Findings Of Fact Harold Click and Harold Peterson, Petitioners, are sole owners of property which borders Dunn's Creek, one of the largest tributaries to the St. John's River in Putnam County, and which is described as Lots 80, 88, and 89, Section 38, Township 11 South, Range 27 East. Dunn's Creek is a Class III water body of the state. Petitioners applied for a dredge and fill permit initially in 1980 but Respondent issued an Intent to Deny in January, 1981. A second permit application was submitted in 1982 on behalf of Petitioners following a site visit by representatives of Respondent in June, 1981, but again an Intent to Deny was issued in September, 1982. A third application was submitted on or about May 3, 1984, following another site visit by Respondent's representatives, but the Intent to Deny which resulted in this hearing was issued on December 5, 1984. During these site visits, Respondent's representatives offered suggestions about what might be an acceptable project but gave no assurances that the application, as submitted on May 3, 1984, would be permitted. The project which Petitioners now propose would include the placement of pilings and other fill materials within the waters and landward extent of the waters of the state which would result in the alteration of at least 10,000 square feet of the swamp floodplain community of Dunn's Creek. This proposed filling will degrade the water quality of the areas affected by replacing periodically inundated wetlands with uplands. Although the project also includes construction of a fill road with a bridge over a natural slough on Click's lot, Respondent's expert witness Tyler testified that this portion of the project alone would not have resulted in the Intent to Deny. According to Tyler, the key area of objection was the .23 acres Petitioners proposed to fill which was within Respondent's jurisdiction and which would have widened an already existing berm. This widening would have allowed the placement of two septic tanks and two, dwellings on pilings on the property and an access driveway through Click's portion of the property to Peterson's. As proposed, fill was to be placed over a total of .35 acres, with .23 acres being in the waters of the state or to the landward extent of waters of the state. Bald cypress trees or other species listed in Rule 17-4.02(17), Florida Administrative Code, are present in part of the wetland area occupied by the project site in greater numbers, biomass, and aerial extent than competing plant species or communities. Without appropriate pollution control measures, the proposed project could reasonably be expected to result in an adverse change in the biological integrity, bacteriological quality, biochemical oxygen demand and the concentration of dissolved oxygen, turbidity and nutrients in some of the waters on the project site, in Dunn's Creek, and in discharge areas elsewhere. The filling associated with the project can be expected to have a long- term detrimental impact on water quality and biological resources, according to Respondent's expert witness Deuerling. Natural habitats and rainwater storage areas would be destroyed or detrimentally altered, as would the natural filtration function performed by the swamp areas to be filled. In the immediate vicinity of Petitioners' lots, Respondent has denied two dredge and fill permits and there are an additional two permit applications which are pending. Deuerling has also performed site visits at three other locations along Dunn's Creek in the immediate vicinity of Petitioners' lots, and it can be expected that other permit applications for similar projects will be submitted if Petitioners are granted a permit.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioners' application for a permit. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of September, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter B. Heebner, Esquire 523 North Halifax Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32018 Ross S. Burnaman Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Craig Butterfield, is the owner of approximately 5 acres of land located in Section 33, Township 19 South, Range 27 East in Lake County, Florida. The property lies less than a mile east of the City of Mount Dora in an area known as Sunset Valley Marsh. It fronts on the south side of State Road 46 which runs between Mount Dora and Sanford, Florida. Butterfield is in the asphalt paving business. He intends to construct an office building on his property, and to this end, he began adding construction and demolition material and clean fill on his property in early 1983. When these activities were undertaken, Butterfield was unaware that any regulatory agency approval or permitting was required, and consequently he did not obtain a dredge and fill permit. In May 1983, an environmental specialist employed by the St. Johns Water Management District (SJWMD) observed the filling activity on Butterfield's property and made an on-site inspection. This led to a meeting attended by representatives of petitioner, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), SJWMD employees and Butterfield in September 1983, at which time permitting requirements were discussed. Eventually, SJWMD advised respondent in January 1984, that he did not require a permit from SJWMD since the filling activity involved less than 5 acres of wetlands. Butterfield thereafter renewed his filling activities and continued to do so until DER instituted this proceeding. In all, respondent placed some 600 cubic yards of fill material on his property. On or about August 1, 1984, petitioner, through its district manager in Orlando, Florida, issued a Notice of Violation and Order for Corrective Action alleging that Butterfield's filling activities were unlawful, and that corrective action should be taken to restore the site to its original condition. The issuance of the Notice and Order precipitated the instant action. Wolf Branch is a stream that runs near respondent's property. Although the evidence is conflicting as to whether it is a "water of the state," the more persuasive evidence supports a finding that it is. This finding is based upon testimony that the stream is perennial in nature rather than intermittent, that it has a well-defined bed, and flowing water. Moreover, it has been identified as a perennial stream on a United States Geological Survey map since as early as the 1960's. The stream originates to the north of Sunset Marsh, meanders southward (downgrade) into and through the Marsh, passes through a culvert under State Road 46, and flows adjacent to respondent's property. It eventually ends up in a pond and sink which lie to the south of the fill area. Together with rainfall, the stream is the primary source of water in the area where Butterfield has placed his fill material. The dominant vegetation in the filled area is Arrowhead, Maidencane and Pickerelweed. All three are on the species list contained in Rule 17-4.02(17), Florida Administrative Code. Under that rule, a site is considered to be within the "landward extent of waters of the state" if the site is dominated by species on the list. In the case at bar, there is a continuum of dominant wetlands vegetation extending from Wolf Branch to the area filled by Butterfield. The landward extent of Wolf Branch in relationship to Butterfield's property extends from an area of Myrtles surrounded by Maidencane on the western edge of the filled area on a line through an area of Black Gum trees to another area of Myrtles on the eastern edge of the fill area. During the period from 1979 until November 1984, the area was customarily submerged by water. However, most of this accumulated water was due to blockage in a culvert under a railroad track which lies southeast of Butterfield's property. After the culvert was unplugged in early November 1984, virtually all of the standing water in the area disappeared. Indeed, only a small area in the southwestern corner of Butterfield's property now has any standing water, and it is approximately 250 feet from the filled area. There is no evidence of record that the filling activities of Butterfield can reasonably be expected to be a source of pollution and result in emitting substances harmful to plant and animal life in quantities prohibited by Department rules. Although petitioner disputes this finding, there is no specific testimony that any environmental harm has occurred by virtue of respondent's activities. 1/ In investigating this matter, the parties agree that DER incurred expenses totaling $290.15, and if DER prevails, it is entitled to that amount of reimbursement from respondent. If restoration of the filled area is required, the appropriate restoration line is reflected on petitioner's exhibit 1 received in evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner enter a final order requiring respondent to restore that portion of Sunset Valley Marsh upon which fill material was placed south of the restoration line as drawn on petitioner's exhibit 1 and to pay costs of $290.15. The restoration process should be conducted as outlined in the Order for Corrective Action. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 8th day of February, 1985.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether an environmental resource permit (number 4-109-0216-ERP) (the ERP) should be modified to allow construction and operation of a surface water management system (the project) for a residential development known as EV-1, in a manner consistent with the standards for issuance of ERPs in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rules 40C-4.301 and 40C-4.302.
Findings Of Fact The applicant MCCDD is a unit of special purpose government established in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 190, Florida Statutes for purposes enunciated by that statute. MCCDD has applied for the permit modification at issue in this proceeding. The District is a special taxing district created by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. It is charged with preventing harm to the water resources of the district and to administer and enforce Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and related rules promulgated thereunder. Petitioner Larsen was born in Daytona Beach, Florida. Sometime early in 2002 she apparently moved to the Crescent Beach area and lived for 5-6 months. Crescent Beach is approximately 30 minutes from the EV-1 site. Since October 2002, Petitioner Larsen has been a resident of Live Oak, Florida. She resided for most of her life in Daytona Beach, approximately one hour and 20 minutes from the site. She has been involved with the approval process of the entire Palencia Development (DRI) since 1998, of which the subject parcel and project is a part. The Petitioner likes to observe wildlife in natural areas and to fish, swim, and camp. Ms. Larsen has visited the Guana River State Park (Park) which borders the Tolomato River. Her first visit to the Park was approximately one to two years before the DRI approval of the Palencia project. Ms. Larsen has used the Park to observe birds and other wildlife and to fish. She has fished the Tolomato River shoreline in the Park, and also at the Park dam located across the river and south about two and one-half miles from the EV-1 site. Ms. Larsen has seen the Tolomato River some 30 to 40 times and intends to continue using the Tolomato River and the Guana River State Park in the future. On several occasions she and Petitioner Billie have visited "out-parcel" residents of the Palencia development and viewed wildlife and birds and walked the Marshall Creek area and the marsh edge viewing various bird species. In June 2003, after this litigation ensued, she, her niece and out-parcel resident Glenda Thomas walked a great deal of the subject site taking photographs of wildlife. In July 2003, Larsen and Billie participated in a fishing boat trip in the Marshall Creek area. In September 2003, she and Petitioner Billie kayaked on two consecutive days in the Tolomato River and in Marshall Creek, observing various wildlife such as endangered Wood Storks. Petitioner Larsen has been actively involved for the past 12 years as an advocate for the protection of indigenous or native American burial, village and midden sites on private and government property. Petitioner Billie is a spiritual leader or elder of the Independent Seminole Nation of Florida. In that capacity he sees it as his responsibility to protect animals, rivers, trees, water, air, rains, fish, and "all those things." The Independent Traditional Seminole Nation consists of approximately 200 persons, most of whom reside in Southern Florida. Mr. Billie lives in Okeechobee, Florida, several hours distant by automobile from the project site. About 10 to 30 years ago Billie visited the Eastside of Tolomato River, to visit the beach, the river and other areas in what is now Guana State Park. He visited the dike or dam area and walked along the river front in what is now the Park. He checked on burial sites along the Tolomato River in what is now Guana State Park. Billie first visited the Palencia property about five years ago and has been back a number of times. He has observed various forms of wildlife there and has visited out-parcel owners in the development area to ensure that they do not destroy any burial sites. Billie considers himself an environmental and indigenous rights advocate charged with maintaining the earth and resources for the next generation and preserving sacred and burial sites of indigenous people. He has in the past assisted governmental entities in preserving sacred indigenous sites and burial sites and has participated in the reburials of human remains and their belongings. Sometime ago Billie went on a boat ride on the Tolomato River. Since the filing of the Petition in this proceeding he has been in a kayak on the Tolomato River twice and once in a boat in the vicinity of Marshall Creek. He has also observed Marshall Creek from Shannon Road. He has been on the EV-1 site three times, all in conjunction with this litigation. His concerns with the EV-1 project in part stem from alleged impacts to an indigenous burial ground which he feels he identified, due to the presence of "a lot of shell." However, all of the shell was located in a previously constructed road bed off of the EV-1 project site. He testified that he has had no training with regard to identification of archeological sites, but that he can "feel" if a burial site is present. He believes that the EV-1 project will adversely affect everyone just like it adversely affects him. The Project The project is a 23.83-acre, single-family residential development and an associated stormwater system known as EV-1. It lies within the much larger Marshall Creek DRI in St. Johns County, Florida. The project is in and along wetlands associated with the Tolomato River to the east and wetlands associated with Marshall Creek, a tributary of the Tolomato River, to the north. The project consists of thirteen residential lots, two curb and gutter roadway segments with cul- de-sacs (Hickory Hill Court and North River Drive), paved driveways to individual lots, concrete and pvc stormwater pipes, two stormwater lift stations, perimeter berms, four stormwater run-off storage ponds, and an existing wet detention stormwater pond, which was previously permitted and located south and west of the EV-1 site. The project will also have on-site and off- site wetland mitigation areas. All portions of the EV-1 site are landward of the mean high waterline of the adjacent water bodies. The project plan calls for permanent impacts to 0.82 acres of wetlands. A total of 0.75 acres of that 0.82 acre wetlands is comprised of fill for four access crossings for roads and driveways and a total of 0.07 acres is for clearing in three areas for boardwalk construction. MCCDD proposes to preserve 6.47 acres of forested wetlands and 5.6 acres of saltmarsh wetlands, as well as to preserve 10.49 acres of upland buffers; to restore 0.05 acres of salt marsh and to create 0.09 acres of salt marsh wetlands as mitigation for any wetland impacts. The EV-1 mitigation plan is contiguous to and part of the overall Marshall Creek DRI mitigation plan. The Marshall Creek DRI is also known as "Palencia." The upland buffers are included to prevent human disturbance of the habitat value of off-site wetlands. The upland buffers on the EV-1 site range from 25 feet in areas that do not adjoin tidal marshes to 50 feet in areas which front the Tolomato River or Marshall Creek. Within the 25-foot buffers restrictions include (1) no trimming of vegetation and (2) no structures may be constructed. Within the 50-foot buffers the same restrictions apply, except that for 50 percent of the width of each lot, selected hand trimming may be done on branches 3 inches or less in diameter between 3 and 25 feet above the ground surface. The buffers and other preserved areas will be placed in conservation easements, ensuring that they will remain undisturbed. The Stormwater Management System The 23.83 acre drainage area of the EV-1 project is divided into two types: (1) "Developed Treated Area" consisting of the houses, a portion of each residential lot, all driveways, sidewalks and both cul-de-sac roadway sections, comprising 11.27 acres and (2) "Undeveloped Buffer Area" consisting of the undeveloped portion of the residential lots or 12.56 acres. The buffer areas are located between the developed treated area and the surrounding receiving water. The developed and undeveloped areas of each lot will be separated by earthen berms. The berms will be constructed within each lot and will be a minimum of one foot high above existing ground level at the landward ledge of the natural buffer area. When water falls on the house and the surrounding yard it will be directed through grading to the berm of the lot. Once it reaches the berm it will be collected in a series of inlets and pipes; and once collected within the pipe system it will be stored within the collection system and in several storage ponds. The developed areas storage systems consisting of the inlets, pipes and storage ponds are then connected to two stormwater lift stations that transfer the stored runoff to an existing wet detention pond, known as the EV-2 pond, which is located immediately adjacent to the EV-1 project area. There are two pumps and a wet well in each pump station. The combination of storage ponds, piping systems, the wet wells and the pump stations provide storage of the entire required treatment volume which is 61,000 cubic feet. Actually, the system has been designed to treat 65,000 cubic feet, somewhat in excess of the required treatment volume. Even when the pumps are not running these components of the system are able to completely contain the required treatment volume. The system has been designed to capture and treat in excess of 1.5 inches of runoff. This is the runoff that would be generated from a 5.3 inch rainfall event which is expected to occur less than once per year. This l.5 inches of runoff would generate the required 61,000 cubic feet of treatment volume. In order to ensure that the design volume is not exceeded, the applicant has limited the amount of impervious service on each lot to a maximum of 10,000 square feet. In order to ensure that the on-lot ponds in the collection system are hydrologically isolated, they have been designed to be either completely lined or constructed with "cut- off walls" placed in soils with either a hard pan layer or a layer of low permeability. This would prevent the ponds from de-watering nearby wetlands by removing any hydrologic communication between those wetlands and the ponds. Further, the liners and cut-off walls will isolate the pond from the effects of groundwater. This will ensure that the ponds can be maintained at the designed water level and that, therefore, the collection system will have the required storage volume. The EV-2 pond provides for wet detention treatment and was previously permitted and constructed as part of the EV-2 project. In order to accommodate the additional flow from the EV-1 site, the existing orifice will be plugged and an additional orifice will be installed. No changes will be made to the shape, depth, width, or normal water elevation of the EV- 2 pond. The EV-2 pond discharges into wetland systems that are directly connected to the intracoastal waterway. The EV-2 pond discharges into a wetland system and has a direct hydrologic connection to the intracoastal waterway north of the Matanzas inlet. The District rules do not contain a legal definition of the intracoastal waterway; however, for the purpose of determining whether a project discharge constitutes a direct discharge to the intracoastal waterway, the waterway includes more than the navigable channel of the intracoastal waterway. (Projects that have a direct discharge to the intracoastal waterway north of the Matanzas inlet are not required to demonstrate that the post-development peak rate of discharge does not exceed the pre-development peak rate of discharge, because this criterion was designed to evaluate the flooding impacts from rainfall events.) Flooding in water- bodies such as the intracoastal waterway is not governed by rainfall, but rather by tides and storm surges. The system design includes a clearing and erosion control plan and specific requirements to control erosion and sediment. The system design incorporates best management practices and other design features to prevent erosion and sedimentation, including (1) capturing turbidity; (2) sodding and grassing side slopes; (3) filtering water; (4) use of siltation fences during construction; (5) removing sediment; (6) early establishment of vegetative cover; and (7) keeping water velocities low, at less than 2 feet per second. The EV-2 pond is hydrologically isolated from groundwater influence because it was constructed with cut-off walls placed into a hard pan, impermeable layer. The EV-2 pond appears to be working properly, with no indication of adverse groundwater influence. The system has been designed to prevent adverse impacts to the hydro-period of remaining wetlands. The wetlands are hydrated through groundwater flow. The groundwater will still migrate to the wetlands as it did in the pre-development condition. The cut-off walls and liners in the ponds will prevent draw-down of groundwater from the wetlands. No septic tanks are planned for the project. The system is designed based on generally accepted engineering practices and should be able to function as designed. The pumps are three inch pumps that can handle solids up to two and one-half inches in diameter. Yard grates have one-inch slots that will prevent anything larger than one inch diameter from entering the system. Additionally, solids would accumulate in the sump areas. Finally, even if there were a power outage, the system can store the full treatment volume, without discharging, until power is restored. Flood Plain Consideration The 100-year flood elevation for the EV-1 site is 7.0 feet NGVD. The finish flood elevation of the houses will be 8.0 feet. The streets and roadways have been designed to be flood free in accordance with the St. Johns County criteria relating to flooding. The 10-year flood elevation for the EV-1 site is 4.1 feet NGVD. The project will result in filling 2,691 cubic feet of fill in areas below the 4.1-foot NGVD elevation which will include 2,456 cubic feet for "Hickory Hill" and 235 cubic feet for "North River." Thus, 2,691 feet of water will displaced in the 10-year floodplain of the Tolomato River as a result of the EV-1 project. This fill will result in a rise in water elevation in the Tolomato River of 0.0002 feet, which is less than the thickness of the single sheet of paper and is statistically insignificant. If other applicants were to impact the 10-year floodplain to the same extent, there would be no adverse cumulative impact in the flood storage capability of the floodplain. The Tolomato River/intracoastal waterway does not function as a floodway because it is more influenced by wind and tide than by stormwater runoff. Therefore, the project will not cause a net reduction in the flood conveyance capabilities of a floodway. Surface Water Each roadway and master driveway is provided with culverts to ensure redundant, multiple paths for water flow. For this reason, the wetland fill will not significantly impact the flow of water. These redundant connections also ensure that the water velocities are low, reducing the likelihood of erosion. In order to ensure that erosion will not occur, surface water velocities will be less than two feet per second and steep slopes (greater than two percent) will be sodded. The project does not impound water other than for temporary detention purposes. The project does not divert water to another hydrologic water basin or water course. Water Quality The Tolomato River and Marshall Creek, its tributary, are classified as Class II water bodies pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.400. The designated use for Class II water is for shellfish harvesting. The Tolomato River is the receiving water for the EV-1 project. The Marshall Creek and Tolomato River Class II waters do not meet the applicable Class II water quality standards for total fecal coliform bacteria and for dissolved oxygen (DO). Water sampling indicates that sometimes the regulatory parameters for fecal coliform and for DO are exceeded in the natural occurring waters of Marshall Creek and the Tolomato River. The EV-2 pond has a large surface area and the top of the water column will be the most well-oxygenated due to contact with the atmosphere. Any water discharging from the pond will come from the surface of the pond which is the water containing the highest oxygen content in the entire water column of the pond. Thus, discharges from the EV-2 pond will not violate water quality standards for DO and the construction and operation of the project will actually improve the water quality in the receiving waters with respect to the dissolved oxygen parameter. Bacteria such as fecal coliform, generally have a life span of a few hours to a few days. The EV-2 pond will have a detention time, for water deposited therein, of approximately 190 days. This lengthy residence time will provide an ample opportunity for die-off of any coliform bacteria in the water column before the water is discharged from the pond. Additionally, there will be substantial dilution in the pond caused by the large volume of the pond. No new sources of coliform bacteria such as septic tanks are proposed as part of the EV-1 project. The fecal coliform discharge from the pond will thus be very low in value and will lead to a net improvement in the water quality of the receiving water-body. In fact, since the commencement of construction on the Marshall Creek DRI phases, a substantial and statistically significant decrease in fecal coliform levels has been observed in the main channel of Marshall Creek. The applicant has provided a detailed erosion control plan for the construction phase of the EV-1 project. The plan requires the use of best erosion and sediment control practices. In any location that will have slopes exceeding a two percent gradient, sodding will be provided adjacent to roadways or embankments, thereby preventing erosion. The EV-1 project design is based on generally accepted engineering practices and it will be able to function and operate as designed. The liner and cut-off wall components of the pond portions of the project are proven technology and are typical on such project sites which are characterized by high groundwater table and proximity to wetlands. The pump stations component of the project design is proven technology and is not unusual in such a design situation. The pump stations have been designed according to the stringent specifications provided for wastewater lift station pumps in sewer systems which operate with more frequency and duration of running times and therefore, more stressful service, than will be required for this system. Once constructed, the surface water management system will be operated and maintained by the applicant, which is a community development district. An easement for access in, on, over and upon the property, necessary for the purpose of access and maintenance of the EV-1 surface water management system, has been reserved to the community development district and will be a permanent covenant running with the title to the lots in the project area. The portions of the river and Marshall Creek adjacent to the project have been classified by the Department of Environmental Protection as conditionally restrictive for shellfish harvesting because of fecal coliform bacterial levels, which often exceed state water quality standards for that parameter. The boundary of the conditional shellfish harvesting area is the mean high water elevation. The EV-1 project site is located above the mean high water elevation. None of the wetland areas within the project site are able to support shellfish due to the characteristics of the wetlands and the lack of daily inundation of the high marsh portion of the wetlands. No shellfish have been observed on the EV-1 site. The EV-1 project will not result in a change in the classification of the conditionally restricted shellfish harvesting area. The project will not negatively affect Class II waters and the design of the system and the proposed erosion controls will prevent significant water quality harm to the immediate project area and adjacent areas. The discharge from the project will not change the salinity regime or temperatures prevailing in the project area and adjacent areas. Wetland Impact The 23.83-acre site contains five vegetative communities that include pine, flatwood, uplands, temperate hardwood uplands, wetland coniferous forest, wetland mixed forest and salt marsh. Several trail roads that were used for site access and forestry activities traverse the site. The project contains 0.82 acres of wetlands. The wetland communities are typical and are not considered unique. Most of the uplands on the main portion of the site exhibit the typical characteristics of a pine flatwood community. Some of the road-crossing areas within the EV-1 boundary are wetland pine flatwoods; these areas are dominated by pines and a canopy, but are still considered wetlands. There is also a very small area of high marsh vegetative community within the EV-1 boundary. Most of the site, both wetlands and uplands, has been logged in the past. The wetlands are functional; however, the prior logging operations have reduced the overall wildlife value of the site, including that of the wetlands, due to the absence of mature trees. All of the wetlands on the EV-1 site are hydrologically connected to and drain to the Marshall Creek and Tolomato River systems. The wetlands on the site are adjacent to an ecologically, important watershed. To the east of the EV-1 site, the Tolomato River and Marshall Creek are part of the Guana Marsh Aquatic Preserve. The Guana River State Park and Wildlife Management Area is also to the east of the EV-1 site. All the wetlands and uplands on the EV-1 site are located above the elevation of the mean high water line and therefore are outside the limit of the referenced Aquatic Preserve and Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). Direct Wetland Impact Within the site boundary there will be a total of 0.82 acres of wetland impacts in seven areas. MCCDD proposes to fill 0.75 acres of the wetlands to construct roads to provide access to the developed uplands and selectively clear 0.07 acres of the mixed forested wetlands to construct three pile-supported pedestrian boardwalks. The fill impacts include 0.29 acres within the mixed forested wetlands, 0.32 acres within the coniferous wetlands, and 0.14 acres within the high salt marsh area. The direct impacts to wetlands and other surface waters from the proposed project are located above the mean high water line of Marshall Creek and the Tolomato River. The first impact area is a 0.25-acre impact for a road crossing from the EV-2 parcel on to the EV-1 site. 0.14 acres of the 0.25 acres of impact will be to an upper salt marsh community and 0.11 acres of impact is to a mixed forested wetland. This impact is positioned to the south of an existing trail road. The trail road has culverts beneath it so there has been no alteration to the hydrology of the wetland as a result of the trail road. This area contains black needle rush and spartina (smooth cord grass). The black needle rush portion of this area may provide some foraging for Marsh Wrens, Clapper Rails and mammals such as raccoons and marsh rabbits. The fresh-water forested portion of this area, which contains red maple and sweet gum, may provide foraging and roosting and may also be used by amphibians and song birds. Wading birds would not likely use this area because the needle rush is very sharp- pointed and high and will not provide an opportunity for these types of birds to forge and move down into the substrate to feed. The wading birds also would be able to flush very quickly in this area and their predators would likely hide in this area. The second impact area is a 0.25-acre impact to a pine flatwoods wetland community and will be used for a road crossing. It is in a saturated condition most of the time. The species that utilize this area are typically marsh rabbits, possums, and raccoons. The third impact area is a 0.18-acre impact to a mixed forested wetlands for a roadway crossing on the south end of the project. The impact is positioned within the area of an existing trail road. The trail road has culverts beneath it, so there will be no alteration to the hydrology of the wetland as a result of the road. This area is characterized by red maple, sweet gum and some cabbage palm. There will be marsh rabbits, raccoons, possums, some frogs, probably southern leopard frogs and green frogs in this area. Wading birds would not likely use this area due to the same reasons mentioned above. The fourth impact area is a 0.07-acre impact for a driveway for access to Lot two. This area is a mixed forested wetland area, having similar wildlife species as impact areas three and seven. The fifth impact area is a 0.02-acre clearing impact for a small residential boardwalk for the owner of Lot six to access the uplands in the back of the lot. The proposed boardwalk will be completely pile-supported and will be constructed five feet above the existing grade. This area is a mixed forested wetland area, having similar species as impact areas three and seven. Wading birds would also not likely use this area for the same reasons delineated above as to the other areas. The sixth impact area is also a 0.02-acre clearing impact similar to impact area five. The proposed board walk would be located on Lot five and be completely pile-supported five feet above the existing grade. This area is a mixed forested wetland area similar to impact area five. Deer will also use this area as well as the rest of the EV-1 site. Wading birds will probably not use this area due to the same reasons mentioned above. The seventh impact area is a 0.03-acre impact for two sections of a public boardwalk (previously permitted) for the Palencia Development. The proposed boardwalk will be completely pile-supported, five feet above the existing grade. This is a pine-dominated area with similar wildlife species to impact area two. All these wetlands are moderate quality wetlands. The peripheral edges of the wetlands will be saturated during most of the year. Some of the interior areas that extend outside the EV-1 site will be seasonally inundated. Secondary Impacts The applicant is addressing secondary impacts by proposing 8.13 acres of 25-foot wide (or greater) upland buffers and by replacing culverts at the roadway crossings to allow for wildlife crossing and to maintain a hydrologic connection. Mitigation by wetland preservation is proposed for those areas that cannot accommodate upland buffers (i.e., the proposed impact areas). Under the first part of the secondary impact test MCCDD must provide reasonably assurance that the secondary impact from construction, alteration and intended or reasonably expected uses of the project will not adversely affect the functions of adjacent wetlands or other surface waters. With the exception of wetland areas adjacent to the road crossings, MCCDD proposes to place upland buffers around the wetlands where those potential secondary impacts could occur. The buffers are primarily pine flatwoods (pine dominated with some hardwood). These buffers encompass more area than the lots on the EV-1 site. The upland buffers would extend around the perimeter of the project and would be a minimum of 25 feet and a maximum of 50 feet wide, with some areas actually exceeding 50 feet in width. The buffers along the Marshall Creek interface and the Tolomato River interface will be 50 feet and the buffers that do not front the tidal marshes (in effect along the interior) will be 25 feet. These upland buffers will be protected with a conservation easement. No activities, including trimming or placement of structures are allowed to occur within the 25-foot upland buffers. These restrictions ensure that an adequate buffer will remain between the wetlands and the developed portion of the property to address secondary impacts. The restriction placed on the 25-foot buffers is adequate to prevent adverse secondary impacts to the habitat value of the off-site wetlands. No types of structures are permitted within the 50- foot buffers. However, hand-trimming will be allowed within half of that length along the lot interface of the wetland. Within that 50 percent area, trimming below three-feet or above 25-feet is prohibited. Trimming of branches that are three inches or less in diameter is also prohibited. Lot owners will be permitted to remove dead material from the trimming area. The 50-foot buffers will prevent secondary impacts because there will still be a three-foot high scrub area and the 50 foot distance provides a good separation between the marsh which will prevent the wading birds, the species of primary concern here, from flushing (being frightened away). None of the wetland area adjacent to uplands are used by listed species for nesting, denning, or critically important feeding habitat. Species observed in the vicinity of Marshall Creek or the adjacent Tolomato River wetland aquatic system include eagle, least tern, brown pelican, and wading birds such as the woodstork, tri-color blue heron, and snowy egrets. Wading Birds will typically nest over open water or on a island surrounded by water. Given the buffers proposed by MCCDD, the ability of listed species to forage in the adjacent wetlands will not be affected by upland activities on the EV-1 site. The adjacent wetlands are not used for denning by listed species. Under the second part of the secondary impact test, MCCDD must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, and intended or reasonably expected uses of the system will not adversely affect the ecological value of the uplands to aquatic or wetland dependent species for enabling nesting or denning by these species. There are no areas on the EV-1 site that are suitable for nesting or denning by threatened or endangered species and no areas on the EV-1 site that are suitable for nesting or denning by aquatic and wetland dependent species. After conducting on-site reviews of the area, contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Wildlife Commission and reviewing literature and maps, Mr. Esser established that the aquatic and wetland listed species are not nesting or denning in the project area. There is a nest located on uplands on the first island east of the project site, which was observed on October 29, 2002. The nest has been monitored informally some ten times by the applicants, consultants and several times by personnel of the District. The nest was last inspected on October 14, 2003. No feathers were observed in the nest at that time. It is not currently being used and no activity in it has been observed. Based on the absence of fish bones and based upon the size of the sticks used in the nest (one-half inch) and the configuration of the tree (crotch of the tree steeply angled) it is very unlikely that the nest is that of an American Bald Eagle. It is more likely the nest of a red-tailed hawk. Historical and Archeological Resources Under the third part of the secondary impact test and as part of the public interest test, any other relevant activities that are very closely linked and causally related to any proposed dredging or filling which will cause impacts to significant historical or archeological resources must be considered. When making a determination with regard to this part of the secondary impact test the District is required by rule to consult the Division of Historical and Archeological Resources (the Division) within the Department of State. The District received information from the Division and from the applicant regarding the classification of significant historical and archeological resources. In response to the District's consultation with the Division, the Division indicated that there would be no adverse impacts from this project to significant historical or archeological resources. As part of the Marshall Creek DRI application, a Phase I archeological survey was conducted for the entire area of the DRI, including the EV-1 project area. The Phase I survey of the Marshall Creek DRI area revealed nine archeological sites. At the end of the Phase I survey, five of the nine sites were recommended to be potentially eligible for the National Register of Historical places and additional work was recommended to be done on those five sites, according to Dr. Ann Stokes, the archeologist who performed the Phase I survey and other archeological investigation relevant to this proceeding. One of the sites considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places was site 8SJ3146. Site 8SJ3146 was the only site found in the area near the EV-1 project site. The majority of the EV-1 project site lies to the east of this archeological site. The entry road leading into EV-1 crosses the very southeastern edge or corner of the 8SJ3146 archeological site. Shovel tests for archeological remains or artifacts were conducted across the remainder of the EV-1 property and were negative. Ceramic shards were found in one of the shovel tests (shovel test number 380), but it was determined by Dr. Stokes that that ceramic material (pottery) had been within some type of fill that was brought into the site and the ceramics were not artifacts native to that site. Therefore, it was not considered a site or an occurrence. There was no evidence of any human remains in any of the shovel test units and there was nothing to lead Dr. Stokes to believe that there were any individuals buried in that area. (EV-1) Because a determination was made that 8SJ3146 was a potentially significant site, a "Phase II assessment" was conducted for the site. During the Phase II assessment five tests units were established on the site to recover additional information about the site and assess its significance. The test unit locations (excavations) were chosen either to be next to an area where there were a lot of artifacts recovered or where an interesting type of artifact had been recovered. Test units one through four contained very few or no artifacts. Test unit five however, yielded faunal bones (animal remains), pottery and a post mold (post molds are evidence of support posts for ancient structures). After the Phase II assessment was conducted, site 8SJ3146 was considered to be significant, but the only part of the site that had any of the data classes (artifact related) that made it a significant site was in the area of the very southwest portion of 8SJ3146, surrounding test unit five. Dr. Stokes recommended that the area surrounding test unit five in the very southwestern portion of 8SJ3146 be preserved and that the remainder of the site would not require any preservation because the preservation of the southwestern portion of the site was the only preservation area which would be significant archeologically and its preservation would be adequate mitigation. That southwestern portion of the site, surrounding unit five, is not on the EV-1 site. Dr. Stokes recommended to the applicant and to the Division that a cultural resource management plan be adopted for the site and such a plan was implemented. A Phase I cultural resource survey was also conducted on the reminder of the EV-1 site, not lying within the boundaries of 8SJ3146. That survey involved shovel tests across the area of the EV-1 project area and in the course of which no evidence of archeological sites was found. Those investigations were also reported to the Division in accordance with law. The preservation plan for site 8SJ3146, as to preservation of the southwest corner, is now called an archeological park. That designation was shown to be adequate mitigation for this site. The preservation area is twice as large as the area originally recommended by Dr. Stokes to be preserved; test unit five is within that preservation area. Dr. Stokes's testimony and evidence are not refuted by any persuasive countervailing evidence and are accepted. They demonstrate that the construction and operation of the EV-1 project will not adversely affect any significant archeological or historical resources. This is because any effects to site 8SJ3146 are mitigated by the adoption of the preservation plan preserving the southwest portion of that archeological site. Under the fourth part of the secondary impact test, the applicant must demonstrate that certain additional activities and future phases of a project will not result in adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or result in water quality violations. MCCDD has demonstrated that any future phase or expansion of the project can be designed in accordance with the District's rule criteria. Mitigation of Adverse Impacts The permit applicant has proposed mitigation to offset adverse impacts to wetland functions as part of its ERP application. The proposed mitigation consists of 0.05 acres of wetlands restoration, 12.07 acres of wetland preservation (including 6.47 acres of mixed forested wetlands and 5.60 acres of salt marsh), 10.49 acres of upland preservation (which includes buffers and additional upland areas) and 0.09 acres of salt marsh creation. The mitigation for the EV-1 project will occur on-site and off-site; 10.49 acres of upland buffer are being committed to the project. The upland buffers are on-site; the rest of the mitigation is off-site and is adjacent to EV-1. There will be 5.6 acres of salt marsh preservation and 6.47 acres of forested wetland preservation. All of the mitigation is on land lying above the mean high water elevation and is outside the aquatic preserve and the OFW. The salt marsh restoration will occur by taking out an existing trail road that is in the northeast section of the site and the salt marsh creation site is proposed at the tip of lot number one. The preservation of wetlands provides mitigation value because it provides perpetual protection, ensuring that development will not occur in those areas, as well as preventing agricultural activities, logging and other relatively unregulated activities from occurring there. This will allow the conserved lands to mature and to provide more forage and habitat for wildlife that would use those areas. The functions that are currently being provided by the wetlands to be impacted will be replaced and exceeded in function by the proposed mitigation. Additionally, MCCDD did not propose any impacts on site that could not be offset by mitigation. The EV-1 project will not adversely affect the abundance and diversity and habitat of fish and wildlife. The mitigation for the proposed project is also located within the same drainage basin as the area of wetlands to be adversely impacted. MCCDD has proposed mitigation that implements all or part of a plan of regional ecological value and the proposed mitigation will provide greater long-term ecological value than the wetlands to be impacted. The plan of regional ecological value consists of the land identified in the DRI as well as the lands that have been permitted as mitigation up to date and the proposed EV-1 mitigation lands. The plan includes lands that have been added to the plan since the approval of the Marshall Creek DRI. The mitigation proposed for the impact to wetlands and other surface waters associated with the project is contiguous with the Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve, with previously preserved wetlands and upland islands and with Marshall Creek. When implemented the mitigation plan will create wetlands and preserve wetlands and uplands with functions similar to the impacted wetlands and those wetlands will be connected through wetland and upland preservation to the Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve. Corridors and preservation areas important for wildlife movement throughout the whole Palencia site have been set aside. As development progresses towards the eastern portion of the Marshall Creek site, it is important to add preservation areas to the whole larger plan. The lands proposed to be added as mitigation for the EV-1 project will add to the value of the previously preserved lands from other phases of the DRI and development by helping to maintain travel corridors and forage areas for wildlife, to maintain water quality in the adjacent marsh and to maintain fish and wildlife benefits of the aquatic preserve. MCCDD has provided more mitigation than is typically required by the District for such types of impact. The upland preservation ratios for example range from about three-to-one to twenty-to-one. MCCDD is providing upland preservation at a near twenty-to-one ratio. Salt marsh preservation ratios are typically required to be sixty to one and MCCDD is providing mitigation at twice that ratio. Concerning fresh-water forested preservation, the District usually requires mitigation at a twenty to twenty-five-to-one ratio and the applicant is proposing a thirty to one preservation ratio. Additional mitigation will be provided beyond what is required to mitigate the adverse impacts for each type of impact anticipated. Although proposing more mitigation may in some instances not provide greater long-term ecological value than the wetlands to be adversely affected, the mitigation proposed by MCCDD will provide greater long-term ecological value. The Petitioners contend that a chance in circumstances has occurred which would adversely affect the mitigation plan as a plan of regional ecological value. They claim its efficacy will be reduced because of a proposed development to a tract of land known as the Ball Tract which would, in the Petitioners' view, sever connection between the Marshall Creek site and the 22,000-acre Cummer Trust Tract also known as "Twelve mile swamp." Although a permit application has been submitted to the Florida Wildlife Commission for the Ball Tract property, located northwest of Marshall Creek and across U.S. Highway 1 from Marshall Creek and the EV-1 site, no permit has been issued by the District for that project. Even if there were impacts proposed to wetlands and other surface waters as part of any development on the Ball Tract, mitigation would still be required for those impacts, so any opinion about whether the connection would be severed between the project site, the Marshall Creek site and the Cummer Trust Tract is speculative. The Petitioners also sought to establish changed circumstances in terms of reduced effectiveness of the plan as a plan of regional ecological value because, in their opinion, Map H, the master plan, in the Marshall Creek development order plan, shows the EV-1 project area as being located in a preservation area. However, Map H of the Marshall Creek DRI actually shows the designation VP for "Village Parcel" on the EV-1 site and shows adjacent wetland preservation areas. Although Map H shows a preservation area adjacent to the EV-1 parcel, the Petitioners infer that EV-1 was not proposed for development. That is not the case. Map H contains a note that the preservation areas (as opposed to acreages) are shown as generalized areas and are subject to final design, road crossings and final wetland surveys before they were exactly delineated. Therefore, in the DRI plan, the EV-1 area was not actually designated a preservation area. Surface Water Diversion and Wetland Draw-Down Water will not be diverted to another basin or water course as a result of the EV-1 project. Water captured by the treatment system and discharged from the EV-2 pond, will flow back through wetlands that meander through the project site. The EV-1 project will not result in significant diversion of surface waters. The project will also not result in a draw-down of groundwater that will extend into adjacent wetlands. Each of the storage ponds on lots 1, 3, and 7 and between lots 9 and 10 has been designed to include cut-off walls around the perimeter of the ponds and the storage pond on lot 7 will be completely lined. The cut-off walls will be installed in a soil strata that has very low permeability. The cut-off walls and liner will restrict the movement of groundwater from the wetlands into the storage ponds. As a result, the zone of influence of each storage pond will not extend far enough to intercept with the adjacent wetlands. The Public Interest Test The public interest test has seven criteria, with each criteria having equal weight. The public interest 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 OFW or may significantly degrade an OFW; then the project must be clearly in the public interest. It is a balancing test. The EV-1 project, however, is not located in an OFW. The Public Health Safety and Welfare Criteria The parts of the project located in, on and over wetlands will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare. These parts of the project will not cause any adverse impact on flood stages or flood plains and discharges from the system will not harm shell fishing waters. This factor is thus considered neutral. Conservation of Fish, Wildlife or Their Habitat The mitigation from this project will offset any adverse impacts to fish wildlife or their habitat. Therefore this factor is considered neutral as well. Fishing, Recreational Value and Marine Productivity There is no recreational activity or fish nursery areas within the project limits and the project will not change the temperature of the aquatic regime. None of the impacts associated with the EV-1 site are within the mean high water line of the marine aquatic regime. The activities are not going to interact with the tidal regime and they cause negligible impacts. Concerning marine productivity, the wetland impacts are landward of the marine system; therefore, impact on marine productivity is not applicable. Thus this factor is considered neutral. Temporary or Permanent Nature The project will be of a permanent nature. Even though the project is permanent, this factor is considered neutral because the mitigation proposed will offset any permanent adverse impact. Navigation and the Flow of Water The parts of the project located in, on and over wetlands will not adversely affect navigation. These parts will also not impound or divert water and therefore will not adversely affect the flow of water. The project has been designed to minimize and reduce erosion. Best management practices will be implemented, and therefore, the project will not cause harmful erosion. Thus this factor is also considered neutral. Current Condition and Relative Value of Functions Being Performed The current condition and relative value of the functions being performed by the areas affected by the proposed activity, wetlands areas, will not be harmed. This is because any adverse impacts to the wetlands involved will be more than offset by the mitigation proposed to be effected. Therefore, there may well be a net gain in the relative value and functions being performed by the natural areas and the mitigation areas combined. Thus this factor is neutral. Works of the District The proposed project will not cause any adverse impact to a work of the District established in accordance with Section 373.086, Florida Statutes. Shoaling The construction and operation of the proposed project to the extent it is located in, on or over wetlands or other surface waters will not cause any harmful shoaling.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the St. Johns River Water Management District granting MCCDD's application for an individual environmental resource permit with the conditions set forth in the technical staff report dated September 24, 2003, in evidence as St. John's River Water Management District's Exhibit 3. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Deborah J. Andrews, Esquire 11 North Roscoe Boulevard Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida 32082 Veronika Thiebach, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Marcia Parker Tjoflat, Esquire Pappas, Metcalf, Jenks & Miller, P.A. 245 Riverside Avenue, Suite 400 Jacksonville, Florida 32202-4327 Stephen D. Busey, Esquire Allan E. Wulbern, Esquire Smith, Hulsey & Busey 225 Water Street, Suite 1800 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kirby Green, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429
The Issue The issue is whether the District should approve Environmental Resource Permit No. 43024788.002 for the construction of a surface water management system to serve the proposed residential subdivision on Westfield’s property in southern Pasco County, and based upon the prior litigation between the parties in DOAH Case No. 04-0003 and the pre-hearing rulings in this case, the issue turns on whether Westfield has provided “reasonable assurances” in relation to the proposed development's potential impacts on Wetland A3 and fish and wildlife.
Findings Of Fact Parties Dr. Blanco is a veterinarian. He grew up on, and has some sort of ownership interest in the property (hereafter “the Blanco property”) immediately to the west of the property on which the proposed development at issue in this case will occur. Dr. Blanco is particularly concerned about the impacts of the proposed development on the ecological health of Wetland A3, a significant portion of which is on the Blanco property. He has spent considerable time over the years observing and enjoying that wetland. Westfield is the applicant for the ERP at issue in this case, and it owns the property (hereafter “the Westfield property”) on which the development authorized by the ERP will occur. The District is the administrative agency responsible for the conservation, protection, management, and control of the water resources within its geographic boundaries pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40D. Among other things, the District is responsible for reviewing and taking final agency action on ERP applications for projects within its boundaries. The District includes all or part of 16 counties in southwest Florida, including Pasco County. The Proposed Development (1) Generally The Westfield property consists of 266.36 acres.3 It is located in southern Pasco County on the north side of State Road 54, approximately three miles west of U.S. Highway 41 and less than one-half mile east of the intersection of State Road 54 and the Suncoast Parkway. The Westfield property is bordered on the south by State Road 54,4 on the north by an abandoned railroad right-of- way and undeveloped woodland property, on the east by pastureland and property that has been cleared for development, and on the west by the Blanco property. The development proposed for the Westfield property is a residential subdivision with 437 single-family lots and related infrastructure (hereafter “the Project” or “the proposed development”). The ERP at issue in this proceeding is for the surface water management system necessary to serve the Project. There are 19 isolated and contiguous wetlands on the Westfield property, including Wetland A3, which is partially on the Westfield property and partially on the Blanco property. Wetlands cover 72.69 acres (or 27.3 percent) of the Westfield property. The proposed development will result in 1.61 acres of the existing wetlands -- Wetlands B4 and C4, and a portion of Wetland B12 -- being permanently destroyed. The remaining 71.08 acres of existing wetlands will be preserved. Wetlands B4 and C4 are small (each less than 0.75 acres), shallow, wet depressions in a pasture that have been significantly impacted by livestock grazing and periodic mowing. 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. The proposed development will create 2.89 acres of new wetlands, which means that the Project will result in a net gain of 1.28 acres of wetlands. The created wetlands, referred to as Wetland B2 or the “mitigation area,” are in the northern portion of the property along the abandoned railroad right-of-way and to the east of Wetland A3. The proposed ERP includes a number of special conditions, Nos. 6 through 11, related to the mitigation area. Among other things, the conditions require monitoring of the mitigation area to ensure that it develops into the type of forested wetland proposed in the ERP application. (2) Prior ERP Application The ERP at issue in this case is the second ERP sought by Westfield for the Project. The first ERP, No. 43024788.000, was ultimately denied by the District through the Final Order in Blanco-I. Blanco-I, like this case, was initiated by Dr. Blanco in response to the District’s preliminary approval of Westfield’s ERP application. Administrative Law Judge David Maloney held a three- day final hearing in Blanco-I at which the parties, through counsel, fully litigated the issue of whether Westfield satisfied the regulatory criteria for the issuance of an ERP for the proposed development. On December 17, 2004, Judge Maloney issued a comprehensive, 64-page Recommended Order in which he recommended that Westfield’s ERP application be denied. Judge Maloney determined in his Recommended Order that Westfield failed to provide reasonable assurances as required by the applicable statutes and rules because “[1] it omitted an adequate wildlife survey from the submission of information to the District and [2] it failed to account for seepage from Pond P11 and its effect on Wetland A3 and the Cypress-forested Wetland.”5 In all other respects, Judge Maloney determined that the applicable permit requirements had been satisfied. Dr. Blanco did not file any exceptions to the Recommended Order in Blanco-I. Westfield’s exceptions to the Recommended Order in Blanco-I were rejected by the District, and the Recommended Order was adopted “in its entirety” in the District’s Final Order. The Final Order in Blanco-I was rendered on January 27, 2005, and was not appealed. (3) Current ERP Application On April 29, 2005, approximately three months after the Final Order in Blanco-I, Westfield submitted a new ERP application for the Project. The current ERP application, No. 43024788.002, is identical to the application at issue in Blanco-I, except that the depth of Pond P11 was reduced in certain areas from a maximum of approximately 25 feet to a maximum of approximately 12 feet, an analysis of the potential impact of Pond P11 on Wetland A3 resulting from “seepage” was included with the application, and additional wildlife surveys were included with the application. On July 29, 2005, the District gave notice of its preliminarily approval of the current ERP application. The notice was accompanied by a proposed ERP, which contained a description of the Project as well as the general and special conditions imposed by the District. On August 24, 2005, Dr. Blanco timely challenged the District’s preliminary approval of the current ERP application. The Request for Administrative Hearing filed by Dr. Blanco in this case is identical to the request that he filed in Blanco-I. Disputed Issues Related to the Current ERP Application Impact of Pond P11 on Wetland A3 Dr. Blanco’s primary objection to the Project is the excavation of Pond P11 adjacent to Wetland A3. Wetland A3 is on the western border of the Westfield property and, as noted above, the wetland extends onto the Blanco property. The portion of Wetland A3 that is on the Westfield property is approximately 30 acres, and the portion of the wetland on the Blanco property appears to be slightly larger. Wetland A3 is a large, mature, Cypress-forested wetland. It has been impacted by nearby development and is not a pristine wetland, but it is still a mid to high quality wetland for the area.6 Wetland A3 is part of a larger wetland system that extends northward and westward beyond the abandoned railroad right-of-way that serves as the northern boundary of the Westfield and Blanco properties. Cypress-forested wetlands, such as Wetland A3, are very tolerant of prolonged periods of drought and inundation. The seasonal high groundwater level in Wetland A3 is approximately one foot below the surface in most areas of the wetland. There are, however, areas in Wetland A3 in which water is frequently a foot or two above the surface. The groundwater levels in Wetland A3 have, in the past, been significantly impacted by drawdowns in the aquifer caused by pumping in nearby wellfields. The impact has been less significant in recent years as a result of the reductions in pumping mandated by the Tampa Bay Consolidated Water Use Permit. The planned interconnection of several nearby wellfields is also expected to minimize the drawdowns in the aquifer and should further stabilize the groundwater levels in Wetland A3. Pond P11 will be located adjacent to Wetland A3. There will be a 25-foot buffer between the pond and the wetland. The location of Pond P11 is unchanged from the first ERP application. Pond P11 will have a surface area of approximately 37 acres. The surface area of Pond P11 is unchanged from the first ERP application. Pond P11 is a necessary component of the surface water management system for the Project. It also serves as a “borrow pit” because the soil excavated from the pond will be used on- site as fill for the proposed development. The excavation of Pond P11 to the depth proposed in the current ERP application is not necessary for water storage. The pond could be excavated to the seasonal high water level -- approximately 2.5 feet deep -- and still function as intended as part of the proposed surface water management system. Pond P11 will be used for attenuation, but the pond is also expected to provide at least some amount of water quality treatment, which is an added benefit to Wetland A3 into which the proposed surface water management system will ultimately discharge through Pond P11. The only change made to Pond P11 between the first and current ERP applications was a reduction in the pond’s maximum depth. The pond, which had a maximum depth of approximately 25 feet in the first ERP application, was “shallowed up” in the current ERP application. Pond P11 will now be approximately 12-feet deep at its deepest point, unless the District authorizes excavation to a greater depth in accordance with special condition No. 28. The shallowest area of Pond P11 will be along the western edge of the pond adjacent to Wetland A3 where there will be an expansive “littoral shelf” that will have almost no slope and that will be excavated only to the seasonal high water level.7 There was no change in the design of the surface water management system between the first ERP application and the current ERP application. The reduction in the depth of Pond P11 will have no impact on the operation of the system, which was described in detail in Blanco-I.8 Pond P11 will have a control structure to allow water to be discharged into Wetland A3 near its southern end, which is a more upstream location than water is currently discharged as a result of the ditches that intercept surface water flowing across the Westfield property. This design feature of the surface water management system is intended to mimic historic hydrologic conditions and is expected to increase the hydration of Wetland A3. The ERP includes a special condition, No. 28, relating to the excavation of Pond P11. The condition provides: Maximum depth of excavation will be +38 feet NGVD[9] unless additional field observations and data are provided that support excavation to greater depth, subject to review and approval by District staff. Proposed maximum depths of excavation . . . may be exceeded based upon field observations and approval as specified. Due to the potentially irregular depths to limestone, excavation will be stopped at a shallower depth if confining soils are encountered before reaching the maximum depth specified in Subcondition A, above. A geotechnical field technician will be present on site during the entire excavation process in order to monitor excavated soils. The field technician will be under the supervision of a Professional Geologist or Professional Engineer. For the purposes of the specific project, confining soils are defined as soils with more then 20 percent fines passing a No. 200 sieve. The field technician will be authorized to halt depth of excavation when confining soils are encountered. Excavation may proceed deeper than soils containing 20 percent or more fines if the soils are shown to be an isolated lens of material significantly above underlying confining soils or limestone, as determined by field observations and data subject to approval by District staff. Confining soils do not uniformly overlie the limestone; therefore it is possible that the underlying limestone could be encountered in spite of precautions in Subconditions A and B above. If the underlying limestone is encountered, excavation will be halted in the area of exposed underlying limestone. The area of exposed limestone will be backfilled to a minimum depth of two feet with compacted material meeting the specification of confining soils, having more than 20 percent fines passing a No. 200 sieve. The geotechnical field technician must certify that the backfill material meets this specification. One of the reasons that the ERP application was denied in Blanco-I was that Westfield failed to take into account the potential hydrologic impacts on Wetland A3 caused by “seepage” of water from Pond P11 due to the depth to which the pond was to be excavated and the corresponding removal of the confining layer of soils between the bottom of the pond and the aquifer. After Blanco-I, Westfield retained Marty Sullivan, a professional engineer and an expert in geotechnical engineering and groundwater and surface water modeling, to evaluate the seepage issue and the potential hydrologic impacts of Pond P11 on Wetland A3. Mr. Sullivan developed an integrated or “coupled” groundwater/surface water model to assess these issues. The model was designed to project the change in groundwater levels caused by the proposed development more so than absolute groundwater levels. The model utilized a widely-accepted computer program and incorporated data from topographic and soil survey information maintained by the U.S. Geologic Service; data from soil borings performed on the Westfield property in the vicinity of Wetland A3 in the area where Pond P11 will be located; data from groundwater monitoring wells and piezometers installed around the Westfield property; data from soil permeability tests performed on-site and in the laboratory; data from a rain gauge installed on the Westfield property; and data from the District’s groundwater monitoring wells in the vicinity of the Westfield property. Mr. Sullivan “calibrated” the model based upon known pre-development conditions. He then “ran” the model with the data from the Interconnected Pond Routing (ICPR) model10 used to design of the surface water management system in order to project the post-development groundwater conditions over a simulated ten-year period. Mr. Sullivan’s coupled groundwater/surface water model addresses the shortcoming of the ICPR model set forth in Blanco- I.11 The model projects that the post-development groundwater levels at the western boundary of the Westfield property in Wetland A3 adjacent to Pond P11 will be the same as the pre-development levels during the “wet season” of June to September, and that, on average and during the “dry season” of October to May, the post-development groundwater levels will be 0.3 feet higher than the pre-development levels. Mr. Sullivan summarized his conclusions based upon these projections in a report provided to the District with the current ERP application. The report states that: no adverse hydrologic effects will result from the excavation of Pond P11 and the development of the surrounding area. Particularly, Wetland A3 will be essentially unaffected and will be slightly enhanced by this development. Some additional hydration of wetland A3 will occur due to eliminating the north-south drainage ditch and instead routing runoff to Pond P11, which is adjacent to Wetland A3. The relative differences in the pre- and post- development levels are more important than the absolute levels projected by the model and, in this case, there is almost no difference in the levels. The minimal change in the water levels expected in Wetland A3 will not affect the wetland’s ecological functioning or its viability. A 0.3-foot change in the water level is well within the normal range of hydroperiod fluctuation for Wetland A3. The rate at which water increases and decreases in a wetland can impact wetland ecology and wetland-dependent species. The proposed surface water management system will not increase the surface water discharges from the Westfield property, and in compliance with Section 4.2 of the Basis of Review (BOR),12 the post-development discharge rates will not exceed the pre-development peak discharge rates. There is no credible evidence that there will be an adverse impact on Wetland A3 caused by changes in the discharge rate from the Westfield property through Pond P11 into Wetland A3. The range of error, if any, in Mr. Sullivan’s model is unknown. He has never performed a post-development review to determine how accurately the model predicts the post-development conditions that are actually observed. Nevertheless, the more persuasive evidence establishes that Mr. Sullivan’s model is reasonable, as are his ultimate conclusions based upon the model’s projections. Mr. Sullivan recommended in his report that Pond P11 be excavated no deeper than two feet above the limestone to avoid potential breaches of the confining soils above the aquifer. That recommendation led to the pond being “shallowed up,” and it was incorporated by the District into special condition No. 28. The provisions of special condition No. 28 are reasonable to ensure that excavation of Pond P11 will not breach the confining layer. The standards in special condition No. 28 pursuant to which a geotechnical field technician will monitor the excavation of Pond P11, and pursuant to which the District will determine whether to authorize deeper excavation of the pond, are generally accepted and can be adequately monitored by professionals in the field and the District. There is a potential for the loss of “significant volumes of water” from Pond P11 through evaporation “[d]ue to the sheer size of P11’s open surface area.”13 It is not entirely clear how the evaporation of water from Pond P11 was taken into account in Mr. Sullivan’s model, but it appears to have been considered.14 Dr. Mark Rains, Petitioner’s expert in hydrogeology, ecohydrology, and geomorphology, testified that evaporation from open water is generally about 12 inches more per year than evaporation from a wet meadow or Cypress forest, but he did not offer any specific criticism of the projections in Mr. Sullivan’s model related to the issue of evaporation. In sum, the more persuasive evidence establishes that Wetland A3 is not likely to suffer any adverse ecological or hydrological impacts from the proposed surface water management system and, more particularly, from Pond P11. Westfield has provided reasonable assurances in that regard. (2) Adequacy of the Wildlife Surveys The other reason why the first ERP application for the Project was denied in Blanco-I was that the wildlife surveys submitted with that application were found to be inadequate. Wildlife surveys are not required with every ERP application and, in that regard, Section 3.2.2 of the BOR provides that: [t]he need for a wildlife survey will depend on the likelihood that the site is used by listed species, considering site characteristics and the range and habitat needs of such species, and whether the proposed system will impact that use such that the criteria in subsection 3.2.2 through 3.2.2.3 and subsection 3.2.7 will not be met. Westfield conducted a “preliminary” wildlife assessment in 2001. No listed species were observed, nor was any evidence of their presence on the Westfield property. Nevertheless, as detailed in Blanco-I,15 the District requested that Westfield perform a wildlife survey of Wetlands B4, C4, and B12, because all or part of those wetlands will be permanently destroyed by the proposed development. In an effort to comply with the District’s requests, Westfield conducted additional field visits in 2003 and also performed specific surveys for Southeastern Kestrels and Gopher Tortoises. The field visits “confirmed” the findings from the preliminary wildlife assessment, and no evidence of Southeastern Kestrels and Gopher Tortoises was observed during the surveys for those species. Judge Maloney found in Blanco-I that the wildlife surveys conducted by Westfield were inadequate because they “did not employ the methodology recommended by the District: the FWCC methodology.”16 However, the wildlife surveys were not found to be inadequate in Blanco-I because they focused on Wetlands B4, C4, and B12, instead of evaluating the entire Westfield property and/or all of the potentially impacted wetlands, including Wetland A3. After Blanco-I, a team of qualified professionals led by Brian Skidmore, an expert in wetlands, Florida wetlands ecology, and listed species assessment, conducted additional wildlife surveys of the Westfield property. Mr. Skidmore and his team had performed the preliminary wildlife assessment and the supplemental surveys submitted with Westfield’s first ERP application. The “FWCC methodology” referenced in Blanco-I is a methodology developed by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) to evaluate potential impacts to listed species from large-scale projects, such as developments-of- regional impact and new highways. It is not specifically designed for use in the ERP process, which focuses only on wetland-dependent species. Mr. Skidmore adapted the FWCC methodology for use in the ERP process. The methodology used by Mr. Skidmore was reviewed and accepted by the District’s environmental regulation manager, Leonard Bartos, who is an expert in wetland ecology and ERP rules. The surveys performed by Mr. Skidmore and his team of professionals occurred over a five-day period in February 2005. The surveys focused on Wetlands B4, C4, and B12, and were performed at dawn and dusk when wildlife is typically most active. Additional wildlife surveys of the entire site were performed on five separate days between October 2005 and January 2006. Those surveys were also performed at dawn and dusk, and they included observations along the perimeter of Wetland A3 and into portions of the interior of that wetland on the Westfield property. Mr. Skidmore reviewed databases maintained by FWCC to determine whether there are any documented waterbird colonies or Bald Eagle nests in the vicinity of the Project. There are none. Mr. Skidmore contacted the Florida Natural Area Inventory to determine whether there are any documented rare plant or animal species on the Westfield property or in the vicinity of the Project. There are none. The post-Blanco-I wildlife surveys did not evaluate the usage of the Westfield property by listed species during the wetter spring and summer months of March through October even though, as Mr. Skidmore acknowledged in his testimony, it is possible that different species may use the property during the wet season. The post-Blanco-I wildlife surveys, like the original wildlife surveys, focused primarily on the species contained in Appendix 5 to the BOR -- i.e., wetland-dependent species that use uplands for nesting, foraging, or denning -- but Mr. Skidmore testified that he and his surveyors “were observant for any species,” including wetland-dependent species that do not utilize uplands. No listed wetland-dependent species were observed nesting or denning on the Westfield property. Several listed wetland-dependent birds -- i.e., snowy egret, sandhill crane, wood stork, and white ibis -- were observed foraging and/or resting on the property. Those birds were not observed in Wetlands B4, C4, or B12. The parties stipulated at the final hearing that the determination as to whether Westfield provided reasonable assurances with respect to the statutory and rule criteria related to fish and wildlife turns on whether the wildlife surveys submitted by Westfield are adequate.17 BOR Section 3.2.2 provides that “[s]urvey methodologies employed to inventory the site must provide reasonable assurance regarding the presence or absence of the subject listed species.” The wildlife surveys conducted by Westfield subsequent to Blanco-I in accordance with the FWCC methodology meet this standard. Although the surveys could have been more extensive in terms of the species assessed and the period of time over which they were conducted, the more persuasive evidence establishes that the wildlife surveys are adequate to document the presence or, more accurately the absence of listed wetland- dependent species on the Westfield property. The wetlands that will be directly impacted by the proposed development -- Wetlands B4, C4, and B12 -- do not provide suitable habitat for listed species. Those wetlands are small, low-quality wetlands, and Wetland B12 is technically exempt from the District’s fish and wildlife review because it is a small isolated wetland. There is no credible evidence that there will be any other adverse impacts to fish and wildlife from the proposed surface water management system. For example, even if there are undocumented listed species -- e.g., frogs, snakes, snails, etc. -- in Wetland A3, Mr. Skidmore credibly testified that the expected 0.3-foot increase in groundwater levels in that wetland during the dry season is not likely to adversely affect those species or their habitat because the water will still be below the surface. In sum, Westfield has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed development will not adversely affect fish and wildlife.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District issue a final order approving Environmental Resource Permit No. 43024788.002, subject to the general and special conditions set forth in the proposed ERP dated July 29, 2005. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 10th day of April, 2006.
The Issue Whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District should issue the Individual Environmental Resource Permit (the "Individual ERP," the "ERP" or the "Permit") applied for by Entryway Developers, LLC ("Entryway")? The ERP was preliminarily issued by the District as Draft Permit No. 43024788.000 (the "Draft Permit"). If it becomes final, it will allow Entryway's successor in interest, Westfield Homes of Florida ("Westfield") both to construct a new surface water management system in service of a proposed subdivision, known as Ashley Glen, in southern Pasco County, and to conduct dredge and fill activities on site.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Petitioner in this proceeding is Dr. Octavio Blanco. A veterinarian, citizen of Florida and a resident of Pasco County, he holds a property interest (described below) in property immediately adjacent to Ashley Glen. One of the three Co-Respondents, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (the "District" or "SWFWMD") is a public entity created by Chapter 61-691, Laws of Florida. It exists and operates under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (the "Florida Water Resources Act of 1972" or the "Act"). The District is the administrative agency charged with the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage and control the water resources within its geographic boundaries. It does so through administration and enforcement of the Act and the rules promulgated to implement the Act in Chapter 40D, Florida Administrative Code. Entryway, the second of the three Co-Respondents, is a limited liability company and the original applicant for the Permit. Westfield, the third of the Co-Respondents, is a Florida general partnership and the current owner of the Ashley Glen Project. If the Permit is issued by way of a final order, Westfield will be the permit-holder. An application for an Individual ERP must be signed by the owner of the property or the owner's authorized agent. If signed by an agent, a letter of authority must be submitted by the owner. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D-4.101(2). Westfield was not the owner of the property on the site of the Project at the time of the filing of the application. Entryway was the owner. Westfield filed with DOAH a letter of authority received from Entryway.2 The letter authorized Westfield to sign the Individual ERP application. Ashley Glen and the Blanco Property "Ashley Glen-Villages 2-5" ("Ashley Glen" or as it is referred to in the Draft Permit, the "Project") is a 266.36-acre residential subdivision planned to be divided into more than 400 lots. Located in southern Pasco County, the subdivision is on the north side of State Road 54, approximately three miles west of US 41 and less than 1000 feet east of the Suncoast Parkway. To the north, Ashley Glen is bounded along an abandoned railroad right-of-way. The right-of-way extends beyond the northwest and northeast corners of the property in both easterly and westerly directions. There are 72.69 acres of surface waters and wetlands on the Ashley Glen site. Among the 19 isolated and contiguous wetlands on the property is a portion of a Cypress-forested wetland system (the "Cypress-forested Wetland"). The Cypress-forested Wetland was described at hearing by one of Westfield's experts as "a large wetland" (tr. 41) that is typical of the area. As with similar wetland systems throughout the state, the Cypress-forested Wetland undergoes "seasonal drawdowns and dry-outs, and in the wet season . . . flood[s] out to the edges and even beyond in certain storm events." (Tr. 43). The portion of the Cypress-forested Wetland that is on the Ashley Glen site is identified by the Permit as "Wetland A3." Wetland A3 is 29.94 acres. The entire Cypress-forested Wetland system south of the railroad bed of which Wetland A3 is a part is at least twice as large. Most of the remainder of the Cypress Wetland south of the railroad right-of-way is on the Blanco Property. It appears from exhibits used during the hearing that the Cypress Wetland originally extended north of where the railroad right-of-way now lies in its abandoned state. The connection was indicated also in the testimony of Mr. Courtney (Westfield's "wetlands" and "ERP" expert3) when he stated that there was potential for contiguity with systems to the north. Aerial photographs used at hearing indicated that the Cypress- forested wetland system was, indeed, part of the contiguous wetland system to the north of the railroad bed. The contiguity between the Cypress-forested Wetland and the system to the north was confirmed by Dr. Baca, Petitioner's wetland ecologist, on the basis of on-site examinations. Dr. Baca believes the Cypress-forested Wetland to be part of a much larger system that extends northward and to the west and that is contiguous with the Gulf of Mexico. He determined that despite the establishment of the railroad bed, the Cypress-forested Wetland remains connected to the contiguous wetland system to the north by way of pipes under and through the bed. Drainage on the Ashley Glen site is primarily from south to north with significant contribution from a drainage basin to the east. Drainage from the south is channelized by a ditch that runs nearly the length of the property from Wetland C12 at the southeastern tip to Wetland A3 near the site's northern boundary. Drainage from the eastern basin toward Wetland A3 is intercepted by the ditch. The result is that the drainage from the east is captured before it reaches Wetland A3 and drainage from the south bypasses Wetland A3 to be discharged northward at the railroad bed so that all of the drainage is "short-circuited by [the] ditch to the actual discharge location of [Wetland] A3." (Tr. 41). The discharge location from Wetland A3 was more precisely described at hearing by Mr. Courtney as "the confluence of [Wetland] A3 and the railroad bed where [the ditch] discharges off-site flows and [the] easterly to westerly flows into pipes that go under [the] old railroad bed " (Tr. 40-41). This testimony supports Dr. Baca's confirmation of the connection between the Cypress-forested Wetland and the contiguous wetland system north of the railroad bed. To the west of the ditch and the Ashley Glen site is the Blanco property. It has been held by Dr. Blanco's family for a period spanning six decades. Its boundaries roughly form an elongated narrow rectangle. From the eastern and western ends of 400 feet of frontage on State Road 54 (the southern boundary of the Blanco Property) the eastern and western boundaries run parallel of each other approximately 8000 feet to the north where the northernmost boundary of the Blanco Property meets the abandoned railroad right-of-way. The majority of the northern half of the Blanco Property is in the Cypress-forested Wetland. In addition to the drainage from the south and the east received prior to the digging of the ditch, the wetland receives drainage from the west which traverses the property between the Blanco Property and the Suncoast Parkway. With the exception of one acre on which sits the house in which Dr. Blanco's mother lives, the Blanco Property is presently the subject of a Land Trust Agreement. Through this unrecorded instrument, dated December 19, 1996, Dr. Blanco has an ownership interest in the property. Dr. Blanco's concern for the property pre-dates his ownership interest conferred by the trust agreement. He lived on the property from the age of three until he left for college. During that time, he "constantly" (tr. 374) observed many species of wildlife in the Cypress-forested Wetland, as he explained at hearing: Starting with mammals, I observed many deer, foxes, coons, coyotes, squirrels, ground squirrels, fox squirrels. And then numerous bird species . . . from the sandhill cranes to various storks and herons and egrets and . . . [m]ostly aquatic birds . . . many hawks [and] an occasional eagle [as well]. A lot of animals, such as frogs and snails. The apple snails particularly I've noticed. I've always admired them and the way they lay their eggs up on the water line. So, I've noticed them for years out there [along with] [m]any snakes [and], alligators. Id. Over the years, Dr. Blanco has observed changes, especially among the wading birds and the aquatic species: You see less and less of them. The periods where there's consistent water to support their life has grown shorter as time goes by. And this time of year where there's water, the life is pretty abundant. But then, in recent years, I've noticed that the time period seems to be getting shorter and shorter. And then . . . when I go out there, I use all my senses, not just my eyes, and the place just sounds different when it's full of life versus when it's, essentially, dried up. (Tr. 374-375). Just as in any typical cypress-forested wetland, during wet periods, the cypress trees in the Cypress-forested Wetland "will be inundated and the ground will be saturated to the edge of the uplands." (Tr. 45). During these times, the majority of the storms that deliver rain are considered small, that is, rainstorms of below half an inch. Much bigger storms, of course, also contribute to the water that stands in the wetland from time to time. "By the same token, in droughts or dry seasons, the water levels . . . typically drop to at or below the ground level." (Tr. 46). The dry periods, if part of the natural cycles between hydro-periods, contribute to the health of the system. For example, during dry periods nutrients are oxidized, one of the functions of a wetland. In 2002, the Cypress-forested Wetland was dried out from mid-March at the end of the dry season until the end of July, a period of drought. The dry season and the occasional drought contribute, of course, to a lowering of the water table below the surface of the wetland. But the water table may also be lowered by the pumping of water from wellfields in the area, one to the northwest of the site, another to the southeast. That pumping is monitored by the District. The District takes action to minimize damage from any lowering of the water table caused by pumping water from the wellfields. Apple snails have been recently observed in the Cypress-forested Wetland. "Apple snails are unique in that they're the sole food of the snail kite, an endangered species." (Vol. III, p. 61). There are snags and dead trees in the Cypress-forested Wetland as well. Used by many birds and mammals, they provide particularly good habitat for woodpeckers. The Cypress-forested Wetland is not a pristine wetland. The establishment of the railroad bed had an impact. In its abandoned state, the railroad bed continues to have an influence on its discharge to the north. The Suncoast Parkway "might have had some impact." (Tr. 53). Cattle grazing on both the Blanco Property and the Ashley Glen site has had an impact on the herbaceous ground cover layer and on the wetland's water quality although it is unlikely that the cows grazed in the Cypress-forested Wetland. ("Generally, [cows] don't graze on . . . wetland plants, because they're either bitter tasting or [have] poor textures . . . .") (Vol. III, p. 58). The well- fields in the area have had historic impacts mitigated, as mentioned, through implementation of an area-wide hydrology restoration plan by SWFWMD. The most significant impact to the Cypress-forested Wetland resulted from the combination of the construction of State Road 54 and the ditch's channelization of stormwater runoff migrating through the center of the Ashley Glen site. Had the property not been ditched, the stormwater runoff and any other migrating water would have been conveyed by sheet flow into the Cypress-forested Wetland. Despite the varied impacts over the years, the Cypress-forested wetland remains ratable today "as a mid to higher level quality wetland for the area." (Tr. 43). The Draft Permit Application for the permit was submitted on February 7, 2003. After eight formal submittals of information in response to questions by the District, a Draft Permit was issued on December 16, 2003. The Draft Permit lists the "Project Name as Ashley Glen - Villages 2-5" and otherwise refers to Ashley Glen as the "Project." The Permit allows the Project to fill 43.75 acre-feet of the 100-year flood plain on the Ashley Glen site. At the same time, the Permit allows 51.98 acre-feet of excavation on- site. Project construction will result in the filling of 1.61 acres of forested and non-forested wetlands and secondary impacts to at least one of the isolated wetlands. The permit speaks to secondary impacts to another of the wetlands and surface waters on-site and finds that there are none: "[O]ne isolated wetland, 0.37 acre in size, and 2.81 acres of surface waters will be impacted, however, since these areas provide no significant habitat functions, no habitat mitigation will be required." District Ex. 5, pgs. 3-4. The mitigation for the impacts that require mitigation, in the District's view, includes creation of 2.89 acres of wetlands and preservation of 65.32 acres of wetlands. The Permit also authorizes the construction of a new surface water management system (the "SWM System") to serve Ashley Glen. The Surface Water Management System The SWM System consists of six wet detention ponds, four isolated wetland treatment systems, an attenuation pond, and an associated conveyance and discharge structure. The wet detention ponds and the isolated wetland treatment systems were designed in accordance with Section 5.2 of the District's Basis of Review. Westfield Ex. 6 depicts the "generalities of the [SWS] [S]ystem in [Ashley Glen's] built environment." (Tr. 56). Key pipe areas are shown in white on the exhibit. For example, the existing ditch is re-located slightly to the east; the exhibit shows in white where water is piped from the northern terminus of the new, re-located ditch into Pond P11. This piped water will consist of drainage from the south that is now conveyed by the existing ditch and drainage from the east that passes through Wetland W2 and Wetland W1. In keeping with the historical drainage pattern that preceded the existence of the ditch, drainage from the basin on the eastern part of the property that passes through Wetland F4, Wetland E4, and Wetland D5 will also be discharged westward into P11 to be discharged at a point toward the southernmost part of Wetland A3, the wetland's headwaters. The discharge from P11 was described by Mr. Courtney at hearing: The discharge of P11 was placed up in the headwaters of A3 [where] . . . the [existing] ditch short-circuited the discharge of . . . waters to the discharge point of A3. [An SWM System] . . . control structure is placed at the headwaters of A3, a much better situation for A3, given that the quantities and quality of water is going to be the same or better, because water is now going to be reintroduced to the headwaters of A3 as opposed to short- circuiting it. (Tr. 57). Mr. Courtney estimated that one-fourth to one-half of the surface water flows on the property coming from the south and the east were routed unnaturally by the ditch to Wetland A3's discharge point at the railroad right-of-way at the northernmost point of the wetland. The project re-routes these waters to a point near the headwaters of Wetland A3 (in its southernmost part). Surficial flow, therefore, that had by- passed Wetland A3 because of ditching will be routed by the SWM System to the headwaters of Wetland A3 after treatment and attenuation provided that the attenuation pond reaches a high enough elevation. Any water discharged to Wetland A3 from the attenuation pond will flow in a northerly direction (the historical flow pattern) through the wetland to the point of discharge at the railroad bed. Provided that the restored flow is of good quality, restoration of the hydrology is a benefit to the system. On this point, Dr. Baca agreed with Mr. Courtney. The Cypress-forested Wetland on the Blanco Property and the wetland system that extends north of the railroad bed "are dependent upon the treatment, the care and the protection afforded the wetland on the Ashley Glen property." (Vol. III, pg. 60). Wetlands B8 and D3, surrounded by developed lots, are served by detention ponds. Internal drainage from the lots is collected from street systems. Pop-off from the systems goes either directly to a detention pond and then a wetland or to a sump and then to a wetland. After treatment, the drainage is conveyed to Pond P11. Pond P10, a relatively small detention pond, is situated at the headwaters of Wetland A3. The pond treats runoff and flows into Wetland A3. Pond P11, although not a stormwater detention pond and for which the applicant receives no treatment credit, is nonetheless "a good backup treatment mechanism for stormwater that is meeting state water quality standards as discharged from all of the drainage systems in the uplands." (Tr. 59). Through the attenuation process, moreover, it will perform some treatment that meets or exceeds the minimal requirements of ERP permitting. After attenuation and whenever the pond reaches a certain elevation, waters are discharged into Wetland A3. A major point of focus of Dr. Blanco's case is the excavation of the attenuation pond and its interaction with Wetland A3. The attenuation pond is designated in the Draft Permit as Pond P11 ("P11"). P11 If excavated according to present plans, P11 will be 25 feet deep at its deepest point (less than one percent of the pond). "[T]he deepest areas run along the corridor that goes between [Wetlands] B6 and D5." (Tr. 166). The shallowest areas of P11 are along the western edge of the pond where a shelf will be constructed. The surface area of the pond will take up approximately 40 acres. (See endnote 4). The Respondents refers to P11 as a "100 year flood plain compensation area." (Tr. 116). The Permit's "Water Quantity/Quality list of ponds denominates P11's "treatment type" as "[a]ttenuation" which would make it an attenuation pond. Dr. Blanco prefers to call P11 a borrow pit asserting that one reason for its excavation is to obtain fill for the development. Dr. Blanco's labeling of P11 as a borrow pit appears to be correct since the District referred to it as a borrow pit and since significant dredging on site is allowed by the Draft Permit. Whether Dr. Blanco's and the District's nomenclature for P11 is accurate or not, there is no dispute that P11 is part of the stormwater management system. The Draft Permit ascribes to it the function of attenuation: the process by which flow is slowed that allows compounds to be reduced in concentration over time. It is a significant component of the SWM System. Conveyance of water of sufficient quality that has undergone attenuation from the pond into a point near the headwaters of Wetland A3, moreover, poses the potential to improve the wetland's hydrology. Dr. Blanco asserts that fill needed by the Project could be obtained off-site. In other words, P11 does not need to be excavated to obtain the fill. But obtaining fill material is not the only purpose of P11 since it also provides retention and attenuation functions. Dr. Blanco's main concern with P11, however, is not its status as a borrow pit. His concern is based on three of its characteristics, the latter two of which relate to its nature as a borrow pit: 1) its placement, excavated directly adjacent to Wetland A-3; 2) its depth, at its deepest point, 25 feet; and 3) its size; close to 40 acres in open surface area.4 Due to sheer size of P11's open surface area, significant volumes of water in P11 will be lost routinely to evapo-transpiration. When the water level in P11 is below the water level in Wetland A3, moreover, the pond will draw water out of the Cypress-forested Wetland. Whenever the water is below its control elevation, it will take a considerable volume of water to raise it to the elevation appropriate to protect Wetland A3 and the rest of the Cypress-forested Wetland. Reaching the control elevation will occur only when all available storage has been filled and contributions of water (from rainfall, stormwater run-off, or by way of conveyance through the SWM System or otherwise) exceed loss through evaporation and seepage, downward and lateral. The parties disagree as to whether the applicant has provided the assurances necessary to justify issuance of the Permit. The most contentious point is about the effect P11 will have on Wetland A3 and the extended Cypress-forested Wetland. Westfield (with the support and concurrence of the District) bases its case for assurances, in the main, on a type of computer modeling. Dr. Blanco, on the other hand, presented testimony that criticized the computer modeling that was done in this case in support of the application. That computer modeling is known as "Interconnected Pond Routing" or "ICPR." ICPR Interconnected Pond Routing ("ICPR") is a type of hydrological computer model that takes into account surface water flows. It does not take into account groundwater flows, downward or lateral seepage or the lowering of the water table by well-field pumping. It models the surface water hydrology of a site as it might be affected, for example, by detention basins and channel pipes. It models pre-design of a site to be developed and then post-design of a site prior to actual development to provide comparative analysis. It is also a predictive tool. As with any predictive tool, its accuracy can only be definitively determined by observation and collection of data after-the-fact, in this case, after development. ICPR modeling is used in particular for stormwater and surface water management systems. For that reason, it was used by Westfield to support the ERP application in this case. Before ICPR modeling of the Ashley Glen site and the surrounding area was conducted, topographic information was collected by survey. The results of the survey and the modeling that followed resulted in several of the exhibits used by Westfield at hearing. For example, the topographic information and ICPR were used to produce a post-development map (Westfield Exhibit 12). In addition to sub-basins reflected in Westfield Exhibit 11 that relate to the hydrology of the site the map shows two pods (a "Southern Pod" and a "Northern Pod") of development. Approximately 400 feet of the Southern Pod will abut Wetland A3 on the pod's western edge. The location of the Southern Pod will necessitate re-location of the existing ditch. The Northern Pod, in contrast, will be separated from Wetland A3 by both P11 and the proposed road. The Northern Pod, the larger of the two proposed pods of development, is farther from Wetland A3 although it is separated from Wetland C2 solely by the proposed road. The sub-basins on Westfield Ex. 12 are reflected in Westfield Ex. 11, the result of pre-design modeling that revealed three off-site basins composed of 218, 544 and 908 acres. Each sub-basin corresponds to a detention pond designed to assist in enhancing the site's post-development hydrology. The modeling was also used to introduce P11, Westfield's proposed 100-year flood compensation area that would act as a detention pond for attenuation. Each sub-basin used in the modeling exercises covers an area for which there is information relative to size, curve number and time of concentration, all of which was entered into the modeling. Kyle Cyr, a registered P.E. in the State of Florida, and an expert in ICPR and stormwater modeling, described at hearing what happened next: The input is then directed towards a node, which we call the wetlands of the node or detention ponds. And then each node is interlinked by either channels, pipes or weirs, swells, drop structures. * * * [W]e check the models for pre and post to make sure there's no adverse impacts to off- site properties. No additional flows are allowed to leave the site. * * * We end up with flows, staging elevations for each node. . . . [The result is] [a] drainage report. [The] drainage report has a pre- and post- analysis in it. * * * [The] drainage report [is used] to design the site, to design the elevations and grading of the roads and [then] the lot and culvert sizes. (Tr. 147, 148). The drainage report and the information with regard to the design was then submitted by Westfield to the District together with a "pond wetland hydrology interaction report" and modeling with regard to "several minor storm events, a one-inch, a two-inch and a mean-annual event run . . . like a normal rainfall in the area." (Tr. 150). Various hydrographs for storm events were prepared by Westfield. In general, storm events should assist the hydrology of Wetland A3. The SWM System poses the potential that in storm events, P11 will discharge water to Wetland A3. The discharge pre-supposes that P11 will be at an appropriate elevation to allow the discharge with the addition of the surface water conveyed by the system into the pond. Hydrographs of the time versus inflow into Wetland A3 for pre-development and post-development conditions for the storm events were prepared by Westfield. For the one-inch storm and the mean-annual events, provided the pond is at an appropriate elevation prior to the storm (a proviso applicable to all of the hydrograph information), it is reasonably expected that there will be slight increases in peak flow after the development than before. For the two-inch storm, it is reasonably expected that there will be a slight drop in peak flow. None of the changes should have a negative effect on Wetland A3 so long as P11 maintains appropriate water elevations so that water has not been drawn out of the wetland that would have sustained the wetland had P11 not been excavated.5 Hydrographs that depict expected volume over a 72-hour time frame were also prepared based on the same storm events. During the applicable time frame for two-inch and mean-annual events, it is reasonably expected that there will be a slight increase in the volume of water entering Wetland A3 after development. As the result of a one-inch storm event, it is reasonable to expect there to be a slight decrease in volume over the 72 hours. None of the changes are expected to have a negative effect on Wetland A3, again, provided that appropriate water elevations are maintained in P11. Finally, hydrographs were prepared for time-versus- inflow for 25-year and 100-year storm events both pre- development and post-development. The modeling showed that, after development, "[a]djacent properties will not experience the higher flood level [that] they have in the past." (Tr. 156). The decrease is due to the holding back of water in detention ponds after development that will flow off at a slower rate than under pre-development conditions. The hydrographs show the difference in water flowing onto the site and Wetland A3 after the development under typical conditions in comparison to before development is slight. Water levels in Wetland A3 at times of typical storm events, after development, therefore will not be affected in any meaningful way by the SWM System so long as P11's water level is maintained at an appropriate elevation. In accordance with Section 4.2 of the District's Basis of Review, the SWM System is designed so that "[o]ff-site discharge is limited to amounts that will not cause adverse off- site impacts." Section 4.2 of the Basis of Review. See District Ex. 4, CHAPTER FOUR, pg. 1. The allowable discharges from the Project were established as a pre-development peak discharge rate from a 25-year, 24-hour storm. The modeling showed that the post-development discharge rates do not exceed the pre-development peak discharge rate. The ICPR modeling did not consider the outfall from Wetland A3 that occurs at the abandoned railroad right-of-way on the northern end of Wetland A3. As explained by Mr. Cyr, "Wetland A3 is . . . [a] boundary condition. That's where our model stops." (Tr. 198). The structure at the outfall at the northern end of Wetland A3 consists of three 42-inch pipes. Had the outfall been considered, Mr. Cyr testified, it would have had no effect on the results of the modeling. The understanding of the effect on the hydrology of the site provided by ICPR modeling conducted by Mr. Cyr, the drainage report and the other aspects of the information (such as the hydrographs and the design and information related to water quality) gathered and produced by Westfield support the District in its decision to issue the Permit. But there is a criticism of the modeling. It was presented by Dr. Blanco's witness: Mr. Vecchioli, an expert in hydrology as it relates to groundwater. The Site's Hydrogeology The area in which Ashley Glen, the Blanco Property and the Cypress-forested Wetland sit was described by John Vecchioli, a licensed geologist in Florida and an expert in hydrogeology, as: a low-lying plain of limited altitude . . . underlain by some 20 to 50 feet of . . . fine to very fine sand, sometimes silty, sometimes containing a clay layer or two. And then beneath that blanket of sand is . . . the upper Floridan [A]quifer, . . . a thick deposit of limestone, which also constitutes the primary source of drinking water for the area. (Tr. 93). Connected with the surface waters of the area so that the aquifer and the surface waters function as a single system, the Floridan Aquifer in Pasco County is known as a "leaky- confined aquifer." Id. Its "leaky-confined" nature means that: [The Floridan is] not firmly capped by thick layers of clay, but rather by sand deposits that although . . . more pervious than the layers of clay, still impede the exchange of water between the two systems. Id. The source of the water in the upper Florida Aquifer is mainly rainfall because the Aquifer "intercept[s] waters from the surface." (Vol. III, Tr. 95). Much of the water in the upper Floridan is recharged, "very young water . . . indicating that it has a good connection with the surface." Id. The interaction between the surface water and ground water was shown by a study that "showed . . . 93% of the water derived from . . . public supply wells [was] primarily from capture of water from the surface environment." (Vol. III, Tr. 94). Furthermore, "[t]here's some 133 million gallons per day pumped from a combination of wellfields in [the] area [of Ashley Glen and the Blanco Property]." Id. The documented adverse impacts of the pumping in the area has been limited to "drying up the surface, capturing water from streams, pulling down . . . wetlands." Id. The interaction between the surface waters and groundwater in and around Ashley Glen leads to Mr. Vecchioli's opinion that the effects of the SWM System on groundwater, and in particular the effect of Pond P11, "is a very important aspect . . . almost totally ignored [by Westfield and the District.]" Id. In other words, ICPR, because it does not account for effects on groundwater, is a flawed model for determining the impact on all water resources in the area. It did not consider "downward leakage as a means for water to escape from the pond [P11]." (Vol. III, p. 96). The omission is critical because the Floridan aquifer system has a potentiometric surface that's some 10 to 20 feet lower than the water table or surface environment most times during the year. The meaning of this was explained at hearing by Mr. Vecchioli: [T]here's a downward gradient where water will flow from the land surface in the vicinity of Pond 11 [Pll] down into the Floridan. When [Westfield's consultants] did the evaluation of the wetland-pond interaction, they ignored this. They essentially said that because we don't intend to penetrate the confining layer, which SWFWMD does not want done, that there won't be any leakage out of the pond vertically. This is not correct . . . . [I]n creating the pond . . . 25 feet or roughly half of the confining bed, or a greater amount, [will be removed], so this makes it much easier for water to move from the water table at land surface down into the Floridan . . . . Id. The failure to account for downward leakage or "vertical seepage" is significant. "[I]t . . . creates the uncertainty as to whether P11 is going to receive enough water to stay saturated to the top for much of the year." (Vol. III, Tr. 96- 97). If the water level in P11 does not stay at the control elevation, "there will be a downward gradient that prevails from the adjacent wetland [Wetland A3] into the pond and part of this will leak out into the Floridan aquifer, in addition to additional water lost by evaporation from the open surface of the pond. [This] . . . will create a deficiency in storage for the pond." (Vol. III, Tr. 97). Furthermore, with the removal of the sand during excavation and the replacement of it with water, "the material the water [that is contributing to seepage] has to move through is less, so you have much less energy lost to frictional forces." (Vol. III, Tr. 115). The result is that vertical seepage will be more likely to occur after the pond is excavated than before. In other words, it will be much easier for water to move from the surface into the Floridan. The seepage, moreover poses difficulties in maintaining elevation in P11. Evaporation from the pond will be greater than evaporation from the wetland. If water in the pond is not at the appropriate elevation, water will be drawn from Wetland A3. The wetland will be drier than under natural conditions. Mr. Vecchioli stopped short of predicting that downward leakage would damage the wetland; he stated only that damage would occur if P11 functions as he thought it "might." (Vol. III, Tr. 106). In essence, Mr. Vecchioli's opinion does not stand as a projection of certainty that the wetland will be damaged. Instead, it presents a factor that was not considered by Westfield in its analysis and by the District in its review. The District counters Mr. Vecchioli's opinion with the fact that the depth of the excavation is in compliance with the District's Basis of Review and that it will not remove what SWFWMD considers to be a "primary retarding material or section," that is, a layer of clay. But it will remove much of the sand. Sand, while it inhibits downward seepage from the surface into the aquifer, is nonetheless not impermeable; it is not an aquitard. Seepage, therefore, will occur despite compliance with the Basis of Review (as explained, below) with regard to depth of excavation and aquitards. Depths of Excavation and Aquitards Subsection 6.4.1.b of the Basis of Review addresses depths of excavation: 6.4.1 Dimensional Criteria (as measured at or from the control elevation). * * * b. Depth - The detention or retention area shall not be excavated to a depth that breaches an aquitard such that it would allow for lesser quality water to pass, either way, between the two systems. In those geographical areas of the District where there is not an aquitard present, the depth of the pond shall not be excavated to within two (2) feet of the underlying limestone which is part of a drinking water aquifer. District Ex. 4, CHAPTER SIX, Pg. 2 The term "aquitard" is not a term that appears in the "Explanation of Terms" section of the Basis of Review. See District Ex. 4, Section 1.7, CHAPTER ONE, pgs. 2-6. The District does not consider sand to be an aquitard. Clay, on the other hand, is an aquitard. As explained by Mr. Ritter at hearing, the term aquitard is "defined as a somewhat impermeable layer that if you were to cut through that, that would be considered a breach." (Vol. III, Tr. 128). If the District were to consider sand an aquitard, there is nowhere in the District that a pond could be excavated in compliance with subsection 6.4.1.b of the Basis of Review. The Ashley Glen proposal for the excavation of Pond P11 to a depth of 25 feet complies with the Basis of Review. The depth of excavation of the pond does not come within two feet of the underlying limestone. Nor does it breach a clay layer or any other aquitard. Compliance with the "depth of excavation" and "aquitard" provisions of the Basis of Review does not cure the problem with the placement of Pond P11: adjacent to Wetland A3. The problem was addressed (although not resolved) by a post- Draft Permit correction that showed more water reaching Wetland A3 by way of the SWM System than had been shown in the original modeling. Post-Draft Permit Correction The modeling described at hearing included a correction after the issuance of the Draft Permit. The correction was made because of "an additional off-site contributing area east of the project that was not considered in the original flood study prepared by the [applicant's] consultant . . . ." (Tr. 222). The model was updated to incorporate the additional contributions that had not been considered prior to the issuance of the Draft Permit. After the additional data was introduced, the modeling suggested changes that Westfield made to its proposal. On the north end of the Project, a conveyance channel had to be enlarged. Additional culverts were proposed beneath the proposed roadway to reduce flood impacts from the additional flows entering from the east that had been overlooked. Further evaluation by the District ensued in the wake of the additional modeling. Ultimately, in the process that preceded the final administrative hearing, the application was determined by the District to "still me[e]t the conditions for issuance and [staff, therefore] recommended approval." Id. In other words, this additional water would not cause too much water to flow into Wetland A3 and cause adverse impacts from flooding. The additional data demonstrates that there will be more water flowing through the SWM System and into Wetland A3 then originally projected but not too much so as to cause adverse flooding impacts. The additional water, however, does not cure the problem that Pond P11 poses for Wetland A3 as explained by Mr. Vecchioli due to the wetland's location, depth and open surface area. Location, Depth and Open Surface Area In the final analysis, while there may be nothing out of compliance technically with the depth of P11 and the size of its open surface area, when these factors are combined with the location of P11, adjacent to Wetland A3, there is a problem: the potential for adverse impact to Wetland A3 and the extended Cypress-forested Wetland of which it is a part. Seepage and evaporation will make it difficult to maintain the water levels in P11 necessary for the pond to discharge into the wetland. Furthermore, when the water table is down, whether due to drought, pumping activities in the region or for some other reason, and P11 is not at an appropriate elevation, it will draw water out of Wetland A3. Seepage and evaporation have the potential to exacerbate the drawdown. Seepage promoted by the presence of Pond P11 was not taken into account in the modeling done for the project. Without consideration of all the factors material to the site that should enter an appropriate calculation, there is not reasonable assurance that Wetland A3 and the Cypress-forested Wetland will not suffer adverse impacts from the SWM System. Monitoring Water Quantity Section 3.2.2.4(c) of the Basis of Review states: Whenever portions of a system could have the effect of altering water levels in wetlands or other surface waters, applicants shall be required to monitor the wetlands or other surface waters to demonstrate that such alteration has not resulted in adverse impacts, or to calibrate the system to prevent adverse impacts. Monitoring parameters, methods, schedules, and reporting requirements shall be specified in permit conditions. District Ex. 4, Chapter Three, P. 6. The District determined that the routing analysis and volume calculations with regard to the hydrology on-site and the hydrology of the wetlands provided by Westfield show that there will not be significant or frequent negative changes in wetland hydrology on site. The District concluded, therefore, there is no necessity to require monitoring of wetland water levels in the Permit. The District's determination, based as it is on the ICPR modeling provided by Westfield, does not withstand the criticism by Mr. Vecchioli. If the District, in the face of the evidence of record and Mr. Vecchioli's criticism, nonetheless decides that reasonable assurances have been made by Westfield, the District should require monitoring pursuant to the subsection 3.2.2.4(c) of the Basin of Review; without doubt, the excavation of Pond P11 adjacent to Wetland A3 has at least the potential to affect water levels in the wetland system. Water Quality The depth of P11 poses some dangers to water quality. Generally, the deeper a Florida lake, the more anoxic and "the more likely you have . . . nutrients such as phosphorus, binding up in the [waterbody] and then being released later" (vol. III, p. 64) to affect the waterbodies negatively. Wetlands surrounding P11, acting like "sponges" would provide treatment that removes nutrients and locks up chemicals to reduce their toxicity would improve water quality. But the District's rules do not require biological treatment for nutrients as part of the design of a surface water system. Given its nature as an attenuation pond, P11 will act like a secondary sediment sump. This aspect of P11 contributes no treatment credit to the application, as mentioned earlier, but any water entering Wetland A3 from P11 will have been treated by an SWM System so as to meet the District's requirements. Other measures will improve water quality on- site. One of such measures, for example, is that cattle on-site will be removed. Other measures related to water quality were examined by District staff. As he testified on behalf of the District, Mr. Sauskojus "checked to see whether or not . . . erosion control was located between any construction in the wetlands and/or buffers provided." (Tr. 288). He also checked to see that structures through which stormwater flowed into wetlands were equipped with skimmers. The inquiries led him to conclude as an expert in environmental resource permitting that water quality would not be adversely affected by the SWM System. Monitoring of water quality by the District may be done after the Permit has been finally issued and the SWM System is constructed. The District so provides in the Basis of Review. Section 5.13 of the District's Basis of Review states: Staff reports and permits for projects not requiring monitoring at the time of permit issuance will include a statement that water quality monitoring will be required in the future if necessary to ensure that state water quality standards are being met. This should not be construed as an indication that the District is contemplating the implementation of a program of intensive water quality monitoring by all permittees. District Ex. 4, Chapter Five, P. 6. Assurances Other than ICPR P11's Shelf Westfield proposes creation of a shelf along the western boundary of P11. It is approximately 150 feet wide with a slope of "a hundred to one . . . a flat area . . . right around the seasonal high elevation of [the] pond." (Tr. 158). Just as it does not claim treatment credit for P11, Westfield does not claim treatment credit for the shelf. There will not be any planting on the shelf; nor is it designed to serve as a littoral zone. A "shelf is . . . in some cases the final location for . . . the filtration [and] the protection for the wetland[;] . . . it acts as a wetland buffer for the mature forested wetland." (Vol. III, p. 59). But the shelf to be provided by Westfield is "just . . . a secondary shelf to help the interaction between the wetland and the pond." (Tr. 159). Without vegetation, the shelf provided will be of insignificant benefit. Dewatering During Construction To prevent dewatering of Wetland A3 during construction, a dewatering plan must be provided the District before excavation of P11 begins. The Permit contains a general condition that if the contractor "decides to use dewatering" (tr. 223) of a wetland, the District must be notified so that an assessment of adverse effects on the wetland can be made.6 Wetland Impacts: Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation Direct impacts to wetlands include excavation or filling: events that entail physical construction in the wetland. The Project proposes direct wetland impacts to 1.61 acres of wetlands and 2.81 acres of surface waters or wet ditches. With regard to impacts, an applicant must first attempt to avoid them. If that fails, the applicant must minimize the impact. Finally, the applicant must propose mitigation for impacts. Direct Impacts to Wetlands In addition to the secondary impacts caused by the Project's upland activities to the many wetlands on-site that are buffered or that were not buffered and that have to be offset by mitigation, Wetland B12, a wetland little more than one-half acre in size, will receive both direct and secondary impacts. The direct impact is caused by the proposed road. The direct impact is unavoidable because of road alignment required by the Department of Transportation, "a human health and safety issue [that relates] to State Road 54." (Tr. 64). The direct impact to Wetland B12 takes up .15 acres, leaving .43 acres of the wetland without direct impact. (At the same time, Wetland B9 is avoided by the curve in the proposed road and the road is aligned to avoid direct impact to Wetlands B6 and D5.) Wetland B12 is exempt from fish and wildlife review because it "is not connected by a ditch or overland flow to a larger than half-acre wetland at seasonal high " (Tr. 283). The value of Wetland B12, as an isolated wetland, is not as high as the value of Wetland A3. It has also suffered de-watering and encroachment by exotic species. Wetland C12, just down the proposed road from Wetland B12, will incur direct impact to 0.05 acres. The remainder of the wetland on site, 1.80 acres will be preserved under a conservation easement. Wetland B4 is a small, herbaceous wetland. In the middle of what is now cow pasture slated for excavation if the Project is approved, Wetland B4 will suffer permanent destruction by the creation of Pond P11. The direct impact will cover 0.75 of an acre, the size of the wetland as it now exits. Wetland C4, 0.60 acres in size, will also be permanently destroyed by the establishment of several lots in the Northern Pod of development and excavation of P4, a wet detention pond. The justification offered by Westfield for the permanent destruction of these two relatively small isolated wetlands is economic. Saving them would cost $215,000. Mitigation of the Direct Impacts The project preserves wetlands on site with conservation easements. If the wetland is a good candidate for wetland stormwater treatment, the project attempts to augment its hydrology. The direct impacts of Westfield's planned activities are proposed to be mitigated by the construction of 2.89 acres of non-forested wetlands and by the preservation of 65.32 acres of wetlands on site. Section 3.3.2 in the Basis of Review provides: Subsections 3.3.2[.1] through 3.3.2.2 [of the Basis of Review] establish ratios for the acreage of mitigation required compared to the acreage which is adversely impacted by regulated activity. District Ex. 4, CHAPTER THREE, P. 21. When preservation of wetland and other surface waters is the vehicle of mitigation, it also provides: The ratio guideline for wetland and other surface water preservation will be 10:1 to 60:1 (acreage wetlands and other surface waters preserved to acreage impacted). District Ex. 4, CHAPTER THREE, P. 24. The ratio of wetlands and other surface waters proposed for preservation (65.32 acres) to wetlands proposed to be permanently destroyed (1.61 acres) by Westfield is more than 40 to 1, well within the guideline. The wetland area to be created is designated as Wetland B2. Adjacent to two wetland systems, Wetland A3 and Wetland C2, and lying between them, Wetland B2 will also serve as a wetland habitat wildlife corridor. The 2.89 acres of created non-forested wetlands that will constitute Wetland B2 offset 1.36 of non-forested impact, a ratio of 2.13 to 1. The ratio is within the guidelines for created wetlands in Section 3.3.2.1.1. of the Basis of Review. In the District's view, the applicant's wetland mitigation proposal provides the District with reasonable assurances that impacts to wetland functions will be offset. Put slightly differently by Mr.Sauskojus, in the view of District staff, "weighing the proposed direct impacts, the secondary impacts and the mitigation provided, . . . there will not be adverse impacts on site or offsite . . . ." (Tr. 293). Since downward and lateral seepage from Pond P11 was not taken into account, however, the mitigation plan offered by Westfield is not designed to offset any impacts from the seepage to Wetland A3 and the Cypress-forested Wetland. These impacts are secondary impacts. Secondary Impacts A secondary impact is an impact that follows a direct impact to a water resource. An example of a secondary impact is boat traffic increase because of the installation of a boat ramp or a marina that poses an increased threat of collision with manatees. The construction of the boat ramp or the marina would entail direct impacts to the water resource. The increased boat traffic would constitute impacts secondary to the construction of the ramp or marina. A way to minimize secondary impacts is through buffers. Just as the Cypress-forested Wetland should be buffered from development, so should the isolated wetlands on-site. Isolated wetlands are important for several reasons. They accept the brunt of the discharges from the developed uplands and so are responsible for filtering nutrients, pesticides and chemicals from stormwater and other run off. They also are spots where wildlife congregate. Birds, in particular, will be under siege from the cats that inevitably accompany development. Buffers, particularly vegetated buffers, assist in protection of wetlands whether contiguous or isolated. Section 3.3.7 of the Basis of Review provides: Secondary impacts to habitat functions of wetlands associated with upland activities will not be considered adverse if buffers, with a minimum width of 15' and an average width of 25' are provided abutting those wetlands that will remain under the permitted design, unless additional measures are needed for protection of wetlands used by listed species for nesting, denning, or critically important feeding habitat. District Ex. 4, CHAPTER THREE, Pg. 16. The upland activities of the Project have an average 25-foot buffer. For the bulk of the Project, the buffer is at least 15 feet, a minimum buffer that is normally required. Close to the headwaters of Wetland A3, however, the Southern Pod of development does not have a buffer that is equal to or more than 15 feet. In this area and other areas where there are less than 15 feet of buffer (such as around isolated Wetlands B8 and D3), the Project calls for a double silt fence, that is, a two- rowed fence to hold back silt. The silt fence will protect the wetland from damage during grading of the lots and construction of the residences. But it will not protect the wetland from secondary impacts caused by upland activities after the Project is developed. The buffers are made up of bahaia grass primarily. The import of the buffer's composition was explained at hearing by David Sauskojus, a District employee: If a buffer is made up of pasture grass, it is definitely much less effective relative to protecting habitat functions than . . . an undisturbed upland. . . . [I]n this case, . . . in the past before they made it pasture, [the undisturbed upland would have] consisted of palmettos, bryonia, bushes, [and] shrubs, that would have provided some kind of habitat value to the wetland itself. (Tr. 282). Despite the low quality of the composition of the buffers, the additional width of buffers in other areas that allow the average of the buffers to exceed 25 feet was reasonable assurance in the view of District personnel that the encroachment of development closer than 15 feet in certain areas would not have secondary habitat impacts to Wetland A3. Because of this "offset," the District did not request the applicant to mitigate for the encroachments into the minimum 15 feet of buffer normally required. Cumulative Impacts Section 3.2.8.1 of the Basis of Review provides: Cumulative impacts are considered unacceptable when the proposed system, considered in conjunction with the past, present, and future activities as described in 3.2.8 would then result in a violation of state water quality standards as set forth in subsection 3.1.1(c) or significant adverse impacts to functions of wetlands or other surface waters identified in subsection 3.2.2 within the same drainage basin when considering the basin as a whole. District Ex. 4, CHAPTER THREE, P. 19. The Project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts on the wetlands and other surface waters on site. Fish, Wildlife and Listed Species Under the Basin of Review, when a party applies for an ERP, "[g]enerally, wildlife surveys will not be required." District Ex. 4, Basin of Review, Section 3.2.2, CHAPTER THREE, page 4. The Basin of Review details when a wildlife survey is required: The need for a wildlife survey will depend upon the likelihood that the site is used by listed species, considering site characteristics and the range and habitat needs of such species, and whether the proposed system will impact that use such that criteria in subsection 3.2.2 through 3.2.2.3 and subsection 3.2.7 will not be met. Survey methodologies employed to inventory the site must provide reasonable assurance regarding the presence or absence of the subject listed species. Id. It is apparent from the record that District staff initially believed that a wildlife survey was needed. The file of record contains a document prepared by District staff entitled "Project Information Review List," (the "First Request for Additional Information" or "1st RAI"). Dated March 7, 2003, it refers to the Application's receipt one month earlier. Under the heading "SITE INFORMATION," the following appears: Has any current wildlife survey been performed on site? In particular, what recent observations have been made of wildlife usage within Wetlands B4, C4 and B12? The submitted wildlife survey not only is almost three years old, but it represents a preliminary effort. (emphasis supplied), Westfield Ex. 19, File of Record,(1st Volume), p. 104. The staff request for additional information continues with recommendations not only to cure the outdated nature of the survey but also for the methodology that should be used: Id. Staff would recommend, for the above three wetlands, that a survey be performed which is consistent with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's methodology, documented within; Standardized State Listed Animal Species Survey Procedures for FDOT Projects by Jim Beaver, revised in 1996, and Wildlife Methodology Guidelines by Mike Alan, 1988. Reference Rules 40D-4.101(1)(c) and (e) and 40D-4.301, F.A.C. and Section 3.2.2, Basis of Review (B.O.R.). The file of record reflects a response to the 1st RAI. With regard to the question as to whether a current wildlife survey has been performed, the criticism of the submitted survey and the recommended methodology to be used in a subsequent survey, Westfield's ERP consultant, King Engineering Associates, Inc., ("King") responds: Site conditions have not changed since King conducted the original preliminary listed species survey. During more recent site visits, King staff have not observed any additional listed species, or evidence of their breeding/nesting activity on the subject property. Onsite wetlands B4 and C4 are essentially shallow, wet depressional areas in the pasture. While these herbaceous wetlands could potentially provide occasional foraging habitat for wading birds, they do not represent suitable habitat for breeding/nesting of any listed species. Wetland B12, a forested wetland, likewise does not represent suitable habitat for breeding/nesting of listed species, and no listed species have been documented in this wetland. As a follow-up effort to King's preliminary listed species survey, and following recommendations made in that report, King has performed additional wildlife surveys. Specifically, a Southeastern Kestrel Survey and Gopher Tortoise Burrow Survey were conducted by King. The results of these follow-up surveys, which were included with Attachment 7 of the original submittal, revealed that neither of these two listed species is currently present on, or breeding/denning on, the subject property. Westfield Ex. 19, File of Record, (1st Volume), p. 123. On May 7, 2003, the District responded by letter to the additional information provided by King with a second Request for Additional Information (the "2nd RAI"). The letter states, "[y]our permit application still lacks some of the components necessary for us to complete our review; the enclosed checklist describes the missing information." District Ex. 19, File of Record, (1st Volume), p. 184). The checklist attached, under the heading "SITE INFORMATION" states: The response to Request for Additional Information (RAI) Comment No. 3, regarding wildlife surveys, does not give the District reasonable assurance that threatened or endangered species do not use the wetlands proposed to be impacted. Many changes have taken place in the vicinity of the project since King performed the preliminary survey three years ago. The construction of the Suncoast Parkway and several nearby residential developments have re-shaped habitat availability within this area. The District strongly recommends performing a wildlife survey to evaluate the usage by threatened or endangered species of Wetlands B4, C4 and B12. The survey should be performed using the previously noted Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) methodology. Additionally, when/if the survey is performed, please provide details regarding the actual survey, including but not limited to, dates, times of day, location and methods used. Westfield Ex. 19, File of Record (1st Volume), p. 185. On June 20, 2003, King responded in writing to the 2nd RAI. With regard to the strong recommendation of a wildlife survey that uses the FFWCC methodology, King wrote: The applicant is confident based on the results of the existing Preliminary Listed Species survey and the extended amount of property contact time by field scientists and District staff in the intervening months when hydro-period, wetlands delineation, and permit application work were on-going, that no wetland dependent species are present. Westfield Ex. 19, File of Record, (1st Volume), p. 198. In addition to the time spent on the preliminary survey, the response lists 64 hours of time when the site was visited for purposes of "[w]etland delineation, wetland delineation & [h]ydro-periods," "h]ydro-periods," "[h]ydro-period [r]eview with SWFWMD," "[f]ollow-up Gopher Tortoise/Kestrel [s]urvey" and "[f]ield [v]isit with ACOE staff." Id. On July 18, 2003, a third RAI ("3rd RAI") was issued by staff. Satisfied with the June 20, 2003, response with regard to the earlier inquiries about a wildlife survey, the 3rd RAI makes no reference to the earlier requests with regard to site information or the need for wildlife survey. Dr. Baca, Dr. Blanco's wetlands ecologist, criticized the wetland information provided by Westfield along the same lines as did District staff in the documents in the file of record. For example, Dr. Baca testified with regard to endangered species that a survey should be conducted over several seasons. A great deal of time must be spent studying the particular habitat and looking for particular organisms. "It cannot be an aside to other work . . . with wetlands or soil studies . . . [i]t has to be a focus of [a wildlife survey]." (Vol. III, tr. 33). A survey for endangered or threatened species requires time and focus precisely because of the nature of listed species; in Dr. Baca's words, "they're not around very much and sometimes they're not around very long." (Vol. III, tr. 32). Time of day that a survey is conducted, moreover, has an impact on the likelihood that wildlife will be found on site. As Dr. Baca testified, Most of the time, you'll find more wildlife on-site around the hours of dusk and dawn . . . Other times, especially during cold weather, wildlife will come out during the hottest part of the day, which is around noon . . . [a]ll of these add to the amount of time that would be required to do a proper study. (Vol. III, Tr. 33). There is no evidence of record as to time of day of the visits used by Westfield for credit toward wildlife observation. Finally, it is apparent that the on-site visits following the preliminary species survey three years prior to the submission of the application did not employ the methodology recommended by the District: the FWWCC methodology. Perhaps an equivalent methodology could be employed, but there is no evidence of an attempt to conduct a survey with an acceptable methodology, either that of FWWCC or an equivalent. The District's acceptance of the Kestrel Survey may have been appropriate.7 But the hours spent visiting the site for wetland delineation and purposes other than to survey wildlife were not shown to have employed the FWWCC methodology or its equivalent and do not supplant the need for a wildlife survey that employs an appropriate methodology. The Mitigation Plan When the impacts of a project that requires an ERP permit are such that an applicant is unable to meet the criteria for approval (the "public interest test"), the applicant may propose or accept measures that mitigate the adverse impacts of the regulated activity so that the Project in its entirety can be demonstrated to be "not contrary to the public interest." In other words, "[t]he mitigation must offset the adverse effects caused by the regulated activity." § 373.414(1)(b), Fla. Stat. It is "the responsibility of the applicant to choose the form of mitigation." Id. As explained by the testimony, all of the mitigation proposed by Westfield is on-site.8 The Respondents' Joint Proposed Recommended Order addresses mitigation for the adverse impacts caused by the Project. The proposed findings that relate to mitigation are summed up in paragraph 16 of the proposed order: 16. The mitigation for the project is appropriate and adequately compens[]ates for the unavoidable direct and secondary wetland impacts from the Project. Respondents' Joint Proposed Recommended Order, p. 6. In support of this finding, the proposed order cites to the File of Record, Westfield Ex. 19, testimony from Mr. Courtney at Tr. 66-76 and 120-121 and testimony from Mr. Sauskojus at Tr. 284-286. Mr. Sauskojus' testimony explains how the mitigation plan adequately mitigates for the direct impacts to wetlands on site. But that explanation does not demonstrate mitigation for all of the potential impacts. No effort was offered for how the plan was designed to mitigate for the impact of draw-down from Wetland A3 caused by low elevation of Pond P11 due to seepage, for example, because seepage was not accounted for in the ICPR modeling. Mr. Courtney's testimony is no different with regard to the same critical omission. Westfield, quite simply, did not take into account, as Mr. Vecchioli testified, the effect of seepage in the information it provided the District. Nor was the mitigation plan designed to mitigate for secondary impacts that might have been indicated by a wildlife survey since an appropriate wildlife survey was not conducted. At bottom, Westfield did not provide reasonable assurances as required by the statutes and rules; it omitted an adequate wildlife survey from the submission of information to the District and it failed to account for seepage from Pond P11 and its effect on Wetland A3 and the Cypress-forested Wetland. Its mitigation plan does not make up for Westfield's failure to demonstrate that the Project is otherwise "not contrary to the public interest."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Individual Environmental Resource Permit sought by Entryway and Westfield be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 2004.
The Issue The issue 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.
The Issue There are two main issues in this case. The first is whether Respondent, NNP-Bexley, Ltd. (NNP-Bexley), has provided Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Management District (the District), with reasonable assurances that the activities NNP- Bexley proposes to conduct pursuant to Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) Application No. 43013740.004 (the Permit) meet the conditions for issuance of permits established in Sections 373.413 and 373.414, Florida Statutes (2007), Florida Administrative Code Rules 40D-4.301 and 40D-4.302, and the Environmental Resource Permit Information Manual, Part B, Basis of Review (BOR).1 The second is whether Petitioner, Dr. Octavio Blanco (Blanco), participated in this proceeding for an improper purpose so as to warrant the imposition of sanctions under Section 120.595(1), Florida Statutes.2
Findings Of Fact Blanco is a resident of Pasco County, Florida. Blanco is a trustee and beneficiary of an unrecorded Land Trust Agreement, dated December 19, 1996, known as Trust Number 99. The Trust holds title to real property (the Blanco Property) located to the south of the NNP-Bexley property. The Blanco property is approximately 100 acres and primarily agricultural. It has a narrow frontage along State Road (SR) 54, and is directly east of the Suncoast Parkway. A wetland known as Wetland A3 is partially located on the northern portion of the Blanco property. NNP-Bexley is a Florida limited partnership between the Bexley family and NNP-Tampa, LLC, and is the applicant for the ERP at issue in this case. Newland Communities, LLC, is the project manager for NNP-Bexley under a project management agreement. The ERP at issue in this case would authorize construction of a new surface water management system to serve Phase I of the Bexley Ranch Development of Regional Impact (DRI), which is a 6,900-acre mixed use, residential community. Phase one consists of a 1,717-acre residential subdivision in Sections 7, 8, and 16-20, Township 26 South, Range 18 East, Pasco County, Florida (the Subject Property), with 735 residential units, both single and multi-family, and associated improvements, including widening SR 54 and constructing Sun Lake Boulevard and Tower Road (collectively, the Project). The Subject Property is located North of the Blanco property. Like the rest of the land subject to the Bexley Ranch DRI, the Subject Property is predominantly agricultural land used for raising cattle, sod farming, and tree farming. There is little native vegetation and limited habitat value for wildlife in the uplands. The Subject Property is composed of approximately 654 acres of wetlands and 1063 acres of uplands. Most of the wetlands will be preserved, including many as part of a wildlife corridor along the Anclote River that is proposed to be dedicated to Pasco county. The Bexley Ranch DRI has been extensively reviewed. Including the DRI approval, it has received 23 separate development approvals to date. A Site Conditions Assessment Permit (SCAP) issued by the District established existing conditions on the NNP-Bexley Property for ERP permitting purposes, including wetland delineations, wetland hydroperiods, pre-development flows, drainage flow patterns, and the pre- development flood plain. The SCAP was not challenged and is not subject to challenge in this proceeding. Surface Water Management System The Subject Property accepts off-site drainage flows from the east and from the south. All drainage exits the Subject Property to the west, into property owned by the District. There is a culvert under an abandoned railroad crossing between the Subject Property and the Blanco property that directs surface water flows into the Subject Property. That culvert controls water elevations on the Blanco property. The surface water management system consists of a series of wet detention facilities, wetland creation areas, and floodplain mitigation designed to control water quality, quantity, and floodplain elevations. The design of the surface water management system was optimized and environmental impacts were reduced by using created wetlands for floodplain attenuation. Information from the SCAP was used to create pre- development and post-development Inter-connected Pond Routing (ICPR) computer models of drainage relevant to the Subject Property. The ICPR models were used to design a surface water management system that will avoid adverse on-site or off-site impacts and provide required water quality treatment. The ICPR models showed that the in-flows and out-flows to and from the Project site will not be adversely impacted by the proposed activities. The proposed surface water management system will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters or to adjacent land, including Dr. Blanco's property. The Phase I project will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities and will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that state water quality standards will be violated. The proposed water quality treatment system utilizes ponds for treatment and attenuation. Flow will be controlled by outlet structures. During construction, best management practices will be used to control sediment run-off. The surface water management system provides adequate water quantity and quality treatment and is designed to meet the criteria in Section 5.2 and BOR Section 6. Wetlands and Associated Impacts The wetlands within the Subject Property consist primarily of moderate-quality forested wetlands that have been selectively logged in the past. Previously isolated wetlands have been connected by surface water ditches. Through multiple iterations of design, direct wetland impacts from the Project were reduced from 86 to approximately of the 654 acres of wetlands on the Subject Property. Of those 24 acres, almost half are man-made surface water ditches. There will be direct impacts to 13.6 acres of wetlands that will require mitigation, which is approximately two percent of the total wetlands on the Subject Property. Most of the direct wetland impacts are the result of required transportation improvements such as roadway crossings. Secondary impacts also were considered. However, the proposed ERP requires a minimum of 15 feet and an average of 65 feet of buffer around wetlands on the Subject Property. The uplands have been converted into improved pasture or silviculture that lack native vegetation and have limited habitat value. According to the evidence, given buffers that exceed the District's criteria of a minimum 15 feet and average feet, no "additional measures are needed for protection of wetlands used by listed species for nesting, denning, or critically important feeding habitat"; and any secondary impacts from the expected residential development on a large percentage of the uplands on the Subject Property and subsequent phases of the Bexley DRI are not considered to be adverse. See BOR Section 3.2.7. Extensive wildlife surveys were conducted throughout the breeding season at all relevant times for sand hill cranes, wading birds, and all listed species. No colonies of listed bird species, such as wood storks, herons, egrets, or ibises, were found on the Project site; and no listed species was found to utilize the site for nesting. Mitigation Under the proposed ERP for the Project, approximately 80 acres of wetlands are to be created for floodplain attenuation and mitigation to offset unavoidable wetland impacts. The proposed mitigation areas are to be excavated to relatively shallow depths and planted. All the mitigation is on the Subject Property. The State's mandated Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) was used in this case to determine the amount of mitigation "needed to offset adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-345.100(1). Generally, UMAM compares functional loss to wetlands and other surface waters to functional gains through mitigation. In applying UMAM in this case, it does not appear that NNP-Bexley considered any functional loss to wetlands and other surface waters from the use of a large percentage of the uplands on the Subject Property and subsequent phases of the Bexley DRI for residential development. Apparently, impacts resulting in any such functional loss to wetlands and other surface waters were treated as secondary impacts that were not considered to be adverse because they were adequately buffered. See Finding 17, supra. In addition, "the amount and type of mitigation required to offset . . . [s]econdary impacts to aquatic or wetland dependent listed animal species caused by impacts to uplands used by such species for nesting or denning" are evaluated and determined by means other than "implementation of Rules 62- 345.400 through 62-345.600, F.A.C." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 345.100(5)(b). In any event, the undisputed evidence was that the uplands have been converted into improved pasture or silviculture that lack native vegetation and have limited habitat value, and there was ample evidence that UMAM was used properly in this case to determine the amount of mitigation "needed to offset adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters." Id. Without any evidence to the contrary, the evidence in the record is accepted. Based on the accepted UMAM evidence, wetland impacts resulted in 6.36 units of functional loss. The functional gain of the proposed mitigation calculated using UMAM is 18.19 units, more than offsetting Project impacts to wetlands on the Subject Property. Proposed Excavations for Ponds and Wetland Creation Blanco's expressed concerns focus on a 30-acre wetland to be created in the southwest corner of the Subject Property for mitigation with a secondary benefit of floodplain compensation credit. Referred to as M-10, this wetland is proposed to be created by excavating uplands to a depth of approximately two and one half feet, which is approximately half a foot below the seasonal high water line (SHWL). Because it is controlled by the railroad culvert near the property boundary, Wetland A3 will not be negatively impacted by M-10. It will not lose water to M-10 or any of the proposed excavations except in periods of relatively high rainfall, when those outflows would benefit Wetland A3. In addition, the existing Tampa Bay Water pipeline and the proposed Tower Road, located between the Blanco Property and the Subject Property, would restrict any drawdown effects from impacting Wetland A3. Mr. Marty Sullivan, a geotechnical engineer, performed an integrated ground and surface water modeling study to evaluate the potential for impacts to Wetland A3 from the excavation of a large-sized pond on the adjacent Ashley Glen property as part of a project that also was the subject of an ERP administrative challenge by Petitioner. Petitioner's challenge concerned impacts to Wetland A3 from excavation of an adjacent pond, known as P11. Mr. Sullivan's modeling demonstrated that there would be no adverse impacts to the hydrology of Wetland A3 from the Ashley Glen excavation although P-11 was larger and deeper than M-10, and much closer to Wetland A3. The bottom of P-11 came within 2 feet of limerock, in contrast to the minimum 10 foot separation in M-10. The Bexley and Ashley Glen sites are substantially similar in other respects, and the Ashley Glen modeling is strong evidence that M-10 would not adversely impact Wetland A3 or the wetlands on the Subject Property. Approximately 50 test borings were conducted throughout the 6,900-acre DRI site. The borings were done after considering the locations of wetlands and proposed activities. Test borings in Phase I were performed on the west side of the Subject Property. The findings from the test borings indicate that there is an inconsistent semi-confining layer that overlies the DRI site. Limestone varies in depth from 15 feet to 50 feet below the surface. Based upon the findings from the test borings, excavations for stormwater ponds are a minimum of 10 feet above the top of the limestone layer, meaning the semi-confining unit materials that cover the limestone will not be encountered or breached. Given the excavation depths of the various ponds, no adverse draw-downs are expected that would cause the groundwater table to be lowered due to downward leakance. While initially water would be expected to flow or move through the ground from existing wetlands on the Subject Property to the new M-10 wetland, water levels will stabilize, and there will be enough water for the existing wetlands and for M-10. There will be more water in the southwestern corner of the Subject Property for a longer period of time than in pre- development conditions. NNP-Bexley provided reasonable assurance that there will be no adverse impacts to Wetland A3 or the existing wetlands on the Subject Property from M-10 or any of the proposed excavations. Other Conditions for Permit Issuance The Project was evaluated under the public interest test found in Rule 40D-4.302. The evidence was that the public interest criteria have been satisfied. The Project is capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being effectively performed and of functioning as proposed. The applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the construction, operation, and maintenance of the system will meet the conditions for permit issuance in Rule 40D-4.301 and 40D4.302. Improper Purpose Blanco has a history of opposing projects near his property, with mixed results. In this case, after Blanco learned of NNP-Bexley's application for an ERP, he met with Ms. Brewer on April 20, 2006, to discuss it. At the time, specifics were not discussed, but Blanco let Ms. Brewer know that his successful opposition to an earlier project by Westfield Homes resulted in significant expenditures by the developer and eventually the abandonment of the project by that developer. Blanco warned Ms. Brewer that, if NNP-Bexley did not deal with him to his satisfaction, and he challenged NNP-Bexley's application, NNP-Bexley would risk a similar fate. In August 2006, Blanco arranged a meeting at the University of South Florida (USF) with Ms. Brewer, NNP-Bexley's consultants, Blanco, and USF hydrologists, Drs. Mark Stewart and Mark Rains. At the time, Blanco's expressed concern was the impact of the NNP-Bexley project on Wetland A3. As a result of the meeting, it was agreed that there would be no impact on Wetland A3, primarily because it was upstream and its water elevations were controlled by the downstream culvert to the south of the Bexley property. Nonetheless, Ms. Brewer agreed to limit excavations in the southwest corner near the Blanco property and Wetland A3 to a depth of no more than two and a half feet, instead of the 12 feet being proposed at the time. NNP-Bexley made the agreed changes to the application and proceeded towards obtaining approval by the District. When Blanco learned that the NNP-Bexley project was on the agenda for approval by the District Board at its meeting in March 2008, Blanco took the position that NNP-Bexley had reneged on an agreement to keep him informed and insisted on an urgent meeting. At this third meeting with Ms. Brewer and some of her consultants, Blanco was told that the only change to the application was the one agreed to at the meeting at USF in August 2006. Not satisfied, Blanco asked that the application documentation be forwarded to Dr. Stewart for his evaluation. He mentioned for the first time that he was concerned about an increased risk to the Blanco property and Wetland A3 from wildfires starting on the Bexley property, spreading south, and utilizing dry muck resulting from the dewatering of wetlands in the southwest corner of the Bexley property as fuel. Blanco requested that the approval item be removed from the Board's agenda to give Dr. Stewart time to evaluate the documentation and advise Blanco. Blanco stated that, if forced to challenge Board approval, he would raise numerous issues arising from the entirety of the application, not just the muck fire issue and not just issues arising from activities in the southwest corner of the Bexley property. Ms. Brewer refused to delay Board approval for the reasons given by Blanco. When told that the item would not be removed from the agenda, Blanco stated that he would not challenge an approval that limited the excavations to the SHWL. NNP-Bexley refused because it was necessary to dig the pond to a half foot below the SHWL in order to create a mitigation wetland. At that point, Blanco proposed that he would not challenge a Board approval if: vegetation was removed from the mitigation areas to reduce the risk of wildfires; a fire break was constructed along Tower Road and mowed periodically; NNP-Bexley agreed in writing to never deepen the mitigation pond M-1 in the southwest corner of the Bexley property; and NNP-Bexley paid Blanco $50,000 for him to install a well for use in fighting any wildfire that might approach the Blanco property and Wetland A3 from the north. Ms. Brewer agreed to all of Blanco's demands except for the $50,000 payment. Instead, she offered to pay for construction of the well, which she believed would cost significantly less than $50,000. At that point, the negotiations broke down, and Blanco filed a request for a hearing. The District denied Blanco's first request for a hearing and gave him leave to amend. In the interim, the Board voted to approve NNP-Bexley's application, and Blanco timely- filed an amended request for a hearing. The amended request for a hearing did not mention fire risk. Instead, it resurrected the issue of dewatering Wetland A3, as well as wetlands on the Bexley property, caused by the excavation in the southwest corner of the Bexley property, which would "result in destruction of functions provided by those wetlands that are not accounted for by the District." The amended request for a hearing also raised numerous other issues. After Blanco's former attorney-of-record withdrew without objection, Blanco's present counsel-of-record appeared on his behalf and requested a continuance to give Blanco time to determine whether either Dr. Stewart or Dr. Rains would be willing to testify for him if the hearing were re-scheduled. That request was denied. During a telephonic prehearing conference on September 8, 2008, Blanco asked to add Mr. Patrick Tara, a professional engineer, to his witness list. This request was denied as untimely. Mr. Tara was available but was not permitted to testify at the final hearing; instead, Blanco was allowed to file an affidavit of Mr. Tara as a proffer. Blanco's request to present expert evidence on fire hazards from muck fires in dry conditions was denied as irrelevant under the District's ERP conditions of issuance. Essentially, Blanco presented no evidence to support any of the allegations in his amended request for a hearing. Blanco maintained in his testimony that he filed and persisted in this challenge on the advice of his experts, Drs. Stewart and Rains, and after September 8, 2008, also on the opinions of Mr. Tara. For that reason, Blanco was given the opportunity to file affidavits from Drs. Stewart and Rains, in addition to the affidavit of Mr. Tara, in support of his expressed basis for litigating this case. Respondents were given the opportunity to depose Drs. Stewart and Rains if desired. Drs. Stewart and Rains, as well as Mr. Tara, all told Blanco essentially that the excavation proposed in NNP-Bexley's plans for development probably would have adverse impacts on the surrounding wetlands. However, none of them told Blanco that there would be adverse impacts on Wetland A3; Drs. Stewart and Rains clearly told Blanco that there would be no adverse impacts on Wetland A3. It does not appear from his affidavit that Mr. Tara focused on Wetland A3, and there is no reason to believe that he disagreed with Drs. Stewart and Rains with regard to Wetland A3. As to the wetlands on the Bexley property surrounding the excavation in the southwest corner of the property, any potential impacts from excavation that Drs. Stewart and Rains might have discussed with Blanco prior to the USF meeting in August 2006 were reduced after NNP-Bexley agreed to limit the depth of the excavation to two and a half feet. When asked about the revised excavations again in February or March of 2008, Dr. Stewart essentially told Blanco that even the shallower excavations would make the surrounding wetlands on the Subject Property drier during dry conditions and that any such impacts could be eliminated or minimized by either limiting the excavation to the SHWL or by maintaining a buffer of undisturbed land around the excavation. Dr. Rains agreed with Dr. Stewart's assessment. Contrary to Blanco's testimony at the final hearing, there is no evidence that Dr. Stewart, Dr. Rains, or Mr. Tara ever advised Blanco to file and persist in this challenge. In their depositions, Drs. Stewart and Rains specifically denied ever giving Dr. Blanco such advice. Likewise, there is no evidence that any of them had any opinions to give Blanco about risk of fire hazards. In their depositions, Drs. Stewart and Rains specifically denied ever giving Blanco such opinions. There are additional discrepancies between Blanco's testimony and the deposition testimony of Drs. Stewart and Rains. Blanco swore that Dr. Stewart was unable for health reasons to testify for him. In his deposition, Dr. Stewart denied that his health entered into his decision. He told Blanco from the outset that he would not be willing to testify as Blanco's expert. Dr. Stewart only cursorily examined the materials Blanco had delivered to him and only responded to Blanco's questions in generalities. Most of their conversations consisted of Blanco bringing Dr. Stewart up-to-date on what was happening in the case. Blanco swore that Dr. Rains planned to testify for him at the scheduled final hearing until unexpected events made it impossible. In his deposition, Dr. Rains testified that he never agreed to testify as Dr. Blanco's expert and that his unavailability to testify at the final hearing was made known to Blanco when he was first asked to testify at the scheduled final hearing. He never even opened the box of materials Blanco had delivered to him and barely spoke to Blanco at all about hydrology. Most of Dr. Rains' communications with Blanco had to do with Dr. Rains' unavailability to participate. Based on all of the evidence, it is found that Blanco's participation in this proceeding was for an improper purpose--i.e., "primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation, licensing, or securing the approval of an activity." His more recent dealings with Drs. Stewart and Rains and Mr. Tara seem more designed to obtain or infer statements for Blanco to use to avoid sanctions than to obtain actual evidence to support a valid administrative challenge.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District enter a final order issuing ERP No. 43013740.004 to NNP-Bexley. Jurisdiction is reserved to determine the appropriate amount of attorney's fees and costs to be awarded under Section 120.595(1), Florida Statutes, in further proceedings consolidated with NNP-Bexley's requests for Sections 57.105 and 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of November, 2008, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of November, 2008.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether four agency memoranda describing policy on mitigation for dredge and fill projects are unpromulgated rules and were relied on by the agency in violation of Section 120.535(1), F.S. During the hearing, and afterwards in writing, Petitioner sought leave to amend its pleadings to incorporate other policies allegedly relied on by the agency in the process of the dredge and fill application review. That request was denied in an order entered on August 23, 1993. Those policies are addressed in the recommended order in DOAH #93-3367.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, SIP Properties Limited Partnership (SIP) is the record owner of the parcel at issue, approximately thirty-five (35) acres located in the southwest area of Orlando, Orange County, Florida. SIP proposes to prepare the site for commercial and office use by developing the site into separate parcels or lots with proposed uses such as restaurant or fast food establishments, offices and retail stores. Development of the site requires the construction of compensating storage ponds that will act as retention/detention ponds and filling the site. The proposed improvements will result in the filling of 7.47 acres and dredging of 0.42 acres of wetlands claimed to be jurisdictional by DEP. Based on statements made to SIP by staff regarding department "mitigation policies" applicable to SIP's dredge and fill permit application, SIP believed that department policy memoranda were applied during permit review. SIP attached these various memoranda regarding mitigation to its Petition for Administrative Determination of Violation of Rulemaking Requirement dated May 27, 1993, and identified these memoranda as nonrule policies utilized by the department. The department retains on file and makes available for use by its staff the identified memoranda. However, in this case the department did not rely on or apply the mitigation guidelines contained in the memoranda in SIP's Petition. Instead, it applied Part III of Chapter 17-3120, F.A.C. In Part III of Chapter 17-312, F.A.C., the agency has adopted rules addressing the mitigation issues contained in the memoranda in SIP's Petition. For example, the agency has adopted guidelines in rule 17-312.340(2), F.A.C., for applying ratios when mitigation involves creation of state waters, as in this case. The department presently relies on these rules when reviewing mitigation plans, and does not rely on the policy memos referenced in the petition. Determining the mitigation needed to successfully offset impacts from a project is difficult and depends on many factors, including hydrology, soils, planting methods, and monitoring plans. Determining what is needed to reasonably assure successful mitigation must be done on a case by case basis. Not enough is known about the subject to apply any particular set of directions and expect success. DEP is presently in the process of developing rules to further address most aspects of mitigation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Protection issue its Final Order granting SIP's dredge and fill permit #48-2086169, with the mitigation proposed by the applicant, and establishing an expiration date and monitoring and evaluation plan for determining success of the mitigation as provided in rules 17-312.320 and 17-312.350, F.A.C. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 11th day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-3. Adopted in paragraph 2. 4.-6. Adopted in paragraph 7. 7.-8. Rejected as unnecessary. 9. Adopted in paragraph 8. 10.-11. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9. 12. Adopted in substance in paragraph 10. 13.-16. Rejected as unnecessary Adopted in paragraphs 11 and 12. Rejected as unnecessary. 19.-21. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. 22.-23. Adopted in substance in paragraph 14. 24.-25. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 16. Substantially rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Adopted in part in paragraph 17, otherwise rejected as immaterial. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 18. Rejected as immaterial. The agency witnesses established that the vegetation along the canal evidences the physical connection and there is evidence that water flows from the site into the canal. Rejected as unsubstantiated by reliable competent evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph 22. 36.-40. Rejected as unsupported by reliable competent evidence. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary, and as to characterization of merely "relic" wetlands, unsupported by the weight of evidence. Rejected (the conclusion of jurisdictional limit) as unsupported by the greater weight of evidence. 45.-53. Rejected as immaterial or unnecessary. 54.-56. Adopted in paragraphs 33 and 34. 57. Adopted, as to the limited function, in paragraphs 22 and 23. 58. Adopted in paragraph 26. 59.-60. Adopted in paragraph 23. 61. Rejected, as to the absolute conclusion of "no function", as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 62. Adopted in paragraph 25. 63.-64. Adopted in paragraph 26. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 30. Adopted in paragraph 34. Adopted in substance in paragraph 31. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 30 and 34. Adopted in paragraph 31. 71.-73. Adopted in paragraph 33. 74.-77. Rejected as unnecessary. 78.-79. Adopted in paragraph 31. 80.-81. Adopted in paragraph 35. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 33. 84.-90. Rejected as unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraph 15. 2.-3. Adopted in paragraph 16. 4.-5. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 16. Rejected as unnecessary and as to "binding" effect, unsupported by the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 19. 11.-15. Adopted in substance in paragraph 21. 16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and inconsistent with proposed findings #18 with regard to the constant level in the canal. 17.-18. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 21 and 23. 19.-21. Adopted in paragraphs 19 and 20. 22.-26. Adopted in summary in paragraph 21. Adopted in paragraph 27. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 1 and 2. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in part in paragraph 16. That the forests are "healthy and viable" is rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph 17. Adopted in part in paragraph 25; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 33.-34. Adopted in part in paragraph 27; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 35.-37. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 38.-43. Rejected as unnecessary. 44. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. The stormwater management plan and mitigation will restore the stormwater treatment functions. 45.-47. Adopted in substance in paragraph 30. Rejected as substantially contrary to the greater weight of evidence (as to the negative impact). Adopted in part, as to water quality problems generally, but rejected as to the ultimate conclusion, as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. 51.-52. Adopted in summary in paragraph 31. 53.-54. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 55. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Ronald M. Schirtzer, Esquire Martha H. Formella, Esquire R. Duke Woodson, Esquire FOLEY & LARDNER 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1800 Orlando, Florida 32801 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire John L. Chaves, Esquire Rosanne G. Capeless, Certified Legal Intern Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issues to be decided in this case are whether Respondents are liable for the violations charged in the NOV, whether Respondents should pay the penalties assessed in the NOV, and whether Respondents should be required to take the corrective actions demanded in the NOV.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency with powers and duties related to the regulation of construction activities in wetlands and surface waters, including filling in wetlands. Respondents are individuals who own real property on Bayshore Road in North Fort Myers, Florida. Some confusion exists in the record about the street number for the property. It is alternately described as 11590, 11620, 11650, and 11850. This is partly due to the fact that the property consists of at least two recorded parcels. The actual location of the filled area is not disputed, nor is it disputed that Respondents own the property where the fill was placed. The property is adjacent to the Caloosahatchee River. It contains freshwater marsh wetlands dominated by Leather Fern. The Department conducted a site inspection of Respondents’ property and determined that Respondents had filled 0.96 acres of wetlands. The Department produced evidence that it incurred costs of $1,824.50 in this case. The corrective actions ordered in the NOV, which are designed to restore the wetlands that were filled, are reasonable.
Findings Of Fact On March 30, 1978, Lee County applied to the Department for permits pursuant to Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, to improve the existing Daniels Road in Lee County, Florida, from a two lane unimproved facility to a two lane paved road. The project site is located in southeastern Lee County, Florida, and crosses Six Mile Cypress Swamp. The proposed improvement would require excavation of material from submerged lands of waters of the state to remove a part of the existing dirt roadbed, placing of fill material onto submerged lands of waters of the state to widen the existing roadbed, and construction of two concrete bridges and two variable crest weirs. After receipt of the application, the Department reviewed the application, and, after consultation with Lee County officials, recommended issuance of the requested permit subject to the following conditions: Elimination of a proposed bicycle path; Deletion of a proposed spreader ditch and the dredging necessary for that ditch; Formulation and submission to the Depart- ment by Lee County of an acceptable management plan and schedule for maintaining water levels and indigenous swamp communities within the swamp; Organization of a Melaleuca Control Committee, together with preparation and implementation of a program to eradicate melaleuca within the right- of-way; and Revegetation of willows in the construction area. In their Amended Petition, Petitioners contest the proposed issuance of the requested permit on grounds that the permit condition requiring development of an acceptable water management plan should be accomplished prior to issuance of the permit; that the long range environmental impact of the proposed project has not been assessed; that the application does not contain information sufficient to give reasonable assurances that it will no result in deterioration of water quality; that insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the project will not have an adverse long-range impact on the conservation of fish, marine and wildlife, or other natural resources; that the aquifer recharge area adjacent to the proposed project will be substantially reduced; that sheet flow of overland water will be irretrievably altered; that land uses surrounding the Six Mile Cypress Swamp will contribute to deteriorating water quality; that elimination of the proposed bicycle path would deny Petitioners the right to utilize pedestrian, energy conserving and/or non-polluting transportation; and that the health and welfare of the Florida panther will be threatened by construction in the Six Mile Cypress Swamp which serves as habitat for this endangered species. Petitioners allege in their Amended Petition that their substantial interests would be affected ". . . in that Petitioner Joseph H. Burgess, a resident of Daniels Road, may suffer from downstream flooding as a result of issuing this permit." The Amended Petition alleged that Petitioner, Sierra Club - Calusa Group would be substantially affected by the proposed agency action in that they would ". . . be deprived of an area utilized for nature study . . .," in that the project would ". . . seriously impair the group's ability to study bird life and enjoy the natural scenic beauty of a presently relatively undisturbed area. . . ." The Amended Petition also alleged that Petitioners, Mary Ann Wallace and Joseph H. Burgess, would be substantially affected ". . . as nearby residents, who will be denied the right to enjoy a proposed regional park on the south side of Daniels Road in the Six Mile Cypress Swamp as a direct result of issuing this permit." Neither Joseph H. Burgess, Ellen Peterson, nor any representative testifying on behalf of Sierra Club - Calusa Group appeared or testified at the final hearing in this cause. The only named petitioners appearing and testifying at the final hearing were Mary Ann Wallace and Thomas Geary. Neither of these petitioners offered any testimony to establish that they owned property in Lee County, Florida, that they used any of the waters or other natural resources in the area of the Six Mile Cypress Swamp for nature study, recreation or other purpose, or that they would personally be injured or otherwise affected by issuance of the requested permit or the alleged environmental impacts arising therefrom. At the conclusion of Petitioners' case, the Department and Lee County moved to dismiss the Amended petition on grounds that Petitioners had failed to establish that their substantial interests would be affected by the proposed agency action as required by Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, which motions were granted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, dismissing the Amended Petition in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February 1979 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Isaac Anderson, Esquire 2115 Main Street Suites A and B Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Ray Allen, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas M. Brondstetter, Esquire Assistant Lee County Attorney Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION ELLEN PETERSON, et al., Petitioners, vs. CASE NO. 78-1467 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION and LEE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Respondents. /
