The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Crestwood Lakes Associates provided reasonable assurance that a modification to a conceptual surface water management permit complies with the permit criteria contained in statutes and rules.
Findings Of Fact Background This case involves a 900-acre parcel in the Loxahatchee Slough, west of the Florida Turnpike in Palm Beach County (County). Although the property occupies part of a slough, all of the wetlands in this case are isolated wetlands. Respondent Crestwood Lakes Associates (Applicant) owns the south 503 acres, Petitioner owns the north 287 acres, and the Village of Royal Palm Beach (Village) owns the remaining 115 acres, which abut the southwest boundary of the north parcel. The acreages do not total 900 acres because the numbers are approximate. The 900-acre parcel is generally bounded on the south by Okeechobee Boulevard and the north and east by the M-1 canal. The west boundary of the south part of the parcel adjoins a residential development known as Loxahatchee Groves, and the 115-acre parcel adjoins a County-owned preserve of at least 600 acres. Applicant’s land is undeveloped except for some landclearing. Petitioner’s land is partly developed, mostly in the south next to the boundary with Applicant’s land. The Village's 115 acres are a preserve, divided equally between wetlands and uplands. On February 11, 1988, Respondent South Florida Water Management District (District) issued surface water management (SWM) permit No. 50-00618-S-02 to Royal Palm Homes, Inc. for conceptual approval of a SWM system serving a residential development on the 900-acre parcel (1988 Permit). References to the Original Developer shall include Royal Palm Homes, Inc., its agents, lenders, and assigns, except for Petitioner and Applicant. The permitted development, which was known as the Royal Palm Homes PUD, comprises single-family and multifamily residences, wetland preserve areas, two 18-hole golf courses, and a park area. On August 3, 1994, Applicant filed SWM application number 940803-6 to modify the 1988 Permit to show the change in ownership and obtain conceptual approval of a modification to the permitted SWM system. The application was not complete when the new Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) rules replaced the old Management and Storage of Surface Water (MSSW) permit rules. On May 24, 1996, the District transmitted the staff report, which proposed the issuance of a permit modification. On June 13, 1996, the District approved the issuance of the proposed permit modification. On the same date, Petitioner filed its petition challenging the proposed agency action. Permits The first relevant SWM permit for the 900-acre parcel involved a larger parcel that includes the 900-acre parcel. On September 14, 1978, the District issued a two-page permit authorizing the “construction of a water management system serving 2073 acres of residential lands by waterways discharging into canal C-51.” This 1978 permit, which is identified as number 50-00618-S, contains a special condition calling for a minimum finished floor elevation of 18.0 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The next permit is the 1988 Permit, which is a substantial modification to the 1978 permit. The 1988 Permit covers only the previously described 900 acres and, as modified, currently remains in effect. The 1988 Permit requires the preservation of two large wetlands in the north parcel, just north of the 115-acre preserve; one wetland is about 30 acres and the other is about ten acres. The 1988 Permit requires the preservation of no other wetlands in the north parcel, but, in addition to the wetlands in the 115-acre preserve, the 1988 Permit requires the preservation of several much smaller wetlands in the south parcel. The staff report for the 1988 Permit divides into three basins the drainage area for the 900-acre parcel: a north basin of 98.9 acres, a central basin of 525.7 acres, and a south basin of 270.8 acres. The staff report states that basin runoff will pass through a system of inlets and culverts into a series of interconnected lakes, from which, through control structures, the runoff will pass into the M-1 canal and eventually into the C-51 canal. The staff report notes that the control elevations will be 17.25 feet NGVD for the north basin, 17.55 feet NGVD for the central basin, and 17.75 feet NGVD for the south basin. Under the discussion of environmental impacts, the staff report observes that the 1978 permit proposed for protection only 30 acres of wetlands among the 281 acres of isolated wetlands on the site. The staff report notes that “extensive” melaleuca invasion has taken place since the 1978 permit and only 160 acres of wetlands remain in “relatively good” condition, with much of this subject to melaleuca encroachment. Due to the “extensive seed source” and “seasonal drying of the wetlands,” the staff report predicts eventual melaleuca dominance of the “entire site.” The staff report asserts that the proposed development plan includes the protection of about 100 acres of the “best quality wetlands,” plus eight acres of wetlands created in conjunction with the golf courses and 15 acres of wetlands created as littoral zones in conjunction with the lakes to be constructed. The staff report calls a program “to eradicate all melaleuca from the site” “[t]he major environmental feature” of the proposed development plan. But this major environmental feature of the 1988 Permit is presently in jeopardy. One major component of the present case is that, following the conveyances of the three parcels by the Original Developer, the District has evidently concluded that no one is responsible to perform certain obligations under the 1988 Permit and no remedies are available for the nonperformance of these obligations. It appears that these conclusions are largely driven by the vagueness of the plan to eradicate the melaleuca. This plan is called the "Melaleuca Eradication Plan." The Melaleuca Eradication Plan is incorporated into the 1988 Permit. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan, which is dated December 11, 1987, recounts that the Original Developer and regulatory bodies agreed that the melaleuca should be “eradicated and a program for this should be developed and included as a part of the permit application.” The plan states that the eradication plan will cover the entire 900- acre site with the Original Developer performing the “initial . . . program” on the entire site, including the 115-acre preserve to be deeded to the Village. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan calls for the Original Developer to create a bonded authority to conduct the “ten-year melaleuca eradication program.” The program is phased to coincide with the projected 10-year buildout of the 3000-unit parcel. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan describes in detail the three phases of the program and exactly how the Original Developer will proceed to remove the melaleuca and restore wetlands by planting native wetland species in disturbed areas. The plan promises a yearly inspection followed by hand-removal of any seedlings discovered on the site. This last phase will terminate ten years after commencement of the first phase. A “Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program” is also incorporated into the 1988 Permit. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which is dated December 8, 1987, states that Dr. Dwight Goforth performed a wetlands survey of the 900-acre site in 1985 and divided wetlands into three categories based on their quality. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance promises the preservation of 112.71 acres of wetlands comprising 98.81 acres of “large wetlands totally preserved” and nine wetlands totaling 13.9 acres that will be “partially preserved.” Also, the program will create golf course wetlands of 6.93 acres and littoral-zone wetlands around the lakes of 15 acres. Thus, the program summarizes, the “total wetland acreage preserved, enhanced and created will [be] 134.64 acres.” The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program describes a three-year monitoring program using transects to assist in the vegetative mapping of the site. The program also promises semiannual observations of birds, small rodents, and larger mammals using the wetlands and adjacent preserved uplands, as well as semiannual sampling for fish, macroinvertebrates, and amphibians. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program outlines a plan to remove melaleuca and control algae buildup in the lakes. The program promises to contain algae through the use of “biological controls” and, when needed, hand-raking. The program also assures that the Original Developer will use a “conservative fertilization program” for the golf course and landscaped areas to reduce eutrophication in the created lakes. On February 18, 1988, the District issued its conceptual approval of the 1988 Permit. Among the special conditions of the 1988 Permit are Special Condition 15, which requires wetland monitoring and maintenance in accordance with the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, and Special Condition 16, which requires melaleuca removal in accordance with the Melaleuca Eradication Plan. Also, Special Condition 17 requires low berms around protected or created wetlands, including littoral zones, to protect against sheetflow runoff from the golf course or other areas of intense development. The references in the preceding paragraphs to the responsibilities of the "Original Developer" imply greater clarity than is present in the Melaleuca Eradication Plan or Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. The passive voice predominates in both these documents, so it is sometimes difficult to determine on whom a particular responsibility falls. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan states clearly that "[the Original Developer] will conduct the initial melaleuca eradication on the entire site including the dedicated park area [i.e., the 115 acres]." The next sentence of the plan contemplates the conveyance of the 115 acres to the County. But, after these clear provisions, the Melaleuca Eradication Plan lapses into the passive voice almost invariably. The next two sentences read, "A bonded authority will be created to conduct the ten-year melaleuca eradication program" and "The eradication program will be carried out through a bonded agreement with the [Original] Developer to remove the melaleuca . . .." Alluding to the several phases of melaleuca eradication, the plan states only "[t]he eradication program will be completed in stages " Only two other sentences establishing responsibility for melaleuca eradication identify the responsible party. The end of the plan states that the "bonded authority responsible for initial eradication clearance will likewise provide a yearly inspection." One of the final sentences of the plan adds: "the bonding authority's crew will hand remove entire seedlings found on site." The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program is similar except that it does not once name the entity responsible for the monitoring and maintenance duties or hiring the firm or individual to conduct the actual work. The two special conditions incorporating these two documents likewise are in the passive voice, implying only that the responsibility belongs to the Original Developer. Given the vagueness of the melaleuca-eradication and wetlands-maintenance documents, it is not surprising that they fail entirely to address the issue whether these responsibilities run with the land, remain the responsibility of the Original Developer, or, for the eradication of melaleuca, remain the duty of the "bonded authority," if the Original Developer ever created such an entity, which appears highly doubtful. The documents likewise do not disclose the penalties for noncompliance. On June 16, 1988, the District issued a modification to the 1988 Permit for the construction and operation of a 110.9-acre residential development in Phase I, which occupies the central basin. On October 1, 1988, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) issued the Original Developer a permit to destroy 164 acres of wetlands on the 900-acre parcel. Special conditions of the 1988 Army Corps permit require the preservation of "115 acres of high quality wetlands," the creation of 18 acres of wetlands and 15 acres of littoral shelf, and the implementation of a "Melaleuca Eradication Program," which is the same program as is incorporated in the 1988 Permit. The 1988 Army Corps permit contains an attachment dated October 24, 1987. This attachment identifies the protected wetlands as the two large wetlands in the north parcel totaling about 40 acres, 58 acres in the 115-acre preserve, and 53.5 acres in the south parcel. The 1988 Army Corps permit protects several wetlands in the south parcel, including wetland numbers 14 (3.04 acres), 16 (1.6 acres), 23 (0.53 acres), 30 (2.6 acres), 44 (0.8 acres), 29 (1.08 acres), and 46 (3.0 acres). These wetlands, which total 12.65 acres, are seven of the nine wetlands partially preserved in the 1988 Permit, although some of the acreages vary from those preserved in the 1988 Permit. Unlike the District's permits (except for the subject proposed permit modification), the 1988 Army Corps permit addresses conveyances by the developer. The 1988 Army Corps permit states: "If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the space provided and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization." Below the signature line of the 1988 Army Corps permit is language stating: When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below. On March 1, 1989, the Original Developer conveyed the 115-acre preserve to the Village, which later leased the preserve to the County. The Original Developer had not eradicated the melaleuca at the time of the conveyance, nor has anyone since done so. On August 17, 1990, water elevations in the wetlands in Phase I reached 19.4 feet NGVD, washing out construction pads, roads, and in-ground utilities. On September 7, 1990, the District issued a stop-work request because the SWM system was not working as required. On September 28, 1990, the District approved interim measures to preserve the wetland hydroperiod and allow for wetland overflow. These measures include berming the residential areas in Phase I/Plat I adjacent to wetlands. On June 13, 1991, the District approved additional modifications to the 1988 Permit and the construction and operations permit for Phase I and issued a conceptual approval for works in the north and central basins. The revisions to the conceptual approval include adding two control structures to the north wetland that connect to the water management system in the north basin and adding a berm around the smaller of the two preserved wetlands in the north parcel. The construction approval was for a perimeter berm along the south wetland and park areas. On June 24, 1992, the District issued a staff report recommending issuance of another modification of the 1988 Permit for the conceptual approval of a SWM system to serve the 900-acre parcel and approval of construction and operation of a SWM system to isolate and control the existing onsite wetlands and revise the control structure for the central basin. The staff report explains that this modification proposes berming the wetlands to the 100-year, three-day peak elevation. The staff report notes that the wetlands basin consists of 295.18 acres of wetlands, including 155.85 acres of “wetlands/uplands.” The staff report notes that the north basin contains 107.41 acres of “good quality wet prairie wetlands” with “minimal” melaleuca encroachment. The staff report restates that the purpose of the modification is to berm all of the wetlands and uplands not planned for development. Special Condition 19 requires the Original Developer to dedicate as conservation and common areas in deed restrictions the “wetland preservation/mitigation areas, upland buffer zones, and/or upland preservation areas," so that these areas are the “perpetual responsibility” of a named property owners’ association. Special Condition 22 states that “a wetland monitoring and maintenance program” and “a melaleuca eradication program” “shall be implemented,” but the condition does not expressly state by whom. Special Condition 22 requires that the work implementing these programs conform to these “approved environmental programs as outlined in the [1988 Permit].” Special Condition 25 provides that, on submittal of an application for construction approval in the south basin (Phase II), the "permittee shall submit a detailed wetland construction mitigation, monitoring and maintenance plan.” In evaluating the plan for approval, the District shall apply the “environmental criteria in effect at the time of construction permit application.” Although the approval of the District is not attached to the staff report, the District approved the June 24, 1992, staff report and proposed permit. The 1992 permit modification did not address the issue of who was responsible for melaleuca eradication after the sale of the property. On November 10, 1993, the staff report accompanying another request for a permit modification restates the special conditions of earlier permit modifications. Special Condition 23 restates the requirement that a melaleuca eradication program “shall be implemented,” again not stating by whom. Special Condition 23 now requires the completion of the melaleuca eradication program by February 25, 1994. The omission of a referenced exhibit to the permit from the exhibit filed in this case prevents a determination that this is the same as the Melaleuca Eradication Plan incorporated in the 1988 Permit and restated in the 1992 modification, although it probably is. In any event, Special Condition 23 concludes in another sentence lacking a stated or implied subject: “Maintenance of the preserved wetlands and berm planting areas shall be conducted in perpetuity to ensure that the conservation areas are maintained free from exotic vegetation (Brazilian pepper, Australian pine and melaleuca) . . ..” Although the record does not contain the written approval of the District to the staff report, the District approved the staff report dated November 10, 1993. On November 12, 1993, the Original Developer conveyed by special warranty deed the north to Petitioner. The deed is subject only to "easements, declarations, restrictions and reservations of record . . .." The record does not provide recording information for the deed. The Original Developer probably conveyed the south parcel to Applicant in the same fashion and at the same approximate time. Almost five months later, on March 29, 1994, the Army Corps issued another permit for the 900-acre parcel. Although the Original Developer had conveyed at least the north parcel, the Army Corps issued the 1994 permit to the Original Developer. The 1994 Army Corps permit authorizes the destruction of 158 acres. The general conditions governing transfers are the same as those in the 1988 Army Corps permit. The special conditions of the 1994 Army Corps permit require the permittee to preserve and enhance only 110 acres of high quality wetlands, instead of preserving 115 acres of such wetlands, as was required in the 1988 Army Corps permit. The 1994 Army Corps permit drops the requirement of creating eight acres of wetlands and 15 acres of littoral zone, as was required in the 1988 Army Corps permit, but requires the preservation of what appears to be the 39.5-acre preserve that is proposed by Applicant in the subject permit modification, as described below. Special Condition 3 of the 1994 Army Corps permit adds that all preserved areas "will be maintained in perpetuity free of Melaleuca. The permittee agrees to develop a bonded Melaleuca eradication program for the entire 906 acres. Copies of the bonded agreement will be provided to this office for approval before development can commence." The next permit activity affecting the 900-acre parcel is the subject application filed by Applicant on August 3, 1994, for its 503-acre parcel. On May 24, 1996, the District issued a staff report for conceptual approval of a SWM system proposed by Applicant for its 503-acre parcel. On June 13, 1996, the District issued an addendum to the staff report that contains another special condition that is not especially relevant to this case. In the background section, the staff report mentions the flooding of Phase I of the north parcel and states that the District had “assumed the adjacent wetlands would flow away from the development.” The staff report outlines the modifications implemented to eliminate the flooding; these modifications include connecting the M-1 canal, through inlets, with several wetlands located in the north and central basins. According to the staff report, Petitioner’s north parcel, which totals 287.34 acres, includes the Phase I/Plat 1 area, north basin, and part of central basin south of Phase I. Describing Applicant’s proposal, the staff report states that a preserve of 39.5 acres will be located in the northwest corner of the south parcel, adjoining the east boundary of the 115-acre parcel. The staff report states that the 39.5-acre preserve will sheetflow through cuts in the berm to wetlands in the 115-acre preserve. The 115-acre preserve is connected to the SWM system permitted on November 10, 1993, to eliminate flooding from these wetlands, whose control elevation is 19 feet NGVD. The staff report describes the south parcel as “dominated by flatwood habitat,” within which are stands of Australian pine and other exotic plant species that have recently been spreading across the site. The onsite wetlands are 4.93 acres of wet prairies, 18.4 acres of pond cypress strands, 1.56 acres of isolated marsh, 3.5 acres of cypress mixed with pine flatwood, and 163.91 acres of melaleuca. The staff report finds that only the 4.93 acres of wet prairies and 18.4 acres of cypress are in good condition, but melaleuca has become established in many of the wet prairies. The 1.56 acres of freshwater marshes and 163.91 acres of melaleuca are in poor condition. The 3.5 acres of cypress mixed with pine flatwoods are in fair condition. As for listed species, the staff report mentions only the possibility that herons might forage onsite during periods of standing water. Summarizing the impact of the proposed project on wetlands preservation, the staff report endorses the hydrologic reconnection of the 39.5-acre wetland/upland site with the 115-acre wetland. The staff report notes that water levels in the 115-acre preserve, which has been bermed to 21 feet NGVD, have stabilized at 19 feet NGVD. The staff report asserts that the “proposed wetland impacts (183.54 acres) were previously permitted under the conceptual permit application” for the original 1988 Permit. The staff report adds that this modification is to “change a portion of the original mitigation requirements . . . and includes impacts to a 6.78 acre wetland area that was previously permitted to be preserved.” But the staff report does not recommend the preservation of this wetland “[d]ue to the reduced hydrology and proximity to the proposed upland development” and the mitigation and compensation provided by the 39.5-acre preservation area. The staff report states that 8.76 acres of the 39.5- acre preserve are wetlands, and the remainder are uplands. As for the 8.76 acres of wetlands, the staff report lists 0.67 acres of mixed cypress and pine flatwoods, 4.93 acres of wet prairies, and 3.16 acres of cypress. Applicant would also restore 4.95 acres of pine flatwoods. As for the 183.54 acres of wetlands to be destroyed, the staff report lists 2.83 acres of mixed cypress and pine flatwoods in fair condition, 15.24 acres of cypress in fair condition, 1.56 acres of freshwater marshes in poor condition, and 163.91 acres of melaleuca in poor condition. Addressing the mitigation and monitoring elements of the current proposal, the staff report states that the modification would eliminate the creation of 15 acres of littoral wetlands around SWM lakes and 7.99 acres of marshes in golf courses in return for the creation of the 39.5-acre preservation area. The staff report assures that Applicant will perpetually manage and maintain the 115-acre preserve. Conceding that the 1988 Permit also required long-term maintenance of the 115-acre parcel, the staff report notes that the initial eradication effort was never completed. The staff report mentions an “access agreement” giving Applicant the authority to enter the 115-acre preserve for mitigation and monitoring, but “anticipat[es]” that Applicant will submit an application for another permit modification, on behalf of the two governmental entities, so that Applicant can “assume future maintenance responsibilities for this area.” As is clarified by the maintenance and monitoring plan, which is part of the proposed permit, Applicant's expectation is that the County and Village, not Applicant, will assume future maintenance responsibilities for the 115-acre preserve. The staff report concludes that the District should issue the permit subject to various conditions. Special Condition 1 is that the minimum building floor elevation is 20 feet NGVD. Special Condition 16 requires the implementation of a wetland mitigation program and requires Applicant to create 4.95 acres of marsh; restore 3.16 acres of cypress, 4.93 acres of marsh, and 0.67 acres of mixed forest; and protect 25.79 acres of uplands. Special Condition 17 sets performance criteria for the mitigation areas in terms of percentage and length of survival of vegetation. Special Condition 17 supplies completion dates for monitoring reports. Special Condition 21 addresses listed species. Noting that listed species have been seen onsite or the site contains suitable habitat for such species, Special Condition 21 requires Applicant to coordinate with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission or the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for guidance, recommendations, or permits to avoid impacts to such species. The monitoring and maintenance plan does not address direct and contingent liabilities for maintenance and generally is a poor candidate for enforcement. In addition to the vagueness of the passive voice, the plan is, at times, simply unreadable, as, for example, when it concludes boldly, but enigmatically: The site as a whole is evolving hydrologic trends which permits successional seres development toward communities with shorter hydroperiods and ultimately, toward more upland transitional and/or exotic species dominance of historically wetland habitats. Long-term prospectives infer that successional deflection has become a severe detriment for natural environmental control to alter the present scenario. Active management coupled with graduated balanced in hydrologic restoration and created habitat elements will become the processes engineered to obtain an infusion of probabilities fashioned to inscribe a regenerative adaptation to the present site condition while fostering in situ processes, to optimize derived functions, for the maintenance of both habitat and wildlife over the long-term existence of the Preserve. (Sic.) Water Quality Impacts Petitioner does not contend in its proposed recommended order that the proposed project fails to meet applicable requirements regarding water quality. Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed permit modification would not violate State water quality standards. Flooding Petitioner contends in its proposed recommended order that the proposed permit modification would not meet applicable requirements regarding water quantity and flooding. However, Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the project would not violate these requirements. There are several aspects to a SWM system. Undeveloped land stores and conveys rainfall through soil and surface storage. An artificial SWM system alters the undeveloped land’s storage capacity by the addition of a storage and drainage system, such as, in this case, conveying water through the soil into storm drains and then to lakes to store surface runoff prior to release, through an outfall structure, into a receiving body of water--in this case, the M-1 canal. The SWM system hastens the conveyance of stormwater runoff offsite. The control elevation of a SWM system is the height at which water in the lakes will flow through the outfall structure into the receiving body of water. Except during the dry season, the control elevation tends to establish not only the water level of the SWM lakes, but also of the nearby water table. The hastening of drainage offsite with the establishment of control elevations produce the drawdown effect of SWM systems. As to flooding, the basic underlying dispute between Petitioner and Respondents is whether to use the pre- or post- development depth to water table. In determining whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance as to the impact of a proposed development on wetlands, one would project the effect of any post-development drawdown on the wetlands themselves and their functions and inhabitants. It would be illogical not to do the same in determining whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance as to the impact of a proposed development on flooding. Pre-development, the average depth to water table on Applicant’s property is as little as two feet. Post- development, the average depth to water table on Applicant’s property will be five feet, which is the difference between the control elevation of 14 feet NGVD and ground elevation of 19 feet NGVD. Petitioner’s evidence concerning flooding is flawed because its expert witness based his calculations on an average depth to water table of two feet on Applicant’s property. He did not adjust for the considerable drawdown effect of the SWM system. The District table allows for no more than four feet between the water table and ground, so there is an added margin of safety in the ensuing flooding calculations. Another important factor in the flooding calculations is the soil type in terms of permeability. The District properly characterized the prevailing soils as flatwoods, and the soils onsite are in the category of “good drainage.” Applicant’s suggestion that flooding calculations use the post-development soils is rejected. Post-development depths to water table are used because they can be calculated to predict post-development conditions accurately. Applicant produced no proof that it would replace such massive amounts of soil from the site with more permeable soils so as to justify reclassifying the soil type. The District's flooding calculations probably overstate the risk of flooding in the three-day, 100-year design storm because they ignore lake bank storage, which is the additional amount of water that a lake can store in its sloped banks above the typical water elevation. The District could have relied on the effect of lake bank storage for additional assurance that the proposed project will not result in flooding. The proposed project contains a large number of long, narrow lakes, which will thus have a relatively high percentage of lake banks to lake area. Additionally, the District has raised the minimum floor elevation at this site by two feet over 18 years. Whatever other effects may follow from this trend, the higher floor elevation offers additional protection to onsite improvements. The flooding of Petitioner’s property seven years ago understandably is a matter of concern to Petitioner. Applicant proposes to change the configuration of drainage basins, but the District has adequately addressed the drainage issue, and this is not the first time in the 20-year permitting history of this property that the District has approved a reconfiguration of basins. Also, in the 1988 Permit, the District incorrectly projected the direction of runoff under certain conditions. However, the flooding was partly due to inadequate road- drainage facilities. Following the flooding, the Original Developer enlarged these features and bermed the flooding wetlands, so as to eliminate the flooding of developed areas due to design storm events. On balance, Applicant has proved that the proposed permit modification would not adversely affect flooding or water quantity. Environmental Impacts A. Wetlands Petitioner contends in its proposed recommended order that the proposed permit modification would not meet applicable requirements regarding environmental impacts to wetlands. Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed work would not violate these requirements. There are two major deficiencies in the District's analysis of wetland impacts and mitigation or compensation. First, the proposed permit modification includes mitigation or compensation in the form of melaleuca removal. But prior permits have already required the same work, no one has ever done the work, and the District does not know if these permit requirements are still enforceable. Second, the proposed permit modification ignores 13.9 acres of preserved wetlands in the 1988 Permit, allowing their destruction without mitigation or compensation. The permitting process requires the District to balance the impacts of development and mitigation or compensation on the natural resources under the District's jurisdiction. Balancing these impacts in issuing the 1988 Permit, the District required the complete eradication of melaleuca in return for permitting the residential, institutional, and recreational development proposed by the Original Developer. District staff, not the Original Developer or Petitioner, called the Melaleuca Eradication Plan “the major environmental feature” of the development plan approved by the 1988 Permit. The major environmental feature of the 1988 Permit clearly justified significant development impacts on natural resources. To justify additional development impacts on natural resources, the District now proposes to count again another developer’s promise to eradicate the melaleuca. The District claims that the term of the original melaleuca protection plan was only ten years, not perpetual as is presently proposed. However, the District's claim ignores Special Condition 23 in the 1993 permit modification. This condition set a deadline of February 25, 1994, for the eradication of melaleuca and made perpetual the requirement that one or more of the potentially responsible parties--the Original Developer, Petitioner, Applicant, the bonded authority, the property owners' association, or transferees-- maintain the wetlands free of melaleuca and other exotics. Unfortunately, this “major environmental feature” of the 1988 Permit, as well as subsequent permit modifications, was so poorly drafted as to leave potentially responsible parties unsure of their legal obligations. The District tacitly suggests that it cannot enforce the obligations imposed by the 1988 Permits and later modifications for the eradication of melaleuca. But there is presently no reason for the District to resort again to permitting without first reviewing carefully its enforcement options. The District should first determine whether anyone will voluntarily assume these obligations. As a business consideration, Petitioner may choose to eradicate the melaleuca from the north parcel and 115-acre preserve to prevent Applicant from providing this service and claiming that it should receive compensation credit against additional environmental impacts permitted by a modification of the 1988 Permit. Maybe the County or Village has already budgeted funds for this work. If no party offers to perform the necessary work, the District must next determine its legal rights and the legal obligations of these parties. Depending on the results of this research, the District may need to consider litigation and the cessation of the issuance of construction and operation permits on the 900-acre parcel or either the north or south parcel. At this point, the District should discuss joint litigation or permit revocation with the Army Corps, whose 1994 permit requires the permittee to develop a bonded melaleuca-eradication program and apparently imposes on the permittee the responsibility to maintain all preserved areas free of melaleuca. Only after having exhausted these options may the District legitimately conclude that melaleuca eradication on any part of the 900 acres represents fair compensation for the development impacts on jurisdictional natural resources. The second major problem as to wetlands impacts concerns the calculation of wetlands acreages to be destroyed by the proposed permit. The 1988 Permit expressly incorporates the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. This program, as an operative part of the 1988 Permit, represents that the developer will “partially preserve. . .” nine wetlands totaling 13.9 acres. The partial preservation of wetlands does not mean that a five-acre wetland will remain a five-acre wetland, except that its function will be impaired. Partial preservation means that, for instance, two acres of a five- acre wetland will be preserved. It is impossible for the District to have required mitigation to offset the destruction of these 13.9 acres of wetlands because the District denies that the 1988 Permit required the partial preservation of these nine wetlands. As noted below, neither the District nor Applicant can identify all of the wetlands that make up the 13.9 acres. Rather than account for these wetlands that were to have been partially preserved, the District instead contends that this undertaking by the Original Developer was ineffective or nonbinding because it was overriden by contrary statements in the staff report. Not so. The specific provisions delineating the preserved wetlands area in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which was prepared by the Original Developer, override more general statements contained in the staff report accompanying the permit. There is not necessarily a conflict between the staff report and the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. The staff report states that the plan “includes the protection of approximately 100 acres of the best quality wetlands,” together with the creation of eight acres of golf course wetlands and 15 acres of lake littoral zones. The plan “includes” these wetlands among those preserved or created; the word suggests that the list is not exhaustive, but only illustrative. Alternatively, if the list were exhaustive, the preservation of “approximately” 100 acres reasonably encompasses the 112.71 acres of partially or totally preserved wetlands cited in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. More to the point, on October 26, 1987, Donald Wisdom, the engineer handling the 1988 Permit, prepared a memorandum for the file stating that the total acreage of wetlands to be preserved or created was 134.45. This figure represents an insignificant deviation of 0.19 acres from the total listed in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which was dated six weeks later, on December 8, 1987. In the October 26 memorandum, Mr. Wisdom describes the preserved wetlands as 111.46 acres of A- and B-quality wetlands. This is 1.25 acres less than the acreage in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. These small discrepancies were eliminated by November 18, 1987, when Mr. Wisdom wrote a memorandum noting that the program called for the total preservation of 98.81 acres and partial preservation of 13.9 acres. Adding the created wetlands, the new total for preserved or created wetlands was 134.64 acres. A month later, a District employee wrote a memorandum to the file, expressing his “main concern” that the proposed development would protect only 99 acres of wetlands. It is unclear why the employee mentioned only the 98.81 acres slated for preservation. Perhaps he was confused or mistaken. But the misgivings of a single employee do not constitute the rejection by the District of a developer's proposal to preserve nearly 14 acres of high-quality wetlands. The staff report for the 1988 Permit notes that the 900-acre site contained about 281 acres of wetlands. If the 1988 Permit required the preservation, as an entire wetland or part of a larger wetland, of 112 acres of wetlands, then the 1988 Permit allowed the destruction of 169 acres, which is consistent with the 164 and 158 acres allowed to be destroyed by the 1988 and 1994 Army Corps permits. However, by the 1996 permit modification, the staff report refers, without explanation or justification, to the permitted destruction of 183.54 acres of wetlands--evidently adding the 13.9 acres to the 169 acres previously permitted to be destroyed. Tab 13 of the Wisdom bluebook identifies the nine wetlands constituting the 13.9 acres, which are entirely in Applicant's south parcel. Except for three, all of these wetlands were characterized as A-quality, meaning that they are in good to excellent condition and “have not been stressed significantly from the biological viewpoint.” B-quality wetlands are in disturbed condition and “are in various stages of biological stress caused primarily by a lowered water table and/or melaleuca invasion.” C-quality wetlands are highly disturbed and “are substantially degraded biologically.” The 13.9 acres of wetlands comprise wetland numbers 23 (0.5 acres), 46 (0.4 acres), 44 (0.6 acres), 37 (0.4 acres), 29 (1.1 acres), 20 [sometimes misreported as 21] (3.9 acres), 30 (2.6 acres), 16 (1.5 acres), and 14 (2.9 acres). Wetland numbers 46 and 29 are B-quality, and wetland number 20 is C-quality. The wetlands shown in District Exhibit 4 and Applicant Exhibit 3 inaccurately portray the wetlands constituting the missing 13.9 acres. A internal memorandum to the file notwithstanding, the District predicated the 1988 Permit in part on the preservation of 112.71 acres of functioning wetlands, including the 13.9 acres that the District now disclaims. The mitigation and compensation required of Applicant in the present case ignored the destruction of these wetlands. The District's analysis of mitigation and compensation in this case was fatally flawed by these two deficiencies. But more deficiencies exist in the District's analysis of wetland impacts. The District relied on faulty data in reviewing Applicant's request for a permit modification. Undercounting the extent of wetlands by at least 21 acres and their condition by an indeterminable amount, Applicant presented to the District a materially inaccurate picture of the wetland resources on the south parcel. Despite disclaimers to the contrary, the District relied on this inaccurate data in reviewing Applicant's request for a permit modification. There are possible problems with 39.5-acre preserve offered by Applicant. This parcel contains less than nine acres of wetlands, including two wetlands that Applicant may already be required to preserve under the 1994 Army Corps permit. At the same time, Applicant's proposal may include the destruction of a third wetland that is to be preserved under the 1994 Army Corps permit. The best rendering in the record of the 1994 Army Corps permit may be Applicant Exhibit 4, which shows eight large wetland areas to be “preserved/enhanced/created.” Two of these are the 10- and 30-acre wetlands on Petitioner’s property, which were preserved in the 1988 Permit. Three of the eight wetlands are in the 115-acre preserve; these were also preserved in the 1988 Permit. The remaining three wetlands to be preserved, enhanced, or created under the 1994 Army Corps permit are in the north end of Applicant’s property. It is difficult to estimate acreage given the scale of the drawing, but the two westerly wetlands are about 4-5 acres each and the easterly wetland is 3-3.5 acres. Subtracting the total preserved acreage of 110 from the acreage identified in the preceding paragraph, the total acreage of these remaining three wetlands is about 12. The two westerly wetlands are in the 39.5-acre preserve that Applicant offers as mitigation in the present case. According to Applicant Exhibit 6, the easterly wetland, or at least the most valuable part of it--the center--is slated for destruction if the District grants the subject permit modification. The proposed destruction of the third wetland is a matter of greater interest to the Army Corps than to the District, but the offer to preserve the other two wetlands really does not provide anything in return for the permitted development impacts because these two wetlands are already preserved under the 1994 Army Corps permit. As the District and Applicant contend, golf course marshes and littoral zones are typically of little environmental importance. Although the 1988 Permit addresses some of these problems, although without supplying any performance standards, golf courses themselves are often conduits of fertilizers and pesticides into the groundwater and nearby surface water. The District and Applicant justifiably question the value of the golf courses approved in the 1988 Permit as wildlife corridors. It is unclear what wildlife would use the corridor, which is surrounded by residential development and bounded by Okeechobee Boulevard. Other factors also militate in favor of Applicant's proposal. But, as the record presently stands, there is no way to find that Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed development and related mitigation and compensation, as described in the subject permit modification, meet the applicable criteria. The District substantially undervalued the environmental impacts of the proposed modification while substantially overvaluing the environmental impacts of Applicant's proposed contributions in the form of mitigation and compensation. To find adequate assurance as to wetland impacts in these circumstances, where the District did not perform an informed balancing of various impacts in a large-scale development, would permit the District to transform the unavoidably imprecise task of balancing wetland impacts into an act of pure, unreviewable discretion. Listed Species The only relevant listed species onsite is the gopher tortoise, which is a species of special concern. Gopher tortoises use the site to an undetermined extent. Applicant's suggestion that someone brought the tortoises to the site is rejected as improbable. However, due to the resolution of the wetlands issue, it is unnecessary to determine whether Applicant provided reasonable assurance as to the value of functions provided to wildlife and listed species by wetlands. Procedural Issues A. Standing Petitioner has standing due most obviously to flooding considerations. Additionally, the SWM system permitted in 1988 is for the entire 900-acre parcel, of which Petitioner’s parcel is a part. Applicability of ERP Rules The proposed permit modification would substantially affect water resources. The proposed permit modification would substantially increase the adverse effect on water resources. Requirement to Delineate Wetlands Due to the resolution of the wetlands issue, it is unnecessary to determine whether Applicant met applicable requirements concerning the delineation of wetlands. Improper Purpose Petitioner did not challenge the proposed permit modification for an improper purpose. Relevant Provisions of Basis of Review The District revised its Basis of Review after the adoption of ERP rules. Although the order concludes that the District should have applied the ERP rules, and thus the ERP Basis of Review, the order shall discuss both versions of the Basis of Review because the District ignored numerous provisions of both documents in approving Applicant's request for a permit modification. Section 4.6 MSSW Basis of Review requires the District to consider "actual impact" to the site by "considering the existing natural system as altered by the proposed project[,]" including "positive and negative environmental impacts." Section 4.6 requires the District to "balance" these impacts "to achieve a reasonable degree of protection for significant environmental features consistent with the overall protection of the water resources of the District." The proposed permit modification fails to comply with several provisions of Appendix 7 of the MSSW Basis of Review, such as Sections 4.2 requiring a detailed description of the isolated wetlands to be destroyed; 5.1.1(d) favoring the protection of isolated wetlands over their destruction, mitigation, and compensation, which are considered "only when there are no feasible project design alternatives"; and 5.1.6 prohibiting the alteration of water tables so as to affect adversely isolated wetlands. The proposed permit modification also violates various provisions of the ERP Basis of Review. Section 4.0 of the ERP Basis of Review sets the goal of permitting to be "no net loss in wetland . . . functions." Sections 4.2 and following generally require balancing. Section 4.2.1 predicates District approval on a showing that the SWM system does not cause a "net adverse impact on wetland functions . . . which is not offset by mitigation." The ERP provisions first require that the District "explore" with an applicant the minimization of impacts prior to considering mitigation. Section 4.2.2.4(c) specifically imposes monitoring requirements for SWM systems that "could have the effect of altering water levels in wetlands." Sections 4.3.2.2 and following discuss mitigation ratios under the ERP Basis of Review. If the District can explicate a policy to count as mitigation wetlands acreage already preserved under Army Corps permits, the ratios in this case might warrant further consideration, assuming Applicant resubmits an application for permit modification. But it would be premature to consider the ratios on the present record for several reasons. The District has not proved such a policy. If such a policy counts such wetland acreage, on the theory that the District protects function and the Army Corps protects merely the wetland, the record is insufficiently developed as to the functions of the wetlands proposed for protection, as well as the functions of the 13.9 acres of wetlands proposed for destruction. Also, the District has not sufficiently explored project minimization, as is now required under the ERP Basis of Review.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the District enter a final order denying Applicant's request for a permit modification. ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 13, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 13, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey D. Kneen John F. Mariani J. Barry Curtain Levy Kneen 1400 Centrepark Boulevard, Suite 1000 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Ronald K. Kolins Thomas A. Sheehan, III Moyle Flanigan Post Office Box 3888 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 John J. Fumero Marcy I. LaHart Office of Counsel South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Samuel E. Poole, III Executive Director Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
The Issue Petitioners challenge the South Florida Water Management District’s (the District) proposed action to issue Individual Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) 50-06558-P to authorize conceptual approval of a surface water management (SWM) system to serve 1,919 acres of a phased, multiple-use development referred to as the Palm Beach County Biotechnolgy Research Park (BRP) and to authorize construction and operation of Phase 1A of that proposed project. The ultimate issue is whether the Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed activities will not be harmful to the water resources of the District; will not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the District; and will comply with the water quantity, environmental, and water quality criteria of the District’s ERP regulations, which are set forth in Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40E-4, et. seq.; and the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District – September 2003 (BOR).1
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES The Florida Wildlife Federation, Audubon Society of the Everglades, and Jupiter Farms Environmental Council, Inc. (d/b/a Loxahatchee River Coalition) are not-for-profit corporations in existence prior to 2003 with more than 25 members in Palm Beach County. Palm Beach County Environmental Coalition was formed in 1997 and is a private, county-wide, non-profit citizen’s organization. Ms. Ketter, Mr. Bell, Ms. Larson, and Mr. Christensen are individuals affected by the proposed BRP. The Respondents stipulated that the parties who remained Petitioners after Mr. Silver’s withdrawal as a Petitioner have standing to bring this proceeding. The District, a public corporation existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, operates pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, as a multipurpose water management district with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida. The County is a duly-constituted governmental entity. THE PROJECT SITE AND ADJACENT LANDS The site of the project is generally referred to as the Mecca Farms, which is a contiguous tract of 1,919 acres of land. At present, the Mecca Farms is used for farming and mining operations. There presently exists a permitted, SWM system on the Mecca Farms that was first permitted in 1979, and has been modified from time to time since then. The existing SWM system includes 73 acres of ditches and a 272-acre above-ground impoundment area. The Mecca Farms site is located within the C-18 Basin. There are no jurisdictional wetlands or delineated surface waters on the Mecca Farms. The following, which is taken from the Staff Report (SFWMD Ex. 1), accurately describes the project site and its adjacent lands: The project site consists of 1,919 acres presently supporting an active orange grove with approximately 73 acres of associated drainage and irrigation ditches/canals and a 30-acre active sand mining operation. The ditches/canals are presently maintained at an elevation of approximately 17 feet NGVD.[3] These ditches/canals provide drainage conveyance to a 272-acre above- ground impoundment located in the northeast corner of the site utilizing four (4) 22,000 gpm pumps. The above-ground impoundment discharges to the west leg of the C-18 Canal via gravity discharge. Project site ditches and canals also connect directly to the C-18 Canal through an 18,000 gpm pump. An additional 224-acre agricultural area east of the 1,919 acres of orange groves is connected to and drains into the canal/ditch system on the project site. This adjacent area was leased from the adjacent land owner by the grove owner for use as row crops and was connected to the grove canal/ditch system for better control of drainage and irrigation. The area is no longer used for row crops. There is also a small area on the site that contains caretaker housing and an equipment maintenance building for the orange groves. These facilities were originally permitted in 1979 under Surface Water Management Permit No. 50-00689-S and subsequent modifications. The citrus grove and primary drainage facilities have been in existence since the 1960s. The Hungryland Slough is located north of the project site, separated from the project site by the C-18 Canal. This area is comprised primarily of publicly-owned natural areas, including an area referred to as Unit 11, which is owned in the majority by Palm Beach County. To the west is the J.W. Corbett Wildlife Management Area (CWMA) owned and managed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). To the east, a large area of low-intensity agricultural land exists under the ownership of Charles Vavrus and within the City of Palm Beach Gardens. These lands contain extensive wetlands that are adjacent to the Loxahatchee Slough to the east. The Acreage, a low-density residential area, is located directly to the south of the project site. The only access to the site at this time is an unpaved extension of Seminole Pratt-Whitney Road (SPW), connecting the site at its southwestern corner to the Acreage. THE PROPOSED PROJECT The subject application is for conceptual approval of the SWM system for the BRP and for construction and operation of Phase 1A of the project. All of the proposed Phase 1A construction will occur on the Mecca Farms site. The following, taken from the Staff Report, accurately describes the proposed project: The [BRP] is a phased multiple use development planned for approximately 1,919 acres and will consist of land uses related to science and technology, biotechnology, biomedical, and other related research and development industries and manufacturing. Additionally, proposed support and complementary land uses include educational, institutional, residential, commercial, and recreational facilities, along with utilities and a large created natural area. THE PROPOSED SWM SYSTEM The proposed SWM system will consist of several interconnected lakes that will provide wet detention for storm water runoff from the property site and from 39 acres of off- site flows from SPW Road and a proposed Florida Power and Light (FPL) Substation. The lakes will collect, store, and treat the runoff. The storm water will pass through the lakes, through a 247-acre area referred to as the “Natural Area” (which will be created as part of the mitigation plan), and discharged to the C-18 Canal. To provide additional water quality treatment, these lakes will include planted littoral zones and the southern lake will include a filter marsh. The Natural Area will, in subsequent construction phases, be constructed on the western boundary of the Mecca site with discharge to the C-18 canal, which is adjacent to the northern boundary of the Mecca Farms. The southern boundary of the Natural Area will be the north boundary of the lake that is to be constructed on the southern end of the property. This is the area that is available for use as a flow-way (which will be discussed in greater detail in a subsequent section of this Recommended Order). The Natural Area will be a wetland type system that will move water slowly through that system providing additional storage and water quality benefits prior to discharging through a gravity control structure into the C-18 Canal. The C-18 Canal discharges to either the Northwest or Southwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River, depending on how structures are operated downstream. Discharges travel in the C-18 Canal for approximately nine miles before reaching the Loxahatchee River. The existing SWM system for the Mecca Farms currently discharges to the C-18 Canal, as will the proposed SWM system. The proposed project will not discharge to the CWMA or the Hungryland Slough. The Grassy Waters Preserve and the Loxahatchee Slough are several miles from the project site and will not be affected by the project’s proposed activities. The following, which is taken from the Staff Report, accurately describes the proposed SWM system. The proposed conceptual surface water management system which will serve the 1,919-acre site will consist of site grading, storm water inlets and culverts which will direct all runoff to a series of interconnected lakes for water quality treatment and attenuation of the peak runoff rate. Pumps will control the runoff rate from the developed site into the adjacent onsite BRP natural area. The BRP natural area will discharge into the C-18 canal via a gravity control structure. The system has been designed to accommodate 39 acres of off-site flows from SPW [Road] and a proposed Florida Power and Light (FPL) Substation. The existing control elevation of the citrus grove is 17.0’ NGVD. The proposed control elevations are 18.0’ NGVD for the developed area and 19.0’ NGVD for the natural area. The control elevations are being raised to provide a “step down” of water elevations from wetlands to the north, west and east of the site (20.5’ to 21.0’) to lower elevations to the south (17.0’). PHASE 1A CONSTRUCTION The following, which is taken from the Staff Report, accurately describes the proposed Phase 1A construction: The Phase 1A construction activities will allow the applicant to proceed with lake excavation, clearing and site grading of 536 acres in the southern portion of the site. No permanent buildings or parking areas are proposed at this time. Stormwater from Phase 1A and the remainder of the site, to remain in agricultural use, will be treated in the Phase 1A lakes and then pumped into the existing impoundment for additional water quality treatment and attenuation prior to discharging to the west leg of the C-18 Canal via the existing weir structures. The existing 18,000 gpm pump that connects the on-site ditches and canals directly to the C-18 Canal will remain, but will only be used if the impoundment is full. (See Special Condition No. 21). Approval of Phase 1A authorizes the use of the existing, previously permitted surface water management facilities, therefore, the previous permit no. 50-00689-S is superceded by this permit. The 224 acre agricultural area east of the existing grove that is connected to the grove canal/ditch system will be severed as part of Phase 1A. The pipe connecting this area will be removed and portions of the berm around this area will be regraded so the area will sheetflow into the adjacent pasture land’s canal/ditch system as it did previously [sic] to being connected to the grove system. Of the 536 acres involved in the Phase 1A construction, 87 acres will become lake bottom and 449 acres will remain pervious area, subject only to grading. CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL Pertinent to this proceeding, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.021(5) defines the term “conceptual approval” to mean an ERP issued by the District which approves a conceptual master plan for a surface water management system or a mitigation bank. Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.305, pertains to conceptual approvals and provides, in relevant part, as follows: Conceptual approvals constitute final District action and are binding to the extent that adequate data has been submitted for review by the applicant during the review process. A conceptual approval does not authorize construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, or abandonment of a surface water management system or the establishment and operation of a mitigation bank. * * * For phased projects, the approval process must begin with an application for a conceptual approval which shall be the first permit issued for the project. An application for construction authorization of the first phase(s) may also be included as a part of the initial application. As the permittee desires to construct additional phases, new applications shall be processed as individual or standard general environmental resource permit applications pursuant to the conceptual approval. The conceptual approval, individual and standard general permits shall be modified in accordance with conditions contained in Chapters 40E-4 and 40E-40, F.A.C. Issuance of a conceptual approval permit pursuant to Chapter 40E-4, F.A.C., shall not relieve the applicant of any requirements for obtaining a permit to construct, alter, operate, maintain, remove, or abandon a surface water management system or establish or operate a mitigation bank, nor shall the conceptual approval permit applicant be relieved of the District’s informational requirements or the need to meet the standards of issuance of permits pursuant to Chapters 40E-4 or 40E-40, F.A.C. . . . PERMITTING CRITERIA In order to obtain an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions for issuance set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. The conditions for issuance focus on water quantity criteria, environmental criteria, and water quality criteria. Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301 contains the following permitting conditions applicable to this proceeding: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit ... an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, or abandonment of a surface water management system: 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 ...; 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 ...; will not cause adverse impacts to a work of the District ...; 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. Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302 provides the following Additional Conditions for Issuance of Permits applicable to this proceeding: In addition to the conditions set forth in section 40E-4.301, F.A.C., in order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter or Chapter 40E-40, F.A.C., an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, and abandonment of a system: Located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters will not be contrary to the public interest, or if such an activity significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding Florida Water, that the activity will be clearly in the public interest, as determined by balancing the following criteria as set forth in subsections 4.2.3 through 4.2.3.7 of the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District: Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, F.S.; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. Will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters as set forth in subsections 4.2.8 through 4.2.8.2 of the Basis of Review. . . . THE BASIS OF REVIEW The District has adopted the BOR and incorporated it by reference by Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E- 4.091(1)(a). The standards and criteria found in the BOR are used to determine whether an applicant has given reasonable assurances that the conditions for issuance of an ERP have been satisfied. Section 1.3 of the BOR provides, in part, as follows: . . . Compliance with the criteria established herein [the BOR] constitutes a presumption that the project proposal is in conformance with the conditions for issuance set forth in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302, F.A.C. WATER QUANTITY The term “control elevation” describes the level of freshwater water bodies established by a SWM system. The existing SWM system has a control elevation of 17’ NGVD. The control elevation for the proposed lake system will be raised to 18’ NGVD, and the control elevation for the proposed Natural Area will be raised to 19’ NGVD. Raising the control elevations will permit more treatment of storm water prior to discharge and will permit a more controlled discharge. In addition, raising the control elevation will lessen seepage onto the project site from adjacent wetlands. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands, thereby satisfying the criteria set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E- 4.301(a). The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, thereby satisfying the criteria set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(b). The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, thereby satisfying the criteria set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(c). VALUE OF FUNCTIONS OF WETLANDS AND SURFACE WATERS Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(d), requires the Applicants to establish that “. . . the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, or abandonment of a surface water management system . . .” “. . . will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters.” The District established that the term “value of functions,” as used in the rule, refers to habitat and life support functions. Because there are no wetlands or delineated surface waters on the Mecca Farms site, there are no direct adverse impacts to the functions that wetlands provide to fish and wildlife. The Applicants have provided reasonable assurances to demonstrate that the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters will not be adversely affected. The existing project site does not contain nesting areas for wetland-dependent endangered or threatened wildlife species or species of special concern. The potential for use of the existing project site for nesting by such species is minimal. The existing project site does contain habitat for the American Alligator and foraging habitat for wading birds and birds of prey. The primary foraging habitat on the existing site is around the perimeter of the existing 272-acre impoundment area in the northeast portion of the site. The existing impoundment will be replaced by on-site storm water treatment lakes and the BRP Natural Area that will have shallow banks planted with wetland plant species common to the area. Wildlife is opportunistic; and wading birds commonly feed in areas where there is water, wetland vegetation and wetland plants. The end result will be that the proposed project will have more and better foraging habitat acreage than the existing site. The Natural Area will provide a wetland buffer between the developed area and CWMA that will prevent any adverse impacts both to the wetlands and other surface waters in CWMA and to the value of the functions those wetlands and other surface waters provide to fish, wildlife, and listed species. The Natural Area will provide a wetland buffer between the developed area and Unit 11 that will prevent any adverse impacts both to the wetlands and other surface waters in Unit 11 and to the value of the functions those wetlands and other surface waters provide to fish, wildlife, and listed species. There was no competent evidence that the proposed project would impact the ability of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to manage the CWMA through control burns or otherwise, thereby adversely affecting the diversity or abundance of fish and wildlife (including endangered species and their habitats). Petitioners attempted to raise the issue of mosquito control in their Petitions and at the Final Hearing. The allegations pertaining to mosquito control were struck by the District and Special Condition Number 26 was added before the Petitions were referred to DOAH. Petitioners made no attempt to amend their Petitions and have not challenged Special Condition 26. The Addendum to Staff Report (SFWMD Ex. 2) contains the following Special Condition Number 26: “Upon submittal of an application for construction of any buildings, the permittee shall submit a mosquito control plan for review and approval by District Staff.” Since there will be no buildings containing people or other facilities which would encourage the use of mosquito spraying, it is appropriate for the mosquito control condition to apply to only future phases of construction. There was no competent evidence of impacts attributable to pesticides associated with the application for the SWM system or for Phase 1A construction and operation that would adversely affect the diversity or abundance of fish and wildlife including endangered species and their habitats. The Applicants have satisfied the criteria set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(d). WATER QUALITY The primary concern during Phase 1A construction will be erosion control. Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) are operational and design elements used to either eliminate or reduce the amount of pollutants at the source so they do not get into a SWM system or move downstream. To contain erosion in Phase 1A, the Applicants will use the following BMPs: Silt screens and turbidity barriers within existing ditches and around the perimeter of property. Planned construction sequencing to reduce movement and stock piling of material; Slope stabilization and seeding or sodding of graded areas; and Containment of construction materials with berms. All erosion and turbidity control measures will remain in place until the completion of the on-site construction and approval by the District’s post-permit compliance staff. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed Phase 1A construction activities will not adversely impact the quality of receiving waters and that those activities will not violate State water quality standards. Section 5.2.1, BOR, requires that a SWM system provide wet detention for the first one inch of runoff. The proposed SWM system will provide wet detention for one and one-half inches of runoff. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances to demonstrate that the technical criteria in the BOR will be met. Under Section 1.3 of the BOR, compliance with the criteria in the BOR constitutes a presumption that the Proposed Project is in conformance with the conditions for issuance. This presumption was not rebutted by the Petitioners. The lake system will include planted littoral zones to provide additional uptake of pollutants. A filter marsh is also included in the southern lake. All of the storm water runoff from the lakes will pass through the filter marsh, which will be planted with wetland plants. The filter marsh will provide additional polishing of pollutants, uptake, and filtering through the plants. The discharge will then go into the BRP, which will provide the discharge additional uptake and filtering. BMPs utilized during the Operations and Maintenance phase will include regular maintenance inspections and cleaning of the SWM system, street-sweeping, litter control programs, roadway maintenance inspections and repair schedule, municipal waste collection, pollution prevention education programs, pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer storage, and application training and education. The littoral zones, filter marsh, BRP natural area, and BMPs were not included in the water quality calculations and are over and above rule requirements. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances to demonstrate that the proposed project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. Therefore, Rule 40E- 4.301(1)(e), F.A.C., will be satisfied and water quality standards will not be violated. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES Pursuant to Section 5.5.5 of the BOR, commercial or industrial zoned projects shall provide at least one-half inch of dry detention or retention pretreatment as part of the required retention/detention, unless reasonable assurances can be offered that hazardous materials will not enter the project's SWM system. The Addendum to Staff Report reflects the following Special Condition 25 pertaining to hazardous materials: Upon submittal of an application for construction of commercial or industrial uses the permittee shall submit a plan that provides reasonable assurances that hazardous materials will not enter the surface water management system pursuant to the requirements of section 5.2.2(a) of the Basis of Review. Applicable permitting criteria does not require the Applicants to present a hazardous substances plan at this point because no facilities that will contain hazardous materials are part of the Phase 1A construction. SECONDARY IMPACTS Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f) and Section 4.1.1(f) of the BOR, require an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed activities will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. A secondary impact is an indirect effect of a project resulting in adverse effects to wetlands or other surface waters. The District considers those adverse effects that would not occur "but for" the activities that are closely linked and causally related to the activity under review. This standard is discussed further in the Conclusions of Law section of this Recommended Order. The County’s Exhibit 3 is a secondary impact analysis identifying the secondary impacts that may potentially result from the proposed project. These impacts are: 1) the widening of SPW Road; 2) the construction of an FPL substation; 3) the extension of PGA Boulevard; and 4) the potential relocation of a runway at North County Airport. The secondary impact analysis performed pursuant to the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) contained in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-345 reflects that up to 153.3 acres of wetlands may be partially or completely impacted by these secondary impacts, resulting in approximately 71.21 units of functional loss. Where future activities are expected to directly impact wetlands, secondary impacts were assessed based on the loss of all current functional value within the direct footprint of that activity. Additionally, an assessment was conducted to determine the degree of partial functional loss where impacts beyond the footprint of these activities are anticipated. SPW Road is an existing dirt road which is in the County's five-year road plan to widen as a four-lane paved road. Because the widening of the existing dirt road to a four-lane paved road is part of the five-year road plan, the impacts of that widening are not attributable to the subject project. However, as part of the proposed project, it is proposed to widen SPW Road to a six-lane paved road. The additional impacts associated with the widening from four to six lanes will be caused by, and are linked to, the proposed project. These impacts amount to approximately 2.2 acres. The FPL substation, which is proposed to service the proposed project, may result in 1.6 acres of potential direct impacts to wetlands. In addition, 1.0 acre of potential indirect secondary impacts may occur to wetlands that are not going to be dredged and filled. Those indirect secondary impacts may have some adverse impact on the functional value to those wetlands for wildlife utilization. The extension of PGA Boulevard to the Mecca Farms site has the potential to result in 45.6 acres of direct impacts to wetlands and 56.6 acres of indirect secondary wetland impacts which will not be dredged or filled, but will be in close proximity to the road. The secondary impact assessment for PGA Boulevard assumed the incorporation of wildlife crossings to minimize habitat fragmentation. If the airport runway needs to be shifted, potential direct wetland impacts to an additional 22.7 acres may occur. Indirect impacts to 23.6 acres of wetlands in close proximity could also occur. Runway relocation may or may not be necessary due to the PGA Boulevard extension; however, the analysis assumed the need for the relocation. Each of the projects listed above as potential secondary impacts will require a separate construction and operation permit from the District. The issuance of this permit does not in any way guarantee the issuance of permits for any of these identified potential secondary impacts. MITIGATION PLAN The Applicants provided a conceptual mitigation plan using UMAM to demonstrate how potential secondary impacts could be offset. Mitigation options have the potential to provide more than twice the functional gain than the functional loss from the identified secondary impacts. The conceptual mitigation options include: 194 acres of the land that had been acquired for future mitigation needs in Unit 11. 227 acres of the BRP natural area. 32.6 acres in the southern lake wetland along with proposed upland habitat. Sufficient mitigation is available in these options to offset the potential secondary impacts. The mitigation for the four potential secondary impacts is not required to be implemented now because the impacts are not occurring now. Section 4.2.7 of the BOR requires that the District consider those future impacts now and that a conceptual mitigation plan be provided to demonstrate and provide reasonable assurances that those impacts, in fact, can be offset in the future. The Governor and Cabinet sitting as the Board of Trustees considered and approved a request for public easement of approximately 30 acres to use a portion of CWMA for SPW Road, an FPL substation, and the land area that may be needed by District in the future for the connection to the flow-way. As consideration in exchange for the public easement over 30 acres, the County will transfer fee simple title of 60 acres to the State. This public easement also provides a benefit for CERP as it includes the small portion that the District is going to need for its future CERP project to connect to the flow-way on the proposed project site. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that mitigation will offset secondary impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. UNIDENTIFIED SECONDARY IMPACTS Testimony at the final hearing raised a question as to whether there is nesting or roosting by listed wading bird species in adjacent off-site wetlands outside the eastern boundary of the project site. Evidence was inconclusive on nesting or roosting in these areas. Because the status of adjacent listed wading bird nesting or roosting is uncertain, the District suggested in its Proposed Recommended Order that a special condition requiring a wildlife survey prior to construction near the eastern project boundary be added to the permit as follows: Prior to application for construction within 1000 feet of the eastern boundary of the above-ground impoundment, the applicant shall conduct a wildlife survey to identify any nesting or roosting areas in the adjoining off-site wetlands utilized by listed species of wading birds. If such nesting or roosting areas are found the permittee shall, if determined necessary by the District, incorporate additional buffers or other appropriate measures to ensure protection of these wetland functions. The District represented in its Proposed Recommended Order that the County has no objection to adding the foregoing condition. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 373.414(8), Florida Statutes, the District is required to consider cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters delineated in Section 373.421(1), Florida Statutes, within the same drainage basin. Cumulative impacts are the summation of unmitigated wetland impacts within a drainage basin. The cumulative impact analysis is geographically based upon the drainage basins described in Figure 4.2.8-1 of the BOR. Cumulative impacts are unacceptable when they would result in unacceptable adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands and surface waters within a drainage basin. There are no wetlands or other surface waters delineated pursuant to Section 373.421(1), Florida Statutes, on the Mecca Farms site. Therefore, no cumulative impacts are created by the direct impacts of the project. Cumulative impacts may be created by a project's secondary impacts. If a wetland impact has been appropriately mitigated on-site within the drainage basin, there is no residual impact, and therefore no cumulative impact. The PGA Boulevard extension, a portion of the SPW Road widening, and the airport runway relocation are located within the C-18 Basin. The proposed mitigation options are all located in the C-18 Basin and will offset those impacts. Those potential secondary impacts are considered to meet the cumulative impact requirements of Section 373.414(8), Florida Statutes. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not result in cumulative impacts to the C-18 Basin. The FPL substation is located within the L-8 Drainage Basin. The majority of the SPW Road expansion is located within the C-18 Basin, but a portion is located on the basin line between the C-18 Basin and the L-8 Basin. Because the mitigation for the L-8 impacts are proposed in a different basin, the Applicants were required to conduct a cumulative impact analysis for the L-8 Basin impacts. Based on the Florida Land Use Cover Classification System, there are 43,457 acres of freshwater wetlands within the L-8 Basin. Approximately 41,000 acres of the wetlands in L-8 Basin are in public ownership. This total constitutes approximately 95 percent of all the wetlands in the L-8 Basin. Public ownership of these wetlands provide a high level of assurance that these lands will be protected in perpetuity. The Respondents established that proposed mitigation can fully offset the potential impacts from the SPW Road expansion and the FPL substation and the approximately four acres of impacted wetlands in the L-8 Basin. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that there are no unacceptable adverse cumulative impacts on the L-8 Basin.4 GROUND WATER FLOWS, SURFACE WATER FLOWS, AND MINIMUM FLOWS AND LEVELS Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(g) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed activity will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows established pursuant to Section 373.042, Florida Statutes. The term "maintenance of surface and groundwater levels or surface water flows" in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(g) means that a project will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface water flows that contribute to meeting the minimum flow for the water body. An adverse impact to the maintenance of surface or groundwater levels or surface water flows may occur when a project discharging to a water body with a designated minimum flow level is proposed to be diverted. An analysis was done to compare the peak discharge rate from the existing SWM system on the Mecca Farms site with the projected peak discharge rate from the proposed SWM system. The analysis showed that the peak discharge rate under the proposed system will be less than that of the existing system. That result was expected since the proposed system will have higher control elevations, which, as noted above, will provide better treatment and permit a better control of the discharge into the C-18 Canal. Under the existing SWM system, storm event water in a dry period is frequently stored in the existing impoundment for future irrigation purposes. Under the proposed SWM system such storm event water will be discharged downstream, which will benefit those downstream areas during dry periods. The proposed system will also provide better control over pulse discharges during heavy storm events. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed activities will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground levels or surface water flows as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(g). THE DISTRICT’S OBJECTIVES Sections 373.414 and 373.416, Florida Statutes, require an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that a regulated activity will not be harmful to the water resources and will not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the District. Congress initially authorized the Central and Southern Florida (“C&SF”) Project in 1948. Thereafter extensive work was undertaken pertaining to flood control; water supply for municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses; prevention of saltwater intrusion; and protection of fish and wildlife. The work included construction of a primary system of 1000 miles each of levees and canals, 150 water-control structures, and 16 major pump stations. Unintended consequences of the C&SF Project have included the irreversible loss of vast areas of wetlands, including half of the original Everglades; the alteration in the water storage, timing, and flow capacities of natural drainage systems; and the degradation of water quality and habitat due to over-drainage or extreme fluctuations in the timing and delivery of fresh water into the coastal wetlands and estuaries. In 1992, Congress authorized the C&SF Project Comprehensive Review Study, which is generally referred to as the “Restudy.” The objective of the Restudy was to reexamine the C&SF Project to determine the feasibility of modifying the project to restore the South Florida ecosystem and provide for the other water-related needs of the region, such as water supply and flood protection. In April 1999, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued the Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (“Restudy Report”). The Restudy Report recommends a comprehensive plan for the restoration, protection, and preservation of the water resources of Central and South Florida. The resulting plan is known as CERP. The North Palm Beach County Part I project, which includes restoration of the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River (“NWFLR”), is a component of CERP. The successful completion of CERP and the successful restoration of the NWFLR are high-priority objectives of the District. The Loxahatchee River is an important feature of the South Florida ecosystem, nationally and internationally unique, and an important natural and economic resource. Rules pertaining to MFL for the NWFLR and for the recovery of the NWFLR are found at Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-8.011; 40E-8.221(4); and 40E-8.421. Recovery goals, which are not presently being met, have been established; and strategies to meet those goals have been identified. The Mecca Farms site is located within the boundaries of the CERP North Palm Beach County Part I project and has the potential to affect CERP and the restoration of the NWFLR. Projects that potentially would affect or would be within or adjacent to a CERP project are evaluated on a case-by- case basis to determine whether a proposed project would not be inconsistent with CERP and other District objectives. There was a dispute between Respondents and Petitioners as to whether the proposed project was inconsistent with the District’s objectives, including CERP and its goals pertaining to the restoration of the NWFLR. Petitioners contend that the District has insufficient evidence that the Mecca Farms will not be needed for the construction of a reservoir. That contention is rejected. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that sufficient storage is available at a superior site known as the Palm Beach Aggregates (PBA) site in the L-8 Basin, which is a unique geological site that will provide in-ground storage of water.5 Water from the PBA storage site can be conveyed to the NWFLR to increase dry season flows. Water can be stored at the PBA site in the wet season to prevent potentially damaging high flows. The L-8 Basin, which is adjacent to the C-18 Basin, receives more water during the wet season than it uses. This means that at present a significant amount of water must be discharged to tide (lost) during the wet season to provide for flood protection in this area. As envisioned, the water currently lost to tide could be stored at the PBA site for use during the dry season. By combining the water storage in the L-8 Basin with connective flow-ways to the C-18 Canal, water demands within the C-18 Basin, including the NWFLR, can also be met by the PBA storage site.6 An increase in freshwater flows to the NWFLR will further the District’s restoration goals for the NWFLR. Storage at PBA has regional benefits for other significant natural areas because it will provide additional flows to the Loxahatchee Slough and Grassy Waters Preserve. Those additional flows will further the District’s CERP goals. Since October of 2003, County staff and the District’s ERP staff have coordinated review of the subject project with the District’s CERP Planning and Federal Projects Division and other District staff working on projects in this region. The County asked the District to determine if the Mecca Farms’ site could in some way accommodate CERP objectives, and three alternatives were considered: 1) no action; 2) a reservoir; and 3) a flow-way. As opposed to a reservoir, the more valuable and the more practical, use of the Mecca Farms site would be as part of the system to convey the stored water to the areas that would most benefit from its discharge. The proposed flow-way in the BRP Natural Area would be an integral part of that conveyance system and would provide the District with greater flexibility in managing and directing the discharge of the water stored at the PBA site. Prior to the development of the flow-way concept as part of the proposed development, CERP identified a single route to take water from PBA to the NWFLR. The flow-way will provide an additional route from PBA to the NWFLR. That additional route will provide the District with greater operational flexibility. The flow-way will complement the L-8 Basin flow- way and help reduce peak flows to the NWFLR and the Estuary. The flow-way also provides a potential route allowing excess water to be brought back from the C-18 Basin to the PBA site for storage. There are no other potential routes that allow water to be directed from the C-18 Basin in the wet season to the PBA site. The flow-way provides a feature that was not part of the CERP original plan and is therefore an unanticipated benefit for CERP. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project is not inconsistent with the District’s objectives.7
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District issue the subject ERP for the conceptual approval of the SWM system for the BRP and the Phase 1A construction and operation subject to the general and special conditions set forth in the Staff Report and the Amended Staff Report. It is further RECOMMENDED that the District add the following special condition: Prior to application for construction within 1000 feet of the eastern boundary of the above-ground impoundment, the applicants shall conduct a wildlife survey to identify any nesting or roosting areas in the adjoining off-site wetlands utilized by listed species of wading birds. If such nesting or roosting areas are found the permittee shall, if determined necessary by the District, incorporate additional buffers or other appropriate measures to ensure protection of these wetland functions. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 3rd day of December, 2004.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether four agency memoranda describing policy on mitigation for dredge and fill projects are unpromulgated rules and were relied on by the agency in violation of Section 120.535(1), F.S. During the hearing, and afterwards in writing, Petitioner sought leave to amend its pleadings to incorporate other policies allegedly relied on by the agency in the process of the dredge and fill application review. That request was denied in an order entered on August 23, 1993. Those policies are addressed in the recommended order in DOAH #93-3367.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, SIP Properties Limited Partnership (SIP) is the record owner of the parcel at issue, approximately thirty-five (35) acres located in the southwest area of Orlando, Orange County, Florida. SIP proposes to prepare the site for commercial and office use by developing the site into separate parcels or lots with proposed uses such as restaurant or fast food establishments, offices and retail stores. Development of the site requires the construction of compensating storage ponds that will act as retention/detention ponds and filling the site. The proposed improvements will result in the filling of 7.47 acres and dredging of 0.42 acres of wetlands claimed to be jurisdictional by DEP. Based on statements made to SIP by staff regarding department "mitigation policies" applicable to SIP's dredge and fill permit application, SIP believed that department policy memoranda were applied during permit review. SIP attached these various memoranda regarding mitigation to its Petition for Administrative Determination of Violation of Rulemaking Requirement dated May 27, 1993, and identified these memoranda as nonrule policies utilized by the department. The department retains on file and makes available for use by its staff the identified memoranda. However, in this case the department did not rely on or apply the mitigation guidelines contained in the memoranda in SIP's Petition. Instead, it applied Part III of Chapter 17-3120, F.A.C. In Part III of Chapter 17-312, F.A.C., the agency has adopted rules addressing the mitigation issues contained in the memoranda in SIP's Petition. For example, the agency has adopted guidelines in rule 17-312.340(2), F.A.C., for applying ratios when mitigation involves creation of state waters, as in this case. The department presently relies on these rules when reviewing mitigation plans, and does not rely on the policy memos referenced in the petition. Determining the mitigation needed to successfully offset impacts from a project is difficult and depends on many factors, including hydrology, soils, planting methods, and monitoring plans. Determining what is needed to reasonably assure successful mitigation must be done on a case by case basis. Not enough is known about the subject to apply any particular set of directions and expect success. DEP is presently in the process of developing rules to further address most aspects of mitigation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Protection issue its Final Order granting SIP's dredge and fill permit #48-2086169, with the mitigation proposed by the applicant, and establishing an expiration date and monitoring and evaluation plan for determining success of the mitigation as provided in rules 17-312.320 and 17-312.350, F.A.C. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 11th day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-3. Adopted in paragraph 2. 4.-6. Adopted in paragraph 7. 7.-8. Rejected as unnecessary. 9. Adopted in paragraph 8. 10.-11. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9. 12. Adopted in substance in paragraph 10. 13.-16. Rejected as unnecessary Adopted in paragraphs 11 and 12. Rejected as unnecessary. 19.-21. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. 22.-23. Adopted in substance in paragraph 14. 24.-25. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 16. Substantially rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Adopted in part in paragraph 17, otherwise rejected as immaterial. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 18. Rejected as immaterial. The agency witnesses established that the vegetation along the canal evidences the physical connection and there is evidence that water flows from the site into the canal. Rejected as unsubstantiated by reliable competent evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph 22. 36.-40. Rejected as unsupported by reliable competent evidence. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary, and as to characterization of merely "relic" wetlands, unsupported by the weight of evidence. Rejected (the conclusion of jurisdictional limit) as unsupported by the greater weight of evidence. 45.-53. Rejected as immaterial or unnecessary. 54.-56. Adopted in paragraphs 33 and 34. 57. Adopted, as to the limited function, in paragraphs 22 and 23. 58. Adopted in paragraph 26. 59.-60. Adopted in paragraph 23. 61. Rejected, as to the absolute conclusion of "no function", as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 62. Adopted in paragraph 25. 63.-64. Adopted in paragraph 26. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 30. Adopted in paragraph 34. Adopted in substance in paragraph 31. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 30 and 34. Adopted in paragraph 31. 71.-73. Adopted in paragraph 33. 74.-77. Rejected as unnecessary. 78.-79. Adopted in paragraph 31. 80.-81. Adopted in paragraph 35. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 33. 84.-90. Rejected as unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraph 15. 2.-3. Adopted in paragraph 16. 4.-5. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 16. Rejected as unnecessary and as to "binding" effect, unsupported by the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 19. 11.-15. Adopted in substance in paragraph 21. 16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and inconsistent with proposed findings #18 with regard to the constant level in the canal. 17.-18. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 21 and 23. 19.-21. Adopted in paragraphs 19 and 20. 22.-26. Adopted in summary in paragraph 21. Adopted in paragraph 27. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 1 and 2. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in part in paragraph 16. That the forests are "healthy and viable" is rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph 17. Adopted in part in paragraph 25; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 33.-34. Adopted in part in paragraph 27; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 35.-37. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 38.-43. Rejected as unnecessary. 44. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. The stormwater management plan and mitigation will restore the stormwater treatment functions. 45.-47. Adopted in substance in paragraph 30. Rejected as substantially contrary to the greater weight of evidence (as to the negative impact). Adopted in part, as to water quality problems generally, but rejected as to the ultimate conclusion, as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. 51.-52. Adopted in summary in paragraph 31. 53.-54. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 55. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Ronald M. Schirtzer, Esquire Martha H. Formella, Esquire R. Duke Woodson, Esquire FOLEY & LARDNER 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1800 Orlando, Florida 32801 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire John L. Chaves, Esquire Rosanne G. Capeless, Certified Legal Intern Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issues are whether to (a) issue an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) to the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Martin County (County) authorizing construction and operation of a surface water management system to serve a project known as the Indian Street Bridge; (b) issue DOT a letter of modification of ERP No. 43-00785-S authorizing roadway and drainage modifications to the Kanner Highway/Indian Street intersection; and (c) issue DOT a letter of modification of ERP No. 43-01229-P authorizing roadway and drainage modifications to Indian Street between the intersections of Kanner Highway and Willoughby Boulevard.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties Petitioner Citizens for Smart Growth, Inc., is a Florida 501(c)(3) corporation with its principal place of business in Palm City, Florida. It was formed by Odias Smith in August 2001, who serves as its president. The original directors were Kathie Smith, Odias Smith, and Craig Smith, who is the Smiths' son. The composition of the Board has never changed. According to the original Articles of Incorporation, its objectives are "preserving and enhancing the present advantages of living in Martin County (Quality of Life) for the common good, through public education, and the encouragement of reasonable and considered decision making by full disclosure of impacts and alternatives for the most appropriate use of land, water and resources." The exact number of members fluctuates from time to time. There are no dues paid by any member. At his deposition, Mr. Smith stated that no membership list exists; however, Kathie Smith stated that she currently has a list of 125 names, consisting of persons who at one time or another have made a contribution, have attended a meeting, or asked to be "kept informed of what's going on or asked to be on a mailing list or a telephone list, so they could be advised when we have meetings." No meetings have been held since 2006. Therefore, the Petitions filed in these cases have never been discussed at any meetings of the members, although Ms. Smith indicated that telephone discussions periodically occur with various individuals. Kathie Smith believes that roughly 25 percent of the members reside in a mobile home park north of the project site on Kanner Highway on the eastern side of the St. Lucie River, she does not know how many members reside on the western side of the St. Lucie River, and she is unaware of any member who resides on the South Fork of the St. Lucie River immediately adjacent to the project. Although the three Petitions allege that "seventy percent of the members . . . reside and/or recreate on the St. Lucie River," and in greater detail they allege how those members use that water body or depend on it for their livelihood, no evidence was submitted to support these allegations that 70 percent (or any other percentage of members) use or depend on the South Fork of the St. Lucie River for recreational or other activities. Petitioners Odias Smith and Cathie Smith reside in Palm City, an unincorporated community just south of Stuart in Martin County. They have opposed the construction of the new bridge since they moved to Palm City in 2001. It is fair to infer that Mr. Smith formed the corporation primarily for the purpose of opposing the bridge. Their home faces north, overlooking the South Fork of the St. Lucie River, from which it is separated by Saint Lucie Shores Drive and a narrow strip of common-ownership property. A boat dock extends from the common-ownership property into the St. Lucie River, providing 5 slips for use by the Smiths and other co-owners. The home is located three blocks or approximately 1,000 feet from the proposed western landfall of the new bridge. Due to the direction that the house faces (north) and the site of the new bridge, the surface water management system elements associated with the bridge will not be visible from their property. Mr. Smith believes, however, that when looking south through a veranda window on the second floor of his home, he will be able to see at least a part of the new bridge. From the front of their house, they now have an unobstructed view of the existing Palm City Bridge, a large structure that crosses the St. Lucie River approximately six- tenths of a mile north of their home, and which is similar in size to the new bridge now being proposed by the Applicants. The Smiths' home is more than 500 feet from the Project's right- of-way, and they do not know of any impact on its value caused by the Project. While the Smiths currently engage in walking, boating, running, fishing, and watching wildlife in the neighborhood or the South Fork of the St. Lucie River, there was no credible evidence that the Project would prevent them from doing so after the bridge and other improvements are constructed. Also, there was no evidence showing that the ERP Letter Modifications will cause them to suffer any adverse impacts. In fact, as noted below, by DOT undertaking the Project, the neighborhood will be improved through reduced flooding, improved water quality, and new swales and ponds. The County is a political subdivision of the State. It filed one of the applications at issue in this proceeding. DOT is an agency of the State and filed the three applications being contested. The District has the power and duty to exercise regulatory jurisdiction over the administration and enforcement of ERP criteria pursuant to Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E of the Florida Administrative Code. The Department of Environment Protection (DEP) has delegated certain authority to the District, including the authority to authorize an applicant to use sovereign submerged lands via a public easement within the District's geographic jurisdiction. The Project Construction of a new bridge over the St. Lucie River has been studied extensively by the Applicants for over twenty years. DOT has awarded the contract and nearly all of the right-of-way has been purchased. The Project will begin as soon as the remaining permits are acquired. The Project is fully funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and County funding. The Project is located in the County and includes 62.06 acres of roadway bridge development and 12.45 acres of sovereign submerged lands. The Project begins on the west side of the St. Lucie River on County Road 714, approximately 1,300 feet west of Mapp Road in Palm City and ends on the east side of the St. Lucie River approximately 1,400 feet east of Kanner Highway (State Road 76) on Indian Street. It includes construction and operation of a surface water management system to serve the road and bridge project. The total length of the Project is approximately 1.96 miles (1.38 miles of roadway and 0.58 miles of bridge) while the total area is approximately 74.51 acres. After treatment, surface water runoff will discharge to the tidal South Fork of the St. Lucie River. The Project encompasses a bridge crossing the South Fork of the St. Lucie River and the Okeechobee Waterway. Both are classified as Class III waters. The bridge transitions from 4 to 6 lanes east of the Okeechobee Waterway and will require a 55-foot vertical clearance and a 200-foot horizontal clearance between the fender systems at the Okeechobee Waterway. The bridge will cross over a portion of Kiplinger Island owned and preserved by the County. A part of the island was donated to the County in 1993-1994 by The Kiplinger Washington Editors, Inc., and the Kiplinger Foundation, Inc. Audubon of Martin County owns another part of the island. The transfer of title to the County does not include any restriction on the use of the island for conservation purposes only. Documentation submitted at hearing refers to a "two hundred foot wide road right-of-way" easement that the bridge will cross and allows the County to designate where on the island parcel such an easement would be. Therefore, spanning the bridge over a portion of the island owned by the County is clearly permissible. The Project also includes the roadway transition and widening/reconstruction of (a) County Road 714 from the beginning of the Project to Mapp Road from 2-lane to a 4-lane divided roadway; (b) Southwest 36th Street from Mapp Road to the beginning of the bridge from a 2-lane rural roadway to a 4-lane divided roadway with wide roadway swales; and (c) Kanner Highway (along Indian Street) from a 4-lane to a 6-lane divided urban roadway. Drainage improvements on both sides of the St. Lucie River are associated with the roadway construction. DOT proposes to provide both on-site and off-site mitigation for wetland and surface waters impacts pursuant to a mitigation plan approved by the District. The ERP Permitting Criteria In order to obtain an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions for issuance set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. Besides these rules, certain related BOR provisions which implement the rules must also be considered. The conditions for issuance primarily focus on water quality, water quantity, and environmental criteria and form the basis of the District's ERP permitting program. The parties have stipulated that the Project either complies with the following rule provisions or they are not applicable: Rules 40E-4.301(1)(a), (b), (g), (g), (h), and (k), and 40E- 4.302(1)(a)3. and 6. All other provisions remain at issue. Where conflicting evidence on these issues was submitted, the undersigned has resolved all evidentiary conflicts in favor of the Applicants and District. Based on the parties' Stipulation, the following provisions in Rule 40E-4.301(1) are in dispute and require an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, or abandonment of a surface water management system: will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters; will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the water quality standards set forth in chapters 62- 4, 62-302, 62-520, 62-522, 62-550, F.A.C., including any anti-degradation provisions of paragraphs 62-4.242(1)(a) and (b), subsections 62-4.242(2) and (3), and rule 62-302.300, F.A.C., and any special standards for Outstanding Florida Waters and Outstanding National Resource Waters set forth in subsections 62-4.242(2) and (3), F.A.C., will be violated; will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources; will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed; will be conducted by an entity with sufficient financial, legal and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, if issued; These disputed criteria are discussed separately below. Surface Water Storage and Conveyance Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c) requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that a proposed activity will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Through unrefuted evidence, this requirement was shown to be satisfied. The evidence also establishes that the surface water in and around the Project will actually improve if the Project is constructed as permitted. Further, it will create improved and upgraded surface water management and treatment in areas that now lack features such as swales, retention/detention ponds, curbs and gutters, and improve the overall surface water storage and conveyance capabilities of the Project and surrounding areas. In its current pre-development condition, flooding has occurred in certain areas adjacent to and within the Project area due to poor conveyance, low storage volume, and high tailwater conditions that result from high tides. The Project will remedy historic flooding issues in the Old Palm City area which lies adjacent to a portion of the Project alignment. Surface water runoff will be captured, controlled, and treated by a system of swales, weirs, and retention/detention facilities for pretreatment prior to discharging into the South Fork of the St. Lucie River. Reasonable assurances have been given that existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities will not be adversely affected. Value of Functions to Fish, Wildlife, and Species Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d) requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that a proposed activity will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. BOR Section 4.2.2 further implements this provision. For the following reasons, the rule and BOR have been satisfied. The evidence shows that the existing functions to fish and wildlife were assessed and analyzed by a number of federal and state fish and wildlife agencies. There were extensive review and site inspections by the District, DOT, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Army Corps of Engineers, and National Marine Fisheries Commission to assess the existence of, and potential impact on, fish and wildlife that may result from the Project. These studies revealed that while portions of the South Fork of the St. Lucie River provide potential habitat for aquatic or wetland-dependent or threatened species of special concern, no nesting or roosting areas within the vicinity of the Project were observed. The evidence further supports a finding that "other surface waters" over and under the Project will not receive unacceptable impacts due to their current condition, the detrimental influences of Lake Okeechobee discharges, and tidal impacts. Many of the wetlands to be impacted by the Project were shown to have been impacted by historic activities, and they provide diminished functions to fish and wildlife. The wetland functions were assessed through the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM). The UMAM is a standardized procedure for assessing the functions provided by wetlands and other surface waters, the amount that those functions would be reduced by a proposed project, and the amount of mitigation necessary to offset that loss. Detailed UMAM assessments were prepared by the Applicants and the District. They demonstrate that while certain functional units will be lost, they will be fully offset by the proposed mitigation. No credible evidence to the contrary was presented. Water Quality of Receiving Waters Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that a project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that State water quality standards will be violated. BOR Section 4.2.4 implements this rule and requires that "reasonable assurances regarding water quality must be provided for both the short term and long term, addressing the proposed construction, . . . [and] operation of the system." The receiving water body is the South Fork of the St. Lucie River, which is designated as an impaired water body. The evidence establishes that the Applicants will avoid and minimize potential short-term impacts to water quality by using silt screens and turbidity barriers, and implementing other best management practices to contain turbidity during construction of the Project. They will also use a temporary trestle rather than barges in the shallow portions of the South Fork to avoid stirring up bottom sediments. Finally, a turbidity monitoring plan will be implemented during construction and dewatering activities for all in-water work. All of these construction techniques will minimize potential impacts during construction. The evidence further establishes that water quality standards will not be violated as a result of the Project. In fact, in some cases water quality will be enhanced due to the installation and maintenance of new or upgraded surface water management features in areas where they do not exist or have fallen into disrepair. Over the long term, the Project is expected to have a beneficial effect on water quality. By improving existing surface water management and adding new surface water treatment features, the Project will provide net improvement to water quality. Wetland Delineation and Impacts The Project includes unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. A total of 18.53 acres of wetlands and other surface waters within the Project site will be impacted by the Project, including 3.83 acres of wetlands that will be directly impacted and 14.7 acres of wetlands and other surface waters that will be secondarily impacted. The delineated wetlands are depicted in the Staff Report as wetlands 2a, 19a, 19b, 22, 25-29, 30a, 30b, and 30c, with each having a detailed UMAM assessment of its values and condition. (Impacts to wetland 25 are not included in this Project because they were accounted for in a separate permit proceeding.) Using a conservative assessment and set of assumptions, the District determined that, with the exception of wetlands 19a, 19b, 22, and 27, all wetlands would be impacted by the Project. However, the wetlands that would be impacted suffer from varying historical adverse impacts that have compromised the functions and values they provide to fish, wildlife, and species. This is due to their proximity to urban development, vegetative connectivity, size, historic impacts, altered hydroperiod, and invasive plant species. Likewise, even though the wetlands to be impacted on Kiplinger Island provide certain resting and feeding functions for birds, the value of these functions is comparatively lower than other wetlands due to the presence of invasive species and lack of management. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the Project will not cause adverse impacts to fish, wildlife, or listed species. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.301(1)(d). Secondary Impacts Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f) and BOR Sections 4.1.1(f) and 4.2.7. require a demonstration that the proposed activities will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, both from a wetlands and water quality standpoint. Secondary impacts are those that occur outside the footprint of the project, but which are very closely linked and causally related to the activity to be permitted. De minimis or remotely-related secondary impacts, however, are not considered unacceptable. See § 4.2.7.(a). There will be secondary impacts to 6.83 acres of freshwater wetlands and 7.87 acres of mangroves, or a total of 14.7 acres. To address these secondary impacts, the Applicants have established extensive secondary impact zones and buffers along the Project alignment, which were based in part on District experience with other road projects and another nearby proposed bridge project in an area where a State Preserve is located. While Petitioners' expert contended that a 250-foot buffer on both sides of the roadway's 200-foot right-of-way was insufficient to address secondary impacts to birds (who the expert opines may fly into the bridge or moving vehicles), the greater weight of evidence shows that bird mortality can be avoided and mitigated through various measures incorporated into the Project. Further, the bird mortality studies used by the expert involved significantly different projects and designs, and in some cases involved projects outside the United States with different species concerned. Engineering and Scientific Principles Rule 40E-301(1)(i) requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that a project "be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed." Unrefuted evidence establishes that the proposed system will function and be maintained as proposed. Financial, Legal and Administrative Capability Rule 40E-4.301(1)(j) requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that it has the financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the permit. The evidence supports a finding that Applicants have complied with this requirement. Elimination and Reduction of Impacts Before establishing a mitigation plan, Rule 40E- 4.301(3) requires that an applicant implement practicable design modifications to eliminate and reduce wetland and other surface water impacts. In this case, there are unavoidable, temporary wetland impacts associated with the construction of the Project, as well as unavoidable wetland impacts for direct (project footprint), secondary, and cumulative impacts of the Project. The record shows that the Applicants have undertaken extensive efforts to eliminate and reduce wetland and other surface water impacts of the Project. For example, DOT examined and assessed several innovative construction techniques and bridge designs to eliminate and avoid wetland impacts. To eliminate and reduce temporary impacts occurring during construction, DOT has reduced the effect of scour on the pier foundation and reduced the depth of the footing to minimize the amount of excavation on the mangrove island. Also, during construction, the contractor is prohibited from using the 200- foot right-of-way on the mangrove island for staging or stockpiling of construction materials or equipment. The majority of the bridge width has been reduced to eliminate and avoid impacts. Also, the Project's alignment was adjusted to the north to avoid impacts to a tidal creek. Reasonable assurances have been given that all practicable design and project alternatives to the construction and placement of the Project were assessed with no practicable alternatives. Public Interest Test Besides complying with the requirements of Rule 40E- 4.301, an applicant must also address the seven factors in Rule 40E-4.302(1)(a)1.-7., which comprise the so-called "public interest" test. See also § 373.414(1)(a), Fla. Stat. In interpreting the seven factors, the District balances the potential positive and negative effects of a project to determine if it meets the public interest criteria. Because Petitioners agree that factors 3 and 6 of the rule are not at issue, only the remaining five factors will be considered. For the following reasons, the Project is positive when the criteria are weighed and balanced, and therefore the Project is not contrary to the public interest. Public Health, Safety, and Welfare The Applicants have provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not affect public health, safety, and welfare. Specifically, it will benefit the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens by improving traffic conditions and congestion, emergency and hurricane evacuation, and access to medical facilities. In terms of safety, navigation markers are included as part of the Project for safe boating by the public. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)1. Conservation of Fish and Wildlife The activity will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. The mitigation projects will offset any impacts to fish and wildlife, improve the abundance and diversity of fish and wildlife on Kiplinger Island, create mangrove habitat, and add to the marine productivity in the area by enhancing water quality. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-302(1)(a)2. Fishing or Recreational Values The Project has features that allow for pedestrian and bicycle utilization and observation areas which should enhance recreational values. The Old Palm Bridge, approximately one mile north of the Project, has had no adverse impact on the fishing recreation along the South Fork of the St. Lucie River. Navigation will not be affected due to the height and design of the new bridge. Finally, the bridge is expected to be a destination for boating, kayaking, fishing, and bird watching. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)4. Whether the Activity is of a Permanent Nature The parties have stipulated that the Project is permanent in nature. No future activities or future phases of the project are contemplated. Temporary and permanent impacts are all being fully mitigated. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E- 4.302(1)(a)5. Values of Functions Being Performed in Affected Areas Due to historic impacts to the areas affected by the Project, the current condition is degraded and the relative value of functions is minimal. Although Kiplinger Island will have temporary impacts, that island is subject to exotic species and has no recreational use or access by boaters or members of the public. The Applicants propose mitigation which will improve and enhance these wetland functions and values in the areas. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)7. Summary The evidence supports a finding that the Project is positive as to whether it will affect the public health, safety, welfare, or property of others; that the Project is neutral with respect to navigation, erosion and shoaling, and water flow, as well as to historical and archaeological concerns; and that the Project is positive as to conservation of fish, wildlife, recreational values, marine productivity, permanency, and current values and functions. When weighed and balanced, the Project is not contrary to the public interest. Cumulative Impacts Rule 40E-4.302(1)(b) requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that a project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters as set forth in BOR Sections 4.28 through 4.2.8.2. Cumulative impacts are the summation of unmitigated wetland impacts within a drainage basin. An analysis is geographically based upon the drainage basins described in BOR Figure 4.4.1. Petitioners' contention that Figure 4.4.1 is inaccurate or not representative of the basin in which the Project is located has been rejected. In this case, the North St. Lucie Basin was used. To assess and quantify any potential unacceptable cumulative impacts in the basin, and supplement the analyses performed by the Applicants, the District prepared a Basin Map that depicted all the existing and permitted wetland impacts as well as those wetlands under some form of public ownership and/or subject to conservation restrictions or easements. The District's analysis found that the wetlands to be mitigated were of poor quality and provided minimal wildlife and water quality functions. Cumulative impacts from the Project to wetlands within the basin resulted in approximately a four percent loss basin-wide. This is an acceptable adverse cumulative impact. Therefore, the Project will not result in unacceptable cumulative impacts. Mitigation Adverse impacts to wetlands caused by a proposed activity must be offset by mitigation measures. See § 4.3. These may include on-site mitigation, off-site mitigation, off- site regional mitigation, or the purchase of mitigation credits from mitigation banks. The proposed mitigation must offset direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts to the values and functions of the wetlands impacted by the proposed activity. The ability to provide on-site mitigation for a DOT linear transportation project such as a bridge is limited and in this case consists of the creation of mangrove and other wetlands between the realigned St. Lucie Shores Boulevard and the west shore of the St. Lucie River, north and south of the proposed bridge crossing. BOR Section 4.3.1.2 specifically recognizes this limitation and allows off-site mitigation for linear projects that cannot effectively implement on-site mitigation requirements due to right-of-way constraints. Off-site mitigation will offset the majority of the wetland impacts. Because no single on-site or off-site location within the basin was available to provide mitigation necessary to offset all of the Project's impacts, DOT proposed off-site mitigation at two established and functioning mitigation areas known as Dupuis State Reserve (Dupuis), which is managed by the County and for which DOT has available mitigation credits, and the County's Estuarine Mitigation Site, a/k/a Florida Oceanographic Society (FOS) located on Hutchinson Island. Dupuis is outside the North St. Lucie Basin and was selected to offset direct and secondary impacts to freshwater wetlands. That site meets the ERP criteria in using it for this project. The FOS is within the North St. Lucie Basin and was selected to offset direct and secondary impacts to estuarine wetlands. Like Dupuis, this site also meets the ERP criteria for the project. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the on-site and off-site mitigation projects fully offset any and all project impacts, and in most instances before the impacts will actually occur. Sovereign Submerged Lands and Heightened Public Concern Chapter 18-21 applies to requests for authorization to use sovereign submerged lands. The management policies, standards, and criteria used to determine whether to approve or deny a request are found in Rule 18-21.004. For purposes of granting a public easement to the Applicants, the District determined that the Project is not contrary to the public interest and that all requirements of the rule were satisfied. This determination was not disputed. The only issue raised by Petitioners concerning the use of submerged lands is whether the application should have been treated as one of "heightened public concern." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.0051(5). If a project falls within the purview of that rule, the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board), rather than the District, must review and approve the application to use submerged lands. Review by the Board is appropriate whenever a proposed activity is reasonably expected to result in a heightened public concern because of its potential effect on the environment, natural resources, or controversial nature or location. Id. In accordance with established protocol, the ERP application was sent by the District to DEP's review panel in Tallahassee (acting as the Board's staff) to determine whether the Project required review by the Board. The panel concluded that the Project did not rise to the level of heightened public concern. Evidence by Petitioners that "many people" attended meetings and workshops concerning the Project over the last 20 years or so is insufficient to trigger the rule. Significantly, except for general project objections lodged by Petitioners and Audubon of Martin County, which did not include an objection to an easement, no adjacent property owner or other member of the public voiced objections to the construction of a new bridge. Revised Staff Report On October 20, 2010, the District issued a Revised Staff Report that merely corrected administrative errors or information that had been previously submitted to the District. Contrary to Petitioners' assertion, it did not constitute a material change to the earlier agency action either individually or cumulatively. Therefore, it was properly considered in this proceeding. Letter Modifications The Letter Modifications were used as a mechanism to capture minor alterations made to previously issued permits for Kanner Highway and Indian Street. Neither Letter Modification is significant in terms of water quality, water quantity, or environmental impacts. Both were issued in accordance with District rules and should be approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order granting Application Nos. 091021-8, 100316-7, and 100316-6. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol Ann Wehle, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007 Jeffrey W. Appel, Esquire Ray Quinney and Nebeker, P.C. 36 South State Street, Suite 1400 Salt Lake City, Florida 84111-1401 Bruce R. Conroy, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 David A. Acton, Esquire Senior Assistant County Attorney Martin County Administrative Center 2401 Southeast Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34996-3397 John J. Fumero, Esquire Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, P.A. 950 Peninsula Corporate Circle Suite 2020 Boca Raton, Florida 33487-1389 Keith L. Williams, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road Mail Stop 1410 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007
The Issue Whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District should issue the Individual Environmental Resource Permit (the "Individual ERP," the "ERP" or the "Permit") applied for by Entryway Developers, LLC ("Entryway")? The ERP was preliminarily issued by the District as Draft Permit No. 43024788.000 (the "Draft Permit"). If it becomes final, it will allow Entryway's successor in interest, Westfield Homes of Florida ("Westfield") both to construct a new surface water management system in service of a proposed subdivision, known as Ashley Glen, in southern Pasco County, and to conduct dredge and fill activities on site.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Petitioner in this proceeding is Dr. Octavio Blanco. A veterinarian, citizen of Florida and a resident of Pasco County, he holds a property interest (described below) in property immediately adjacent to Ashley Glen. One of the three Co-Respondents, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (the "District" or "SWFWMD") is a public entity created by Chapter 61-691, Laws of Florida. It exists and operates under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (the "Florida Water Resources Act of 1972" or the "Act"). The District is the administrative agency charged with the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage and control the water resources within its geographic boundaries. It does so through administration and enforcement of the Act and the rules promulgated to implement the Act in Chapter 40D, Florida Administrative Code. Entryway, the second of the three Co-Respondents, is a limited liability company and the original applicant for the Permit. Westfield, the third of the Co-Respondents, is a Florida general partnership and the current owner of the Ashley Glen Project. If the Permit is issued by way of a final order, Westfield will be the permit-holder. An application for an Individual ERP must be signed by the owner of the property or the owner's authorized agent. If signed by an agent, a letter of authority must be submitted by the owner. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D-4.101(2). Westfield was not the owner of the property on the site of the Project at the time of the filing of the application. Entryway was the owner. Westfield filed with DOAH a letter of authority received from Entryway.2 The letter authorized Westfield to sign the Individual ERP application. Ashley Glen and the Blanco Property "Ashley Glen-Villages 2-5" ("Ashley Glen" or as it is referred to in the Draft Permit, the "Project") is a 266.36-acre residential subdivision planned to be divided into more than 400 lots. Located in southern Pasco County, the subdivision is on the north side of State Road 54, approximately three miles west of US 41 and less than 1000 feet east of the Suncoast Parkway. To the north, Ashley Glen is bounded along an abandoned railroad right-of-way. The right-of-way extends beyond the northwest and northeast corners of the property in both easterly and westerly directions. There are 72.69 acres of surface waters and wetlands on the Ashley Glen site. Among the 19 isolated and contiguous wetlands on the property is a portion of a Cypress-forested wetland system (the "Cypress-forested Wetland"). The Cypress-forested Wetland was described at hearing by one of Westfield's experts as "a large wetland" (tr. 41) that is typical of the area. As with similar wetland systems throughout the state, the Cypress-forested Wetland undergoes "seasonal drawdowns and dry-outs, and in the wet season . . . flood[s] out to the edges and even beyond in certain storm events." (Tr. 43). The portion of the Cypress-forested Wetland that is on the Ashley Glen site is identified by the Permit as "Wetland A3." Wetland A3 is 29.94 acres. The entire Cypress-forested Wetland system south of the railroad bed of which Wetland A3 is a part is at least twice as large. Most of the remainder of the Cypress Wetland south of the railroad right-of-way is on the Blanco Property. It appears from exhibits used during the hearing that the Cypress Wetland originally extended north of where the railroad right-of-way now lies in its abandoned state. The connection was indicated also in the testimony of Mr. Courtney (Westfield's "wetlands" and "ERP" expert3) when he stated that there was potential for contiguity with systems to the north. Aerial photographs used at hearing indicated that the Cypress- forested wetland system was, indeed, part of the contiguous wetland system to the north of the railroad bed. The contiguity between the Cypress-forested Wetland and the system to the north was confirmed by Dr. Baca, Petitioner's wetland ecologist, on the basis of on-site examinations. Dr. Baca believes the Cypress-forested Wetland to be part of a much larger system that extends northward and to the west and that is contiguous with the Gulf of Mexico. He determined that despite the establishment of the railroad bed, the Cypress-forested Wetland remains connected to the contiguous wetland system to the north by way of pipes under and through the bed. Drainage on the Ashley Glen site is primarily from south to north with significant contribution from a drainage basin to the east. Drainage from the south is channelized by a ditch that runs nearly the length of the property from Wetland C12 at the southeastern tip to Wetland A3 near the site's northern boundary. Drainage from the eastern basin toward Wetland A3 is intercepted by the ditch. The result is that the drainage from the east is captured before it reaches Wetland A3 and drainage from the south bypasses Wetland A3 to be discharged northward at the railroad bed so that all of the drainage is "short-circuited by [the] ditch to the actual discharge location of [Wetland] A3." (Tr. 41). The discharge location from Wetland A3 was more precisely described at hearing by Mr. Courtney as "the confluence of [Wetland] A3 and the railroad bed where [the ditch] discharges off-site flows and [the] easterly to westerly flows into pipes that go under [the] old railroad bed " (Tr. 40-41). This testimony supports Dr. Baca's confirmation of the connection between the Cypress-forested Wetland and the contiguous wetland system north of the railroad bed. To the west of the ditch and the Ashley Glen site is the Blanco property. It has been held by Dr. Blanco's family for a period spanning six decades. Its boundaries roughly form an elongated narrow rectangle. From the eastern and western ends of 400 feet of frontage on State Road 54 (the southern boundary of the Blanco Property) the eastern and western boundaries run parallel of each other approximately 8000 feet to the north where the northernmost boundary of the Blanco Property meets the abandoned railroad right-of-way. The majority of the northern half of the Blanco Property is in the Cypress-forested Wetland. In addition to the drainage from the south and the east received prior to the digging of the ditch, the wetland receives drainage from the west which traverses the property between the Blanco Property and the Suncoast Parkway. With the exception of one acre on which sits the house in which Dr. Blanco's mother lives, the Blanco Property is presently the subject of a Land Trust Agreement. Through this unrecorded instrument, dated December 19, 1996, Dr. Blanco has an ownership interest in the property. Dr. Blanco's concern for the property pre-dates his ownership interest conferred by the trust agreement. He lived on the property from the age of three until he left for college. During that time, he "constantly" (tr. 374) observed many species of wildlife in the Cypress-forested Wetland, as he explained at hearing: Starting with mammals, I observed many deer, foxes, coons, coyotes, squirrels, ground squirrels, fox squirrels. And then numerous bird species . . . from the sandhill cranes to various storks and herons and egrets and . . . [m]ostly aquatic birds . . . many hawks [and] an occasional eagle [as well]. A lot of animals, such as frogs and snails. The apple snails particularly I've noticed. I've always admired them and the way they lay their eggs up on the water line. So, I've noticed them for years out there [along with] [m]any snakes [and], alligators. Id. Over the years, Dr. Blanco has observed changes, especially among the wading birds and the aquatic species: You see less and less of them. The periods where there's consistent water to support their life has grown shorter as time goes by. And this time of year where there's water, the life is pretty abundant. But then, in recent years, I've noticed that the time period seems to be getting shorter and shorter. And then . . . when I go out there, I use all my senses, not just my eyes, and the place just sounds different when it's full of life versus when it's, essentially, dried up. (Tr. 374-375). Just as in any typical cypress-forested wetland, during wet periods, the cypress trees in the Cypress-forested Wetland "will be inundated and the ground will be saturated to the edge of the uplands." (Tr. 45). During these times, the majority of the storms that deliver rain are considered small, that is, rainstorms of below half an inch. Much bigger storms, of course, also contribute to the water that stands in the wetland from time to time. "By the same token, in droughts or dry seasons, the water levels . . . typically drop to at or below the ground level." (Tr. 46). The dry periods, if part of the natural cycles between hydro-periods, contribute to the health of the system. For example, during dry periods nutrients are oxidized, one of the functions of a wetland. In 2002, the Cypress-forested Wetland was dried out from mid-March at the end of the dry season until the end of July, a period of drought. The dry season and the occasional drought contribute, of course, to a lowering of the water table below the surface of the wetland. But the water table may also be lowered by the pumping of water from wellfields in the area, one to the northwest of the site, another to the southeast. That pumping is monitored by the District. The District takes action to minimize damage from any lowering of the water table caused by pumping water from the wellfields. Apple snails have been recently observed in the Cypress-forested Wetland. "Apple snails are unique in that they're the sole food of the snail kite, an endangered species." (Vol. III, p. 61). There are snags and dead trees in the Cypress-forested Wetland as well. Used by many birds and mammals, they provide particularly good habitat for woodpeckers. The Cypress-forested Wetland is not a pristine wetland. The establishment of the railroad bed had an impact. In its abandoned state, the railroad bed continues to have an influence on its discharge to the north. The Suncoast Parkway "might have had some impact." (Tr. 53). Cattle grazing on both the Blanco Property and the Ashley Glen site has had an impact on the herbaceous ground cover layer and on the wetland's water quality although it is unlikely that the cows grazed in the Cypress-forested Wetland. ("Generally, [cows] don't graze on . . . wetland plants, because they're either bitter tasting or [have] poor textures . . . .") (Vol. III, p. 58). The well- fields in the area have had historic impacts mitigated, as mentioned, through implementation of an area-wide hydrology restoration plan by SWFWMD. The most significant impact to the Cypress-forested Wetland resulted from the combination of the construction of State Road 54 and the ditch's channelization of stormwater runoff migrating through the center of the Ashley Glen site. Had the property not been ditched, the stormwater runoff and any other migrating water would have been conveyed by sheet flow into the Cypress-forested Wetland. Despite the varied impacts over the years, the Cypress-forested wetland remains ratable today "as a mid to higher level quality wetland for the area." (Tr. 43). The Draft Permit Application for the permit was submitted on February 7, 2003. After eight formal submittals of information in response to questions by the District, a Draft Permit was issued on December 16, 2003. The Draft Permit lists the "Project Name as Ashley Glen - Villages 2-5" and otherwise refers to Ashley Glen as the "Project." The Permit allows the Project to fill 43.75 acre-feet of the 100-year flood plain on the Ashley Glen site. At the same time, the Permit allows 51.98 acre-feet of excavation on- site. Project construction will result in the filling of 1.61 acres of forested and non-forested wetlands and secondary impacts to at least one of the isolated wetlands. The permit speaks to secondary impacts to another of the wetlands and surface waters on-site and finds that there are none: "[O]ne isolated wetland, 0.37 acre in size, and 2.81 acres of surface waters will be impacted, however, since these areas provide no significant habitat functions, no habitat mitigation will be required." District Ex. 5, pgs. 3-4. The mitigation for the impacts that require mitigation, in the District's view, includes creation of 2.89 acres of wetlands and preservation of 65.32 acres of wetlands. The Permit also authorizes the construction of a new surface water management system (the "SWM System") to serve Ashley Glen. The Surface Water Management System The SWM System consists of six wet detention ponds, four isolated wetland treatment systems, an attenuation pond, and an associated conveyance and discharge structure. The wet detention ponds and the isolated wetland treatment systems were designed in accordance with Section 5.2 of the District's Basis of Review. Westfield Ex. 6 depicts the "generalities of the [SWS] [S]ystem in [Ashley Glen's] built environment." (Tr. 56). Key pipe areas are shown in white on the exhibit. For example, the existing ditch is re-located slightly to the east; the exhibit shows in white where water is piped from the northern terminus of the new, re-located ditch into Pond P11. This piped water will consist of drainage from the south that is now conveyed by the existing ditch and drainage from the east that passes through Wetland W2 and Wetland W1. In keeping with the historical drainage pattern that preceded the existence of the ditch, drainage from the basin on the eastern part of the property that passes through Wetland F4, Wetland E4, and Wetland D5 will also be discharged westward into P11 to be discharged at a point toward the southernmost part of Wetland A3, the wetland's headwaters. The discharge from P11 was described by Mr. Courtney at hearing: The discharge of P11 was placed up in the headwaters of A3 [where] . . . the [existing] ditch short-circuited the discharge of . . . waters to the discharge point of A3. [An SWM System] . . . control structure is placed at the headwaters of A3, a much better situation for A3, given that the quantities and quality of water is going to be the same or better, because water is now going to be reintroduced to the headwaters of A3 as opposed to short- circuiting it. (Tr. 57). Mr. Courtney estimated that one-fourth to one-half of the surface water flows on the property coming from the south and the east were routed unnaturally by the ditch to Wetland A3's discharge point at the railroad right-of-way at the northernmost point of the wetland. The project re-routes these waters to a point near the headwaters of Wetland A3 (in its southernmost part). Surficial flow, therefore, that had by- passed Wetland A3 because of ditching will be routed by the SWM System to the headwaters of Wetland A3 after treatment and attenuation provided that the attenuation pond reaches a high enough elevation. Any water discharged to Wetland A3 from the attenuation pond will flow in a northerly direction (the historical flow pattern) through the wetland to the point of discharge at the railroad bed. Provided that the restored flow is of good quality, restoration of the hydrology is a benefit to the system. On this point, Dr. Baca agreed with Mr. Courtney. The Cypress-forested Wetland on the Blanco Property and the wetland system that extends north of the railroad bed "are dependent upon the treatment, the care and the protection afforded the wetland on the Ashley Glen property." (Vol. III, pg. 60). Wetlands B8 and D3, surrounded by developed lots, are served by detention ponds. Internal drainage from the lots is collected from street systems. Pop-off from the systems goes either directly to a detention pond and then a wetland or to a sump and then to a wetland. After treatment, the drainage is conveyed to Pond P11. Pond P10, a relatively small detention pond, is situated at the headwaters of Wetland A3. The pond treats runoff and flows into Wetland A3. Pond P11, although not a stormwater detention pond and for which the applicant receives no treatment credit, is nonetheless "a good backup treatment mechanism for stormwater that is meeting state water quality standards as discharged from all of the drainage systems in the uplands." (Tr. 59). Through the attenuation process, moreover, it will perform some treatment that meets or exceeds the minimal requirements of ERP permitting. After attenuation and whenever the pond reaches a certain elevation, waters are discharged into Wetland A3. A major point of focus of Dr. Blanco's case is the excavation of the attenuation pond and its interaction with Wetland A3. The attenuation pond is designated in the Draft Permit as Pond P11 ("P11"). P11 If excavated according to present plans, P11 will be 25 feet deep at its deepest point (less than one percent of the pond). "[T]he deepest areas run along the corridor that goes between [Wetlands] B6 and D5." (Tr. 166). The shallowest areas of P11 are along the western edge of the pond where a shelf will be constructed. The surface area of the pond will take up approximately 40 acres. (See endnote 4). The Respondents refers to P11 as a "100 year flood plain compensation area." (Tr. 116). The Permit's "Water Quantity/Quality list of ponds denominates P11's "treatment type" as "[a]ttenuation" which would make it an attenuation pond. Dr. Blanco prefers to call P11 a borrow pit asserting that one reason for its excavation is to obtain fill for the development. Dr. Blanco's labeling of P11 as a borrow pit appears to be correct since the District referred to it as a borrow pit and since significant dredging on site is allowed by the Draft Permit. Whether Dr. Blanco's and the District's nomenclature for P11 is accurate or not, there is no dispute that P11 is part of the stormwater management system. The Draft Permit ascribes to it the function of attenuation: the process by which flow is slowed that allows compounds to be reduced in concentration over time. It is a significant component of the SWM System. Conveyance of water of sufficient quality that has undergone attenuation from the pond into a point near the headwaters of Wetland A3, moreover, poses the potential to improve the wetland's hydrology. Dr. Blanco asserts that fill needed by the Project could be obtained off-site. In other words, P11 does not need to be excavated to obtain the fill. But obtaining fill material is not the only purpose of P11 since it also provides retention and attenuation functions. Dr. Blanco's main concern with P11, however, is not its status as a borrow pit. His concern is based on three of its characteristics, the latter two of which relate to its nature as a borrow pit: 1) its placement, excavated directly adjacent to Wetland A-3; 2) its depth, at its deepest point, 25 feet; and 3) its size; close to 40 acres in open surface area.4 Due to sheer size of P11's open surface area, significant volumes of water in P11 will be lost routinely to evapo-transpiration. When the water level in P11 is below the water level in Wetland A3, moreover, the pond will draw water out of the Cypress-forested Wetland. Whenever the water is below its control elevation, it will take a considerable volume of water to raise it to the elevation appropriate to protect Wetland A3 and the rest of the Cypress-forested Wetland. Reaching the control elevation will occur only when all available storage has been filled and contributions of water (from rainfall, stormwater run-off, or by way of conveyance through the SWM System or otherwise) exceed loss through evaporation and seepage, downward and lateral. The parties disagree as to whether the applicant has provided the assurances necessary to justify issuance of the Permit. The most contentious point is about the effect P11 will have on Wetland A3 and the extended Cypress-forested Wetland. Westfield (with the support and concurrence of the District) bases its case for assurances, in the main, on a type of computer modeling. Dr. Blanco, on the other hand, presented testimony that criticized the computer modeling that was done in this case in support of the application. That computer modeling is known as "Interconnected Pond Routing" or "ICPR." ICPR Interconnected Pond Routing ("ICPR") is a type of hydrological computer model that takes into account surface water flows. It does not take into account groundwater flows, downward or lateral seepage or the lowering of the water table by well-field pumping. It models the surface water hydrology of a site as it might be affected, for example, by detention basins and channel pipes. It models pre-design of a site to be developed and then post-design of a site prior to actual development to provide comparative analysis. It is also a predictive tool. As with any predictive tool, its accuracy can only be definitively determined by observation and collection of data after-the-fact, in this case, after development. ICPR modeling is used in particular for stormwater and surface water management systems. For that reason, it was used by Westfield to support the ERP application in this case. Before ICPR modeling of the Ashley Glen site and the surrounding area was conducted, topographic information was collected by survey. The results of the survey and the modeling that followed resulted in several of the exhibits used by Westfield at hearing. For example, the topographic information and ICPR were used to produce a post-development map (Westfield Exhibit 12). In addition to sub-basins reflected in Westfield Exhibit 11 that relate to the hydrology of the site the map shows two pods (a "Southern Pod" and a "Northern Pod") of development. Approximately 400 feet of the Southern Pod will abut Wetland A3 on the pod's western edge. The location of the Southern Pod will necessitate re-location of the existing ditch. The Northern Pod, in contrast, will be separated from Wetland A3 by both P11 and the proposed road. The Northern Pod, the larger of the two proposed pods of development, is farther from Wetland A3 although it is separated from Wetland C2 solely by the proposed road. The sub-basins on Westfield Ex. 12 are reflected in Westfield Ex. 11, the result of pre-design modeling that revealed three off-site basins composed of 218, 544 and 908 acres. Each sub-basin corresponds to a detention pond designed to assist in enhancing the site's post-development hydrology. The modeling was also used to introduce P11, Westfield's proposed 100-year flood compensation area that would act as a detention pond for attenuation. Each sub-basin used in the modeling exercises covers an area for which there is information relative to size, curve number and time of concentration, all of which was entered into the modeling. Kyle Cyr, a registered P.E. in the State of Florida, and an expert in ICPR and stormwater modeling, described at hearing what happened next: The input is then directed towards a node, which we call the wetlands of the node or detention ponds. And then each node is interlinked by either channels, pipes or weirs, swells, drop structures. * * * [W]e check the models for pre and post to make sure there's no adverse impacts to off- site properties. No additional flows are allowed to leave the site. * * * We end up with flows, staging elevations for each node. . . . [The result is] [a] drainage report. [The] drainage report has a pre- and post- analysis in it. * * * [The] drainage report [is used] to design the site, to design the elevations and grading of the roads and [then] the lot and culvert sizes. (Tr. 147, 148). The drainage report and the information with regard to the design was then submitted by Westfield to the District together with a "pond wetland hydrology interaction report" and modeling with regard to "several minor storm events, a one-inch, a two-inch and a mean-annual event run . . . like a normal rainfall in the area." (Tr. 150). Various hydrographs for storm events were prepared by Westfield. In general, storm events should assist the hydrology of Wetland A3. The SWM System poses the potential that in storm events, P11 will discharge water to Wetland A3. The discharge pre-supposes that P11 will be at an appropriate elevation to allow the discharge with the addition of the surface water conveyed by the system into the pond. Hydrographs of the time versus inflow into Wetland A3 for pre-development and post-development conditions for the storm events were prepared by Westfield. For the one-inch storm and the mean-annual events, provided the pond is at an appropriate elevation prior to the storm (a proviso applicable to all of the hydrograph information), it is reasonably expected that there will be slight increases in peak flow after the development than before. For the two-inch storm, it is reasonably expected that there will be a slight drop in peak flow. None of the changes should have a negative effect on Wetland A3 so long as P11 maintains appropriate water elevations so that water has not been drawn out of the wetland that would have sustained the wetland had P11 not been excavated.5 Hydrographs that depict expected volume over a 72-hour time frame were also prepared based on the same storm events. During the applicable time frame for two-inch and mean-annual events, it is reasonably expected that there will be a slight increase in the volume of water entering Wetland A3 after development. As the result of a one-inch storm event, it is reasonable to expect there to be a slight decrease in volume over the 72 hours. None of the changes are expected to have a negative effect on Wetland A3, again, provided that appropriate water elevations are maintained in P11. Finally, hydrographs were prepared for time-versus- inflow for 25-year and 100-year storm events both pre- development and post-development. The modeling showed that, after development, "[a]djacent properties will not experience the higher flood level [that] they have in the past." (Tr. 156). The decrease is due to the holding back of water in detention ponds after development that will flow off at a slower rate than under pre-development conditions. The hydrographs show the difference in water flowing onto the site and Wetland A3 after the development under typical conditions in comparison to before development is slight. Water levels in Wetland A3 at times of typical storm events, after development, therefore will not be affected in any meaningful way by the SWM System so long as P11's water level is maintained at an appropriate elevation. In accordance with Section 4.2 of the District's Basis of Review, the SWM System is designed so that "[o]ff-site discharge is limited to amounts that will not cause adverse off- site impacts." Section 4.2 of the Basis of Review. See District Ex. 4, CHAPTER FOUR, pg. 1. The allowable discharges from the Project were established as a pre-development peak discharge rate from a 25-year, 24-hour storm. The modeling showed that the post-development discharge rates do not exceed the pre-development peak discharge rate. The ICPR modeling did not consider the outfall from Wetland A3 that occurs at the abandoned railroad right-of-way on the northern end of Wetland A3. As explained by Mr. Cyr, "Wetland A3 is . . . [a] boundary condition. That's where our model stops." (Tr. 198). The structure at the outfall at the northern end of Wetland A3 consists of three 42-inch pipes. Had the outfall been considered, Mr. Cyr testified, it would have had no effect on the results of the modeling. The understanding of the effect on the hydrology of the site provided by ICPR modeling conducted by Mr. Cyr, the drainage report and the other aspects of the information (such as the hydrographs and the design and information related to water quality) gathered and produced by Westfield support the District in its decision to issue the Permit. But there is a criticism of the modeling. It was presented by Dr. Blanco's witness: Mr. Vecchioli, an expert in hydrology as it relates to groundwater. The Site's Hydrogeology The area in which Ashley Glen, the Blanco Property and the Cypress-forested Wetland sit was described by John Vecchioli, a licensed geologist in Florida and an expert in hydrogeology, as: a low-lying plain of limited altitude . . . underlain by some 20 to 50 feet of . . . fine to very fine sand, sometimes silty, sometimes containing a clay layer or two. And then beneath that blanket of sand is . . . the upper Floridan [A]quifer, . . . a thick deposit of limestone, which also constitutes the primary source of drinking water for the area. (Tr. 93). Connected with the surface waters of the area so that the aquifer and the surface waters function as a single system, the Floridan Aquifer in Pasco County is known as a "leaky- confined aquifer." Id. Its "leaky-confined" nature means that: [The Floridan is] not firmly capped by thick layers of clay, but rather by sand deposits that although . . . more pervious than the layers of clay, still impede the exchange of water between the two systems. Id. The source of the water in the upper Florida Aquifer is mainly rainfall because the Aquifer "intercept[s] waters from the surface." (Vol. III, Tr. 95). Much of the water in the upper Floridan is recharged, "very young water . . . indicating that it has a good connection with the surface." Id. The interaction between the surface water and ground water was shown by a study that "showed . . . 93% of the water derived from . . . public supply wells [was] primarily from capture of water from the surface environment." (Vol. III, Tr. 94). Furthermore, "[t]here's some 133 million gallons per day pumped from a combination of wellfields in [the] area [of Ashley Glen and the Blanco Property]." Id. The documented adverse impacts of the pumping in the area has been limited to "drying up the surface, capturing water from streams, pulling down . . . wetlands." Id. The interaction between the surface waters and groundwater in and around Ashley Glen leads to Mr. Vecchioli's opinion that the effects of the SWM System on groundwater, and in particular the effect of Pond P11, "is a very important aspect . . . almost totally ignored [by Westfield and the District.]" Id. In other words, ICPR, because it does not account for effects on groundwater, is a flawed model for determining the impact on all water resources in the area. It did not consider "downward leakage as a means for water to escape from the pond [P11]." (Vol. III, p. 96). The omission is critical because the Floridan aquifer system has a potentiometric surface that's some 10 to 20 feet lower than the water table or surface environment most times during the year. The meaning of this was explained at hearing by Mr. Vecchioli: [T]here's a downward gradient where water will flow from the land surface in the vicinity of Pond 11 [Pll] down into the Floridan. When [Westfield's consultants] did the evaluation of the wetland-pond interaction, they ignored this. They essentially said that because we don't intend to penetrate the confining layer, which SWFWMD does not want done, that there won't be any leakage out of the pond vertically. This is not correct . . . . [I]n creating the pond . . . 25 feet or roughly half of the confining bed, or a greater amount, [will be removed], so this makes it much easier for water to move from the water table at land surface down into the Floridan . . . . Id. The failure to account for downward leakage or "vertical seepage" is significant. "[I]t . . . creates the uncertainty as to whether P11 is going to receive enough water to stay saturated to the top for much of the year." (Vol. III, Tr. 96- 97). If the water level in P11 does not stay at the control elevation, "there will be a downward gradient that prevails from the adjacent wetland [Wetland A3] into the pond and part of this will leak out into the Floridan aquifer, in addition to additional water lost by evaporation from the open surface of the pond. [This] . . . will create a deficiency in storage for the pond." (Vol. III, Tr. 97). Furthermore, with the removal of the sand during excavation and the replacement of it with water, "the material the water [that is contributing to seepage] has to move through is less, so you have much less energy lost to frictional forces." (Vol. III, Tr. 115). The result is that vertical seepage will be more likely to occur after the pond is excavated than before. In other words, it will be much easier for water to move from the surface into the Floridan. The seepage, moreover poses difficulties in maintaining elevation in P11. Evaporation from the pond will be greater than evaporation from the wetland. If water in the pond is not at the appropriate elevation, water will be drawn from Wetland A3. The wetland will be drier than under natural conditions. Mr. Vecchioli stopped short of predicting that downward leakage would damage the wetland; he stated only that damage would occur if P11 functions as he thought it "might." (Vol. III, Tr. 106). In essence, Mr. Vecchioli's opinion does not stand as a projection of certainty that the wetland will be damaged. Instead, it presents a factor that was not considered by Westfield in its analysis and by the District in its review. The District counters Mr. Vecchioli's opinion with the fact that the depth of the excavation is in compliance with the District's Basis of Review and that it will not remove what SWFWMD considers to be a "primary retarding material or section," that is, a layer of clay. But it will remove much of the sand. Sand, while it inhibits downward seepage from the surface into the aquifer, is nonetheless not impermeable; it is not an aquitard. Seepage, therefore, will occur despite compliance with the Basis of Review (as explained, below) with regard to depth of excavation and aquitards. Depths of Excavation and Aquitards Subsection 6.4.1.b of the Basis of Review addresses depths of excavation: 6.4.1 Dimensional Criteria (as measured at or from the control elevation). * * * b. Depth - The detention or retention area shall not be excavated to a depth that breaches an aquitard such that it would allow for lesser quality water to pass, either way, between the two systems. In those geographical areas of the District where there is not an aquitard present, the depth of the pond shall not be excavated to within two (2) feet of the underlying limestone which is part of a drinking water aquifer. District Ex. 4, CHAPTER SIX, Pg. 2 The term "aquitard" is not a term that appears in the "Explanation of Terms" section of the Basis of Review. See District Ex. 4, Section 1.7, CHAPTER ONE, pgs. 2-6. The District does not consider sand to be an aquitard. Clay, on the other hand, is an aquitard. As explained by Mr. Ritter at hearing, the term aquitard is "defined as a somewhat impermeable layer that if you were to cut through that, that would be considered a breach." (Vol. III, Tr. 128). If the District were to consider sand an aquitard, there is nowhere in the District that a pond could be excavated in compliance with subsection 6.4.1.b of the Basis of Review. The Ashley Glen proposal for the excavation of Pond P11 to a depth of 25 feet complies with the Basis of Review. The depth of excavation of the pond does not come within two feet of the underlying limestone. Nor does it breach a clay layer or any other aquitard. Compliance with the "depth of excavation" and "aquitard" provisions of the Basis of Review does not cure the problem with the placement of Pond P11: adjacent to Wetland A3. The problem was addressed (although not resolved) by a post- Draft Permit correction that showed more water reaching Wetland A3 by way of the SWM System than had been shown in the original modeling. Post-Draft Permit Correction The modeling described at hearing included a correction after the issuance of the Draft Permit. The correction was made because of "an additional off-site contributing area east of the project that was not considered in the original flood study prepared by the [applicant's] consultant . . . ." (Tr. 222). The model was updated to incorporate the additional contributions that had not been considered prior to the issuance of the Draft Permit. After the additional data was introduced, the modeling suggested changes that Westfield made to its proposal. On the north end of the Project, a conveyance channel had to be enlarged. Additional culverts were proposed beneath the proposed roadway to reduce flood impacts from the additional flows entering from the east that had been overlooked. Further evaluation by the District ensued in the wake of the additional modeling. Ultimately, in the process that preceded the final administrative hearing, the application was determined by the District to "still me[e]t the conditions for issuance and [staff, therefore] recommended approval." Id. In other words, this additional water would not cause too much water to flow into Wetland A3 and cause adverse impacts from flooding. The additional data demonstrates that there will be more water flowing through the SWM System and into Wetland A3 then originally projected but not too much so as to cause adverse flooding impacts. The additional water, however, does not cure the problem that Pond P11 poses for Wetland A3 as explained by Mr. Vecchioli due to the wetland's location, depth and open surface area. Location, Depth and Open Surface Area In the final analysis, while there may be nothing out of compliance technically with the depth of P11 and the size of its open surface area, when these factors are combined with the location of P11, adjacent to Wetland A3, there is a problem: the potential for adverse impact to Wetland A3 and the extended Cypress-forested Wetland of which it is a part. Seepage and evaporation will make it difficult to maintain the water levels in P11 necessary for the pond to discharge into the wetland. Furthermore, when the water table is down, whether due to drought, pumping activities in the region or for some other reason, and P11 is not at an appropriate elevation, it will draw water out of Wetland A3. Seepage and evaporation have the potential to exacerbate the drawdown. Seepage promoted by the presence of Pond P11 was not taken into account in the modeling done for the project. Without consideration of all the factors material to the site that should enter an appropriate calculation, there is not reasonable assurance that Wetland A3 and the Cypress-forested Wetland will not suffer adverse impacts from the SWM System. Monitoring Water Quantity Section 3.2.2.4(c) of the Basis of Review states: 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 wetlands or other surface waters to demonstrate that such alteration has not resulted in adverse impacts, or to calibrate the system to prevent adverse impacts. Monitoring parameters, methods, schedules, and reporting requirements shall be specified in permit conditions. District Ex. 4, Chapter Three, P. 6. The District determined that the routing analysis and volume calculations with regard to the hydrology on-site and the hydrology of the wetlands provided by Westfield show that there will not be significant or frequent negative changes in wetland hydrology on site. The District concluded, therefore, there is no necessity to require monitoring of wetland water levels in the Permit. The District's determination, based as it is on the ICPR modeling provided by Westfield, does not withstand the criticism by Mr. Vecchioli. If the District, in the face of the evidence of record and Mr. Vecchioli's criticism, nonetheless decides that reasonable assurances have been made by Westfield, the District should require monitoring pursuant to the subsection 3.2.2.4(c) of the Basin of Review; without doubt, the excavation of Pond P11 adjacent to Wetland A3 has at least the potential to affect water levels in the wetland system. Water Quality The depth of P11 poses some dangers to water quality. Generally, the deeper a Florida lake, the more anoxic and "the more likely you have . . . nutrients such as phosphorus, binding up in the [waterbody] and then being released later" (vol. III, p. 64) to affect the waterbodies negatively. Wetlands surrounding P11, acting like "sponges" would provide treatment that removes nutrients and locks up chemicals to reduce their toxicity would improve water quality. But the District's rules do not require biological treatment for nutrients as part of the design of a surface water system. Given its nature as an attenuation pond, P11 will act like a secondary sediment sump. This aspect of P11 contributes no treatment credit to the application, as mentioned earlier, but any water entering Wetland A3 from P11 will have been treated by an SWM System so as to meet the District's requirements. Other measures will improve water quality on- site. One of such measures, for example, is that cattle on-site will be removed. Other measures related to water quality were examined by District staff. As he testified on behalf of the District, Mr. Sauskojus "checked to see whether or not . . . erosion control was located between any construction in the wetlands and/or buffers provided." (Tr. 288). He also checked to see that structures through which stormwater flowed into wetlands were equipped with skimmers. The inquiries led him to conclude as an expert in environmental resource permitting that water quality would not be adversely affected by the SWM System. Monitoring of water quality by the District may be done after the Permit has been finally issued and the SWM System is constructed. The District so provides in the Basis of Review. Section 5.13 of the District's Basis of Review states: Staff reports and permits for projects not requiring monitoring at the time of permit issuance will include a statement that water quality monitoring will be required in the future if necessary to ensure that state water quality standards are being met. This should not be construed as an indication that the District is contemplating the implementation of a program of intensive water quality monitoring by all permittees. District Ex. 4, Chapter Five, P. 6. Assurances Other than ICPR P11's Shelf Westfield proposes creation of a shelf along the western boundary of P11. It is approximately 150 feet wide with a slope of "a hundred to one . . . a flat area . . . right around the seasonal high elevation of [the] pond." (Tr. 158). Just as it does not claim treatment credit for P11, Westfield does not claim treatment credit for the shelf. There will not be any planting on the shelf; nor is it designed to serve as a littoral zone. A "shelf is . . . in some cases the final location for . . . the filtration [and] the protection for the wetland[;] . . . it acts as a wetland buffer for the mature forested wetland." (Vol. III, p. 59). But the shelf to be provided by Westfield is "just . . . a secondary shelf to help the interaction between the wetland and the pond." (Tr. 159). Without vegetation, the shelf provided will be of insignificant benefit. Dewatering During Construction To prevent dewatering of Wetland A3 during construction, a dewatering plan must be provided the District before excavation of P11 begins. The Permit contains a general condition that if the contractor "decides to use dewatering" (tr. 223) of a wetland, the District must be notified so that an assessment of adverse effects on the wetland can be made.6 Wetland Impacts: Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation Direct impacts to wetlands include excavation or filling: events that entail physical construction in the wetland. The Project proposes direct wetland impacts to 1.61 acres of wetlands and 2.81 acres of surface waters or wet ditches. With regard to impacts, an applicant must first attempt to avoid them. If that fails, the applicant must minimize the impact. Finally, the applicant must propose mitigation for impacts. Direct Impacts to Wetlands In addition to the secondary impacts caused by the Project's upland activities to the many wetlands on-site that are buffered or that were not buffered and that have to be offset by mitigation, Wetland B12, a wetland little more than one-half acre in size, will receive both direct and secondary impacts. The direct impact is caused by the proposed road. The direct impact is unavoidable because of road alignment required by the Department of Transportation, "a human health and safety issue [that relates] to State Road 54." (Tr. 64). The direct impact to Wetland B12 takes up .15 acres, leaving .43 acres of the wetland without direct impact. (At the same time, Wetland B9 is avoided by the curve in the proposed road and the road is aligned to avoid direct impact to Wetlands B6 and D5.) Wetland B12 is exempt from fish and wildlife review because it "is not connected by a ditch or overland flow to a larger than half-acre wetland at seasonal high " (Tr. 283). The value of Wetland B12, as an isolated wetland, is not as high as the value of Wetland A3. It has also suffered de-watering and encroachment by exotic species. Wetland C12, just down the proposed road from Wetland B12, will incur direct impact to 0.05 acres. The remainder of the wetland on site, 1.80 acres will be preserved under a conservation easement. Wetland B4 is a small, herbaceous wetland. In the middle of what is now cow pasture slated for excavation if the Project is approved, Wetland B4 will suffer permanent destruction by the creation of Pond P11. The direct impact will cover 0.75 of an acre, the size of the wetland as it now exits. Wetland C4, 0.60 acres in size, will also be permanently destroyed by the establishment of several lots in the Northern Pod of development and excavation of P4, a wet detention pond. The justification offered by Westfield for the permanent destruction of these two relatively small isolated wetlands is economic. Saving them would cost $215,000. Mitigation of the Direct Impacts The project preserves wetlands on site with conservation easements. If the wetland is a good candidate for wetland stormwater treatment, the project attempts to augment its hydrology. The direct impacts of Westfield's planned activities are proposed to be mitigated by the construction of 2.89 acres of non-forested wetlands and by the preservation of 65.32 acres of wetlands on site. Section 3.3.2 in the Basis of Review provides: Subsections 3.3.2[.1] through 3.3.2.2 [of the Basis of Review] establish ratios for the acreage of mitigation required compared to the acreage which is adversely impacted by regulated activity. District Ex. 4, CHAPTER THREE, P. 21. When preservation of wetland and other surface waters is the vehicle of mitigation, it also provides: The ratio guideline for wetland and other surface water preservation will be 10:1 to 60:1 (acreage wetlands and other surface waters preserved to acreage impacted). District Ex. 4, CHAPTER THREE, P. 24. The ratio of wetlands and other surface waters proposed for preservation (65.32 acres) to wetlands proposed to be permanently destroyed (1.61 acres) by Westfield is more than 40 to 1, well within the guideline. The wetland area to be created is designated as Wetland B2. Adjacent to two wetland systems, Wetland A3 and Wetland C2, and lying between them, Wetland B2 will also serve as a wetland habitat wildlife corridor. The 2.89 acres of created non-forested wetlands that will constitute Wetland B2 offset 1.36 of non-forested impact, a ratio of 2.13 to 1. The ratio is within the guidelines for created wetlands in Section 3.3.2.1.1. of the Basis of Review. In the District's view, the applicant's wetland mitigation proposal provides the District with reasonable assurances that impacts to wetland functions will be offset. Put slightly differently by Mr.Sauskojus, in the view of District staff, "weighing the proposed direct impacts, the secondary impacts and the mitigation provided, . . . there will not be adverse impacts on site or offsite . . . ." (Tr. 293). Since downward and lateral seepage from Pond P11 was not taken into account, however, the mitigation plan offered by Westfield is not designed to offset any impacts from the seepage to Wetland A3 and the Cypress-forested Wetland. These impacts are secondary impacts. Secondary Impacts A secondary impact is an impact that follows a direct impact to a water resource. An example of a secondary impact is boat traffic increase because of the installation of a boat ramp or a marina that poses an increased threat of collision with manatees. The construction of the boat ramp or the marina would entail direct impacts to the water resource. The increased boat traffic would constitute impacts secondary to the construction of the ramp or marina. A way to minimize secondary impacts is through buffers. Just as the Cypress-forested Wetland should be buffered from development, so should the isolated wetlands on-site. Isolated wetlands are important for several reasons. They accept the brunt of the discharges from the developed uplands and so are responsible for filtering nutrients, pesticides and chemicals from stormwater and other run off. They also are spots where wildlife congregate. Birds, in particular, will be under siege from the cats that inevitably accompany development. Buffers, particularly vegetated buffers, assist in protection of wetlands whether contiguous or isolated. Section 3.3.7 of the Basis of Review provides: Secondary impacts to habitat functions of wetlands associated with upland activities will not be considered adverse if buffers, with a minimum width of 15' and an average width of 25' are provided abutting those wetlands that will remain under the permitted design, unless additional measures are needed for protection of wetlands used by listed species for nesting, denning, or critically important feeding habitat. District Ex. 4, CHAPTER THREE, Pg. 16. The upland activities of the Project have an average 25-foot buffer. For the bulk of the Project, the buffer is at least 15 feet, a minimum buffer that is normally required. Close to the headwaters of Wetland A3, however, the Southern Pod of development does not have a buffer that is equal to or more than 15 feet. In this area and other areas where there are less than 15 feet of buffer (such as around isolated Wetlands B8 and D3), the Project calls for a double silt fence, that is, a two- rowed fence to hold back silt. The silt fence will protect the wetland from damage during grading of the lots and construction of the residences. But it will not protect the wetland from secondary impacts caused by upland activities after the Project is developed. The buffers are made up of bahaia grass primarily. The import of the buffer's composition was explained at hearing by David Sauskojus, a District employee: If a buffer is made up of pasture grass, it is definitely much less effective relative to protecting habitat functions than . . . an undisturbed upland. . . . [I]n this case, . . . in the past before they made it pasture, [the undisturbed upland would have] consisted of palmettos, bryonia, bushes, [and] shrubs, that would have provided some kind of habitat value to the wetland itself. (Tr. 282). Despite the low quality of the composition of the buffers, the additional width of buffers in other areas that allow the average of the buffers to exceed 25 feet was reasonable assurance in the view of District personnel that the encroachment of development closer than 15 feet in certain areas would not have secondary habitat impacts to Wetland A3. Because of this "offset," the District did not request the applicant to mitigate for the encroachments into the minimum 15 feet of buffer normally required. Cumulative Impacts Section 3.2.8.1 of the Basis of Review provides: Cumulative impacts are considered unacceptable when the proposed system, considered in conjunction with the past, present, and future activities as described in 3.2.8 would then result in a violation of state water quality standards as set forth in subsection 3.1.1(c) or significant adverse impacts to functions of wetlands or other surface waters identified in subsection 3.2.2 within the same drainage basin when considering the basin as a whole. District Ex. 4, CHAPTER THREE, P. 19. The Project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts on the wetlands and other surface waters on site. Fish, Wildlife and Listed Species Under the Basin of Review, when a party applies for an ERP, "[g]enerally, wildlife surveys will not be required." District Ex. 4, Basin of Review, Section 3.2.2, CHAPTER THREE, page 4. The Basin of Review details when a wildlife survey is required: The need for a wildlife survey will depend upon the likelihood that the site is used by listed species, considering site characteristics and the range and habitat needs of such species, and whether the proposed system will impact that use such that criteria in subsection 3.2.2 through 3.2.2.3 and subsection 3.2.7 will not be met. Survey methodologies employed to inventory the site must provide reasonable assurance regarding the presence or absence of the subject listed species. Id. It is apparent from the record that District staff initially believed that a wildlife survey was needed. The file of record contains a document prepared by District staff entitled "Project Information Review List," (the "First Request for Additional Information" or "1st RAI"). Dated March 7, 2003, it refers to the Application's receipt one month earlier. Under the heading "SITE INFORMATION," the following appears: Has any current wildlife survey been performed on site? In particular, what recent observations have been made of wildlife usage within Wetlands B4, C4 and B12? The submitted wildlife survey not only is almost three years old, but it represents a preliminary effort. (emphasis supplied), Westfield Ex. 19, File of Record,(1st Volume), p. 104. The staff request for additional information continues with recommendations not only to cure the outdated nature of the survey but also for the methodology that should be used: Id. Staff would recommend, for the above three wetlands, that a survey be performed which is consistent with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's methodology, documented within; Standardized State Listed Animal Species Survey Procedures for FDOT Projects by Jim Beaver, revised in 1996, and Wildlife Methodology Guidelines by Mike Alan, 1988. Reference Rules 40D-4.101(1)(c) and (e) and 40D-4.301, F.A.C. and Section 3.2.2, Basis of Review (B.O.R.). The file of record reflects a response to the 1st RAI. With regard to the question as to whether a current wildlife survey has been performed, the criticism of the submitted survey and the recommended methodology to be used in a subsequent survey, Westfield's ERP consultant, King Engineering Associates, Inc., ("King") responds: Site conditions have not changed since King conducted the original preliminary listed species survey. During more recent site visits, King staff have not observed any additional listed species, or evidence of their breeding/nesting activity on the subject property. Onsite wetlands B4 and C4 are essentially shallow, wet depressional areas in the pasture. While these herbaceous wetlands could potentially provide occasional foraging habitat for wading birds, they do not represent suitable habitat for breeding/nesting of any listed species. Wetland B12, a forested wetland, likewise does not represent suitable habitat for breeding/nesting of listed species, and no listed species have been documented in this wetland. As a follow-up effort to King's preliminary listed species survey, and following recommendations made in that report, King has performed additional wildlife surveys. Specifically, a Southeastern Kestrel Survey and Gopher Tortoise Burrow Survey were conducted by King. The results of these follow-up surveys, which were included with Attachment 7 of the original submittal, revealed that neither of these two listed species is currently present on, or breeding/denning on, the subject property. Westfield Ex. 19, File of Record, (1st Volume), p. 123. On May 7, 2003, the District responded by letter to the additional information provided by King with a second Request for Additional Information (the "2nd RAI"). The letter states, "[y]our permit application still lacks some of the components necessary for us to complete our review; the enclosed checklist describes the missing information." District Ex. 19, File of Record, (1st Volume), p. 184). The checklist attached, under the heading "SITE INFORMATION" states: The response to Request for Additional Information (RAI) Comment No. 3, regarding wildlife surveys, does not give the District reasonable assurance that threatened or endangered species do not use the wetlands proposed to be impacted. Many changes have taken place in the vicinity of the project since King performed the preliminary survey three years ago. The construction of the Suncoast Parkway and several nearby residential developments have re-shaped habitat availability within this area. The District strongly recommends performing a wildlife survey to evaluate the usage by threatened or endangered species of Wetlands B4, C4 and B12. The survey should be performed using the previously noted Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) methodology. Additionally, when/if the survey is performed, please provide details regarding the actual survey, including but not limited to, dates, times of day, location and methods used. Westfield Ex. 19, File of Record (1st Volume), p. 185. On June 20, 2003, King responded in writing to the 2nd RAI. With regard to the strong recommendation of a wildlife survey that uses the FFWCC methodology, King wrote: The applicant is confident based on the results of the existing Preliminary Listed Species survey and the extended amount of property contact time by field scientists and District staff in the intervening months when hydro-period, wetlands delineation, and permit application work were on-going, that no wetland dependent species are present. Westfield Ex. 19, File of Record, (1st Volume), p. 198. In addition to the time spent on the preliminary survey, the response lists 64 hours of time when the site was visited for purposes of "[w]etland delineation, wetland delineation & [h]ydro-periods," "h]ydro-periods," "[h]ydro-period [r]eview with SWFWMD," "[f]ollow-up Gopher Tortoise/Kestrel [s]urvey" and "[f]ield [v]isit with ACOE staff." Id. On July 18, 2003, a third RAI ("3rd RAI") was issued by staff. Satisfied with the June 20, 2003, response with regard to the earlier inquiries about a wildlife survey, the 3rd RAI makes no reference to the earlier requests with regard to site information or the need for wildlife survey. Dr. Baca, Dr. Blanco's wetlands ecologist, criticized the wetland information provided by Westfield along the same lines as did District staff in the documents in the file of record. For example, Dr. Baca testified with regard to endangered species that a survey should be conducted over several seasons. A great deal of time must be spent studying the particular habitat and looking for particular organisms. "It cannot be an aside to other work . . . with wetlands or soil studies . . . [i]t has to be a focus of [a wildlife survey]." (Vol. III, tr. 33). A survey for endangered or threatened species requires time and focus precisely because of the nature of listed species; in Dr. Baca's words, "they're not around very much and sometimes they're not around very long." (Vol. III, tr. 32). Time of day that a survey is conducted, moreover, has an impact on the likelihood that wildlife will be found on site. As Dr. Baca testified, Most of the time, you'll find more wildlife on-site around the hours of dusk and dawn . . . Other times, especially during cold weather, wildlife will come out during the hottest part of the day, which is around noon . . . [a]ll of these add to the amount of time that would be required to do a proper study. (Vol. III, Tr. 33). There is no evidence of record as to time of day of the visits used by Westfield for credit toward wildlife observation. Finally, it is apparent that the on-site visits following the preliminary species survey three years prior to the submission of the application did not employ the methodology recommended by the District: the FWWCC methodology. Perhaps an equivalent methodology could be employed, but there is no evidence of an attempt to conduct a survey with an acceptable methodology, either that of FWWCC or an equivalent. The District's acceptance of the Kestrel Survey may have been appropriate.7 But the hours spent visiting the site for wetland delineation and purposes other than to survey wildlife were not shown to have employed the FWWCC methodology or its equivalent and do not supplant the need for a wildlife survey that employs an appropriate methodology. The Mitigation Plan When the impacts of a project that requires an ERP permit are such that an applicant is unable to meet the criteria for approval (the "public interest test"), the applicant may propose or accept measures that mitigate the adverse impacts of the regulated activity so that the Project in its entirety can be demonstrated to be "not contrary to the public interest." In other words, "[t]he mitigation must offset the adverse effects caused by the regulated activity." § 373.414(1)(b), Fla. Stat. It is "the responsibility of the applicant to choose the form of mitigation." Id. As explained by the testimony, all of the mitigation proposed by Westfield is on-site.8 The Respondents' Joint Proposed Recommended Order addresses mitigation for the adverse impacts caused by the Project. The proposed findings that relate to mitigation are summed up in paragraph 16 of the proposed order: 16. The mitigation for the project is appropriate and adequately compens[]ates for the unavoidable direct and secondary wetland impacts from the Project. Respondents' Joint Proposed Recommended Order, p. 6. In support of this finding, the proposed order cites to the File of Record, Westfield Ex. 19, testimony from Mr. Courtney at Tr. 66-76 and 120-121 and testimony from Mr. Sauskojus at Tr. 284-286. Mr. Sauskojus' testimony explains how the mitigation plan adequately mitigates for the direct impacts to wetlands on site. But that explanation does not demonstrate mitigation for all of the potential impacts. No effort was offered for how the plan was designed to mitigate for the impact of draw-down from Wetland A3 caused by low elevation of Pond P11 due to seepage, for example, because seepage was not accounted for in the ICPR modeling. Mr. Courtney's testimony is no different with regard to the same critical omission. Westfield, quite simply, did not take into account, as Mr. Vecchioli testified, the effect of seepage in the information it provided the District. Nor was the mitigation plan designed to mitigate for secondary impacts that might have been indicated by a wildlife survey since an appropriate wildlife survey was not conducted. At bottom, Westfield did not provide reasonable assurances as required by the statutes and rules; it omitted an adequate wildlife survey from the submission of information to the District and it failed to account for seepage from Pond P11 and its effect on Wetland A3 and the Cypress-forested Wetland. Its mitigation plan does not make up for Westfield's failure to demonstrate that the Project is otherwise "not contrary to the public interest."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Individual Environmental Resource Permit sought by Entryway and Westfield be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY 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 December, 2004.
The Issue The issue is whether an Environmental Resource Permit should be issued to Conquest Developments USA, L.C., authorizing the modification of an existing stormwater management system serving a residential development known as Silver Lakes in Collier County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this environmental permitting dispute, Respondent, South Florida Water Management District (District), proposes to issue an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) to Respondent, Conquest Developments USA, L.C. (Applicant), authorizing the modification of an existing stormwater management system serving a private, gated residential community known as Silver Lakes RV and Golf Club, Inc. (Silver Lakes) in unincorporated Collier County, Florida. As the agency responsible for the administration of the ERP program, the District has the authority to grant or deny the requested permit. Preliminary action approving the application was taken by the District on August 15, 2001. Silver Lakes is a 146-acre residential development located adjacent to, and on the east side of, County Road 951 approximately 1.5 miles south of the intersection of U.S. Highway 41 and County Road 951 in southwestern Collier County, Florida. The project site is a part of the larger development and consists of approximately forty undeveloped acres (40-acre site) just north of, and adjacent to, the residential community. If the application is approved, the Applicant would be allowed to construct an open storage facility on a 7.02-acre tract of land in the western part of the 40-acre site on which trailers, boats, motor homes, tow dollies, and similar items will be stored. It would also allow the Applicant to relocate previously permitted lots along the southeastern boundary of the 40-acre site which border the Silver Lakes development. Petitioners, Jerome and Susan Strauss, own Lots 14, 15, and 16 within Silver Lakes. Petitioners, Joseph H. and Patricia Belanger, own Lot 26 within Silver Lakes, which is adjacent to the proposed storage facility. For obvious reasons, the Belangers do not wish to have a storage facility next to their property. Rather, they and the other Petitioners have suggested that the storage facility be reduced in size and moved to a 3.0-acre site in the northeastern portion of the 40-acre site. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners have standing to bring this action. As reflected in the parties' Prehearing Stipulation, Petitioners contend that the proposed construction of the storage area will cause flooding, adverse secondary impacts, and adverse water quantity impacts; that the proposed activity will result in a violation of state water quality standards; that the proposed system will cause adverse impacts to surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters, and the conservation of fish and wildlife; that the Applicant has failed to minimize or avoid impact to jurisdictional wetlands to the greatest extent practicable; that the proposed site provides a wildlife corridor connected to protected lands directly to the west; that the proposed site is jurisdictional wetlands; that the Applicant has engaged in District activities without a permit; and that the proposed site is subject to a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These objections, where relevant, have been grouped into five categories - wetlands, wildlife, secondary and cumulative impacts, water quality and quantity, and prior enforcement activities - and they are addressed separately below. Wetlands The District has adopted and incorporated by reference in Rule 40E-4.091(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, a document known as the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District (Basis of Review). The standards and criteria found in the Basis of Review are used to determine whether an applicant has given reasonable assurances that the conditions for issuance of an ERP have been satisfied. Compliance with the criteria in the Basis of Review creates a presumption that the standard and additional conditions for issuance of an ERP in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E- 4.302, Florida Administrative Code, respectively, have been met. See Section 1.3, Basis of Review. Section 4.2.1 of the Basis of Review generally requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that wetland impacts be eliminated or reduced to the greatest extent practicable. This can be done through the implementation of "practicable design modifications" to the project, or where adverse impacts still remain after such modifications, through mitigation. There are 36.82 acres of wetlands throughout the 40- acre site. If the application is approved, there will be adverse impacts to 9.9 acres of wetlands in the western portion of the site (where the storage facility will be located) and to 3.37 acres in the southeastern portion of the site. To avoid and minimize wetland impacts, the Applicant has been required to reduce the number of acres impacted from its original proposal, and to place the storage area on the western part of the 40-acre site near County Road 951. In the original application, the Applicant proposed to place the storage area in the eastern part of the site and to create a larger storage area. Although the western part of the 40-acre site contains higher quality wetlands than the central or eastern parts, the western area is not pristine, and it is substantially impacted by exotic species, such as wax myrtle and Brazilian pepper. In addition, the western area is adjacent to County Road 951, which reduces wetland functions and values, reduces habitat values because of increased light and noise encroachment, and increases risk to wildlife because of passing vehicles. Further, the central and eastern areas are adjacent to other undeveloped lands, and this creates the potential for larger tracts of preserved and enhanced wetlands and maximizes wetland functions and values. Impacts to wetlands will be adequately mitigated by the Applicant preserving and enhancing 26.92 acres within the 40-acre site in a recorded conservation easement; by monitoring and reporting on the on-site mitigation (easement) for a five-year period and by maintaining the property in perpetuity; by purchasing 3.66 mitigation credits of similar wetland habitat from the Panther Island Mitigation Bank; and by adhering to a remediation plan (found in the Special Conditions in the permit) to address any future deficiencies in the mitigation. Given these considerations, it is found that the Applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the wetland impacts from the proposed activities will be eliminated or reduced as required by Section 4.2.1 of the Basis of Review. Impact on Wildlife Section 4.2.2 of the Basis of Review requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the activity will not impact the values of wetlands and other surface water functions so as to cause adverse impacts to the abundance, diversity, or habitat of fish, wildlife, and listed species. The primary agency responsible for the protection of wildlife is the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (Commission), and not the District. Therefore, Section 4.2.2 of the Basis of Review requires that the District provide the Commission with a copy of all ERP applications for its review and comment as to wildlife issues. In this case, the Commission offered no comments or objections regarding wildlife on the property in question. The evidence shows that listed and endangered species such as Florida panthers, wood storks, and Big Cypress fox squirrels have been spotted on infrequent occasions on the 40-acre site by residents of Silver Lake. However, the parties stipulated that there was no evidence of any nesting, denning, or breeding activity on the same site. Based on the evidence of record, including the Applicant's Protected Species Survey, it is fair to infer that there is limited or no use of the property by protected wildlife species. Indeed, Petitioners' own expert found no evidence of endangered or threatened species on the 40-acre site during his two inspections. Two Special Conditions have been incorporated into the permit to protect endangered, threatened, or other listed species. First, in the event that Big Cypress fox squirrels are observed on or near the property, Special Condition 24 requires that the Applicant prepare a habitat management plan, in consultation with the Commission, to address issues related to nesting habitat. Second, if any endangered or threatened species are ever found on the property, Special Condition 25 requires that the Applicant coordinate with the Commission or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Commission for guidance or recommendations. Given the above, the evidence supports a finding that the Applicant has given reasonable assurances that the requirements of Section 4.2.2 of the Basis of Review have been satisfied. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Section 4.2.7 of the Basis of Review requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that the proposed activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. At the same time, Section 4.2.8 requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that a regulated activity will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters within the same drainage basin as the regulated activity for which the permit is being sought. In providing the necessary reasonable assurances regarding cumulative impacts, Section 4.2.8.2 authorizes an applicant to use preservation and mitigation measures to prevent cumulative impacts. The more persuasive evidence shows that the project will not cause secondary impacts to wetlands. This is because a water quality berm system surrounds the wetlands, isolating the wetland system from the surface water management system; a 50-foot preserved area lies between the storage area and the adjacent property boundary to the north; the storage area is being placed in an area already secondarily impacted by County Road 951; and the wetland preservation area will be placed in the conservation easement. Further, the project will not cause secondary impacts to wildlife. This is because structural buffers will prevent future encroachment into the wetlands and distance any wildlife away from the more dense residential functions. These buffers include a 50-foot wide natural preserve on the north side of the storage area (Special Condition 26), an already-erected structural buffer to the south of the storage area (Special Condition 26), and a 17 to 21-foot structural buffer (planted with native vegetation or vegetated buffers) on the eastern side of the 40-acre site where the new lots are proposed. Except for two conclusionary opinion statements by Petitioners' expert, without further facts or explanation, no other evidence on secondary impacts was offered. The project will not cause cumulative impacts to the wetlands. This is because the proposed mitigation for the project adequately offsets the impacts of the 40-acre site, and the impacts from other permitted projects in the basin area have been sufficiently offset. In addition, very little property in the area remains to be developed, and there are no new applications before the District involving the same basin. In the event a new application may be filed, however, the District will require the applicant to offset any impacts associated with its project with buffers and conservation easements, like the Applicant in the instant case. Water Quantity and Quality Section 5.0 et. seq. of the Basis of Review contains water quality criteria that must be satisfied in order for an ERP to be issued, while Section 6.0 et. seq. addresses water quantity criteria for an ERP. Given the limited nature of changes to the existing system and the lack of a hydrologic connection to the wetlands, and for the following additional reasons, the Applicant has given reasonable assurances that the project complies with the water quality and quantity criteria. The project as designed includes a grass swale near the storage area on the western part of the 40-acre site. The rainfall and run-off from the storage area flows into an internal road, through the grass swale, into a storm drain, and then into the pre-existing water management system associated with the original permit for Silver Lake. The project also allows rainfall and run-off from the proposed lots on the southeastern border of the 40-acre site to sheetflow onto an internal road, where waters are collected in existing catch basins and conveyed into the previously permitted water management system associated with the original permit. Since the rainfall and run-off from the storage area and lots drain into the existing lakes (Lakes 1 and 2) that are part of the Silver Lakes water management system, those waters will be treated for water quality through wet detention before their eventual discharge to McIlvane Bay, which lies to the southwest of Silver Lake. The basin discharge rates, minimum floor elevations, road designs, parking lot designs, structure control elevations, and structure sizes are specified in the the District's Staff Report, and were set at or above the calculated design limitations to meet water quality and quantity requirements. Section 5.2.1(a)1. of the Basis of Review specifies that wet detention volume shall be provided for the first inch of runoff from the developed project. The evidence shows that the proposed system captures one inch of run-off over the entire site, which drains into the existing lake system to provide water quality treatment. The system is also designed to meet the relevant discharge rate requirements for a 25-year, 3-day storm event, and the minimum floor elevations were based on a 100-year, 3- day storm event. The wetland preserve area is outside the area served by the surface water management system, is not hydrologically connected to that system, and will not be affected by run-off from the storage area or lots. Just prior to the final hearing, the District added Special Condition 23 to create a 50-foot buffer zone along the southern boundary of the storage area for aesthetic purposes and to reduce secondary impacts. Implementation of that buffer must be in accordance with the staff report, will not change the surface water management system, will have no impact on water quality or flood control, and will be implemented after additional consultation with the District. Past Enforcement Rule 40E-4.302(2), Florida Administrative Code, requires that the District take into consideration past violations of various rules adopted by the District. No enforcement action relating to the property has ever been taken by the District against the Applicant for any violation of ERP requirements. Although Petitioners suggested that unpermitted fill activities have taken place on the southeastern part of the 40-acre site, an inspection by District personnel revealed that unpermitted activities were "not significant." Further, Special Condition 23 requires that the Applicant restore "that portion of the disturbed wetland area located in the southeast corner of the site which is to be included in the wetland preserve area." Therefore, any impacts to the 40-acre site resulting from past unpermitted activities have been considered and remedied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order granting Permit Application No. 010223-5 of Conquest Developments USA, L.C., for an Environmental Resource Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 24th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 Anthony P. Pires, Jr., Esquire Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, P.A. 3200 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34103-4105 Robert E. Murrell, Esquire Samouce, Murrell & Francoeur, P.A. 800 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34108-2713 Keith W. Rizzardi, Esquire South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 Kenneth B. Cuyler, Esquire Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103-3556
Conclusions On May 11, 2007, the Division of Administrative Hearings (‘DOAH’) submitted a _ Recommended Order (“RO”) to the Department of Environmental Protection (‘DEP’) i in . these consolidated proceedings. Copies of the RO were served upon the Petitioners, Mellita A. Lane, Jacqueline M. Lane, Peter A. Lane, (“Lane Petitioners”); Friends of Perdido Bay,.Inc., and James A. Lane (“FOPB”); and the Co-Respondent, International Paper Company (“IP” ). On May 29, 2007, all Petitioners and Respondent IP filed Exceptions to the RO. Respondent DEP filed Exceptions to the RO and Motion for Remand. ; On June 8, 2007, the FOPB filed a Reply to IP’s Exceptions and a Response to DEP’s Motion for Remand and Exceptions. The Lane Petitioners filed their Response to iP’s and DEP’s Exceptions. Respondent DEP filed Responses to the Exceptions filed . by the FOPB, the Lane Petitioners and IP. Respondent IP filed Responses to the Exceptions of FOPB, the Lane Petitioners and DEP. This matter is now before me for. final agency action. . _ BACKGROUND » Florida Pulp and Paper Company first began operating the Cantonment paper mill in. 1941. St. Regis Paper Company (St. Regis” ) acquired the mill in 1946. In 4984, Champion International Corporation (“Champion”) acquired the mill. Champion changed the product mix in 1986 from unbleached packaging paper to bleached products such a as printing and writing grades c of paper. In 2001, Champion merged with IP, and IP took over operation of the mill. The primary product of the mill continues to | be printing and writing paper. ' The mill s wastewater effluent i is discharged into Elevenmile Creek, which is a tributary of Perdido Bay. The creek flows southwest into the northeastern portion of Perdido Bay. Elevenmile Creek is a freshwater stream for most of its length but is . sometimes tidally affected one to two miles from its mouth. Elevenmile Creek is designated as a Class I water. Perdido Bay is approximately 28 square miles in area and is bordered by Escambia County on the east and Baldwin County, Alabama, on the west. The dividing line between ‘the states runs north and south in the approximate middle of Perdido Bay. U.S. Highway 98 crosses the Bay, going east and west, and forms the boundary between what is-often referred to as the “Upper Bay” and “Lower Bay.” The Bay is relatively shallow, especially | in the Upper Bay, ranging in depth between five and ten feet. Perdido Bay i is designated asa Class ill water. Sometime around 1900, a manmade navigation channel was cut through the narrow strip of land separating Perdido Bay from the Gulf of Mexico. The channel, called Perdido Pass, allowed the salt waters of the Gulf to move with the tides up into Perdido Bay. Depending on tides and freshwater inflows, the tidal waters can move into the most northern portions of Perdido Bay and even further, into its tributaries and wetlands. The Perdido River flows into the northwest portion of Perdido Bay. Itis primarily a freshwater river but itis sometimes tidally influenced at and near its mouth. The Perdido River was designated an Outstanding Florida Water (“OFW’) in 11979. At the north end of Perdido Bay, between Elevenmile Creek and the Perdido River, isa large tract of land owned by IP called the Rainwater Tract, The northern part of the tract is primarily freshwater wetlands. The southern partis a tidal marsh. Tee and Wicker Lakes are small (approximately 50 acres in total surface area) tidal ponds within the tidal marsh. Depending on the tides, the lakes can be as shallow as one foot, or several feet deep. A channel through the marsh allows boaters to gain access to Tee and Wicker Lakes from Perdido Bay. | ' Before 1995, the mill had to have both state and federal permits. The former Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (‘DER’) issued St. Regis an industrial wastewater operating permit in 1982 pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") issued St. Regis a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“ NPDES") permit i in 1983 pursuant to the Clean Water Act. When it acquired the facility in 1984, Champion continued to operate the mill under these two permits. In 1986, Champion obtained a construction permit from DER to install the oxygen delignification technology and other improvements to its wastewater treatment plant (‘WWTP’) in conjunction with the conversion of the production process from an unbleached to a modified bleached kraft production - process. In 1987, Champion applied to DER for an operating permit-for its modified WWITP and also petitioned for a variance from the Class iI water quality standards in Elevenmile Creek for iron, specific conductance, zinc, and transparency. DER's . subsequent proposal to issue the operating permit and variance was formally challenged. In 1988, while the challenges to the DER permit and variance were still pending, Champion dropped its application for the operating permit and requested a . temporary operating permit ("TOP"), instead. In December 1989, DER and Champion entered into Consent Order No. 87-1398 (‘the 1989 Consent Order’). The 1989 Consent Order included an allegation by DER that the mill's wastewater discharge was causing violations of state water quality standards in Elevenmile Creek for dissolved oxygen (“DO”), un-ionized ammonia, and biological integrity. The 1989 Consent Order authorized the continued operation of the mill, but established a process for addressing the water quality problems in Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay and bringing the mill into compliance in the future. Champion was required to install equipment to increase the DO in its effluent within a year. Champion was also required to submit a plan of study and, 30 months after DER's approval of the plan of study, to submit a study report on the impacts of the mill's effluent on DO in Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay and recommend measures for reducing or eliminating adverse impacts. The study report was also supposed to address the other water quality violations caused by Champion. A comprehensive study of the Perdido Bay system was undertaken by a team of 24 scientists lead by Dr. Robert Livingston, an aquatic ecologist and professor at Florida State University. The initial three-year study by Dr. Livingston's team of scientists was followed bya series of related scientific studies, which are referred to collectively in the RO as “the Livingston studies.” The 1989 Consent Order had no expiration date, but it was tied to the TOP, , which had an expiration date of December 1, 1994. Champion was to be in compliance with all applicable water quality standards by that date. The mill was not in compliance with all water quality standards in December 1 994. No enforcement action was taken by the Department and no modification of the 1989 Consent Order or TOP was formally proposed that would have provided a point of entry to any members of the public who might have objected. instead, the Department agreed through correspondence with . Champion to allow Champion to pursue additional water quality studies and to investigate alternatives to its discharge to Elevenmile Creek. - In 1994 and 1995, Champion applied to renew its state and federal wastewater permits, which were about to expire. The Department and EPA notified Champion that its existing permits were administratively extended during the review of the new permit applications. Today, the Cantonment mill is still operating under the 1989 TOP which, due to the administrative extension, did not terminate in December 1994, as stated on its face. In November 1 995, following EPA's delegation of NPDES permitting authority to the Department, the Department issued an order combining the state and federal ‘operating permits into a single permit identified as Wastewater Permit Number FLO002526-002-IWF/MT. During the period from 1992 to 2001, more water quality studies were conducted and Champion investigated alternatives to discharging into upper Elevenmile Creek, including land application of the effluent and relocation of the discharge to lower Elevenmiie Creek or the Escambia River. . In September 2002, while Champion's 1994 permit renewal application was still pending at DEP, IP submitted a revised permit renewal application to upgrade the WWTP and relocate its discharge. The WwTP upgrades consist of converting toa. modified activated sludge treatment process, incteasing aeration, constructing storm surge ponds, and adding a process for pH adjustment. The new WWTP would have an average daily effluent discharge of 23.8 million gallons per day (‘MGD’). IP proposes to convey the treated effluent by-pipeline 10.7 miles to the 1,464-acre wetland tract owned by IP (contained within-the larger Rainwater Tract), where the effluent would be distributed over the wetlands as it flows to lower Elevenmile Creek and Upper Perdido Bay. IP revised its permit application again in October 2005, to obtain authorization to: reconfigure the mill to produce unbleached brown paper for various grades of boxes. If the mill is reconfigured, only softwood (pine) would be used in the new process. On April 12, 2005, the Department published notice of its intent fo issue a proposed permit, consent order, experimental wetland exemption, and waiver. The — Department authorizations would allow IP to change its industrial wastewater treatment system at the mill, construct an effluent distribution system within the wetland tract, construct the 10.7-mile pipeline to transport its treated wastewater to the wetlands, and discharge the treated wastewater into the wetlands. In April 2005, Mellita A. Lane, Jacqueline M. Lane, Zachary P. Lane, Peter A. Lane, and Sarah M. Lane (“Lane Petitioners”) filed identical petitions challenging the Department authorizations on numerous grounds. The Department forwarded the petitions to DOAH for assignment of an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The Lane Petitioners subsequently amended their petitions. In May 2005, Friends of Perdido Bay, Inc., and James Lane filed a petition for | hearing to challenge the Department authorizations. The FOPB petition was forwarded to DOAH and the pending cases were consolidated for the fi nal hearing. The FOPB petition was subsequently amended. In October 2005, while the cases were pending, IP applied for a revision to its NPDES permit renewal application. The cases were abated so that the DEP could review and act on the permit revision. In January 2006, DEP issued a proposed revised | NPDES permit and a corresponding First Amendment to Consent Order. On July 26, 2006, the Department filed without objection a revision to the Consent Order. On July 31, 2006, the Department filed Joint Trial Exhibit 18 that integrated the Consent Order dated April 12, 2005, the First Amendment to Consent Order dated January 11, 2006, and the Department’s Notice of Minor Revision {o Consent Order filed on July 26, 2006. The DOAH Administrative Law Judge CALL") held a lengthy final hearing in these consolidated cases on May 31, June 1, 2, and.26 through 30, and July 17, 27, and 28, 2006. Prior to the hearing, the parties filed their Joint Pre-Hearing sit on May 24, 2006. The ALJ subsequenty submitted his RO on May 11, 2007. -
The Issue The issue to be decided in these cases is whether Petitioner, A. Wayne Lujan (Petitioner), was entitled to issuance of five environmental resource permits (ERPs) that Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), intended to deny as stated in notices of denial dated October 25, 2019.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. Parties and Background Petitioner Lujan is the president and a director of Kay Haven Associated Enterprises, Inc. (Key Haven), that owns the five parcels, which are the subject matter of this hearing. Although Key Haven owns numerous lots, it chose to submit ERP applications for the Subject Lots within the Key Haven Tenth Addition plat dated September 1966 (Plat). See Joint Exhibit 84. Joint Exhibit 84 The Subject Lots are located in an unincorporated part of the County on the northwestern edge of a body of land lying north of State Road A1A, identified on the Plat as Raccoon Key. The Subject Lots are approximately half a mile east of the city limits of Key West, Florida. The Subject Lots are all characterized by a small upland portion adjacent to Floral Avenue. The majority of the Subject Lots transition into a mangrove fringe of varying depth and submerged lands containing marine seagrasses and sponges. See Joint Exhibits 81 and 82. Joint Exhibit 81 Joint Exhibit 82 DEP is the administrative agency of the state having the power and duty to protect Florida's air and water resources, and to administer and enforce the provisions of part II of chapter 380, part IV of chapter 373, and chapter 403, Florida Statutes. DEP also administers the provisions of Florida Administrative Code chapters 62-312 and 62-330 regarding activities in wetlands and other surface waters of the state. DEO is the state land planning agency and reviews certain permit applications for consistency with its statutory responsibilities under the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP), which includes part II of chapter 163, and part I of chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Relevant to this proceeding, DEO exercises authority over the ACSC program. See § 380.05, Fla. Stat. On July 26, 2018, Petitioner filed five applications for ERPs with DEP. Although certain details within each application differed, the applications all sought to authorize construction of a seawall in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and in unnamed wetlands within the landward extent of the Gulf of Mexico, a Class III OFW, to remove the entirety of the existing mangrove fringe, and to place fill within wetlands and other surface waters for the construction of single-family residences (Project). The minor differences in each application relate to the length of the seawall and the amount of fill necessary for each lot. Although some testimony was provided concerning the differences, no party argued that the differences were material to the determinations necessary in this proceeding. Accordingly, the factual and legal analysis for the Subject Lots and ERP applications were addressed without distinction herein. DEP forwarded a copy of the applications to DEO for its recommendation. On August 24, 2018, DEO issued objections to approval of the permits citing inconsistency with the Florida Keys ACSC Principles for Guiding Development (PGDs) in section 380.0552(7). DEO also objected based on inconsistencies between the Project and the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and Land Development Code (LDC), which implement the PGDs. DEP's first RAI dated August 24, 2018, included DEO's objections. The first RAI notified Petitioner that DEP had concerns with the Project that included: (1) installation of the vertical seawall; (2) placement of fill within an OFW; (3) direct impacts to marine seagrass bed community without adequate mitigation; and (4) failure to provide stormwater management plans since the Project was a common plan of development. The first RAI contained 19 specific requests for additional information. On October 23, 2018, Petitioner responded to DEP's first RAI by submitting slightly revised plans. The revised Project proposed less of a vertical seawall footprint by adding rip-rap to the side seawalls as a means of containing fill. Petitioner's responses to the 19 specific requests for information can generally be categorized as follows: (1) elimination of some vertical seawalls, but not the ones on the waterward edge of the Subject Lots; (2) no change in the placement of fill; (3) Petitioner would attempt to find appropriate compensatory mitigation for the seagrass impacts; and (4) Petitioner did not consider the Project to be a common plan of development. Regarding DEO's objections, Petitioner stated that "[w]e acknowledge that the project has been forwarded to FWC [Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission] and DEO and that additional comments and information may be requested by those agencies in order to fully evaluate the application." Petitioner did not substantively address DEO's objections. DEP issued a second RAI on November 21, 2018. DEO again objected in a letter dated November 26, 2018. DEP's second RAI raised the same concerns as the first RAI and acknowledged that four of the 19 specific items were adequately addressed. On January 11, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's second RAI by again submitting slightly revised site plans. However, the Project remained generally unchanged, with a proposed vertical seawall on the waterward edge of the lots, rip-rap along the sides, removal of the entire mangrove fringe, and fill of the entire lots eliminating the existing marine seagrasses. DEP issued a third RAI to Petitioner on February 8, 2019. DEO reiterated its objections by letter dated February 8, 2019. The third RAI raised the same concerns as the first and second RAIs, although DEP acknowledged that six of the 19 specific items were adequately addressed. By letter dated April 8, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's third RAI. The response again proposed slightly altered site plans from the January 2019 submissions. Petitioner essentially stated that mitigation opportunities were scarce, but had contacted the County and was looking into derelict vessel removal. However, the proposed Project remained generally unchanged, with a proposed vertical seawall on the waterward edge of the lots, rip-rap along the sides, removal of the entire mangrove fringe, and fill of the entire lots eliminating the existing marine seagrasses. As it relates to DEO's objections, Petitioner responded that "[a]fter review of the comments outlined in the [DEO] revised letter, it seems that the DEO objections are related to compliance with the provision[s] of the [Monroe] County [Comp Plan]. We will deal with those issues at the time of local permitting." Petitioner again failed to substantively address DEO's objections. DEP issued its final RAI on May 8, 2019. DEO again objected by letter dated May 6, 2019. This final RAI raised the same concerns as the first, second, and third RAIs. DEP stated that seven of the 19 specific items were not addressed by Petitioner, and that failure to provide a complete response to the prior RAI may result in denial of the ERP applications. On August 29, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's final RAI by once again submitting slightly revised plans, and additional information concerning mitigation proposals. However, the Project did not change and Petitioner again failed to substantively address DEO's objections. DEO’s objection letter identified that the ERP applications were inconsistent with the Florida Keys ACSC PGDs, seven Comp Plan policies, and six regulatory provisions of the County's LDC. DEP denied the ERP applications on October 25, 2019. The grounds for denial reiterated the issues not addressed by Petitioner's RAI responses. Specifically: (1) the failure of the Project to provide reasonable assurances concerning direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts to the marine seagrass bed community; (2) continued reliance upon construction of a vertical seawall; (3) failure to provide stormwater management information necessary given the determination that the Project constituted a common plan of development; (4) inconsistency with the FCMP as identified by DEO in its objection letters; and (5) failure to provide reasonable assurances that the Project was clearly in the public interest. Direct Impacts The Project proposed to entirely fill the Subject Lots, contain the fill with vertical seawalls and rip-rap, and construct pile-supported single-family residences. The Project would remove the entire mangrove fringe that aerials and site inspections show is a healthy mix of red, black, and white mangroves along with some green buttonwood. The shallow, open surface waters are dominated by marine seagrasses that vary in density. Petitioner did not make any design modifications to the Project that sought to reduce or eliminate direct impacts to the mangrove fringe and marine seagrasses. Petitioner's resource inventory was done using GIS aerial photography so that the aerial benthic resource surveys submitted to DEP were not ground- truthed. DEP staff conducted physical site inspections and ground-truthing inspections that included swimming in the open surface waters. DEP staff found significant marine seagrasses and sponges that were not mentioned in Petitioner's resource surveys. Depending on the lot, the Project would fill approximately 6,000 square feet of wetlands and other surface waters, i.e., 900 to 2,500 square feet of mangrove habitat and 4,000 to 4,800 square feet of marine seagrass bed habitat. The seawalls depicted in the final version of Petitioner's site plans were "vertical seawalls" because the rip-rap would not face the seawalls to the mean high water line (MHWL). The rip-rap would be placed on submerged resources inside the property lines of the Subject Lots. Also, Petitioner's final plans did not include the mooring of vessels. Vertical seawalls are prohibited in the OFW of the County. Petitioner did not affirmatively demonstrate that fill or shoreline stabilization could be accomplished by using native vegetation instead of vertical seawalls. Secondary Impacts DEP's expert witness, Ms. Mills, testified that Petitioner's ERP applications did not identify any potential secondary impacts. Ms. Mills testified that the expected secondary impacts from the Project included stormwater runoff, shading, and erosion or shoaling. Although the Project plans showed that stormwater would be collected and directed to Floral Avenue, DEP's investigation established that there is no stormwater management system on the side of Floral Avenue abutting the Subject Lots. Thus, the collected and directed stormwater would end up flowing back into the mangrove fringe and surface waters at the lot locations that were not proposed for development, e.g., Lots 36 and 38. The proposed single-family homes are piling-supported structures. Ms. Mills testified that the piling-supported structure would cause shading of the immediate adjacent resources on either side. She identified potential shading impacts to the resources of the undeveloped Lots 36 and 38. In addition, Ms. Mills identified potential erosion or shoaling impacts to the undeveloped Lots 36, 38, and unnamed lots to the left of Lot 40 since they would be surrounded by developed fill on either side. Although Mr. Swakon testified that tidal velocity is low in this area, other aspects, such as effects from wind-driven circulation, were not adequately addressed. Mitigation Petitioner was required to propose mitigation to offset remaining direct and secondary impacts after going through a reduction and elimination exercise. However, Petitioner did not propose any revisions to the Project to reduce or eliminate the direct and secondary impacts identified above. Ms. Mills explained that appropriate mitigation usually provides benefits to the same type of ecological community as the one being impacted. Petitioner's ultimate mitigation proposal was to purchase saltwater credit at a mitigation bank, the Florida Power and Light Everglades Mitigation Bank (FPL EMB). The FPL EMB is located on the mainland of Florida approximately a hundred miles away from the Subject Lots. Ms. Mills testified that saltwater credit would be appropriate to offset and replace the same ecological function of mangroves, but not to offset the submerged benthic communities that would be impacted by the Project. Mr. Swakon testified that calculation of the amount of mitigation credits included a multiplier to address secondary and cumulative impacts, the out-of-kind mitigation, and the dissimilarities in the communities. However, Ms. Mills persuasively testified that the proposed multiplier was not sufficient to justify the three aspects of impact that needed to be offset. Whether to justify dissimilarities between the ecological communities, secondary and cumulative impacts, or the distance of the mitigation site from the Project, the multiplier was not sufficient. Cumulative Impacts The Project is not within a recognized cumulative impact basin of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) for mitigation of impacts purposes. Accordingly, Ms. Mills testified that the plain language of a cumulative impacts analysis is considered. Contiguous lots to the Subject Lots owned by Petitioner could be developed through similar requests in the future. Also, each ERP application's cumulative impact analysis would consider the other four ERP applications as in-house examples of potential future projects. Common Plan of Development Petitioner contested DEP's conclusion that the Project was a common plan of development subject to section 2.0 of the Applicant's Handbook Volume 1 and associated stormwater management requirements. The Project would facilitate the advancement of land uses such as multiple residences, a residential subdivision, or phased site development. The Project comprised a total land area divided into multiple lots or parcels that are under common ownership or control. In total, Petitioner owns 648 lots under common ownership within the Key Haven Tenth and Eleventh Addition. The Subject Lots are all part of a residential subdivision. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project was a common plan of development. For this common plan of development, Petitioner's proposed stormwater management consisted of a cap on the proposed seawalls directing stormwater to swales on each lot. The swales would then direct stormwater to Floral Avenue with no additional treatment or management. During site inspections, DEP staff did not find any evidence of stormwater management along Floral Avenue. Seawalls and Rip-rap The seawalls depicted in the final version of Petitioner's ERP applications would be vertical seawalls because the rip-rap facing the seawall did not come above the MHWL. In addition, the final plans did not include the mooring of vessels. As found above, the Project would place fill, seawalls, and rip-rap on marine seagrasses and sponges. Petitioner failed to affirmatively demonstrate that native vegetation was not sufficient to prevent erosion. The evidence established that Petitioner did not apply for any waiver or variance of applicable ERP rule criteria. FCMP Consistency The evidence demonstrated that Petitioner refused to address DEO's objections based on a mistaken view of the criteria governing ERP applications in the County and the Florida Keys ACSC. Relevant to this proceeding, DEO exercises authority over the ACSC program. See § 380.05, Fla. Stat.; see also § 380.23(6), Fla. Stat. (Each agency charged with implementing statutes and rules that are part of the FCMP, shall be afforded an opportunity to provide DEP with its comments and determination regarding consistency of the activity with those statutes and rules.). Section 380.05(16) prohibits persons from undertaking any development within the Florida Keys ACSC, except in accordance with the PGDs. Thus DEO, as the administrator of the ACSC program, reviewed the ERP applications for consistency with applicable regulatory requirements. DEO issued objections to approval of the permits citing inconsistency with the Florida Keys ACSC PGDs; and inconsistencies between the Project and the County's Comp Plan and LDC which implement the PGDs. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with four PGDs. DEO's expert witness, Ms. Powell, testified that the Project was inconsistent with the PGD, which provides for strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that the local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the ACSC designation. See § 380.0552(7)(a), Fla. Stat. Ms. Powell persuasively testified that the ERP applications were inconsistent with this PGD because the Project would impair the local government's ability to have the ACSC designation removed. Allowing development inconsistent with its regulations would hurt the local government's ability to pursue de-designation. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The second PGD cited by DEO provides for protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. See § 380.0552(7)(b), Fla. Stat. It was undisputed that the Project would result in total removal of the mangrove and buttonwood fringe on each lot and 100% destruction of existing submerged marine resources. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The third PGD cited by DEO provides for limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. See § 380.0552(7)(e), Fla. Stat. Ms. Powell testified that degradation to nearshore water quality from prior dredge and fill activity was one of the reasons for the designation of the Florida Keys as an ACSC. Additionally, as further discussed below, the Project would be inconsistent with the County's Comp Plan policies and LDC regulations that further the goal of protecting the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys ACSC. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The fourth PGD cited by DEO provides for protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys, and maintaining the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. See § 380.0552(7)(n), Fla. Stat. As further discussed below, the Project would be inconsistent with the County's Comp Plan and LDC regulations that prohibit the use of structural fill within velocity zones. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. Ms. Powell testified that DEO considered the remaining statutory PGDs, and determined they were not particularly applicable to these ERP applications. In accordance with its duties, DEO had also reviewed and approved the County's Comp Plan and LDC as consistent with the statutory PGDs. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with seven Comp Plan policies. They are Policies 102.1.1, 101.5.25, 203.1.1, 204.2.2, 204.2.3, 204.2.4, and 212.5.3. Policy 102.1.1 provides: The County shall protect submerged lands and wetlands. The open space requirement shall be one hundred (100) percent of the following types of wetlands: submerged lands mangroves salt ponds fresh water wetlands fresh water ponds undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands only for use as transferable development rights (TDRs) away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Policy 101.5.25 provides that "[t]he allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available." Policy 203.1.1 provides that "[t]he open space requirement for mangrove wetlands shall be one hundred (100) percent. No fill or structures shall be permitted in mangrove wetlands except for elevated, pile-supported walkways, docks, piers and utility pilings." Policy 204.2.2 provides: To protect submerged lands and wetlands, the open space requirement shall be 100 percent of the following types of wetlands: submerged lands; mangroves; salt ponds; freshwater wetlands; freshwater ponds; and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands. Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetland only for use as transferable development rights away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Within one (1) year after the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the County shall revise the LDC to include a prohibition of development in salt ponds. Policy 204.2.3 provides: No structures shall be permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands, except for elevated, pile-supported walkways, docks, piers, and utility pilings. No fill shall be permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands except: as specifically allowed by Objective 212.5 and subsequent Policies; to fill a manmade excavated water body, such as a canal, boat ramp, or swimming pool if the Director of Environmental Resources determines that such filling will not have a significant adverse impact on marine or wetland communities; or as needed for shoreline stabilization or beach renourishment projects with a valid public purpose that furthers the goals of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, as determined by the County. Policy 204.2.4 provides: No fill or structures shall be permitted in mangroves or wetlands except as allowed by Policy 204.2.3 (as amended) and for bridges extending over mangroves or wetlands that are required to provide automobile or pedestrian access to dwelling units located on upland areas within the same property for which there is no alternative means of access. Such bridges shall be elevated on pilings such that the natural movement of water, including volume, rate, and direction of flow shall not be disrupted or altered. Upland areas shall include disturbed wetlands that have been lawfully converted into uplands through filling. Policy 212.5.3 provides: Bulkheads, seawalls or other hardened vertical shoreline structures shall be permitted on residential canals and altered shorelines only in the following situations: to replace an existing deteriorated bulkhead or seawall; or to stabilize a severely eroding shoreline area. DEO's expert witness, Ms. Powell, persuasively testified that the Project was inconsistent with all seven policies, because it did not protect the submerged lands and wetlands, did not provide for 100% open space within the submerged lands and wetlands, and provided for the construction of a seawall not excepted from the general prohibition. Petitioner did not present any evidence that the Project was consistent with the cited policies. Instead, Petitioner's witness, Mr. Nelson, testified that he felt certain County regulations would militate in favor of allowing the development. The main factor cited by Mr. Nelson was that the Subject Lots were designated as Tier III parcels under the County's LDC. However, designation of a parcel as Tier III did not conflict with the policies cited by DEO. The more credible and persuasive evidence concerning the Project's compliance with the Comp Plan policies was provided by Ms. Powell, who concluded that the Project was not consistent with those policies. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with six sections of the County's LDC regulations. Those are sections 118-4, 118-10(e), 118-12(k)(2), 122-4(b)(5), 130-157, and 130-162. The LDC regulations are more specific methods for implementing the Comp Plan policies outlined above. Section 118-4 provides: No development activities, except as provided for in this chapter, are permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, freshwater wetlands, freshwater ponds, or in undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands; the open space requirement is 100 percent. Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands only for use as transferable development rights away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Section 118-10(e), in relevant part, provides: Mangroves, wetlands, and submerged lands. All structures developed, used or occupied on land classified as mangroves, wetlands or submerged lands (all types and all levels of quality) shall be designed, located and constructed such that: Generally. Only docks and docking facilities, boat ramps, walkways, water access walkways, water observation platforms, boat shelters, nonenclosed gazebos, riprap, seawalls, bulkheads, and utility pilings shall be permitted on or over mangroves, wetlands, and submerged lands, subject to the specific restrictions of this subsection. Trimming and/or removal of mangroves shall meet Florida Department of Environmental Protection requirements. * * * (4) Placement of fill. No fill shall be permitted in any mangroves, wetlands, or submerged lands except: As specifically allowed by this Section or by Section 118- 12(k) (Bulkheads, Seawalls, Riprap) and 118-12(l) (Boat Ramps); To fill a manmade, excavated water body such as a canal, boat ramp, boat slip, boat basin or swimming pool if the County Biologist determines that such filling will not have a significant adverse impact on marine or wetland communities; As needed for shoreline stabilization or beach renourishment projects with a valid public purpose that furthers the goals of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, as determined by the County Biologist; For bridges extending over salt marsh and/or buttonwood association wetlands that are required to provide automobile or pedestrian access to lawfully established dwelling units located on upland areas within the same property for which there is no alternate means of access. Such bridges shall be elevated on pilings so that the natural movement of water, including volume, rate and direction of flow shall not be disrupted or altered; or As approved for Disturbed Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Association Wetlands with appropriate mitigation as defined by the wetland regulations of subsection (e)(6) of this Section. Section 118-12(k)(2) provides: (2) Vertical type seawalls or bulkheads shall be permitted only to stabilize severely eroding shorelines and only on manmade canals, channels, or basins. Such seawalls or bulkheads shall be permitted only if native vegetation and/or riprap and filter cloth is not a feasible means to control erosion. No new seawalls, bulkheads, or other hardened vertical structures shall be permitted on open water. Section 122-4(b)(5), in relevant part, provides: Coastal high-hazard areas (V zones). Within the areas of special flood hazard are areas designated as coastal high- hazard areas, which have special flood hazards associated with wave wash. The following provisions shall apply in these areas: * * * e. There shall be no fill used as structural support. Section 130-157, Maximum Permanent Residential Density and Minimum Required Open Space, provides at note (a): (a) The allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available. Section 130-162, Maximum Densities for Hotel/Motel, Campground, Recreational Vehicle, Seasonal and Institutional Residential Uses, and Minimum Open Space, proves at note (a): (a) The allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available. Ms. Powell persuasively testified that the Project was not consistent with the County's LDC regulations in sections 118-4, 118-10(e), 118-12(k)(2), 122- 4(b)(5), 130-157, and 130-162. The Project was inconsistent with the cited LDC regulations because it sought to construct seawall in submerged land, fill portions of the lots subject to a 100% open space requirement, remove the entirety of the existing mangrove fringe, impair 100% of the marine seagrass resources within the Subject Lots, and utilize structural fill within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated Velocity Zone. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project did not meet the criteria of part IV of chapter 62-312 and section 380.0552. The testimony also demonstrated that Petitioner did not apply for a variance or waiver of the County's LDC regulations. Conditions for Issuance Petitioner generally argued that the five applications provided reasonable assurance for issuance of individual ERPs. However, the persuasive and credible evidence established that the Project did not satisfy a majority of the conditions for issuance under rule 62-330.301. Petitioner failed to provide adequate information regarding stormwater management, the impacts of runoff to Floral Avenue, and runoff flowing back into the Gulf of Mexico OFW. This failure resulted in a lack of reasonable assurance that the Project would not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; would not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; and would not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Those functions would be 100% impacted and the impacts would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. As found above, the Project would cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, adverse impacts to surface water conveyance, and the adverse impacts would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. Additional Conditions for Issuance Petitioner generally contended that the five applications provided reasonable assurance that the Project was clearly in the public interest under rule 62-330.302. However, the persuasive and credible evidence established that the Project did not satisfy a majority of the applicable additional conditions for issuance. The Project would adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others because Petitioner failed to provide adequate information regarding stormwater management. DEP's site inspection found no stormwater management or treatment system on the side of Floral Avenue adjacent to the Subject Lots. Thus, the collected and directed stormwater would end up flowing back into the mangrove fringe and the OFW. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, or their habitat, as a result of the 100% impact to benthic communities, which would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely affect marine productivity, the current condition, and the relative value of functions being performed by the impacted areas. Also, the Project would be permanent in nature. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that Petitioner failed to provide reasonable assurance that there would not be harmful erosion or shoaling. The Project would not adversely affect or enhance any significant historical and archaeological resources. The Project would not be within a recognized cumulative impact basin of the SFWMD for mitigation of impacts purposes. Contiguous lots to the Subject Lots owned by Petitioner could be developed through similar requests in the future. Each ERP application's cumulative impact analysis would consider the other four ERP applications as in-house examples of potential future projects. Thus, Petitioner did not provide reasonable assurance that each ERP application would not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order denying Petitioner's five ERP applications. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathryn E.D. Lewis, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jay Patrick Reynolds, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Moore, Esquire Moore Bowman & Reese, P.A. Suite 100 551 North Cattlemen Road Sarasota, Florida 34232 Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Mail Station 35 Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jon F. Morris, Esquire Brandon W. White, Esquire Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street, Mail Station 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Valerie A. Wright, Esquire Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue This is a challenge to certain administrative rules adopted by the St. Johns River Water Management District relating to permitting criteria for isolated wetlands. Section 373.414, F.S. mandates that permitting criteria for isolated wetlands be adopted by water management districts, by rule, by March 31, 1987. The statute also includes four more specific requirements for those rules. Petitioners contend that St. Johns River Water Management District Rule Chapter 40C-4, F.A.C. and the Applicant's Handbook, Management and Storage of Surface Waters, adopted as a rule by reference, fail to comply with the statutory mandate and are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority by the District. Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District, contends that its rules comply with Section 373.414, F.S.. St. Johns River Water Management District contests the standing of Petitioner, the Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. Intervenors, E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, Inc. and Associated Minerals (USA), Inc., support the District's position and contest the standing of both Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Sierra Club, Inc., (Sierra) is a non-profit corporation registered to do business within the state of Florida. It is an international organization, with regional committees, state chapters, and local regional groups. The Florida chapter has 15 regional groups, several of which are located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). About 6,000 members live within the boundaries of the SJRWMD. The overall purpose of Sierra is to explore, enjoy and protect the natural resources of the earth. Sierra commonly offers outings for the enjoyment and education of its members and the general public. These involve traveling, hiking, birdwatching and other wildlife observation. Part of the outings program includes hiking and viewing of isolated wetlands and wildlife dependent on those wetlands. These outings take place within the SJRWMD. Some Sierra members are actively involved in work related to isolated wetlands, including studies, consulting, and managing of wetlands, some of which are located within the SJRWMD. The Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. (FWF) is a non-profit corporation registered to do business in the state of Florida. It is comprised of organizations and individual members who support the wise use and management of Florida's natural resources. Sportsmen and naturalists who belong to the club are involved in hunting, fishing, hiking, birdwatching, nature photography and other activities loosely called "naturalizing". These activities take place within SJRWMD boundaries and rely on wildlife species which live in, or are dependent upon, isolated wetlands. FWF attracts membership by publicity of its existence and purpose directed to sportsmen and naturalists. Respondent, SJRWMD, is a political subdivision of the state of Florida, with the authority to regulate, through its permitting process, the management and storage of surface waters (MSSW) within its designated geographical boundaries, pursuant to Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S. Prior to adoption of the administrative rules in issue in this proceeding, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) delegated to Respondent the responsibility for administration of its stormwater rule. Intervenors conduct heavy metal mining operations within the District. These mining operations are regulated pursuant to Chapter 40C-4, F.A.C. and the Applicant's Handbook. Virtually all mining activities exceed existing permitting thresholds and all District wetland criteria apply to the activities. Since 1983, SJRWMD has been regulating wetlands and wetland MSSW impacts, including isolated wetlands, throughout its 19-county area. The rules adopted in 1983 included all wetlands, both isolated and non-isolated. In 1986, the legislature created Section 373.414, F.S., which provided as follows: 373.414 Wetlands.-- By March 31, 1987, for those water management districts to which the department has delegated the responsibility for administration of its stormwater rule, each district shall adopt a rule which establishes specific permitting criteria for certain small isolated wetlands which are not within the jurisdiction of the department for purposes of regulation of dredging and filling. The rule shall include: One or more size thresholds of isolated wetlands below which impacts on fish and wildlife and their habitats will not be considered. These thresholds shall be based on biological and hydrological evidence that shows the fish and wildlife values of such areas to be minimal; Criteria for review of fish and wildlife and their habitats for isolated wetlands larger than the minimum size; Criteria for the protection of threatened and endangered species in isolated wetlands regardless of size and land use; and Provisions for consideration of the cumulative and offsite impacts of a project or projects. This section does not affect the authority of the water management districts to regulate impacts on water quality and water quantity. Until a water management district has adopted a rule to implement the provisions of subsection (1), review of fish and wildlife impacts in small isolated wetlands shall be limited to: Wetlands that are 5 acres in size or larger; or Wetlands that are used by a federal or state designated threatened or endangered species; or Wetlands located within an area of critical state concern designated pursuant to chapter 380; or Wetlands that are less than 5 acres in size having a cumulative total acreage greater than 30 percent of the total acreage proposed for development, within a development project greater than 40 acres in size. Section 373.414(3), F.S. (1986) was repealed effective March 31, 1987, the deadline by which the districts were to have their own isolated wetlands rules in place. Sections 373.414(1) and (2), F.S. remain in effect. "Wetlands" is defined in SJRWMD's MSSW rule as: ...hydrologically sensitive areas which are identified by being inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater with a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. Rule 40C-4.021(11), F.A.C. This definition is repeated in Section 10.7.3 of the Applicant's Handbook. Section 10.7.3 also provides: Wetlands are important components of the water resource because they serve as spawning, nursery and feeding habitats for many species of fish and wildlife, and because they provide important flood storage and water quality benefits. Not all wetlands provide these benefits, nor do they provide them to the same extent. A wide array of physical and chemical factors affect the functioning of any wetland community. * * * Small isolated wetlands are totally unique biological systems. They are not small versions of large wetlands. They play two major roles in animal ecology: to harbor diverse species that use the habitat for their entire life cycle, and to provide a productive resource for transient species. If a wetland is truly isolated, its fish population is generally limited to the smaller-bodied, smaller-mouthed varieties which are limited in their predatory abilities. This permits the abundance of amphibians and invertebrates not found in larger, more permanent wetlands where the fish would rapidly decimate the population. Amphibians are a cornerstone of the vertebrate food chain. They are food for a variety of snakes, which in turn, are food for hawks. Wading birds find easy prey as the isolated wetlands begin drying up and contracting. The entire cycle of the pond, from fully wet to dry, is significant. Ambystoma tigrinum (tiger salamanders) are hatched and raised in isolated wetlands; they leave, and must return to breed in the same pond. They have a strong homing instinct. Ignorant of intervening events, they are often found spending their honeymoon dodging cars on an apartment complex pavement, seeking in vain the pond of their birth. The SJRWMD adopted Chapter 40C-4, F.A.C. and its Applicant's Handbook to regulate the construction, operation, alteration, removal or abandonment of surface water management systems, to insure that those activities will not harm the water resources of the District and insure that they are consistent with the objectives of the District. Activities which do not meet certain thresholds established in Rule 40C-4.041, F.A.C. do not require a District MSSW permit, including those activities impacting an isolated wetland. The threshold provisions pre-date Section 373.414, F.S. and still apply. The threshold provisions of Rule 40C-4.041(2)(b), F.A.C., challenged by Petitioners, state as follows: 40C-4.041 Permit Required. * * * (b) An individual or general permit is required prior to the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, abandonment or removal of a surface water management system which: Is capable of impounding a volume of water of forty or more acre feet; or Serves a project with a total land area equal to or exceeding forty acres; or Serves a project with a total land area equal to or exceeding ten acres, when any part of the project is located within the Wekiva River Hydrologic Basin north of State Road 436; or Provides for the placement of twelve or more acres of impervious surface which constitutes 40 or more percent of the total land area; or Provides for the placement of one half acre or more of impervious surface, when any of the impervious surface is located within the Wekiva river Hydrologic Basin north of State Road 436; or Contains a traversing work which traverses: A stream or other watercourse with a drainage area of five or more square miles upstream from the traversing work; or An impoundment with more than ten acres of surface area; or Contains a surface water management system which serves an area of five or more contiguous acres of a hydrologically sensitive area with a direct hydrologic connection to: A stream or other watercourse with a drainage area of five or more square miles; or An impoundment with no outfall, which is not wholly owned by the applicant and which is ten acres or greater in size; or A hydrologically sensitive area not wholly owned by the applicant. Is wholly or partially located within the Wekiva River Hydrologic Basin's Riparian Habitat Protection Zone as described in paragraph 40C-41.063(3)(e). The same threshold provisions are contained in Section 3.3.1, Applicant's Handbook, also challenged by Petitioners. In 1987, after passage of Section 373.414, F.S. the District amended its wetland regulations to provide that all wetlands would be evaluated, regardless of size, within the already-established permit thresholds: A wide variety of wetland habitats exist within the St. Johns River Water Management District. The functions which these habitats serve are dependent on many factors. Biological and hydrological evidence demonstrate that size is not the single determinant of wetland value. Since the District bases its evaluation on wetland functions, the District will review impacts to all wetlands (a zero acre threshold will be employed) in reviewing impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitats for systems requiring a permit from the District. * * * 10.7.5 Wetland Evaluation Applicant's Handbook As the result of an objection by the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC) stating that the District had failed to comply with Section 373.414(1)(a), F.S., the District amended the zero acre review threshold for isolated wetlands and adopted a 0.5 acre review threshold, based upon biological investigations indicating that wetlands below this size have minimal fish and wildlife value. In all applications for MSSW permits under Chapter 40C-4, the District reviews impacts to isolated wetlands unless those wetlands are less than 0.5 acre in size and are not used by threatened or endangered species. No permit application, however, is required for projects under the thresholds described in paragraph 13, above, even though those projects might include wetlands larger than 0.5 acres. Staff of the SJRWMD concedes that the non-regulated isolated wetlands might have significant value and agrees with Petitioner's experts that isolated wetlands found in projects below the Rule 40C-4.041(2)(b), F.A.C. thresholds (called "get-in-the-door" thresholds) could have more than minimal fish and wildlife value. Petitioners challenge the entire Chapter 40C-4, F.A.C. and Applicant's Handbook for non-compliance with Section 373.414(1)(d), F.S. The SJRWMD does not consider, and nothing in its rules require consideration of, cumulative impacts of a series of isolated wetlands included in below-threshold projects even though there could be a negative cumulative impact from the loss of those wetlands. Petitioners challenge section 10.7.4 Wetland Review Criteria, Applicants Handbook, to the extent that it may limit consideration of impacts to isolated wetlands to off-site aquatic and wetland dependent species, unless threatened or endangered species are involved. This section provides in pertinent part: 10.7.4 Wetland Review Criteria In determining whether a system will meet the objective contained in Paragraph 9.1.1(j) and that part of the criterion contained in Paragraph 10.2.1(e) regarding hydrologically related environmental functions, the District will, except when threatened or endangered species are involved, consider only the impacts to off-site aquatic and wetland dependent species relative to the functions currently being provided by the wetland to these types of fish and wildlife. This assessment of off-site impacts is based upon a review of pertinent scientific literature, soils and hydrologic information, and a general understanding of the ecological resources of the site. Generally, site specific biological data collection is not required. An applicant must provide reasonable assurance that a proposed system will not cause adverse off-site changes in: the habitat of an aquatic and wetland dependent species, the abundance and diversity of aquatic and wetland dependent species, and the food sources of aquatic and wetland dependent species. The only exception to limiting review of a system under this Subsection to off-site impacts is where wetlands are used or reasonable scientific judgement would indicate use by threatened or endangered species listed in Sections 39-27.003 and 39-27.004, F.A.C., which are aquatic or wetland dependent. In this instance, both off-site and on-site impacts will be assessed. Petitioners also challenge section 16.1.3(a), Applicant's Handbook, to the extent that it may limit mitigation requirements to off-site impacts. If a project as initially proposed is subject to Respondent's surface water permitting requirements, and as initially proposed fails to meet wetland review criteria, mitigation may be considered as a means of bringing the proposed project within permitting requirements. The challenged portion provides: 16.1.3 Mitigation (a) Mitigation is defined here as action or actions taken to offset the adverse effects of a system on off-site functions and in the care of threatened or endangered species, to offset the adverse effects of a system on on-site and off-site functions. Although there may be a difference in degree of functions performed by isolated wetlands on site, as compared to the degree of functions performed by isolated wetlands off-site, the difference in negligible. Adverse ecological effects on-site will also be felt off-site. In developing its criteria SJRWMD staff could not conceive of a situation where a functioning wetland or isolated wetland would be eliminated and not have an off-site impact. Finally, Petitioners challenge the last paragraph of Section 16.1.4, Applicant's Handbook, related to mitigation for mining projects that fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) pursuant to section 378.601, F.S. (heavy mineral extraction). Section 16.1.4, Wetland Creation, Applicant's Handbook, provides guidelines to be used to estimate the extent of wetland creation which may mitigate for the destruction of a unit of wetland. The challenged portion of the section provides: For lands and mining activities that fall under the jurisdiction of the Florida Department of Natural Resources pursuant to section 378.601, F.S. mitigation or compensation plans that are consistent with the land reclamation policies and criteria approved by that agency will be considered by the District as satisfactory mitigation. (emphasis added). The District is not required to allow mitigation if impacts are so substantial that they cannot be offset. If the District does not consider a DNR reclamation plan as sufficient, the District applies its wetland review criteria in section 10.7.4, Applicant's Handbook. For heavy mineral mining, DNR requires one-to-one mitigation for every wetland, regardless of type, that is disturbed by the zoning activity, and the restoration of wildlife habitat, including threatened or endangered species. Heavy mineral mining, in contrast to other mining such as phosphate, has far less impact on the environment. This is reflected in the success which has been experienced in restoring wetlands disturbed by heavy mineral mining.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Win-Suncoast, Ltd., is entitled to an individual environmental resource permit to construct a surface water management system to serve a proposed shopping center.
Findings Of Fact On April 25, 2006, Applicant filed with District an application for an individual ERP to construct a surface water management system on a parcel located in south Pasco County on the north side of State Road 54, about 1000 feet east of the right-of-way of the Suncoast Parkway. The proposed surface water management system would serve the commercial development of the now-vacant, 36.7-acre parcel. State Road 54 runs from State Road 19 near New Port Richey to Interstate 75; at the Suncoast Parkway, State Road 54 is six lanes wide. The Suncoast Parkway is a limited-access toll road that runs from Memorial Parkway in Tampa to U.S. Route 98 north of Brooksville. The subject parcel is about one mile north of Hillsborough County, four miles east of the terminus of Gunn Highway at State Road 54, and five miles west of State Road The vicinity of this intersection is experiencing rapid commercial development and escalating land values, mostly since the completion of the Suncoast Parkway in 2001. Three parcels adjoin the subject parcel. Immediately north of the subject parcel is the Ashley Glen parcel, which consists of 266.36 acres. Immediately west of the subject parcel and the Ashley Glen parcel is the parcel owned by Petitioner. Petitioner's parcel has about 700 feet of frontage on State Road 54 and runs the length of the western borders of the subject parcel and the Ashley Glen parcel. The northern border of Petitioner's parcel and the Ashley Glen parcel is an abandoned railroad grade. Immediately east of the subject parcel is a DOT-owned parcel, which serves as floodplain mitigation, probably in connection with the Suncoast Parkway or State Road 54. Petitioner challenged the issuance of an ERP in two administrative cases involving the Ashley Glen parcel. In the Blanco I final order, which is dated January 25, 2005, the District denied an ERP for a surface water management system to serve the development of a residential subdivision of over 400 lots. The ERP was denied due to the applicant's failure to conduct an appropriate wildlife survey and to account for the effect of a newly excavated 37-acre borrow pit/pond on a large forested wetland partly occupying a large area on the north end of Petitioner's property. After the developer submitted a revised application, Petitioner challenged the ERP that District proposed to issue. After an administrative hearing, District granted an ERP in the Blanco II final order, which is dated May 30, 2006. Significant differences in the second application were that the applicant had reduced the maximum depth of the borrow pit/pond from 25 feet to 12 feet, under most circumstances, and that the applicant had obtained an appropriate wildlife survey. The subject parcel is about 1.5 miles south of a large tract proposed for acquisition by District and known as the Masaryktown Canal area. This tract would join the smaller Starkey tract, which is also owned by District, with another somewhat smaller publicly owned tract to place much of central Pasco County, from Hillsborough County to Hernando County, in public ownership. Water from the subject parcel drains north toward central Pasco County and then into the Anclote River. The record is in conflict as to the drainage basin in which the subject parcel is located. According to BOR Appendix 6, which is dated May 2, 2006, the subject parcel is in the southern end of the Upper Coastal Drainage basin, which is a vast basin that stretches down the Gulf coast from north of Crystal River to the southern tip of Pinellas County. At points, this basin is not wide, such as at the southern tip of Pinellas County, where, just a few miles inland, the Tampa Bay Drainage basin begins. At other places, the Upper Coastal Drainage basin extends considerably inland, such as at the Pasco County--Hernando County line, where the basin extends about 25 miles east from the Gulf coast, ending only five miles west of the Withlacoochee River. According to District Exhibit 5, which is the District Land Acquisition Priorities Map issued in December 2004, the subject parcel is in the Tampa Bay/Anclote River Watershed. On this map, a large, unnamed watershed, corresponding roughly to the Upper Coastal Drainage basin in BOR Appendix 6, runs to the north of the subject parcel's watershed. At the hearing, District explained that the boundaries shown on District Exhibit 5 identify political subdivisions. The "basins," which are marked in green letters, appear to be political subdivisions, judging from their straight lines, which suggest political, not natural, boundaries. However, the "watersheds," which are marked in larger blue letters, are actual drainage basins. Applicant's ecologist initially believed that the subject parcel was in the Hillsborough watershed. Also, the basin map shown on the District website, District depicts the subject parcel's basin (here named the "Pinellas--Anclote River Basin") as that south of the large basin (here named the "Coastal Basin") encompassing almost the entire coast within the northern area of District's jurisdiction1. Factually, the stronger evidence places the subject parcel in a basin to the south of the large coastal basin described in the preceding paragraphs. However, for the reasons discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the basin depicted in BOR Appendix 6 governs. Although not yet constructed, an important feature of the subject parcel is a road to be known as Ashley Glen Road. This road will nearly bisect the property and will run north from State Road 54 through the Ashley Glen parcel. The road is likely to be developed because it has already been permitted, is subject to a co-developers' agreement, and has already been dedicated to Pasco County. The developer in Blanco I and Blanco II has since sold the Ashley Glen parcel to another developer, which has substantially changed the original plan of development. The new developer has obtained a Development of Regional Impact approval for the development of 1.8 million square feet of office, 450,000 square feet of retail, and 900 multifamily units. However, the new development will incorporate Ashley Glen Road. (For ease of reference, this recommended order continues to use the name, "Ashley Glen" to refer to the parcel, development, and road, although new names may attach to each.) At present, the subject parcel conveys stormwater from south to north. Running along the eastern edge of the parcel is a 20-foot-wide ditch that receives water, by way of a culvert under State Road 54, from the extensive wetland system known as the Hogan wetland, which lies to the south of State Road 54. The ditch was dredged (or re-dredged) about 50 years ago. From south to north, the ditch runs straight in a north-northwesterly direction to about midpoint on the subject parcel, at which point the ditch turns due north and runs in nearly a straight line into and along the eastern part of the Ashley Glen parcel to the north. The northern part of the Ashley Glen parcel widens in an easterly direction, so the ditch bisects this part of the Ashley Glen parcel, prior to turning to the northwest for a short run to the railroad grade. There are two wetlands presently on the subject parcel. In the southeast corner is an isolated wetland known as Wetland B12, which has been described above. The ERP approved in Blanco II authorizes the filling of this entire wetland, whose eastern third would be occupied by Ashley Glen Road. The Blanco II final order determines that Wetland B12 is a "low-quality, small (0.58 acres), isolated, forested wetland that has been impacted by livestock grazing and the intrusion of exotic species." (Recommended Order, paragraph 11.) The Ashley Glen developer originally intended to create on its property an 18-acre littoral shelf to mitigate wetland losses, including the loss of Wetland B12. However, the sale of the Ashley Glen parcel and adoption of a new development plan have delayed the creation of the littoral shelf. Applicant has thus proposed new mitigation in the form of a mitigation bank credit for the impact to Wetland B12. By this means, Applicant seeks permission to fill the wetland and proceed with development without waiting for the new Ashley Glen developer to create the mitigation for Wetland B12. Although the already-permitted loss of Wetland B12 is not an issue in this case, the mitigation for its loss is an issue. Because Applicant is proposing new mitigation for the loss of Wetland B12, it is necessary to determine whether Applicant, using the methodology adopted by District, has provided reasonable assurance that the functional gain from the proposed mitigation for Wetland B12 offsets the functional loss from its filling. The other wetland on the subject parcel is Wetland C12, which is a nine-acre contiguous wetland. The final order resulting from Blanco II authorizes no impact to Wetland C12, so its loss and the mitigation for the loss are issues in this case. The subject application proposes no impact to 4.5 acres of Wetland C12, permanent loss of 3.1 acres, and temporary loss of 1.4 acres (due to the realignment of part of the ditch, which is within Wetland C12). The part of Wetland C12 proposed to be destroyed is its southernmost one-third, which lies in the southern half of the subject parcel, immediately west of the west bank of the realigned ditch. Wetland C12 forms part of the conveyance, from south to north, of water from the Hogan wetland to the railroad grade at the northern boundary of the Ashley Glen parcel. Stormwater then accumulates against the railroad grade, runs west along the grade, backs up to contribute hydration to the large forested wetland at the northwest corner of the Ashley Glen parcel and the north half of Petitioner's parcel, and passes under the railroad grade by way of three culverts near the northwest corner of the Ashley Glen parcel. Wetland C12 has been disturbed by agricultural activities, mostly by the formation of the ditch. There is some testimony concerning a stream at this location, but the record does not support such a characterization. Based on the present record, prior to any disturbance, it is equally possible that water was conveyed by a stream, a slough, or sheetflow. For these reasons, the record does not permit a finding that the ditch is a restorable stream. Wetland C12 has little buffer from surrounding land cover and agricultural uses. According to Petitioner's testimony, which is credited, the dredging (or re-dredging) 50 years ago was the work of a nearby landowner who owned a dragline and used it to alleviate flooding near the Hogan wetland, presumably by deepening and widening the ditch. The hydrology of Wetland C12 has been altered, so that nuisance exotics and upland species are present at locations within the wetland, presumably including the portions of the banks hosting large spoil piles from past dredging. No listed species use Wetland C12, and its potential as habitat corridor is limited due to the extensive residential development that has taken place immediately to the west of Wetland C12, the extensive residential and commercial development taking place to the east of Wetland C12, and the barriers posed by the Suncoast Parkway and 280-foot right-of-way of State Road 54. Applicant has presented to District a plan to construct nine freestanding buildings with surface parking on the subject parcel. The plan is to construct, from north to south on the west side of Ashley Glen Road, a retail space of 5000 square feet and 75 parking spaces on 1.17 acres, a strip of nine retail spaces of 10,500 square feet and 61 parking spaces on 2.02 acres, a fast-food restaurant of 3800 square feet and 40 parking spaces on 1.02 acres, a convenience/retail store of 6000 square feet and 44 parking spaces on 1.66 acres, a fast-food restaurant of 3000 square feet and 44 parking spaces on 1.22 acres, and a bank of 4300 square feet and 38 parking spaces on 0.95 acres. On the east side of Ashley Glen Road, the plan is to construct, from south to north, a restaurant of 4700 square feet and 67 parking spaces on 1.19 acres, a bank of 4120 square feet and 43 parking spaces on 1.16 acres, and a supermarket complex. The supermarket complex comprises a supermarket, an attached strip identified as "Retail B," a restaurant abutting Retail B, an attached strip identified as "Retail C," and a restaurant abutting Retail C. The supermarket building is 237 feet by 205 feet and houses a 46,755 square-foot grocery store, and 1876 square-foot liquor store, and 1125 square-foot vestibule; the supermarket building is served by 243 spaces. Retail B comprises six retail spaces of 6500 square feet and 33 parking spaces; the restaurant is 3000 square feet and is allocated 34 parking spaces. Retail C comprises four retail spaces of 5600 square feet and 28 spaces; the restaurant is 3600 square feet and is allocated 40 parking spaces. The previously described bank and restaurant on the east side of Ashley Glen Road front State Road 54. Behind the drive-through lanes of the bank and parking of the restaurant are nearly all of the parking allocated to the supermarket complex. The supermarket faces State Road 54, although it is about 500 feet from the road and is located in the middle of the eastern half of the subject parcel. The liquor store is incorporated into the southwest corner of the supermarket building, which has a truck dock at the northwest corner. Running in a north-south direction, Retail B runs along the entire west side of the supermarket building. A strip of 40 parking spaces separates Retail B from Ashley Glen Road. Retail C is oriented perpendicular to Retail B and extends, in an east-west direction, off the southeast corner of the supermarket building. Wetland C12 would be occupied by the footprint of the eastern half to two-thirds of the supermarket building, half of the parking in front of the supermarket, half of Retail Strip C, and almost half of the restaurant fronting State Road 54 on the east side of Ashley Glen Road. In terms of area, the footprint of the supermarket and parking occupies about two-thirds of the 3.1 acres of Wetland C12 proposed to be permanently lost. Several components make up the proposed surface water management system, in addition to the rooftops and paving described above. Applicant proposes to realign a portion of the ditch running within Wetland C12, so that the southern half of the ditch will run on the extreme eastern edge of the subject parcel. For a short distance, two-thirds of the width of the proposed ditch is located off the subject parcel and on the parcel owned by DOT to the east. Applicant proposes to triple the width of the ditch to 60 feet and deepen it so that its bottom would be 20 feet wide. Applicant proposes impervious surface for the vast majority of the entire southern two-thirds of the parcel. A stormwater collector system would collect water and convey it north under Ashley Glen Road to the northwest corner of the subject parcel. The water would enter a 3.92-acre pond to be excavated at a depth to hold stormwater for 14 days from the design storm event, which is a 100-year, five-day storm. During this period, contaminants would be removed by evaporation, settlement, and skimming. A littoral shelf abutting the pond on the west will also permit the vegetative uptake of contaminants. Applicant has incorporated wet detention using the conservation design method, a design approved by District for improved stormwater treatment when compared to other wet-detention treatment designs. From the littoral shelf, stormwater will pass through an outflow structure and enter Mitigation Area B, which will be a created 1.4-acre cypress wetland at the very northwest corner of the subject parcel. Applicant will apply wetland topsoil from the dredged portions of Wetland C12 to Mitigation Area B to encourage the growth of wetland species. Stormwater will sheetflow through Mitigation Area B, which will enhance water quality treatment. Although District calculates mitigation credit for an area only up to the seasonal high water line, Applicant proposes, not merely to sod the slope ending at the seasonal high water line, as is the common practice, but instead to plant this area with native species, such as pines, palmettos, and wax myrtles. From Mitigation Area B, stormwater flows, by way of a culvert under Ashley Glen Road, to Mitigation Area A, which will be a created 2.5-acre cypress wetland directly across Ashley Glen Road from Mitigation Area A. Applicant will apply wetland topsoil to Mitigation Area A and plant native species on the upland slopes of the created wetland, which will also treat sheetflow prior to its passing east into the adjacent, undisturbed portion of Wetland C12. The vice-president of the managing partner of Applicant testified in the case. He has 20 years' experience in commercial construction sales and retail development. He has developed seven shopping centers anchored by a grocery store (Anchored Centers) and six shopping centers without a grocery- store anchor (Unanchored Centers). The corporate managing partner has developed 43 Anchored Centers and is developing five more. The site-selection process requires analysis of land costs, construction costs, prevailing market rents, outparcel values, zoning, title, environmental issues, and geotechnical issues. Analysis of the locational factors are especially important. These include traffic, residential development, and demographics. The intersection of the Suncoast Parkway and State Road 54 is ideal for the development of an Anchored Center. In the past seven years, 10,000 residential units have been developed in the State Road 54 corridor between State Road 41 and the Suncoast Parkway. The southeast quadrant of this intersection is being developed with mixed uses, including office and retail. A large parcel immediately east of the DOT parcel and Ashley Glen parcel is being developed with commercial uses. The southwest quadrant is being developed with a Super Target. Older residential areas exist to the east and southeast of the subject parcel. Applicant entered a contract to purchase the subject parcel in August 2002 and closed on the purchase in November 2003. It has a contract with Sweetbay Supermarket for the grocery store. The appeal of the Anchored Center is in the synergy between the anchor--the supermarket--and the outparcels. The proposed Anchored Center would be a one-stop destination for the consumer seeking the goods and services associated with a supermarket, bank, restaurant, and allied retail and may thus shorten or reduce the number of motor-vehicle trips. Raw land in the vicinity of the intersection of the Suncoast Parkway and State Road 54 has been appreciating at a monthly rate of about three percent during the past four or five years. Parcels in Anchored Centers command a considerable premium over similar parcels in Unanchored Centers, and substantially different business risks attach to each kind of development. One of the differences between the Anchored Center and Unanchored Center is the former's requirement of additional parking. Given this requirement, there was no design modification that would accommodate a shopping center and parking without destroying wetlands. Although Sweetbay Supermarket has a template for a smaller building than the one proposed on the subject site, the smaller building is typically reserved for urban settings, and nothing in the record suggests that even the smaller building, with surface parking, would spare the wetlands completely. In its site-planning exercises, Applicant tried to reduce wetland impacts by moving the supermarket to different locations on the subject parcel. The supermarket will not fit on the west side of Ashley Glen Road. On the east side, Applicant moved it as far west as it could to avoid as much wetland impact as possible given the location of the supermarket at the midpoint of the east side of the subject parcel. The present location represents the best accommodation of the Wetland C12 and the commercial development, at its proposed intensity, that Applicant could find after 8-10 reconfigurations of the site improvements. Given the shape of the subject parcel and Wetland C12, the proposed midpoint location impacts Wetland C12 less than any other location, except right at the northeast corner of the intersection of Ashley Glen Road and State Road 54. However, obvious marketing problems arise with this location. Sweetbay Supermarket understandably desires the supermarket to face State Road 54 to attract business. If the supermarket were located at the northeast corner of these two roads, there would be no parking in the front, requiring the customers to enter from the back, or the back of the supermarket would face State Road 54. In designing the site, Applicant reduced some retail space and associated parking to reduce wetland impacts. At the present midpoint location, the elimination of Retail B and Retail C would permit Applicant to move the building to the west, but this would only slightly reduce the wetland impacts because substantial wetland impacts would occur to the south under the footprint of the parking. Similarly, a parking garage would permit Applicant to avoid those substantial wetland impacts, but not the smaller, but still significant, area of wetland impacts under the footprint of the east side of the supermarket building and Retail C. Of course, Applicant could combine these two modifications--elimination of Retail B and Retail C with the relocation of the supermarket building to the west and the construction of an elevated parking garage on the western half of the proposed footprint of the parking area in front of the supermarket building. Applicant contends that these modifications are not economically practicable. Undoubtedly, parking garages are not typically associated with nonurban development. The vice-president of the managing partner admitted that he had not priced such structures, but estimated that each space in a parking deck would cost 10 times more than each space at grade. With somewhat more authority, he also testified that the loss of any more retail space would leave the development economically unfeasible. Sweetbay Supermarket's declared and presumed preferences also play a role in evaluating this substantial design modification. Sweetbay Supermarket prefers retail on both sides of the supermarket, and, given its need for visibility from State Road 54, it may be presumed not to favor the presence of a multi-story parking garage between its grocery store and State Road 54. Again, placing the parking garage behind the supermarket would gain visibility, but raise the prospect of the back of the supermarket facing State Road 54 or the customers entering the store from the back. These are all plainly unacceptable prospects, without regard to Applicant's notions of economic feasibility or return on investment. Similar considerations apply to the possible realignments of the ditch. In its present alignment, the ditch would be occupied by the footprint of the west half of Retail C, the northeast corner of the supermarket building, as well as parking and paved roadway associated with the supermarket and the restaurant fronting State Road 54 on the east side of Ashley Glen Road. Because the ditch does not extend nearly as far to the west as does Wetland C12, it would be possible to preserve the present ditch by eliminating Retail B and Retail C and shifting the supermarket building to the west with the "extra" parking gained by the elimination of the two retail strips probably offsetting the lost parking in front of the supermarket. But this is a lot to ask to preserve a conveyance that, on this record, does not rise above the homely level of a ditch with its attendant functional limitations, especially when the new ditch will probably relieve existing flooding around the Hogan wetland. Applicant's ecologist applied the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) to assess Wetlands B12 and C12 and the mitigation areas. UMAM and its applicability to this case are discussed in the Conclusions of Law. Generally, UMAM provides a methodology to determine the functional loss of permanent and temporary wetland impacts and the functional gain of mitigation and ensure that the latter equal or exceed the former. For Wetland B12, Applicant's ecologist determined that its functional value, based on location and landscape support, was 5 out of 10 points due to the isolated nature of the wetland in a pasture, adjacent to a tree farm and absent any buffer. Invasives and exotics are in the adjacent community. Based on water environment, the ecologist scored Wetland B12 with 7 out of 10 points due to the presence of distinct water indicators, although the wetland appears to be dependent on rainfall and had suffered degradation from cattle. Based on community structure, the ecologist scored Wetland B12 with 6 out of 10 points due to its normal appearance for a cypress dome, but evident lack of natural recruitment, presence of nuisance exotics such as primrose willow and Brazilian pepper, and severe degradation from cattle and other agricultural uses. The ecologist's assessment of the permanent impact to 3.1 acres of Wetland C12 and temporary impact to 1.4 acres of the ditch within Wetland C12 followed the same approach, except that the temporary impact to the ditch required an additional step in the process. Applicant's ecologist scored the impacted area of Wetland C12, including the 1.4-acre ditch, with an average functional value of 6.67, based on scores of 7 for location and landscape support, 6 for water environment, and 7 for community structure. The location and landscape support are adversely impacted by the reduced complexity of surrounding uplands, but facilitated by the undeveloped state of the immediate vicinity that would allow use by small- to medium- sized wildlife. The ecologist noted the hydrological connection served by the ditch/wetland network and the narrow riparian corridor provided by this arrangement. The function of the water environment is heightened by the fact that most of the water environment is intact, but suffers from adverse impacts to the hydrology and water quality from the construction of the ditch and conversion of surrounding land cover to pasture and roadway. The community structure is facilitated by the presence of canopy vegetation of cypress, pop ash, and laurel oak, but adversely impacted by the presence of Brazilian pepper in the subcanopy. The additional step required in the analysis of the temporary impacts to 1.4 acres is the projected functional value of the relocated ditch. As compared to the present ditch, the re-created ditch scored one less point in location and landscape support due to the further reduction in adjacent uplands and resulting inhibition on use by medium-size wildlife that currently use the site, one less point in water environment due to some changes in microclimate, nutrient assimilation, and flow characteristics that may adversely affect current wildlife composition, and four fewer points in community structure due to removal of the canopy, subcanopy, and groundcover with the associated seed banks and vegetative growth that could recruit similar species to match existing composition and structure. Based on the foregoing, the ecologist concluded that the permanent functional loss to Wetland B12 was 0.35 units, the permanent functional loss to the 3.1 acres of Wetland C12 was 2.07 units, and the temporary functional loss to the 1.4 acres of Wetland C12/the ditch was 0.28 units, resulting in permanent functional losses of 2.42 units and temporary functional losses of 0.28 units, for a total functional loss of 2.70 units. For onsite mitigation of these functional losses, Applicant proposes Mitigation Areas A and B. Mitigation Area B, which is the 1.4-acre forested wetland to be created on the west side of Ashley Glen Road, received a score of zero in its present undeveloped state, and scores of 4 for location and landscape support, 7 for water environment, and 6 for community structure after it is created. The relatively low score for location and landscape recognizes the limited connectivity (through culverts) to other existing and proposed wetlands, although the lack of barriers for use by birds and aquatic species is a functional advantage. The relatively high score for water environment reflects the hydrological interdependence of Mitigation Area B with the stormwater collection system and created wetlands and the relative reliability of these sources of hydration. The score for community structure reflects the increases in microtopography resulting from the design of high and low wetland areas and the planting of species to create three vegetative strata within the created wetland. The ecologist assigned a time lag factor of 2.73 for this created wetland. Derived from Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-345.600(1)(d), this time lag factor correlates to a time lag of 36-40 years to establish the mitigative functions for which the mitigation site is given credit. The ecologist assigned a risk factor of 2 for this created wetland. Derived from Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-345.600(2), this risk factor correlates to a moderate risk of failure of attaining the functions predicted for the mitigation site. Applying the risk and time lag factors to Mitigation Area B, the ecologist calculated a functional gain of 0.15 units for this 1.4-acre mitigation site. The ecologist used the same methodology for Mitigation Area A, which is the 2.5-acre created wetland across Ashley Glen Road from Mitigation Area B. The ecologist assigned this created wetland a 6 for location and landscape support, a 7 for water environment, and a 7 for community structure. This wetland scored 2 points higher than Mitigation Area B for location and landscape support because it is not isolated by the road and culverts from the unimpacted area of Wetland C12 and offers more upland buffer for small wetland-dependent species. Mitigation Area A scored 1 point higher for community structure due to the likelihood of natural recruitment of seeds from the adjacent unimpacted wetland. For water environment, Mitigation Area A and Mitigation Area B received the same score due to their common characteristics. The ecologist applied the same time lag factor to Mitigation Area A as he did to Mitigation Area B. However, the risk factor was one increment less than moderate, probably due to the hydrological advantages that Mitigation Area A enjoys over Mitigation B due to its pre-existing hydric soils and proximity to the unimpacted wetlands of Wetland C12. Applying the risk and time lag factors to Mitigation Area A, the ecologist calculated a functional gain of 0.35 units for this 2.5-acre site. Applicant's ecologist then calculated the functional gain from the enhancement of the 1.4-acre Wetland C12/ditch. He found an increase of 0.13, as compared to the current value, based on a relatively strong score for the enhanced location and landscape support, average score for the enhanced water environment, and relatively weak score for the enhanced community structure. The enhanced system enjoys functional advantages from the planting of three strata of vegetation along the ditch and emergents in the channel. The ecologist applied a time lag factor of 2.18 (meaning 26-30 years) and a moderate risk factor of 2.0 to obtain a final score of 0.03 acres for this enhancement mitigation. The functional gains and losses for the onsite wetland impacts and mitigation, as determined by Applicant's ecologist, are supported by the record, and his analysis of these losses and gains from the onsite creation and enhancement mitigation is accurate. Next, Applicant purchased a conservation easement as offsite mitigation. This easement is on what is known as the Marr Parcel. The Marr Parcel is a 67.49-acre parcel that sits almost in the middle of a large publicly owned area that runs nearly 30 miles along the coast, from Weeki Wachee to the south to Crystal River to the north. Situated in the north-central part of this large area is the District-owned Chassahowitzka River and Coastal Swamps tract (Chassahowitzka Tract). The Marr Parcel is at the southern end of the Chassahowitzka Tract, about four miles from the Gulf of Mexico. The Marr Parcel is about 33 miles from the subject parcel. The Marr Parcel is in the large coastal basin that, according to BOR Appendix 6, includes the subject parcel and, according to District Exhibit 5, is the basin to the north of the basin that includes the subject parcel. At the end of Zebra Finch Road, the Marr Parcel is surrounded by pristine forested wetland habitat that forms part of an important travel corridor for numerous species, including the Florida black bear. This is a sustainable population of Florida black bears, so this habitat is of critical importance. The forested habitat is a combination of cypress and mixed hardwoods. The larger publicly owned area enveloping the Marr Parcel includes almost every significant habitat present in Florida. Other parcels preserved by similar means are directly north of the Marr Parcel. Applicant's ecologist raised the Marr Parcel's score by 1 point for location and landscape support and 1 point for community structure, as a result of the purchase of the conservation easement. The parcel's score for water environment was unchanged by the purchase of the conservation easement. Taking the modest gain from the purchase of the conservation easement, the ecologist applied the preservation adjustment factor of 0.60 to reduce this gain further and then applied a time lag factor of 1.0, indicative of a time lag of one year or less, and a risk factor of 1.25, indicative of the smallest incremental risk above no risk, to determine a functional gain of 2.16 units for the preservation mitigation involving the Marr Parcel. Petitioner contends that development of the Marr Parcel was unlikely, even without the conservation easement purchased by Applicant. Without detailed analysis of site characteristics and regulatory controls applicable to the Marr Parcel, it is impossible to evaluate this contention, except to note that the ecologist took very little credit for the transaction. The smallest credit is one point in all three categories; the ecologist took two points. The functional gain for this preservation mitigation, as determined by Applicant's ecologist, is supported by the record, and his analysis of this gain from the offsite preservation mitigation is accurate, provided District clarifies the ERP, which describes the Marr Parcel in detail, to require that Applicant purchase the conservation easement in the Marr Parcel as part of the required mitigation. Lastly, Applicant turned to the Upper Coastal Mitigation Bank (UCMB) to purchase 0.4 acres of forested- wetlands credit. This mitigation bank, which is administered by Earth Balance, pertains to property (UCMB Tract) that is just north of the Chassahowitzka Tract, immediately south of Homosassa Springs. A few months prior to the hearing, District permitted the UCMB for 47.64 functional gain units, for the purpose of providing mitigation bank credits to ERP applicants. District has approved UCMB for freshwater forested wetlands credits, among other types of credits. The UCMB Tract is about seven miles north of the Marr Parcel and, thus, about 40 miles north of the subject parcel. The UCMB Tract is in the large coastal basin that, according to BOR Appendix 6, includes the subject parcel and, according to District Exhibit 5, is the basin to the north of the basin that includes the subject parcel. Based on the foregoing, Applicant realized a functional gain of 0.52 units from the onsite creation and enhancement mitigation, 2.16 units from the offsite preservation mitigation from the Marr Parcel, and 0.40 units from the purchase of units from UCMB, for a total functional gain of 3.09 units. Pursuant to UMAM, the 2.70 functional loss units are exceeded by the 3.09 functional gain units, so Applicant has provided adequate mitigation. Applicant provided reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will not cause adverse impacts to the storage and conveyance capacity of surface waters. As noted above, Applicant proposes to expand the conveyance capacity of the ditch by substantially widening and deepening it, which will probably alleviate some of the longstanding flooding around the Hogan wetland. With respect to Petitioner's parcel, Applicant will place a liner on the west side of the pond, so as to prevent adverse impacts to Petitioner's parcel from base flow. Applicant will add a swale along the west side of the subject parcel to prevent adverse impacts to Petitioner's parcel from stormwater flow. The engineer's analysis in particular does not reveal flooding at the northwest corner of the Ashley Glen parcel, from where Petitioner's wetlands draw hydration. No testimony revealed whether Applicant's engineer performed pre- and post-development analysis of flows at the point at which the re-created ditch leaves the subject parcel at the DOT floodplain-mitigation site. Nothing in the record suggests that the proposed activities will cause flooding of this site, and DOT will likely perform its own analysis prior to granting Applicant a sufficient interest to dredge part of the realigned, enlarged ditch on DOT property. The proposed activities will fill 8.48 acre-feet of floodplain, but mitigate this loss with 10.02 acre-feet of excavation. Considered with the increased capacity of the drainage ditch, Applicant proposes to increase flood storage. Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed activities will not adversely impact water quality. The water-treatment components of the proposed surface water management system have been described above. Applicant provided reasonable assurance that the proposed activities will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Some minor loss of use by small- and medium-size wildlife may be expected from the loss of 3.1 acres of Wetland C12, but the presence of State Road 54 and imminent development of the Ashley Glen parcel mean that Wetland C12 can provide no meaningful travel corridor. Degraded adjacent uplands further reduce the value of Wetland C12 as habitat for such wildlife. The created pond will provide habitat for certain birds, and the offsite mitigation will provide functional gain in terms of wildlife habitat. Changes in fish habitat from the relocation of part of the ditch and dredging of the ditch are also negligible, based on limited utilization of the present ditch and enhanced utilization potential of the new ditch in terms of a more suitable bank, which will be protected from erosion by matting, and the addition of appropriate vegetation, including emergents in the channel. For the reasons set forth above, Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed activities will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. Although the post-development wetlands are unbuffered, the secondary impacts of construction are addressed by the usual construction devices of turbidity curtains and hay bales, and the secondary impacts of the ultimate use of the Anchored Center are adequately addressed by the by the subject surface water management system, especially with respect to water quality treatment. District's senior environmental scientist disclaimed the existence of post-development secondary impacts, evidently reasoning that Wetlands B12 and C12 had already been impacted. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the secondary impacts are the activities closely linked to the construction of the project. In this case, the project is the surface water management system to serve the development of the Anchored Center, and the obvious secondary impact is motor vehicle traffic on the subject parcel. However, the water-quality analysis addresses this secondary impact. Subject to one exception, Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed surface water management system will perform effectively and will function as proposed and that an entity with the requisite financial, legal, and administrative capabilities will conduct the proposed activities. The exception is that District may not issue the ERP until Applicant obtains from DOT a legal instrument, in recordable form, granting Applicant and its assigns all rights necessary to construct, maintain, and operate the portion of the realigned ditch that will be located in the DOT floodplain mitigation parcel. Based on the Conclusions of Law, which necessitate the acceptance of the basin depictions in BOR Appendix 6, Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed activities will not cause adverse cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters. However, if the subject parcel were in the basin to the south of the large coastal basin, Applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the proposed activities will not cause adverse cumulative impacts because it has not undertaken any cumulative-impact analysis. Based on the foregoing and subject to the two conditions stated above, Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed activities in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters are not contrary to the public interest.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District issue to Win-Suncoast, Ltd., the environmental resource permit, subject to the two conditions identified above. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 14th day of February, 2008.
