The Issue The issue in this case is whether the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD, or District) should issue a Modification to Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 11- 02055-P, Application No. 060713-9, to G.L. Homes of Naples Associates II, Ltd. (G.L. Homes, or Applicant), which authorizes modifications to the surface water management system (SWMS) for a residential development known as Saturnia Falls (the Project).
Findings Of Fact PARTIES The District is a water management district with the power and duty to exercise regulatory jurisdiction over the administration and enforcement of ERP criteria, pursuant to the provisions of Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, and Sections 373.413, 373.414, and 373.416, Florida Statutes. G.L. Homes is an entity with the administrative, legal, and financial capabilities of undertaking the activity in accordance with the terms and conditions of the 2006 ERP, meeting the criteria in Rule 40E-4.301(1)(j). The Conservancy was duly incorporated in 1966 under the laws of the State of Florida as a not for-profit corporation and has it headquarters in Collier County, Florida. G.L. Homes contests the Conservancy's assertion of "associational standing." But there is no question as to the Conservancy's "citizen standing" under Section 403.412(6), Florida Statutes. The Conservancy has approximately 6,200 members, with approximately 4,200 residing in Collier County. Twenty-five current members in good standing who reside in Collier County were identified during the hearing. The Conservancy's purpose is to "protect and sustain the natural environment of southwest Florida through advocacy, education, research, land acquisition and other lawful means." Specific purposes relevant to the subject matter of this case include: "to acquire and protect sanctuaries, greenbelts, parks, and beaches"; "to assist governing bodies to remedy present pollution and to prevent future pollution of water, air, and our waterfronts and beaches"; and "to encourage and stimulate the interests of residents and visitors to the area, to increase their knowledge of, and to promote the preservation of the southwest Florida natural environment." The Conservancy also asserts standing under Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. In furtherance of its corporate purpose, the Conservancy owns approximately 300 acres of land for preservation in Collier County, including a 46-acre parcel located on the Cocohatchee River downstream from the proposed Saturnia Falls development. The Conservancy also conducts scientific research in the waters of the Wiggins Pass Estuary downstream from the proposed Saturnia Falls development, including water quality monitoring and research on seagrass restoration. Further impacts to the water quality in the Cocohatchee River would affect the value of the Conservancy's property for conservation and would affect its interests in research in the area. These interests of the Conservancy would be adversely affected if the 2006 ERP were issued improperly. The Conservancy's assertion of "associational standing" is based on the testimony of eight of its members who engage in various recreational activities, including boating, fishing, bird-watching, nature study, and observation of wildlife. Some visit Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary and the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) to view endangered wood storks and other wildlife. Some also visit and recreate in downstream waters, such as the Wiggins Pass Estuary, for fishing, boating, or wildlife observation. These interests would be adversely affected if the 2006 ERP were issued improperly. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PERMITTING HISTORY The Project site is located one mile north of Immokalee Road, approximately 2 miles east of 1-75 and lies near the CREW lands in Collier County. The entire Project site consists of approximately 646 acres, of which 533.1 acres are wetlands. The Project has a permitting history dating back to 1997, when the previous owner, Robert Vocisano, applied to construct a development called Wildewood Lakes. The Wildewood Lakes application was denied in 1998, at least in part because wetland impacts were not reduced and eliminated to the extent practicable, and was mediated pursuant to Section 120.573, Florida Statutes. After three years of responding to additional requests for information, the application was submitted to the Governing Board for approval in May 2002. This ERP, referred to as “the 2002 ERP,” authorized the construction and operation of a SWMS to serve a residential and golf course development, discharging to the Cocohatchee Canal via a conveyance channel/Flow-way known as the Mirasol Flow-way (Flow-way). The Flow-way feature was to be built on lands owned by three different property owners, one of whom was the owner of the Terafina Project, and was intended to address flooding and storage criteria in the BOR and alleviate flooding problems in the region that resulted from previous drainage and development projects that altered the natural sheet-flow through the region to the Cocohatchee and Imperial Rivers, and on to the Gulf Coast. As reported in the Staff Report for the 2004 ERP, studies current at the time indicated that, during the initial part of the rainy season, the wetland systems in the vicinity of the proposed Flow- way carried the flow between the Corkscrew Swamp and the Cocohatchee Canal with the peak stages contained with the limits of the wetland areas. However, as the wet season progressed, the wetland vegetation impeded the conveyance of flow and resulted in elevated water stages that inundated properties adjacent to those wetlands, including portions of the eastern half of the Project. There were approximately 288 acres of direct impacts to wetlands under the 2002 ERP. There was a total of 291.20 acres of onsite preserve, including 259.97 acres of wetlands and 31.23 acres of uplands. Part of the Flow-way was to be located within the eastern third of the property (225.74 acres, including 217.80 acres of wetlands and 7.94 acres of uplands), which would be preserved after construction of part of the Flow- way in 23 of those acres. There also would be off-site mitigation in the form of a payment of $1,232,000 "specifically for the purchase of 154 acres . . . of land within CREW, a project within the District's Save Our Rivers Program." Of that total, $712,404 was to be deposited in an account for the land purchase, $437,206 in an account to pay for restoration work within the CREW project, and $82,390 in an escrow account for general operations and maintenance costs incurred by the District within the CREW project. On March 10, 2004, the Governing Board approved a modification to the 2002 ERP authorizing the construction and operation of the Project, at the time known as the Terafina PUD. This ERP is referred to as “the 2004 ERP.” The 2004 ERP removed the golf course and proposed a residential development within the same 646-acre parcel. It also discharged to the Cocohatchee Canal via the Flow-way. The 2004 ERP modified the Project to consist of: single-family residential areas; a recreation area; internal roadway; onsite wetland preserve areas within the development of approximately 73.99 acres; and 210 acres of wetland preserve east of the development, which included the Flow-way, and is referred to as the Eastern Preserve. The 2004 ERP proposed to impact approximately 280 acres of wetlands, slightly less than in the 2002 ERP. To mitigate for the impacts, the 2004 ERP authorized onsite mitigation consisting of the preservation and enhancement of 253.04 acres of wetlands, preservation of 31.27 acres of uplands, creation of 0.1 acres of wetlands, and offsite mitigation by a payment to the District for the purchase, restoration, and management of lands in CREW. Apparently by mistake, the amount of the CREW payment was reduced to $1,001,000, with $418,404 to go into the purchase account, $437,206 to go into the restoration account, and $82,390 to go into the escrow account for general operations and maintenance. In addition, the time for deposit of the funds was extended to June 30, 2004. The District included Special Condition No. 18 in the 2004 ERP, delaying any construction under the 2004 ERP until the Flow-way was completed. However, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) refused to permit construction of the Flow-way. On July 13, 2006, G.L. Homes submitted an application to modify the 2004 ERP (the 2006 Application), which is the subject of this proceeding. (A letter modification was issued on October 5, 2006, authorizing installation of a 48" outfall pipe within the Logan Boulevard right-of-way to convey the discharge from the Project to the Cocohatchee Canal. This letter modification was not challenged by the Conservancy and is not at issue in this proceeding.) On November 9, 2006, SFWMD proposed issuance of the 2006 ERP authorizing the construction and operation of the residential development now known as Saturnia Falls (the 2006 ERP). The 2006 Staff Report proposes elimination of the Flow- way, and enhancement and preservation of the 23.5 acres that would have been located in the eastern third of the Project area, similar to the rest of the Eastern Preserve. The SWMS also was altered, and the Staff Report noted that the CREW payment was made in June 2004 in the amount of $1,260,000 "as funding for the off-site mitigation in CREW," which was said to have "provided a substantial amount of up-front mitigation in CREW." The Conservancy did not challenge the 2002 ERP or the 2004 ERP but did challenge the 2006 ERP. THE MODIFIED SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM In addition to removal of the 23.5-acre segment of the Flow-way from the Eastern Preserve, the current proposal would modify the SWMS under the 2004 ERP by replacing the 80-foot weir at Lake 9, which was the sole final outfall under the 2004 ERP, with two operable Water Control Structures (WCS), located at the eastern (WCS-2) and western (WCS-1) boundaries of the Project, as the final outfall structures. The 80-foot weir in the 2004 ERP consisted of a rectangular notch in the 17.7 foot NGVD berm between Lake 9 and the Eastern Preserve, with a crest elevation of 13.8 foot NGVD and a 5 foot wide, .4 foot deep rectangular notch (that is, with an invert elevation of 13.4 foot NGVD) within the 80-foot weir, which served as a bleeder for water quality. The structure was fixed, and water was to pass freely through the bleeder and over the weir depending on the water levels on either side of the structure. In contrast, the structures proposed in the 2006 ERP are operable based on water levels in the Eastern Preserve. WCS- 1 is located in Lake 4 and discharges to the Cocohatchee Canal via a 48" reinforced concrete pipe located in the Logan Boulevard right-of-way. WCS-2 is located to the east of the development and discharges to the Eastern Preserve and then ultimately to the Cocohatchee Canal. As modified under the 2006 ERP, the SWMS continues to consist of eleven controlled sub-basins with a total area of 397.46 acres. The remainder of the proposed Project also is the same as under the 2004 ERP, including road alignments, type and number of houses, lots, lakes and grading information, and wetland impacts. It is the position of the Applicant and the District that the mitigation proposal also is identical; but Petitioner takes the position that proposed onsite mitigation will be adversely affected by the proposed modifications and that offsite mitigation no longer has the same benefit, so that mitigation no longer fully offsets the wetland impacts. The SWMS is set at the control elevation of 13.4 feet NGVD, which represents the wet season water table (WSWT) for the currently existing wetlands. The seasonal high water level for the wetlands was determined to be approximately 14.0 feet NGVD. When water levels in the Eastern Preserve are below 14.00 feet NGVD (typically in the dry season), the SWMS discharges to the Eastern Preserve through WCS-2, which is located in the perimeter berm to be constructed with sloping banks and a crest elevation of 17.7 feet NGVD between the Eastern Preserve and one of the western wetland preserves, called preserve P-5. WCS-2 consists of a 23-foot weir fitted with an operable bleeder at the control elevation of 13.40 feet NGVD, and a fixed discharge V-Notch weir with an invert elevation of 14.20 feet NGVD, and a crest elevation of 15.40 feet NGVD. This discharge will flow southerly through the Eastern Preserve to the receiving waterbody, the Cocohatchee Canal. WCS-1 will be closed during these periods. The maximum discharge rate under these conditions will be 15.28 cubic feet per second (cfs) to the Eastern Preserve. Based on the hydraulic modeling results, the Eastern Preserve experiences levels below 14 feet NGVD approximately 70% of the time on an annual basis. When water levels in the Eastern Preserve are above 14.00 feet NGVD (typically in the wet season), the SWMS will discharge predominately to the west via WCS-1 to the Cocohatchee Canal. When the water level in the Eastern Preserve reaches 14.00 ft NGVD, the operable bleeder on WCS-2 will close and the operable bleeder/discharge structure on WCS-1 will open. During the 25- year 3-day storm, the maximum discharge rate through WCS-1 is 13.50 cfs. During these conditions, discharge will also occur through the fixed 60-degree V-notch in WCS-2, with a maximum discharge of 2.10 cfs, ensuring bidirectional flow of water so long as the water level in the SWMS stays above 14.20 feet NGVD. The total discharge rate from both structures under this condition is 15.61 cfs. During the 25-year 3-day storm event, water levels in the Eastern Preserve fluctuate from 13.40 feet NGVD to 15.31 feet NGVD. When the water levels in the Eastern Preserve are higher than 14.20 feet NGVD, and the water level in the SWMS is lower than 14.20 feet NGVD, water from the Eastern Preserve will enter into the SWMS through the 60-degree V-Notch in WCS-2. The SWMS is designed to receive water from the Eastern Preserve to provide flood storage and hydrology to the onsite wetlands within the development. THE ERP PERMITTING CRITERIA In order to obtain an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions for issuance set forth in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. In this case, the evidence must be viewed under Rule 40E-4.331(2)(a), pertaining to modification of permits, which requires the District to review permit modification applications “using the same criteria as new applications for those portions of the project proposed for, or affected by, the modification.” The test in this case is not whether the District properly evaluated the 2004 ERP, but whether the areas proposed to be modified or affected by the modification meet the applicable conditions for issuance. Rule 40E-4.301(1) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a SWMS: Will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; Will not cause adverse flooding to on- site or off-site property; Will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; Will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters; Will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the water quality standards set forth in Chapters 62- 4, 62-302, 62-520, 62-522, 62-550, F.A.C., including any antidegradation provisions of paragraphs 62-4.242(1)(a) and (b), subsections 62-4.242(2) and (3), and Rule 62-302.300, F.A.C., and any special standards for Outstanding Florida Waters and Outstanding National Resource Waters set forth in subsections 62-4.242(2) and (3), F.A.C., will be violated; Will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources; Will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows established pursuant to Chapter 373.042, F.S.; Will not cause adverse impacts to a work of the District established pursuant to Section 373.086, F.S.; Will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed; Will be conducted by an entity with the sufficient financial, legal and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, if issued; and Will comply with any applicable special basin or geographic area criteria established in Chapter 40E-41, F.A.C. The parties stipulated that the Project either complies with Rules 40E-4.301(1)(g),(h),(j), and (k), and Sections 4.3.8, 7.5, and 9.0 of the BOR, or that those rules are not applicable. THE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT CRITERIA Water Quantity (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a)) As indicated, the 2006 modifications eliminate the Flow-way and change the manner in which water flows in and out of the proposed SWMS. Otherwise, there are no changes to the engineered features of the SWMS. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a) requires that G.L. Homes demonstrate that the Project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands, and not exceed the capacity of the downstream receiving water bodies. Section 6.2 of the BOR requires that a project be designed so it is consistent with the downstream carrying capacity of the receiving waters. The receiving waterbody for this Project is the Cocohatchee Canal. The allowable discharge rate for the Cocohatchee Canal is 15.9 cfs. The Project’s calculated rate of discharge is 15.6 cfs, so the Project does not exceed the allowable discharge rate. The Project's discharge rate is lower in 2006 (15.6 cfs) than it was in the 2004 ERP (291 cfs). Petitioner argued that the significant difference in discharge rates between the 2006 and the 2004 ERPs violated the District’s water quantity criteria. But the discharge rate calculated in 2004 was associated with the Flow-way and entailed a different overall analysis for the entire area served by the Flow-way. G.L. Homes provided reasonable assurances that the discharge rate allowed for its Project would not be exceeded, as required in Section 6.2 of the BOR. G.L. Homes complied with Section 6.3 of the BOR which requires the 25-year, 3-day storm event to be used when computing the discharge rate for the Project. Section 6.8 of the BOR is entitled “Offsite Lands.” Compliance with this Section requires that a project allow the passage of drainage from offsite areas to downstream areas, which is necessary to demonstrate that off-site receiving waterbodies are not being adversely affected. G.L. Homes complied with Section 6.8 by conducting a hydrologic analysis, using the 25-year, 3-day storm event, which demonstrated that discharge would be directed to WCS-1 and WCS-2, allowing for the passage of drainage from offsite areas to the downstream areas. Section 6.10 of the BOR requires that the design of the Project conserve water and not over-drain wetlands. There is nothing about the modifications that violate Section 6.10. In this case, the control elevations have been set at 13.4 feet NGVD, which is the average WSWT. The WSWT was established using biological indicators to determine the average elevation in the Project’s wetlands during the wet season. Setting the control elevation at the WSWT does not violate Section 6.10. To the contrary, when water levels are at or above the control elevation, the design helps prevent the wetlands from being drawn down below 13.4 feet NGVD, and not over-drain them. The WSWT of 13.4 was permitted in the 2004 ERP. The structures also allow for the interchange of water from the Eastern Preserve into the preserve wetlands within the SWMS. This exchange of water helps preserve the Project’s environmental values. Setting the control elevation at 13.4 also reduces unnecessary runoff from the Project, retaining the water for recharge. In addition, the ability of the SWMS to accept flows from the Eastern Preserve also conserves freshwater by preventing that water from being discharged downstream. As indicated, when water levels in the Eastern Preserve are below the control elevation, no water will enter the SWMS from the Eastern Preserve. During those times, it is possible that wetlands within the SWMS will be drained into the deep lakes dug as part of the project. However, that would not be the result of 2006 modifications but would be inherent in the previously-approved SWMS. The 2006 modifications do not re-open the soundness of that previously-approved part of the design. Section 6.10 also requires that a project not lower water tables so that the existing rights of others would be adversely affected. Again, by setting the control elevations at the WSWT, the water table is not expected to be lowered so as to affect the existing rights of others. The Project also must demonstrate that the site’s groundwater recharge characteristics will be preserved through the design of the SWMS. G.L. Homes complied by setting the control elevations at the WSWT, allowing standing water in the wetland preserves to recharge the groundwater. Section 6.11 addresses Detention and Control Elevations which are intended to assist in complying with the provisions of Section 6.10. By designing WCS-1 and WCS-2 at control elevation 13.4, the Project maintains the detention component and the control (wetland protection) elevations under the previously-approved SWMS. The Required Design Information and Assumptions are contained in Section 8.0 of the BOR. This Section includes various assumptions and information regarding the design of the SWMS. By incorporating these assumptions into the Project, G.L. Homes complied with Section 8.0. Flooding (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(b)) This Rule requires G.L. Homes to demonstrate that the Project will not cause adverse flooding to onsite or offsite property. Section 6.4 requires that building floors be designed to be protected from a 100-year, 3-day storm event. G.L. Homes complied with this provision by providing construction plans demonstrating that the building floors are being built higher than the 100-year, 3-day storm event. Likewise, Section 6.5 pertains to providing flood protection for the Project’s roads and parking lots. G.L. Homes complied with this provision by exceeding the District’s 5-year design criteria, and instead designing the roads and parking lots using the 25-year, 3-day storm event. G.L. Homes was required to comply with the Historic Basin Storage provision in Section 6.7, which requires the Project to replace or otherwise mitigate the loss of historic basin storage provided by the site. In this case, the amount and extent of historic storage that is being displaced by the 2006 ERP is the same as that in the 2004 ERP. However, the replacement or mitigation for loss of historic basin storage is reduced due to elimination of the Flow-way. Instead of relying on the Flow-way to address this criterion, G.L. Homes relied on the “Saturnia Falls Slough Hydraulic Study” prepared by Taylor Engineering, the “Taylor Report” (RJ Ex. 32), which demonstrates the current flood levels in the Eastern Preserve and other adjacent properties and wetlands, and that the Project’s configuration would not affect the basin’s historic storage. Lastly, to demonstrate that the Project will not cause adverse flooding to offsite properties, G.L. Homes was required to comply with Section 6.9, Minimum Drainage. This provision requires that the SWMS recover, consistent with the environmental criteria in 6.10 of the BOR, within 12 days or less. The Taylor Report also demonstrated that the Project will recover from the design storm event in time to provide the required attenuation for the next storm event, while preserving environmental or wetland features. There may be times when the recovery may exceed 12 days, but the need to protect the hydrology of the wetlands required the control elevations to be set at 13.4 ft NGVD. Balanced against Section 6.10, G.L. Homes still complies with Section 6.9. Accordingly, G.L. Homes provided reasonable assurances demonstrating that the 2006 ERP will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, satisfying Rule 40E- 4.301(1)(b). Storage and Conveyance (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c) requires that an applicant demonstrate that the proposed development will not adversely impact existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. In order to accomplish this demonstration, applicants are to consider the capability of the adjacent properties to both store and convey stormwater runoff from their developments. Section 6.6 of the BOR, entitled Floodplain Encroachment, specifies the parameters by prohibiting a net encroachment into the floodplain, between the average WSWT and the 100-year event, which will adversely affect the existing rights of others. G.L. Homes addressed this criterion through the analysis submitted and contained in the Taylor Report. The Taylor Report used the hydrologic model, HEC-HMS, and hydraulic model, HEC-RAS, to provide a simulation of flood stages propagating through the Eastern Preserve and the adjacent wetland system. This analysis assessed the existing flood stages within the offsite areas, starting at the Cocohatchee Canal and ending approximately 2-3 miles northeast of the eastern boundary of the Project. The analysis captured the expected flood levels during both the 25-year, 3-day and the 100-year, 3-day storm events in the area's current condition, and then compared the analysis of the two storm events considering the Project in its development condition. The analysis relied on the Project’s proposal to remove the current melaleuca infestation from the Eastern Preserve as part of the Project’s post-development condition. The Taylor Report concluded that the removal of such exotics would remove a flow impediment and allow the water to flow through the Eastern Preserve at a higher rate, and therefore at lower flood stages. The Taylor Report made these conclusions while accounting for the development as well as the mitigation-required plantings. The Taylor Report, along with Mr. Hull’s testimony, demonstrated that even with the mitigation reaching full maturity, the removal of melaleuca results in lower flood stages than the study area is currently experiencing. The evidence was that the model used by Taylor Engineering, the HEC-RAS model, is an appropriate model to determine flood stages and to calculate the floodplain conveyance. Furthermore, although Petitioner attacked the choice of inputs, mainly the “Manning’s n coefficients” used to determine the roughness or the friction provided by current and post-development vegetation, the balance of the evidence supports the coefficients contained in the Taylor Report as reasonable and within the ranges of the cited data and models. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Van Lent, who conducted no analysis of his own, admitted that HEC-RAS was an accepted tool to use for floodplain conveyance and that the other models he suggested are either inappropriate or rarely used by ERP applicants. The Applicant provided reasonable assurances demonstrating that the 2006 ERP will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, satisfying Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c). However, that is not to say that the 2006 ERP replaces the storage and conveyance capabilities that would have been provided under the 2004 ERP with the proposed Flow-way, which also required removal of melaleuca and required the same mitigation plantings except within the Flow-way itself. To the contrary, storage and conveyance capability under the 2004 ERP clearly would have been greater. Wetland Impacts (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d)) This Rule provision, while typically associated with the wetland ERP criteria review, also applies to the SWMS through Section 6.12 of the BOR, which requires that a lake system be designed so that an adverse gradient is not created between the lakes and wetland areas. G.L. Homes complied with this criterion by setting the control elevation at 13.4 feet NGVD, the WSWT, for the lake system, the SWMS wetland preserves and the Eastern Preserve, ensuring no gradient (or difference in elevation) between the wetland elevation and the lake elevation. Petitioner argued that additional analysis regarding the timing and levels of inundation in the wetland preserves is necessary to fully determine the impacts to the wetlands. Contrary testimony indicated that setting the control elevations within the development area at the WSWT protects the onsite wetlands and ensures that those wetlands will function as expected. Mr. Waterhouse testified that additional analysis, such as groundwater or evapotranspiration, is not necessary because the Project was designed so that the control elevation that affects the lake levels and the wetlands are the same. The testimony was that, since the control elevation was set using the WSWT, the timing and levels within the wetlands will not be affected by the revised SWMS, and that no additional modeling, as recommended by Dr. Van Lent, is necessary because the SWMS complies with Section 6.12. As indicated, it is questionable on this record whether wetlands within the SWMS will be drained during dry conditions by adjacent deep lakes. No such analysis was presented in evidence in this case. However, such an impact on the wetlands within the SWMS would not be the result of 2006 modifications but would be inherent in the previously-approved SWMS. The 2006 modifications do not re-open the soundness of that previously-approved part of the design. As for the 2006 modifications, the evidence was persuasive that no additional analysis regarding the timing and levels of inundation in the wetland preserves is necessary to determine that the elimination of the 80-foot weir and its replacement with WCS-1 and WCS-2 will not impact the wetlands. Water Quality (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the Project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that water quality standards will be violated. Section 5.2 describes the District’s standard water quality criteria. This provision, requiring a minimum of one inch detention of stormwater, is referred to as a “presumptive criterion” because it is presumed that if an applicant provides the required one inch of detention, Class III water quality standards and rule requirements will be met. In this case, G.L. Homes provides one inch of detention in its lake system in the exact manner it did in the 2004 ERP. A difference from the 2004 to the 2006 ERP is the classification of the Cocohatchee Canal, the Project’s receiving waterbody, as impaired for iron and dissolved oxygen (DO). Therefore, G.L. Homes was also required to comply with Section 4.2.4.5 of the BOR to demonstrate that it is not contributing to the impairment. See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.301(2). Section 4.2.4.5, entitled "Where Ambient Water Quality Does Not Meet State Water Quality Standards," states as follows: If the site of the proposed activity currently does not meet state water quality standards, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the water quality standards by meeting the provisions in 4.2.4.1, 4.2.4.2, and 4.2.4.3, as applicable, and for the parameters which do not meet water quality standards, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed activity will not contribute to the existing violation. If the proposed activity will contribute to the existing violation, mitigation may be proposed as described in subsection 4.3.1.4. To comply, G.L. Homes must show that neither short- term (4.2.4.1) nor long-term (4.2.4.2) water quality impacts will occur. G.L. Homes complied with the short-term requirements by submitting the Construction Pollution Prevention Plan (CPPP), detailing how water quality will be protected during the construction process. In addition to the inch of treatment, the long-term water quality requirement was addressed, in part, by the Urban Stormwater Management Plan (USMP), which details various source controls or best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented once the Project is built and operating. These BMPs help keep pollutants out of the lake system. In addition to the BMPs, the USMP requires G.L. Homes to institute a water quality monitoring plan and submit results to the District for review after the Project is developed. Dr. Harper concurred with Petitioner that the USMP as proposed (in R.J. 28, § 6.0) was deficient in certain respects and recommended that it be clarified or supplemented to specify testing for oxygen, iron, nitrogen, phosphorus, hardness, and a few heavy metals, namely copper, lead, and zinc. Dr. Harper also concurred and recommended that that samples should be collected at both WCS-1 or WCS-2, not just at one of them, depending on which structure is discharging water at the time of sampling. (Dr. Harper confirmed the propriety of testing three times per year, which is a common frequency for monitoring in situations like this.) Mr. Waterhouse agreed with Dr. Harper's additions/clarifications and testified that the USMP, as supplemented and clarified, would comply with District’s criteria. G.L. Homes accepted Dr. Harper's additions/clarifications to the USMP. Another component of Section 4.2.4.5 requires additional assurance for parameters that do not meet water quality standards. The District prepared the “Terrie Bates Water Quality Memo dated June 11, 2004,” referred to as “the Bates Memo,” to provide guidance on the implementation of Section 4.2.4.5 for projects which discharge into an impaired waterbody. The Bates Memo suggests that an additional 50 percent of treatment, among other BMPs, be incorporated into a SWMS. G.L. Homes complied with the Bates Memo because runoff from the lakes, after meeting the one inch detention treatment requirement, spills into the wetland preserves within the SWMS for an additional 50 percent of treatment. In terms of operation of the SWMS, this is no different from the 2004 ERP, but the 2006 ERP simply calculates and takes credit for the additional treatment that was also provided by the onsite wetlands in the 2004 ERP. It is uncontested that the wetland preserves within the development are not impaired and are only required to meet Class III water quality standards. When the stormwater spills into the SWMS wetland preserves, it is presumed to meet Class III water quality standards due to the one inch of detention treatment. Accordingly, the SWMS wetland preserves can be used to provide the additional 50 percent of treatment. The Bates Memo also lists seven BMPs as potential options to consider, in addition to the extra 50 percent treatment volume. G.L. Homes is implementing 6 of the 7 items as follows: (1) the CPPP, which is a stormwater pollution prevention plan; (2) an operation plan or long-term plan addressing routine maintenance is included in the USMP; (3) planting littoral zones; (4) some utilization of onsite wetlands for additional treatment downstream of the SWMS by discharging into the Eastern Preserve wetland system through WCS-2 at times; (5) a site-specific water quality evaluation for the Project’s pre- and post-development conditions is addressed by the Harper Report (RJ Ex. 25); and (6) a Water Quality Monitoring Plan, which is required under the USMP. Petitioner erroneously argued that the Bates Memo does not allow the 50 percent treatment to occur in the preserve wetlands within the development. The argument stems from the phrase “in addition to the extra 50% treatment volume” at the bottom of page 3 of the memo, and bullet No. 5 on page 4, which recommends “treatment in wetlands downstream of the SWMS.” Absent any analysis of her own or any experience in the application of the Bates Memo, Ms. Hecker contended that the Bates Memo precludes the use of onsite wetlands. The argument is contradictory and confusing because Hecker admits that the preserve wetlands within the development are not downstream of the SWMS, and acknowledges that the Eastern Preserve is the wetland downstream of the SWMS. Ms. Hecker, along with Mr. Boler, ultimately admitted that criteria exist allowing the use of wetlands as part of the SWMS. Mr. Waterhouse, who has vastly more experience with the District’s water quality criteria than Ms. Hecker, and participated in the drafting of the Bates Memo, refuted Ms. Hecker’s position about the intent of the Bates Memo, citing to Section 5.3.1 of the BOR as additional support for the use of onsite wetlands for water quality treatment. In addition to these water quality submittals, G.L. Homes also provided a water quality analysis specific to the Project prepared by Dr. Harvey Harper. The analysis, entitled “Evaluation of Water Quality Issues Related to the Saturnia Falls Project” (RJ Ex. 25), referred to as the “Harper Report,” analyzed the Project’s pre- and post-development pollutant loads to help demonstrate that the Project would not contribute to the impairment of the Cocohatchee Canal. The Harper Report estimated the removal efficiency of the SWMS lakes to determine how much pollutant removal would be achieved by the lakes on the Project. Dr. Harper relied solely on the lakes without accounting for any of the additional treatment expected to occur in the wetlands or from the source control BMPs contained in the USMP, which means his report errs on the conservative side in those respects. Although the Canal is impaired for dissolved oxygen (DO), it is uncontested that a nutrient analysis is the appropriate method to assess DO conditions. The Harper Report, as summarized in the table below, concluded that the Project would result in lower post-development loading rates than the pre-development loading rates for nutrients. Nitrogen (N) Pre-Development Total N Load 390.6 kg Post-Development Removal (Dry4) Total N Load 204.99 kg Post-Development Removal (Wet5) Total N Load 194.69 kg Phosphorus (P) Pre-development Total P Load 15.12 kg Post-Development Removal (Dry) Total P Load 5.29 kg Post-Development Removal (Wet) Total P Load 4.49 kg The Harper Report compared the Post-Development Total Basin Loading numbers for P (136.43 kg) and for N (922.57 kg), on an average annual basis, coming from the residential areas (roads and lots) to the Post-Development Removal Loads for P [5.29 kg (dry) and 4.49 kg (wet)] and for N [204.99 kg (dry) and 194.69 kg (wet)] discharging from the lakes after treatment. The calculations demonstrated that approximately 77 percent of N would be removed by the lakes in the dry season conditions and approximately 78 percent would be removed in the wet season conditions. Approximately 95 percent of P would be removed by the lakes in both the dry and wet season conditions. Additional removal and treatment above these percentages is expected due to a number of other source control measures not accounted for in the Harper Report. The Harper Report also concluded that iron discharges from the SWMS would be extremely low and substantially less than the Class III standard of 1 mg/l. Petitioner presented no evidence to counter this conclusion. Petitioner questioned the validity of Harper Report’s use of wetlands as part of the loading calculations, and attacked his underlying methodology. Petitioner's witnesses called it "bad science" to attribute pollutant loading to wetlands because wetlands remove nutrients from the water column and because attributing nutrient loading to wetlands would make it easier to obtain a permit to destroy wetlands. However, none of Petitioner's witnesses were able to credibly defend the position that wetlands cannot contribute to the loading calculations and at times conceded to this fact. Generally, wetlands can in fact contribute some nutrients that pass through without being taken up by wetland vegetation, either because the water is moving through the wetlands too fast or because the nutrient load in the wetland overtaxes the wetland's ability to take up nutrients. That does not necessarily mean that the nutrient load attributable to a wetland will be greater than the load attributable to other post-development land uses. Indeed, the only post-development land use characterized by Dr. Harper as having a lower pollutant load than a wetland was low- intensity commercial, and that was only for total nitrogen. (Dr. Harper's use of data from some distance away in Corkscrew Swamp as the basis for characterizing the pollutant loadings for the onsite wetlands, instead of data from a closer monitoring station in the Cocohatchee Canal weir, was justified; his use of that data instead of collecting data onsite was a valid criticism, but there was not enough evidence in support of that criticism to undermine the additional assurance derived from Dr. Harper's work.) As for the argument that the "Harper method" makes it easier to obtain a permit to destroy wetlands, there are many regulatory criteria other than just water quality that are supposed to be considered before a permit is issued to impact wetlands. Another component of Petitioner’s attack on the Project’s water quality compliance included vague references to an 80 percent removal efficiency. In actuality, the 80 percent removal efficiency is not adopted or incorporated into any District rule criteria. In any event, the Harper Report and other evidence give reasonable assurance that, along with other source controls, the proposed SWMS probably will remove 80 percent of pollutants on an average annual basis. Lastly, the District clarified why Section 4.2.8 of the BOR, regarding cumulative impacts for water quality, was not applicable in this case. Since no contribution or impacts to water quality are expected, a cumulative impacts analysis is not necessary to assess the extent of the impacts. The combination of all these water quality measures, when taken together, give reasonable assurance that the 2006 ERP will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that State water quality standards will be violated, and that Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) will be satisfied. Engineering Principles (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the SWMS will be capable, based on generally-accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed. Section 7.0 of the BOR specifies implementation of the Rule. Since WCS-1 and WCS-2 are proposed as operable structures, the District is requiring that G.L. Homes enter into an operable Control Structure Agreement with the Big Cypress Basin Board. The agreement provides for the Big Cypress Basin Board to operate and maintain the two operable structures, instead of the Saturnia Falls Homeowners Association. As Mr. Waterhouse explained, this is a reasonable and logical requirement. WETLAND ERP CRITERIA As with the SWMS criteria, the wetland criteria review of this modification compares the Project to 2004 ERP. Functions To Fish & Wildlife And Listed Species (Subsection 40E- 4.301(1)(d)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances to demonstrate that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, or abandonment of a SWMS will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Section 4.2.2 of the BOR provides further specificity to ensure that a project will not impact the abundance and diversity of fish, wildlife and listed species. The 2006 ERP makes no changes or modification to the 280 acres of wetland impacts allowed in the 2004 ERP. Since the impacts remain the same, the 2006 ERP does not modify or affect the values the wetlands provide to either the abundance or diversity of fish and wildlife, compared to the 2004 ERP. Review of this criterion was determined in the 2004 ERP and should not be re- opened. Section 4.2.2.3 of the BOR addresses the functional assessment of the values provided by the Project’s wetlands. The wetland values were not reassessed in the 2006 ERP because the wetland impacts remain the same as in the 2004 ERP. The evidence was that the current value of the wetlands remains low due to heavy melaleuca infestation, with 75 percent coverage in most locations. While Petitioner may disagree with how the current wetlands were evaluated, nothing in this modification request requires a reassessment of their value. Accordingly, the value of the wetlands currently onsite has not changed, and this criteria should not be re-opened. Section 4.2.2.4 of the BOR requires that a regulated activity not adversely impact the hydroperiod of wetlands or other surface waters. Specifically, the criterion states as follows: [An] applicant must provide reasonable assurances that the regulated activity will not change the hydroperiod of a wetland or other surface water, so as to adversely affect wetland functions or other surface water functions as follows: Whenever portions of a system, such as constructed basins, structures, stormwater ponds, canals, and ditches, are reasonably expected to have the effect of reducing the depth, duration or frequency of inundation or saturation in a wetland or other surface water, the applicant must perform an analysis of the drawdown in water levels or diversion of water flows resulting from such activities and provide reasonable assurance that these drawdowns or diversions will not adversely impact the functions that wetlands and other surface waters provide to fish and wildlife and listed species. Increasing the depth, duration, or frequency of inundation through changing the rate or method of discharge of water to wetlands or other surface waters or by impounding water in wetlands or other surface waters must also be addressed to prevent adverse effects to functions that wetlands and other surface waters provide to fish and wildlife and listed species. Different types of wetlands respond differently to increased depth, duration, or frequency of inundation. Therefore, the applicant must provide reasonable assurance that activities that have the potential to increase discharge or water levels will not adversely affect the functioning of the specific wetland or other surface water subject to the increased discharge or water level. Whenever portions of a system could have the effect of altering water levels in wetlands or other surface waters, applicants shall be required to: monitor the wetland or other surface waters to demonstrate that such alteration has not resulted in adverse impacts; or calibrate the system to prevent adverse impacts. Monitoring parameters, methods, schedules, and reporting requirements shall be specified in permit conditions. Subsection (a) applies if the Project was expected to reduce the depth, duration, or frequency of inundation or saturation in any of the Project’s wetlands. Subsection (b) applies if the Project is expected to increase the depth, duration, or frequency of inundation through changing the rate or method of discharge of water to wetlands or other surface waters. Subsection (c) requires monitoring of the wetlands to determine the effects of the hydrological changes. Persuasive engineering and biological testimony demonstrated that no change (neither a reduction nor an increase) in the hydrology on the preserved wetlands or the Eastern Preserve will occur from what was permitted in the 2004 ERP. By analyzing the various biological indicators onsite, control elevations within the SWMS and the wetlands (both the Eastern Preserve and onsite preserve wetlands) were set at 13.4 feet NGVD, which is the WSWT. This matched the control elevation under the 2004 ERP. Ms. Bain and Mr. Passarella both testified that the hydroperiods in the wetlands would remain the same as in the 2004 ERP during normal conditions, the most important indicator of wetland success, and that the wetlands would be unaffected by the modifications. The WSWT is a common indicator of average wet season water levels in a wetland, which generally is the best indicator of maintaining appropriate hydrology and thereby maintaining the expected level of wetland function. However, as indicated, the deep lakes next to preserved wetlands within the SWMS could draw down those wetlands during dry conditions; but the potential lake effect was present in the 2004 ERP. Both Dr. Van Lent and Jason Lauritsen conceded that, with the elimination of the Flow-way, the hydrology in the Eastern Preserve would be better in the 2006 ERP than in the 2004 ERP. But, as indicated, there was no detailed analysis of wetland impacts from the 2006 modifications because G.L. Homes and the District took the position that no detailed analysis was necessary since the control elevation remained unchanged. Petitioner attempts to cast doubt as to the level of data reviewed by the District to conclude that no changes will occur in the hydrology of the wetlands. But the additional modeling recommended by Petitioner is unnecessary and unwarranted in the face of the biological indicators collected from the Project site over several years. These biological indicators are reliable and customary information to use when ensuring compliance with Section 4.2.2.4. They also resulted in the same control elevation that was set in the 2004 ERP. Petitioner never disputed the credibility of the biological indicators, nor did they present any contrary evidence (either a model or otherwise) that purported to show the wetlands would not function as permitted in the 2004 ERP based on these indicators. Instead, they simply asserted that additional analysis should be done. Although not precipitated by this criterion, G.L. Homes will conduct monitoring of the wetlands by implementing the Monitoring Plan as additional reasonable assurances that the wetlands will not be affected. Secondary Impacts To Water Resources (Subsection 40E- 4.301(1)(f)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f) and Section 4.2.7 of the BOR require a demonstration that the proposed activities will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. No secondary impact analysis was done because the site plan and wetland impacts remained unchanged from the 2004 ERP. Additional Wetland Provisions (Subsection 40E-4.301(3) and 40E- 4.302 Subsection 40E-4.301(3) addresses the remaining wetland criteria in the BOR, including mitigation and elimination or reduction of impacts. Rule 40E-4.302(1)(b) addresses the cumulative impacts analysis contained in Section 4.2.8 of the BOR. No assessment of elimination and reduction of wetland impacts was done because the wetland impacts remain unchanged from the 2004 ERP. The 2006 modifications do not warrant another elimination and reduction analysis. No cumulative impacts analysis is necessary because, as in the 2004 ERP, all proposed mitigation for wetland impacts are within the same drainage basin (West Collier) as the impacts. Logically, if the mitigation proposed for the 2006 modifications fully offsets the wetland impacts, there will be no impacts to cumulate with others impacts of other development activities. On the other hand, if the mitigation does not fully offset the impacts, the application will be denied for that reason, without the need for a cumulative impacts analysis. Section 4.3 of the BOR specifies criteria for mitigation proposed as part of an ERP application. Both G.L. Homes and the District took the position that, similar to the wetland impacts, the proposal for both onsite and offsite mitigation did not change from the 2004 ERP, and that no detailed analysis of the mitigation proposal, or comparison to wetland impacts, was required. Indeed, the onsite mitigation proposal--which includes preservation, restoration of wetlands by removing melaleuca, and the creation of four shallow depressional areas for wood stork habitat--remains unchanged from the 2004 ERP, including the Grading and Planting Plan, the Monitoring Plan, and Mitigation, Monitoring and Maintenance Plan. It was proven that the Flow- way footprint never was considered to be either a wetland impact or a part of the mitigation proposal, and that its removal from the Eastern Preserve does not decrease the amount or the value of the mitigation. (Actually, its removal probably increases the value of the mitigation, but the amount of any such increase was not analyzed or quantified.) It also was proven that the onsite wetlands will not be adversely affected as a result of the 2006 modifications so as to decrease their mitigation value, as Petitioner contended. Petitioner also raised the concern that the wetland mitigation within the SWMS would not function as permitted in the 2004 ERP due to the storage of the additional 50 percent within those wetlands, thereby affecting the mitigation assessment. However, as already indicated, when the water reaches those internal wetland preserves, it will have been treated to Class III water quality standards. In addition, operationally, the water also would have been stored in those wetlands under the 2004 ERP; the only difference is that the 2006 modifications calculate and claim credit for the storage, which was not necessary or done for the 2004 ERP. In addition to the onsite mitigation, G.L. Homes previously had been permitted to provide offsite mitigation in the form of a $1.26 million cash payment to the District. The payment was for the purchase, restoration, and enhancement of 154 acres of lands within the boundaries of the District’s environmental restoration project called CREW. Payment of cash for use by the District is addressed in Section 4.3.1.8 of the BOR. These types of offsite mitigation opportunities are referred to as a regional offsite mitigation areas or “ROMAs.” Unlike most mitigation banks, ROMAs, such as CREW, involve a land acquisition component and are owned and operated by the District. G.L. Homes and the District take the position that, under Section 4.3.1.8 of the BOR, and the previous 2004 ERP, G.L. Homes’ responsibilities ended when it paid the cash donation to the District. They take the position that the mitigation is unaffected by the modification, and that re- opening of the offsite mitigation requirement is unwarranted. However, while the Staff Report characterizes the $1.26 million payment as "a substantial amount of up-front mitigation for the proposed wetland impacts," no land in CREW has been purchased as of yet. In addition, the evidence was that, as a result of the passage of time and market forces, it unlikely that 154 acres of land within CREW can be purchased, enhanced, and maintained with the funds paid to the District under the 2004 ERP. Indeed, for a number of reasons, including the lack of willing sellers to participate in the CREW ROMA, in 2004 the District stopped accepting payment of funds to purchase land in CREW as an acceptable form of mitigation for wetland impacts. As a result, it no longer can be said that the proposed mitigation package, which includes and relies on the use of the funds to purchase, enhance, and maintain 154 acres in CREW, fully offsets the proposed wetland impacts. (In addition, under Rule 40E- 4.331(2)(a), any new mitigation proposal would have to analyzed using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology, Rule 62- 345.100.) Finally, if the offsite mitigation outside the drainage basin is used, a cumulative impact analysis will be necessary. Public Interest Test (Rule 40E-4.302(1) In addition to complying with Rule 40E-4.301, since the Project is located in, on, or over wetlands, G.L. Homes must also address the criteria contained in the Public Interest Test, Rule 40E-4.302 and Section 4.2.3 of the BOR, by demonstrating that the Project is not contrary to the public interest. (Since the Project is not within an OFW or does not significantly degrade an OFW, the higher standard of “clearly in the public interest” does not apply.) The District considers and balances the following seven factors in determining compliance with the test: Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others (40E-4.302(1)(a)1.); 93. G.L. Homes provided reasonable assurances that the Project will not cause any onsite or offsite flooding, nor will the Project cause any adverse impacts to adjacent lands because the SWMS is designed in accordance with District criteria and the post-development peak rate of discharge does not exceed the allowable discharge rate. The Project is considered neutral as to this factor. However, it appears from the evidence that the 2002 ERP and the 2004 ERP viewed those proposals as positive as to this factor due to the inclusion of the Flow-way in an effort to alleviate regional flooding. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats (40E-4.302(1)(a)2.); 94. As indicated, the Project proposes onsite mitigation which has not changed from the 2004 ERP, but passage of time and market conditions have changed the offsite mitigation proposal. As a result, it no longer can be said based on the evidence in this case that the overall mitigation proposal offsets potential impacts to fish and wildlife, including wood stork habitat, even though the mitigation plan for the Eastern Preserve would improve wood stork habitat from its current melaleuca-infested condition. For these reasons, the Project cannot be considered positive as to this factor. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling (40E-4.302(1)(a)3.); 95. The Project will not adversely affect navigation. In addition, no evidence was introduced to suggest that the Project’s construction would result in harmful erosion or shoaling. The balance of the testimony pertaining to the flow of water in the Project indicated that it will not be adversely affected. Although there will be reduced discharge to the Eastern Preserve as a result of the 2006 modifications, the Project is considered neutral as to this factor. In contrast, it appears from the evidence that the 2002 ERP and the 2004 ERP would have viewed those proposals as positive as to this factor due to the inclusion of the Flow-way in an effort to alleviate regional flooding. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity (40E-4.302(1)(a)4.); 96. The Project does not provide any fishing, recreational values, or marine productivity. Therefore, the Project is neutral as to this factor. Whether the regulated activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature (40E-4.302(1)(a)5.); 97. The Project is permanent in nature and is considered neutral as to this factor because reasonable assurances have not been given that mitigation will fully offset the permanent wetland impacts. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, F.S. (40E- 4.302(1)(a)6.); 98. There are no significant archeological or historical resources that will be adversely affected by the Project. In addition, no new information was received by the District indicating that historical resources would be impacted. Therefore, the Project is considered neutral as to this factor. The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed regulated activity (40E-4.302(1)(a)7.); As found, reasonable assurance has not been given that the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by the areas affected by the Project will be fully offset by mitigation. Therefore, the Project should be considered negative as to this factor. On balance, the Project, overall, is negative when measured against these criteria. Accordingly, it must be determined that reasonable assurance has not been given that the Project, as a whole, is not contrary to the public interest.
Conclusions DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. Under Section 403.412(6), Florida Statutes: Any Florida corporation not for profit which has at least 25 current members residing within the county where the activity is proposed, and which was formed for the purpose of the protection of the environment, fish and wildlife resources, and protection of air and water quality, may initiate a hearing pursuant to s. 120.569 or s. 120.57, provided that the Florida corporation not for profit was formed at least 1 year prior to the date of the filing of the application for a permit, license, or authorization that is the subject of the notice of proposed agency action. It is concluded that use of virtually the identical statutory language is not mandatory for standing under this statute and that the Conservancy meets the requirements for standing under this statute. Party status under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, also can be based on proof that "substantial interests will be affected by proposed agency action." § 120.52(12)(b), Fla. Stat. This requires proof of "an injury in fact which is of sufficient immediacy and is of the type and nature intended to be protected" by the substantive law. § 403.412(5), Fla. Stat. See also Agrico Chemical Co. v. Dept. of Environmental Reg., 406 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). An organization like the Conservancy may allege and prove either that its own substantial interests or those of a substantial number of its members will be affected. See Florida Home Builders Ass'n v. Dept. of Labor and Employment Security, 412 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1982); Farmworker Rights Organization, Inc. v. Dept. of Health, etc., 417 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). In addition, Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes, provides: No demonstration of special injury different in kind from the general public at large is required. A sufficient demonstration of a substantial interest may be made by a petitioner who establishes that the proposed activity, conduct, or product to be licensed or permitted affects the petitioner's use or enjoyment of air, water, or natural resources protected by this chapter. The Conservancy made a sufficient demonstration under this statute that the proposed 2006 ERP will affect its use or enjoyment of water and natural resources protected by Chapter 403. As a result, the Conservancy also proved standing under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. Because the Conservancy has "citizen standing" under Section 403.412(6), Florida Statutes, as well as standing under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, it is not necessary to decide G.L. Homes' challenge to the Conservancy's "associational standing." It also is unnecessary and premature to determine whether any party would be entitled under Section 120.68(1), Florida Statutes, to judicial review of the final order entered in this case as "a party who is adversely affected." It is believed that such a determination, if it becomes necessary, can be made upon the evidence in the record. BURDENS OF PROOF AND PERSUASION This is a de novo proceeding designed to formulate final agency action. See Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So. 2d 778, 786-787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); and § 120.57(1)(k), Fla. Stat. As an ERP applicant, G.L. Homes has the ultimate burden of proof and burden of persuasion. See J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So. 2d at 786-789. In light of the evidence presented in this case, the option suggested in the J.W.C. case to shift the burden of presenting evidence was not useful. ERP CRITERIA The permitting criteria for G.L. Homes' proposed Project are found in Parts I and IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-345, Florida Administrative Code Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302, and the BOR, which is adopted by reference in Rule 40E-4.091(1)(a). For its proposed Project to be permitted, G.L. Homes must give reasonable assurance of compliance with those criteria. Issuance of an ERP must be based solely on compliance with applicable permit criteria. See Council of the Lower Keys v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 429 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Reasonable assurance contemplates a substantial likelihood that the project will be successfully implemented. See Metropolitan Dade County v. Coscan Florida Inc., 609 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Absolute guarantees are not necessary, and a permit applicant is not required to eliminate all contrary possibilities or address impacts that are only theoretical and cannot be measured in real life. See City of Sunrise v. Indian Trace Community Development District, et al., DOAH Case No. 91- 6036, 1991 Fla. ENV LEXIS 6997, 92 ER FALR 21 (DOAH 1991, SFWMD 1992); Manasota-88, Inc. v. Agrico Chemical Co. and Department of Environmental Regulation, DOAH Case No. 87-2433, 1990 Fla. ENV LEXIS 38 (DOAH Jan. 5, 1990; DER Feb. 19, 1990). The test in this case is not whether the District properly evaluated the 2004 ERP, but whether the areas proposed to be modified or affected by the modification met the applicable conditions for issuance. When a permittee seeks to modify an existing permit, the District’s review includes only that portion of the existing permit that is proposed to be modified or is affected by the modification. Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.331(2). See also Friends of the Everglades, Inc., v. Dep't. of Envt'l. Reg., 496 So. 2d 181, 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Behrens v. Boran, ORDER NO. SWF 02-052, ER FALR 257 (SWFWMD Aug. 27, 2002), DOAH Case No. 02-0282, 2002 Fla. ENV LEXIS 192 (DOAH July 29, 2002); Kunnen v. Southwest Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., ORDER NO.: SWF 02-003, DOAH Case No. 01-2571, 2002 Fla. ENV LEXIS 4 (DOAH Dec. 17, 2001; SWFWMD Jan. 29, 2002). The "reasonable assurance" requirement applies to the activities for which permitting is presently sought and, except to the extent affected by the proposed modification, does not burden the applicant with "providing 'reasonable assurances' anew with respect to the original permit." Friends of the Everglades, supra at 183. Accordingly, Petitioner’s arguments that certain criteria must be revisited because they were not properly addressed in previous permits is irrelevant to this proceeding; but previously-decided criteria must be reviewed again to the extent that proposed modifications affect those criteria. CONSIDERATION OF THE ERP CRITERIA In order to provide reasonable assurances that a Project will not be harmful to the water resources of the District, the applicant must satisfy the conditions for issuance set forth in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. In this case, the evidence must be viewed under the rule pertaining to modification of permits. Rule 40E-4.331(2)(a) requires the District to review permit modification applications “using the same criteria as new applications for those portions of the project proposed for, or affected by, the modification.” Surface Water Management Criteria Water Quantity and Flooding Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a) and (b) address adverse water quantity to receiving water bodies and flooding either onsite and offsite. As found, G.L. Homes complied with the applicable criteria to satisfy both of these rules. Storage and Conveyance Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c) requires G.L. Homes to provide reasonable assurances that the Project will not adversely impact storage and conveyance capabilities. As found, the submittal of the Taylor Report provides reasonable assurances that the Project will not adversely affect the conveyance of water. Moreover, although some criticism was aimed at the choice of the friction coefficients used in the Taylor Report, the evidence as a whole proves that the coefficients in the Taylor Report are reasonable and scientifically defensible. Water Quality Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) requires G.L. Homes to provide reasonable assurances that the Project will not result in adverse water quality impacts. As found, coupled with the clarifications/additions to the USMP suggested by Dr. Harper and accepted by G.L. Homes, the numerous water quality submittals demonstrated compliance with this Rule, including assurances regarding the impairment status of the Cocohatchee Canal. While Petitioner leveled numerous criticisms against the Project’s ability to comply with water quality, none of the criticisms rose to the level of “contrary evidence of equivalent quality.” Taken as whole, and balanced against Petitioner’s lack of equivalent evidence and credible witnesses, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that, with the Monitoring Plan additions/clarifications, G.L. Homes meets the District’s water quality criteria. Engineering Principles As required by Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i), G.L. Homes has provided reasonable assurances to demonstrate that the SWMS will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and functioning as proposed. Wetlands Criteria Elimination and Reduction, Secondary and Cumulative Impacts 115. Rules 40E-4.301(1)(f) and (2) and 40E-4.302(1)(b) require G.L. Homes to demonstrate compliance with the following District criteria pertaining to wetland impacts: (1) elimination and reduction; (2) secondary impacts; and (3) cumulative impacts. As found, the 2006 ERP proposes no changes or modifications to the wetlands impacts approved in the 2004 ERP. Therefore, Petitioner’s arguments that these assessments were either not done or done improperly in the previous permit are not valid bases to relitigate those issues. Accordingly, elimination and reduction, secondary impacts, and cumulative impacts addressed in the 2004 ERP are not properly litigated in this modification proceeding, except to the extent that they are affected by the proposed modifications. While the proposed modifications do not affect either elimination and reduction or secondary impacts, they could affect cumulative impacts, depending on whether offset mitigation needed to fully offset wetland impacts is accomplished in the West Collier drainage basin. Wetland Values and Functions to Fish and Wildlife Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d) requires G.L. Homes to provide reasonable assurances that the Project will not adversely impact the value and functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands. Rule 40E-4.301(3) requires an applicant to comply with the District’s mitigation provisions in the BOR. As found, Petitioner’s contention that the revised SWMS affected the values and functions provided to fish and wildlife, particularly the wood stork, was not supported by the weight of the evidence as to onsite mitigation. However, the passage of time and market conditions affected the offsite mitigation proposed and presumably evaluated for the 2004 ERP, and the impacts and mitigation were not re-evaluated for the 2006 ERP. Under Rule 40E-4.331(2), they must be re-evaluated using UMAM, as required by Rule 62-345.100. Public Interest Test The public interest test is limited in scope to only the seven factors set forth in Rule 40E-4.302(2). As found above, after a balancing of the factors, reasonable assurance was not provided that the Project is not contrary to the Public Interest.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the proposed 2006 ERP be denied. If it is granted, it should include the additions/clarifications to the USMP suggested by Dr. Harper and accepted by G.L. Homes. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 2007.
Findings Of Fact On December 12, 1991, Petitioner applied to the Respondent for a permit/water quality certification to grade and level, in stages, approximately 20,000 square feet or 0.45 acres of lake front to remove and prevent the formation of berms and depressions in the exposed lake bottom adjacent to his property. The project site is located at 3955 Placid View Drive which lies along the shoreline of Lake Placid, a natural waterbody in Highlands County, Section 24, Township 37 South, Range 29 East. Lake Placid is not an aquatic preserve, and is not an outstanding Florida water. It has been designated as a Class III waterbody. Petitioner's unsubdivided lot lies at the western end of Lake Placid. The shoreline measures approximately 203 feet. The western lot line also measures 203 feet, and fronts on Placid View Drive. The water level of Lake Placid has receded in recent years which allows large expanses of what was historically lake bottom to become beaches, lawns, and areas of habaceous marsh. The specific project which the Petitioner proposes calls for the leveling of the berms and depressions which form on the exposed lake bottom from collected water, which stagnates and permits various noxious creatures, including mosquitoes, to breed in them. The berms and depressions are approximately six inches high or deep and between one and three feet wide, and generally extend the length of the shoreline. The proposed area affected is approximately 20,000 square feet or 0.45 acres of lake front, although Petitioner proposes to actually level a much smaller area in stages of approximately 2,000 square feet on an "as needed" basis. No material other than sod in the beach area is proposed to be brought from or removed to off-site locations. Petitioner is highly sensitive to mosquito bites. The area proposed for leveling was previously cleared of vegetation without authorization. Very little revegetation of the shoreline has occurred since the area was cleared. Vegetation colonizing the beach, at present, includes pennyworts (Centella asiatica and Hydrocotyle umbellata) and water- hyssops (Bacopa sp.) Blue green algae was observed in the depressions which have formed along the shore since the clearing. Fauna observed on-site included gulls (Larus sp.), small fish in the adjacent lake shallows, and water-boatmen (Order Hemiptera) in the depressions. An area landward of the wetlands considered here was also cleared previously and is proposed to be seeded. An adjacent, uncleared shoreline was vegetated with primrose willow (Ludwigia sp.), cattail (Typha sp.), flat sedge (Cyperus odorata), and other wetland species for an almost 100% plant coverage. The Petitioner proposes to use a small tractor in leveling of the shore which will cause turbidity in the lake water. No turbidity controls were proposed by the Petitioner. Petitioner failed to provide reasonable assurances that the turbidity caused by the earthmoving equipment in areas presently above water would not cause degradation of water quality in Lake Placid; would not contribute to the long-term degradation of water quality in the lake caused by upland runoff that would flow into the lake without benefit of retention or filtration by shoreland vegetation (freshwater herbaceous habitat) which would be permanently removed under Petitioner's proposal. Nutrients such a nitrogen and phosphorus and pollutants such as pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals commonly used in lawn and garden care would be included in the runoff, and would have an adverse impact on fishing and marine productivity in the lake. The project would have a minor adverse impact on erosion and soil stabilization in the area surrounding the lake. Petitioner has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed project is not contrary to the public interest. Petitioner can mitigate the project by eliminating the use of heavy equipment and substitute hand equipment to smooth out ruts, berms and depressions in jurisdictional areas.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's application for Wetland Resource Regulation permit be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 ths 8th day of March, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Mr. Vincent J. Woeppel 3955 Placid View Drive Lake Placid, Florida 33852 Daniel H. Thompson Department of Environmental Regulation Acting General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the Respondents, Florida Department of Transportation (“FDOT”) and Palm Beach County (also referred to as “the Applicants”), are entitled to the issuance of an Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) to construct an extension of State Road 7 (“SR 7”) and its associated surface water management system in Palm Beach County.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The City is a municipality incorporated under Florida law. The District is a regional agency with the authority to regulate the construction, operation, and maintenance of any surface water management system pursuant to chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Titles 40E and 62. FDOT is an agency of the state of Florida charged with the establishment, maintenance, and regulation of public transportation. It is a co-applicant for the ERP permit. Palm Beach County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and is a co-applicant for the ERP permit. Background State Road 7 Extension The ERP was issued by the District for an 8.5-mile extension of SR 7 between Okeechobee Boulevard and Northlake Boulevard in Palm Beach County. The purpose of the proposed roadway is to relieve traffic now moving through rural residential areas and two large residential developments known as The Acreage and Jupiter Farms. The proposed roadway would also improve hurricane evacuation by providing additional capacity and connectivity, and reduce emergency response time in the rural residential areas. The proposed roadway alignment was selected by FDOT after a multiyear corridor study under a National Environmental Protection Policy Act process. Four corridors were considered using federal selection criteria that addressed social, environmental, property, physical, and financial impacts. There are two segments of the proposed roadway covered by the ERP. The southern segment would add two more lanes to the existing two-lanes of SR 7 from Okeechobee Boulevard North to 60th Street North, just south of the M-Canal. This segment is 4.4 miles long. The southern segment is not at issue in this case. The northern segment would extend four lanes of SR 7 east from 60th Street North about one mile, and then north 3.1 miles to Northlake Boulevard. This is the roadway segment challenged by Petitioner. Hereafter, all references to “the Project” are to the northern segment. The Project includes a raised roadway, median, sidewalks, bike lanes, and stormwater swales. It also includes a bridge over the M-Canal and a bridge over a water control outfall. The Project would be constructed in an existing right- of-way (“ROW”). FDOT owns a ROW that is approximately 200 feet wide. The County owns an adjacent 120-foot-wide ROW, so that the total width of the Project ROW is 320 feet. Running north/south within the ROW is a dirt service road, a ditch, and a fence. Much of the vegetation in the ROW is dominated by invasive and exotic plant species, including Melaleuca, Carolina Willow, Brazilian Pepper, and Australian Pine. The Ibis Development West of the Project ROW is the 1,958-acre Ibis Golf and Country Club residential development (“Ibis”). In 1989, an ERP was issued for Ibis’ surface water management system (“the Ibis system”). The Ibis system includes almost 300 acres of interconnected lakes that provide water management and water quality treatment for Ibis. The 1989 permit required the Ibis system to be sized to receive and treat runoff from a segment of Northlake Boulevard and from an existing two-lane road off of Northlake Boulevard that serves the commercial area of Ibis, which is directly north of the Ibis residential area. The Ibis system was also required to receive and provide water treatment and storage for the stormwater runoff from 46.8 acres of the ROW for SR 7. The parties introduced evidence about modifications to the 1989 permit, which the City contends reduced the treatment capabilities of the system. It is found from the preponderance of the evidence that the original system and its modifications continued to meet design requirements to store and treat future runoff from 46.8 acres of the SR 7 ROW.1/ When the water in the Ibis lakes reaches elevation 17.5 feet NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum), pumps at two pump stations at the south end of Ibis begin pumping water over a berm into Ibis Preserve, a 366-acre natural area directly south of Ibis. Water is retained in Ibis Preserve unles it exceeds an elevation of 18.5 feet, when it then passes over an outfall structure into the Grassy Waters Everglades Preserve (“Grassy Waters”) to the east. Ibis Preserve provides additional water quality treatment for the water pumped from Ibis, but this additional treatment was not part of the calculation of water quality management for Ibis. The Ibis system was required to meet District permitting criteria before discharge to Ibis Preserve. The North Palm Beach County Improvement District (“Improvement District”) owns and has operational and maintenance responsibility for the Ibis system. It also owned and managed Ibis Preserve, but transferred ownership and management of Ibis Preserve to the City in 2004. Grassy Waters/Water Catchment Area To the east of the Project is the City-owned “Water Catchment Area,” which covers about 14,700 acres or 23 square miles. The Water Catchment Area is owned by the City and is part of its public drinking water supply system. Water in the Water Catchment Area flows to Lake Mangonia where it is withdrawn, treated, and then delivered to residents and businesses in the City, the Town of Palm Beach, and the Town of South Palm Beach. There is a statement in the Project application that Grassy Waters refers only to the open water marsh within the Water Catchment Area. The Water Catchment Area includes other habitat types besides open marsh. Most of the information in the record indicates that Grassy Waters and the Water Catchment Area have the same boundaries. Therefore, in this Recommended Order, Grassy Waters and the Water Catchment Area are treated as being two names for the same area. Grassy Waters was once connected to the Everglades and large portions of it have the same characteristics, being an open water marsh with an extended hydroperiod. It is oligotrophic, meaning it is low in nutrients and has an ecosystem adapted to low nutrient conditions. It was undisputed that most areas of Grassy Waters are of high or even pristine environmental quality. Grassy Waters has periphyton, an assemblage of algae that only survive in phosphorous levels of less than 10 parts per billion (“ppb”). Periphyton is the base of the food chain in the open water marsh area of Grassy Waters and is consumed by apple snails and many invertebrates and fish. Grassy Waters has a visitor and nature center and provides recreational opportunities, such as canoeing, hiking, and bird watching. There appeared to be disagreement about whether the Project ROW is located in Grassy Waters or adjacent to it. The ROW is not within Grassy Waters, it is adjacent. However, the wetlands and other surface waters within the ROW are hydrologically connected to Grassy Waters. In the western part of Grassy Waters, which ends at the Project ROW, there are hammock islands and hydric pine flatwoods. The City contends these areas and the rest of the ROW were historically open water marsh, but were changed by human activities. The more persuasive evidence is that this western area was not all open marsh, historically. It was an area of natural transition from open water marsh to other habitat types. Ibis Impacts to Grassy Waters The parties disputed whether the Ibis system is a “failed system.” This is not a technical or defined term. The relevant issue is whether the Ibis system is operating in conformance with the requirements of its permit. The City contends the Ibis lakes are eutrophic and that sediment accumulation in the lakes is releasing phosphorus back into the water, which ends up in Grassy Waters. However, the City’s expert witness, Dr. Harper, admitted that the phosphorus concentration being discharged from the Ibis system, about 40 ppb, is typical for surface water management systems serving large residential developments, although that concentration is at the high end of the range. The phosphorus concentration is closer to 30 ppb in discharges from Ibis Preserve into Grassy Waters, showing that Ibis Preserve provides additional treatment to the waters coming out of Ibis. The characterization of the nutrient loading from the Ibis system as “typical” did not address the additional nutrients in the drainage that the Ibis system is required to accept from the SR 7 ROW. The record does not show that the nutrient concentrations from the Ibis system would still be typical if all of the ROW drainage were added without pre-treatment, as was contemplated by the 1989 Ibis permit. Because Grassy Waters is an oligotrophic ecosystem, it can be adversely affected by phosphorus levels above 10 ppb. When phosphorus is introduced into an oligotrophic system in concentrations over 10 ppb, the system begins to change to denser wetland vegetation, which can include invasive and nuisance species, such as cattail. There is denser vegetation and cattails in Grassy Waters near the Ibis Preserve outfall. There is also more phosphorus in sediments near the outfall. These effects decrease with distance from the outfall, but some effects were detected as far as a half mile from the outfall. The City’s expert witness, Dr. Gaiser, testified that periphyton is dissolved by high nutrient levels and replaced by weedy algae. She found adverse effects on periphyton near the outfall. Dr. Gaiser also found microcystis near the outfall. Microcystis is a toxic algae caused by high elevations of phosphorous. Microcystis comprised over 10 percent of the cell density of the algal community near the outfall. The District’s witness, Mr. Waterhouse, conceded that there is a problem with nuisance vegetation at the discharge point into Grassy Waters. He said the District was not aware of the problem before information was developed for this case. No evidence was presented about what consideration the District gave in 1989, when Ibis was permitted, to the potential adverse impacts of discharging phosphorus into the oligotrophic ecosystem of Grassy Waters. Based on the evidence that a phosphorus concentration of 30 ppb is expected for this kind of surface water management system, it must be concluded that the Ibis system was not designed to prevent harm to oligotrophic receiving waters. Respondents presented evidence to show that phosphorus loadings from the M-Canal could be the cause of the adverse impacts found near the Ibis Preserve outfall. The M-Canal was constructed by the City for the primary purpose of delivering water from Lake Okeechobee, via connection to the L-8 Canal, to the Water Catchment Area for public water supply. For most of its length, the M-Canal runs through Grassy Waters. The City generally maintains the water level in the M-Canal below the elevation of Grassy Waters so water in the canal will not flow into Grassy Waters. However, on some occasions, water flows from the M-Canal into Grassy Waters. High phosphorus concentrations have been recorded in the M-Canal; as high as 300 ppb. Nuisance vegetation is growing in the area where the M-Canal connects to the Water Catchment Area. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the adverse impacts described by the City’s experts in the area of the Ibis Preserve outfall are caused primarily by discharges from Ibis Preserve. There are three other developments adjacent to Grassy Waters that occasionally discharge to Grassy Waters. These discharges are likely to contain some nutrients, but the amount of nutrients and their effects, if any, on Grassy Waters were not described in the record. The Water Catchment Area is a Class I waterbody because it is used for public water supply. The water quality standard for phosphorus and other nutrients in a Class I waterbody is set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.530(48)(b): In no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna. Grassy Waters was designated by the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) as a stream. Rule 62-302.531(2)(c) states that the narrative criterion “shall be interpreted as being achieved in a stream segment where information on chlorophyll a levels, algal mats or blooms, nuisance macrophyte growth, and changes in algal species composition indicates there are no imbalances in flora or fauna.” The City presented some evidence regarding nuisance macrophyte growth and changes in algal species composition in Grassy Waters near the Ibis Preserve outfall. Little evidence was presented regarding the practice of DEP or the District in the application of the narrative nutrient standard, but the preponderance of the evidence indicates the agency practice is to consider a stream segment as a whole to determine whether it exhibits an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna.2/ During the course of this proceeding, the District issued administrative complaints against the Improvement District and the City, which include Orders for Corrective Action. The complaints were issued pursuant to section 373.119, Florida Statutes, which authorizes such action when a water management district believes that a violation of any provision of chapter 373 or district rule has occurred. However, at the final hearing, the District was reluctant to say the Improvement District had violated any law or permit condition. The Improvement District did not challenge the enforcement action against it and, therefore, the District’s enforcement order became final. The Improvement District is required to address the accumulation of sediment in the Ibis Lakes, develop a nutrient source control plan, eliminate and reduce the use of herbicides containing copper sulfate, and reassess pumping schedules. There is no target nutrient limit specified in the District’s Orders for Corrective Action. The District’s enforcement action against the City seeks to require the City to increase secondary treatment and retention in Ibis Preserve, provide a plan to remove the exotic/invasive vegetation at the outfall, provide a vegetation monitoring plan, and develop source control measures for residential developments that discharge into Grassy Waters. The City challenged the enforcement action and it remains pending. Snail Kites The Everglades snail kite gets its name from its primary food, the apple snail. In the Everglades, snail kites also feed on an exotic island snail, which occurs there in about equal numbers as apple snails. There was no evidence presented that there are exotic island snails in Grassy Waters. Snail kite habitat is dependent on conditions conducive to apple snails, which are the open marsh and oligotrophic conditions where periphyton flourish. If a sufficient number of apple snails are present, snail kites will find suitable nesting nearby. Dense wetland vegetation is not good forage for snail kites because, even if apple snails are present, the apple snails will be difficult or impossible for the snail kites to see. Dr. Welch, who was the state snail kite conservation coordinator at the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and wrote the snail kite management plan for Florida, testified for the District, where he is now employed as a senior scientist. He said field surveys of snail kite nests in Grassy Waters indicate their numbers are relatively low compared to other areas where snail kites are found. There were only ten successful nests (eggs laid) observed from 2000 to 2016. The City’s Everglades expert, Dr. Lodge, speculated that the low nest counts could be due to difficulty in seeing the nests, but he was not familiar with the survey techniques used and, therefore, his opinion that the numbers could be materially underestimated is not credited. Snail kites nest throughout the Water Catchment Area, but primarily in the open marsh areas of the central and eastern portions of the Water Catchment Area. Over 90 percent of snail kite nests are more than a mile from the Project ROW. Dr. Lodge said there are four snail kite nests within 800 feet of the Project, but he was not more specific about their locations. Most nests are closer to Northlake Boulevard, State Road 710, and the Florida Turnpike. The major factor that adversely affects successful nesting by snail kites and production of offspring is predation, usually by raccoons and rat snakes. “Cold snaps” and drought are also factors. Impacts of The Proposed Project Water Quantity Impacts Water storage for the Project, which was going to be handled in the Ibis system under the 1989 Ibis permit, would be provided in the roadside swales. The Project is designed to retain water volumes greater than typically required for roadways. Stormwater would not flow out of the Project into the Ibis system except in unusually large storm events, in excess of six inches of rainfall. The City did not dispute the Project’s compliance with the applicable water quantity criteria in the District rules. Water Quality Impacts To address the City’s concerns about adverse impacts caused by the Ibis system, the Applicants expanded the roadside swales by ten feet and raised the outfall elevation by 0.05 feet. With these modifications, the Project would provide water quality treatment for its stormwater and no longer rely on the Ibis system for treatment. The swales would provide treatment in excess of the treatment required by District rules. Respondents contend that, when the treatment provided by the Ibis system is added, the total treatment provided for the Project stormwater is more than twice as much as required by District rules. The City, on the other hand, claims that no additional water quality treatment can be provided by the Ibis system because the Ibis Lakes are eutrophic. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Project runoff to the Ibis system would receive additional water quality treatment in the Ibis system and in Ibis Preserve before flowing to Grassy Waters. The effect of the Project’s on-site treatment of its stormwater is that the amount of nutrients that would otherwise flow into the Ibis system from SR 7 would be reduced. Therefore, the effect of the Project is to reduce the nutrient load that the Improvement District was permitted to discharge to Ibis Preserve and Grassy Waters. The City did not dispute the Applicants’ evidence that the Project exceeds the District’s design criteria for water quality. The City focused instead on its contention that, despite its compliance with water quality design criteria, the Project would result in additional nutrient loading to Grassy Waters, which would cause additional adverse impacts to its flora and fauna. The Applicants and the City performed nutrient loading analyses even though such analyses are only required by the District when the receiving waters have been designated by the Department as “impaired” by nutrients or in the case of certain other specially designated waters. Grassy Waters does not have any of these special designations. The Applicants’ nutrient loading analysis concluded that the post-development loading of phosphorus and nitrogen from the Ibis system would be less than the pre-development condition, so there would be a net decrease in nutrients discharged into Grassy Waters. Petitioner’s expert witness, Dr. Harper, believes the Project would increase nutrient loading to Grassy Waters, even if stormwater from the Project did not carry additional nutrients, because the increased volume of water moving through the Ibis system would entrain more nutrients from sediments in the Ibis lakes. Dr. Harper believes the Project would also cause nutrient loading via groundwater seepage through the roadway swales into Grassy Waters. The preponderance of the evidence does not support his opinion that groundwater seepage would cause additional nutrient loading.3/ Dr. Harper believes another source of nutrient loading from the Project would be from surface flow down the roadway embankments. On the eastern embankment, this flow would enter the mitigation area 150 feet from Grassy Waters. Dr. Harper’s estimated total loading from all sources is not persuasive. The estimate gives a false sense of precision. It is based on a number of variable assumptions, some of which are not widely known or in use by experts in the field. In addition, Dr. Harper’s opinion did not appear to appropriately account for the modifications to the Project’s storage capacity. Dr. Harper’s estimated loading was not translated into physical effects in Grassy Waters. The Applicants’ estimate of total nutrient loading also gives a false sense of precision, but it is based on a well-known and widely used methodology. The City failed to prove that the Project would result in more nutrient loading to Grassy Waters than is currently contributed by the ROW. Because the Project would not rely on the Ibis system for stormwater treatment, the Project would reduce the loading that the Improvement District was permitted to discharge to Grassy Waters. To address potential vehicular spills into Grassy Waters, FDOT produced a Spill Response Plan. The swales would capture and contain any material spilled on the roadway or swale. The curb and gutter, a guardrail, gravity wall, and fence also provide protection against spills. The bridge over the M-Canal would use a 54-inch traffic barrier, which is higher than FDOT specifications for the design speed for the bridge. The City did not present evidence to show that the protective measures proposed by the Applicants are less than what is usually considered adequate under similar circumstances, or fails to meet a relevant safety standard. Wetland Impacts Direct Impacts The Project would directly impact 52.37 acres of wetlands and 7.86 acres of surface waters. The impacted wetlands are fresh water marsh, mixed shrubs, and hydric pine flatwoods. The surface waters affected consist of vegetated ditches and un- vegetated channels or canals. The impacted wetlands include 11.77 acres of freshwater marsh. The impacted surface waters are ditches. Most of these wetlands are disturbed and their functional values have been reduced. Secondary Impacts District rules require an applicant to account for the secondary impacts caused by a project that could adversely affect the functions of adjacent wetlands or other surface waters. The Applicant’s Handbook defines secondary impacts to include impacts on wetland functions, water quality, and endangered species, including impacts on areas needed by endangered species for foraging. Part of the Applicants’ assessment of secondary impacts of the Project was made by reviewing the effects of the Acreage Reliever Road on Pond Cypress Preserve, a 1,737-acre conservation area managed by the County that is immediately south of the proposed Project. The County has been monitoring the effect of the Acreage Reliever Road on hydrology, vegetation, and species compensation ever since the road was built. The County found no adverse secondary impacts caused by the road. The species that use the wetlands near the road, including wading birds, appear to be unaffected by the road. The scoring of secondary impacts for the Projects, using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (“UMAM”), was conservative, meaning that assumptions were made at the high side of the potential range of impacts. This resulted in more mitigation being required. The Applicants claim the Project would “maintain a 300-foot buffer between the project’s construction boundary and [Grassy Waters].” This appears to be a misstatement. The Applicants’ combined ROW is only 320 feet wide. Going east from the limits of construction, it is 160 feet to Grassy Waters. The Project’s buffer is 160 feet wide. The District accounted for secondary impacts to wetland dependent species, including snail kites, from noise and lights that might discourage use of the area. The Project would provide a tree buffer that will reduce noise and light impacts to Grassy Waters. The roadway lighting plan is also intended to reduce light penetration into Grassy Waters. Most of the threatened and endangered bird species are tolerant of roadways for foraging and roosting, but not for nesting. Section 10.2.7 requires the Applicants to provide reasonable assurances that any future phase of a project or project-related activities will not result in adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or water quality violations. The Applicants satisfied this requirement by releasing of FDOT ROW north and south of the Project. Cumulative Impacts An applicant must provide reasonable assurance that a regulated activity will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters within the same drainage basin as the regulated activity for which a permit is sought. Some of the proposed mitigation for the Project is out- of-basin. If an applicant proposes to mitigate impacts in another drainage basin, District rules require consideration of factors such as “connectivity of waters, hydrology, habitat range of affected species, and water quality” to determine whether there are unacceptable cumulative impacts. The Project is located in the eastern Palm Beach County Basin, which has approximately 21,000 acres of wetlands. About 89 percent of the wetlands in the basin are publicly-owned conservation lands, which means their wetland functions will continue into the future. The cumulative impact analysis was conservative, meaning that the actual impacts are likely to be fewer. Petitioner contends that Respondents’ cumulative impact analysis did not account for the unique nature of the Grassy Waters ecosystem as the only remaining low nutrient oligotrophic wetland in the region. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the historical wetland types in the Project area were not all like the open marsh found in the central and eastern portion of Grassy Waters. Respondents accounted for the loss of open water marsh that would be caused by the Project. On-Site Mitigation There would be 52.4 acres of on-site mitigation within a 160-foot-wide strip of land along the eastern limits of proposed construction. This area of the ROW would be managed by removing or treating the exotic vegetation, such as Brazilian Pepper and Maleleuca. Removing the exotic vegetation seed source would prevent further spread of these nuisance species into Grassy Waters. Where native habitats have been altered with ditches and berms, the land would be graded to create a slope from the limits of construction eastward to the edge of the ROW. The eastern elevation would be similar to the adjacent marsh or hydric pine areas of Grassy Waters. Then, native vegetation would be planted. The habitats enhanced, restored, or created would include freshwater marsh, hydric pine flatwoods and mixed forested wetlands, including cypress. The planting of mixed, forested species would provide sound and light buffering for snail kites and other species in Grassy Waters. Two wildlife passages would be created underneath the Project with fencing designed to direct wildlife to use the wildlife passages. Slats would be placed in the roadway fencing to prevent small animals from going through the fence and onto the roadway. The on-site mitigation was scored using UMAM and determined to result in functional gain. The UMAM analysis was conservative, meaning that the actual functional gain is likely to be greater. The City did not contest the UMAM scoring. Off-site Mitigation FDOT is applying mitigation credits from 210 acres at the Pine Glades Natural Area (“Pine Glades”) to offset impacts to 15.7 acres of herbaceous marsh and 26.78 acres of forested wetland impacts. Pine Glades is a regional off-site mitigation area located in the Loxahatchee River Basin and is owned and operated by Palm Beach County. Pine Glades consists of a mix of wet prairie, depression marshes, hydric pine flatwoods, and mesic flatwoods. The restoration work in Pine Glades has already been completed. Pines Glades implements a detailed management plan that provides regional ecological value. Robbins testified that Pine Glades has similar habitats to Grassy Waters. Pine Glades has periphyton, apple snails, snail kites, wood storks, and sand hill cranes. Pine Glades has some areas with oligotrophic conditions. Additional off-site mitigation to offset 52 acres of wetland impacts caused by the Project would be provided at the DuPuis Reserve (“DuPuis”). DuPuis is a regional off-site mitigation area located between the L-8 Canal and the C-44 Canal in western Palm Beach and Martin Counties, and is owned and operated by the District. DuPuis would provide mitigation with 34.71 acres of herbaceous wetlands and 43.8 acres of forested wetlands. DuPuis is appropriate to offset the impacts associated with the Project because it provides similar habitats with similar values of functions for similar wildlife. DuPuis implements a detailed management plan that provides regional ecological value. The City argues that there is little similarity between the Grassy Waters ecosystem and Pine Glades or DuPuis, so the mitigation there cannot offset the unique assemblage of plants and animals that would be lost in Grassy Waters. It is unnecessary for Pine Glades and DuPuis to be dominated by open water marshes like Grassy Waters. It is only necessary that they have some of these areas to offset Project impacts to open water marsh. Proposed snail kite mitigation would provide 52.5 more acres of snail kite habitat than would be directly impacted by the Project. The mitigation for snail kites will be located in FDOT ROW adjacent to the Project, south of the M-Canal, and north of Northlake Blvd. Erwin expressed concern about fragmentation of the ecosystems that would be caused by the Project. The areas that would be affected by the Project have already been fragmented by berms, ditches, and fences. Grassy Waters is surrounded by berms, a canal, and highways. The Project would cause fragmentation, like all roads. However, the fragmentation was reduced where practicable, and the City did not show that the roadway would cause the loss of any significant “greenway” now used by wildlife. Snail Kite Impacts Section 10.2.2(a) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that a proposed activity would not impact wetlands and other surface waters so as to reduce the abundance and diversity of listed species. Snail kites, wood storks, sandhill cranes, white ibises, and little blue herons are listed species that have been observed within the Project corridor. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, the UMAM process is designed to mitigate for wetland functional losses, not snail kite functional losses. However, the potential impact to any listed species warrants close attention to the issue of whether function-for-function wetland mitigation would be provided. There will be 11.5 acres of direct impacts to snail kite habitat within the footprint of the Project area. Dr. Welch believes secondary impacts to wetland functions associated with snail kites could extend 800 feet east of the ROW. Mitigation for snail kites would be located in the Rangeline corridor south of the M-Canal and north of Northlake Boulevard. Dr. Welch estimated there were about 64 acres of snail kite habitat in the Rangeline corridor similar to the 11.5 acres of habitat located in the Project footprint. Dr. Welch conceded that he has no evidence that snail kites currently use the Rangeline, but he believes the habitat is suitable and is appropriate mitigation. Petitioner claims there are studies of “similar birds” indicating that snail kites avoid highways due to noise. However, the studies were not of similar birds. More weight is given to Dr. Welch’s testimony that snail kites are not particularly sensitive to roadway noise. Dr. Welch stated that Pine Glades would likely have value for snail kites because it is near the Hungryland Wildlife Management Area, which has the same number of successful snail kite nests as Grassy Waters. The City contends that Pine Glades is too far away from Grassy Waters to mitigate Project impacts to snail kites. However, snail kites range long distances to forage; several hundred miles in a few days. Satellite telemetry of snail kites shows snail kites from Grassy Waters are using Pine Glades for feeding. Dr. Welch reviewed snail kite nesting data to determine whether roads deterred nesting and found that snail kites frequently nested within 500 feet of major roadways. Dr. Welch refuted the idea that Grassy Waters provided snail kite refuge during drought conditions, because Grassy Waters is also subject to drought conditions that adversely affect snail kites. There are conditions in the permit to limit potential impacts to snail kites during construction of the Project. If snail kite nesting is observed within 1,640 feet of construction, all Project construction must cease. Thereafter, monitoring of the nest and notification of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required. Construction cannot resume until that nest has been considered finished. FDOT would place a conservation easement over 82.6 acres in the FDOT ROW between Okeechobee Boulevard and the M-Canal, south of the Project area that is the subject of this proceeding. The conservation easement would maintain connectivity between the Pond Cypress Natural Area and Grassy Waters and ensure that no future southern extension of the roadway will be constructed. A conservation easement would be placed on the FDOT ROW between Northlake Boulevard and SR 710, an area of approximately 43.5 acres. Preserving this area protects a hydrologic connection between Loxahatchee Slough Natural Area and Grassy Waters. It also ensures no future northern extension of the roadway. A conservation easement would be placed on a portion of the FDOT ROW between SR 710 and Jupiter Farms, an area of 44.5 acres. This section of ROW is in the Loxahatchee Slough and the release of the ROW would be a direct benefit to Loxahatchee Slough. The preservation of these areas would benefit fishing and recreational values in the Pond Cypress Natural Area, Grassy Waters, and the Loxahatchee Slough Natural Area. These conservation areas did not receive UMAM credits to reduce the wetland acreage needed to offset wetland functional losses, but they were included in the mitigation credit for benefits to snail kites and other wildlife. Summary The preponderance of the evidence established that the proposed mitigation offsets the impacts to wetlands and other surface waters that would be caused by the Project and exceeds the requirements of District rules. Practicable Design Modifications District rules require an applicant to consider alternatives that would avoid or reduce wetland impacts. The City claims the Applicants failed to comply with this rule because FDOT selected a roadway corridor that was expected to have greater environmental impacts than some of the other three corridors that were being considered. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, this argument is misplaced. The District’s review of the Applicants’ measures to avoid or minimize wetland impacts was appropriately confined to Corridor 3, the corridor selected by FDOT where the Project is proposed. The Applicants reduced and eliminated impacts of the Project in several ways. For example, the footprint of the road was narrowed from six lanes to four lanes, wildlife underpasses were provided, retaining walls were used to narrow stormwater features, the median was reduced in size, and the design speed limit was reduced for the bridge at the M-Canal crossing. Under two circumstances, District rules allow an applicant to avoid the requirement to implement practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate wetland impacts, which are referred to as the “opt-out” provisions. Section 10.2.1.2, Volume I, of the Applicant’s Handbook (“A.H.”) provides: The ecological value of the functions provided by the area of wetland or other surface water to be adversely affected is low, based on a site specific analysis using the factors in section 10.2.2.3, below, and the proposed mitigation will provide greater long term ecological value than the area of wetland or other surface water to be adversely affected, or The applicant proposes mitigation that implements all or part of a plan that provides regional ecological value and that provides greater long term ecological value than the area of wetland or other surface water to be adversely affected. The District determined that the Applicants meet both tests. The preponderance of the evidence supports the District’s determination. The ecological value of the functions provided by the affected wetlands and surface is low and the proposed mitigation would provide greater long-term ecological value than the area being impacted. Pine Glades and DuPuis are part of a plan to restore the ecological value of Northern Palm Beach County and create an “ocean to lake” system of preserves and natural areas.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order approving Permit Number 50-05422-P on the terms and conditions set forth in the amended Staff Report, and the complete application for the Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2017.
The Issue This cause concerns a dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondents concerning whether a permit ("dredge and fill") and water-quality certification should be issued by the Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (hereinafter referred to as "Department" or "DER"), authorizing the construction of a private dock with terminal deck and platform, in conjunction with the construction of a 250-foot "privacy fence" in the adjacent salt marsh, and whether construction, installation and operation of the facility will violate State water-quality standards and the public-interest standards embodied in Section 403.918, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact LaRae Hays, the Respondent/applicant, owns real property to be used for residential purposes, which adjoins a salt marsh and tidal creek contiguous to the Nassau River in Duval County, Florida. The Respondent/applicant applied for a permit and water-quality certification so as to authorize the construction of a private dock with a terminal deck and "stepdown" platform. The applicant also seeks authority to construct a 250-foot by 8-foot wooden ??privacy fence", parallel to that dock. The structures are to be built on a tidal creek and within a salt marsh contiguous to the Nassau River. The application is opposed by the Petitioner, who is an adjoining property owner. The Petitioner opposes the application for the reasons referenced in the above Preliminary Statement. The Department is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating and permitting activities which may be sources of pollution, such as the instant project, which are constructed, operated or installed in waters of the State, as defined in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Title 17, Florida Administrative Code. The Department is charged, as pertinent hereto, with reviewing applications, such as the subject application, to insure that the water-quality standards and public-interest standards embodied in Section 403.918, Florida Statutes, as well as Chapters 17-3 and 17-312, Florida Administrative Code, are complied with before issuing a permit authorizing the construction of the proposed facility. Mr. Tyler was called as the first witness for the Department. The parties stipulated that the Department could put on its case first in the order of proof. Mr. Tyler was accepted as an expert witness in the field of the "impact of dredge and fill projects on the environment~?. It was thus established that the Respondent/applicant's project is proposed for a piece of property in the adjacent salt marsh on Black Hammock Island in Duval County, Florida. The Respondent/applicant proposes to construct a private dock, 184 feet by 4 feet, with a 12-foot by 12-foot terminal deck and a 12-foot by 5-foot "stepdown" platform. A portion of the dock is already constructed and is included in the permit sought. The deck is proposed to be surrounded on three sides with a six-foot-high lattice wall covered with a pitched roof. During the course of the proceeding, however, the Respondent/applicant conceded that she would abandon the proposal to construct the lattice walls, would rather leave the terminal deck and roofed area open so that the neighbors' view of the salt marsh and river would not be obstructed and that she would rather install blinds which can be raised or lowered for the roofed portion of the proposed terminal deck. The Respondent/applicant previously dredged and placed fill on a portion of the wetlands in question and dredged a drainage ditch along the perimeter of the wetlands and the Respondent/applicant1s property. The fill was for the purpose of creating a sort of "causeway" leading from the upland property owned by the Respondent/applicant to the landward extent of the already-existing dock. Pursuant to informal enforcement action by the Department, the Respondent/applicant agreed to, and has, removed that fill material and corrected, or is about to correct, the dredging activity done without permit in the drainage ditch in question. The proposed project is located in Class II waters, classified as "conditionally approved" for shellfish harvesting. Normally, under the provisions of Rule 17-312.080(7), Florida Administrative Code, a dredge and fill permit for the proposed project and its construction could not be authorized in such Class II shellfish harvesting waters. However, the Department has granted a variance from that rule so that the activity sought to be permitted can be authorized as a result of the instant permit application, by its notice of intent to grant the variance entered on June 5, 1990. That variance became embodied in a Final Order of the Department authorizing it, entered on July 31, 1990. No interested party responded to due and appropriate notice of the intent to grant the variance, hence, the Final Order approving it. The variance was accompanied by mandatory conditions involving the protection of historical or archaeological artifacts, the prohibition of more than two boats being moored at the dock; of any overboard discharges of trash, animal or human waste or fuel; against any non-water dependent structure such as gazebos or fish-cleaning stations, which must be located on the uplands and against boat shelters having enclosed sides. Additional conditions were that any dock over grass beds should be constructed as to allow for maximum light penetration and that water depth at the mooring area for the dock shall be sufficient to prevent bottom scouring by boat propellers. Additionally, in the notice of intent to grant document, the Department has required that in order for the permit at issue to be granted, in addition to the general conditions applicable to any such permit, the following specific conditions shall be observed by the Respondent/applicant during and after construction: Historical and archeological artifacts shall be reported to the Department, as well as the Bureau of Historic Preservation, Division of Archives History and Records; Prior to commencement of the work, the permittee shall provide written notification of commencement to the Department; turbidity control shall be utilized throughout the project to contain any turbidity generated; The waterward end of the dock shall be marked by a sufficient number of reflectors as to be visible from the water at night by reflected light; All work shall be done during periods of average or low water in order to minimize turbidity; All disturbed areas shall be re-vegetated with indigenous vegetation in order to prevent erosion or unstabilized material entering into State waters; and Finally, that the project shall comply with applicable State water- quality standards. The Respondent/applicant has agreed to these conditions. Moreover, the testimony of Mr. Tyler establishes that no water-quality violations of the standards contained in Chapter 17-312 and 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, will be occasioned by the construction or operation of this facility. The pilings necessary to perform the construction involved will be installed at periods of low or average tide, such that the installation area will not generate turbidity in the State waters involved at the site. The dock is so designed that maximum light penetration will occur so that deleterious shading of the marsh grasses involved at the site and under the footprint of the dock will not occur. Moreover, the dock and the proposed fence, for that matter, would have a beneficial effect on benthic species diversity by encouraging aquatic invertebrates to attach and form colonies on the posts and pilings where they enter State waters. It was also established, through the Department's evidence, as well as the testimony of the Respondent/applicant's witnesses, that there is a sufficient water depth in the creek located at the waterward end of the proposed dock and ~?stepdown?? platform, such that the small boats which would be able to navigate the creek, being of sufficient shallow draft, will not occasion propeller scouring or propeller-generated turbidity when operated at prevailing water depths for boats which will be moored at the end of the proposed facility. In summary, it has been demonstrated that no State water-quality standards will be violated by the installation and operation of the proposed facility, given the conditions which the Respondent/applicant and the Department have already agreed upon and the Respondent/applicant has accepted on the record in this case, including the condition concerning no gazebo-type structures located on the dock and no fish cleaning facilities or fueling equipment or facilities on the dock or platforms. Such conditions should be incorporated in any Final Order and permit resulting from this proceeding. In addition to the water-quality considerations discussed above, it must be determined whether reasonable assurances have been provided by the permit applicant that the proposed project will meet the "public interest" standards of Section 403.918(2)(a)1-7, Florida Statutes. In this regard, it has been demonstrated by the evidence and testimony adduced by the Respondent/applicant and the Department that the project will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others in the context of the various environmental concerns addressed and regulated by Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Title 17, Florida Administrative Code. The unrefuted testimony of expert witness, Tyler, establishes that the project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species or their habitats. The project will not adversely affect navigation, the flow of water, or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. Mr. Tyler's testimony establishes that the ecosystem in the vicinity of the project consists of a natural intertidal saltwater marsh, which is currently in excellent condition and has a high relative value of functions as a habitat and nursery area for marine and estuarine vertebrate and invertebrate species. The project will not adversely affect fishing or marine productivity in the area involved nor have an adverse effect on the current condition and relative functional value of the marsh area in terms of habitat for, and the conservation of, fish and wildlife and in terms of its value as a marine and estuarine habitat and the marsh system's function in protecting water quality. Although the project will not adversely affect fishing or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project, the proposed "privacy fence" has not been shown to be "not contrary to the public interest'1 in terms of adverse effect on recreational values??. The "privacy fence" will not pose any of the other adverse consequences in terms of the above-discussed seven (7) public- interest standards nor will it impose a detrimental impact on water quality, especially since it will be elevated approximately a foot above the surface of the soil in the marsh area, preventing any impediment to normal tidal flows and flushing. The fence will, however, impose a detrimental effect on the recreational value of the State waters involved in the subject marshland area by impeding the aesthetic qualities of the view of the marshland and river system for adjoining landowners, specifically, the Petitioner. The fence will clearly impede this "passive recreational value" and reasonable assurances that it will not do so have not been provided in the testimony and evidence of record. The desire of the Respondent/applicant to install the fence is certainly understandable in view of the hostile relations between the Respondent/applicant and the Petitioner, caused to a great degree by the Petitioner's persistence in installing and operating an overly-bright nighttime security light and, more particularly, because of the Petitioner's habit of constantly photographing, with a video camera, the Respondent/applicants or her invitees while they are using the present dock. Because the fence will impede the recreational value of the marshland in terms of the aesthetic nature of the view of the marsh of the Petitioner, the permit should not include authorization for installation of the fence. The relevant and more peripheral facts established in this record prove the wisdom of the words of the poet, Robert Frost, who wrote that "good fences make good neighbors". The parties' dispute concerning the use of the security light and video camera more properly sounds in the circuit court, however. A proceeding involving disputed environmental permitting issues cannot serve to resolve all the "life management" disputes between the parties. In summary, the unrefuted evidence of record demonstrates that, with the exception of the last above mentioned consideration concerning the proposed fence, that the water quality standards and the public interest standards embodied in Section 403.918(1) and (2), Florida Statutes, will not be violated by the proposed project if the conditions mentioned above and those provided for in the Department's Exhibit 3, which are incorporated in these findings of fact by reference, are imposed on any grant of a permit. A grant of the permit should also be conditioned upon periodic monitoring of the installation of the proposed project, which the Department has agreed in this record to do.
Recommendation Accordingly, in view of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation granting the subject dredge and fill permit and water quality certification sought by the applicants provided that grant of the subject permit should include the general and specific conditions incorporated in the Department's Exhibit 3, as well as the conditions found to be necessary in the above findings of fact. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: David Sangillo 15665 Shellcracker Road Jacksonville, FL 32226 LaRae Hays 1574 Menlo Avenue Jacksonville, FL 32218 William H. Congdon, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue Petitioner had filed Notice Of Violation And Orders For Corrective Action and Supplemental Notice Of Violation And Orders For Corrective Action related to the placement of fill material on property owned by the Respondents in Duval County, Florida. This action by the agency was in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, based upon the belief that this fill material was placed within the landward extent of waters of the state. Through this case, the Petitioner attempts to cause the removal of the fill and the restoration of the area in question to a natural state and requests the award of $350.00 in expenses for investigation of this matter. Respondents requested hearing on these allegations, asserting their right to place the fill. Respondents' posture is one of opposing the jurisdiction of the Petitioner to take action, in that the Respondents believe that the fill was not placed on property over which the Petitioner has any regulatory authority. WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE During the hearing, Petitioner called as witnesses Ken Deurling, Dar-Guam Cheng and Sydney Brinson. Nine exhibits were offered by the Petitioner and those exhibits were received as evidence. Respondents testified and presented Richard League as a witness. Respondents offered an exhibit marked as Exhibit A. That exhibit was not admitted.
Findings Of Fact Respondents own property in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, as recorded in Plat Book 12-74, 75 of the public/records of Duval County as Lots 23, 24 25, 26 and 27, Hyde Park Circle. The property which is the subject of this dispute is within those boundaries. This property is further depicted in Petitioner's Exhibit Number 9, which roughly describes then placement of fill in the area in question. The yellow cross-hatching on this exhibit represents fill material placed prior to June 1983. The red cross-hatching represents fill material that was not there in June 1983 but was in place by October 1984. The blue cross-hatching represents fill that was not there at the time of the placement of the fill material shown in the red cross-hatching but which was in place by May 1985. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit Number 3 is a series of photographs taken at various times as described on the face of that composite exhibit, indicating the types of materials which were used to fill the area in question, to include building materials, felled trees and fill dirt. Petitioner's Exhibit Number 7 is a composite exhibit constituted of aerial photographs indicating the appearance of the site as of January 5, 1981, and on February 10, 1985. Those photographs show the decrease in the over-story of trees on February 10, 1985, as contrasted with January 5, 1981. Petitioner's Exhibit Number 8 is constituted of maps which depict the connection of the Cedar River to the Ortega River to the St. Johns River, waters of the state. The property in question fronts Wills Branch, a further water body of the state which flows into the Cedar River. Wills Branch is shown on Petitioner's Exhibit Number 9 at the top of that drawing. Respondents' own additional lots which are shown in Petitioner's Exhibit Number 9 in the area on the right side of that exhibit which depicts a house and outbuildings. The lots where the house and outbuildings are found had also been filled prior to June 1983. That filling activity is not the subject of this dispute. Some filling had also been done in the eastern- most lot of the lots described as 23 through 27 in the immediately preceding paragraph, and the filling in that eastern-most lot in that grouping is not the subject of dispute. Therefore, it is not depicted in the colored cross-hatching found on Petitioner's Exhibit Number 9. At the time Respondents took up residence in the area adjacent to the questioned site, the road known as Hyde Park Circle, which fronts their property, and a golf course further upland from Wills Branch were already in place. In addition there was a water flow across the property in dispute through a flow-way and into Wills Branch. The flow-way is also part of state waters. At present that flow-way area is depicted in blue cross-hatching on Petitioner's Exhibit Number 9. In the past and at present this unnamed flow-way allowed for the flow pattern across the property in dispute and into Wills Branch. As briefly discussed, this water coming off the property in question would exit via Wills Branch, in turn into the Cedar River, the Ortega River and the St. Johns River. The subject areas in which fill was placed by the. Respondents included certain low-lying areas where water had. stood in the past, and the area depicted by yellow cross- hatching is an area which had been excavated by the City of Jacksonville,. Florida prior to the placement of fill. The fill has not been placed up to the furtherest reaches of the property as it abuts. Wills Branch. All told, approximately 1.4 acres have been filled by the Respondents, and that fill placement was made without benefit of any environmental permit(s) as provided by the Petitioner. The fill in question as shown in the yellow, red, and blue cross-hatching in Petitioner's Exhibit Number 9 was placed within the landward extent of Wills Branch and the unnamed flow- way and as such was placed in waters of the state. The determination of the landward extent of the state waters was. through the use of plant indicators, in this instance, the presence of Fraxinus carolinaina (water oak) and Nyssa sylvatica var, biflora (black gum), formerly referenced as Nyssa biflora, (swamp tupelo), as the dominant canopy species and by the presence of Osmunda regalis (royal fern) and Orontium acquaticum (golden club) as the dominant ground cover species in the filled area prior to and during fill placement. These species are listed in the "species list" related to wetland indicators, as found in Rules 17-4.02, Florida Administrative Code, as amended and renumbered to be Rule 17-4.022, Florida Administrative Code, in October 1984. The trees in the filled area are buttressed to a height of approximately half a meter and the soil in the filled area is hydric. This buttressing and the type of soil are indicators of a wetlands system. That type of soil tends to indicate that the filled area is subject to regular and periodic inundation by water. The testimony reveals that Wills Branch inundates the property on the occasion of high incidence of rainfall. Other sources of water for the site are provided from rainwater falling directly on the site and the pattern of water flow across the property caused by water coming onto the property from a location upland of the property. This is related to a lake located on the golf course on the other side of Hyde Park Circle. Normally any overflow conditions onto the subject fill. area occurs in the vicinity of the flow-way. Conditions must be more extreme for these off-site influences to discharge water onto the filled areas other than the flow-way. As of June 24, 1983, the filled area was approximately 2,700 square feet in dimension. At that time, the Petitioner advised the Respondents that the fill had been placed in violation of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and requested that the Respondents not place any additional fill. By October 3, 1984, Respondents had expanded the amount of fill to approximately 55,500 square feet and subsequently, on May 9, 1985, that amount of fill material approached 58,500 square feet of fill. A more complete description of the fill material indicates its constituents as being roofing materials, other forms of building materials, wood, insulation materials, dirt and household trash. The major component of the fill is roofing products. The difference in appearance in over-story shown in Petitioner's Exhibit Number 8 can be accounted for in that the vegetation has died as a result of the filling activities or the direct removal of that vegetation by the Respondents. The disposition of the fill material has caused and continues to cause water pollution and to lower the water quality in Wills Branch and the rivers downstream. Prior to the placement of the fill, the natural wetlands vegetation and soil served the purpose of absorbing and assimilating runoff from properties up- land of the site. This included cleansing insecticide and pesticide-laden runoff from the golf course area previously described. In placing the fill, the wetlands system has been destroyed, with its animal, plant and aquatic life components, and no longer provides wildlife habitat or acts as a source of food within the aquatic ecosystem or provides for flood storage. It is probable that some of the fill material, such as the roofing, will provide additional pollution through leaching. The presence of these materials may reasonably be expected to degrade and cause water pollution in Wills Branch and those major water systems connected to Wills Branch through this process. The previous factual findings demonstrate the propriety of the removal of the fill materials and the restoration of the site to its previous character within six months of the entry of the Final Order. The Petitioner has incurred costs of investigation in the amount of $350.00. Respondents needed a dredge and fill permit for the placement of the fill and proceeded to place further fill even after being told of the necessity to obtain a permit and have never sought a permit prior to the placement of any of the fill in question or after the fact.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that a dredge and fill permit be issued to Fairfield to fill 2.1 acres of wetlands and to create 2.1 acres of wetlands as mitigation, including the planting of Spartina to be maintained at an 80% survival rate for a period of five years and the provision of erosion control measures in and adjacent to Lake Avoca and St. Joseph's Sound. Respectfully submitted and entered this 14th day of February, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of Feburary, 1986. APPENDIX The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner and the Respondent Fairfield have been accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended, except as noted below: Petitioner page 3, 3rd full paragraph, Rejected; not supported last sentence: by competent substantial evidence. page 4, 1st paragraph: Rejected; contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. page 5, 1st full sentence: Accepted, but irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of any issue. pages 5 and 6, starting with Rejected; contrary to the 1st full paragraph: greater weight of the evidence. Respondent Fairfield page 4, 2nd full paragraph: Rejected; mere recitation of testimony and conclusions of law as opposed to factual findings. page 13, 1st paragraph: Rejected: irrelevant and immaterial. NOTE: Many of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner and the Respondent Fairfield constitute either recitations of testimony or legal conclusions. While these have not technically been rejected by the undersigned, they are not appropriate for the findings of fact section and are discussed in the conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Victoria Techinkel Secretary Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 Mary f. Smallwood General Counsel Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 William W. Deane, Esquire Hanley and Deane, P.A. 465 Second Avenue North P. O. Box 7473 St. Petersburg, FL 33734 Julia D. Cobb Deborah Detzoff Richard Tucker 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 Terry E. Lewis Steve Lewis Messer, Vickers, Caparello, French & Madsen P. O. Box 1876 Tallahassee, FL 32302 =============================================================== AGENCY FINAL ORDER =============================================================== STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CLEARWATER-UPPER PINELLAS COUNTY, Petitioner, v. DOAH CASE NO. 85-2755 DDT OGC FILE NO. 85-0822 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION and FAIRFIELD COMMUNITIES, INC., Respondents. /
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.
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 The issue in this case is whether, and under what conditions, the Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District (District), should grant Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 40-109-81153-1 authorizing Respondents, Jay and Linda Ginn (Ginns or Applicants), to construct a 136-unit single-family residential development with associated surface water management system.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Proposed Project Respondent, the District, is a special taxing district created by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, charged with the duty to prevent harm to the water resources of the District, and to administer and enforce the cited statutes and Florida Administrative Code Rules promulgated by the District under the authority of those statutes. (Unless otherwise stated, all Florida Statutes refer to the 2003 codification, and all Florida Administrative Code Rules refer to the current codification.) Respondents, Jay and Linda Ginn, are the owners of 47 acres of land located just west of the City of St. Augustine in St. Johns County, Florida. They are seeking ERP Permit No. 40- 109-81153-1 from the District to construct a 136-acre residential community and associated surface water management facilities on the property, to be known as Ravenswood Forest. The 47-acre project site is predominantly uplands, with a large (10.98-acre) wetland (Wetland 1) located on the eastern boundary and completely separating the uplands on the project site from adjacent properties to the east. While the central portion of the site is mostly a sand pine vegetated community, and the western portion is largely a pine flatwood community, there are six other smaller wetlands scattered within the upland areas lying west of Wetland 1, each numbered separately, 2 through 7. The site is currently undeveloped except for some cleared areas that are used as dirt road trails and a borrow pit or pond excavated in the central part of the site. This clearing and excavation was accomplished in the 1980’s for a project that was never completed. The project site is bordered on the north by Ravenswood Drive. On the east lies an existing residential development probably constructed in the 1970’s; to the west of the project site is a power-line easement; and to the south is a Time Warner cable facility. The land elevations at the project site are generally higher on the west and slope off to Wetland 1 on the east. Under current conditions, water generally drains from west to east into Wetland 1. Some water from the site, as well as some water entering the site from off-site properties to the west, flows into the existing pond or borrow pit located in the central portion of the site. Under extreme rainfall conditions, the borrow pit/pond can reach a stage that allows it to overflow and discharge into Wetland 1. Some off-site water also enters Wetland 1 at its north end. Water that originates from properties to the west of the Ravenswood site is conveyed through ditches to the roadside ditch that runs along the south side of Ravenswood Drive. Water in this roadside ditch ultimately enters Wetland 1 at its north end and flows south. Once in Wetland 1, water moves north to south. Water leaves the part of Wetland 1 that is located on the Ravenswood site and continues to flow south through ditches and culverts ultimately to the San Sebastian River. The Wetland 1 system is contiguous with wetlands located on property owned by Petitioner, Marilyn McMulkin. Mrs. McMulkin lives on Hibiscus Street to the east of the project. Mrs. McMulkin is disabled and enjoys observing wildlife from her home. Mrs. McMulkin has observed woodstorks, kites, deer, cardinals, birds, otter, indigo snake, flying squirrels, gopher tortoises, and (more recently) bald eagles on her property or around the neighborhood. Mrs. McMulkin informed the District of the presence of the bald eagle in 2002, but it was not discovered until November of 2003 that there was an eagle nest on the Ginns property in Wetland 1. Petitioner, Diane Mills, owns a house and property on Hibiscus Street to the east of the Project. The proposed stormwater discharge for the Project is to a wetland system that is contiguous with a wetland system that is in close proximity to Mrs. Mills' property. Petitioners' property is not located in a flood plain identified by FEMA. Nevertheless, Petitioners' property experiences flooding. At times, the flooding has come through Mrs. McMulkin's house and exited out the front door. The flood water, which can be 18-24 inches high in some places on Mrs. McMulkin's property, comes across her backyard, goes through or around her house, enters Hibiscus Street and turns north. The flooding started in the late 1980's and comes from the north and west, from the Ginns' property. The flooding started after Mr. Clyatt Powell, a previous co-owner of the Ravenswood property, started clearing and creating fill roads on the property using dirt excavated from the property. The flooding now occurs every year and has increased in duration and frequency; the flooding gets worse after the rain stops and hours pass. The evidence, including Petitioners' Exhibit 1, indicated that there are numerous other possible reasons, besides activities on the Ginns' property in the late 1980's, for the onset and exacerbation of Petitioners' flooding problems, including: failure to properly maintain existing drainage facilities; other development in the area; and failure to improve drainage facilities as development proceeds. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners have standing to object to ERP Permit No. 40-109-81153-1. Project Description As indicated, water that originates west of the project site currently enters the project site in two ways: (1) it moves across the western project boundary; and (2) it travels north to a ditch located on the south side of Ravenswood Drive and is conveyed to Wetland 1. The offsite water that moves across the western project boundary comes from a 16-acre area identified as Basin C (called Basin 4 post-development). The offsite water that moves north to the ditch and enters Wetland 1 comes from a 106.87-acre area identified as Basin D (called Basin 5 post-development). The project’s stormwater conveyance and treatment facilities include two connected wet detention ponds with an outfall to a wetland on the eastern portion of the project site. Stormwater from most of the project site will be conveyed to a pond, or detention area (DA) DA-1, which will be located near (and partially coinciding with the location of) the existing pond or borrow pit. The water elevation in DA-1 will be controlled at a level of 26 feet. Water from DA-1 will spill over through a control structure into a pipe that will convey the spill-over to DA-2. In addition to the spill-over from DA-1, offsite water that currently enters the project site across the western boundary will be conveyed to a wetland area at the southwest corner of the project site. At that point, some of the water will be taken into DA-2 through an inlet structure. The water elevation in DA-2 will be controlled at level 21. Water from DA-2 will be released by a control structure to a spreader swale in Wetland 1. While some of the water conveyed to the wetland area at the southwest corner of the project site will enter DA-2, as described, some will discharge over an irregular weir (a low area that holds water until it stages up and flows out) and move around the southern boundary of the project site and flow east into Wetland 1. Wetland 1 is a 10.98-acre onsite portion of a larger offsite wetland area extending to the south and east (which includes the wetlands on Mrs. McMulkin's property). For purposes of an Overall Watershed Study performed by the Ginns' engineering consultant, the combined onsite and offsite wetlands was designated Node 98 (pre-development) and Node 99 (post- development). From those areas, water drains south to ditches and culverts and eventually to the San Sebastian River. Best management practices will be used during project construction to address erosion and sediment control. Such measures will include silt fences around the construction site, hay bales in ditches and inlets, and maintenance of construction equipment to prevent release of pollutants, and may include staked sod on banks and turbidity barriers, if needed. In addition, the District's TSR imposed permit conditions that require erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented. The District's TSR also imposed a permit condition that requires District approval of a dewatering plan within 30 days of permit issuance and prior to construction. The Ginns intend to retain the dewatering from construction on the project site. Wetland Impacts Onsite Wetlands Wetland 1 is a 10.98-acre mixed-forested wetland system. Its overall condition is good. It has a variety of vegetative strata, a mature canopy, dense understory and groundcover, open water areas, and permanent water of varying levels over the course of a year. These attributes allow for species diversity. Although surrounded by development, the wetland is a good source for a variety of species to forage, breed, nest, and roost. In terms of vegetation, the wetland is not unique to northeast Florida, but in November 2003 an eagle nest was discovered in it. A second wetland area onsite (Wetland 2) is a 0.29-acre coniferous depression located near the western boundary of the site. The overall value of the functions provided by Wetland 2 is minimal or low. It has a fairly sparse pine canopy and scattered ferns provide for little refuge and nesting. Water does stand in it, but not for extended periods of time, which does not allow for breeding of most amphibians. The vegetation and inundation do not foster lower trophic animals. For that reason, although the semi-open canopy would be conducive to use by woodstorks, birds and small mammals do not forage there. A third wetland area onsite (Wetland 3) is a 0.28-acre mixed-forested wetland on the northern portion of the site. The quality of Wetland 3 is low. A 24-inch culvert drains the area into a 600-foot long drainage ditch along the south side of Ravenswood Drive leading to Wetland 1. As a result, its hydroperiod is reduced and, although it has a healthy pine and cypress canopy, it also has invasive Chinese tallow and upland species, along with some maple. The mature canopy and its proximity to Ravenswood Drive would allow for nesting, but no use of the wetland by listed species has been observed. In order to return Wetland 3 to being productive, its hydroperiod would have to be restored by eliminating the connection to the Ravenswood Drive ditch. A fourth wetland area onsite (Wetland 4) is a 0.01- acre portion of a mixed-forested wetland on the western boundary of the site that extends offsite to the west. Its value is poor because: a power line easement runs through it; it has been used as a trail road, so it is void of vegetation; and it is such a small fringe of an offsite wetland that it does not provide much habitat value. A fifth wetland area onsite (Wetland 5) is a 0.01-acre portion of the same offsite mixed-forested wetland that Wetland 4 is part of. Wetland 5 has a cleared trail road through its upland fringe. Wetland 5 has moderate value. It is vegetated except on its upland side (although its vegetation is not unique to northeast Florida), has a nice canopy, and provides fish and wildlife value (although not as much as the interior of the offsite wetland). A sixth wetland area onsite (Wetland 6) is a 0.28-acre wetland located in the western portion of the site. It is a depression with a coniferous-dominated canopy with some bays and a sparse understory of ferns and cord grass that is of moderate value overall. It does not connect with any other wetlands by standing or flowing water and is not unique. It has water in it sufficient to allow breeding, so there would be foraging in it. Although not discovered by the Ginns' consultants initially, a great blue heron has been observed utilizing the wetland. No listed species have been observed using it. Wetland 6 could be good gopher frog habitat due to its isolation near uplands and its intermittent inundation, limiting predation by fish. In addition, four gopher tortoise burrows have been identified in uplands on the project site, and gopher frogs use gopher tortoise burrows. The gopher frog is not a listed species; the gopher tortoise is listed by the State of Florida as a species of special concern but is not aquatic or wetland-dependent. Woodstorks are listed as endangered. Although no woodstorks were observed using Wetland 6, they rely on isolated wetlands drying down to concentrate fish and prey in the isolated wetlands. With its semi-open canopy, Wetland 6 could be used by woodstorks, which have a wingspan similar to great blue herons, which were seen using Wetland 6. However, Wetland would not provide a significant food source for wading birds such as woodstorks. The other surface water area onsite (Wetland 7) is the existing 0.97-acre pond or borrow pit in the southwest portion of the project site. The pond is man-made with a narrow littoral shelf dominated by torpedo grass; levels appears to fluctuate as groundwater does; and it is not unique. It connects to Wetland 1 during seasonal high water. It has some fish, but the steep slope to its littoral shelf minimizes the shelf's value for fish, tadpoles, and larvae stage for amphibians because fish can forage easily on the shelf. The Ginns propose to fill Wetlands 2, 3, 4, and 6; to not impact Wetland 5; and to fill a 0.45-acre portion of Wetland and dredge the remaining part into DA-1. Also, 0.18 acre of Wetland 1 (0.03 acre is offsite) will be temporarily disturbed during installation of the utility lines to provide service to the project. Individually and cumulatively, the wetlands that are less than 0.5-acre--Wetlands 3, 6, 2, 4, and 5--are low quality and not more than minimal value to fish and wildlife except for Wetland 5, because it is a viable part of an offsite wetland with value. While the Ginns have sought a permit to fill Wetland 4, they actually do not intend to fill it. Instead, they will simply treat the wetland as filled for the purpose of avoiding a County requirement of providing a wetland buffer and setback, which would inhibit the development of three lots. Offsite Wetlands The proposed project would not be expected to have an impact on offsite wetlands. Neither DA-1 nor DA-2, especially with the special conditions imposed by the District, will draw down offsite wetlands. The seasonal high water (SHW) table in the area of DA- 1 is estimated at elevation 26 to 29. With a SHW table of 26, DA-1 will not influence groundwater. Even with a SHW table of 29, DA-1 will not influence the groundwater beyond the project's western boundary. DA-1 will not adversely affect offsite wetlands. A MODFLOW model was run to demonstrate the influence of DA-1 on nearby wetlands assuming that DA-1 would be controlled at elevation 21, that the groundwater elevation was 29, and that no cutoff wall or liner would be present. The model results demonstrated that the influence of DA-1 on groundwater would barely extend offsite. The current proposed elevation for DA-1 is 26, which is higher than the elevation used in the model and which would result in less influence on groundwater. The seasonal high water table in the area of DA-2 is 28.5 to 29.5. A cutoff wall is proposed to be installed around the western portion of DA-2 to prevent it from drawing down the water levels in the adjacent wetlands such that the wetlands would be adversely affected. The vertical cutoff wall will be constructed of clay and will extend from the land surface down to an existing horizontal layer of relatively impermeable soil called hardpan. The cutoff wall tied into the hardpan would act as a barrier to vertical and horizontal groundwater flow, essentially severing the flow. A MODFLOW model demonstrated that DA-2 with the cutoff wall will not draw down the adjacent wetlands. The blow counts shown on the boring logs and the permeability rates of soils at the proposed location of DA-2 indicate the presence of hardpan. The hardpan is present in the area of DA-2 at approximately 10 to 15 feet below the land surface. The thickness of the hardpan layer is at least 5 feet. The Ginns measured the permeability of hardpan in various locations on the project site. The cutoff wall design is based on tying into a hardpan layer with a permeability of 0.052 feet per day. Because permeability may vary across the project site, the District recommended a permit condition that would require a professional engineer to test for the presence and permeability of the hardpan along the length of the cutoff wall. If the hardpan is not continuous, or if its permeability is higher than 0.052 feet per day, then a liner will be required to be installed instead of a cutoff wall. The liner would be installed under the western third of DA-2, west of a north-south line connecting the easterly ends of the cutoff wall. (The location of the liner is indicated in yellow on Applicants' Exhibit 5B, sheet 8, and is described in District Exhibit 10.) The liner would be 2 feet thick and constructed of clay with a permeability of no more than 1 x 10-6 centimeters per second. A liner on a portion of the bottom of pond DA-2 will horizontally sever a portion of the pond bottom from the groundwater to negate the influence of DA-2 on groundwater in the area. A clay liner would function to prevent adverse drawdown impacts to adjacent wetlands. The project, with either a cutoff wall or a clay liner, will not result in a drawdown of the groundwater table such that adjacent wetlands would be adversely affected. Reduction and Elimination of Impacts The Ginns evaluated practicable design alternatives for eliminating the temporary impact to 0.18-acre of Wetland 1. The analysis indicated that routing the proposed utility services around the project site was possible but would require a lift station that would cost approximately $80,000 to $100,000. The impact avoided is a temporary impact; it is likely that the area to be impacted can be successfully reestablished and restored; and preservation of Wetland 1 is proposed to address lag-time for reestablishment. It was determined by the Ginns and District staff that the costs of avoidance outweigh the environmental benefits of avoidance. Petitioners put on evidence to question the validity of the Wetland 1 reduction/elimination analysis. First, Mr. Mills, who has experience installing sewer/water pipes, testified to his belief that a lift station would cost only approximately $50,000 to $60,000. He also pointed out that using a lift station and forced main method would make it approximately a third less expensive per linear foot to install the pipe line itself. This is because a gravity sewer, which would be required if a lift station and forced main is not used, must be laid at precise grades, making it is more difficult and costly to lay. However, Mr. Mills acknowledged that, due to the relatively narrow width of the right-of-way along Ravenswood Drive, it would be necessary to obtain a waiver of the usual requirement to separate the sewer and water lines by at least 10 feet. He thought that a five-foot separation waiver would be possible for his proposed alternative route if the "horizontal" separation was at least 18 inches. (It is not clear what Mr. Mills meant by "horizontal.") In addition, he did not analyze how the per-linear-foot cost savings from use of the lift station and forced main sewer would compare to the additional cost of the lift station, even if it is just $50,000 to $60,000, as he thinks. However, it would appear that his proposed alternative route is approximately three times as long as the route proposed by the Ginns, so that the total cost of laying the sewer pipeline itself would be approximately equal under either proposal. Mr. Mills's testimony also suggested that the Ginns did not account for the possible disturbance to the Ravenswood eagles if an emergency repair to the water/sewer is necessary during nesting season. While this is a possibility, it is speculative. There is no reason to think such emergency repairs will be necessary, at least during the approximately 20-year life expectancy of the water/sewer line. Practicable design modifications to avoid filling Wetland 4 also were evaluated. Not filling Wetland 4 would trigger St. Johns County wetland setback requirements that would eliminate three building lots, at a cost of $4,684 per lot. Meanwhile, the impacted wetland is small and of poor quality, and the filling of Wetland 4 can be offset by proposed mitigation. As a result, the costs of avoidance outweigh the environmental benefits of avoidance. Relying on ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1 the Ginns did not perform reduction/elimination analyses for Wetlands 2 and 6, and the District did not require them. As explained in testimony, the District interprets ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.1 to require a reduction/elimination analysis only when a project will result in adverse impacts such that it does not meet the requirements of ERP-A.H. 12.2.2 through 12.2.3.7 and 12.2.5 through 12.3.8. But ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1 does not require compliance with those sections for regulated activities in isolated wetlands less than one-half acre in size except in circumstances not applicable to this case: if they are used by threatened or endangered species; if they are located in an area of critical state concern; if they are connected at seasonal high water level to other wetlands; and if they are "more than minimal value," singularly or cumulatively, to fish and wildlife. See ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1(a) through (d). Under the District's interpretation of ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.1, since ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1 does not require compliance with the very sections that determine whether a reduction/elimination analysis is necessary under ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.1, such an analysis is not required for Wetlands 2 and 6. Relying on ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.2, a., the Ginns did not perform reduction/elimination analyses for Wetlands 3 and 7, and the District did not require them, because the functions provided by Wetlands 3 and 7 are "low" and the proposed mitigation to offset the impacts to these wetlands provides greater long-term value. Petitioners' environmental expert opined that an reduction/elimination analysis should have been performed for all of the wetlands on the project site, even if isolated and less than half an acre size, because all of the wetlands on the project site have ecological value. For example, small and isolated wetlands can be have value for amphibians, including the gopher frog. But his position does not square with the ERP- A.H., as reasonably interpreted by the District. Specifically, the tests are "more than minimal value" under ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1(d) and "low value" under ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.2, a. Secondary Impacts The impacts to the wetlands and other surface waters are not expected to result in adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, including endangered or threatened listed species or their habitats. In accordance with ERP-A.H. 12.2.7(a), the design incorporates upland preserved buffers with minimum widths of 15 feet and an average width of 25 feet around the wetlands that will not be impacted. Sediment and erosion control measures will assure that the construction will not have an adverse secondary impact on water quality. The proposed development will be served by central water and sewer provided by the City of St. Augustine, eliminating a potential for secondary impacts to water quality from residential septic tanks or septic drainfields. In order to provide additional measures to avoid secondary impacts to Wetland 1, which is the location of the bald eagles’ nest, the Applicants proposed additional protections in a Bald Eagle Management Plan (BEMP) (App. Ex. 14). Under the terms of the BEMP, all land clearing, infrastructure installation, and exterior construction on homes located within in the primary zone (a distance within 750 feet of the nest tree) is restricted to the non-nesting season (generally May 15 through September 30). In the secondary zone (area between 750 feet and 1500 feet from the nest tree), exterior construction, infrastructure installation, and land clearing may take place during the nesting season with appropriate monitoring as described in the BEMP. Proposed Mitigation The Ginns have proposed mitigation for the purpose of offsetting adverse impacts to wetland functions. They have proposed to provide mitigation for: the 0.18-acre temporary impact to Wetland 1 during installation of a water/sewer line extending from existing City of St. Augustine service to the east (at Theodore Street); the impacts to Wetlands 3, 4 and 7; and the secondary impacts to the offsite portion of Wetland 4. The Ginns propose to grade the 0.18-acre temporary impact area in Wetland 1 to pre-construction elevations, plant 72 trees, and monitor annually for 5 years to document success. Although the easement is 30 feet in width, work will be confined to 20 feet where vegetation will be cleared, the top 1 foot of soil removed and stored for replacing, the trench excavated, the utility lines installed, the trench refilled, the top foot replaced, the area replanted with native vegetation, and re- vegetation monitored. To facilitate success, the historic water regime and historic seed source will give the re-vegetation effort a jump-start. The Ginns propose to restore and enhance a 0.12-acre portion of Wetland 1 that has been degraded by a trail road. They will grade the area to match the elevations of adjacent wetland, plant 48 trees, and monitor annually for 5 years to document success. This is proposed to offset the impacts to Wetland 4. The proposed grading, replanting, and monitoring will allow the area to be enhanced causing an environmental benefit. The Ginns propose to preserve 10.58 acres of wetlands and 3.99 acres of uplands in Wetland 1, 1 acre of upland buffers adjacent to Wetlands 1 and 5, and the 0.01 acre wetland in Wetland 5. The upland buffer will be a minimum of 15 feet wide with an average of 25 feet wide for Wetland 1 and 25 feet wide for Wetland 5. A conservation easement will be conveyed to the District to preserve Wetlands 1 and 5, the upland buffers, and the wetland restoration and enhancement areas. The preservation of wetlands provides mitigation value because it provides perpetual protection by ensuring that development will not occur in those areas, as well as preventing activities that are unregulated from occurring there. This will allow the conserved lands to mature and provide more forage and habitat for the wildlife that would utilize those areas. Mitigation for Wetlands 2 and 6 was not provided because they are isolated wetlands less than 0.5-acre in size that are not used by threatened or endangered species; are not located in an area of critical state concern; are not connected at seasonal high water level to other wetlands; and are not more than minimal value, singularly or cumulatively, to fish and wildlife. As previously referenced in the explanation of why no reduction/elimination analysis was required for these wetlands, ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1(d) does not require compliance with under ERP- A.H. 12.3 through 12.3.8 (mitigation requirements) for regulated activities in isolated wetlands less than one-half acre in size except in circumstances found not to be present in this case. See Finding 44, supra. The cost of the proposed mitigation will be approximately $15,000. Operation and Maintenance A non-profit corporation that is a homeowners association (HOA) will be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the surface water management system. An HOA is a typical operation and maintenance entity for a subdivision and is an acceptable entity under District rules. See ERP-A.H. 7.1.1(e) and 7.1.2; Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C- 42.027(3) and (4). The Articles of Incorporation for the HOA and the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions contain the language required by District rules. Water Quantity To address water quantity criteria, the Applicants' engineers ran a model (AdICPR, Version 1.4) to compare the peak rate discharge from the project in the pre-project state versus the peak rate discharge after the project is put in place. The pre-project data input into the model were defined by those conditions that existed in 1985 or 1986, prior to the partial work that was conducted, but not completed, on the site in the late 1980's. The project’s 1985/1986 site condition included a feature called Depression A that attenuated some onsite as well as offsite stormwater. Because of work that was done on the project site after 1985/1986 (i.e., the excavation of the borrow pit and road-clearing activities in the late 1980's), the peak rate of discharge for the 1985/1986 project site condition was lower than the peak rate of discharge for today’s project site condition. (Flooding at Mrs. McMulkin's house began after the work was performed on the project site in the late 1980's.) Because this partial work conducted in the late 1980's increased peak rate discharge from the site, by taking the pre-project conditions back to the time prior to that work, the peak rate of discharge in the 1985-86 pre-project condition was lower than it would be under today's conditions. The model results indicated that for the 25-year, 24- hour storm event, the pre-project peak rate discharge is 61.44 cubic feet per second (cfs). The post-project peak rate discharge is 28.16 cfs. Because the completed project reduces the pre-project peak rate discharges, the project will not cause any adverse flooding impacts off the property downstream. A similar analysis of the peak rate discharges under pre-project conditions that exist today (rather than in 1986) was compared to peak rate discharges for the post-project conditions. This analysis also showed post-project peak rate discharges to be less than the peak rate discharges from the site using today’s conditions as pre-project conditions. As further support to demonstrate that the project would not cause additional flooding downstream, a second modeling analysis was conducted, which is referred to as the Ravenswood Overall Watershed Model (OWM). The Applicants' engineer identified water flowing into the system from the entire watershed basin, including the project site under both the pre- and post-project conditions. The water regime was evaluated to determine what effect the proposed project will have on the overall peak rate discharges, the overall staging, and the duration of the staging within the basin that ultimately receives the water from the overall watershed. This receiving basin area was defined as the "wetland node" (Node 98 pre- project, and Node 99 post-project). As previously stated, the area within this "wetland node" includes more than just the portion of Wetland 1 that is located on the Ravenswood site. It also includes the areas to the south and east of the on-site Wetland 1 (including properties owned by the Petitioners) and extends down to an east-west ditch located just north of Josiah Street. The project’s surface water management system will not discharge to a landlocked basin. The project is not located in a floodway or floodplain. The project is not located downstream of a point on a watercourse where the drainage is five square miles or more. The project is impounding water only for temporary storage purposes. Based on testimony from their experts, Petitioners contend that reasonable assurances have not been given as to water quantity criteria due to various alleged problems regarding the modeling performed by the Ginns' engineer. Tailwater Elevations First, they raise what they call "the tailwater problem." According to Petitioners, the Ginns' modeling was flawed because it did not use a 19.27-foot SHW elevation in Wetland 1 as the tailwater elevation. The 19.27-foot SHW was identified by the Ginns' biologist in the Wetland 1 near the location of the proposed utility line crossing the wetland and was used as the pre-development tailwater in the analysis of the project site. The post-development tailwater condition was different because constructing the project would change the discharge point, and "tailwater" refers to the water elevation at the final discharge of the stormwater management system. (SW- A.H., Section 9.7) The post-development tailwater was 21 feet, which reflects the elevation of the top of the spreader swale that will be constructed, and it rose to 21.3 feet at peak flow over that berm. For the OWM, the final discharge point of the system being modeled was the east-west ditch located just north of Josiah Street, where the tailwater elevation was approximately 18.1 feet, not the 19.27 feet SHW mark to the north in Wetland 1. The tailwater condition used in the modeling was correct. Petitioners also mention in their PRO that "the Applicants' analysis shows that, at certain times after the 25 year, 24 hour storm event, in the post development state, Wetland 1 will have higher staging than in the predevelopment state." But those stages are after peak flows have occurred and are below flood stages. This is not an expected result of post- development peak-flow attenuation. Watershed Criticism The second major criticism Petitioners level at the Applicants' modeling is that parts of the applicable watershed basins were omitted. These include basins to the west of the project site, as well as basins to the north of the site, which Petitioners lumped into the so-called "tailwater problem." Petitioners sought to show that the basins identified by the Ginns as draining onto the project site from the west were undersized, thus underestimating the amount of offsite water flowing onto the project site. With respect to Basin C, Petitioners' witness testified that the basin should be 60 acres instead of 30 acres in size, and that consequently more water would flow into pond DA-2 and thus reduce the residence time of the permanent pool volume. In fact, Basin C is 16 acres in size, not 30 acres. The water from Basin C moves onto the project site over the western project boundary. A portion of the water from Basin C will be directed to pond DA-2 through an inlet structure, and the rest will move over an irregular weir and around the project site. With respect to Basin D, Petitioners' witness testified that the basin should encompass an additional 20 acres to the west and north. West of Basin D, there are ditches routing water flow away from the watershed, so it is unclear how water from an additional 20 acres would enter the watershed. The western boundary of the OWM is consistent with the western boundaries delineated in two studies performed for St. Johns County. Petitioners' witness testified that all of the water from the western offsite basins currently travels across the project site's western boundary, and that in post-development all of that water will enter pond DA-2 through the inlet structure. In fact, currently only the water from Basin C flows across the project site's western boundary. Post-development, only a portion of water from Basin C will enter pond DA-2. Currently and post-development, the water in Basin D travels north to a ditch south of Ravenswood Drive and discharges into Wetland 1. Petitioners also sought to show that a 50-acre area north of the project site should have been included in the OWM. Petitioners' witness testified that there is a "strong possibility" that the northern area drains into the project site by means of overtopping Ravenswood Drive. The witness' estimate of 50 acres was based on review of topographical maps; the witness has not seen water flowing over Ravenswood Drive. The Ginns' engineer testified that the area north of Ravenswood Drive does not enter the project site, based on his review of two reports prepared by different engineering firms for St. Johns County, conversations with one of those engineering firms, conversations with the St. Johns County engineer, reviews of aerials and contour maps, and site observations. Based on site observations, the area north of the project site drains north and then east. One report prepared for St. Johns County did not include the northern area in the watershed, and the other report included an area to the north consisting of 12 acres. The Ginns' engineer added the 12-acre area to the OWM and assumed the existence of an unobstructed culvert through which this additional water could enter Wetland 1, but the model results showed no effect of the project on stages or duration in the wetland. Even if a 50-acre area were included in the OWM, the result would be an increase in both pre-development and post- development peak rates of discharge. So long as the post- development peak rate of discharge is lower than the pre- development peak rate of discharge, then the conveyance system downstream will experience a rate of water flow that is the same or lower than before the project, and the project will not cause adverse flooding impacts offsite. Petitioners' witness did not have any documents to support his version of the delineations of Basins C and D and the area north of Ravenswood Drive. Time of Concentration Time of concentration (TC) is the time that it takes a drop of water to travel from the hydraulically most distant point in a watershed. Petitioners sought to show that the TC used for Basin C was incorrect. Part of Petitioners' rationale is related to their criticism of the watersheds used in the Ginns' modeling. Petitioners' witness testified that the TC was too low because the distance traveled in Basin C should be longer because Basin C should be larger. The appropriateness of the Basin C delineation already has been addressed. See Finding 71, supra. Petitioners' witness also testified that the TC used for the post-development analysis was too high because water will travel faster after development. However, the project will not develop Basins C and D, and thus using the same TC in pre- development and post-development is appropriate. The project will develop Basins A and B (called Basins 1, 2, and 3 post- development), and the post-development TC for those basins were, in fact, lower than those used in the pre-development analysis. Groundwater Infiltration in DA-2 One witness for Petitioners opined that groundwater would move up through the bottom of DA-2 as a result of upwelling (also referred to as infiltration or seepage), such that 1,941 gallons per day (gpd) would enter DA-2. That witness agreed that if a liner were installed in a portion of DA-2, the liner would reduce upwelling in a portion of the pond. Another witness for Petitioners opined that 200 gpd of groundwater would enter the eastern part and 20,000 gpd would enter the western part of DA-2. Although that witness stated that upwelling of 200 gpd is not a significant input and that upwelling of 20,000 gpd is a significant input, he had not performed calculations to determine the significance. Even if more than 20,000 gpd of groundwater entered DA-2, DA-2 will provide sufficient permanent pool residence time without any change to the currently designed permanent pool size or the orifice size. Although part of one system, even if DA-2 is considered separate from DA-1, DA-2 is designed to provide an additional permanent pool volume of 6.57 acre-feet (in addition to the 20.5 acre/feet provided by DA-1). This 6.57 acre-feet provided by DA-2, is more than the 4.889 acre-feet of permanent pool volume that would be necessary to achieve a 21-day residence time for the 24+ acres that discharge directly into DA-2, as well as background seepage into DA-2 at a rate of 0.0403 cfs, which is more upwelling than estimated by Petitioners' two witnesses. There is adequate permanent pool volume in DA-2 to accommodate the entire flow from Basin C and for water entering through the pond bottom and pond sides and provide at least 21 days of residence time. Water Quality Criteria Presumptive Water Quality The stormwater system proposed by the Ginns is designed in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rules 40C-42.024, 40C-42.025, and 40C-42.026(4). Wet detention ponds must be designed for a permanent pool residence time of 14 days with a littoral zone, or for a residence time of 21 days without a littoral zone, which is the case for this project. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C-42.026(4)(c) and (d). DA-1 and DA-2 contain sufficient permanent pool volume to provide a residence time of 31.5 days, which is the amount of time required for projects that discharge to Class II Outstanding Florida Waters, even though the receiving waterbody for this project is classified as Class III Waters. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C-42.026(4)(k)1. Best management practices will be used during project construction to address erosion and sediment control. Such measures will include silt fences around the construction site, hay bales in ditches and inlets, and maintenance of construction equipment to prevent release of pollutants, and may include staked sod on banks and turbidity barriers if needed. In addition, the District proposed permit conditions that require erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented. (Dist. Ex. 1, pp. 8-9, #4; Dist. Ex. 2, p. 1, ##3, 4, and 5, and p. 6, #10). ERP/MSSW/Stormwater Special Conditions incorporated into the proposed permit require that all wetland areas or water bodies outside the specific limits of construction must be protected from erosion, siltation, scouring or excess turbidity, and dewatering. (Dist. Ex. 2). The District also proposed a permit condition that requires District approval of a dewatering plan for construction, including DA-1 and DA-2, within 30 days of permit issuance and prior to construction. The Ginns intend to retain the dewatering from construction on the project site. As previously described, Petitioners' engineering witness sought to show that DA-2 will not provide the required permanent pool residence time because Basin C should be 60 acres in size. Petitioners' environmental witness also expressed concern about the capacity of the ponds to provide the water quality treatment required to meet the presumptive water quality criteria in the rules, but those concerns were based on information he obtained from Petitioners' engineering witness. Those issues already have been addressed. See Findings 77-78, supra. Groundwater Contamination Besides those issues, Petitioners raised the issue that groundwater contamination from a former landfill nearby and from some onsite sludge and trash disposal could be drawn into the proposed stormwater management system and cause water quality violations in the receiving waters. If groundwater is contaminated, the surface water management system could allow groundwater to become surface water in proposed DA-1. St. Johns County operated a landfill from the mid-1950s to 1977 in an area northwest of the project site. The landfill accepted household and industrial waste, which was buried in groundwater, which in turn could greatly enhance the creation of leachate and impacted water. Groundwater flows from west to east in the vicinity of the landfill and the project site but there was conflicting evidence as to a minor portion of the property. The Ginns' witness testified that if the landfill extended far enough south, a small part of the project site could be downgradient from the landfill. But there was no evidence that the landfill extended that far south. Petitioners' witness testified that the groundwater flow varies on the south side of the landfill so that groundwater might flow southeast toward the site. Even if Petitioners' witness is correct, the surface water management system was designed, as Petitioners' other witness agreed, so that DA-1 would have minimal influence on groundwater near the pond. In 1989, sewage sludge and garbage were placed in a pit in the central part of the project site, north of the existing pond, which also is the area for proposed DA-1; and at various times refuse--including a couple of batteries, a few sealed buckets, and concrete--has been placed on the surface of the site. In 1989, to determine the amount of sewage and garbage on the project site, the St. Johns County Health Department chose several locations evidencing recent excavation south of Ravenswood Drive, had the areas re-excavated, and found one bag of garbage and debris such as tree stumps and palmettos. In 2001, an empty 55-gallon drum was on the site; there was no evidence what it once contained or what it contained when deposited onsite, if anything. In addition, trespassers dumped solid waste on the property from time to time. Petitioners' witness searched the site with a magnetometer and found nothing significant. On the same day, another of Petitioners’ witnesses sampled with an auger but the auger did not bore for core or any other type sample; it merely measured groundwater level. In 1985, 1999, and 2000, groundwater offsite of the project near the landfill was sampled at various times and places by various consultants to determine whether groundwater was being contaminated by the landfill. The groundwater sampling did not detect any violations of water quality standards. Consultants for the Ginns twice sampled groundwater beneath the project site and also modeled contaminant migration. The first time, in 2001, they used three wells to sample the site in the northwest for potential impacts to the property from the landfill. The second time, they sampled the site through cluster wells in the northwest, middle, and south. (Each cluster well samples in a shallow and in a deeper location.) The well locations were closest to the offsite landfill and within an area where refuse may have been buried in the north- central part of the site. Due to natural processes since 1989, no sewage sludge deposited onsite then would be expected to remain on the surface or be found in the groundwater. The evidence was that the sewage sludge and garbage were excavated. Although samples taken near the center of the property contained substances that are water quality parameters, they were not found in sufficient concentration to be water quality violations. There is an iron stain in the sand north of the existing pond in the area where pond DA-1 is to be located. Based on dissolved oxygen levels in the groundwater, Petitioners' witness suggested that the stain is due to buried sewage, but the oxygen levels are not in violation of water quality standards and, while toward the low end of not being a violation, the levels could be due to natural causes. No evidence was presented establishing that the presence of the iron stain will lead to a violation of water quality standards. Petitioners' witness, Mr. Boyes, testified that iron was a health concern. But iron itself is a secondary drinking water standard, which is not a health-based standard but pertains to odor and appearance of drinking water. See § 403.852(12) and (13), Fla. Stat. Petitioners argued that the Phase I study was defective because historical activity on the project site was not adequately addressed. But the Phase I study was only part of the evidence considered during this de novo hearing. Following up on the Phase I study, the 2001 sampling analyzed for 68 volatile organics and 72 semi-volatile organics, which would have picked up solvents, some pesticides, petroleum hydrocarbons, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons--the full range of semi-volatile and volatile organics. The sampling in August 2003 occurred because some of the semi-volatile parameters sampled earlier needed to be more precisely measured, and it was a much broader analysis that included 63 semi-volatiles, 73 volatile organic compounds, 23 polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, 25 organic phosphate pesticides, 13 chlorinated herbicides, 13 metals, and ammonia and phosphorus. The parameters for which sampling and analyses were done included parameters that were representative of contaminants in landfills that would have now spread to the project site. They also would have detected any contamination due to historical activity on the project site. Yet groundwater testing demonstrated that existing groundwater at the project site meets state water quality standards. Based on the lack of contaminants found in these samples taken from groundwater at the project site 50 years after the landfill began operation, the logical conclusion is that either groundwater does not flow from the landfill toward the project site or that the groundwater moving away from the landfill is not contaminated. Groundwater that may enter the stormwater ponds will not contain contaminants that will exceed surface water quality standards or groundwater quality standards. Taken together, the evidence was adequate to give reasonable assurances that groundwater entering the stormwater ponds will not contain contaminants that exceed surface water quality standards or groundwater quality standards and that water quality violations would not occur from contaminated water groundwater drawn into the proposed stormwater management system, whether from the old landfill or from onsite waste disposal. The greater weight of the evidence was that there are no violations of water quality standards in groundwater beneath the project site and that nothing has happened on the site that would cause violations to occur in the future. Contrary to Petitioners' suggestion, a permit condition requiring continued monitoring for onsite contamination is not warranted. J. Fish and Wildlife Except for the bald eagle nest, all issues regarding fish and wildlife, listed species, and their habitat as they relate to ERP-A.H. 12.2.2 through 12.2.2.4 already have been addressed. When the Ginns were made aware in November 2003 that there was an eagle nest in Wetland 1, they retained the services of Tony Steffer, an eagle expert with over 25 years of experience working specifically with eagles and eagle management issues, including extensive hands-on experience with eagles and the conduct of field studies, aerial surveys, and behavioral observations as well as numerous research projects on the bald eagle. Mr. Steffer visited the Ravenswood site on numerous occasions since the discovery of the nest, made observations, and was integral in the drafting of the Ravenswood BEMP. It is Mr. Steffer’s opinion that the proposed project, with the implementation of the BEMP, will not adversely affect the eagles. This opinion was based on Mr. Steffer's extensive knowledge and experience with eagle behavior and human interactions. In addition, Mr. Steffer considered the physical characteristics of the Ravenswood site and the nest tree, the dense vegetation in Wetland 1 surrounding the nest site, and the existing surrounding land uses, including the existing residential community that lies a distance of about 310 feet from the nest site, the existing roadways and associated traffic, and the school (with attendant playground noise) that is to north of the site. In Mr. Steffer's opinion, the eagles are deriving their security from the buffering effects provided by the surrounding wetland. He observed that the nesting and incubating eagles were not disturbed when he set up his scope at about 300-320 feet from the tree. The BEMP requires that Wetland 1, and the upland islands located within it, be preserved and limits the work associated with the water/sewer line to the non-nesting season. With the BEMP implemented, Mr. Steffer expressed confidence that the Ravenswood eagles would be able to tolerate the proposed activities allowed under the BEMP. The Ravenswood project plans and the BEMP were reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The USFWS analyzed information in their files relating to projects which proposed activities within the primary zone of an eagle nest and reported abandoned nests. None of the reported abandoned nests could be attributed to human activities in and around the nest tree. Based on the project plans, the terms of the BEMP, and this analysis, the USFWS concluded that the Ravenswood project "is not likely to adversely affect" the bald eagles at the Ravenswood site. According to the coordination procedures agreed to and employed by the USFWS and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), the USFWS takes the lead in reviewing bald eagle issues associated with development projects. In accordance with these procedures, for the Ravenswood project, the USFWS coordinated their review and their draft comments with the FFWCC. The FFWCC concurred with the USFWS’s position that the project, with the implementation of the BEMP, will not adversely affect the Ravenswood eagles or their nest. This position by both agencies is consistent with the expert testimony of Mr. Don Palmer, which was based on his 29 years of experience with the USFWS in bald eagle and human interactions. Petitioners and their witnesses raised several valid concerns regarding the continued viability of the Ravenswood eagle nest during and after implementation of the proposed project. One concern expressed was that parts of the Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region (Eagle Management Guidelines) seem inconsistent with the proposed project. For example, the Eagle Management Guidelines state: "The emphasis [of the guidelines] is to avoid or minimize detrimental human-related impacts on bald eagles, particularly during the nesting season." They also state that the primary zone, which in this case is the area within a 750 foot radius of the nest tree, is "the most critical area and must be maintained to promote acceptable conditions for eagles." They recommend no residential development within the primary zone "at any time." (Emphasis in original.) They also recommend no major activities such as land clearing and construction in the secondary zone during the nesting season because "[e]ven intermittent use or activities [of that kind] of short duration during nesting are likely to constitute disturbance." But the eagle experts explained that the Eagle Management Guidelines have not been updated since 1987, and it has been learned since then that eagles can tolerate more disturbance than was thought at that time. Another concern was that the Ravenswood eagles may have chosen the nest site in Wetland 1 not only for its insulation from existing development to the north and east but also for the relatively sparse development to the west. Along those lines, it was not clear from the evidence that the eagles are used to flying over developed land to forage on the San Sebastian River and its estuaries to the east, as the eagle experts seemed to believe. Mr. Mills testified that eagles have been seen foraging around stocked fish ponds to the west, which also could be the source of catfish bones found beneath the Ravenswood nest. But it is believed that the confident testimony of the eagle experts must be accepted and credited notwithstanding Petitioners' unspecific concerns along these lines. Finally, Petitioners expressed concern about the effectiveness of the monitoring during the nesting required under the BEMP. Some of Petitioners' witnesses related less-than-perfect experiences with eagle monitoring, including malfeasance (monitors sleeping instead of monitoring), unresponsive developers (ignoring monitors' requests to stop work because of signs of eagle disturbance, or delaying work stoppage), and indications that some eagle monitors may lack independence from the hiring developer (giving rise, in a worst case, to the question whether an illegal conspiracy exists between them to ignore signs of disturbance when no independent observer is around). Notwithstanding these concerns, Petitioners' witnesses conceded that eagle monitoring can be and is sometimes effective. If Mr. Steffer is retained as the eagle monitor for this project, or to recruit and train eagle monitors to work under his supervision, there is no reason to think that eagle monitoring in this case will not be conducted in good faith and effectively. Even if the Ginns do not retain Mr. Steffer for those purposes, the evidence did not suggest a valid reason to assume that the Ginns' proposed eagle monitoring will not be conducted in good faith and effectively. K. Other 40C-4.301 Criteria – 40C-4.301(1)(g)-(k) 40C-4.301.301(1)(g) - No minimum surface or groundwater levels or surface water flows have been established pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rules Chapter 40C-8 in the area of the project. 40C-4.301.301(1)(h) - There are no works of the District in the area of the project. 40C-4.301.301(1)(i) - The proposed wet detention system is typical and is based on accepted engineering practices. Wet detention systems are one of the most easily maintained stormwater management systems and require very little maintenance, just periodically checking the outfall structure for clogging. 40C-4.301.301(1)(j) - The Ginns own the property where the project is located free from mortgages and liens. As previously indicated, they will establish an operation and maintenance entity. The cost of mitigation is less than $25,000 so that financial responsibility for mitigation was not required to be established. (Costs associated with the proposed BEMP are not included as part of the Ginns' mitigation proposal.) 40C-4.301.301(1)(k) - The project is not located in a basin subject to special criteria. Public Interest Test in 40C-4.302 The seven-factor public interest test is a balancing test. The test applies to the parts of the project that are in, on, or over wetlands, and those parts must not be contrary to the public interest unless they are located in, on, or over an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) or significantly degrade an OFW, in which case the project must be clearly in the public interest. No part of the project is located within an OFW. Balancing the public interest test factors, the project will not be contrary to the public interest. 40C-4.302(1)(a)1. - The project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others because the surface water management system is designed in accordance with District criteria, the post-development peak rate of discharge is less than the pre-development peak rate of discharge, and the project will not cause flooding to offsite properties. 40C-4.302(1)(a)2. - Mitigation will offset any adverse impacts of the project to the conservation of fish and wildlife or their habitats, and the BEMP is designed to prevent adverse effects on the Ravenswood eagles. Although active gopher tortoise burrows were observed on the site, the impacts to these burrows are addressed by the FFWCC’s incidental take permit. The mitigation that is required as part of that permit will adequately offset the impacts to this species. 40C-4.302(1)(a)3. - The project will not adversely affect navigation or cause harmful shoaling. The project will not adversely affect the flow of water or cause harmful erosion. The project's design includes erosion and sediment control measures. The project's design minimizes flow velocities by including flat slopes for pipes. The stormwater will be discharged through an upsized pipe, which will reduce the velocity of the water. The stormwater will discharge into a spreader swale (also called a velocity attenuation pond), which will further reduce the velocity and will prevent erosion in Wetland 1. The other findings of fact relevant to this criterion are in the section entitled "Water Quantity." See Findings 61-67, supra. 40C-4.302(1)(a)4. – Development of the project will not adversely affect the legal recreational use of the project site. (Illegal use by trespassers should not be considered under this criterion.) There also will not be any adverse impact on recreational use in the vicinity of the project site. Wetlands 1 and 5 may provide benefit to marine productivity by supplying detritus to the marine habitat, and these wetlands will remain. 40C-4.302(1)(a)5. - The project will be of a permanent nature except for the temporary impacts to Wetland 1. Mitigation will offset the temporary adverse impacts. 40C-4.302(1)(a)6. - The District found no archeological or historical resources on the site, and the District received information from the Division of Historical Resources indicating there would be no adverse impacts from this project to significant historical or archeological resources. 40C-4.302(1)(a)7. - Considering the mitigation proposal, and the proposed BEMP, there will be no adverse effects on the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed project. The proposed project is no worse than neutral measured against any one of these criteria, individually. For that reason, it must be determined that, on balance, consideration these factors indicates that the project is not contrary to the public interest. Other 40C-4.302 Criteria The proposed mitigation is located within the same drainage basin as the project and offsets the adverse impacts so the project would not cause an unacceptable cumulative impact. The project is not located in or near Class II waters. The project does not contain seawalls and is not located in an estuary or lagoon. The District reviewed a dredge and fill violation that occurred on the project site and was handled by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in 1989. The Ginns owned the property with others in 1989. Although they did not conduct the activity that caused the violation, they took responsibility for resolving the matter in a timely manner through entry of a Consent Order. The evidence was that they complied with the terms of the Consent Order. Applicants' Exhibit 30K was a letter from DER dated February 13, 1991, verifying compliance based on a site inspection. Inexplicably, the file reference number did not match the number on the Consent Order. But Mr. Ginn testified that he has heard nothing since concerning the matter either from DER, or its successor agency (the Department of Environmental Protection), or from the District. The evidence was that the Ginns have not violated any rules described in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40C- 4.302(2). There also was no evidence of any other DER or DEP violations after 1989.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order issuing to Jay and Linda Ginn ERP number 40-109-81153-1, subject to the conditions set forth in District Exhibits 1, 2, and 10. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, George M. Threadgill, applied on May 5, 1982, for a dredge and fill permit under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. The application was for an extension to an existing pier which would be approximately 100 feet long by 4 feet wide with a platform on the end which would be approximately 10 feet long by 14 feet wide. On May 11, 1982, Respondent modified the application by adjusting the angle of the pier extension so it would not extend in front of his neighbor's property. The site of the project was to be on Innerarity Point on Perdido Bay, Escambia County. The existing pier is approximately 90 to 100 feet long. Prior to Hurricane Frederick in September, 1979, the existing pier extended an additional 40 feet into Perdido Bay. The Department of Environmental Regulation is an agency of the State of Florida with jurisdiction under Chapters 403 and 253, Florida Statutes, to regulate and require a permit for the construction of stationary installations within waters of the State. The Department also has permitting jurisdiction over dredge and fill operations in such waters pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rules 17-4.28(2) and 4.29(1). The water at the project site is extremely shallow. Witnesses O'Neil and George Threadgill established that the water at the end of the existing pier ranges in depth from being dry in the winter to approximately 2 feet 6 inches during normal water levels. At the end of the proposed pier, the water is from 2 feet 9 inches deep to "waist deep" during normal water levels. There are no grass beds or other areas of significant marine vegetation in the area of the project. Expert witness Snowdon demonstrated that the bay bottom in the area consists of various grades of sand. There are no lagoons or inlets on the adjacent shoreline, and there are no navigational channels in the vicinity of the Project area. The construction of the pier extension is not expected to interfere wish wildlife in the area. There will be some amount of turbidity introduced into the water column as a result of placing the pier pilings in the water. Coarse sand of the type found in the area will settle rapidly out of the water column. Significant water quality problems would only be encountered if pockets of sediment are encountered while "jetting" the pilings into the substrate. The use of turbidity control measures will alleviate water quality problems associated with construction. Based on unrefuted expert testimony of witnesses Snowdon and Fancher, no water quality degradation will occur during and after construction of the pier. The majority of boat traffic in the area consists of mullet fishermen. The mullet boats navigate in the project area, but, as even Petitioners admit, they generally run either around or waterward of an iron stake located approximately 500 feet from shore. When the mullet boats do come within the project site, it is merely to pass through. They do not set their mullet nets within the project area. The existence of the pier will not significantly interfere with navigational patterns for commercial and private fishermen, nor for other types of marine craft or purposes. A sandbar approximately 20 to 25 feet wide exists along the shoreline beginning approximately 10 feet in front of the applicant's existing pier. Prior to September, 1979, the existing pier extended past the sandbar. There was no evidence presented that the pier blocked access or navigation at that time. The Petitioners do not object to the pier being rebuilt to its pre-1979 dimensions, nor to an area beyond the sandbar. At normal or high tide, Petitioners are able to run their boat straight out into Perdido Bay from a distance of 60 feet from the shore due to their having a "short shank motor" on their boat. The existence of the pier across the sandbar will not significantly interfere with the Petitioners' access to their pier or their waterfront. The existence of the pier will not affect navigational patterns of other neighbors. Paddleboats use the waters in the vicinity of the project area. Paddleboats can navigate under the adjacent pier owned by the Petitioners. The adjacent pier is approximately 5 feet high as measured from the top of the pier to the sand bottom. The proposed pier will measure slightly less than 6 feet from the top to the sand bottom. The existence of the proposed pier extension was thus shown to not significantly disrupt recreational paddleboat navigation in the area.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the application for a dredge and fill permit by George M. Threadgill for the construction of an extension to his existing pier on Innerarity Point in Perdido Bay in Escambia County, Florida, be GRANTED and that the necessary permit be issued. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William E. and Marie M. Jackson Route 1, Box 826 Pensacola, Florida 32507 Mr. George M. Threadgill 4626 LeHavre Way Pensacola, Florida 32505 E. Gary Early, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
