Indian River. Petitioner has provided reasonable assurances that the water quality within the artificial waterway itself will not violate state standards. Two potential sources of pollutants to the artificial waterway have been identified. The first source is stormwater runoff through the stormwater management system associated with the upland development. The second is pollution inherent with the docking and operation of large vessels. Respondent interprets its rules so that discharge of pollutants into the artificial waterway will constitute indirect discharges to the Indian River. Because of the excellent flushing capacity of the canal, pollutants will not tend to accumulate in the canal. A pollutant entering the canal or a spill of pollutants into the canal will mix very little in the canal, probably less than five percent, so the pollutant will discharge from the canal into the Indian River as a plug. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether pollutants introduced into the canal will enter the Indian River in measurable quantities. Testimony was elicited from Dr. Roessler, one of Petitioner's experts, that water entering the Indian River from the artificial waterway will not contain pollutants that are either measurably or statistically differentiable from the Indian River itself. That result depends, however, on the amount and the source of the pollutant introduced into the canal. Because of the rapid flushing of the canal, small spills or slowly released discharges of pollutants are not expected to result in water quality degradation in the Indian River. Since a pollutant introduced into the canal will exit in a plug essentially in the same concentration as it entered the canal, Petitioner has not provided reasonable assurances that large spills or discharges of pollutants from vessels or from other sources will not be discharged into the Indian River in concentrations that can be measured or that such large spills or discharges will not degrade the quality of the Indian River. Water from the canal will come out of both the north end and the south end of the canal. Some of the plume coming out of the north end may tend to hug the shoreline, with some of the plume reentering the canal when the tides change. Stormwater runoff contains significant amounts of fecal coliform, sometimes more than raw sewage. The stormwater management system associated with the upland development was permitted by the St. Johns Water Management District. The majority of the system is currently in place and functioning to retain stormwater runoff. The stormwater management system is designed to retain all of the first 4.75 inches of rainfall and most of the first 6.2 inches of rainfall. The design of this system exceeds the requirements imposed by the St. Johns Water Management District, which is that the first 1.5 inches of rainfall be retained. Stormwater management regulations are technology-based treatment criteria. If a system meets the retention requirement, it is presumed that no water quality will be violated by discharges through the system. Petitioner established that the stormwater management system was designed and constructed to retain at least three times the amount of rainfall required by the St. Johns Water Management District. Construction of the proposed canal will intercept two stormwater discharge pipes from the upland golf course and residential development. There was no evidence that the St. Johns Water Management System has reviewed this change in the system that has been permitted. The proposed change in where the outflow will be discharged could be significant since the discharge pipes are presently designed to discharge overflows from the system into wetland areas that provided additional natural treatment of the overflow before the overflow reaches the Indian River. With this change the overflow will be discharged during extraordinary storm events into the canal and thereafter into the Indian River without additional natural treatment. Because there will be modifications to the stormwater system the approval of that system by the St. Johns Water Management District should not be relied upon as providing reasonable assurances that no water quality violations will be caused by stormwater discharge. If this project is to be permitted, Petitioner should be required as a condition precedent to the issuance of the permit to have the proposed changes to the system reviewed by the St. Johns Water Management District and it should be required to obtain an amendment to the stormwater management system permit that would authorize the proposed changes. The project contemplates the construction of 62 docks. The size and the docking capacity of each dock has not been established. While Petitioner presented testimony that it is likely that only 50 percent of the docks will likely be used at any one time, that testimony is considered to be speculative. The number and size of boats that can or will be docked in the canal at any one time or on a regular basis is unknown. It is likely that each dock will have docking capacity for at least one vessel up to 60 feet in length and for a smaller vessel. The manner in which these docks will be constructed was not established. Chromatic copper arsenic, which is frequently used to coat docks and anti-fouling paints containing heavy metals used on boats are sources of contamination to shellfishing. Oils and greases from boats contain hydrocarbons which can adversely impact shellfish. These contaminants can have adverse impacts to shellfish at very low concentrations. Petitioner has agreed to prohibit live-aboard vessels and to prohibit the fueling and maintenance of vessels within the artificial waterway. Sewage containing fecal coliform dumped or spilled from boats or from stormwater discharge is a primary source of contamination for shellfishing waters. It is the practice of the Respondent's Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section to close waters to shellfishing in the vicinity of marinas, mainly due to potential contamination from untreated sewage. The Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section does not recommend the immediate closing of shellfishing waters when a project involves single family docks associated with a residence because it assumes people will use bathroom facilities in the house instead of on the boat. The Respondent does not have reasonable assurances that there will be houses associated with each of the 50 foot lots designated at the southern end of the canal. If a proposed facility has boat docks, but does not have houses associated with each dock, the Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section would recommend closure of shellfishing in the vicinity of the facility. The Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section would not recommend immediate closure of the shellfishing waters in the vicinity of this proposed project because it has assumed that each of the proposed docks will be associated with a house. If this project is to be permitted, reasonable assurances should be required that a residence will be constructed before or contemporaneously with the construction of a dock. The modifications made by Petitioner to the project will reduce the danger of pollutants from vessels in the artificial waterway. However, because the number and the size of the vessels that will be using the artificial waterway was not established, the extent of pollutants from vessels is unknown. Consequently, it is concluded that Petitioner did not provide reasonable assurances that measurable pollutants would not indirectly discharge into the Indian River from the canal. IMPACT ON WETLANDS Of the approximately 10.70 acres of wetlands that will be directly impacted by the proposed waterway, 4.10 acres are predominately impacted by invasive exotic (non-native) plants, 4.27 acres are somewhat impacted by exotic plants, and 2.23 acres are not impacted by exotic plants. The exotic plants found at the project site are primarily Australian Pine and Brazilian Pepper. The mitigation plan, which will be discussed below, proposes that the berms constructed around the mosquito impoundment area be removed and the rim ditches that abut the berms be filled. The amount of wetlands to be impacted by that activity was not established. The project contemplates that rotary ditches will be constructed at different places in the mosquito impoundment area after the berms are removed and the berm ditches filled. The areas to be impacted by the construction of the rotary ditches were not identified. The Petitioner proposes to dredge out the entire east end of Boot Lake for use as part of the canal. This area will be approximately 800 feet by 180 feet and will be 3.3 acres. Boot Lake is a fairly healthy biological system, about the same as the Indian River. It was found to contain 22 species of fish and seven species of birds, with brown pelican and the great blue heron dominant. Eleven species of crustacean, six species of mollusks, 24 vermes 4/ and one coelenterate were collected from the lake. Replacement of the eastern portion of Boot Lake with the canal will adversely impact those species. Between the Indian River and the proposed waterway is a mosquito impoundment constructed in the early 1960s. The mosquito impoundment and associated berms total approximately 105 acres. The exact area was not established since there is an unresolved issue as to the exact location of the mean high water line. 5/ The impoundment is breached in several locations and no longer functions efficiently as a mosquito impoundment. IMPACTS ON SEAGRASSES The excavation of the access channel from the south terminus to the Intercoastal Waterway will involve the removal of approximately 2500 square feet of a healthy, productive seagrass bed. Seagrasses are beneficial for wildlife habitat as they provide a substrate for algae and diatoms. Seagrasses are a direct food source for manatees and other species, and provide shelter and protection for fish. Seagrasses observed in this area where grasses will be eliminated are Halodule writtii, Syringodium filiforme, and Halophia johnsonii. Halophia, one of the identified species in this seagrass bed, is designated by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory as a rare and endangered species. Besides the seagrasses actually eliminated where the channel is to be constructed, other nearby seagrasses are also likely to be affected. The sides of the channel are likely to slough to some degree, which would adversely impact the seagrasses abutting the channel. The operation of power boats, even at slow speeds, will cause turbidity that will likely adversely impact seagrasses. Maintenance dredging, which will be required every few years, will cause turbidity that will likely adversely impact seagrasses. There are presently thousands of acres of seagrasses located within the Indian River. There has been a historical decline in seagrass in the Indian River Lagoon. Since 1950, there has been a 30 percent loss of seagrasses and seagrass habitat. IMPACTS ON SHELLFISH The proposed project will have an adverse impact on shellfish and shellfishing. At a minimum, the project will require dredging in a shellfishing area. The hydrological channel that will be dredged to connect the north terminus of the canal with the Intercoastal Waterway will be located in Class II waters that have been conditionally approved for shellfishing. Both commercial and recreational shellfishing occur in the Indian River adjacent to the project site. The predominate flow of water through the canal will be southerly. There will be, however, a predictable northerly flow of waters that will cause waters from the proposed canal and any associated contaminants contained in those waters to flow from the north terminus of the canal into the Class II waters that have been conditionally approved for shellfishing. The proposed project may introduce a significant amount of freshwater into the adjoining shellfishing waters of Indian River, primarily in the vicinity of the north terminus of the canal. Any additional freshwater discharges to shellfishing waters is a concern because fecal coliform bacteria survive longer in freshwater than saltwater. Three likely sources of freshwater that would be added by this project to the Indian River in the conditionally approved shellfishing area were identified by Respondent. First, the proposed canal appears to be intersecting near its north terminus with a sulphur spring or artesian well which produces fresh water with a high sulphur content. Fresh water will likely be introduced into the canal from this source and discharged into the shellfishing waters when the tidal flow becomes northward. Second, freshwater may be introduced into the canal from the overflow pipes from the surface water management system. This source of freshwater would not be significant. Third, additional freshwater may enter the area after the berms around the mosquito impoundment area are removed as contemplated by the mitigation plan. The extent of this source of freshwater was not established. If this project is permitted, the Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section will monitor this area for water quality to determine if the area will have to be closed for shellfishing. This additional monitoring, for which Respondent will pay, will be required because of the potential adverse impacts this project presents to shellfishing. Because of evidence of deteriorating water quality, the Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section is recommending that the shellfishing waters adjacent to the site be reclassified from "conditionally approved" to "conditionally restricted". In "conditionally restricted" waters, shellfish can still be harvested, but the harvested shellfish have to be placed in designated waters or in on-land facilities so the shellfish can cleanse themselves of fecal coliform before going to market. The conditions in the area of the proposed project are not yet bad enough to prohibit shellfishing. IMPACT ON MANATEES There are approximately 2,000 manatees living in Florida waters, with approximately 1,000 living on the east coast and approximately 1,000 living on the west coast. The manatee is an endangered species, and the long-term survival of the species is not secure. The Indian River in the area of the proposed project provides good habitat for manatees and is a major travel corridor for several hundred manatees. Indian River County is one of 13 key counties that has been designated by the Governor and Cabinet to address special manatee concerns. Manatees traveling back and forth in this area usually use the channel of the Intercoastal Waterway because it is deeper and allows manatees an easier travel route. Speed zones for boat traffic are an effective manatee protection mechanism. The artificial waterway will be posted as an idle speed zone. The area where the access channel connecting the south terminus of the canal with the Intercoastal Waterway will be dredged is presently designated as a slow speed zone and the access channel itself will be marked. Petitioner has agreed to implement Respondent's standard manatee conditions. Seagrasses are an important source of food for manatees. The project contemplates that 0.05 acres of seagrass will be dredged, but that Spartina will be planted in parts of the littoral zone. While manatees eat Spartina to some extent, they prefer seagrasses. Since there are thousands of acres of seagrass located in the Indian River, it is concluded that the elimination of 0.05 acres of seagrass associated with this project is negligible and will not adversely affect manatees. A barrier to navigation will be maintained at the north terminus of the waterway to preclude boat access and limit access to the waterway by manatees. Manatees would be unable to enter or leave the artificial waterway via the north terminus. The artificial waterway will not attract manatees and should not, in and of itself, adversely impact manatees. The main adverse impact to manatees from this proposed project is the threat of collisions by boats that leave the canal and enter the waters of the Indian River, including the Intercoastal Waterway. At least ten West Indian manatees have been killed by boats in Indian River County since 1981. Even with the speed limits, the increase in boating in this area will present an increased risk to manatees. IMPACT ON BIRDS No species of wading birds, including those listed as endangered or threatened, nests or roosts within the project site. The project site is not currently heavily utilized by wading birds, but several species of wading birds were observed foraging for food in Boot Lake. It is reasonable to expect that dredging of Boot Lake and the increased boat traffic will have an adverse impact on birds. Diving birds, such as the brown pelican and least tern, will benefit from the increased open waterway created by the canal, which should serve as a feeding habitat. Wading birds congregate and nest in rookeries. The area of the proposed project is within the foraging range of 14 active rookeries, and it is reasonable to expect that those rookeries will be disturbed by the increased boat use or human activity that the project will bring to this area. Officials of Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge have observed such disturbances and are opposed to this project. The pressure of human and boating activities on bird rookeries in the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, including human intrusion into buffer zones established to protect the birds, has resulted in a continuing decline of the bird population since 1960. When disturbed by boats or by humans, the parent wading bird will often leave the nest, which exposes the eggs or the chicks to attack by predators or to overexposure to sunlight. Boaters will often cause wading birds who are foraging for food to flush, which disturbs their search for food. Certain species of wading birds are flushed more frequently and for longer distances when flushed from narrow tidal creeks in Spartina marshes (a habitat similar to the proposed canal) than in open shoreline habitat. IMPACT ON FISH The existing ditches inside the mosquito impoundment berms presently provide a habitat similar to that of a tidal creek for a variety of fish, including juvenile snook, tarpon, red drum, black drum, lady fish, and mullet. The proposed project will result in the filling of these habitats and impoundments. As a consequence of that activity, these species of fish will be adversely impacted by the project. Although Petitioner proposes to construct certain rotary ditches that it asserts would provide a habitat similar to that provided by the existing ditches, Petitioner has not submitted any plans or drawings or other specific information concerning these rotary ditches and has not provided reasonable assurances that these proposed rotary will replace the habitat that will be eliminated by the filling of the existing ditches. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Other projects have been permitted on the Indian River north and south of the proposed project that have increased boat traffic on the Indian River in the vicinity of the project. The Respondent has not identified any similar projects which have been permitted in the vicinity within the last five years. The only similar application pending before the Respondent in the vicinity of the project is for two docks north of the project site. Although Respondent established that boat traffic on the Indian River has increased, this project is unique in scope and design, and it is concluded that Petitioner has given reasonable assurances that no negative cumulative impacts will be associated with the project. OTHER PERMITTING CRITERIA The parties stipulated to the following facts that pertain to permitting criteria: The project will not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water. The project will not cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The project will be of a permanent nature. The project will not adversely affect any significant historical or archaeological resources. The project will not adversely affect the property of others. The proposed waterway will be located almost entirely on private property in areas not currently utilized for fishing or other recreational activities. Except for the impacts on shellfishing, birds, and fish discussed above, the project will not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values within the vicinity of the project. THE MITIGATION PLAN Petitioner has taken all reasonable steps to minimize the adverse impacts associated with the type project it is proposing. Because there will be adverse impacts to an Outstanding Florida Water, the project can be permitted only if it is determined that the mitigation plan offsets the adverse impacts and makes the project clearly in the public interest. Petitioner's mitigation plan was contained in the original application and was revised between October 1991 and January 1992. Respondent considered the current mitigation plan in its review of this project. The current mitigation plan consists of the creation of wetlands, the enhancement of wetlands, and the preservation and donation of wetlands owned by Petitioner within the mosquito impoundment. The estimated cost of creation and enhancement of the mitigation plan is $600,000. Petitioner proposes to create approximately 14 acres of wetlands by removing the mosquito impoundment berms and converting other uplands within the impoundment to wetlands. These areas will be revegetated with various wetland plant species including red, black, and white mangroves. In addition, Petitioner proposes to create a forty foot wide intertidal littoral zone along the entire length of the western side of the artificial waterway and a ten foot wide littoral zone along the entire eastern side of the artificial waterway. Approximately three acres of the littoral zone will be created from uplands. The littoral zone will be revegetated with 80 percent cord grass and 20 percent red mangrove. Petitioner proposes to implement an open marsh mosquito control management program consisting of the elimination of natural accumulations of water in low lying areas within the impoundment by rotary ditching small channels to allow these areas to drain and to allow predator fish access to the areas. Petitioner will remove exotic plant species throughout the impoundment and will revegetate with native species such as red, black, and white mangroves. Petitioner proposes to monitor the project area to assure that exotic plant species do not re-colonize. The mosquito impoundment area and the associated berms is estimated as being approximately 105 acres. Because of the difficulty in determining the mean high water line and because of the number of breaches in the berms, the precise acreage within the impoundment area that is not currently sovereign lands was not established. If accurately surveyed, it is possible that the amount of acreage within the impoundment owned by Petitioner may be determined to be up to 10 percent less than is currently estimated. For the purposes of this proceeding, it is found that 105 acres is a reasonable estimate of the area of the impoundment owned by Petitioner. After completion of the enhancement program, Petitioner proposes to donate all the property it owns within the impoundment to the State of Florida. Petitioner asserts that it would have the right to construct single family docks from its property directly into the Indian River if this project is not permitted and that these docks would not be subject to Respondent's permitting jurisdiction. The construction of such docks would have an adverse impact on manatees and seagrasses. As part of its mitigation plan, Petitioner offers to waive its right to construct single family docks from its property directly into the Indian River. EVALUATION OF THE MITIGATION PLAN The wetland in the existing impoundment area is presently a good biological system that contains a good diversity of plants and animals. While Petitioner's proposals will enhance this area, the evaluation of that enhancement should take into consideration the quality of the existing system. There are at least three existing breaches in the berm system. Through these breaches there is some tidal influences and the export of detrital material. Because of the relatively isolated nature of the mosquito impoundment, it currently contributes little to the productivity of the Indian River. The removal of the berm system will result in greater tidal influence in the impoundment area. As a consequence, much of the leaf litter from mangroves within the impoundment that presently accumulates on site would be exported as detrital material to the Indian River, which will add material to the food chain. It is expected that increased tidal influence will also result in an improvement in the dissolved oxygen levels within the impoundment. The reestablishment of tidal influence within the impoundment area will increase habitat for fish, shrimp, and crabs, and therefore benefit the Indian River. Removal of the impoundment berms to reestablish tidal influences within the impoundment area will increase and improve feeding and forage habitat for wading birds. Consequently, wading birds that nest in the vicinity of the project will be benefited. Increased tidal influence will likely result in better growth for mangroves which would create roosting sites for wading birds where none presently exist. Currently, Australian pines are the dominate species in areas within the impoundment area. Other areas of the impoundment are heavily populated by Brazilian pepper. Australian pines and Brazilian peppers do not serve as food sources for any native wildlife and have the potential to crowd out native plant species such as mangroves. If not removed, the potential exists for Brazilian pepper to become the dominate plant species. Removal of exotics and replanting with native species is a benefit to the Indian River system. With an appropriate monitoring plan, the exotic removal should be successful. If the project is permitted, the implementation of an appropriate monitoring plan should be a condition of the permit. Because of widespread mosquito control activities, the high marsh ecosystem is now rare in the Indian River system. The restoration of the impoundment area to an area of high marsh would be of benefit to the Indian River ecosystem. Prior to alteration by man, the mosquito impoundment was a high marsh ecosystem consisting primarily of black and white mangroves over an understory of succulent plants. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether the Petitioner's proposals would result in the impoundment area returning to a high marsh area. While the impoundment area will be enhanced by the Petitioner's proposals, it is found that whether the area will be returned to a high marsh system is speculative. The mosquito impoundment is breached in various locations and, as a consequence, the impoundment is not functioning to control mosquitoes as it was originally designed. The current primary mechanism for mosquito control within the breached mosquito impoundment is aerial spraying of insecticides. The proposed removal of the existing berms will not adversely affect mosquito control and may positively affect mosquito control due to the increased accessibility of the impoundment by natural predators such as fish. This open marsh management plan is an effective means of controlling mosquitoes. The wetland creation proposed by Petitioner should have a high rate of success. Petitioner has agreed to implement a suitable monitoring plan to further guarantee the success of the proposal. If the project is permitted, the implementation of a suitable monitoring plan should be a condition of the permit. Scraping down the mosquito berms will create more wetlands, but the earth from the berms will be placed in the adjacent ditches, which presently serve as valuable tidal creek type habitat. Therefore, the mitigation itself will have some adverse impact. Petitioner's unspecified proposal to put in some rotary ditches to offset the loss of tidal creek habitat is inadequate in that there has been no specific proposal as to the location, size, shape, configuration, or acreage of the proposed rotary ditches. While planting of the littoral zones on the edges of the canal with Spartina provides some biological value, the growth of Spartina on the ten foot ledge on the east side will be impacted by boats and docks. The littoral zones will likely perform valuable wetland functions if properly planted and monitored and will likely become a productive wetland system that will provide habitat for wading birds. If the project is permitted, the Petitioner should be required to monitor the Spartina planting to ensure its successful growth. Even if the creation of the 13.9 acres of wetlands is successful, it will take years to become a mature biological system similar to the wetlands they are to replace. This time lag should be taken into account when evaluating the mitigation plan. There are adverse impacts from this proposed project that the mitigation plan does not offset. The mitigation plan does not offset the elimination of seagrasses, the loss of the Boot Lake habitat, the potential adverse impacts to shellfish and shellfishing, or the impacts to manatees. It is likely that property owners wishing to construct docks directly into the Indian River would have to get a permit from Respondent to gain access to the parts of the property where these docks could be constructed. Any proposal to extend docks into the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge would likely be prevented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Whether such docks would, or could, be constructed is speculative, and this portion of the mitigation plan should be accorded little weight. As part of its mitigation plan, Petitioner proposes to donate approximately 105 acres to the State of Florida. This is considered to be a favorable aspect of the mitigation plan. The central issue in this proceeding is whether the mitigation plan offsets the negative impacts of this project so that the project becomes "clearly in the public interest." This issue is resolved by finding that even when the mitigation plan and the conditions that are recommended herein are considered, this project is "not clearly in the public interest."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein and which denies the modified application for the subject project. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 31st day of August, 1994.
