The Issue The issues to he determined in this matter concern the question of whether it is necessary for the Petitioner to obtain a dredge and fill permit from the Respondent prior to the construction of a road. Should it be found that the Respondent has jurisdiction to require a permit prior to such construction, the related question of the Petitioner's entitlement to a dredge and fill permit as envisioned by Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code, must also be resolved.
Findings Of Fact The property which is the subject of this dispute is located in Clay County, Florida, south of the city of Orange Park, Florida, adjacent to Blanding Boulevard which is also known as State Road 21. The project at issue contemplates the relocation of a portion of a road known as Hear Run Boulevard, which presently intersects with Blanding Boulevard. The present configuration of Hear Run Boulevard serves a building housing the Clay County Courthouse Annex, which has also been referred to as a tag agency building, and a subdivision known as Bear Run Subdivision. If the alternate road were constructed it would serve the same purpose in terms of utility. That construction would involve the placement of fill material in a cleared area over which Respondent asserts permit jurisdiction under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner does not believe that Respondent has jurisdiction to require a permit; however, if the permit is needed, Petitioner believes that it is entitled to the grant of a permit. As presently envisioned, it would be necessary to place approximately .48 acres of fill to construct the road. The relative location of the present Bear Run Boulevard, Blanding Boulevard, and the relocated Dear Run Boulevard are depicted in Petitioner's exhibit number 3, admitted into evidence. Petitioner had cleared the site of the proposed realignment of Bear Run Boulevard, prior to the fall of 1981. As a consequence, determination of the jurisdictional limits of the Department of Environmental Regulation, by the use of indicator species set forth in Rule 17-4.02, Florida Administrative Code, in establishing' the upland reach of waters of the state for permitting purposes was made more difficult than normal. Nonetheless, in September, 1981, as modified in November, 1981, Timothy Deuerling, Respondent's employee, in conjunction with Thad Hart of the United States Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, examined parcels of land adjacent to the site in question, which parcels are roughly to the east and west of the area in question and having identified plants found within the indicator species list of Rule 17-4.02, Florida Administrative Code, in sufficient numbers, established the jurisdictional limits of the Respondent's permit authority immediately below the present location of Bear Run Boulevard. In September, 1981, the swamp area south of the cleared property had been seen by Deuerling to be characterized by bald cypress, ash, blackgum and titi . In effect, an imaginary line was drawn between the wetland species on the adjacent sides of the site through the Petitioner's property with that portion of the site found roughly to the south of the imaginary line being considered within the waters of the state and property roughly to the north of the line being regarded as uplands and beyond the jurisdiction of the state. The initial determination of September, 1981, had been adjusted in November, 1981, moving the jurisdictional line further towards the receiving body of water which is known as Little Black Creek, a Class III water body. (Cyrilla racemil- flora) Two weeks before the hearing date in this cause, a project site inspection was made by Jeremy Guy Anthony Tyler, an employee wish the Department of Environmental Regulation. Tyler is the holder of a bachelor of science degree in mathematics, geology and physical geology and a masters degree in oceanography. His course study included chemistry and biology. He observed colonial upland species such as dog fennel and broom sage, together with some wetland species such as cypress seedlings, ash seedlings, button brush, cattails, willows, and Sagittaria, also known as arrowhead. Tyler indicated that the cattails and willows found on the site are typical invading wetland- type species. As Tyler described cattails and willows are plants that are seen at the start of a cycle of wet land development and would be expected to disappear as wetland species of trees became established. The wetland species were considerable in number. Dr. A Quentin White, Jr., Ph.D. in biology, gave testimony in behalf of the Petitioner and established that following clearing of the site, certain invader or colonial type species such as Phragmites and tipon, wetland species envisioned by the jurisdictional indicator list appeared. These colonial or invader species, as described by Dr. White, are probably located on the site in the positions observed because of off-site runoff into the site. Dr. White observed some cypress seedlings at the edge of the clearing adjacent to "'hat he describes as a swamp area, moving in the direction of Little Black Creek. These observations took place the day before the commencement of the hearing. White was uncertain of the jurisdictional limits of the Department of Environmental Regulation, expressing the opinion that the limit as established by the plant indices fell somewhere within the cleared area, which is the subject of this dispute, but did not extend as far as the current location of Hear Run Boulevard, based upon his perception of dominant vegetational species. Having considered the testimony and non-testimonial evidence, the facts demonstrate that the site of the proposed relocation of Bear Run Boulevard is within the dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction of the Department of Environmental Regulation. Respondents exhibit 8 is an aerial photograph depicting the site prior to the clearing. Respondent's exhibit 7 depicts the site following the clearing. A comparison of these two aerial photographs supports the determination that the relocation of Bear Run Boulevard falls within the permitting jurisdiction of the Department of Environmental Regulation as established by plant indicators. This is further borne out by the testimony of the witness Tyler in describing the vegetational signature found on Respondent's exhibit 8. 1/ Mr. Coleman was present when the September, 1981, initial jurisdictional line and the refinement of that choice which moved the line in the direction of Little Black Creek, in November, 1981, were physically established. Coleman was instructed that any activity below that line in the direction of Black Creek would require permitting. Nonetheless, fill material was placed in the cleared area to include chunks of asphalt. This led to the entry of the cease and desist order of February 22, 1982, on the part of the United States Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, a copy of which may be found as Respondent's exhibit number 3 admitted into evidence. That material was subsequently removed and its removal was acknowledged in correspondence from the Corps of Engineers to Ralph Coleman dated October 5, 1982. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Respondent's exhibit number 4 admitted into evidence. Having constructed the present Bear Run Boulevard as it intersects with State Road 21, Coleman and Associates, Inc., determined to relocate the road and made application to the Department of Environmental Regulation for the issuance of a dredge and fill permit. A copy of that application may be found as Petitioner's exhibit number 4 admitted into evidence. The date of the application was December 22, 1982. The purpose of the relocation was to build a connection to State Road 21 which did not have as severe a curve as the 30 degree curve in the present configuration of Bear Run Boulevard. This initial application sought permission to fill an area of approximately .73 acres, and contemplated the placement of fill between the existing location of Bear Run Boulevard as it intersects with State Road 21 and the area where the road was to be relocated. The area of fill may be seen in crosshatch in a planview drawing, a copy of which is found as Petitioner's exhibit number 2, admitted into evidence. This request for relocation of Bear Run Boulevard was supported by John W. Bowles, Public Works Director, Clay County, Florida, as evidenced by correspondence to that effect, addressed to Ralph Coleman on December 28, 1982, a copy of which Petitioner's exhibit number 8 admitted into evidence. Following discussion with G.E. Carter, an employee of the Department of Environmental Regulation, the Petitioner, in the person of Ralph R. Coleman as president, offered revision to the application for the placement of fill as seen in the February 22, 1953, correspondence to that effect, a copy of which is Respondent's exhibit number 2 admitted into evidence. That exhibit erroneously depicts the amount of fill as being 3300 yards. As previously described, the fill was approximately .48 acres. In essence, the new project would only promote fill material in the area of the new roadway or relocated road. It does not contemplate the placement of fill between the new road and the existing Bear Run Boulevard. This amendment to the application is graphically depicted, in terms of the fill placement, through the drawing which is Petitioner's exhibit number 3 admitted into evidence. The crosshatch shows the fill material to be placed. This amendment also modified the project to the extent that a widening of Blending Boulevard by efforts of the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, caused the placement of fill in an area of the proposed relocation of Bear Run Boulevard, which was not the case in the initial application for permit of December 22, 1982. This circumstance is shown in Petitioner's exhibit number 3 and is otherwise described in the testimony of the witnesses. "what has occurred is that the Department of Transportation has filled an area of the proposed relocated road and the .48 acres constitutes the balance of the necessary fill. On February 25, 1983, G. F. Carter, as Environmental Specialist with the Department of Environmental Regulation, had written to Coleman and Associates, Inc., suggesting that the project, as proposed, and that is taken to mean the project as proposed on December 22, 1992, would have an adverse impact on the environment. The correspondence goes on to state that modification suggested by Carter could lessen the impact to the extent of possibly eliminating any justifiable reason for denying the permit. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Petitioner's exhibit number 9 admitted into evidence. It is unclear exactly what Carter meant by this statement of how Petitioner could achieve permission to install the relocated road. However, it is evident that Coleman felt that the revisions of February 22, 1903, constituted the pursuit of changes which would lead to the issuance of a permit for dredge and fill. Whatever Carter's intentions, he could not bind the agency head of the Department of Environmental Regulation in the ultimate determination to grant or deny the permit as applied for in the revised plan of February 22, 1983. Ultimately, Respondent denied Petitioner's revised application for a dredge and fill permit based upon the belief that to grant permission to place fill materials as contemplated by the project, would cause a degradation of the water quality of state waters as envisioned by Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. This led to the present formal Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes hearing as requested by the Petitioner. In the present circumstance in the cleared area where the relocated road would be built, a large amount of stormwater runoff is occurring, primarily from road surfaces and the parking lot adjacent to the Clay County Courthouse Annex. The road surfaces are constituted of the present Bear Run Boulevard and State Road 21. Within this runoff is a large quantity of sediment and some oil and gas and other debris that falls on the road surface. Part of that debris is in a dissolved state. This surface runoff is receiving very little pollution treatment in its passage over the area cleared by the Petitioner. Dr. White gave the opinion that should Bear Run Boulevard be relocated, a retention area would be created within the boundaries of the present Bear Run Boulevard, the relocation of Bear Run Boulevard and State Road 21, thus improving water quality by retaining some of the runoff for a short period of time within that triangular shaped retention area. At present Dr. White finds water quality degradation which is more pronounced than would be the case if Dear Run Boulevard was relocated and the retention area created as described. White contemplates a circumstance, in which, with the relocation of Bear Run Boulevard swales and grassy areas could be designed to retain much of the sediment and act as a filter in treating water coming off State Road 21 through a culvert before entering the well vegetated wetlands area adjacent to the clearing, as one moves in the direction of Little Black Creek. White believes that this sediment which is being discharged through the transport system will eventually creep over into the stand of wetland trees and smother those trees along the fringe of the more well vegetated area at the southern edge of the clearing. The swales and grassy areas are as distinguished from the retention area within the triangular shape piece of land to be boardered by the present road surfaces and the relocated Bear Run Boulevard. Dr. White found that the cleared area exchanges waters with Little Black Creek in the sense of a flow in the direction of Little Black Creek from the proposed project site, notwithstanding a finger of land which is higher in elevation between the site and Little Black Creek as may be seen in Petitioner's composite exhibit number 11, a topographical survey map depicting various elevations in the vicinity of the project. Dr. White noted the very eroded condition of the project site, especially in the area of discharge from State Road 21, on the southern end of the cleared area. The by-product of this erosion, as seen by Dr. White, is the movement of sediment into waters of the state having a detrimental effect on water quality, primarily through increased turbidity. With increased turbidity productivity of the plants species is reduced. In addition, animals which live in the water are adversely affected. This problem with erosion may also cause submerged aquatic vegetation to be covered over and disrupt the nesting habitats of animal species. Dr. White concedes that the placement of fill material, such as would be the circumstance with the construction of the relocated Bear Run Boulevard, in that immediate zone, would kill the wetlands species, thereby removing them as a source of filtration of pollutants in the effort to maintain water quality. Dr. White believes that with the continuation of heavy rains in storm events, the wetland vegetation which is native to the cleared area might be washed out. On the other hand, if the area was allowed to recover, and a reduction of water flow were to occur, removing the destructive quality of that flow, he would expect the reoccurrence of sweetgum, cypress, water tupolo, and other species which are found in hardwood swamp areas. (wetlands) Although Dr. White was struck by the amount of erosion and sedimentation associated with runoff through control devices for and on the road surface of State Road 21, at the southern end of the cleared area, he could not quantify what percentage of the problem of erosion was attributable to the State Road 21 circumstance, the parking lot of the Clay County Courthouse Annex and the existing Bear Run Boulevard. Dr. White believes that upland retention basin would be preferable to retention in the cleared area, but upland property is not within the ownership and control of the Petitioner for such purpose. Dr. White has the opinion that Little Black Creek would only flood the cleared area in question in times of extremely high water. The observations by Dr. White are accepted as accurate. George Register, III, consultant to the Petitioner, has observed the site and gave his testimony. Register is the holder of a bachelors degree in biology and a masters degree in coastal and oceanographic engineering. He noted two flumes which discharge water from the Bear Run Boulevard, in times of storm events, going directly into the cleared area. He feels that a retention area on site can offer water treatment for the rainfall which is directly on the property and flowing through the property. Register also observed the situation related to State Road 21, particularly the road drainage system associated with the widening of State Road 21 from a two-lane to a four-lane road. Register would expand the idea of Dr. White concerning swales and grassing on the site to deal with the discharge from State Road 21, because he does not feel that the problem associated with the discharge can be completely alleviated on the site. He would use the more vegetated wetland area south of the cleared area to treat the runoff from State Road 21, by the settling of suspended particles in the runoff and the slowing down of the flow through the vegetated area using dikes and weirs and other control structures before the final discharge into Little Black Creek. (All of the activities associated with State Road 21, as to construction and drainage, are the responsibility of the State of Florida, Department of Transportation.) Register, as did White, noted that the present circumstance, given the amount of water being discharged onto the site, is not one which affords meaningful water treatment on the site. Register also observed the mix of wetlands and upland vegetation in the cleared area. He noted that exchange of water in the direction from Little Black Creek to the cleared area would only occur in times of extreme flooding, which has not occurred during the years in which he has had knowledge of this site. Register was not able to attribute the amount of runoff associated with the Clay County Courthouse Annex, Bear Run Boulevard, and State Road 21, in terms of percentages of contribution in a rainfall event, but was impressed by the volume from State Road 21. He does not find the present sparse wetlands vegetation, the colonial or volunteer species found at the site, to be of much value in water treatment. In order to afford meaningful treatment, Register thinks that the stand must be very healthy and diverse, as would commonly occur on the site, before it may offer a meaningful assistance in stormwater treatment. To improve the situation on the site, he would create the retention area with berming and weirs and other control structures and plant select kinds of vegetation to help in water treatment. Given the present circumstance, he would expect that in the area of the State Road 21 discharge pipe some form of wetlands vegetation such as cattails or pickleweed would persist as a "little band" of material. The rest of the area he expects to come back predominately as upland vegetation given the current trend, particularly as eroded material continues to be deposited on the site. The use of erosion control mats and the planting of certain types of vegetation to slow dawn the erosion, would not be sufficient to reverse the trend of the introduction of upland vegetation in the cleared area. Register's observations are accepted as accurate. The detail envisioned in the construction of the retention area, the Placement of swales and grassing, as described by White and Register, cannot be found in the original or amended application of the Petitioner. Nonetheless, Petitioner expressed a willingness to employ those techniques suggested by his consultants, Register and White, if given permission to construct the relocated Bear Run Boulevard. Petitioner's exhibits 18, 19, 20, 23, and 24, which are photographs admitted into evidence, depicts the impact of the expansion of State Road 21, in terms of sedimentation and erosion on site and in the more well vegetated wetlands area south of the site or cleared area. Some of those photographs show the types of vegetation as described by the various witnesses who gave testimony. The photograph attached to Petitioner's exhibit number 10 shows standing water in the cleared area, which is a frequent occurrence. The soil in the cleared area has remained wet following the clearing. The witness Tyler, who is a supervisor of the dredge and fill section of the northeast district office of the Department of Environmental Regulation, gave his impressions of the project. Tyler looks upon the creation of the area between existing Bear Run Boulevard, the proposed Dear Run Boulevard, and State Route 21 as an act of taking that area constituted of a triangular shaped piece of land out of the system in terms of water quality maintenance. He does not perceive this modification of the original application to exclude the placement of fill within that triangular shaped parcel as being an improvement to the original design. He overlooks the value of retention of water within the parcel as having a role in terms of water treatment and protection of the more dense wetlands area south of the site and Little Black Creek and the relatively ineffectual situation that now exists in the way of water treatment. That southerly dense area has been seen by Tyler to contain a number of cypress, tupelo, sweetgum and maple trees. Tyler feels that the effect of the project would be to eliminate the cleansing effect of the treatment on-site on the occasions where Little Black Creek overflows it is banks in the direction of the proposed construction site. This, as established through the testimony of White and Register, is an infrequent event. In summary, Tyler overlooked the potential of change, especially with attendant features which could be placed in the triangular shaped retention area and the contribution of placement of swales and grassing add. Although this causes detrimental impact on the site, changes would tend to improve water quality in the more pristine area south of the site, by tending to improve the filtering capacity of the clear area, which at present has little value in that role. Timothy Deuerling is an Environmental Specialist with the Department of Environmental Regulation. He holds a bachelors degree in Science and has taken course work in biology, zoology, and botany. In his visits to the site in the cleared area Duereling has observed cattails, brushes, willows, cypress and ash. He believes that the relocation of Bear Run Boulevard would adversely affect the water quality of Little Black Creek in the instance of placement of a fill in a wetland area, thus eliminating vegetation and soil which could filter and dissimulate pollutants and nutrients in the water. He feels that on the occasion of a reverse flow of water, from the creek to the site, as opposed to the site to the creek, placement of a roadbed would tend to take away the ability of that vegetation which has been covered over by the roadbed to remove pollutants and excess nutrients from the waters of Little Black Creek. By such action of building the road, he feels that the cumulative impact is to cause a violation of water quality, in that at some point in time the accumulation of projects will be such that the system will go out of balance and stay out of balance in terms of water quality. Deuerling believes that the general area of the project is a prime location for such projects. Even though Deuerling concedes that a retention area on site would clean up the water, he does not feel that is an acceptable alternative, given the fact that this area of retention is within the landward extent of Little Black Creek. The effect of the placement of retention area on site is to pollute waters which are already those which are the responsibility of the state, according to Deuerling. Deuerling would vie for upland retention. Deuerling's opinions are not accepted, given the fact that the present site offers little or no filtering capacity. The construction of the relocated Bear Run Boulevard with attendant features envisioned by Dr. White and Mr. Register would improve the filtering capacity, and enhance the overall system at the expense of an element of the system which, at present, offers little or no benefit and whose prospects are not such that those beneficial features will improve in the future if left in the present state. Uplands are not available for the placement of retention areas, and that suggestion, while more desirable, is not viable in this circumstance. Finally, while cumulative impact, as associated with intentional discharge into waters of the state, is a matter for consideration, the present case is not one which presents that form of discharge. The State of Florida, Department of Transportation, in widening State Road 21 from a two lane to a four lane road, in the vicinity of the Petitioner's project, placed approximately ten acres of fill in the landward extent of waters of the state. This was in furtherance of the application for a dredge and fill permit filed with the Respondent, a copy of that application being found as' Petitioner's exhibit number 5. A Copy of the permit may be found as Petitioner's exhibit number 6 admitted into evidence, dating from April 29, 1983. The Department of Transportation was also allowed to remove 1778 cubic yards of fill material. The permit set forth general and specific conditions to include revegetation, turbidity control, turbidity monitoring, erosion control, immediate stabilization of filled areas, and efforts at minimizing the wetlands disruption. In carrying out its function, approximately .096 acres of land which was contemplated for filling in the original Coleman application was filled by the Department of Transportation. No filling was done by the Department of Transportation in the area contemplated by the revised application offered by the Petitioner. The Department of Transportation did fill an area which intersects with State Road 21 and will serve as part of the roadbed for the relocated Bear Run Boulevard. The cleared area, and specifically the site where the fill material would be placed in the construction and relocation of Bear Run Boulevard, is within Class III waters of the state, as described in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code and subject to water quality standards pertaining to that classification. With the advent of this construction, given the limited value of the filtering capacity of the present site and the changes that can be promoted by the replacement of a retention area and associated features, while it might be expected to influence water quality standards at issue within the area of the placement of the fill material and within the retention basin, it would promote an improvement in the condition of the water quality in the flood plain which is immediately south of the cleared site and ultimately improve the condition of Little Black Creek. This finding relates to those water quality standards dealing with biochemical oxygen demand, nutrients, turbidity, biological integrity, and dissolved oxygen. The State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources, has granted authority to pursue the project as envisioned by Section 253.77, Florida Statutes, and confirmed by correspondence of Henry Dean, Interim Director, Division of Land Sales, dated January 28, 1983. A copy of this confirmation may be found as Petitioner's exhibit number 7 admitted into evidence. The United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and United States Environmental Protection Agency made known their comments on the project through correspondence, copies of which may be found as Respondent's composite exhibit number 9 admitted into evidence.
The Issue The issue is whether the 100 foot separation of respondents/applicants sewage treatment plant from the surface water management system is adequate.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following supplemental findings of fact are determined: Background Respondents/applicant, John D. Remington and Bolton S. Drackett (applicants), are the owners of record of approximately two thirds, or around 2,700 acres, of Keewaydin Island (Key Island), which lies just south of the mainland portion of the City of Naples, Florida. In conjunction with a planned luxury development of forty-two homes on Key Island, applicants have filed an application with respondent, South Florida Water Management District (District), seeking the issuance of a permit authorizing the construction and operation of a surface water management system (system) through which stormwater runoff from the project will be directed and controlled. Petitioner, Florida Audubon Society (FAS), has initiated this proceeding to contest the issuance of a permit. In an earlier and separate proceeding (DOAH Case No. 90-2415), applicants applied for a permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) to construct a wastewater treatment plant (plant) to serve the planned development. The permit was issued on January 2, 1990, and because all appeals by FAS in Case No. 90-2415 have been concluded, that proceeding is now final. Although the wastewater treatment plant has not yet been constructed, the parties agree that it will be situated more than one hundred feet from the surface water management system. This distance (100 feet) is the minimum amount of space allowed by District rule between the plant and system. Even so, the purpose of the remand proceeding is to determine whether that amount of separation is adequate. Thus, the factual issue here is whether the treated wastewater from the plant and filter fields will enter the surface water management system and cause a violation of applicable water quality standards and other relevant District criteria. In support of their respective positions on this issue, the parties have presented the testimony of a number of experts. In resolving the conflict in their testimony, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive testimony which is embodied in the findings below. A Brief Description of the Development and System The proposed development and surface water management system were described in detail in the prior recommended order entered in this case. For purposes of this Supplemental Recommended Order, it need only be noted that Key Island now has a lodge, guest quarters and recreation facilities, all presently served by septic tanks. Access to the island is provided by motor launch from an existing shore station. Subaqueous utility crossings from the mainland provide electric power and potable water to the island. The planned development includes the construction of forty-two large luxury homes and an expansion of the lodge facilities to accommodate the needs of the new residents. The homes will be built in phases with approximately ten to be built in the first year. The entire project may take as long as seven or eight years to complete. The proposed surface water management system was designed to handle a seventy-five residential unit development. However, by virtue of a reduction in size imposed by the City of Naples, the project has been reduced to forty-two homes. Even so, the capacity of the system has not been downsized. Therefore, the system as designed will more than accommodate all proposed development on the island. The development area has been divided into seven surface water management basins based upon seven existing natural water sheds on the upland portion of the project. Each basin will have a system of inlets, culverts and swales which will direct runoff to control structures. The dry swales are approximately one foot deep and five to ten feet wide and run parallel on both sides of the cart paths that link the various portions of the project. The cart paths, which will be at an elevation of 5.5 feet above mean sea level (NGVD), will have culverts running underneath to aid in maintaining the natural flow of water and limit impounding of water. The swale bottoms are designed to be one foot below the cart path elevation, or at 4.5 feet NGVD, and will be dry, except during significant rain events, because they are designed so that the bottom of the swale is at least one foot above the average wet season water table. Both the cart paths and swale system utilize a design system that is common to residential developments. Once the water reaches a specified height, it goes over the control structure and is discharged downstream into spreader swales from which the water is dispersed into either interior, low wetland areas or into two artificial lakes (7.3 and 1.0 acres in size) created for wet detention. Basins one, two, three, four and seven are designed to treat water quality by the dry detention method, that is, by the unlined swales that parallel cart paths, while water quality is accomplished in basins five and six by best management practices and wet retention, that is, the two artificial lakes. The Wastewater Treatment Plant The DER permit was issued on January 2, 1990, and carries an expiration date of January 2, 1995. It authorizes applicants to: construct a 0.035 MGD extended aeration process wastewater treatment plant with reclaimed water to dual absorption fields located at the project site as depicted on Wilson, Miller, Barton, Soll & Peek, Inc. design drawings, project number 6270, sheets 1 thru 5 of 5, dated March 20, 1989, revised October 16, 1989 and received October 19, 1989. The design drawings were submitted in support of construction application, engineering report, hydrologeolic characteristics and hydraulic modeling for effluent disposal report and related documents, dated March 20, 1989. The hydraulic capacity of the plant is limited to 0.030 MGD based on the reclaimed water disposal system. The collection system shall not exceed the 0.030 MGD hydraulic capacity as well. The wastewater treatment plant is designed to meet all DER water quality, health and safety standards. For example, the plant must achieve 90% removal of biological oxygen demand (BOD) and 90% removal of total suspended solids from the raw wastewater, or effluent levels below 20 parts per million for BOD and 10 parts per million suspended solids, whichever is more stringent. The plant must also have twenty-four hour detention in the aeration chamber and four hours detention in the clarifer. Further, a chlorine chamber contact time of fifteen minutes is required. In addition, DER has issued the permit with certain specific conditions. Among others, these include standards as to effluent chlorine residuals, the requirement that a professional engineer inspect the construction, operation requirements, sampling schedules, defined perameter levels, and the establishment of a hydraulic plant load (permitted maximum daily flow) at 30,000 gallons per day. By issuing the permit, DER has concluded that up to 30,000 gallons per day of sewage effluent can be treated and disposed of by the plant filter fields without violation of applicable DER water quality, health and safety standards. The wastewater treatment plant will be located on a centralized utility site within basin seven of the system. There are also gravity sand filters and a drainfield effluent disposal system located in basin six, which is the northeastern corner of the project. The plant will provide a high degree of treatment and disinfection for the effluent before it is discharged to the filter field. The filtered (treated) effluent will flow by gravity main to the filter fields located in an adjacent basin. Two filter fields will be used in disposing of the treated wastewater effluent. Constructed as sand mounds at a grade level of two or three feet above the existing island elevation, each filter will have dimensions of twenty feet wide and four hundred feet long. The filter fields will be constructed as a bed of gravel wrapped in filter cloth and placed within a mound of soil. A perforated four-inch pipe will be installed within the gravel bed at 5.5 feet NGVD to distribute the effluent through the filter beds. The effluent will then percolate downward and laterally away from the bed and into the groundwater table. At that point, the effluent will become indistinguishable from the groundwater Because the total daily flow will be pumped alternately into one part of the two sections of the drainfield, this allows one filter field to "rest" for a seven-day period during the use of the other filter field, thereby avoiding saturation. Therefore, the average theoretical maximum input into a filter field over a one year period at the plant's maximum capacity is 15,000 gallons per day. The plant was designed and permitted for maximum daily flows at all times of the year. However, the actual operating conditions will reflect significantly less flows due to the seasonality of the population and occupancy levels. More specifically, the plant was designed and permitted for seventy- five dwelling units and ancillary uses with an estimated maximum design flow of 28,450 gallons per day. The approved planned development will contain only forty-two dwelling units and ancillary uses with a maximum design flow of 21,200 gallons per day. Therefore, the permitted plant will treat the wastewater to a higher level due to the reserve capacity, and the plant will rarely be used at over fifty percent of its available capacity. Revised projected wastewater flows will range from daily loads of 2,325 gallons per day during the months of August and September to a high of 15,137 gallons per day during the month of February. This projected usage is consistent with historical occupancy and usage trends in the Naples area which show that occupancy of homes is at its peak during the dry season (the cooler winter months) and substantially lower during the wet season (the hot summer months). Applicants' projected wastewater flows are found to be reasonable and are hereby accepted. In making this finding, the undersigned has rejected the contention by FAS that the daily wastewater flows will be higher than that projected by the applicants and the plant will operate at maximum capacity for sustained periods of time. The system plans reflect that there will be swales within basin six located between one hundred ten and one hundred twenty feet to the west of the filter fields. These swales run parallel along a cart path and flow to the north discharging into an artificial lake at the north end of the project. The swales in this basin have a bottom elevation of 4.5 feet NGVD and decrease to an elevation of 3.5 feet NGVD at the point of discharge into the artificial lake. Adequacy of Separation Between Plant and System Rule 40E-4.091, Florida Administrative Code, adopts and incorporates by reference a document known as the "Basis for Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District - September 1989" (Basis for Review). Section 3.2.2.8 of the Basis for Review reads as follows: Sewage treatment percolation ponds. Above ground pond dikes shall not be within 200 feet of water bodies or 100 feet of dry detention/ detention areas. Additional calculations by the applicant may be necessary in unusual cases requiring deviations from these dimensions. The purpose of the above section is to provide adequate separation between above-ground percolation ponds and surface water management systems in case the percolation pond dike fails. For example, above grade percolation ponds contain large volumes of sewage treatment plant effluent. If a pond dike should fail, a large portion of effluent would be quickly released into the adjacent ground. The minimum 100-foot separation is designed to provide adequate distance for percolation into the ground prior to infiltrating the surface water management system. However, filter fields contain lesser volumes of effluent than do percolation ponds, and should a filter field fail, the effluent will trickle out the side of the field with a much lower rate of effluent release than from a failed pond dike. In accordance with the District rule, applicants have proposed to locate the surface water management system more than one hundred feet from the wastewater treatment plant and filtration beds. Even though the rule standards have been met, the purpose of this remand proceeding is to determine whether that amount of separation is adequate to prevent adverse impacts to the water quantity and water quality functions of the system from the operation and location of the filter fields. The Computer Models As a part of their application filed with DER in 1989, applicants' witness Missimer prepared and submitted a report known as "Hydrogeologic Characteristics and Hydraulic Modeling for Effluent Disposal at Keewaydin Club". The report was based on a computer model known as "Modflow" and was designed to show the increase in elevation of the water table for a loading rate of 30,000 gallons per day alternating between the two filtration beds. The purpose of the modeling analysis filed with DER was to investigate whether the plant would continue to discharge effluent to the drainfields under the most extreme conditions. The model demonstrated that the effluent discharge would not be impaired even under conditions that are beyond any reasonable or probable operating conditions. After reviewing the model, DER accepted those results and issued a permit. Utilizing in large part the underlying assumptions and parameters of the Missimer model, and without performing any independent field evaluation on the site, FAS witness Chin ran the model to investigate the impact of the operation of the plant on the system. Because the model used by Dr. Chin was not constructed for the design of a surface water management system, but rather was constructed for the purpose of designing an adsorption field, without modification it provided a more than worst case scenario of impacts associated with the operation of a plant. In this case, Dr. Chin utilized the ultra- conservative assumptions used in designing the adsorption field and made no revisions to the model. Thus, it is found that the model as used by Dr. Chin, and any conclusions drawn from the model alone, are not a sufficient or reasonable basis for evaluating the impact of the plant on the system. The model used by Dr. Chin is not representative of the natural occurring conditions on the island or the reasonably expected plant flow rates. Moreover, in developing the worst case scenario, as opposed to reasonable expectations, both the Chin and Missimer models incorporated the simultaneous occurrence of certain conservative assumptions including an impermeable flow boundary, a year round wet season water table elevation, a conservative rate of transmissivity, and a constant rate of evapotranspiration. The use of these assumptions caused the model output to grossly overstate the effects of the plant on the system in the following manner. First, by assuming a flow barrier on the island, the model had the effect of overestimating the height of the groundwater mound from operation of the plant than would occur if no boundary were used. Second, the assumption of a year-round wet season groundwater level is unrealistic since groundwater levels fluctuate seasonally, receding to near zero NGVD on the island during the dry season. Thus, the model overestimated the height of the groundwater level. Further, by using only the upper ten feet of the water table aquifer in calculating the rate of transmissivity, the model incorporated a much lower rate than would be attained had the entire thickness (74 feet) of the aquifer been used. This also resulted in an over-estimation in the height of the mound from the operation of the plant. Finally, by assuming a constant rate of evapotranspiration, the model "grossly exaggerated" the impact to the groundwater level from operation of the plant. In reality, as the water table increases, the loss of water from evapotranspiration increases significantly and constitutes a major output of a water budget. Besides the foregoing assumptions, the Chin model also assumed a continuous loading rate of 30,000 gallons per day for a period of up to one year. While the District should properly consider the permitted flow rate of the plant in evaluating a worst case of potential impact, there was no evidence substantiating any likelihood of the plant actually producing 30,000 gallons per day for 365 consecutive days in conjunction with all other conservative assumptions discussed above. The more reasonable and accepted method of analyzing the impact of plant flows is to examine the peak month's average day flow over a six-month period. As noted earlier, for the proposed forty-two units, the peak day flow is estimated to be approximately 21,200 gallons per day. Therefore, it is highly probable that actual flow rates will be much lower than the maximum plant capacity of 30,000 gallons per day. By failing to use the more reasonable and realistic reduced flow rates, the Chin model overestimated the elevation of the groundwater level from the operation of the plant. In contrast, the Missimer analysis demonstrates that it is extremely unlikely that the plant output will ever elevate groundwater to the extent that it would reach the system swales by either surface water or groundwater flow. The foregoing modeling assessments, including the criticisms of the Chin model, were concurred in by the District expert. Water Quantity Impacts There is no credible evidence to support a finding that the operation of the plant will adversely impact the ability of the system to provide adequate flood protection and drainage. Indeed, the more credible evidence shows that an alteration of existing drainage patterns will not occur by virtue of the operation of the plant, and the post-development discharge rates will not exceed the pre-development discharge rates. Therefore, the undersigned's previous finding that applicants have provided reasonable assurance that the the system provides adequate protection and drainage is not altered after considering the operation and location of the plant. There is insufficient credible evidence to support a finding that the plant's operation will adversely impact the system functions in such a way as to cause adverse water quantity impacts on receiving waters and adjacent lands. Indeed, the post-development discharge rate approximates the pre-development discharge rate on receiving waters, the ultimate receiving water body (the Gulf of Mexico) has an infinite capacity to receive water, and there are no adjacent lands subject to flooding from discharge of the system regardless of whether there is any impact of the plant on the system. There is no credible evidence to support a finding that the plant will cause the system to have an adverse impact on surface and groundwater levels and flows. Rather, the more persuasive evidence shows that the plant's operation will not result in groundwater elevation in the area of the system that would cause the impoundment of water or prevent the percolation of water into the soil. In addition, the overflow levels for control structures will operate as designed to insure against over-drainage or flooding. Finally, the operation of the filter fields will not cause adverse impacts on surface and groundwater levels and flows. Water Quality Impacts The operation of the plant will not impair the water quality functions of the system. This is because the swales will continue to detain the first flush of run-off allowing the majority of the suspended solids and other pollutants to settle out regardless of the operation of the plant. Further, in the unlikely event the treated wastewater effluent reached the system, it would be indistinguishable from the stormwater or rainfall due to the high level of treatment from the plant, the filter fields and dilution from groundwater and rainfall. The operation of the plant will not cause adverse water quality impacts on the receiving waters. In making this finding, the undersigned notes initially that the plant is permitted by DER, and therefore it is assumed to comply with all DER water quality standards. Second, there is no evidence that the system will impact the operation of the plant. In the event the groundwater mixed with treated effluent resurfaces, there would be no adverse impact to the surface water quality. This is because the treated effluent from the plant exceeds state water quality standards. Once the treated effluent becomes a part of the groundwater, it is unlikely that it will resurface again in the areas of the swales, which are more than one hundred ten feet away. Indeed, in order for the groundwater with effluent to travel that distance, it would have been in the groundwater system for at least one hundred days. This period of time is more than sufficient for the denitrification and adsorption processes to remove all nutrients. Even if the worst case scenario became a reality and the groundwater reached the swale bottoms, it would only result in a wetting of the ground and would not be of sufficient quantity to create a flow of water in the swale to travel off-site impacting a receiving water. In any event, at that point, any groundwater resurfacing that distance away would no longer be effluent. Finally, during abnormal conditions, such as a hurricane or large storm event, the groundwater may rise to the surface and mix with the surface water and enter the system. However, any effluent already significantly diluted under normal circumstances would be indistinguishable from the stormwater or rainfall. Adverse Environmental Impacts There is no credible evidence that the operation of the plant filter fields will adversely impact the system in such a manner as to cause an adverse environmental impact. In so finding, the undersigned rejects the contention that the system will act as a conduit for treated effluent to travel off-site to the ponds, marsh, mangrove areas or receiving waters. The evidence shows that the design of the filter fields and high permeability of the island soils will prevent the surface flow of effluent to the system swales. The elevation of the swales above the groundwater table level will prevent the introduction of effluent into the swale system. In the unlikely event the groundwater reaches the bottom elevation of the swale, there would be no significant environmental impact because the quality of effluent would be indistinguishable from the groundwater due to the high level of treatment and dilution, and such water would still be further treated by the system before discharge to receiving bodies. The location of the plant and system will not have an adverse impact on the gopher tortoise population on the island. Rather, the system should enhance the gopher tortoise population by providing mananged land with vegetation suitable for gopher consumption. Further, the general development on the island will reduce the number of raccoons which prey on gopher eggs and young gophers. Miscellaneous During the remand hearing, FAS presented evidence concerning the impact of tides and mean sea level rise and saline lakes on the island. This evidence was essentially the same as that presented in the prior hearing and was rejected in favor of the more credible evidence presented by the applicants on this issue. Nothing was presented during the remand hearing which would alter these prior findings. During the hearing, and in response to a question by District counsel, witness Missimer agreed it would not be unreasonable to install a few monitoring wells to insure that the system is operating properly. Because this requirement is not unreasonable, will serve a valuable purpose, and has been utilized by the District as a special condition on numerous prior occasions, it should be incorporated into the permit conditions. Even though the evidence clearly shows that seasonal tidal fluctuations would not have an adverse impact on the functioning of the system, if such a tidal incursion were to occur, the placement of a check valve device on the water control structures would prevent sea water from flowing back into the system. Such a device would be a minor addition to the system, would not otherwise affect its design, and if deemed necessary by the District, should be incorporated into the permit conditions. Prior to hearing, the District retained the services of an outside consultant to assist it in preparation for trial. The consultant did not testify at final hearing and prepared no reports. He did make several computer runs, none of which are a part of this record. Among other things, District witness Rogers relied upon the computer runs in formulating his opinion on the issue presented on remand.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting the requested permit in accordance with the agency's proposed agency action dated March 28, 1990. DONE and ENTERED this 22 day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22 day of March, 1991.
Findings Of Fact On December 12, 1991, Petitioner applied to the Respondent for a permit/water quality certification to grade and level, in stages, approximately 20,000 square feet or 0.45 acres of lake front to remove and prevent the formation of berms and depressions in the exposed lake bottom adjacent to his property. The project site is located at 3955 Placid View Drive which lies along the shoreline of Lake Placid, a natural waterbody in Highlands County, Section 24, Township 37 South, Range 29 East. Lake Placid is not an aquatic preserve, and is not an outstanding Florida water. It has been designated as a Class III waterbody. Petitioner's unsubdivided lot lies at the western end of Lake Placid. The shoreline measures approximately 203 feet. The western lot line also measures 203 feet, and fronts on Placid View Drive. The water level of Lake Placid has receded in recent years which allows large expanses of what was historically lake bottom to become beaches, lawns, and areas of habaceous marsh. The specific project which the Petitioner proposes calls for the leveling of the berms and depressions which form on the exposed lake bottom from collected water, which stagnates and permits various noxious creatures, including mosquitoes, to breed in them. The berms and depressions are approximately six inches high or deep and between one and three feet wide, and generally extend the length of the shoreline. The proposed area affected is approximately 20,000 square feet or 0.45 acres of lake front, although Petitioner proposes to actually level a much smaller area in stages of approximately 2,000 square feet on an "as needed" basis. No material other than sod in the beach area is proposed to be brought from or removed to off-site locations. Petitioner is highly sensitive to mosquito bites. The area proposed for leveling was previously cleared of vegetation without authorization. Very little revegetation of the shoreline has occurred since the area was cleared. Vegetation colonizing the beach, at present, includes pennyworts (Centella asiatica and Hydrocotyle umbellata) and water- hyssops (Bacopa sp.) Blue green algae was observed in the depressions which have formed along the shore since the clearing. Fauna observed on-site included gulls (Larus sp.), small fish in the adjacent lake shallows, and water-boatmen (Order Hemiptera) in the depressions. An area landward of the wetlands considered here was also cleared previously and is proposed to be seeded. An adjacent, uncleared shoreline was vegetated with primrose willow (Ludwigia sp.), cattail (Typha sp.), flat sedge (Cyperus odorata), and other wetland species for an almost 100% plant coverage. The Petitioner proposes to use a small tractor in leveling of the shore which will cause turbidity in the lake water. No turbidity controls were proposed by the Petitioner. Petitioner failed to provide reasonable assurances that the turbidity caused by the earthmoving equipment in areas presently above water would not cause degradation of water quality in Lake Placid; would not contribute to the long-term degradation of water quality in the lake caused by upland runoff that would flow into the lake without benefit of retention or filtration by shoreland vegetation (freshwater herbaceous habitat) which would be permanently removed under Petitioner's proposal. Nutrients such a nitrogen and phosphorus and pollutants such as pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals commonly used in lawn and garden care would be included in the runoff, and would have an adverse impact on fishing and marine productivity in the lake. The project would have a minor adverse impact on erosion and soil stabilization in the area surrounding the lake. Petitioner has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed project is not contrary to the public interest. Petitioner can mitigate the project by eliminating the use of heavy equipment and substitute hand equipment to smooth out ruts, berms and depressions in jurisdictional areas.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's application for Wetland Resource Regulation permit be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings ths 8th day of March, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Mr. Vincent J. Woeppel 3955 Placid View Drive Lake Placid, Florida 33852 Daniel H. Thompson Department of Environmental Regulation Acting General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact On June 27, 1979, Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation's St. Johns River District office received an application from Petitioner John W. McPhail, Deland, Florida, for a permit to conduct dredge and fill activities on his property at Lake Johnson, DeLeon Springs, Florida. The application reflected that Petitioner desired to dredge 100 cubic yards of material Waterward of the lake mean high Water line and 100 cubic yards landward of the mean high water line, and then fill an adjacent cove area on his Property with the 200 cubic yards of material. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) Lake Johnson is a small privately owned lake about fifteen acres in area. There are two distinct "lobes" of the lake which are joined by a narrow band of water. Each of these lobes is approximately seven acres in area. Some four or five houses, including, Petitioner's, are located around the lake. In the early Seventies, Petitioner dredged part of his shoreline and, in the process, too much material was inadvertently removed from the present cove area and placed in the middle of the property, which left a hump of land in the middle. The shoreline now is irregular with steep ungraded banks, and the cove area is somewhat stagnant. Petitioner wishes to restore the property by dredging the "hump" created by prior filling, and return the material to its Original location by filling the cove area. This will produce an even, sloped shoreline extending some 200 feet and improve the appearance of the lakefront. It will also reduce present maintenance Problems. (Testimony of Petitioner, Vause, Petitioner's Exhibits 1-3) A field biologist in Respondent's District Dredge and Fill Permitting Section conducted an on-site inspection on August 28, 1979, and rendered a report of the inspection on October 2, 1979. He found that the dominant plant community along the banks of the shoreline consisted primarily of upland weeds and grasses such as broomsedge and bahaia grass. Additionally, primrose willow was found in that location. The vegetation along the shoreline includes maidencane and a small amount of bullrush while the open water area is predominately vegetated with water lilies. Primrose willow is a species of vegetation found in the transitional zone of a submerged land, and bullrush, maidencane, and water lily are also fresh water species of vegetation found in submerged lands, as defined in Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative &ode. The water depth in the lake is approximately eight feet and the depth the water at the steep banks of the Petitioner's property is approximately three feet. Wetlands vegetation of the above types are conducive to the improvement of water quality by increasing dissolved oxygen levels after removal of polluting nutrients from the water. The removal of a significant amount of such vegetation may have a measurable adverse effect on water quality. Although Lake Johnson, a Class III body of water, presently has excellent Water quality, the vegetation along the shoreline has been removed to a degree of about ten to fifteen percent. The removal of fifteen to twenty percent or more of a shoreline in such a lake normally produces a measurable adverse effect on water quality. The dredging of material along a shoreline can produce short-term turbidity of the water. (Testimony of Vause, Respondent's Exhibits 2-3) Respondent's inspector found that although filling the cove would remove some beneficial aquatic and land vegetation, would most likely reestablish if proper sloping was maintained on the shoreline. He also noted in his report that the proposed project would restore approximately one-half acre of open water to the lake. He therefore interposed no objection to the filling aspect of the project, but believed that dredging should not be undertaken waterward of the ordinary high water line, and that the shoreline should be merely contoured without dredging. By letter of October 4, 1979, Respondent's district manager advised Petitioner of its intent to deny his application for permit for the reason that the proposed work would eliminate approximately .5 acres of wetland community and thereby degrade water quality in the areas of BOD, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen. (Testimony of Vause, Respondent's Exhibits 2-4)
Recommendation That Petitioner be issued the requested permit, subject to standard conditions. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Segundo J. Fernandez Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John W. McPhail Route 1, Box 692H Deland, Florida 32720 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION JOHN W. MCPHAIL, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 79-2174 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION Respondent. /
The Issue The issue to be decided in these cases is whether Petitioner, A. Wayne Lujan (Petitioner), was entitled to issuance of five environmental resource permits (ERPs) that Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), intended to deny as stated in notices of denial dated October 25, 2019.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. Parties and Background Petitioner Lujan is the president and a director of Kay Haven Associated Enterprises, Inc. (Key Haven), that owns the five parcels, which are the subject matter of this hearing. Although Key Haven owns numerous lots, it chose to submit ERP applications for the Subject Lots within the Key Haven Tenth Addition plat dated September 1966 (Plat). See Joint Exhibit 84. Joint Exhibit 84 The Subject Lots are located in an unincorporated part of the County on the northwestern edge of a body of land lying north of State Road A1A, identified on the Plat as Raccoon Key. The Subject Lots are approximately half a mile east of the city limits of Key West, Florida. The Subject Lots are all characterized by a small upland portion adjacent to Floral Avenue. The majority of the Subject Lots transition into a mangrove fringe of varying depth and submerged lands containing marine seagrasses and sponges. See Joint Exhibits 81 and 82. Joint Exhibit 81 Joint Exhibit 82 DEP is the administrative agency of the state having the power and duty to protect Florida's air and water resources, and to administer and enforce the provisions of part II of chapter 380, part IV of chapter 373, and chapter 403, Florida Statutes. DEP also administers the provisions of Florida Administrative Code chapters 62-312 and 62-330 regarding activities in wetlands and other surface waters of the state. DEO is the state land planning agency and reviews certain permit applications for consistency with its statutory responsibilities under the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP), which includes part II of chapter 163, and part I of chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Relevant to this proceeding, DEO exercises authority over the ACSC program. See § 380.05, Fla. Stat. On July 26, 2018, Petitioner filed five applications for ERPs with DEP. Although certain details within each application differed, the applications all sought to authorize construction of a seawall in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and in unnamed wetlands within the landward extent of the Gulf of Mexico, a Class III OFW, to remove the entirety of the existing mangrove fringe, and to place fill within wetlands and other surface waters for the construction of single-family residences (Project). The minor differences in each application relate to the length of the seawall and the amount of fill necessary for each lot. Although some testimony was provided concerning the differences, no party argued that the differences were material to the determinations necessary in this proceeding. Accordingly, the factual and legal analysis for the Subject Lots and ERP applications were addressed without distinction herein. DEP forwarded a copy of the applications to DEO for its recommendation. On August 24, 2018, DEO issued objections to approval of the permits citing inconsistency with the Florida Keys ACSC Principles for Guiding Development (PGDs) in section 380.0552(7). DEO also objected based on inconsistencies between the Project and the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and Land Development Code (LDC), which implement the PGDs. DEP's first RAI dated August 24, 2018, included DEO's objections. The first RAI notified Petitioner that DEP had concerns with the Project that included: (1) installation of the vertical seawall; (2) placement of fill within an OFW; (3) direct impacts to marine seagrass bed community without adequate mitigation; and (4) failure to provide stormwater management plans since the Project was a common plan of development. The first RAI contained 19 specific requests for additional information. On October 23, 2018, Petitioner responded to DEP's first RAI by submitting slightly revised plans. The revised Project proposed less of a vertical seawall footprint by adding rip-rap to the side seawalls as a means of containing fill. Petitioner's responses to the 19 specific requests for information can generally be categorized as follows: (1) elimination of some vertical seawalls, but not the ones on the waterward edge of the Subject Lots; (2) no change in the placement of fill; (3) Petitioner would attempt to find appropriate compensatory mitigation for the seagrass impacts; and (4) Petitioner did not consider the Project to be a common plan of development. Regarding DEO's objections, Petitioner stated that "[w]e acknowledge that the project has been forwarded to FWC [Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission] and DEO and that additional comments and information may be requested by those agencies in order to fully evaluate the application." Petitioner did not substantively address DEO's objections. DEP issued a second RAI on November 21, 2018. DEO again objected in a letter dated November 26, 2018. DEP's second RAI raised the same concerns as the first RAI and acknowledged that four of the 19 specific items were adequately addressed. On January 11, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's second RAI by again submitting slightly revised site plans. However, the Project remained generally unchanged, with a proposed vertical seawall on the waterward edge of the lots, rip-rap along the sides, removal of the entire mangrove fringe, and fill of the entire lots eliminating the existing marine seagrasses. DEP issued a third RAI to Petitioner on February 8, 2019. DEO reiterated its objections by letter dated February 8, 2019. The third RAI raised the same concerns as the first and second RAIs, although DEP acknowledged that six of the 19 specific items were adequately addressed. By letter dated April 8, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's third RAI. The response again proposed slightly altered site plans from the January 2019 submissions. Petitioner essentially stated that mitigation opportunities were scarce, but had contacted the County and was looking into derelict vessel removal. However, the proposed Project remained generally unchanged, with a proposed vertical seawall on the waterward edge of the lots, rip-rap along the sides, removal of the entire mangrove fringe, and fill of the entire lots eliminating the existing marine seagrasses. As it relates to DEO's objections, Petitioner responded that "[a]fter review of the comments outlined in the [DEO] revised letter, it seems that the DEO objections are related to compliance with the provision[s] of the [Monroe] County [Comp Plan]. We will deal with those issues at the time of local permitting." Petitioner again failed to substantively address DEO's objections. DEP issued its final RAI on May 8, 2019. DEO again objected by letter dated May 6, 2019. This final RAI raised the same concerns as the first, second, and third RAIs. DEP stated that seven of the 19 specific items were not addressed by Petitioner, and that failure to provide a complete response to the prior RAI may result in denial of the ERP applications. On August 29, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's final RAI by once again submitting slightly revised plans, and additional information concerning mitigation proposals. However, the Project did not change and Petitioner again failed to substantively address DEO's objections. DEO’s objection letter identified that the ERP applications were inconsistent with the Florida Keys ACSC PGDs, seven Comp Plan policies, and six regulatory provisions of the County's LDC. DEP denied the ERP applications on October 25, 2019. The grounds for denial reiterated the issues not addressed by Petitioner's RAI responses. Specifically: (1) the failure of the Project to provide reasonable assurances concerning direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts to the marine seagrass bed community; (2) continued reliance upon construction of a vertical seawall; (3) failure to provide stormwater management information necessary given the determination that the Project constituted a common plan of development; (4) inconsistency with the FCMP as identified by DEO in its objection letters; and (5) failure to provide reasonable assurances that the Project was clearly in the public interest. Direct Impacts The Project proposed to entirely fill the Subject Lots, contain the fill with vertical seawalls and rip-rap, and construct pile-supported single-family residences. The Project would remove the entire mangrove fringe that aerials and site inspections show is a healthy mix of red, black, and white mangroves along with some green buttonwood. The shallow, open surface waters are dominated by marine seagrasses that vary in density. Petitioner did not make any design modifications to the Project that sought to reduce or eliminate direct impacts to the mangrove fringe and marine seagrasses. Petitioner's resource inventory was done using GIS aerial photography so that the aerial benthic resource surveys submitted to DEP were not ground- truthed. DEP staff conducted physical site inspections and ground-truthing inspections that included swimming in the open surface waters. DEP staff found significant marine seagrasses and sponges that were not mentioned in Petitioner's resource surveys. Depending on the lot, the Project would fill approximately 6,000 square feet of wetlands and other surface waters, i.e., 900 to 2,500 square feet of mangrove habitat and 4,000 to 4,800 square feet of marine seagrass bed habitat. The seawalls depicted in the final version of Petitioner's site plans were "vertical seawalls" because the rip-rap would not face the seawalls to the mean high water line (MHWL). The rip-rap would be placed on submerged resources inside the property lines of the Subject Lots. Also, Petitioner's final plans did not include the mooring of vessels. Vertical seawalls are prohibited in the OFW of the County. Petitioner did not affirmatively demonstrate that fill or shoreline stabilization could be accomplished by using native vegetation instead of vertical seawalls. Secondary Impacts DEP's expert witness, Ms. Mills, testified that Petitioner's ERP applications did not identify any potential secondary impacts. Ms. Mills testified that the expected secondary impacts from the Project included stormwater runoff, shading, and erosion or shoaling. Although the Project plans showed that stormwater would be collected and directed to Floral Avenue, DEP's investigation established that there is no stormwater management system on the side of Floral Avenue abutting the Subject Lots. Thus, the collected and directed stormwater would end up flowing back into the mangrove fringe and surface waters at the lot locations that were not proposed for development, e.g., Lots 36 and 38. The proposed single-family homes are piling-supported structures. Ms. Mills testified that the piling-supported structure would cause shading of the immediate adjacent resources on either side. She identified potential shading impacts to the resources of the undeveloped Lots 36 and 38. In addition, Ms. Mills identified potential erosion or shoaling impacts to the undeveloped Lots 36, 38, and unnamed lots to the left of Lot 40 since they would be surrounded by developed fill on either side. Although Mr. Swakon testified that tidal velocity is low in this area, other aspects, such as effects from wind-driven circulation, were not adequately addressed. Mitigation Petitioner was required to propose mitigation to offset remaining direct and secondary impacts after going through a reduction and elimination exercise. However, Petitioner did not propose any revisions to the Project to reduce or eliminate the direct and secondary impacts identified above. Ms. Mills explained that appropriate mitigation usually provides benefits to the same type of ecological community as the one being impacted. Petitioner's ultimate mitigation proposal was to purchase saltwater credit at a mitigation bank, the Florida Power and Light Everglades Mitigation Bank (FPL EMB). The FPL EMB is located on the mainland of Florida approximately a hundred miles away from the Subject Lots. Ms. Mills testified that saltwater credit would be appropriate to offset and replace the same ecological function of mangroves, but not to offset the submerged benthic communities that would be impacted by the Project. Mr. Swakon testified that calculation of the amount of mitigation credits included a multiplier to address secondary and cumulative impacts, the out-of-kind mitigation, and the dissimilarities in the communities. However, Ms. Mills persuasively testified that the proposed multiplier was not sufficient to justify the three aspects of impact that needed to be offset. Whether to justify dissimilarities between the ecological communities, secondary and cumulative impacts, or the distance of the mitigation site from the Project, the multiplier was not sufficient. Cumulative Impacts The Project is not within a recognized cumulative impact basin of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) for mitigation of impacts purposes. Accordingly, Ms. Mills testified that the plain language of a cumulative impacts analysis is considered. Contiguous lots to the Subject Lots owned by Petitioner could be developed through similar requests in the future. Also, each ERP application's cumulative impact analysis would consider the other four ERP applications as in-house examples of potential future projects. Common Plan of Development Petitioner contested DEP's conclusion that the Project was a common plan of development subject to section 2.0 of the Applicant's Handbook Volume 1 and associated stormwater management requirements. The Project would facilitate the advancement of land uses such as multiple residences, a residential subdivision, or phased site development. The Project comprised a total land area divided into multiple lots or parcels that are under common ownership or control. In total, Petitioner owns 648 lots under common ownership within the Key Haven Tenth and Eleventh Addition. The Subject Lots are all part of a residential subdivision. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project was a common plan of development. For this common plan of development, Petitioner's proposed stormwater management consisted of a cap on the proposed seawalls directing stormwater to swales on each lot. The swales would then direct stormwater to Floral Avenue with no additional treatment or management. During site inspections, DEP staff did not find any evidence of stormwater management along Floral Avenue. Seawalls and Rip-rap The seawalls depicted in the final version of Petitioner's ERP applications would be vertical seawalls because the rip-rap facing the seawall did not come above the MHWL. In addition, the final plans did not include the mooring of vessels. As found above, the Project would place fill, seawalls, and rip-rap on marine seagrasses and sponges. Petitioner failed to affirmatively demonstrate that native vegetation was not sufficient to prevent erosion. The evidence established that Petitioner did not apply for any waiver or variance of applicable ERP rule criteria. FCMP Consistency The evidence demonstrated that Petitioner refused to address DEO's objections based on a mistaken view of the criteria governing ERP applications in the County and the Florida Keys ACSC. Relevant to this proceeding, DEO exercises authority over the ACSC program. See § 380.05, Fla. Stat.; see also § 380.23(6), Fla. Stat. (Each agency charged with implementing statutes and rules that are part of the FCMP, shall be afforded an opportunity to provide DEP with its comments and determination regarding consistency of the activity with those statutes and rules.). Section 380.05(16) prohibits persons from undertaking any development within the Florida Keys ACSC, except in accordance with the PGDs. Thus DEO, as the administrator of the ACSC program, reviewed the ERP applications for consistency with applicable regulatory requirements. DEO issued objections to approval of the permits citing inconsistency with the Florida Keys ACSC PGDs; and inconsistencies between the Project and the County's Comp Plan and LDC which implement the PGDs. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with four PGDs. DEO's expert witness, Ms. Powell, testified that the Project was inconsistent with the PGD, which provides for strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that the local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the ACSC designation. See § 380.0552(7)(a), Fla. Stat. Ms. Powell persuasively testified that the ERP applications were inconsistent with this PGD because the Project would impair the local government's ability to have the ACSC designation removed. Allowing development inconsistent with its regulations would hurt the local government's ability to pursue de-designation. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The second PGD cited by DEO provides for protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. See § 380.0552(7)(b), Fla. Stat. It was undisputed that the Project would result in total removal of the mangrove and buttonwood fringe on each lot and 100% destruction of existing submerged marine resources. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The third PGD cited by DEO provides for limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. See § 380.0552(7)(e), Fla. Stat. Ms. Powell testified that degradation to nearshore water quality from prior dredge and fill activity was one of the reasons for the designation of the Florida Keys as an ACSC. Additionally, as further discussed below, the Project would be inconsistent with the County's Comp Plan policies and LDC regulations that further the goal of protecting the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys ACSC. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The fourth PGD cited by DEO provides for protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys, and maintaining the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. See § 380.0552(7)(n), Fla. Stat. As further discussed below, the Project would be inconsistent with the County's Comp Plan and LDC regulations that prohibit the use of structural fill within velocity zones. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. Ms. Powell testified that DEO considered the remaining statutory PGDs, and determined they were not particularly applicable to these ERP applications. In accordance with its duties, DEO had also reviewed and approved the County's Comp Plan and LDC as consistent with the statutory PGDs. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with seven Comp Plan policies. They are Policies 102.1.1, 101.5.25, 203.1.1, 204.2.2, 204.2.3, 204.2.4, and 212.5.3. Policy 102.1.1 provides: The County shall protect submerged lands and wetlands. The open space requirement shall be one hundred (100) percent of the following types of wetlands: submerged lands mangroves salt ponds fresh water wetlands fresh water ponds undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands only for use as transferable development rights (TDRs) away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Policy 101.5.25 provides that "[t]he allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available." Policy 203.1.1 provides that "[t]he open space requirement for mangrove wetlands shall be one hundred (100) percent. No fill or structures shall be permitted in mangrove wetlands except for elevated, pile-supported walkways, docks, piers and utility pilings." Policy 204.2.2 provides: To protect submerged lands and wetlands, the open space requirement shall be 100 percent of the following types of wetlands: submerged lands; mangroves; salt ponds; freshwater wetlands; freshwater ponds; and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands. Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetland only for use as transferable development rights away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Within one (1) year after the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the County shall revise the LDC to include a prohibition of development in salt ponds. Policy 204.2.3 provides: No structures shall be permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands, except for elevated, pile-supported walkways, docks, piers, and utility pilings. No fill shall be permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands except: as specifically allowed by Objective 212.5 and subsequent Policies; to fill a manmade excavated water body, such as a canal, boat ramp, or swimming pool if the Director of Environmental Resources determines that such filling will not have a significant adverse impact on marine or wetland communities; or as needed for shoreline stabilization or beach renourishment projects with a valid public purpose that furthers the goals of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, as determined by the County. Policy 204.2.4 provides: No fill or structures shall be permitted in mangroves or wetlands except as allowed by Policy 204.2.3 (as amended) and for bridges extending over mangroves or wetlands that are required to provide automobile or pedestrian access to dwelling units located on upland areas within the same property for which there is no alternative means of access. Such bridges shall be elevated on pilings such that the natural movement of water, including volume, rate, and direction of flow shall not be disrupted or altered. Upland areas shall include disturbed wetlands that have been lawfully converted into uplands through filling. Policy 212.5.3 provides: Bulkheads, seawalls or other hardened vertical shoreline structures shall be permitted on residential canals and altered shorelines only in the following situations: to replace an existing deteriorated bulkhead or seawall; or to stabilize a severely eroding shoreline area. DEO's expert witness, Ms. Powell, persuasively testified that the Project was inconsistent with all seven policies, because it did not protect the submerged lands and wetlands, did not provide for 100% open space within the submerged lands and wetlands, and provided for the construction of a seawall not excepted from the general prohibition. Petitioner did not present any evidence that the Project was consistent with the cited policies. Instead, Petitioner's witness, Mr. Nelson, testified that he felt certain County regulations would militate in favor of allowing the development. The main factor cited by Mr. Nelson was that the Subject Lots were designated as Tier III parcels under the County's LDC. However, designation of a parcel as Tier III did not conflict with the policies cited by DEO. The more credible and persuasive evidence concerning the Project's compliance with the Comp Plan policies was provided by Ms. Powell, who concluded that the Project was not consistent with those policies. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with six sections of the County's LDC regulations. Those are sections 118-4, 118-10(e), 118-12(k)(2), 122-4(b)(5), 130-157, and 130-162. The LDC regulations are more specific methods for implementing the Comp Plan policies outlined above. Section 118-4 provides: No development activities, except as provided for in this chapter, are permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, freshwater wetlands, freshwater ponds, or in undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands; the open space requirement is 100 percent. Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands only for use as transferable development rights away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Section 118-10(e), in relevant part, provides: Mangroves, wetlands, and submerged lands. All structures developed, used or occupied on land classified as mangroves, wetlands or submerged lands (all types and all levels of quality) shall be designed, located and constructed such that: Generally. Only docks and docking facilities, boat ramps, walkways, water access walkways, water observation platforms, boat shelters, nonenclosed gazebos, riprap, seawalls, bulkheads, and utility pilings shall be permitted on or over mangroves, wetlands, and submerged lands, subject to the specific restrictions of this subsection. Trimming and/or removal of mangroves shall meet Florida Department of Environmental Protection requirements. * * * (4) Placement of fill. No fill shall be permitted in any mangroves, wetlands, or submerged lands except: As specifically allowed by this Section or by Section 118- 12(k) (Bulkheads, Seawalls, Riprap) and 118-12(l) (Boat Ramps); To fill a manmade, excavated water body such as a canal, boat ramp, boat slip, boat basin or swimming pool if the County Biologist determines that such filling will not have a significant adverse impact on marine or wetland communities; As needed for shoreline stabilization or beach renourishment projects with a valid public purpose that furthers the goals of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, as determined by the County Biologist; For bridges extending over salt marsh and/or buttonwood association wetlands that are required to provide automobile or pedestrian access to lawfully established dwelling units located on upland areas within the same property for which there is no alternate means of access. Such bridges shall be elevated on pilings so that the natural movement of water, including volume, rate and direction of flow shall not be disrupted or altered; or As approved for Disturbed Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Association Wetlands with appropriate mitigation as defined by the wetland regulations of subsection (e)(6) of this Section. Section 118-12(k)(2) provides: (2) Vertical type seawalls or bulkheads shall be permitted only to stabilize severely eroding shorelines and only on manmade canals, channels, or basins. Such seawalls or bulkheads shall be permitted only if native vegetation and/or riprap and filter cloth is not a feasible means to control erosion. No new seawalls, bulkheads, or other hardened vertical structures shall be permitted on open water. Section 122-4(b)(5), in relevant part, provides: Coastal high-hazard areas (V zones). Within the areas of special flood hazard are areas designated as coastal high- hazard areas, which have special flood hazards associated with wave wash. The following provisions shall apply in these areas: * * * e. There shall be no fill used as structural support. Section 130-157, Maximum Permanent Residential Density and Minimum Required Open Space, provides at note (a): (a) The allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available. Section 130-162, Maximum Densities for Hotel/Motel, Campground, Recreational Vehicle, Seasonal and Institutional Residential Uses, and Minimum Open Space, proves at note (a): (a) The allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available. Ms. Powell persuasively testified that the Project was not consistent with the County's LDC regulations in sections 118-4, 118-10(e), 118-12(k)(2), 122- 4(b)(5), 130-157, and 130-162. The Project was inconsistent with the cited LDC regulations because it sought to construct seawall in submerged land, fill portions of the lots subject to a 100% open space requirement, remove the entirety of the existing mangrove fringe, impair 100% of the marine seagrass resources within the Subject Lots, and utilize structural fill within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated Velocity Zone. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project did not meet the criteria of part IV of chapter 62-312 and section 380.0552. The testimony also demonstrated that Petitioner did not apply for a variance or waiver of the County's LDC regulations. Conditions for Issuance Petitioner generally argued that the five applications provided reasonable assurance for issuance of individual ERPs. However, the persuasive and credible evidence established that the Project did not satisfy a majority of the conditions for issuance under rule 62-330.301. Petitioner failed to provide adequate information regarding stormwater management, the impacts of runoff to Floral Avenue, and runoff flowing back into the Gulf of Mexico OFW. This failure resulted in a lack of reasonable assurance that the Project would not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; would not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; and would not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Those functions would be 100% impacted and the impacts would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. As found above, the Project would cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, adverse impacts to surface water conveyance, and the adverse impacts would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. Additional Conditions for Issuance Petitioner generally contended that the five applications provided reasonable assurance that the Project was clearly in the public interest under rule 62-330.302. However, the persuasive and credible evidence established that the Project did not satisfy a majority of the applicable additional conditions for issuance. The Project would adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others because Petitioner failed to provide adequate information regarding stormwater management. DEP's site inspection found no stormwater management or treatment system on the side of Floral Avenue adjacent to the Subject Lots. Thus, the collected and directed stormwater would end up flowing back into the mangrove fringe and the OFW. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, or their habitat, as a result of the 100% impact to benthic communities, which would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely affect marine productivity, the current condition, and the relative value of functions being performed by the impacted areas. Also, the Project would be permanent in nature. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that Petitioner failed to provide reasonable assurance that there would not be harmful erosion or shoaling. The Project would not adversely affect or enhance any significant historical and archaeological resources. The Project would not be within a recognized cumulative impact basin of the SFWMD for mitigation of impacts purposes. Contiguous lots to the Subject Lots owned by Petitioner could be developed through similar requests in the future. Each ERP application's cumulative impact analysis would consider the other four ERP applications as in-house examples of potential future projects. Thus, Petitioner did not provide reasonable assurance that each ERP application would not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order denying Petitioner's five ERP applications. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathryn E.D. Lewis, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jay Patrick Reynolds, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Moore, Esquire Moore Bowman & Reese, P.A. Suite 100 551 North Cattlemen Road Sarasota, Florida 34232 Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Mail Station 35 Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jon F. Morris, Esquire Brandon W. White, Esquire Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street, Mail Station 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Valerie A. Wright, Esquire Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue 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 issue in this case is whether the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD, or District) should issue a Modification to Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 11- 02055-P, Application No. 060713-9, to G.L. Homes of Naples Associates II, Ltd. (G.L. Homes, or Applicant), which authorizes modifications to the surface water management system (SWMS) for a residential development known as Saturnia Falls (the Project).
Findings Of Fact PARTIES The District is a water management district with the power and duty to exercise regulatory jurisdiction over the administration and enforcement of ERP criteria, pursuant to the provisions of Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, and Sections 373.413, 373.414, and 373.416, Florida Statutes. G.L. Homes is an entity with the administrative, legal, and financial capabilities of undertaking the activity in accordance with the terms and conditions of the 2006 ERP, meeting the criteria in Rule 40E-4.301(1)(j). The Conservancy was duly incorporated in 1966 under the laws of the State of Florida as a not for-profit corporation and has it headquarters in Collier County, Florida. G.L. Homes contests the Conservancy's assertion of "associational standing." But there is no question as to the Conservancy's "citizen standing" under Section 403.412(6), Florida Statutes. The Conservancy has approximately 6,200 members, with approximately 4,200 residing in Collier County. Twenty-five current members in good standing who reside in Collier County were identified during the hearing. The Conservancy's purpose is to "protect and sustain the natural environment of southwest Florida through advocacy, education, research, land acquisition and other lawful means." Specific purposes relevant to the subject matter of this case include: "to acquire and protect sanctuaries, greenbelts, parks, and beaches"; "to assist governing bodies to remedy present pollution and to prevent future pollution of water, air, and our waterfronts and beaches"; and "to encourage and stimulate the interests of residents and visitors to the area, to increase their knowledge of, and to promote the preservation of the southwest Florida natural environment." The Conservancy also asserts standing under Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. In furtherance of its corporate purpose, the Conservancy owns approximately 300 acres of land for preservation in Collier County, including a 46-acre parcel located on the Cocohatchee River downstream from the proposed Saturnia Falls development. The Conservancy also conducts scientific research in the waters of the Wiggins Pass Estuary downstream from the proposed Saturnia Falls development, including water quality monitoring and research on seagrass restoration. Further impacts to the water quality in the Cocohatchee River would affect the value of the Conservancy's property for conservation and would affect its interests in research in the area. These interests of the Conservancy would be adversely affected if the 2006 ERP were issued improperly. The Conservancy's assertion of "associational standing" is based on the testimony of eight of its members who engage in various recreational activities, including boating, fishing, bird-watching, nature study, and observation of wildlife. Some visit Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary and the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) to view endangered wood storks and other wildlife. Some also visit and recreate in downstream waters, such as the Wiggins Pass Estuary, for fishing, boating, or wildlife observation. These interests would be adversely affected if the 2006 ERP were issued improperly. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PERMITTING HISTORY The Project site is located one mile north of Immokalee Road, approximately 2 miles east of 1-75 and lies near the CREW lands in Collier County. The entire Project site consists of approximately 646 acres, of which 533.1 acres are wetlands. The Project has a permitting history dating back to 1997, when the previous owner, Robert Vocisano, applied to construct a development called Wildewood Lakes. The Wildewood Lakes application was denied in 1998, at least in part because wetland impacts were not reduced and eliminated to the extent practicable, and was mediated pursuant to Section 120.573, Florida Statutes. After three years of responding to additional requests for information, the application was submitted to the Governing Board for approval in May 2002. This ERP, referred to as “the 2002 ERP,” authorized the construction and operation of a SWMS to serve a residential and golf course development, discharging to the Cocohatchee Canal via a conveyance channel/Flow-way known as the Mirasol Flow-way (Flow-way). The Flow-way feature was to be built on lands owned by three different property owners, one of whom was the owner of the Terafina Project, and was intended to address flooding and storage criteria in the BOR and alleviate flooding problems in the region that resulted from previous drainage and development projects that altered the natural sheet-flow through the region to the Cocohatchee and Imperial Rivers, and on to the Gulf Coast. As reported in the Staff Report for the 2004 ERP, studies current at the time indicated that, during the initial part of the rainy season, the wetland systems in the vicinity of the proposed Flow- way carried the flow between the Corkscrew Swamp and the Cocohatchee Canal with the peak stages contained with the limits of the wetland areas. However, as the wet season progressed, the wetland vegetation impeded the conveyance of flow and resulted in elevated water stages that inundated properties adjacent to those wetlands, including portions of the eastern half of the Project. There were approximately 288 acres of direct impacts to wetlands under the 2002 ERP. There was a total of 291.20 acres of onsite preserve, including 259.97 acres of wetlands and 31.23 acres of uplands. Part of the Flow-way was to be located within the eastern third of the property (225.74 acres, including 217.80 acres of wetlands and 7.94 acres of uplands), which would be preserved after construction of part of the Flow- way in 23 of those acres. There also would be off-site mitigation in the form of a payment of $1,232,000 "specifically for the purchase of 154 acres . . . of land within CREW, a project within the District's Save Our Rivers Program." Of that total, $712,404 was to be deposited in an account for the land purchase, $437,206 in an account to pay for restoration work within the CREW project, and $82,390 in an escrow account for general operations and maintenance costs incurred by the District within the CREW project. On March 10, 2004, the Governing Board approved a modification to the 2002 ERP authorizing the construction and operation of the Project, at the time known as the Terafina PUD. This ERP is referred to as “the 2004 ERP.” The 2004 ERP removed the golf course and proposed a residential development within the same 646-acre parcel. It also discharged to the Cocohatchee Canal via the Flow-way. The 2004 ERP modified the Project to consist of: single-family residential areas; a recreation area; internal roadway; onsite wetland preserve areas within the development of approximately 73.99 acres; and 210 acres of wetland preserve east of the development, which included the Flow-way, and is referred to as the Eastern Preserve. The 2004 ERP proposed to impact approximately 280 acres of wetlands, slightly less than in the 2002 ERP. To mitigate for the impacts, the 2004 ERP authorized onsite mitigation consisting of the preservation and enhancement of 253.04 acres of wetlands, preservation of 31.27 acres of uplands, creation of 0.1 acres of wetlands, and offsite mitigation by a payment to the District for the purchase, restoration, and management of lands in CREW. Apparently by mistake, the amount of the CREW payment was reduced to $1,001,000, with $418,404 to go into the purchase account, $437,206 to go into the restoration account, and $82,390 to go into the escrow account for general operations and maintenance. In addition, the time for deposit of the funds was extended to June 30, 2004. The District included Special Condition No. 18 in the 2004 ERP, delaying any construction under the 2004 ERP until the Flow-way was completed. However, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) refused to permit construction of the Flow-way. On July 13, 2006, G.L. Homes submitted an application to modify the 2004 ERP (the 2006 Application), which is the subject of this proceeding. (A letter modification was issued on October 5, 2006, authorizing installation of a 48" outfall pipe within the Logan Boulevard right-of-way to convey the discharge from the Project to the Cocohatchee Canal. This letter modification was not challenged by the Conservancy and is not at issue in this proceeding.) On November 9, 2006, SFWMD proposed issuance of the 2006 ERP authorizing the construction and operation of the residential development now known as Saturnia Falls (the 2006 ERP). The 2006 Staff Report proposes elimination of the Flow- way, and enhancement and preservation of the 23.5 acres that would have been located in the eastern third of the Project area, similar to the rest of the Eastern Preserve. The SWMS also was altered, and the Staff Report noted that the CREW payment was made in June 2004 in the amount of $1,260,000 "as funding for the off-site mitigation in CREW," which was said to have "provided a substantial amount of up-front mitigation in CREW." The Conservancy did not challenge the 2002 ERP or the 2004 ERP but did challenge the 2006 ERP. THE MODIFIED SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM In addition to removal of the 23.5-acre segment of the Flow-way from the Eastern Preserve, the current proposal would modify the SWMS under the 2004 ERP by replacing the 80-foot weir at Lake 9, which was the sole final outfall under the 2004 ERP, with two operable Water Control Structures (WCS), located at the eastern (WCS-2) and western (WCS-1) boundaries of the Project, as the final outfall structures. The 80-foot weir in the 2004 ERP consisted of a rectangular notch in the 17.7 foot NGVD berm between Lake 9 and the Eastern Preserve, with a crest elevation of 13.8 foot NGVD and a 5 foot wide, .4 foot deep rectangular notch (that is, with an invert elevation of 13.4 foot NGVD) within the 80-foot weir, which served as a bleeder for water quality. The structure was fixed, and water was to pass freely through the bleeder and over the weir depending on the water levels on either side of the structure. In contrast, the structures proposed in the 2006 ERP are operable based on water levels in the Eastern Preserve. WCS- 1 is located in Lake 4 and discharges to the Cocohatchee Canal via a 48" reinforced concrete pipe located in the Logan Boulevard right-of-way. WCS-2 is located to the east of the development and discharges to the Eastern Preserve and then ultimately to the Cocohatchee Canal. As modified under the 2006 ERP, the SWMS continues to consist of eleven controlled sub-basins with a total area of 397.46 acres. The remainder of the proposed Project also is the same as under the 2004 ERP, including road alignments, type and number of houses, lots, lakes and grading information, and wetland impacts. It is the position of the Applicant and the District that the mitigation proposal also is identical; but Petitioner takes the position that proposed onsite mitigation will be adversely affected by the proposed modifications and that offsite mitigation no longer has the same benefit, so that mitigation no longer fully offsets the wetland impacts. The SWMS is set at the control elevation of 13.4 feet NGVD, which represents the wet season water table (WSWT) for the currently existing wetlands. The seasonal high water level for the wetlands was determined to be approximately 14.0 feet NGVD. When water levels in the Eastern Preserve are below 14.00 feet NGVD (typically in the dry season), the SWMS discharges to the Eastern Preserve through WCS-2, which is located in the perimeter berm to be constructed with sloping banks and a crest elevation of 17.7 feet NGVD between the Eastern Preserve and one of the western wetland preserves, called preserve P-5. WCS-2 consists of a 23-foot weir fitted with an operable bleeder at the control elevation of 13.40 feet NGVD, and a fixed discharge V-Notch weir with an invert elevation of 14.20 feet NGVD, and a crest elevation of 15.40 feet NGVD. This discharge will flow southerly through the Eastern Preserve to the receiving waterbody, the Cocohatchee Canal. WCS-1 will be closed during these periods. The maximum discharge rate under these conditions will be 15.28 cubic feet per second (cfs) to the Eastern Preserve. Based on the hydraulic modeling results, the Eastern Preserve experiences levels below 14 feet NGVD approximately 70% of the time on an annual basis. When water levels in the Eastern Preserve are above 14.00 feet NGVD (typically in the wet season), the SWMS will discharge predominately to the west via WCS-1 to the Cocohatchee Canal. When the water level in the Eastern Preserve reaches 14.00 ft NGVD, the operable bleeder on WCS-2 will close and the operable bleeder/discharge structure on WCS-1 will open. During the 25- year 3-day storm, the maximum discharge rate through WCS-1 is 13.50 cfs. During these conditions, discharge will also occur through the fixed 60-degree V-notch in WCS-2, with a maximum discharge of 2.10 cfs, ensuring bidirectional flow of water so long as the water level in the SWMS stays above 14.20 feet NGVD. The total discharge rate from both structures under this condition is 15.61 cfs. During the 25-year 3-day storm event, water levels in the Eastern Preserve fluctuate from 13.40 feet NGVD to 15.31 feet NGVD. When the water levels in the Eastern Preserve are higher than 14.20 feet NGVD, and the water level in the SWMS is lower than 14.20 feet NGVD, water from the Eastern Preserve will enter into the SWMS through the 60-degree V-Notch in WCS-2. The SWMS is designed to receive water from the Eastern Preserve to provide flood storage and hydrology to the onsite wetlands within the development. THE ERP PERMITTING CRITERIA In order to obtain an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions for issuance set forth in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. In this case, the evidence must be viewed under Rule 40E-4.331(2)(a), pertaining to modification of permits, which requires the District to review permit modification applications “using the same criteria as new applications for those portions of the project proposed for, or affected by, the modification.” The test in this case is not whether the District properly evaluated the 2004 ERP, but whether the areas proposed to be modified or affected by the modification meet the applicable conditions for issuance. Rule 40E-4.301(1) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a SWMS: Will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; Will not cause adverse flooding to on- site or off-site property; Will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; Will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters; Will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the water quality standards set forth in Chapters 62- 4, 62-302, 62-520, 62-522, 62-550, F.A.C., including any antidegradation provisions of paragraphs 62-4.242(1)(a) and (b), subsections 62-4.242(2) and (3), and Rule 62-302.300, F.A.C., and any special standards for Outstanding Florida Waters and Outstanding National Resource Waters set forth in subsections 62-4.242(2) and (3), F.A.C., will be violated; Will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources; Will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows established pursuant to Chapter 373.042, F.S.; Will not cause adverse impacts to a work of the District established pursuant to Section 373.086, F.S.; Will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed; Will be conducted by an entity with the sufficient financial, legal and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, if issued; and Will comply with any applicable special basin or geographic area criteria established in Chapter 40E-41, F.A.C. The parties stipulated that the Project either complies with Rules 40E-4.301(1)(g),(h),(j), and (k), and Sections 4.3.8, 7.5, and 9.0 of the BOR, or that those rules are not applicable. THE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT CRITERIA Water Quantity (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a)) As indicated, the 2006 modifications eliminate the Flow-way and change the manner in which water flows in and out of the proposed SWMS. Otherwise, there are no changes to the engineered features of the SWMS. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a) requires that G.L. Homes demonstrate that the Project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands, and not exceed the capacity of the downstream receiving water bodies. Section 6.2 of the BOR requires that a project be designed so it is consistent with the downstream carrying capacity of the receiving waters. The receiving waterbody for this Project is the Cocohatchee Canal. The allowable discharge rate for the Cocohatchee Canal is 15.9 cfs. The Project’s calculated rate of discharge is 15.6 cfs, so the Project does not exceed the allowable discharge rate. The Project's discharge rate is lower in 2006 (15.6 cfs) than it was in the 2004 ERP (291 cfs). Petitioner argued that the significant difference in discharge rates between the 2006 and the 2004 ERPs violated the District’s water quantity criteria. But the discharge rate calculated in 2004 was associated with the Flow-way and entailed a different overall analysis for the entire area served by the Flow-way. G.L. Homes provided reasonable assurances that the discharge rate allowed for its Project would not be exceeded, as required in Section 6.2 of the BOR. G.L. Homes complied with Section 6.3 of the BOR which requires the 25-year, 3-day storm event to be used when computing the discharge rate for the Project. Section 6.8 of the BOR is entitled “Offsite Lands.” Compliance with this Section requires that a project allow the passage of drainage from offsite areas to downstream areas, which is necessary to demonstrate that off-site receiving waterbodies are not being adversely affected. G.L. Homes complied with Section 6.8 by conducting a hydrologic analysis, using the 25-year, 3-day storm event, which demonstrated that discharge would be directed to WCS-1 and WCS-2, allowing for the passage of drainage from offsite areas to the downstream areas. Section 6.10 of the BOR requires that the design of the Project conserve water and not over-drain wetlands. There is nothing about the modifications that violate Section 6.10. In this case, the control elevations have been set at 13.4 feet NGVD, which is the average WSWT. The WSWT was established using biological indicators to determine the average elevation in the Project’s wetlands during the wet season. Setting the control elevation at the WSWT does not violate Section 6.10. To the contrary, when water levels are at or above the control elevation, the design helps prevent the wetlands from being drawn down below 13.4 feet NGVD, and not over-drain them. The WSWT of 13.4 was permitted in the 2004 ERP. The structures also allow for the interchange of water from the Eastern Preserve into the preserve wetlands within the SWMS. This exchange of water helps preserve the Project’s environmental values. Setting the control elevation at 13.4 also reduces unnecessary runoff from the Project, retaining the water for recharge. In addition, the ability of the SWMS to accept flows from the Eastern Preserve also conserves freshwater by preventing that water from being discharged downstream. As indicated, when water levels in the Eastern Preserve are below the control elevation, no water will enter the SWMS from the Eastern Preserve. During those times, it is possible that wetlands within the SWMS will be drained into the deep lakes dug as part of the project. However, that would not be the result of 2006 modifications but would be inherent in the previously-approved SWMS. The 2006 modifications do not re-open the soundness of that previously-approved part of the design. Section 6.10 also requires that a project not lower water tables so that the existing rights of others would be adversely affected. Again, by setting the control elevations at the WSWT, the water table is not expected to be lowered so as to affect the existing rights of others. The Project also must demonstrate that the site’s groundwater recharge characteristics will be preserved through the design of the SWMS. G.L. Homes complied by setting the control elevations at the WSWT, allowing standing water in the wetland preserves to recharge the groundwater. Section 6.11 addresses Detention and Control Elevations which are intended to assist in complying with the provisions of Section 6.10. By designing WCS-1 and WCS-2 at control elevation 13.4, the Project maintains the detention component and the control (wetland protection) elevations under the previously-approved SWMS. The Required Design Information and Assumptions are contained in Section 8.0 of the BOR. This Section includes various assumptions and information regarding the design of the SWMS. By incorporating these assumptions into the Project, G.L. Homes complied with Section 8.0. Flooding (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(b)) This Rule requires G.L. Homes to demonstrate that the Project will not cause adverse flooding to onsite or offsite property. Section 6.4 requires that building floors be designed to be protected from a 100-year, 3-day storm event. G.L. Homes complied with this provision by providing construction plans demonstrating that the building floors are being built higher than the 100-year, 3-day storm event. Likewise, Section 6.5 pertains to providing flood protection for the Project’s roads and parking lots. G.L. Homes complied with this provision by exceeding the District’s 5-year design criteria, and instead designing the roads and parking lots using the 25-year, 3-day storm event. G.L. Homes was required to comply with the Historic Basin Storage provision in Section 6.7, which requires the Project to replace or otherwise mitigate the loss of historic basin storage provided by the site. In this case, the amount and extent of historic storage that is being displaced by the 2006 ERP is the same as that in the 2004 ERP. However, the replacement or mitigation for loss of historic basin storage is reduced due to elimination of the Flow-way. Instead of relying on the Flow-way to address this criterion, G.L. Homes relied on the “Saturnia Falls Slough Hydraulic Study” prepared by Taylor Engineering, the “Taylor Report” (RJ Ex. 32), which demonstrates the current flood levels in the Eastern Preserve and other adjacent properties and wetlands, and that the Project’s configuration would not affect the basin’s historic storage. Lastly, to demonstrate that the Project will not cause adverse flooding to offsite properties, G.L. Homes was required to comply with Section 6.9, Minimum Drainage. This provision requires that the SWMS recover, consistent with the environmental criteria in 6.10 of the BOR, within 12 days or less. The Taylor Report also demonstrated that the Project will recover from the design storm event in time to provide the required attenuation for the next storm event, while preserving environmental or wetland features. There may be times when the recovery may exceed 12 days, but the need to protect the hydrology of the wetlands required the control elevations to be set at 13.4 ft NGVD. Balanced against Section 6.10, G.L. Homes still complies with Section 6.9. Accordingly, G.L. Homes provided reasonable assurances demonstrating that the 2006 ERP will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, satisfying Rule 40E- 4.301(1)(b). Storage and Conveyance (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c) requires that an applicant demonstrate that the proposed development will not adversely impact existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. In order to accomplish this demonstration, applicants are to consider the capability of the adjacent properties to both store and convey stormwater runoff from their developments. Section 6.6 of the BOR, entitled Floodplain Encroachment, specifies the parameters by prohibiting a net encroachment into the floodplain, between the average WSWT and the 100-year event, which will adversely affect the existing rights of others. G.L. Homes addressed this criterion through the analysis submitted and contained in the Taylor Report. The Taylor Report used the hydrologic model, HEC-HMS, and hydraulic model, HEC-RAS, to provide a simulation of flood stages propagating through the Eastern Preserve and the adjacent wetland system. This analysis assessed the existing flood stages within the offsite areas, starting at the Cocohatchee Canal and ending approximately 2-3 miles northeast of the eastern boundary of the Project. The analysis captured the expected flood levels during both the 25-year, 3-day and the 100-year, 3-day storm events in the area's current condition, and then compared the analysis of the two storm events considering the Project in its development condition. The analysis relied on the Project’s proposal to remove the current melaleuca infestation from the Eastern Preserve as part of the Project’s post-development condition. The Taylor Report concluded that the removal of such exotics would remove a flow impediment and allow the water to flow through the Eastern Preserve at a higher rate, and therefore at lower flood stages. The Taylor Report made these conclusions while accounting for the development as well as the mitigation-required plantings. The Taylor Report, along with Mr. Hull’s testimony, demonstrated that even with the mitigation reaching full maturity, the removal of melaleuca results in lower flood stages than the study area is currently experiencing. The evidence was that the model used by Taylor Engineering, the HEC-RAS model, is an appropriate model to determine flood stages and to calculate the floodplain conveyance. Furthermore, although Petitioner attacked the choice of inputs, mainly the “Manning’s n coefficients” used to determine the roughness or the friction provided by current and post-development vegetation, the balance of the evidence supports the coefficients contained in the Taylor Report as reasonable and within the ranges of the cited data and models. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Van Lent, who conducted no analysis of his own, admitted that HEC-RAS was an accepted tool to use for floodplain conveyance and that the other models he suggested are either inappropriate or rarely used by ERP applicants. The Applicant provided reasonable assurances demonstrating that the 2006 ERP will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, satisfying Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c). However, that is not to say that the 2006 ERP replaces the storage and conveyance capabilities that would have been provided under the 2004 ERP with the proposed Flow-way, which also required removal of melaleuca and required the same mitigation plantings except within the Flow-way itself. To the contrary, storage and conveyance capability under the 2004 ERP clearly would have been greater. Wetland Impacts (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d)) This Rule provision, while typically associated with the wetland ERP criteria review, also applies to the SWMS through Section 6.12 of the BOR, which requires that a lake system be designed so that an adverse gradient is not created between the lakes and wetland areas. G.L. Homes complied with this criterion by setting the control elevation at 13.4 feet NGVD, the WSWT, for the lake system, the SWMS wetland preserves and the Eastern Preserve, ensuring no gradient (or difference in elevation) between the wetland elevation and the lake elevation. Petitioner argued that additional analysis regarding the timing and levels of inundation in the wetland preserves is necessary to fully determine the impacts to the wetlands. Contrary testimony indicated that setting the control elevations within the development area at the WSWT protects the onsite wetlands and ensures that those wetlands will function as expected. Mr. Waterhouse testified that additional analysis, such as groundwater or evapotranspiration, is not necessary because the Project was designed so that the control elevation that affects the lake levels and the wetlands are the same. The testimony was that, since the control elevation was set using the WSWT, the timing and levels within the wetlands will not be affected by the revised SWMS, and that no additional modeling, as recommended by Dr. Van Lent, is necessary because the SWMS complies with Section 6.12. As indicated, it is questionable on this record whether wetlands within the SWMS will be drained during dry conditions by adjacent deep lakes. No such analysis was presented in evidence in this case. However, such an impact on the wetlands within the SWMS would not be the result of 2006 modifications but would be inherent in the previously-approved SWMS. The 2006 modifications do not re-open the soundness of that previously-approved part of the design. As for the 2006 modifications, the evidence was persuasive that no additional analysis regarding the timing and levels of inundation in the wetland preserves is necessary to determine that the elimination of the 80-foot weir and its replacement with WCS-1 and WCS-2 will not impact the wetlands. Water Quality (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the Project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that water quality standards will be violated. Section 5.2 describes the District’s standard water quality criteria. This provision, requiring a minimum of one inch detention of stormwater, is referred to as a “presumptive criterion” because it is presumed that if an applicant provides the required one inch of detention, Class III water quality standards and rule requirements will be met. In this case, G.L. Homes provides one inch of detention in its lake system in the exact manner it did in the 2004 ERP. A difference from the 2004 to the 2006 ERP is the classification of the Cocohatchee Canal, the Project’s receiving waterbody, as impaired for iron and dissolved oxygen (DO). Therefore, G.L. Homes was also required to comply with Section 4.2.4.5 of the BOR to demonstrate that it is not contributing to the impairment. See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.301(2). Section 4.2.4.5, entitled "Where Ambient Water Quality Does Not Meet State Water Quality Standards," states as follows: If the site of the proposed activity currently does not meet state water quality standards, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the water quality standards by meeting the provisions in 4.2.4.1, 4.2.4.2, and 4.2.4.3, as applicable, and for the parameters which do not meet water quality standards, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed activity will not contribute to the existing violation. If the proposed activity will contribute to the existing violation, mitigation may be proposed as described in subsection 4.3.1.4. To comply, G.L. Homes must show that neither short- term (4.2.4.1) nor long-term (4.2.4.2) water quality impacts will occur. G.L. Homes complied with the short-term requirements by submitting the Construction Pollution Prevention Plan (CPPP), detailing how water quality will be protected during the construction process. In addition to the inch of treatment, the long-term water quality requirement was addressed, in part, by the Urban Stormwater Management Plan (USMP), which details various source controls or best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented once the Project is built and operating. These BMPs help keep pollutants out of the lake system. In addition to the BMPs, the USMP requires G.L. Homes to institute a water quality monitoring plan and submit results to the District for review after the Project is developed. Dr. Harper concurred with Petitioner that the USMP as proposed (in R.J. 28, § 6.0) was deficient in certain respects and recommended that it be clarified or supplemented to specify testing for oxygen, iron, nitrogen, phosphorus, hardness, and a few heavy metals, namely copper, lead, and zinc. Dr. Harper also concurred and recommended that that samples should be collected at both WCS-1 or WCS-2, not just at one of them, depending on which structure is discharging water at the time of sampling. (Dr. Harper confirmed the propriety of testing three times per year, which is a common frequency for monitoring in situations like this.) Mr. Waterhouse agreed with Dr. Harper's additions/clarifications and testified that the USMP, as supplemented and clarified, would comply with District’s criteria. G.L. Homes accepted Dr. Harper's additions/clarifications to the USMP. Another component of Section 4.2.4.5 requires additional assurance for parameters that do not meet water quality standards. The District prepared the “Terrie Bates Water Quality Memo dated June 11, 2004,” referred to as “the Bates Memo,” to provide guidance on the implementation of Section 4.2.4.5 for projects which discharge into an impaired waterbody. The Bates Memo suggests that an additional 50 percent of treatment, among other BMPs, be incorporated into a SWMS. G.L. Homes complied with the Bates Memo because runoff from the lakes, after meeting the one inch detention treatment requirement, spills into the wetland preserves within the SWMS for an additional 50 percent of treatment. In terms of operation of the SWMS, this is no different from the 2004 ERP, but the 2006 ERP simply calculates and takes credit for the additional treatment that was also provided by the onsite wetlands in the 2004 ERP. It is uncontested that the wetland preserves within the development are not impaired and are only required to meet Class III water quality standards. When the stormwater spills into the SWMS wetland preserves, it is presumed to meet Class III water quality standards due to the one inch of detention treatment. Accordingly, the SWMS wetland preserves can be used to provide the additional 50 percent of treatment. The Bates Memo also lists seven BMPs as potential options to consider, in addition to the extra 50 percent treatment volume. G.L. Homes is implementing 6 of the 7 items as follows: (1) the CPPP, which is a stormwater pollution prevention plan; (2) an operation plan or long-term plan addressing routine maintenance is included in the USMP; (3) planting littoral zones; (4) some utilization of onsite wetlands for additional treatment downstream of the SWMS by discharging into the Eastern Preserve wetland system through WCS-2 at times; (5) a site-specific water quality evaluation for the Project’s pre- and post-development conditions is addressed by the Harper Report (RJ Ex. 25); and (6) a Water Quality Monitoring Plan, which is required under the USMP. Petitioner erroneously argued that the Bates Memo does not allow the 50 percent treatment to occur in the preserve wetlands within the development. The argument stems from the phrase “in addition to the extra 50% treatment volume” at the bottom of page 3 of the memo, and bullet No. 5 on page 4, which recommends “treatment in wetlands downstream of the SWMS.” Absent any analysis of her own or any experience in the application of the Bates Memo, Ms. Hecker contended that the Bates Memo precludes the use of onsite wetlands. The argument is contradictory and confusing because Hecker admits that the preserve wetlands within the development are not downstream of the SWMS, and acknowledges that the Eastern Preserve is the wetland downstream of the SWMS. Ms. Hecker, along with Mr. Boler, ultimately admitted that criteria exist allowing the use of wetlands as part of the SWMS. Mr. Waterhouse, who has vastly more experience with the District’s water quality criteria than Ms. Hecker, and participated in the drafting of the Bates Memo, refuted Ms. Hecker’s position about the intent of the Bates Memo, citing to Section 5.3.1 of the BOR as additional support for the use of onsite wetlands for water quality treatment. In addition to these water quality submittals, G.L. Homes also provided a water quality analysis specific to the Project prepared by Dr. Harvey Harper. The analysis, entitled “Evaluation of Water Quality Issues Related to the Saturnia Falls Project” (RJ Ex. 25), referred to as the “Harper Report,” analyzed the Project’s pre- and post-development pollutant loads to help demonstrate that the Project would not contribute to the impairment of the Cocohatchee Canal. The Harper Report estimated the removal efficiency of the SWMS lakes to determine how much pollutant removal would be achieved by the lakes on the Project. Dr. Harper relied solely on the lakes without accounting for any of the additional treatment expected to occur in the wetlands or from the source control BMPs contained in the USMP, which means his report errs on the conservative side in those respects. Although the Canal is impaired for dissolved oxygen (DO), it is uncontested that a nutrient analysis is the appropriate method to assess DO conditions. The Harper Report, as summarized in the table below, concluded that the Project would result in lower post-development loading rates than the pre-development loading rates for nutrients. Nitrogen (N) Pre-Development Total N Load 390.6 kg Post-Development Removal (Dry4) Total N Load 204.99 kg Post-Development Removal (Wet5) Total N Load 194.69 kg Phosphorus (P) Pre-development Total P Load 15.12 kg Post-Development Removal (Dry) Total P Load 5.29 kg Post-Development Removal (Wet) Total P Load 4.49 kg The Harper Report compared the Post-Development Total Basin Loading numbers for P (136.43 kg) and for N (922.57 kg), on an average annual basis, coming from the residential areas (roads and lots) to the Post-Development Removal Loads for P [5.29 kg (dry) and 4.49 kg (wet)] and for N [204.99 kg (dry) and 194.69 kg (wet)] discharging from the lakes after treatment. The calculations demonstrated that approximately 77 percent of N would be removed by the lakes in the dry season conditions and approximately 78 percent would be removed in the wet season conditions. Approximately 95 percent of P would be removed by the lakes in both the dry and wet season conditions. Additional removal and treatment above these percentages is expected due to a number of other source control measures not accounted for in the Harper Report. The Harper Report also concluded that iron discharges from the SWMS would be extremely low and substantially less than the Class III standard of 1 mg/l. Petitioner presented no evidence to counter this conclusion. Petitioner questioned the validity of Harper Report’s use of wetlands as part of the loading calculations, and attacked his underlying methodology. Petitioner's witnesses called it "bad science" to attribute pollutant loading to wetlands because wetlands remove nutrients from the water column and because attributing nutrient loading to wetlands would make it easier to obtain a permit to destroy wetlands. However, none of Petitioner's witnesses were able to credibly defend the position that wetlands cannot contribute to the loading calculations and at times conceded to this fact. Generally, wetlands can in fact contribute some nutrients that pass through without being taken up by wetland vegetation, either because the water is moving through the wetlands too fast or because the nutrient load in the wetland overtaxes the wetland's ability to take up nutrients. That does not necessarily mean that the nutrient load attributable to a wetland will be greater than the load attributable to other post-development land uses. Indeed, the only post-development land use characterized by Dr. Harper as having a lower pollutant load than a wetland was low- intensity commercial, and that was only for total nitrogen. (Dr. Harper's use of data from some distance away in Corkscrew Swamp as the basis for characterizing the pollutant loadings for the onsite wetlands, instead of data from a closer monitoring station in the Cocohatchee Canal weir, was justified; his use of that data instead of collecting data onsite was a valid criticism, but there was not enough evidence in support of that criticism to undermine the additional assurance derived from Dr. Harper's work.) As for the argument that the "Harper method" makes it easier to obtain a permit to destroy wetlands, there are many regulatory criteria other than just water quality that are supposed to be considered before a permit is issued to impact wetlands. Another component of Petitioner’s attack on the Project’s water quality compliance included vague references to an 80 percent removal efficiency. In actuality, the 80 percent removal efficiency is not adopted or incorporated into any District rule criteria. In any event, the Harper Report and other evidence give reasonable assurance that, along with other source controls, the proposed SWMS probably will remove 80 percent of pollutants on an average annual basis. Lastly, the District clarified why Section 4.2.8 of the BOR, regarding cumulative impacts for water quality, was not applicable in this case. Since no contribution or impacts to water quality are expected, a cumulative impacts analysis is not necessary to assess the extent of the impacts. The combination of all these water quality measures, when taken together, give reasonable assurance that the 2006 ERP will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that State water quality standards will be violated, and that Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) will be satisfied. Engineering Principles (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the SWMS will be capable, based on generally-accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed. Section 7.0 of the BOR specifies implementation of the Rule. Since WCS-1 and WCS-2 are proposed as operable structures, the District is requiring that G.L. Homes enter into an operable Control Structure Agreement with the Big Cypress Basin Board. The agreement provides for the Big Cypress Basin Board to operate and maintain the two operable structures, instead of the Saturnia Falls Homeowners Association. As Mr. Waterhouse explained, this is a reasonable and logical requirement. WETLAND ERP CRITERIA As with the SWMS criteria, the wetland criteria review of this modification compares the Project to 2004 ERP. Functions To Fish & Wildlife And Listed Species (Subsection 40E- 4.301(1)(d)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances to demonstrate that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, or abandonment of a SWMS will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Section 4.2.2 of the BOR provides further specificity to ensure that a project will not impact the abundance and diversity of fish, wildlife and listed species. The 2006 ERP makes no changes or modification to the 280 acres of wetland impacts allowed in the 2004 ERP. Since the impacts remain the same, the 2006 ERP does not modify or affect the values the wetlands provide to either the abundance or diversity of fish and wildlife, compared to the 2004 ERP. Review of this criterion was determined in the 2004 ERP and should not be re- opened. Section 4.2.2.3 of the BOR addresses the functional assessment of the values provided by the Project’s wetlands. The wetland values were not reassessed in the 2006 ERP because the wetland impacts remain the same as in the 2004 ERP. The evidence was that the current value of the wetlands remains low due to heavy melaleuca infestation, with 75 percent coverage in most locations. While Petitioner may disagree with how the current wetlands were evaluated, nothing in this modification request requires a reassessment of their value. Accordingly, the value of the wetlands currently onsite has not changed, and this criteria should not be re-opened. Section 4.2.2.4 of the BOR requires that a regulated activity not adversely impact the hydroperiod of wetlands or other surface waters. Specifically, the criterion states as follows: [An] applicant must provide reasonable assurances that the regulated activity will not change the hydroperiod of a wetland or other surface water, so as to adversely affect wetland functions or other surface water functions as follows: Whenever portions of a system, such as constructed basins, structures, stormwater ponds, canals, and ditches, are reasonably expected to have the effect of reducing the depth, duration or frequency of inundation or saturation in a wetland or other surface water, the applicant must perform an analysis of the drawdown in water levels or diversion of water flows resulting from such activities and provide reasonable assurance that these drawdowns or diversions will not adversely impact the functions that wetlands and other surface waters provide to fish and wildlife and listed species. Increasing the depth, duration, or frequency of inundation through changing the rate or method of discharge of water to wetlands or other surface waters or by impounding water in wetlands or other surface waters must also be addressed to prevent adverse effects to functions that wetlands and other surface waters provide to fish and wildlife and listed species. Different types of wetlands respond differently to increased depth, duration, or frequency of inundation. Therefore, the applicant must provide reasonable assurance that activities that have the potential to increase discharge or water levels will not adversely affect the functioning of the specific wetland or other surface water subject to the increased discharge or water level. Whenever portions of a system could have the effect of altering water levels in wetlands or other surface waters, applicants shall be required to: monitor the wetland or other surface waters to demonstrate that such alteration has not resulted in adverse impacts; or calibrate the system to prevent adverse impacts. Monitoring parameters, methods, schedules, and reporting requirements shall be specified in permit conditions. Subsection (a) applies if the Project was expected to reduce the depth, duration, or frequency of inundation or saturation in any of the Project’s wetlands. Subsection (b) applies if the Project is expected to increase the depth, duration, or frequency of inundation through changing the rate or method of discharge of water to wetlands or other surface waters. Subsection (c) requires monitoring of the wetlands to determine the effects of the hydrological changes. Persuasive engineering and biological testimony demonstrated that no change (neither a reduction nor an increase) in the hydrology on the preserved wetlands or the Eastern Preserve will occur from what was permitted in the 2004 ERP. By analyzing the various biological indicators onsite, control elevations within the SWMS and the wetlands (both the Eastern Preserve and onsite preserve wetlands) were set at 13.4 feet NGVD, which is the WSWT. This matched the control elevation under the 2004 ERP. Ms. Bain and Mr. Passarella both testified that the hydroperiods in the wetlands would remain the same as in the 2004 ERP during normal conditions, the most important indicator of wetland success, and that the wetlands would be unaffected by the modifications. The WSWT is a common indicator of average wet season water levels in a wetland, which generally is the best indicator of maintaining appropriate hydrology and thereby maintaining the expected level of wetland function. However, as indicated, the deep lakes next to preserved wetlands within the SWMS could draw down those wetlands during dry conditions; but the potential lake effect was present in the 2004 ERP. Both Dr. Van Lent and Jason Lauritsen conceded that, with the elimination of the Flow-way, the hydrology in the Eastern Preserve would be better in the 2006 ERP than in the 2004 ERP. But, as indicated, there was no detailed analysis of wetland impacts from the 2006 modifications because G.L. Homes and the District took the position that no detailed analysis was necessary since the control elevation remained unchanged. Petitioner attempts to cast doubt as to the level of data reviewed by the District to conclude that no changes will occur in the hydrology of the wetlands. But the additional modeling recommended by Petitioner is unnecessary and unwarranted in the face of the biological indicators collected from the Project site over several years. These biological indicators are reliable and customary information to use when ensuring compliance with Section 4.2.2.4. They also resulted in the same control elevation that was set in the 2004 ERP. Petitioner never disputed the credibility of the biological indicators, nor did they present any contrary evidence (either a model or otherwise) that purported to show the wetlands would not function as permitted in the 2004 ERP based on these indicators. Instead, they simply asserted that additional analysis should be done. Although not precipitated by this criterion, G.L. Homes will conduct monitoring of the wetlands by implementing the Monitoring Plan as additional reasonable assurances that the wetlands will not be affected. Secondary Impacts To Water Resources (Subsection 40E- 4.301(1)(f)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f) and Section 4.2.7 of the BOR require a demonstration that the proposed activities will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. No secondary impact analysis was done because the site plan and wetland impacts remained unchanged from the 2004 ERP. Additional Wetland Provisions (Subsection 40E-4.301(3) and 40E- 4.302 Subsection 40E-4.301(3) addresses the remaining wetland criteria in the BOR, including mitigation and elimination or reduction of impacts. Rule 40E-4.302(1)(b) addresses the cumulative impacts analysis contained in Section 4.2.8 of the BOR. No assessment of elimination and reduction of wetland impacts was done because the wetland impacts remain unchanged from the 2004 ERP. The 2006 modifications do not warrant another elimination and reduction analysis. No cumulative impacts analysis is necessary because, as in the 2004 ERP, all proposed mitigation for wetland impacts are within the same drainage basin (West Collier) as the impacts. Logically, if the mitigation proposed for the 2006 modifications fully offsets the wetland impacts, there will be no impacts to cumulate with others impacts of other development activities. On the other hand, if the mitigation does not fully offset the impacts, the application will be denied for that reason, without the need for a cumulative impacts analysis. Section 4.3 of the BOR specifies criteria for mitigation proposed as part of an ERP application. Both G.L. Homes and the District took the position that, similar to the wetland impacts, the proposal for both onsite and offsite mitigation did not change from the 2004 ERP, and that no detailed analysis of the mitigation proposal, or comparison to wetland impacts, was required. Indeed, the onsite mitigation proposal--which includes preservation, restoration of wetlands by removing melaleuca, and the creation of four shallow depressional areas for wood stork habitat--remains unchanged from the 2004 ERP, including the Grading and Planting Plan, the Monitoring Plan, and Mitigation, Monitoring and Maintenance Plan. It was proven that the Flow- way footprint never was considered to be either a wetland impact or a part of the mitigation proposal, and that its removal from the Eastern Preserve does not decrease the amount or the value of the mitigation. (Actually, its removal probably increases the value of the mitigation, but the amount of any such increase was not analyzed or quantified.) It also was proven that the onsite wetlands will not be adversely affected as a result of the 2006 modifications so as to decrease their mitigation value, as Petitioner contended. Petitioner also raised the concern that the wetland mitigation within the SWMS would not function as permitted in the 2004 ERP due to the storage of the additional 50 percent within those wetlands, thereby affecting the mitigation assessment. However, as already indicated, when the water reaches those internal wetland preserves, it will have been treated to Class III water quality standards. In addition, operationally, the water also would have been stored in those wetlands under the 2004 ERP; the only difference is that the 2006 modifications calculate and claim credit for the storage, which was not necessary or done for the 2004 ERP. In addition to the onsite mitigation, G.L. Homes previously had been permitted to provide offsite mitigation in the form of a $1.26 million cash payment to the District. The payment was for the purchase, restoration, and enhancement of 154 acres of lands within the boundaries of the District’s environmental restoration project called CREW. Payment of cash for use by the District is addressed in Section 4.3.1.8 of the BOR. These types of offsite mitigation opportunities are referred to as a regional offsite mitigation areas or “ROMAs.” Unlike most mitigation banks, ROMAs, such as CREW, involve a land acquisition component and are owned and operated by the District. G.L. Homes and the District take the position that, under Section 4.3.1.8 of the BOR, and the previous 2004 ERP, G.L. Homes’ responsibilities ended when it paid the cash donation to the District. They take the position that the mitigation is unaffected by the modification, and that re- opening of the offsite mitigation requirement is unwarranted. However, while the Staff Report characterizes the $1.26 million payment as "a substantial amount of up-front mitigation for the proposed wetland impacts," no land in CREW has been purchased as of yet. In addition, the evidence was that, as a result of the passage of time and market forces, it unlikely that 154 acres of land within CREW can be purchased, enhanced, and maintained with the funds paid to the District under the 2004 ERP. Indeed, for a number of reasons, including the lack of willing sellers to participate in the CREW ROMA, in 2004 the District stopped accepting payment of funds to purchase land in CREW as an acceptable form of mitigation for wetland impacts. As a result, it no longer can be said that the proposed mitigation package, which includes and relies on the use of the funds to purchase, enhance, and maintain 154 acres in CREW, fully offsets the proposed wetland impacts. (In addition, under Rule 40E- 4.331(2)(a), any new mitigation proposal would have to analyzed using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology, Rule 62- 345.100.) Finally, if the offsite mitigation outside the drainage basin is used, a cumulative impact analysis will be necessary. Public Interest Test (Rule 40E-4.302(1) In addition to complying with Rule 40E-4.301, since the Project is located in, on, or over wetlands, G.L. Homes must also address the criteria contained in the Public Interest Test, Rule 40E-4.302 and Section 4.2.3 of the BOR, by demonstrating that the Project is not contrary to the public interest. (Since the Project is not within an OFW or does not significantly degrade an OFW, the higher standard of “clearly in the public interest” does not apply.) The District considers and balances the following seven factors in determining compliance with the test: Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others (40E-4.302(1)(a)1.); 93. G.L. Homes provided reasonable assurances that the Project will not cause any onsite or offsite flooding, nor will the Project cause any adverse impacts to adjacent lands because the SWMS is designed in accordance with District criteria and the post-development peak rate of discharge does not exceed the allowable discharge rate. The Project is considered neutral as to this factor. However, it appears from the evidence that the 2002 ERP and the 2004 ERP viewed those proposals as positive as to this factor due to the inclusion of the Flow-way in an effort to alleviate regional flooding. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats (40E-4.302(1)(a)2.); 94. As indicated, the Project proposes onsite mitigation which has not changed from the 2004 ERP, but passage of time and market conditions have changed the offsite mitigation proposal. As a result, it no longer can be said based on the evidence in this case that the overall mitigation proposal offsets potential impacts to fish and wildlife, including wood stork habitat, even though the mitigation plan for the Eastern Preserve would improve wood stork habitat from its current melaleuca-infested condition. For these reasons, the Project cannot be considered positive as to this factor. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling (40E-4.302(1)(a)3.); 95. The Project will not adversely affect navigation. In addition, no evidence was introduced to suggest that the Project’s construction would result in harmful erosion or shoaling. The balance of the testimony pertaining to the flow of water in the Project indicated that it will not be adversely affected. Although there will be reduced discharge to the Eastern Preserve as a result of the 2006 modifications, the Project is considered neutral as to this factor. In contrast, it appears from the evidence that the 2002 ERP and the 2004 ERP would have viewed those proposals as positive as to this factor due to the inclusion of the Flow-way in an effort to alleviate regional flooding. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity (40E-4.302(1)(a)4.); 96. The Project does not provide any fishing, recreational values, or marine productivity. Therefore, the Project is neutral as to this factor. Whether the regulated activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature (40E-4.302(1)(a)5.); 97. The Project is permanent in nature and is considered neutral as to this factor because reasonable assurances have not been given that mitigation will fully offset the permanent wetland impacts. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, F.S. (40E- 4.302(1)(a)6.); 98. There are no significant archeological or historical resources that will be adversely affected by the Project. In addition, no new information was received by the District indicating that historical resources would be impacted. Therefore, the Project is considered neutral as to this factor. The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed regulated activity (40E-4.302(1)(a)7.); As found, reasonable assurance has not been given that the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by the areas affected by the Project will be fully offset by mitigation. Therefore, the Project should be considered negative as to this factor. On balance, the Project, overall, is negative when measured against these criteria. Accordingly, it must be determined that reasonable assurance has not been given that the Project, as a whole, is not contrary to the public interest.
Conclusions DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. Under Section 403.412(6), Florida Statutes: Any Florida corporation not for profit which has at least 25 current members residing within the county where the activity is proposed, and which was formed for the purpose of the protection of the environment, fish and wildlife resources, and protection of air and water quality, may initiate a hearing pursuant to s. 120.569 or s. 120.57, provided that the Florida corporation not for profit was formed at least 1 year prior to the date of the filing of the application for a permit, license, or authorization that is the subject of the notice of proposed agency action. It is concluded that use of virtually the identical statutory language is not mandatory for standing under this statute and that the Conservancy meets the requirements for standing under this statute. Party status under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, also can be based on proof that "substantial interests will be affected by proposed agency action." § 120.52(12)(b), Fla. Stat. This requires proof of "an injury in fact which is of sufficient immediacy and is of the type and nature intended to be protected" by the substantive law. § 403.412(5), Fla. Stat. See also Agrico Chemical Co. v. Dept. of Environmental Reg., 406 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). An organization like the Conservancy may allege and prove either that its own substantial interests or those of a substantial number of its members will be affected. See Florida Home Builders Ass'n v. Dept. of Labor and Employment Security, 412 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1982); Farmworker Rights Organization, Inc. v. Dept. of Health, etc., 417 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). In addition, Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes, provides: No demonstration of special injury different in kind from the general public at large is required. A sufficient demonstration of a substantial interest may be made by a petitioner who establishes that the proposed activity, conduct, or product to be licensed or permitted affects the petitioner's use or enjoyment of air, water, or natural resources protected by this chapter. The Conservancy made a sufficient demonstration under this statute that the proposed 2006 ERP will affect its use or enjoyment of water and natural resources protected by Chapter 403. As a result, the Conservancy also proved standing under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. Because the Conservancy has "citizen standing" under Section 403.412(6), Florida Statutes, as well as standing under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, it is not necessary to decide G.L. Homes' challenge to the Conservancy's "associational standing." It also is unnecessary and premature to determine whether any party would be entitled under Section 120.68(1), Florida Statutes, to judicial review of the final order entered in this case as "a party who is adversely affected." It is believed that such a determination, if it becomes necessary, can be made upon the evidence in the record. BURDENS OF PROOF AND PERSUASION This is a de novo proceeding designed to formulate final agency action. See Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So. 2d 778, 786-787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); and § 120.57(1)(k), Fla. Stat. As an ERP applicant, G.L. Homes has the ultimate burden of proof and burden of persuasion. See J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So. 2d at 786-789. In light of the evidence presented in this case, the option suggested in the J.W.C. case to shift the burden of presenting evidence was not useful. ERP CRITERIA The permitting criteria for G.L. Homes' proposed Project are found in Parts I and IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-345, Florida Administrative Code Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302, and the BOR, which is adopted by reference in Rule 40E-4.091(1)(a). For its proposed Project to be permitted, G.L. Homes must give reasonable assurance of compliance with those criteria. Issuance of an ERP must be based solely on compliance with applicable permit criteria. See Council of the Lower Keys v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 429 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Reasonable assurance contemplates a substantial likelihood that the project will be successfully implemented. See Metropolitan Dade County v. Coscan Florida Inc., 609 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Absolute guarantees are not necessary, and a permit applicant is not required to eliminate all contrary possibilities or address impacts that are only theoretical and cannot be measured in real life. See City of Sunrise v. Indian Trace Community Development District, et al., DOAH Case No. 91- 6036, 1991 Fla. ENV LEXIS 6997, 92 ER FALR 21 (DOAH 1991, SFWMD 1992); Manasota-88, Inc. v. Agrico Chemical Co. and Department of Environmental Regulation, DOAH Case No. 87-2433, 1990 Fla. ENV LEXIS 38 (DOAH Jan. 5, 1990; DER Feb. 19, 1990). The test in this case is not whether the District properly evaluated the 2004 ERP, but whether the areas proposed to be modified or affected by the modification met the applicable conditions for issuance. When a permittee seeks to modify an existing permit, the District’s review includes only that portion of the existing permit that is proposed to be modified or is affected by the modification. Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.331(2). See also Friends of the Everglades, Inc., v. Dep't. of Envt'l. Reg., 496 So. 2d 181, 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Behrens v. Boran, ORDER NO. SWF 02-052, ER FALR 257 (SWFWMD Aug. 27, 2002), DOAH Case No. 02-0282, 2002 Fla. ENV LEXIS 192 (DOAH July 29, 2002); Kunnen v. Southwest Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., ORDER NO.: SWF 02-003, DOAH Case No. 01-2571, 2002 Fla. ENV LEXIS 4 (DOAH Dec. 17, 2001; SWFWMD Jan. 29, 2002). The "reasonable assurance" requirement applies to the activities for which permitting is presently sought and, except to the extent affected by the proposed modification, does not burden the applicant with "providing 'reasonable assurances' anew with respect to the original permit." Friends of the Everglades, supra at 183. Accordingly, Petitioner’s arguments that certain criteria must be revisited because they were not properly addressed in previous permits is irrelevant to this proceeding; but previously-decided criteria must be reviewed again to the extent that proposed modifications affect those criteria. CONSIDERATION OF THE ERP CRITERIA In order to provide reasonable assurances that a Project will not be harmful to the water resources of the District, the applicant must satisfy the conditions for issuance set forth in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. In this case, the evidence must be viewed under the rule pertaining to modification of permits. Rule 40E-4.331(2)(a) requires the District to review permit modification applications “using the same criteria as new applications for those portions of the project proposed for, or affected by, the modification.” Surface Water Management Criteria Water Quantity and Flooding Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a) and (b) address adverse water quantity to receiving water bodies and flooding either onsite and offsite. As found, G.L. Homes complied with the applicable criteria to satisfy both of these rules. Storage and Conveyance Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c) requires G.L. Homes to provide reasonable assurances that the Project will not adversely impact storage and conveyance capabilities. As found, the submittal of the Taylor Report provides reasonable assurances that the Project will not adversely affect the conveyance of water. Moreover, although some criticism was aimed at the choice of the friction coefficients used in the Taylor Report, the evidence as a whole proves that the coefficients in the Taylor Report are reasonable and scientifically defensible. Water Quality Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) requires G.L. Homes to provide reasonable assurances that the Project will not result in adverse water quality impacts. As found, coupled with the clarifications/additions to the USMP suggested by Dr. Harper and accepted by G.L. Homes, the numerous water quality submittals demonstrated compliance with this Rule, including assurances regarding the impairment status of the Cocohatchee Canal. While Petitioner leveled numerous criticisms against the Project’s ability to comply with water quality, none of the criticisms rose to the level of “contrary evidence of equivalent quality.” Taken as whole, and balanced against Petitioner’s lack of equivalent evidence and credible witnesses, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that, with the Monitoring Plan additions/clarifications, G.L. Homes meets the District’s water quality criteria. Engineering Principles As required by Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i), G.L. Homes has provided reasonable assurances to demonstrate that the SWMS will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and functioning as proposed. Wetlands Criteria Elimination and Reduction, Secondary and Cumulative Impacts 115. Rules 40E-4.301(1)(f) and (2) and 40E-4.302(1)(b) require G.L. Homes to demonstrate compliance with the following District criteria pertaining to wetland impacts: (1) elimination and reduction; (2) secondary impacts; and (3) cumulative impacts. As found, the 2006 ERP proposes no changes or modifications to the wetlands impacts approved in the 2004 ERP. Therefore, Petitioner’s arguments that these assessments were either not done or done improperly in the previous permit are not valid bases to relitigate those issues. Accordingly, elimination and reduction, secondary impacts, and cumulative impacts addressed in the 2004 ERP are not properly litigated in this modification proceeding, except to the extent that they are affected by the proposed modifications. While the proposed modifications do not affect either elimination and reduction or secondary impacts, they could affect cumulative impacts, depending on whether offset mitigation needed to fully offset wetland impacts is accomplished in the West Collier drainage basin. Wetland Values and Functions to Fish and Wildlife Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d) requires G.L. Homes to provide reasonable assurances that the Project will not adversely impact the value and functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands. Rule 40E-4.301(3) requires an applicant to comply with the District’s mitigation provisions in the BOR. As found, Petitioner’s contention that the revised SWMS affected the values and functions provided to fish and wildlife, particularly the wood stork, was not supported by the weight of the evidence as to onsite mitigation. However, the passage of time and market conditions affected the offsite mitigation proposed and presumably evaluated for the 2004 ERP, and the impacts and mitigation were not re-evaluated for the 2006 ERP. Under Rule 40E-4.331(2), they must be re-evaluated using UMAM, as required by Rule 62-345.100. Public Interest Test The public interest test is limited in scope to only the seven factors set forth in Rule 40E-4.302(2). As found above, after a balancing of the factors, reasonable assurance was not provided that the Project is not contrary to the Public Interest.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the proposed 2006 ERP be denied. If it is granted, it should include the additions/clarifications to the USMP suggested by Dr. Harper and accepted by G.L. Homes. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Introduction Respondent, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD or District), is a creature of the legislature having been created under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (1985). It has jurisdiction over and administers all "waters in the District", including the regulation of the management and storage of surface waters. According to the map depicted in Rule 40E-1.103, Florida Administrative Code, the SFWMD's jurisdiction appears to extend over all of Monroe, Dade, Broward, Collier, Palm Beach, Martin, Lee, Hendry and Glades Counties and portions of St. Lucie, Okeechobee, Osceola, Charlotte and Orange Counties, Florida. A precise legal description of its boundaries is found in Subsection 373.069(2)(e), Florida Statutes (1985). Under the District's surface water management permitting authority, a permit is required for the construction of any works that impound, impede, obstruct or otherwise impact the flow of water, irrespective of whether the property contains a wetland of any nature. To implement the above jurisdiction, the District has adopted by reference in Rule 40E-4.091(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, a technical manual entitled "Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Application within the South Florida Water Management District" (Basis for Review). The manual was first adopted in 1977 and has been readopted with various modifications since that time. The most recent version became effective in July 1986. The manual contains criteria to be used by the District when reviewing permit applications for the construction and operation of surface water management systems within its jurisdictional boundaries. These criteria specify the manner in which an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that a project meets SFWMD objectives, and include both water quantity and quality considerations as well as environmental standards designed to protect fish and wildlife. One feature of the Basis of Review is a provision allowing an applicant to submit and implement innovative project designs as long as they meet District objectives. Many of the principles embodied in the Basis of Review have been carried forward into the challenged rules. An applicant may apply for a conceptual approval or a construction and operation (C&O) permit. The conceptual approval is a permit for a master plan when the applicant is not ready to submit all detailed drawings necessary to obtain a C&O permit. It is especially appropriate for large projects developed in phases. A conceptual approval does not authorize construction of a surface water management system, but rather authorizes a master plan with which subsequent construction and operation must be consistent. Once a conceptual permit has been issued, the individual C&O permits are then applied for and issued consistent with the terms of the conceptual permit. In 1986 the Legislature enacted Section 373.414, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986). That section requires the District, not later than March 31, 1987, to "adopt a rule which establishes specific permitting criteria for certain small isolated wetlands which are not within the jurisdiction of the department (of environmental regulation) for purposes of regulation of dredging and filling." The statute goes on to require that the rule include the following: One or more size thresholds of isolated wetlands below which impacts on fish and wildlife and their habitats will not be considered. These thresholds shall be based on biological and hydrological evidence that shows the fish and wildlife values of such areas to be minimal; Criteria for review of fish and wildlife and their habitats for isolated wetlands larger than the minimum size; Criteria for the protection of threatened and endangered species in isolated wetlands regardless of size and land use; and Provisions for consideration of the cumulative and offsite impacts of a project or projects. The statute further provides that until the District adopts specific isolated wetland rules, its review of fish and wildlife impacts in small isolated wetlands is limited to: Wetlands that are 5 acres in size or larger; or Wetlands that are used by a federal or state designated threatened or endangered species; or Wetlands located within an area of critical state concern designated pursuant to chapter 380; or Wetlands that are less than 5 acres in size having a cumulative total acreage greater than 30 percent of the total acreage proposed for development, within a development project greater than 40 acres in size. In response to the foregoing legislation, and after a series of meetings and workshops, on November 7, 1986 the District proposed to amend existing Rules 40E-4.091 and 40E- 4.301, Florida Administrative Code. The text of the amended portion of Rule 40E-4.301 reads as follows: 40E-4.301 Conditions for Issuance of Permits. (1)(m) is not against public policy, and will meet the general and specific criteria in the document described in Rule 40E-4.091(1)(a), and will meet the criteria for isolated wetlands, which are found in Appendix 7 of the document described in Rule 40E-4.091(1)(a) (Underscored words represent the proposed amendment.) In conjunction with the foregoing, the District prepared an economic impact statement (EIS) which read as follows: SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATE OF ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE RULE: 1. COST TO THE AGENCY: The proposed rule largely reflects existing policy and procedure but enunciates the specific guidelines the District applies in permitting decisions. The rule strikes a balance between specific quantitative guidelines and administrative flexibility with regard to permitting decisions. While there may be some initial implementation costs to the District, a minimal total cost increase to the agency is expected. The specific quantitative guidelines provided in the Appendix are expected to facilitate agency decisions regarding required mitigation- compensation, so that in the long run costs may actually decline as a result of implementation of the new criteria. There are no plans to change the size of District regulatory staff as a result of implementation of the standards in Appendix To the extend that additional staff is required in the future to address the impacts of permitting decisions on wetland habitat on threatened and endangered species, this impact can more correctly be attributed to the adoption of Section 373.414, F.S., by the Florida Legislature than to this rule. COSTS AND BENEFITS TO THOSE DIRECTLY AFFECTED: Appendix 7 provides the applicant with the choice of either meeting specific quantitative project design criteria or proposing a unique project design which will be reviewed by a qualitative standard to ensure that the proposed project complies with the District's objective of protecting isolated wetlands and their associated fish and wildlife functions and values. The requirements that project applications which proposed to impact wetlands provide reasonable assurances, such as mitigation/compensation, maintenance plans, monitoring and a guarantee of performance, is expected to result in some cost increases to permittees. Such require- ments are likely to improve the effectiveness of District protecting the water and related land resources of the District. IMPACT ON COMPETITION AND THE OPEN MARKET FOR EMPLOYMENT: No significant impact on competition and the open market for employment is expected. IMPACTS ON SMALL BUSINESS: The quantitative criteria in the Appendix set differential standards on the basis of isolated wetland size rather than firm size. Large projects are expected to have slightly greater flexibility in meeting the reasonable assurance requirements than small projects; however, the differential impact on small business, as defined in Section 288.703, Florida Statutes, is not expected to be significant. DATA AND METHODS USED: Data from the computer files of the District's Resource Control Department were the primary source of data used. Appendix 7 adopted by reference in amended Rule 40E- 4.301(1)(o) is a document entitled "Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District - Appendix 7 - Isolated Wetlands" (Appendix 7). As originally proposed for adoption, the Appendix contained sections 1.0 through 6.0 covering the following subjects: introduction (1.0), glossary (numbered as 2.0 and containing sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.7., 2.9 and 2.10), size threshold (3.0), review procedures for projects which propose to impact isolated wetlands (numbered as 4.0 and containing sections 4.1-4.5), review criteria (5.0), quantitative design criteria (5.1.1., 5.1.2., 5.1.3, 5.1.4, 5.1.5, 5.1.7 and 5.1.8), qualitative criteria (5.2-5.2.3) and project guarantee criteria (numbered as 6.0 and containing sections 6.1-6.3). For purposes of surface water management permitting, Appendix 7 applies only to activities in isolated wetlands while all other activities are subject to the criteria embodied in the Basis of Review. On November 26, 1986 petitioners, Orlando Central Park, Inc. (OCP), Real Estate Corporation of Florida, N.V. (REC), and National Association of Industrial and Office Parks, Region IV (NAIOP), filed a Petition for Administrative Determination of Invalidity of Proposed Rules wherein they sought to have declared invalid proposed rules 40E-4.091(1) and 40E-4.301(1)(o). In their petition, petitioners generally challenged all or portions of sections 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 5.1., 5.2 and 6.0-6.4 in Appendix 7 as well as the sufficiency of the EIS. In light of the above petition having been filed, the District again considered its proposed rules on January 8, 1987 and amended Appendix 7 in a number of respects. The revised Appendix has been received in evidence as joint exhibit number 2. As a result of those revisions, and as reflected in their post- hearing pleadings, petitioners have limited their attack to sections 2.2, 4.2b, 4.3, 4.4, 5.1.1a, 5.1.1b, 5.1.1d, 5.1.2, 5.1.3 and 5.1.7 in Appendix 7 and the adequacy of the EIS. On January 15, 1987 intervenor/respondent, The Florida Audubon Society (intervenor or FAS), filed a petition to intervene. This petition was granted conditioned upon intervenor proving up at final hearing its standing in the proceeding. Standing In order to challenge a proposed rule, a party must generally demonstrate that its substantial interests will be affected by the challenged rule. To do so, petitioners presented evidence on this issue at final hearing. In the same vein, the standing of intervenor was also questioned, and it too presented evidence to demonstrate its right to have access to this proceeding. REC - REC is the owner and developer of a residential and commercial development consisting of approximately 2,400 acres known as the Buenaventura Lakes Planned Unit Development between Kissimmee and St. Cloud in Osceola County. The project has been subdivided into what is known as Basins 1, 2 and 3, of which the undeveloped acreage lies within the latter Basin. The corporation has plans to develop the remaining acreage into single family and multi-family residential and commercial developments but has not yet obtained the necessary environmental permits for the undeveloped tract. Through the testimony of an REC representative, the undeveloped acreage was described as having open grasslands, wooded areas and low, marshy areas. Some portions of the land were also described as a "wet, marshy, boggy area." However, their specific size was not disclosed, and there was only conjecture on the part of petitioners' expert that the areas were in fact isolated wetlands as defined in the proposed rule. The representative fears that if jurisdictional isolated wetlands are located within Basin 3, and the rules are adopted, it will impact upon REC in that more restrictive permits will be required prior to any further development of the land. The District has previously issued construction and operation permits for Basins 1 and 2 and necessary Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) permits have also been obtained. None have been sought or issued for Basin 3, and there was no evidence that a letter of conceptual approval covering drainage in Basin 3 has been issued by the District. Had one been issued, the project might be grandfathered and exempt from the pending rules. Even so, the record does not support a finding that isolated wetlands as defined in the proposed rule are definitely located within Basin 3 so as to make REC's substantial interest affected by this proceeding. NAIOP - The NAIOP is a national non-profit organization of developers, consisting of some 6,000 members nationwide. In Florida, it has four chapters (Jacksonville, Fort Lauderdale, Orlando and Tampa) and "several hundred" members. As developers of office, industrial and commercial real estate, it is necessary that its members obtain permits from the District on certain projects within the District's jurisdiction. The association monitors all rulemaking proceedings affecting its members, and has actively lobbied the legislature on environmental matters. It has appeared before the District and DER concerning rules and policy, especially those that affect the permitting process. According to an NAIOP representative, Eric B. Eicher, approximately 30 percent of its state members do business in SFWMD jurisdictional territory. However, Eicher had no first-hand knowledge as to how many members owned property within the District, or whether any members are intending to develop isolated wetlands which would be subject to the proposed rule. Indeed, he admitted that only two members had even talked to him about the proposed rules. As such, the NAIOP has not demonstrated any immediate and discernible impact that the proposed rule would have on its members. OCP - The OCP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Martin-Marietta Corporation, a large corporation with offices in the Orlando area. However, Martin-Marietta is not a party in this proceeding. OCP itself is the owner and developer of an office, industrial and commercial park known as Orlando Center Park in Orange County, Florida. In addition, OCP acts as the developer of certain properties owned by Martin-Marietta. At the present time, OCP has approximately 2,400 acres in its own name which it intends to develop. They are generally located in an area west of the Florida Turnpike, south of Sand Lake Road, north of the Beeline Expressway and east of 1-4. Various aerial photographs and maps of the area were received in evidence as petitioners' exhibits 5, 8 and 9. It is undisputed that this property lies within the territorial jurisdiction of the SFWMD. On November 17, 1977 the District issued a permit granting conceptual approval of a master plan for the development of certain properties owned by OCP. However, the permit itself (petitioners' exhibit 15) did not include a review of impacts on wetlands for OCP's property. Therefore, the project is not grandfathered under proposed rule 4.1, and is subject to the new rules. If the proposed rules are adopted, OCP would have to modify its master plan and reduce the amount of its sellable or developable property. In two jurisdictional determinations performed by DER in 1983 and 1984, DER identified various isolated wetlands on OCP's property not subject to DER jurisdiction. These are located on what are identified as phases 8-B and 9 of the undeveloped tract of land (petitioners' exhibits 8 and 13). Since it is undisputed that OCP intends to develop this land, OCP is substantially affected by the proposed rules. FAS - Intervenor, which supports the rule amendments, is a non-profit association with principal headquarters in Maitland, Florida. Its membership numbers some 30,000, of which a large part live in Southeastern Florida and within the territorial jurisdiction of SFWMD. Although only one member (its president) testified at final hearing, it was the president's contention that "most" of its members support the proposed rules and the perpetuation of the isolated wetland as a function for wildlife. Through documentation offered in evidence as intervenor/respondent's exhibit 1, it was established that FAS owns various tracts of undeveloped land in Lee, St. Lucie and Collier Counties, which lie within SFWMD's boundaries. A part of these lands are isolated wetlands, and other parts are adjacent to wetlands areas. Although FAS expressed a fear that adjacent wetlands may be developed if the proposed rules are invalidated, it offered no proof of impending developments on isolated wetlands, or that such development would occur on properties adjacent to its own. Therefore, any adverse impact is remote and speculative, and has no immediacy or reality. The FAS has entered into a contract with the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission to administer the Florida Breeding Bird Atlas Program. Under the program, FAS has contracted to establish a baseline of the numbers and types of breeding birds in the State. The FAS fears that if the rule amendments are not adopted, the destruction of wetlands will occur, thereby interfering with its ability to carry out the contract. Again, however, it offered no proof of impending developments on adjacent isolated wetlands, or otherwise established that its substantial interests under the contract would be affected. Economic Impact Statement Other than the introduction of the EIS into evidence as joint exhibit 4, there was no relevant factual evidence presented by the parties concerning the insufficiency or inaccuracy of the EIS. It is noted, however, that the District merely estimated that the proposed rules would "result in some cost increases to the permittees", and did not attempt to precisely identify the economic impact. Respondent offered into evidence various documents upon which it relied in preparing the EIS. However, such documents are hearsay, and it was not shown what competent evidence, if any, they were intended to supplement and explain. The Challenged Rules Petitioners' real concern lies with portions of Appendix 7 which has been adopted and incorporated by reference by Rule 40E-4.301(1)(o), Florida Administrative Code. That document spells out in detail the criteria that will apply to applications for surface water management permits where the proposed activity affects isolated wetlands. As noted earlier, the Appendix is divided into a number of sections, which for ease of discussion will be referred to as "rules." Each challenged "rule" will be dealt with separately. Rule 2.2 - This rule defines an "isolated wetland" as follows: Any wetland not under the jurisdiction of the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for the purposes of regulation of dredging and filling. Multiple individual wetlands normally connected by surface flow during a wet season with average rainfall shall be presumed to be an isolated wetland. The first sentence of the rule simply provides that any wetland not subject to DER dredge and fill jurisdiction is to be considered an isolated wetland and subject to Appendix 7 criteria. Conversely, if a wetland is subject to DER jurisdiction, any District regulated activity affecting that land must be considered under the existing Basis of Review criteria. Petitioners' concern is with the second sentence of the rule and is that whenever multiple isolated wetlands are connected by surface flow during the wet season, they believe the rule would confer jurisdiction in SFWMD not only over the isolated wetlands themselves, but also the uplands that lie adjacent to and between the individual wetlands. But, through credible and persuasive testimony, it was established that this is not the intent or result of the proposed amendment. Indeed, it was established that jurisdiction is intended to lie only over the wetlands themselves, and not the connecting uplands. Petitioners also object to the District aggregating small isolated wetlands into a single larger isolated wetland for jurisdictional purposes. However, such aggregation is necessary because of the biological interaction between the small wetlands. Petitioners further voiced some criticism of the provision in the rule that connected wetlands shall be presumed to be an isolated wetland. Even so, the rule allows an applicant to present evidence to contradict this presumption. Finally, despite suggestions to the contrary, there was no evidence of any conflicting DER policy or concept regarding isolated wetlands, how such wetlands are defined by DER, or that DER prefers the District to follow such policy or definition. Rule 4.2b. - This rule prescribes certain information that must be filed by an applicant for a permit whenever the project impacts isolated wetlands. As is pertinent here, Section b. requires the following to be filed with the application: b. A list of all plant and animal species listed as endangered, threatened or of special concern pursuant to 50 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 17.12, and Rules 39-27.03, 39-27.04 and 39-27.05, Florida Administrative Code, which are incorporated by reference and made a part of this rule which utilize the area and an evaluation of the probable significance of the area to the listed species. Petitioners object to the requirement that an applicant submit a list of all plant species of special concern as defined by Rule 39-27.05, Florida Administrative Code. This rule was promulgated by the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and designates some forty-three plant "species of special concern". Petitioners' objection is based on the premise that the term "species" does not include plants, and that plant species are accordingly outside the purview of the District's permitting authority. However, they presented no evidence to support this construction of the term. In contrast, through testimony from a National Audubon Society employee, it was established that the term "species" not only includes animals, but plants as well. Mitigation/Compensation Rules - A number of rules within Appendix 7 make reference to mitigation and compensation proposals to be submitted by applicants whose projects impact isolated wetlands. As is relevant here, they include rules 4.3, 4.4, 5.1.1a., b. and d., 5.1.2, 5.1.3 and 5.1.7, all challenged by petitioners. These rules generally require or provide for mitigation when an applicant intends to impact or destroy all non-exempt isolated wetlands 0.5 acre to 5.0 acres in size. It is petitioners' contention that the District has no authority to require or otherwise provide for mitigation or compensation as a permit criterion. Mitigation is defined in rule 2.8 as "remedying isolated wetland impacts by restoring or enhancing affected habitat, or by creating similar habitat of equal or greater function". Compensation is defined in rule 2.9 as the "replacement of isolated wetlands with a mixture of wetland/upland habitat, unique upland habitat, or otherwise provide overall benefits to the natural system". Mitigation is a common practice in environmental permitting and has been routinely used by the District in its existing Basis for Review. Indeed, at the present time ``most'' applicants include a mitigation plan with their applications for permits. Even petitioners' expert conceded that the use of mitigation is "a reasonable practice" and has resulted in "better projects", and "better" protection of the water resources. Rules 4.3 and 4.4 require applicants who propose mitigation or compensation to submit certain information with their applications. This information is necessary to insure that the mitigation/compensation plan will be successful. It is also noted that mitigation is not used or required for every project, and can be avoided where a project has other built-in compensation features. The new rules simply continue existing agency policy. Rules 5.1.1a. and b. provide the following presumptions concerning mitigation and compensation: Mitigation or compensation for elimination of isolated wetlands between 0.5 and 5.0 acres in size, pursuant to Section 5.1.2 below, shall be presumed to maintain wetland functions. There is no presumption that the function of isolated wetlands over 5.0 acres in size can be maintained by measures other than protection as defined in Section 2.4 above. Protection of isolated wetlands over 5.0 acres in size shall be the preferred method of providing the required reasonable assurance, however, other reasonable alternatives proposed by the applicant will be considered. Section a. creates a presumption in favor of the applicant that mitigation or compensation, in ratios specified within the rules, shall be presumed to maintain the functions of isolated wetlands between .5 and 5 acres in size. Section b. eliminates this presumption for isolated wetlands over five acres in size since the District's experience has been that applicants have not generally been successful in mitigating larger wetlands, and that it is more difficult to mitigate and compensate for larger projects. Even so, the rule allows an applicant to present "other reasonable alternatives" to mitigation. Petitioners object to the presumption in Section b. since they contend it reposes in the District the authority to preserve isolated wetlands over 5.0 acres in size. However, this "authority" comes into play only when the criteria cannot be met, and the applicant fails to present "other reasonable alternatives". Rule 5.1.1d. provides as follows: (d) Protection of isolated wetlands or incorporation of isolated wetlands into surface water management systems in favored over isolated wetland destruction and mitigation or compensation. Wetland destruction and mitigation or compensation shall be considered only when there are no feasible project design alternatives for the particular site. Reasonable project design alternatives to isolated wetland impacts shall be considered. This rule essentially favors the protection of isolated wetlands as opposed to their destruction. It goes on to permit destruction and mitigation/compensation whenever there are no "feasible project design alternatives". In other words, the District has established a first priority of preserving wetlands whenever possible, and allowing destruction only when no "reasonable project design alternatives" are available. Under the latter situation, mitigation/compensation will then be required. Petitioners assert the term "feasible project design alternative" is not readily understood, or comprehensible to the average person. However, even their engineer stated he could "apply it", and that he "normally" goes about designing projects consistent with the terms of the rule. It was further established that the District construes the terms "feasible" and "reasonable" to be synonymous, and that the rule would not require an applicant to present a proposal that was prohibitively expensive, or technically unfeasible. Rule 5.1.2 also deals with mitigation/compensation and addresses mitigation ratios to be used by applicants. It reads as follows: Isolated wetland mitigation shall be implemented based upon ratios of acres wet- lands created, or restored to acres of wet- lands destroyed which provide reasonable assurance that the mitigation will be successful. The following ratios shall be presumed to provide such reasonable assurance for type-for-type mitigation: Forested swamp, non-cypress dominated-2. 5:1 Forested swamp, cypress dominated---2.0:1 Freshwater marshes 1.5:1 Ratios for mitigation with unlike habitat, including expanded littoral zones, or compen- sation shall be determined on a case-by-case basis. When type-for-type mitigation is provided as defined in Section 2.8 and accepted by the District prior to isolated wetland impacts, a one-to-one ratio shall be presumed to provide such reasonable assurance. The rule explains that the prescribed mitigation ratios provide reasonable assurance that the creation or restoration will be successful. It is a natural corollary to the District's mitigation/compensation policy. Testimony established that these ratios were reasonable, favor an applicant, and are consistent with the different natural communities to which they apply. Higher ratios of wetlands created to wetlands destroyed are necessary because of the time required for an artificially created replacement system to provide all of the previous native functions. Finally, the use of a one-to-one ratio when type-for- type mitigation is used reduces the amount of land required by an applicant for mitigation, and provides flexibility from the otherwise specified ratios. Rule 5.1.3 prescribes the use of mitigation/compen-sation where disturbed wetlands are impacted by a project. It reads as follows: Disturbed isolated wetlands may be developed and their loss compensated for by: Mitigation at ratios less than those required in 5.1.2, based on the degree of disturbance and the remaining functional qualities. Mitigation through restoration or other disturbed wetlands is preferred over wetland creation. Preservation of unique uplands or in- clusion of developable uplands within an up- land/wetland protected system. Mitigation or compensation shall not be required for isolated wetlands which do not provide fun- ctions and values as expressed above in Sections 1.0 and 5.0. Unlike rule 5.1.2., this rule provides for mitigation ratios based upon the degree of disturbance and the remaining functional qualities of the wetland. It is too is a natural corollary of the District's stated policy. It recognizes that some wetlands have been disturbed, and that the ratios prescribed in rule 5.1.2. are inappropriate and too rigid for a previously disturbed wetland. Rule 5.1.7 - The final rule challenged by petitioners provides for the establishment of "buffer zones" under certain conditions. It is petitioners' contention that, like many of the other cited rules, the District has no authority to adopt the rule because buffer zones in upland areas are not a part of the surface water management system. A buffer zone is defined in rule 2.7 as "an area adjacent to the isolated wetland which protects wetland function and minimizes adverse impacts of upland development on wetland function". The challenged rule reads as follows: Buffer zones may be required around all isolated wetlands that are to be protected or incorporated into a surface water management system to protect wetland function and mini- mize adverse impacts of upland development on wetland function. Actual delineation of the buffer zone may vary according to site specific conditions. Buffer zones which extends (sic) at least fifteen feet landward from the edge of the wetland in all places and averages twenty-five feet from the landward edge of the wetland will be presumed to be adequate. Prior to issuance of Construction and Operation permits, buffer zones shall be field verified and delineated in the field. Buffer zones may consist of undisturbed uplands, open water bodies, wildlife corr- idors or other natural or structural features which serve the purpose stated in Section 2.7 as appropriate for the particular site. Upland areas or wildlife corridors adja- cent to buffer zones may be incorporated as compensation areas, provided they are in excess of the minimum buffer zone and meet all other requirements for compen- sation areas. Under current District policy, buffer zones are required around wetlands whenever they are necessary to maintain the integrity of the wetland. They are a reasonable tool in the District's arsenal to protect water, fish and wildlife resources. Testimony established that they are particularly essential when an applicant proposes to build a project immediately adjacent to a wetland so that erosion or destruction of the wetland may be avoided. The rule merely extends the District's existing policy to isolated wetlands.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Koreshan Unity Foundation, Inc., is entitled to a environmental resource permit for the construction of a wooden footbridge over the Estero River east of U.S. Route 41 and authorization to obtain by easement a right to use sovereign submerged lands.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Koreshan Unity Foundation, Inc. (Koreshan) is a not-for-profit corporation dedicated to the preservation of the Koreshan heritage. Koreshan derives its heritage from a largely self-sufficient community that occupied land in south Lee County. For several years, Koreshan has owned a parcel of 14.56 acres at the southeast corner of U.S. Route 41 and the Estero River. This parcel is bounded on the south by Corkscrew Road and contains an amphitheater and historical house, midway between the river and Corkscrew Road. The south end of this parcel contains a museum and parking area with access to Corkscrew Road. The approximate dimensions of the 14.56-acre parcel are 544 feet along the river, 496 feet along Corkscrew Road, and about 1273 feet along the west and the east property lines. The west property line is U.S. Route 41. The right-of-way for U.S. Route 41 is wider at the southern two-thirds of the parcel than the northern one-third of the parcel. A sidewalk runs on the east side of U.S. Route 41 from north of the river, across the U.S. Route 41 bridge, along the west boundary of Koreshan's property, at least to an entrance near the middle of the 14.56-acre parcel. In October 1996, Koreshan acquired 8.5 acres of land at the northeast corner of the U.S. Route 41 and the river. The purpose of the acquisition was to provide parking for persons coming to Koreshan-sponsored events, such as music performances, at the 14.56-acre site. Koreshan rents a small portion of this northerly parcel to a canoe-rental business, which operates where the bridge and river meet. To assist their visitors-some of whom are elderly and disabled--in gaining access to the 14.56-acre site, on November 26, 1996, Koreshan filed an application for a permit and authorization to construct a wooden footbridge across the Estero River about 315 feet east of the U.S. Route 41 bridge. The source of the Estero River is to the east of the U.S. Route 41 bridge and the location of the proposed bridge. After passing under the U.S. Route 41 bridge, the river runs along the Koreshan state park, which is a short distance east of U.S. Route 41, before it empties into the Gulf of Mexico at Estero Bay, which is a state aquatic preserve. The portion of the river at the site of the proposed bridge is an Outstanding Florida Waterway (OFW) and a Class III water. The river is popular with canoeists and kayakers. Persons may rent canoes and kayaks at the canoe rental business operating on the 8.5-acre parcel or the Koreshan state park. Although most canoeists and kayakers proceed downstream toward the bay, a significant number go upstream past the U.S. Route 41 bridge. Upstream of the bridge, the river narrows considerably. Tidal currents reach upstream of the U.S. Route 41 bridge. At certain tides or in strong winds, navigating a canoe or kayak in this area of the river can be moderately difficult. Even experienced canoeists or kayakers may have trouble maintaining a steady course in this part of the river. Less experienced canoeists or kayakers more often have trouble staying on course and avoiding other boats, the shore, vegetation extending from the water or shoreline, or even the relatively widely spaced supports of the U.S. Route 41 bridge pilings, which are about 30 feet apart. Mean high water is at 1.11 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum. The deck of the proposed footbridge would be 9 feet, 6 inches wide from rail to rail and 16 feet wide in total. The proposed footbridge would extend about 180 feet, spanning 84 feet of water from shore to shore. The bridge- ends would each be about 50 feet and would each slope at a rate of 1:12. The proposed footbridge would rest on nine pilings: four in the uplands and five in the submerged bottom. The elevation of the bottom of the footbridge from the water surface, at mean high water, would be 8 feet, 8 inches. The distance between the centers of the pilings would be 14 feet, and each piling would be of a minimum diameter of 8 inches. According to a special permit condition, the pilings would be treated with chromated copper arsenate, as a preservative, but they would be wrapped in impermeable plastic or PVC sleeves so as, in the words of the proposed permit, "to reduce the leaching of deleterious substances from the pilings." The proposed permit requires that the sleeves shall be installed from at least 6 inches below the level of the substrate to at least 1 foot above the seasonal highwater line and shall be maintained over the life of the facility. The proposed permit also requires that the footbridge be limited to pedestrian traffic only, except for wheelchairs. The permit requires the applicant to install concrete-filled steel posts adjacent to the bridge to prevent vehicles from using the bridge. The proposed permit requires that Koreshan grant a conservation easement for the entire riverbank running along both shorelines of Koreshan's two parcels, except for the dock and boat ramp used by the canoe-rental business. The proposed permit also requires Koreshan to plant leather fern or other wetland species on three-foot centers along the river banks along both banks for a distance of 30 feet. The proposed permit states that the project shall comply with all applicable water quality standards, including the antidegradation permitting requirements of Rule 62-4.242, Florida Administrative Code. Respondents did not raise standing as an affirmative defense. It appears that Petitioners or, in the case of corporate Petitioners, members and officers all live in the area of the Estero River and use the river regularly. For instance, Petitioner Dorothy McNeill resides one mile south of the proposed bridge on a canal leading to the Estero River, which she uses frequently. She is the president and treasurer of Petitioner Estero Conservancy, whose mission is to preserve the Estero River in its natural state. Petitioner Ellen W. Peterson resides on Corkscrew Road, 300-400 feet from the proposed footbridge. For 26 years, she has paddled the river several times weekly, usually upstream because it is prettier. She formerly canoed, but now kayaks. The record is devoid of evidence of the water- quality criteria for the Estero River at the time of its designation as an OFW or 1995, which is the year prior to the subject application. Koreshan has not provided reasonable assurance that the proposed footbridge would not adversely affect the water quality of the Estero River. Although the site of the proposed footbridge is devoid of bottom vegetation and there is no suggestion that this is anything but a natural condition for this part of the riverbottom, there is evidence that the proposed footbridge would adversely affect the water quality in two respects: turbidity caused by the pilings and leaching from the chromated copper arsenate applied to the pilings. The turbidity is probably the greater threat to water quality because it would be a permanent factor commencing with the completion of the installation of the pilings. The leaching of the heavy metals forming the toxic preservative impregnated into the pilings is probable due to two factors: damage to the PVC liner from collisions with inexperienced boaters and high-water conditions that exceed 1 foot over mean high water and, thus, the top of the liner. Both of these factors are exacerbated by flooding, which is addressed below. Koreshan also has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed footbridge is clearly in the public interest under the seven criteria. The proposed footbridge would adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare and the property of others through exacerbated flooding. South Lee County experienced serious flooding in 1995. In response, Lee County and the South Florida Water Management District have attempted to improve the capacity of natural flowways, in part by clearing rivers of snags and other impediments to flow, including, in the case of the Imperial River, a bridge. One important experience learned from the 1995 floods was to eliminate, where possible, structures in the river, such as snags and pilings, that collect debris in floodwaters and thereby decrease the drainage capacity of the waterway when drainage capacity is most needed. Longer term, the South Florida Water Management District is considering means by which to redirect stormwater from the Imperial River drainage to the Estero River drainage. The addition of five pilings (more as the river rose) would exacerbate flooding. On this basis alone, Koreshan has failed to provide reasonable assurance. Additionally, though, the HEC II model output offered by Koreshan does not consider flooding based on out-of-banks flows, but only on the basis of roadway flows. In other words, any assurances as to flooding in the design storm are assurances only that U.S. Route 41 will not be flooded, not that the lower surrounding land will not be flooded. Koreshan failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activity would not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, for the reasons already stated with respect to water quality. Koreshan failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activity would not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water. The flow of water is addressed above. Navigation is best addressed together with the next criterion: whether the proposed activity would adversely affect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity. Despite the presence of only two public launch sites, boating is popular on the Estero River. Reflective of the population growth of Collier County to the south and the area of Lee County to the north, the number of boaters on the Estero River has grown steadily over the years. The canoe- rental business located on the 8.5-acre parcel rented canoes or kayaks to over 10,000 persons in 1996. Many other persons launched their canoes or kayaks for free from this site and the nearby state park. Lee County businesses derive $800,000,000 annually from tourism with ecotourism a growing component of this industry. The Estero River is an important feature of this industry, and the aquatic preserve at the mouth of the river and the state park just downstream from the proposed footbridge provide substantial protection to the scenic and environmental values that drive recreational interest in the river. It is unnecessary to consider the aesthetic effect of a footbridge spanning one of the more attractive segments of the Estero River. The proposed footbridge and its five pilings effectively divide the river into six segments of no more than 14 feet each. This fact alone diminishes the recreational value of the river for the many canoeists and kayakers who cannot reliably navigate the U.S. Route 41 bridge pilings, which are more than twice as far apart. As to the remaining criteria, the proposed footbridge would be permanent and the condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity is high. There is conflicting evidence as to whether the proposed footbridge would adversely affect the remnants of an historic dock, but it is unnecessary to resolve this conflict. The mitigation proposed by Koreshan does not address the deficiencies inherent in the proposed activity.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order dismissing the petition of Petitioner Council of Civic Associations, Inc., and denying the application of Respondent Koreshan Unity Foundation, Inc., for an environmental resource permit and authorization to obtain an easement for the use of sovereign land. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Malone Vice President and Treasurer Council of Civic Associations, Inc. Post Office Box 919 Estero, Florida 33919-0919 Reginald McNeill Dorothy McNeill, President Estero Conservancy, Inc. 26000 Park Place Estero, Florida 33928 Mark E. Ebelini Humphrey & Knott, P.A. 1625 Hendry Street, Suite 301 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Phyllis Stanley, President 12713-3 McGregor Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33919 Cathy S. Reiman Cummings & Lockwood Post Office Box 413032 Naples, Florida 34101-3032 Francine M. Ffolkes Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
