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. 36-00583- S-02, Application No. 050408-15 to Plantation Development, Ltd. (PDL), for construction and operation of a surface water management system serving a 78.11-acre condominium development known as Harbour Pointe at South Seas Resort, with discharge into wetlands adjacent to Pine Island Sound.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and arguments, the following facts are found: The Parties PDL, the applicant, is a limited partnership which is the successor to Mariner Group, Inc. (Mariner). SFWMD has jurisdiction over PDL's application, as amended, and has given notice of its intent to grant PDL's application, as amended, with certain conditions. Petitioners, CCA and SCCF, and Intervenor, CSWF, are Florida not-for-profit corporations that challenged the proposed ERP. Development and Permit History The property subject to PDL's application was part of approximately 310-acres on the northern end of Captiva Island in Lee County, Florida. Redfish Pass is to the immediate north, separating Captiva Island from North Captiva Island. Farther to the north is Cayo Costa Island, a large island to the south of Boca Grande Pass. Most of Cayo Costa is a State Park. To the south of Captiva Island is Sanibel Island, the site of the Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge. To the northeast of Sanibel Island and to the east of the rest of the string of barrier islands just mentioned is Pine Island Sound, which is to the west of Pine Island. Pine Island Sound is a state-designated Aquatic Preserve and Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). Pine Island Sound also is state-designated Class II water, but shell-fishing is prohibited in the immediate vicinity of Captiva Island. To the east of Pineland Island is Little Pine Island, which is surrounded by the Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve, which includes the Matlacha Pass National Wildlife Refuge. All of these features are part of the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary (CHNE). San Carlos Bay is farther south. The Lee County mainland is to the east of Matlacha Pass and San Carlos Bay. The 310-acre site was purchased by Mariner in 1972 for development of a resort that became known as the “South Seas Plantation.” Mariner's property included both Captiva Island proper and a smaller island immediately to the east across Bryant Bayou to the north and Chadwick Bayou farther to the south. Bryant Bayou has a narrower inlet from the north, and Chadwick Bayou has a narrower inlet to the south. Both inlets lead to Pine Island Sound. When Mariner purchased the property, it theoretically was possible to develop a maximum of 3,900 dwelling units on the 310-acre property, pursuant to Lee County zoning. In 1973, Mariner submitted an application to Lee County for the right to develop of 912 dwelling units on its 310 acres. PDL characterizes this as a "voluntary down-zoning" for the purpose of protecting the environment and unusual for a developer to do at that point in time. However, it is speculative how much more than 912 dwelling units would have been approved by Lee County at the time. The purpose of Mariner’s application to Lee County was to create a resort where recreational, single family, multi- family, and some commercial uses would coexist in a resort setting. The overall development plan was to construct the resort while conserving many of the property’s natural resources, including several miles of mangrove and Gulf of Mexico shoreline. Lee County approved the rezoning and the concept of the South Seas Plantation in 1973. Mariner's development began with Captiva Island proper and included a marina, golf course, and a variety of residential condominiums and single-family home sites. Some of the residential units were sold, and others remained in Mariner's ownership. Mariner marketed the rental of units at South Seas Plantation and served as rental agent for units not owned by Mariner. Development of the marina included dredging, and spoil was deposited on the northern tip of the smaller island, helping to create approximately 1.4 acres of upland there. In the 1950's or 1960's, a natural sand-and-shell berm along the eastern shore of the smaller island was built up and maintained by addition of fill material to create a two-track sand/shell road, which was used for vehicular access to the northern tip via an east-west road that divided the smaller island roughly in half and connected it to Captiva Island proper and the main road at South Seas Plantation. At a later point in time, the east-west portion of the road was paved for better access to a drinking water plant, a wastewater treatment plant, and a helicopter pad used by the Lee County Mosquito Control District. In 1985, Mariner received from SFWMD a “Master Stormwater Permit” for its entire development (the 1985 Permit). At that time, SFWMD did not regulate wetland impacts, only surface water management systems. The Department of Environmental Regulation regulated wetland impacts through its dredge and fill permit program, and there was no evidence relating to any dredge and fill permitting on the property. The 1985 Permit was for surface water management systems for construction in uplands on the property. No surface water management systems were needed or permitted in any wetlands. The 1985 Permit included a surface water management system for an 18-unit hotel on the spoil uplands of the northern tip of the smaller island. Permit drawings showed plans for a golf course on much of the remainder of the smaller island, which consisted mostly of wetlands. Access to the facilities was envisioned to be by water taxi, with emergency access via the utility and sand/shell road. Together, the hotel and golf course was to become a part of the resort known as Harbour Pointe. The 1985 Permit was modified several times in the years since its initial issuance, during which time Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, was amended to give SFWMD authority to regulate activities in waters and wetlands. However, until the pending application, none of the modifications had wetland impacts. In 1998, Mariner negotiated the sale of ten resort properties it owned in Florida, including South Seas Plantation, to Capstar, which later became Meristar S.S. Plantation Co., LLC (Meristar). Meristar was a real estate investment trust which specialized in hotels. Because it was not in the development business, Meristar was not interested in purchasing the as-yet undeveloped Harbour Pointe portion of South Seas Plantation, or Mariner's remaining development rights. As a result, Meristar purchased all the developed land on South Seas Plantation but not the approximately 78 acres of undeveloped land which is the subject of the pending application, or any of Mariner's development rights. Thus, after the sale of South Seas Plantation, Mariner retained its development rights and the 78 acres of undeveloped land, which are the subject of PDL's application. In 2002, Lee County issued an Administrative Interpretation which clarified that those development rights consisted of a maximum of 35 more residential units. Eleven units subsequently were built, leaving a maximum of 24 residential units when PDL filed its application in this case. The 78-acre Harbour Pointe site consists of mangrove wetlands, privately owned submerged lands, the 1.4-acre upland area at the northern tip of Harbour Pointe and another 1.4 acres of upland, which contain a Calusa Indian mound, known as the Chadwick Mound for its location west of Chadwick Bayou. While agreements between Meristar and PDL contemplate that PDL's subsequent development at Harbour Pointe would be marketed as part of the South Seas Resort and share some amenities and services, the parcels which comprise the Harbour Pointe development are the only undeveloped lands PDL owns or controls. PDL has no contractual or other legal right to develop on property owned by Meristar. Because it was modified several times since issuance, the 1985 Permit has not expired. However, Harbour Pointe never was constructed, and that part of the 1985 Permit expired in that Mariner lost its entitlement to proceed with construction. Instead, development of Harbour Pointe would require a permit modification under the new laws and rules, which included the regulation of wetland impacts. The Application and Proposed ERP In October 2003, PDL applied to SFWMD to further modify the 1985 Permit for construction of a water taxi dock for access to Harbour Pointe. After being informed by SFWMD that modifications to the 1985 Permit for development of Harbour Pointe would be reviewed under current laws and regulations, PDL withdrew the application. In April 2005 PDL applied for modification of the 1985 Permit to construct six 9,500 square-foot, four-plex condominium buildings (each two stories over parking, and accommodating units having 3,600-3,800 square feet of air-conditioned living space), a pool and spa, a tennis court, an access road, a filter marsh and surface water management facilities. Additionally, the site plan deleted all boat docks, except for a single water taxi slip and possibly a dock for launching kayaks and canoes and proposed a drawbridge across the inlet to Bryant Bayou to connect the project site to the South Seas Resort and eliminate the need for the emergency access road on the smaller island. This application described a development site of 7.4 acres, which included 4.8 acres of direct impacts to (i.e., destruction and fill of) mangroves and .1 acre of shading impacts from construction of the drawbridge. The proposed mitigation for the mangrove impacts included: restoration (by removal and replanting) of .6 acre of the north-south sand/shell road, with resulting enhancement of the adjacent preserved mangrove wetlands through improved hydrologic connection across the former shell/sand road and improved tidal connection to Pine Island Sound to the east; and preservation of the rest of PDL's property. The preserved areas would include: approximately 36 acres of mangrove wetlands adjacent to and south of the impacted wetlands (included the road to be restored) (Parcel A); 24.5 acres of mangrove wetlands south of the utility road and east of the narrow inlet to Chadwick Bayou (Parcel B); 9.3 acres of mangrove wetlands (7.9 acres) and tropical hardwoods (1.4 acres, which includes the Chadwick Mound), south of the utility road and west of the inlet to Chadwick Bayou, (Parcel C); .9 acre of mangrove wetlands to the west of Parcel C and the South Seas Resort main road (Parcel D); and .8 acre of mangrove wetlands separated from Parcel A by Bryant Bayou and adjacent to the South Seas Resort main road. A monitoring program lasting at least five years was offered to ensure success of the restoration and mitigation proposal. The application itself incorporated some reduction and elimination of wetland impacts. The total site consists of five separate tax parcels which could be developed into a number of single-family home sites. Such a development plan would have greater direct impacts than the proposed project and would require the shell/sand road to be significantly widened to meet current code requirements. By using the bridge as access, .11 acre of wetlands would be disturbed, as compared to 3.9 acres of total impact that would occur because of the widening the road. This approach results in the entire project causing less wetland impact than would occur from the use of the road alone. After the application was filed, PDL responded to two written requests for additional information and several other questions raised during meetings, phone conversations, and email exchanges with one or more SFWMD staff members. During this process, the application was amended. The tennis court was eliminated, and the filter marsh was replaced by a five dry detention ponds. In addition, the resulting development was concentrated more into the northern tip of the island to reduce and eliminate the greater secondary impacts (from more "edge effect") to the preserved wetlands to be expected from a more linear site plan. These changes reduced the footprint of the proposed project to 5.24 acres, the building size to 6,400 square feet each, the residential unit size to 2,400 to 2,600 square feet each, and wetland impacts to 2.98 acres, plus .11 acre of shading impacts from construction of the drawbridge. In addition, since the project was more concentrated at the northern tip, another tenth of an acre of the sand/shell road was to be restored. A conservation easement was offered for the 73.31 acres to be preserved, including 71.10 acres of wetlands, in Parcels A through E. PDL also offered to purchase .11 credits of offsite mitigation from the Little Pine Island Wetland Mitigation Bank (LPIWMB). On February 2, 2006, SFWMD's staff recommended approval of the amended application with 19 standard general conditions and 30 special conditions. Some of the special conditions in the Staff Report addressed prevention of erosion, shoaling, silt, turbidity, and water quality problems during construction or operation; remediation of any such problems not prevented; and restoration of any temporary wetland impacts. A pre-construction meeting was required to discuss construction methods, including construction dewatering. Although PDL indicated that dewatering would not be necessary for construction of the project, the Staff Report recommended that a dewatering plan be submitted before any dewatering occurred and noted that PDL would have to obtain all necessary Water Use authorizations, unless the work qualified for a No-Notice Short-Term Dewatering permit pursuant to Rule 40E- 20.302(3) or is exempt pursuant to Rule 40E-2.051.1 On February 8, 2006, SFWMD's Governing Board gave notice of its intent to approve the amended application with two additional conditions that were added to the Staff Report: PDL was required to apply for and receive a permit modification for the roadway necessary to access the project (i.e., the road leading from the South Seas Resort main road to the proposed drawbridge), and the applicant for the road to the drawbridge was required to document that proposed construction was consistent with the design of the master surface water management system, including land use and site grading assumptions; and a perpetual maintenance program for restored and preserved areas, including removal of exotic and nuisance vegetation in excess of five percent of total cover between regular maintenance activities, or such vegetation dominating any one section, was required to ensure integrity and viability. The parties interpreted the first of the two additional conditions to mean that construction access to build the project would be via the new roadway and drawbridge. On May 30, 2006, to address certain issues raised by the pending challenge to SFWMD's intended action, PDL further amended the application to substitute two wet retention ponds and three dry retention ponds for the five dry detention ponds and to make associated minor changes to the proposed surface water management system's water quality treatment methods to further reduce water quality impacts from the discharge of the system into the adjacent preserved wetlands. In addition, in view of disagreements among the parties as to the ability of PDL's onsite mitigation proposal to offset wetland impacts, PDL offered to increase offsite mitigation by purchasing as many additional credits from the LPIWMB as necessary to completely offset wetland impacts, as determined by the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM). Water Quantity Impacts Pursuant to Rule 40E-4.301(1), an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; will not cause adverse flooding to on- site or off-site property; will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Section 6.0 of the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District (BOR), entitled Water Quantity Criteria, outlines the criteria that the applicant must meet for water quality at the project site. As outlined in BOR Section 6.2, the off-site discharge is limited to rates not causing adverse impacts to existing off- site properties. The proposed surface water management system consists of a series of swales, dry retention, and then a wet retention system with an outfall into the areas to the south. Ordinarily, stormwater runoff eventually will be absorbed into the ground. Any discharge associated with the system, typically only in conjunction with major rain events, will flow into a preserved wetland that will be hydrologically connected to Bryant Bayou and Pine Island Sound. As outlined in BOR Section 6.2, the off-site discharge rate is limited to historic discharge rates. As required by BOR Section 6.3, a storm event of 3-day duration and 25-year return frequency is used in computing off- site discharge rates. As required by BOR Section 6.4, building floors must be at or above the 100-year flood elevations. PDL conducted a hydrologic analysis of the existing condition of the property, analyzed the runoff patterns that would result during the 25-year rainfall event and then compared the development plan hydrologic analysis to the existing condition. The conclusion was that the development plan would not adversely affect offsite area. PDL analyzed a series of storm conditions for the protection of road elevations and the protection of finished floors. There are no off-site areas that contribute to runoff through this piece of property. The proposed system will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to waters and adjacent lands, flooding to onsite or offsite properties, or adversely impact existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Water Quality Impacts Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters so that State water quality standards will not be violated. BOR Section 5.0 is entitled Water Quality Criteria. BOR Section 5.1 states that projects shall be designed and operated so that offsite discharges will meet State water quality standards. BOR Section 5.2.1 requires that either retention or detention, or both retention and detention be provided in the overall system in one of the following three ways or equivalent combinations thereof: Wet detention volume shall be provided for the first inch of runoff from the developed project, or the total runoff of 2.5 inches times the percentage of imperviousness, whichever is greater. Dry detention volume shall be provided equal to 75 percent of the above amounts computed for wet detention. Retention volume shall be provided equal to 50 percent of the above amounts computed for wet detention. Retention volume included in flood protection calculations requires a guarantee of long term operation and maintenance of system bleed-down ability. BOR Section 5.9 states that all new drainage projects will be evaluated based on the ability of the system to prevent degradation of receiving water and the ability to conform to State water quality standards. In the design of the system, PDL proposed a series of best management practices. The first is to treat runoff through grassed swale areas adjacent to buildings and some of the internal roadways. From there, the water would discharge through a series of dry retention areas where there would be further removal and treatment. The water would discharge through a proposed wet retention area prior to outfall under more significant rainfall events, southward into the preserved wetland area. Because of the hydrological connection from there to Bryant Bayou and Pine Island Sound, a more detailed evaluation was conducted. PDL's detailed evaluation included source control measures. The first one is a construction pollution prevention plan. PDL also proposed an urban storm water management plan. PDL is going to provide guidance to property owners about pesticide and fertilizer management control. The Applicant also submitted a street-sweeping proposal. The design of the system incorporates an additional 50 percent water quality treatment volume, over and above the requirements of the BOR. The wet retention system, located to the north of the proposed outfall structure, incorporates submerged aquatic vegetation. That is not a requirement of the District. It is an extra measure that will remove additional levels of pollutants prior to outfall. PDL proposed an urban stormwater management plan. The plan requires annual inspection of the water management facilities, and it must be documented that the system is functioning as originally designed and built. The stormwater management system is capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of functioning as proposed. The stormwater management system satisfies the District's water quality criteria. Petitioners and Intervenor criticized the method used by PDL's water quality consultant, Dr. Harvey Harper, for projecting and evaluating water quality impacts to be expected from PDL's stormwater management design. They contended that the so-called "Harper method" has been criticized by other experts, none of whom testified. Dr. Harper ably defended himself against the criticism leveled at him. He testified that most if not all of the components he has incorporated into his evaluation method are not new but rather have been accepted and used by experts in his field for years. He also explained that he refined his evaluation method in response to some early criticism and that the method he used in this case has been peer-reviewed and accepted by the Department of Environmental Protection for evaluation of stormwater design criteria. While some of the assumptions incorporated in his evaluation method are simple averages of a relatively small samples, and sometimes averages of averages, Dr. Harper was confident in the ability of his method to accurately evaluate the expected water quality impacts from PDL's system. While there is potential for error in any projection, Dr. Harper's evaluation provided reasonable assurances that utilization of PDL's proposed stormwater management and treatment method will not result in violation of any State water quality standards or significantly degrade the water quality of Bryant Bayou or Pine Island Sound. Value of Wetland and Surface Water Functions In general, as part of the CHNE, the mangrove wetlands to be impacted by the proposed ERP are very important. The CHNE Coast Conservation Management Plan identifies three major threats to the estuary and local ecosystem: fish and wildlife habitat loss; water quality degradation; and hydrological alteration. The plan calls for the preservation of mangroves within the CHNE. A wide array of wildlife uses the habitat in the vicinity of the mangrove wetlands to be impacted. The site is in an important coastal fly-way for migratory birds, including numerous species of waterfowl and songbirds that migrate across the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico to and from South and Central America. The project area also provides habitat for several listed wildlife species, including the American crocodile, wood stork, and West Indian manatee. The mangrove wetlands that will be impacted directly and indirectly by the proposed ERP are in relatively good condition and are very important due primarily to their location near Redfish Pass at the northern end of Captiva Island and to their relationship to the rest of the relatively large area of contiguous and relatively undisturbed wetlands in Parcels A through E. These attributes make them especially important as a nursery ground for several valuable fish species. Existing impacts attributable to the spoil and other disturbances in the adjacent uplands, the northernmost extent of the sand/shell road, and the South Seas Plantation/Resort development to the west across the inlet to Bryant Bayou keep these impacted wetlands from being of the very highest quality. Clearly, and obviously, the project will destroy and fill 2.98 acres of these wetlands. Indirect (secondary) impacts to the adjacent preserved wetlands will result from alteration of hydrology of the 2.98 acres of directly impacted wetlands. Instead of sheet-flowing across the uplands on the northern tip of Harbour Pointe into those wetlands, surface water on the 5.24- acre development project will be directed into a series of swales, to the dry retention ponds, and to the wet retention ponds with an outfall to the adjacent preserved wetlands to the south. Secondary impacts from the Harbour Pointe project will be similar to the existing secondary impacts to the 2.98 acres attributable to the adjacent spoil and the South Seas Plantation/Resort development, if not somewhat greater due to the absence of any buffer like the inlet. On the other hand, PDL's mitigation proposal will restore .7 acre of wetlands where the northern end of the north- south sand/shell road now exists. Eventually, the restored wetland would be expected to become an extension of the existing, adjacent red and basin black mangrove forest. In addition, the resulting improved hydrologic connection to Pine Island Sound will enhance the value of functions in the preserved wetlands, including possibly expanding the existing fish nursery and making it accessible to fish larvae and juvenile fish entering from the east as well as from the west via Bryant Bayou. There was much debate during the hearing as to whether the sand/shell road is natural or man-made and whether it is reducing what otherwise would be the natural tidal and hydrologic connection between the wetlands to the west of the road and Pine Island Sound. As indicated, a prior owner added fill material to the natural sand and shell berm in the 1950's and 1960's to create better vehicular access. See Finding 9, supra. The evidence was reasonably persuasive that those man-made changes have altered hydrology and tidal connection to some extent and that the restoration project will enhance the value and functions of the preserved wetlands to some extent. Impacts to the value of wetland and surface water functions, and corresponding mitigation for impacts, are required to be assessed using UMAM. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-345.100. While the mitigation assessment method might be uniform, its application and results are not. Three different experts used UMAM with differing results. SFWMD's expert, Mr. Cronyn, and PDL's consultants, Kevin L. Erwin Consulting Ecologist, Inc. (KLECE), conferred after their initial assessments, resulting in changed results by both (as well as correction of errors in initial scoring by Mr. Cronyn.) Dave Ceilley, an expert for Petitioners and Intervenor, scored the 2.98 acre impact area significantly higher in its current state than the final score of either Mr. Cronyn or KLECE, resulting in a higher functional loss from its destruction and filling. He also gave no credit for restoration of the sand/shell road, in contrast to KLECE and Mr. Cronyn, and scored PDL's mitigation proposal as it affected 36.6 acres of preserved wetlands (essentially, Parcel A) as a functional loss instead of a functional gain, as scored by KLECE and Mr. Cronyn. Mr. Ceilley also scored PDL's mitigation proposal as it affected 24.5 acres of preserved wetlands (Parcel B) as a functional loss instead of a functional gain, as scored by KLECE and Mr. Cronyn. Finally, he gave no credit for preservation of Parcels A through E via a conservation easement because he was under the mistaken impression that the land already was under a conservation easement in favor of Lee County. (Actually, PDL had agreed to preserve 65 acres of mangrove forest in return for the right to develop Harbour Pointe, although a conservation easement actually was imposed on only about six acres. Although not identified, the 65 acres probably would have included the preserved wetlands in the proposed ERP.) Mr. Cronyn gave credit for preservation of Parcels B through E. KLECE did not claim credit, because KLECE did not think it was necessary, but KLECE accepts Mr. Cronyn's assessment of those parcels. Mr. Ceilley's recent onsite field work was extremely limited, and much of his assessment was based general knowledge of the area and dated (14-year old) onsite field work. In addition, this was the first "real-life" UMAM assessment performed by Mr. Ceilley. His only other use of UMAM was for practice in training. Finally, his assessment was entirely independent without the input of any other consultants to aid him. In contrast, both KLECE and Mr. Cronyn had extensive prior experience using UMAM. In addition, KLECE functioned as a three- man team in performing its UMAM assessments and talked out any initial discrepancies and disagreements (albeit with Mr. Erwin being the final arbiter). KLECE and Mr. Cronyn also consulted with one another, as well as experts in other related fields before finalizing their respective UMAM assessments. KLECE was able to draw on field work conducted during over 200 man-hours onsite in recent years. While KLECE was the retained consultant and agent for the applicant in this case, Mr. Ceilley conceded that Mr. Erwin adheres to high ethical standards. Petitioners and Intervenor were critical of credit given in the UMAM assessments performed by Mr. Cronyn for preservation of Parcels B through E. (KLECE did not claim credit for their preservation in its UMAM assessment.) Petitioners and Intervenor contend that PDL already has agreed to preserve the wetlands in those parcels in return for the ability to utilize the remaining 24 residential units of development rights at Harbour Pointe and that development of the Chadwick Mound is unlikely. Actually, as found, PDL's agreement with the County only specified six of the 65 acres of wetlands to be preserved. Besides, the preserved wetlands in the proposed ERP would implement the agreement with the County. As for the Chadwick Mound, preservation without the proposed ERP is not a certainty, although residential development there would be difficult now that its existence is common knowledge. In any event, the relative unlikelihood of development in Parcels A through E, especially after development of 24 units at Harbour Pointe, was taken into consideration by Mr. Cronyn in determining the amount of credit to be given for their preservation. Taking all the evidence into account, Mr. Cronyn's UMAM assessment of the value of wetland functions with and without the proposed ERP are accepted. According to his assessment, the proposed ERP will result in a functional loss of .34 functional units, meaning an equivalent amount of mitigation credit would have to be purchased from the LPIWMB to offset wetland impacts. Based on the functional assessment used to permit that mitigation bank, approximately an additional .9 of a mitigation bank credit would be needed, in addition to the .11 already offered. The evidence as to cumulative impacts did not clearly define the pertinent drainage basin. Logically, the pertinent drainage basin either would encompass all land draining to surface waters connected to Pine Island Sound, which would include Little Pine Island, or would be limited to the land that is subject to the proposed ERP. If the former, all offsetting mitigation would be within the same drainage basin. If the latter, there would be no cumulative impacts, since the proposed ERP would complete all development. Reduction and Elimination of Wetland Impacts According to BOR Section 4.2.1.1, if a proposed surface water management system will result in adverse impacts to wetland or other surface water functions such that it does not meet the requirements of Sections 4.2.2 through 4.2.3.7, the District must consider whether the applicant has implemented practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate such adverse impacts. The term "modification" does not mean not implementing the system in some form, or requiring a project that is significantly different in type or function, such as a commercial project instead of a residential project. Elimination and reduction also does not require an applicant to suffer extreme and disproportionate hardship--for example, having to construct a ten mile-long bridge to avoid half an acre of wetland impacts. However, Anita Bain, SFWMD's director of ERP regulation, agreed that, in interpreting and applying BOR Section 4.2.1.1, "the more important a wetland is the greater extent you would require elimination and reduction of impact." As reflected in Findings 17-19, supra, PDL explored several design modifications in order to reduce and eliminate impacts to wetland and other surface water functions. However, several options for further reducing and eliminating wetland impacts were declined. PDL declined to eliminate the swimming pool and move one or more buildings to the pool's location at the extreme northern tip of Harbour Pointe because that would not be a practicable means of reducing the Harbour Pointe footprint. First, the undisputed testimony was that a residential building could not be sited as close to the water's edge as a swimming pool could. Second, because it would block the view from some of Meristar's residential properties, and Meristar has the legal right to approve or disapprove PDL's development on Harbour Pointe. PDL declined to reduce the number of buildings because, without also reducing the number and/or size of the residential units, reducing the number of buildings would make it difficult if not impossible to accommodate all cul-de-sacs required by Lee County for use by emergency vehicles and meet parking needs beneath the buildings, as proposed. (In addition, it would reduce the number of prime corner residential units, which are more marketable and profitable.) PDL declined to further reduce unit size because a further reduction to 2,000 square feet would only reduce the footprint of the six proposed buildings by a total of 5,000 square feet--less than a ninth of an acre. Reducing unit size to much less than 2,000 square feet would make it difficult if not impossible to market the condos as "luxury" units, which is what PDL says "the market" is demanding at this time (and also what PDL would prefer, since it would maximize PDL's profits for the units.) But it was not proven that smaller condos could not be sold at a reasonable profit. PDL declined to reduce the number of condo units at Harbour Pointe (while maintaining the conservation easement on the remainder of PDL's acreage, which would not allow PDL to develop all of the 24 dwelling units it wants to develop and is entitled to develop on its 78 acres, according to Lee County). However, it was not proven that such an option for further reducing and eliminating wetland impacts would not be technically feasible, would endanger lives or property, or would not be economically viable. With respect to economic viability, SFWMD generally does not examine financial statements or profit-and-loss pro formas as part of an analysis of a site plan's economic viability. This type of information is rarely provided by an applicant, and SFWMD does not ask for it. As usual, SFWMD's reduction and elimination analysis in this case was conducted without the benefit of such information. Rather, when PDL represented that any reduction in the number of units would not be economically viable, SFWMD accepted the representation, judging that PDL had done enough elimination and reduction based on the amount of wetland impacts compared to the amount of wetlands preserved, in comparison with other projects SFWMD has evaluated. As Ms. Bain understands it, "it's almost like we know it when we see it; in that, you wouldn't ask an applicant to build a ten-mile bridge to avoid a half an acre wetland impact, so something that's so extreme that's obvious, rather than how much profit would a particular applicant make on a particular project." Although SFWMD did not inquire further into the economic viability of modifications to reduce and eliminate wetland and surface water impacts, Petitioners and Intervenor raised the issue and discovered some profit-and-loss pro formas that were presented and addressed during the hearing. A pro forma prepared in August 2003 projected a profit of $2.79 million for the first 8 of 12 units and an additional $1.72 million profit on the next four units (taking into account construction of a drawbridge and road to the west at a cost of $1.8 million). This would result in a total profit of $4.51 million, less $800,000 for a reserve to pay for maintenance of the drawbridge (which PDL said was required under timeshare laws). Another pro forma prepared in February 2004 projected profits of $11.99 million on 16 "big-sized" units (3,000 square feet), $11.81 million on 20 "mid-sized" units (2,200 square feet), and $13.43 million on 24 "mixed-size" units (16 "mid- sized" and 8 "small-sized" at 1,850 square feet), all taking into account the construction of the drawbridge and road at a cost of $1.8 million. After production of the earlier pro formas during discovery in this case, PDL prepared a pro forma on June 7, 2006. The 2006 pro forma projected net profit to be $4.9 million, before investment in the property. However, PFL did not make its investment in the property part of the evidence in the case. In addition, Petitioners and Intervenor questioned the validity of the 2006 pro forma. PDL answered some of the questions better than others. To arrive at the projected net profit, PDL projected significantly (33%) higher construction costs overall. The cost of the drawbridge and road to the west was projected to increase from $1.8 million to $2.5 million. Based on its experience, PDL attributed the increase in part to the effect of rebuilding activity after Hurricane Charlie and in part to the effect of Sanibel Causeway construction (both increased overweight charges and limitations on when construction vehicles could cross the causeway, resulting construction work having to be done at night, at a significantly higher cost). At the hearing, PDL did not present any up-to-date market surveys or other supporting information on construction costs, and the Sanibel Causeway construction is expected to be completed before construction on the Harbour Pointe project would begin. In addition, without a full enough explanation, PDL replaced the bridge operation and maintenance reserve of $800,000 with an unspecified bridge reserve fund of $2 million. On the revenue side of the 2006 pro forma, gross sales of $1.9 million per unit were projected, which is less than PDL was projecting per square foot in February 2004, despite the assumed increased construction costs. PDL also attributes this to the effects of Hurricane Charlie. Again, there were no market surveys or other information to support the pricing assumptions. Besides predicting lower price potential, the 2006 pro forma deducts a pricing contingency of $2.3 million. PDL did not calculate or present evidence on whether it could make a profit building and selling 16 or 20 units, thereby eliminating a building or two (and perhaps some road and stormwater facility requirements) from the project's footprint. The absence of that kind of evidence, combined with the unanswered questions about the 2006 pro forma for the maximum number of units PDL possibly can build, constituted a failure to give reasonable assurance that wetland and surface water impacts would be reduced and eliminated by design modifications to the extent practicable, especially given the very high importance of the wetlands being impacted. Public Interest Test An ERP applicant who proposes to construct a system located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters must provide reasonable assurances that the project will “not be contrary to the public interest, or if such an activity significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding Florida Water, that the activity will be clearly in the public interest.” § 373.414(1)(a), Fla. Stat.; Rule 40E-4.302(1)(a); and SFWMD BOR Section 4.2.3. This is known as the “Public Interest Test,” and is determined by balancing seven criteria, which need not be weighted equally. See Lott v. City of Deltona and SJRWMD, DOAH Case Nos. 05-3662 and 05-3664, 2006 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 106 (DOAH 2006). The Public Interest criteria are as follows: Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others. There are no property owners adjacent to the site, and the closest property owners to the site are located across the inlet which connects Bryant Bayou to Pine Island Sound. While mangrove wetlands generally provide maximum protection from hurricanes, it does not appear from the evidence that existing conditions would provide appreciably more protection that the conditions contemplated by the proposed ERP. Otherwise, the project would not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare, or property of others. Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. The proposed ERP would impact (fill and destroy) 2.98 acres of very important, high quality mangrove wetlands. Even with the restoration or creation of .7 acre of probable former wetlands and improvements in the hydrologic connection of the 36.5-acre preserved wetland (Parcel A) to Pine Island Sound, the proposed ERP probably will have a negative effect on the conservation of fish and wildlife, including listed species. However, the negative effect would not be considered "adverse" if the elimination and reduction requirements of BOR 4.2.1.1 are met. Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The proposed drawbridge will be constructed over the inlet connecting Bryant Bayou with Pine Island Sound, a distance of approximately 65 feet. Boaters use the inlet for navigation. However, by its nature, a drawbridge allows for and not adversely affect navigation. The proposed ERP does not contain specifics on operation of the drawbridge, but PDL's consultant, Mr. Erwin, testified that there would be no adverse effect on navigation, assuming that the bridge would remain in the open position between use for crossings by road. The drawbridge would not adversely affect the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity. The question whether the proposed ERP will adversely affect fishing or recreational values is informed by both the UMAM functional assessment and the reduction and elimination analysis. If impacts to wetlands and surface waters are reduced and eliminated, and offset by mitigation, there should be no significant adverse effects on fishing and recreational values. Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature. The proposed development is permanent in nature. vi. Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, Florida Statutes. There are no significant archaeological resources on the Harbour Pointe project site. Although shell scatter left by the Calusa Indians has been found on Parcel A, they have been evaluated in the permit application process by Corbett Torrence, an archeologist, and found to be of limited historical or archaeological value. The reduced scope of the project avoids most of these areas. The proposed ERP will, however, enhance significant archaeological resources by placing a conservation easement on Parcel C, which is the site of the Chadwick Mound, one of the largest Calusa Indian mounds in Lee County. Further studies of this site could lead to a much better understanding of the Calusa culture. This Indian mound is a very valuable historical treasure, and its protection through inclusion in a conservation easement is very much in the public interest. vii. The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. This subject also was considered in the reduction and elimination analysis and in the UMAM functional assessment. As in the Findings the current condition and relative value of the functions being performed by the areas affected by the proposed activity are very valuable. That is why the reduction and elimination analysis is particularly important in this case. Assuming appropriate reduction and elimination, mitigation according to the UMAM assessment can offset unavoidable impacts to the functions performed by the areas affected by the proposed activity. Standing of CCA, SCCF, and CSWF CCA, SCCF, and CSWF each has at least 25 current members residing within Lee County and was formed at least one year prior to the date of the filing of PDL's application. CCA's mission statement includes protection of "our residents' safety, the island ecology, and the unique island ambience . . . ." CCA also is dedicated to "preserving and expanding, where possible, the amount of native vegetation on Captive Island" and preservation of natural resources and wildlife habitat on and around Sanibel and Captiva Islands. SCCF's mission is the preservation of natural resources and wildlife habitat on and around Sanibel and Captiva. It manages just over 1,800 acres of preserved lands, including mangrove forest habitat similar to that being proposed for development by PDL. Management activities involve invasive non- native plant control, surface water management, prescribed burning, native plant habitat restoration and wildlife monitoring. CSWF's purpose is to sustain and protect the natural environment of Southwest Florida through policy advocacy, research, land acquisition and other lawful means. Its four core programs are: environmental education; scientific research; wildlife rehabilitation; and environmental policy. Of CCA's 464 members, approximately 115 live within the boundaries of South Seas Plantation/Resort. Approximately 277 of SCCF's 3,156 members live on Captiva Island, and 40 live within the boundaries of South Seas Plantation/Resort. The members of CCA and SCCF who own property on Captiva Island rely on the mangrove systems for protection from storms. A substantial number of the Captiva Island residents and the other members of CCA and SCCF engage in recreational activities in the vicinity of PDL's property, including boating, fishing, bird-watching, wildlife observation, and nature study that would be adversely affected by significant water quality and wetland impacts from the proposed ERP. CSWF has 5,600 family memberships, approximately 400 in Lee County, and 14 on Sanibel. No members live on Captiva Island. There was no evidence as to how many of CSWF's members use the natural resources in the vicinity of the proposed ERP for recreational purposes or otherwise would be affected if there are water quality and wetland impacts from the proposed ERP.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the proposed ERP be denied; however, if wetland and surface water impacts are reduced and eliminated to the extent practicable, the proposed ERP should be issued with the additional conditions, as represented by PDL's witnesses: that the proposed drawbridge be left drawn except when in use for road access; that construction access be via the proposed drawbridge only; and that there be no construction dewatering. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2006, 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 8th of November, 2006.
The Issue The issue is whether the applicant for an Environmental Resource Permit ("ERP"), the City of Deltona ("City" or "Applicant"), has provided reasonable assurance that the system proposed complies with the water quantity, environmental, and water quality criteria of the St. Johns River Water Management District's ("District") ERP regulations set forth in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40C-4, and the Applicant's Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters (2005).
Findings Of Fact The District is a special taxing district created by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, charged with the duty to prevent harm to the water resources of the District, and to administer and enforce Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. The City of Deltona is a municipal government established under the provisions of Chapter 165, Florida Statutes. The Lake Theresa Basin is comprised primarily of a system of interconnected lakes extending from Lake Macy in the City of Lake Helen to the Butler Chain of Lakes (Lake Butler and Lake Doyle). The Lake Theresa Basin is land-locked and does not have a natural outfall to Lake Monroe and the St. Johns River. In 2003, after an extended period of above-normal rainfall in the Deltona area, the lakes within the land-locked Lake Theresa Basin staged to extremely high elevations that resulted in standing water in residential yards, and rendered some septic systems inoperable. Lake levels within the Lake Theresa Basin continued to rise and were in danger of rising above the finished floor elevations of some residences within the basin. On March 25, 2003, the District issued an Emergency Order (F.O.R. No. 2003-38) authorizing the construction and short-term operation of the Lake Doyle and Lake Bethel Emergency Overflow Interconnection. Since wetland and surface water impacts would occur, the Emergency Order required the City of Deltona to obtain an ERP for the system. The project area is 4.1 acres, and the system consists of a variable water structure on the west shore of Lake Doyle connected to a series of pipes, swales, water control structures, and wetland systems which outfall to a finger canal of Lake Bethel, with ultimate discharge to Lake Monroe and the St. Johns River. The first segment of the system extends downstream from the weir structure on the west shore of Lake Doyle via a pipe entrenched in the upland berm of the Sheryl Drive right-of-way. The pipe passes under Doyle Road and through xeric pine-oak uplands to the northeast shore of a large (approximately 15 acres) deepwater marsh. Water flows south through the deepwater marsh where it outfalls through four pipes at Ledford Drive. Two of the four pipes are overflow structures, controlled by canal gates. The pipes at Ledford Drive discharge into a ditch and into a large (greater than 20 acres) shallow bay swamp. The south end of the bay swamp is defined (and somewhat impounded) by a 19th Century railroad grade. Water flows through the bay swamp where it outfalls through five pipes at the railroad grade. Three of the five pipes are overflow structures, controlled by channel boards. The pipes at the railroad grade discharge to a 1500-foot long finger canal that was dug some time during the period 1940-1972 from the north central shore of Lake Bethel. The overflow interconnection system has three locations whereby the system can be shut down: 1) Lake Doyle--a control weir, controlled by three sluice gates; 2) Ledford Drive--two thirty-inch reinforced concrete pipes, controlled by canal gates; and 3) railroad grade--three thirty-inch reinforced concrete pipes, controlled by channel boards (collectively referred to as "Overflow Structures"). The Overflow Structures are designed to carry the discharge of water from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel. With the Overflow Structures closed the system returns to pre-construction characteristics, meaning there will be no increase or decrease in the quantity or quality of water throughout the path of the system as a result of the project. An unequivocal condition of the permit is that the system would operate with all of the Overflow Structures closed. As an added assurance, the City proposes to place a brick and mortar plug in the Lake Doyle weir structure outfall pipe to prevent any discharge from the weir. The City has submitted to the District preliminary plans for a future phase in which the system would be modified for the purpose of alleviating high water levels within the Lake Theresa Basin when the water level in Lake Doyle rises above an elevation of 24.5 feet. The District shall require a separate permit application to be submitted for such future plans. Petitioner, Barbara Ash, has lived on Lake Theresa for 19 years. Ms. Ash lives upstream from the area of the weir that will be plugged in accordance with the ERP. She does not trust either the City of Deltona to comply with or the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP applied for by the City. Petitioner, Barbara Ash, also served as the qualified representative for Petitioners, Francell Frei, Bernard J. and Virginia Patterson, and Ted and Carol Sullivan. Ms. Ash represented that Ms. Frei has lived on Lake Theresa for 12 years, and both the Pattersons and the Sullivans live on Lake Louise, which is within the area of concern in this proceeding. Petitioner, Diana Bauer, has lived on Lake Theresa since February 2004. She fears that the lake will become too dry if the system is allowed to flow. She also believes the wildlife will be adversely affected if the water levels are too low since many species need a swampy or wet environment to thrive. She fears her property value will decrease as a result of the approval of the ERP. She also does not trust either the City to comply with or the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP. Petitioner, Howard Ehmer, lives two to three hundred yards down Lake Theresa from Ms. Bauer. He is concerned about the lake bed being too dry and attracting people on all terrain vehicles who enjoy driving around the lake bottom. He is concerned about his property value decreasing if the lake bed is dry. Further, when the lake level is too low, people cannot enjoy water skiing, boating, and fishing on Lake Theresa. Petitioner, Phillip Lott, a Florida native, has also owned and lived on property abutting Lake Theresa since 1995. Mr. Lott has a Ph.D. in plant ecology, and M.P.A. in coastal zone studies, an M.B.A. in international business, and a B.S. in environmental resource management and planning. Mr. Lott has been well acquainted with the water levels on Lake Theresa for many years. Based upon his personal observations of the lake systems in the Deltona area over the years, Mr. Lott has seen levels fluctuate greatly based upon periods of heavy and light rainfall. Mr. Lott is concerned that the District will permit the City to open the weir to let water flow through the system and cause flooding in some areas and low water levels in other areas. He fears that the District will allow the water to flow and upset the environmental balance, but he admits that this ERP application is for a closed system that will not allow the water to flow as he fears. Mr. Lott similarly does not trust the City to comply with and the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP. Petitioners, James E. and Alicia M. Peake, who were represented by Steven L. Spratt at hearing as their qualified representative, live on Lake Louise, which is interconnected with the Lake Theresa basin. The Peakes are concerned that if the level of Lake Louise drops below 21 feet, nine inches, they will not be able to use the boat launch ramps on the lake. Petitioner, Steven L. Spratt, also lives on Lake Louise, and is concerned about the water levels becoming so low that he cannot use the boat launch on the lake. He has lived on the lake since 2000, and remembers when the water level was extremely low. He fears that approval of the ERP in this case will result in low levels of water once again. Petitioner, Gloria Benoit, has live on Lake Theresa for two years. She also enjoys watching recreational activities on the lake, and feels that approval of the ERP will devalue her lakefront property. Ms. Benoit appeared at the first day of the hearing, but offered no testimony on her behalf. J. Christy Wilson, Esquire, appeared prior to the final hearing as counsel of record for Petitioners, Steven E. Larimer, Kathleen Larimer, and Helen Rose Farrow. Neither Ms. Wilson nor any of the three Petitioners she represented appeared at any time during the hearing, filed any pleadings seeking to excuse themselves from appearing at the final hearing, or offered any evidence, testimony, pre- or post- hearing submittals. Petitioner, Gary Jensen, did not appear at hearing, did not file any pleadings or papers seeking to be excused from appearing at the final hearing, and did not offer any evidence, testimony, pre- or post-hearing submittals. Both the City and the District recognize that areas downstream from the project site, such as Stone Island and Sanford, have experienced flooding in the past in time of high amounts of rainfall. The system proposed by the City for this ERP will operate with the overflow structures closed and a brick and mortar plug in the outfall pipe to prevent water flow from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel. So long as the overflow structures are closed, the system will mimic pre-construction flow patterns, with no increase in volume flowing downstream. The District has considered the environment in its proposed approval of the ERP. The area abutting the project is little urbanized and provides good aquatic and emergent marsh habitat. With the exception of the western shore area of the deepwater marsh ("west marsh area"), the bay swamp and remaining deepwater marsh area have good ecological value. In the 1940's, the west marsh area was incorporated into the drainage system of a poultry farm that occupied the site. This area apparently suffered increased nutrient influxes and sedimentation that contributed to a proliferation of floating mats of aquatic plants and organic debris. These tussocks reduced the deepwater marsh's open water and diminished the historical marsh habitat. Water under the tussocks is typically anoxic owing to total shading by tussocks and reduced water circulation. Thick, soft, anaerobic muck has accumulated under the matted vegetation. Exotic shrubs (primrose willow Ludwigia peruvania) and other plants (cattails Typha spp.) dominate the tussocks. The construction of the project, from the 2003 Emergency Order, resulted in adverse impacts to 1.3 acres of wetlands having moderately high- to high ecological value and 0.2 acres of other surface waters. The 0.2 acre impact to other surface waters was to the lake bottom and the shoreline of Lake Doyle where the weir structure was installed. The 0.3 acres of wetland impacts occurred at the upper end of the deepwater marsh where the pipe was installed. The largest wetland impact (1.0 acre) was to the bay swamp. The bay swamp is a shallow body dominated by low hummocks and pools connected inefficiently by shallow braided channels and one acre is filled with a 1-2 foot layer of sediment following swamp channelization. Disturbance plants (e.g., primrose willow, Ludwigia peruvania, and elderberry Sambucus Canadensis) now colonize the sediment plume. Pursuant to the District's elimination and reduction criteria, the applicant must implement practicable design modifications, which would reduce or eliminate adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. A proposed modification, which is not technically capable of being done, is not economically viable, or which adversely affects public safety through endangerment of lives or property is not considered "practicable." The City reduced and/or eliminated the impacts to the lake bottom and shoreline of Lake Doyle and deepwater marsh, to the extent practicable. The impacts were the minimum necessary to install the weir structure and pipe for the system; the weir structure and pipe were carefully installed on the edges of the wetland and surface water systems, resulting in a minimum amount of grading and disturbance. To compensate for the loss of 1.3 acres of wetlands and 0.2 acres of other surface waters, the City proposes to preserve a total of 27.5 acres of wetlands, bay swamp, marsh, and contiguous uplands. Included in this 27.5 acres are 6.4 acres of the west marsh, which are to be restored. The parties stipulated that the mitigation plan would adequately compensate for losses of ecological function (e.g. wildlife habitat and biodiversity, etc.) resulting from the project. Water quality is a concern for the District. Lake Monroe is included on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's verified list of impaired water bodies for nitrogen, phosphorous, and dissolved oxygen. Water quality data for Lake Monroe indicate the lake has experienced high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous and low levels of dissolved oxygen. Prior to construction of the project, there was no natural outfall from the Lake Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe and therefore no contribution from this basin to nitrogen and phosphorous loadings to Lake Monroe. Lake Colby, Three Island Lakes (a/k/a Lake Sixma), and the Savannah are surface waters within the Lake Theresa Basin for which minimum levels have been adopted pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40C-8. The system will operate with the overflow structures closed and a brick and mortar plug in the outfall pipe to prevent water flow from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel, resulting in no outfall from the Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe. Minimum flows established for surface waters within the Lake Theresa Basin will not be adversely impacted. Under the first part of the secondary impact test, the City must provide reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts from construction, alteration, and intended or reasonable expected use of the project will not adversely affect the functions of adjacent wetlands or surface waters. The system is designed as a low intensity project. As proposed, little activity and maintenance are expected in the project site area. The reasonably expected use of the system will not cause adverse impacts to the functions of the wetlands and other surface waters. None of the wetland areas adjacent to uplands are used by listed species for nesting or denning. In its pre-construction state, the project area did not cause or contribute to state water quality violations. Under the second part of the secondary impact test, the City must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, and intended or reasonably expected uses of the system will not adversely affect the ecological value of the uplands to aquatic or wetland dependent species for enabling existing nesting or denning by these species. There are no listed threatened or endangered species within the project site area. Under the third part of the secondary impact test, and as part of the public interest test, the District must consider any other relevant activities that are closely linked and causally related to any proposed dredging or filling which will cause impacts to significant historical and archaeological resources. When making this determination, the District is required, by rule, to consult with the Division of Historical Resources. The Division of Historical Resources indicated that no historical or archaeological resources are likely present on the site. No impacts to significant historical and archaeological resources are expected. Under the fourth part of the secondary impact test, the City must demonstrate that certain additional activities and future phases of a project will not result in adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or water quality violations. The City has submitted to the District preliminary plans for a future phase in which the system would be modified for the purpose of alleviating high water levels within the Lake Theresa Basin when the level in Lake Doyle rises above an elevation of 24.5 feet. Based upon the plans and calculations submitted, the proposed future phase, without additional measures, could result in minor increases in the loadings of nitrogen and phosphorous to Lake Monroe. Lake Monroe is included on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's verified list of impaired water bodies due to water quality data indicating the lake has experienced high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous, and low levels of dissolved oxygen. Under this potential future phase, there would be an outfall from the Lake Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe. To address the impact on water quality of this potential future phase, the City has submitted a loading reduction plan for nitrogen, phosphorous, and dissolved oxygen. The plan includes compensating treatment to fully offset the potential increased nutrient loadings to Lake Monroe. Specifically, the loading reduction plan includes: Construction and operation of compensating treatment systems to fully offset anticipated increased nutrient loadings to Lake Monroe. Weekly water quality monitoring of the discharge from Lake Doyle for total phosphorous and total nitrogen. A requirement that the overflow structure be closed if the total phosphorous level reaches 0.18 mg/l or higher or the total nitrogen level reaches 1.2 mg/l or higher in any given week and will remain closed until levels fall below those limits. The implementation of these water quality mitigation measures will result in a net improvement of the water quality in Lake Monroe for nitrogen, phosphorous, or dissolved oxygen. The future phase was conceptually evaluated by the District for impacts to wetland functions. The future phase as proposed could result in adverse impacts to wetland functions. Operation of the system with the overflow structures open could impact the bay swamp and deepwater marsh. The City has demonstrated that any adverse impacts could be offset through mitigation. Based upon the information provided by the City and general engineering principles, the system is capable of functioning as proposed. The City of Deltona will be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the surface waster management system. A local government is an acceptable operation and maintenance entity under District rules. The public interest test has seven criteria. The public interest test requires the District to evaluate only those parts of the project actually located in, on, or over surface waters or wetlands, to determine whether a factor is positive, neutral, or negative, and then to balance these factors against each other. The seven factors are as follows: the public health, safety, or welfare of others; conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats; fishing, recreational value, and marine productivity; temporary or permanent nature; 5) navigation, water flow, erosion, and shoaling; 6) the current condition and relative value of functions; and 7) historical and archaeological resources. There are no identified environmental hazards or improvements to public health and safety. The District does not consider impacts to property values. To offset any adverse impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitats, the City has proposed mitigation. The areas of the project in, on, or over wetlands do not provide recreational opportunities. Construction and operation of the project located in, on, or over wetlands will be permanent in nature. Construction and operation of the project located in, on, or over wetlands will not cause shoaling, and does not provide navigational opportunities. The mitigation will offset the relative value of functions performed by areas affected by the proposed project. No historical or archaeological resources are likely on the site of the project. The mitigation of the project is located within the same drainage basin as the project and offsets the adverse impacts. The project is not expected to cause unacceptable cumulative impacts.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting the City of Deltona's application for an environmental resource permit with the conditions set forth in the Technical Staff Report, and dismissing the Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by Gary Jensen in Case No. 04-2405, and by Steven E. Larimer, Kathleen Larimer, and Helen Rose Farrow in Case No. 04-3048. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 27th day of May, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: George Trovato, Esquire City of Deltona 2345 Providence Boulevard Deltona, Florida 32725 Diana E. Bauer 1324 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 Barbara Ash, Qualified Representative 943 South Dean Circle Deltona, Florida 32738-6801 Phillip Lott 948 North Watt Circle Deltona, Florida Howard Ehmer Nina Ehmer 32738-7919 1081 Anza Court Deltona, Florida 32738 Francell Frei 1080 Peak Circle Deltona, Florida 32738 Bernard T. Patterson Virginia T. Patterson 2518 Sheffield Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Kealey A. West, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 J. Christy Wilson, Esquire Wilson, Garber & Small, P.A. 437 North Magnolia Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Gloria Benoit 1300 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 Gary Jensen 1298 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 James E. Peake Alicia M. Peake 2442 Weatherford Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Steven L. Spratt 2492 Weatherford Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Ted Sullivan 1489 Timbercrest Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Kirby Green, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether the Florida Department of Transportation, (DOT) is entitled to a Management and Storage of Surface Waters (MSSW) permit to authorize the construction and operation of a surface water management system to serve eight bridge replacements on State Road 5 in Volusia County, Florida; (2) whether the Florida Department of Transportation is entitled to a Wetland Resource Management (WRM) permit for the placement and excavation of fill material in waters of the state in connection with the replacement and widening of said bridges and their approaches; and, if so, (3) what conditions should apply. APPLICABLE STATUTES AND RULES In 1993 the Florida Legislature enacted Chapter 93-213, Laws of Florida, (the Florida Environmental Reorganization Act) which, among other things, repealed Sections 403.91-403.929, Florida Statutes (F.S.)(1991), and substantially revised Section 373.414, F.S., adding to that section a public interest test nearly identical to the language formerly found in Section 403.918, F.S. (1991). 30 and 45, Chapter 93-213, Fla. Laws, respectively. The Department of Environmental Protection and the water management districts were directed to adopt rules implementing the revised Section 373.414, F.S. Section 373.414(9), F.S.; See Fla. Electric Coordinating Group, et. al. v. Suwannee River Water Management District. et. al. 17 FALR 3242 (DOAH Final Order 7/24/1995) aff'd, 674 So.2d 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). These rules became effective October 3, 1995. See history notes to Rule 40C-4.302, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) After the effective date of these rules, permits issued pursuant to Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., were to be know as Environmental Resource Permits 14, Chapter 93-213, Fla. Laws. In 1994, the Legislature enacted Chapter 94-122, Laws of Florida, adding Subsection 14 to Section 373.414, F.S. Subsection 373.414(14), F.S., provides that applications for permits pursuant to Sections 403.91-403.929, F.S., (1991) and Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., which are submitted and complete prior to the effective date of rules adopted pursuant to Subsection 373.414(9), F.S., (October 3, 1995) shall be reviewed under the rules adopted pursuant to Sections 403.91-403.929, F.S., (1991) and part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., in existence prior to the effective date of the rules adopted pursuant to Subsection 373.414(9), F.S. (October 3, 1995). The WRM permit application which is the subject of this proceeding was submitted pursuant to the authority under Sections 403.91-403.929, F.S., (1991) and was submitted and complete prior to October 3, 1995. The MSSW permit application which is the subject of this proceeding was submitted pursuant to the authority under Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., and was submitted and complete prior to October 3, 1995. Thus, the Petitioner is entitled to have these two applications reviewed under the relevant rules as they existed before October 3, 1995. Subsection 373.414(1), F.S., as amended by Chapter 93-213, Laws of Florida, was not self executing. This subsection did not become effective until the rules adopted pursuant to Subsection 373.414(9), F.S., became effective. Thus, the MSSW permit application which is the subject of this proceeding is to be reviewed under the statutory language of Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., it existed before Chapter 93-213, Laws of Florida. Specifically, this review does not include the public interest test that now exists in Subsection 373.414(1), F.S. In Conclusion of Law 130, the Hearing Officer reviews the MSSW permit application which is the subject of this proceeding under the public interest test of Subsection 373.414(1). The Governing Board may reject conclusions of law which have been proposed by a hearing officer. Harloff v. City of Sarasota, 575 So.2d 1324 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1991) rev. den., 583 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 1991). For the reasons stated above, this review is incorrect, and Conclusion of Law 130 is rejected to this extent. The WRM permit application which is the subject of this proceeding is governed by Chapter 62-312, F.A.C., as such rule existed before October 3, 1995. Chapter 62-312, F.A.C., existing before October 3, 1995, implemented Sections 403.91-403.929; F.S. (1991), including Section 403.918, F.S. (1991). Thus, any WRM permit application reviewed under Chapter 62-312, F.A.C., existing before October 3,1995, must also be reviewed under Section 403.918, F.S.(1991). Section 373.414(1), F.S. (1995), does not apply to such application. In Conclusions of Law 130, 131, 143, and 143, the Hearing Officer reviews the WRM permit application which is the subject of this proceeding under the public interest test of Section 373.414(1), F.S. For the reasons stated above, the Hearing Officer's review of this WRM permit application under Section 373.414(1), F.S., is incorrect and is rejected. Harloff, supra This WRM permit application is reviewed under Section 403.918, F.S. (1991). HARM TO THE WATER RESOURCES AND OBJECTIVES OF THE DISTRICT In its Exception No. 3, the District argues that, in Conclusion of Law 139, the Hearing Officer has incorrectly combined the harm to the water resources permitting criteria of 40C-4.301(2)(a) with the objectives of the District permitting criteria of 40C-4.301(1)(a). The District asserts that the harm to the water resources permitting criteria of 40C-4.301(2)(a) are not susceptible to balancing one criteria against another to determine whether overall the activity will not result in harm to the water resources of the District. But rather, reasonable assurance must be provided by D.O.T. for each criteria. Thus, the District argues, that in Conclusion of Law 139, the Hearing Officer incorrectly balances all of the criteria 40C-4.301(2)(a) and 40C-4.301(1)(a) to determine that this project satisfies the all of the requirements of 40C-4.301 without making specific determinations as to whether the individual requirements of 40C- 4.301(2)(a) are met. This exception is accepted in part. As a background reference, Section 373.413, F.S., provides that the District may permit activities regulated under Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., to ensure that such activities will not be harmful to the water resources of the district. Section 373.416, F.S., allows the District to permit the operation and maintenance of activities regulated under Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., to ensure that these activities will not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district, and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district. The criteria which must be met to ensure that an activity requiring a permit under Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., is not inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district are set forth in former Rule 40C-4.301(1)(a), F.A.C. (See 9.0 Applicant's Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters effective 11/22/94.) Former Rule 40C-301(1)(a), F.A.C., provided: (1)(a) To obtain a general or individual permit for operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a system or to obtain a conceptual approval permit each applicant must give reasonable assurance that such activity will not: Adversely affect navigability of rivers and harbors; Adversely affect recreational development or public lands; Endanger life, health, or property; Adversely affect the maintenance of minimum flows and levels established in chapter 40C-8, F.A.C.; Adversely affect the availability of waters for reasonable beneficial purposes; Be incapable of being effectively operated; Adversely affect the operation of a Work of the District established in chapter 40C-6; F.A.C.; Adversely affect existing agricultural, commercial, industrial, or residential developments; Cause adverse impacts to the quality of receiving waters; Adversely affect natural resources, fish and wildlife; Induce saltwater or pollution intrusion; Increase the potential for damages to off-site property or the public caused by: Floodplain development, encroachment or other alteration; Retardance, acceleration, displacement or diversion of surface water; Reduction of natural water storage areas; Facility failure; Increase the potential for flood damages to residences, public buildings, or proposed and existing streets and roadways; or Otherwise be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the District. Because a proposed system may result in both beneficial and harmful effects in terms of various individual objectives, in determining whether the applicant has provided evidence of reasonable assurance of compliance with Rule 40C-4.301(1)(a), F.A.C., the District may consider a balancing of specific effects to show the system is not inconsistent with the overall objectives of the District. In determining whether an activity meets the overall requirements of former Rule 40C-4.301(1)(a), F.A.C., each of the specific requirements of 40C- 4.301(1)(a)1.14 must be evaluated. See e.g. Florida Wildlife Federation v. Admiral Corporation, DOAH No. 86-3272, SJRWMD FOR 86-471 (SJRWMD Final Order February 12, 1987). Where this evaluation indicates that the activity may result in both beneficial and harmful effects, the District may consider a balancing of specific effects to show that the activity is not inconsistent with the overall objectives of the District. Former Rule 40C-4.301(1)(b), F.A.C. The criteria which must be met to ensure that an activity requiring a permit under Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., will not be harmful to the water resources of the district, are set forth in former Rule 40C-4.301(2)(a), F.A.C. (See 10.0 Applicant's Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters effective 11/22/94) Former Rule 40C-4.301(2)(a) provides: (2)(a) To obtain a general or individual permit for construction, alteration, operation, or maintenance of a system or to obtain a conceptual approval permit, each applicant must give reasonable assurance that such activity meets the following standards: Adverse water quantity impacts will not be caused to receiving waters and adjacent lands; Surface and ground water levels and surface water flow, including the minimum flows and levels established in chapter 40C-8, F.A.C., will not be adversely affected; Existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities will not be adversely affected; The system must be capable of being effectively operated The activity must not result in adverse impacts to the operation of Works of the District established in chapter 40C-6,F.A.C.; The quality of receiving waters will not be adversely affected such that the water quality standards set forth in chapters 17-2, 17-4,17-302, and 17-550, F.A.C., will be exceeded; Wetland functions will not be adversely affected; Otherwise not be harmful to the water resources of the District. In determining whether an activity meets the overall requirements of former Rule 40C-4.301(2)(a), each of the specific requirements of 40C-4.301(2)(a)1.- 8. must be met. There is no balancing of the specific requirements of 40C- 4.301(2)(a) 1. though 8. as there is for the specific requirements of 40C- 4.301(1)(a)1.-14. In this case, ,the Hearing Officer correctly lists the applicable permitting criteria of former Rule 40C-4.301, F.A.C., in Conclusions of Law 136. However, in Conclusion of Law 139, the Hearing Officer summarily balances these criteria as a unit to determine that the Petitioner is entitled to the permit. As stated above, there is no balancing of the criteria of 4OC-4.301(2)(a), and a balancing of the criteria 40C-4.301(1)(a) only occurs after an evaluation of the individual criteria of 40C-4.301(1)(a)1.-14. indicates that the activity may result in both beneficial and harmful effects. The Hearing Officer also states that some of these criteria are met in paragraph 116 of the Recommended Order under the title Factual Conclusions, but these statements are conclusions of law that these criteria are met with no analysis of how the facts found demonstrate that the enumerated criteria are satisfied. Thus the Hearing Officer has failed to correctly evaluate this activity under the individual criteria of former Rules 40C-4.301(1)(a) and 40C- 4.301(2)(a). The Governing Board may reject an erroneous legal interpretation of an administrative rule. Section 120.57(1)(6)(10), F.S.; Alles, supra. The Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law 116 and 139 are rejected. CLEARLY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, INCONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE DISTRICT, AND HARMFUL TO THE WATER RESOURCES OF THE DISTRICT. This project is located within Spruce Creek and Rose Bay. (Finding of Fact 6) Spruce Creek and Rose Bay are designated Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) under Rule 62-302.700(9)(i), F.A.C. Since this project is located within OFWs, the project must be clearly in the public interest for the Petitioner to receive its WRM permit. Section 403.918, F.S. (1991). In Finding of Fact 100, the Hearing Officer states that removal of the causeway will restore Rose Bay's natural flow pattern, and allow dispersion of the bay's sediment over a larger area. Finding of Fact 122 provides that nothing short of complete removal of the causeway will restore Rose Bay's natural flow patters or prevent accumulation of sediments in the causeway's shadow. In this same finding of fact, the Hearing Officer declares that removal of the impediments to-tidal flow in Rose Bay will be necessary in the future to balance tidal forces with freshwater inputs after the freshwater discharges have been reduced and the accumulated muck eliminated. In Finding of Fact 52, the Hearing Officer states that this bridge will last for 75 years which is, in essence, permanent. The essence of the Hearing Officer's reasoning in the Conclusions of Law is that other activities are also contributing to the degradation of Rose Bay, and that it is more important to correct these activities than to remove the causeway. Thus, the Hearing Officer found the project to be clearly in the public interest, even though it will permanently restrict the natural tidal flow into Rose Bay. We disagree. While neither party has filed exceptions on this point, the Governing Board's authority to modi the Recommended Order is not dependent on the filing of exceptions. Westchester General Hospital v. DHRS, 419 So.2d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The OFW clearly in the public interest test is more stringent that the contrary to the public interest test for a non-OFW. Florida Keys Citizen Coalition v. 1800 Atlantic Developers, 8 F.A.L.R. 5564, 5572 (DER Final Order 1986), rev'd on other grounds, 552 So 2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), rev. denied, 562 So 2d 345 (Fla. 1990). The weight to be accorded to the factors in Section 403.918(2), F.S. (1991) in determining compliance with the clearly in the public interest test are questions of law and policy reserved to this agency, not the hearing officer. 1800 Atlantic Developers v. DER, 552 So.2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), rev. denied, 562 So.2d 345 (Fla. 1990); Fla. Power Corp. v. Fla. DER, 14 FALR 4156, 4163 (DER Final Order 1996), aff'd, 638 So.2d 545 (Fla. 1994). If the dredge and fill permit is issued, there will be no foreseeable opportunity to correct the tidal restriction created by the causeway. The bridge and causeway will remain a permanent obstruction to the natural tidal flow into Rose Bay, and thus a permanent barrier to the complete restoration of Rose Bay. See 403.918(2)-(a)3. and 403.918(2)(a)5, F.S. (1991). Addressing the other activities contributing to the degradation of Rose Bay will never result in its complete restoration because the facts establish that the causeway will permanently prevent natural tidal flow. Petitioner has failed to show that other public interest considerations of Section 403.918(2), F.S. clearly outweigh the permanent loss of the natural flow patterns of Rose Bay. Thus, while we fully recognize that other activities are contributing to the degradation of Rose Bay, we hold that it is not clearly in the public interest to permanently prevent the natural tidal flow of Rose Bay, an OFW. Any conclusions of law in the Recommended Order to the contrary are rejected. Harloff, supra. For the same reasoning we hold that the Petitioner has not provided reasonable assurance that this project is not inconsistent with the objectives of the District and not otherwise harmful to the water resources of the District. See Rules 40C-4.301(1)(a)14. and 40C-4.301(2)(a)8., F.A.C. Because Rose Bay is an OFW, it is not consistent with the objectives of the District to authorize a permanent project that will prevent the complete restoration of Rose Bay even after the other activities contributing to the Bay's degradation are addressed. Similarly, approving this project will otherwise harm the water resources of the District in violation of Rule 40C-4.301(2)(a)8, because it will permanently forgo the opportunity restore the natural tidal flow to a degraded OFW waterbody, although we recognize that other forces are contributing to that waterbody's degradation. Any conclusions of law in the Recommended Order to the contrary are rejected. Harloff, supra. RULINGS ON THE DISTRICT'S EXCEPTIONS The District's Exception No. 1 is not necessary to the final determination of this proceeding because we conclude that this project is not clearly in the public interest. The District's Exceptions Nos. 2 and 5 are accepted in that the Hearing Officer's determination that the proposed project will not cause significant degradation to Rose Bay is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Rule 62-4.242(2)(a)2.b., F.A.C. However, this project also does not meet the requirements of Rule 62-4.242(2)(a)2.b., F.A.C., because it is not clearly in the public interest. The District's Exception No. 3 is accepted to the extent described above. However, the suggestion of remand contained within Exception No. 3 is rejected. The District's Exception No. 4 is accepted to the extent described in provisions above regarding applicable rules and statutes. ORDER OF DENIAL WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, the MSSW and WRM permit applications which are the subject of this proceeding are hereby DENIED. To receive approval, the Petitioner must submit new permit applications which contain a plan for removal of the causeway through Rose Bay sufficient enough to restore natural tidal flow. DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of July 1996, in Palatka, Florida. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT BY: WILLIAM SEGAL CHAIRMAN RENDERED this 6th day of August 1996. BY: PATRICIA C. SCHULTZ DISTRICT CLERK
Findings Of Fact THE APPLICATIONS Petitioner applied to Respondent for a MSSW permit to authorize the construction and operation of a surface water management system (system) for four dual bridge replacements and the required approach reconstruction for State Road 5 (U.S. 1) in Volusia County, Florida. The project requires a MSSW permit because it traverses a flowing system which has an upstream drainage area that is greater than five square miles. Petitioner also applied for a WRM (dredge and fill) permit to authorize the placement of fill material in and excavation of material from waters of the state or the replacement and widening of the same bridges addressed in the MSSW permit application. The original application requested permission to dredge 0.076 acres and fill 0.104 acres in jurisdictional waters of the state. The project site is located south of Port Orange, Florida, north of New Smyrna Beach, Florida, and adjacent to the Halifax River in Volusia County, Florida. The project limits include the four dual bridges and their approaches which are approximately 350 feet north and south of each structure. The four dual bridges are northbound and southbound pairs for a total of eight bridges. Six bridges are located over Spruce Creek and its north and south relief channels. Two bridges are located over Rose Bay. The proposed project is within the area of Spruce Creek and Rose Bay both of which are designated as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) under Rule 62-302.700(9)(i), Florida Administrative Code. Construction of the approach roadways to the proposed bridges will encroach in 0.19 acres of marsh along the causeway side slopes. Currently the 0.19 acres of marsh are disturbed areas that do not provide significant habitat for fish or wildlife. However, these areas do provide some erosion control and serve as a visual screen between the road and wildlife foraging in the open- water area. There will be an additional 0.02 acres of encroachment in open waters for placement of proposed bridge pilings. EXISTING SITE The existing roadway, State Road 5, crosses a wide expanse of wetlands consisting of tidal marsh and creeks associated with Spruce Creek and Rose Bay. It is a major transportation corridor consisting of a four lane, divided highway with a forty-foot grass median and ten-foot grass shoulders. Existing roadway drainage is primarily sheet flow over the grass shoulders to the waterways. Existing medians drain to the north and south sides of the bridges by either catch basins or concrete spillways at ends of the bridges. The distance across Rose Bay on State Road 5 is approximately 900 feet in length. The causeway is 700 feet in length. The Rose Bay bridges span the remaining 200 feet of open water. The causeway side slopes drop off steeply into the salt marsh. A typical salt marsh contains vegetation which is usually a productive area for wildlife. In this case, portions of the causeway side slopes lack vegetative cover and are subject to erosion. Other portions of the side slopes are vegetated with a mixture of marsh species such as sea-oxeye, marsh elders, mangroves and cordgrass. Some areas are densely vegetated by wax myrtle or Brazilian Pepper, a nuisance species. The roadway and the bridges are centered in a 200-foot right-of-way with a fifty-five mile per hour posted speed limit. The Rose Bay causeway has been in place since at least the early 1940s. Aerial photographs of Volusia County dated February 1943 show the existing causeway with a single bridge and the old US 1 causeway. Bridges with causeways have existed at these locations for over 50 years. The current bridges were constructed in 1957 and 1958 of twenty-foot concrete slab spans. At that time the bridges were designed for a normal life expectancy of fifty years. They met all design and safety standards when Petitioner constructed them. The bridges vary in length: (a) Rose Bay bridges, 200 feet; (b) Spruce Creek North Relief bridges, 200 feet; (c) Spruce Creek bridges, 360 feet; and (d) Spruce Creek South Relief bridges, 260 feet. Each of the existing bridges have two twelve-foot travel lanes with two-foot inside sidewalks for a total width of twenty-eight feet curb to curb. The bridges do not have shoulders but they do have three-foot outside sidewalks. The bridges currently have a posted speed limit of fifty-five miles per hour but they do not conform with Petitioner's current design criteria. Presently, surface drainage on the bridges is provided by four-inch diameter open scuppers at approximately eight-foot spacing along the gutter lines on both sides of the twin bridges, with the exception of the Spruce Creek north and south relief structures which drain to the low side of their super- elevation. Concrete spillways exist at bridge corners to handle overflow. Scuppers are holes in the bridge through which storm-water runs off directly into the open water below without any treatment. The project site currently provides no treatment for stormwater runoff. The existing bridges show severe deterioration. The two Rose Bay bridges and the two Spruce Creek South Relief bridges are in especially poor condition. The bridges are only five or six feet above salt water which is very corrosive. This environment has accelerated the deterioration of the bridges. The structural supports of the Rose Bay and Spruce Creek South Relief bridges are in such bad shape that Petitioner inspects them every six months instead of every two years. In 1993, Petitioner made emergency repairs to the southbound Rose Bay bridge and to the northbound Spruce Creek South Relief bridge. These repairs consisted of encasing eleven pilings in concrete jackets. The concrete pile jackets will only last five to seven years because they will not arrest the deterioration of the steel inside the piling. Petitioner has not included further repairs to the bridges in its work program pending resolution of this case. Sufficiency ratings for bridges are based on the condition of their structural elements. A bridge with a sufficiency rating below fifty is structurally deficient and qualifies for federal bridge replacement funding. A sufficiency rating between fifty and eighty qualifies a bridge for replacement using only state funds. Bridges with sufficiency ratings over eighty meet all safety and structural load carrying requirements. A bridge is structurally deficient if one or more structural elements have deteriorated to such an extent that they impact the serviceable life of the bridge. The most recent bridge inspection reports for the existing bridges show sufficiency ratings from 42.9 and 45 for the two Rose Bay bridges to 68.7 for the northbound Spruce Creek North Relief bridge. The existing bridges are functionally obsolete. They do not meet current design and safety standards because they are too narrow. The bridges also have low load capacity ratings (H20-S66-44). Their pile bents are in poor condition and cracking is evident in several pile caps. Reinforcing steel is exposed in some areas due to concrete spalling. Additionally, their safety barriers are inadequate. Petitioner initially placed this project into its work plan in 1989. In 1991 Petitioner gave replacement of the bridges a higher priority. Petitioner subsequently added construction dollars for the project to its work program. At that time, Petitioner expected construction to take place in 1995 and 1996. However, in 1993 and 1994, other bridges were given a higher priority. Petitioner rescheduled the proposed construction in its current work program for 1998 and 1999 with construction dollars budgeted at $9,700,000. If the construction of the project does not begin as scheduled in 1998, the bridges will require major repairs and rehabilitation within two years at a cost of approximately $750,000. They will also require load and weight limitations resulting in trucks making a ten-mile detour. PROPOSED PROJECT Petitioner intends to replace the bridges on their existing alignment within the existing right-of-way. The roadway sections will have two twelve- foot travel lanes, eight-foot median shoulders, ten-foot outside shoulders (four-feet paved), and a forty-foot median. Construction will be phased so that the public can use one roadway while the bridges on the opposite roadway are being replaced. Phased construction will eliminate the need for temporary fill in adjacent wetlands. The existing bridges will be replaced with wider structures for safety reasons. The proposed bridges will have two twelve-foot travel lanes, six-foot wide inside shoulders and ten-foot wide outside shoulders for a total width of forty feet curb to curb. The new bridges will have fewer pilings. Currently there is a row of four 14-inch square pilings for every twenty feet of bridge span. The proposed construction will place a row of four 24-inch square pilings for every thirty feet of bridge span. The number of pile bents for each set of bridges will be reduced as follows: (a) Spruce Creek South Relief bridges from fourteen to ten; (b) Spruce Creek bridges from nineteen to fourteen; (c) Spruce Creek North Relief bridges from eleven to eight; and (d) Rose Bay bridges from eleven to eight. Petitioner will reduce impacts to the creek and bay by using fewer pile bents and by using pile bents instead of piers. Petitioner does not propose to increase the length of the bridges or the number of travel lanes. The new bridges will have increased weight and load capacity (HS20-44) and a design speed of seventy miles per hour. Petitioner proposes to raise the vertical alignment of the bridges over Spruce Creek North Relief, Spruce Creek South Relief and Rose Bay by one and one half to two feet to accommodate the fifty-year flood and allow for small boat passage under the structures. There will be no change in the vertical clearance for the Spruce Creek bridges. Petitioner expects to raise the roadway approaches to the proposed grade of the new bridges. The project will not cause a change in land use. Highway capacity and pollutant loading will not increase. Petitioner does not propose to reduce the length of the causeway or provide openings in it. However, the project is not a simple in-kind bridge replacement because of the necessary construction to widen the bridges and roadways, raise the bridge approachments, and recontour the causeway's side slopes. Petitioner designed the project's stormwater management system to maximize stormwater quality treatment. The wetlands along the project corridor limit Petitioner's alternatives in this regard. Petitioner's own regulations relative to roadway base clearance limit the use of swales and retention basin storage. Additionally, seasonal high water table elevations limit the efficient use of exfiltration systems. Shoulder gutters and inlets will collect all runoff from the proposed bridges and route it to median exfiltration systems prior to discharge. Runoff from super-elevated pavement areas will flow to median exfiltration trenches and roadside swales. Where practical, Petitioner intends to route the remaining runoff to the median exfiltration trenches, roadside swales and dry retention basins for some water quality treatment prior to discharge. Runoff from portions of the project will sheet-flow into the bay. In these areas, Petitioner will plant supplemental vegetation along the embankment. Because the existing vegetation is sparse, the post-development planting will stabilize the berms, reduce erosion, and provide some water quality treatment that currently is nonexistent. The total planting area will include 0.7 acres. Prior to planting, Petitioner will remove all Brazillian Pepper from the planting area. Petitioner will subsequently control all nuisance vegetation by approved methods so that it constitutes no more than ten percent of the cover in each stratum. The proposed planting plan is necessary to mitigate the loss of the fringe marsh along the causeway. Petitioner's mitigation plan includes recontouring the steep side slopes of the causeway to lessen the grade and prevent erosion. After analyzing alternative best management practices for efficacy and cost, Petitioner correctly determined that an exfiltration trench system is the most appropriate stormwater treatment for the proposed project. Wet ponds are not feasible because there is not enough land area within the project site and Petitioner's right-of-way to meet pond width and depth criteria. Space requirements and potential for significant wetland impacts limit the use of dry ponds. Petitioner proposes to use roadside swales in only two areas. The exfiltration trenches or "French drains" run the entire length of the proposed project. This type of drain is a pipe with holes in it which is surrounded by rocks and filter fabric. The pipe and the spaces between the rocks provide storage for water as they fill up. The system recovers as the water percolates into the ground water. The exfiltration trench system will decrease the peak runoff rate for the site because it will eliminate the direct discharge of runoff from the new impervious area (3.25 acres). However, the project will result in treatment of only fifty-six percent of the runoff from the project site. The proposed treatment system will collect more water than it is designed to assimilate. Petitioner plans to control erosion and turbidity problems directly related to the construction phase by using hay bales, silt fences, turbidity barriers and other appropriate sediment control measures. Respondent cannot use construction barges to replace the bridges at Rose Bay, Spruce Creek North Relief, or Spruce Creek South Relief because the water at those locations are too shallow. However, the Spruce Creek bridges have enough clearance to allow the use of a sectional barge provided it is off- loaded from the existing road. The project meets the 100-year and 10-year floodplain criteria because of the increased elevations of the bridges and their approaches. The parties have agreed to permit conditions which ensure protection of manatees in the project vicinity during construction. The long term maintenance and operation of the project will not harm endangered or threatened species. The project's impact on the conservation of other fish and wildlife and their habitats is discussed below. The public currently uses the surrounding waterways for navigational and recreational purposes. The proposed project will allow greater access for navigation because the vertical clearance of some of the bridges will be higher. Leisure activities such as fishing have never been very good in Rose Bay. The proposed project will not cause significant additional restrictions on recreational opportunities. The proposed project does not raise concerns about the preservation of any significant archeological or historical resources. The proposed bridges will have a life span of 75 years. Accordingly, the project is permanent in nature. PROBLEMS WITH ROSE BAY Rose Bay is a relatively small, shallow embayment. Like most estuaries, its depth averages a meter to a meter and one half. The bay is microtidal in that the tide heights vary only by one foot. Rose Bay is related to the adjacent southern, eastern, and northwestern marshes. The southern marsh is a high-marsh. These marshes produce the detritus and all the plants and animals that a healthy estuarine system needs. Historically, the marshes and their small creeks have served as drainage areas for the surrounding watershed. They have always been important as flood storage areas. Before urban development of the watershed, the marshes and creeks gradually released freshwater into the saline waters of Rose Bay. During normal tides, these marshes are connected. When the tide is extremely high, the marshes and the bay become a single sheet of water from the causeway (located between the east and west lobes of the bay) to the railroad (located on the western shore of the bay's west lobe) and extending south to Strickland Bay (located west and south of the Spruce Creek bridges.) Ponce Inlet opens to the Atlantic Ocean. It is located approximately three and one half miles to the south and east of Rose Bay. The Halifax River is part of the Intercoastal Waterway to the east of Rose Bay. It flows south between the ocean and the bay. Spruce Creek merges with the Halifax River and wanders down to Ponce Inlet. The flow continues south where it becomes the Indian River. Rose Bay's fish and wildlife habitat is currently degraded and biologically inactive. Its diversity of wildlife is more limited than other estuaries with more healthy ecosystems. As an estuary, Rose Bay should serve as a nursery for fish and a habitat for benthic organisms. It should also serve as a food source for higher organisms such as egrets, herons, ospreys, and other wading birds. At present, Rose Bay's ability to perform these functions is very limited. The water in Rose Bay is turbid. Sunlight cannot penetrate it. A shallow estuary like Rose Bay should have sunlight and oxygen for the aquatic plants that live at the bottom. SOLUTIONS The ongoing degradation of Rose Bay is attributable to two major problems: (a) the input of freshwater carrying pollutants and sediments from the developed upland areas; and (b) the accumulated volume of unconsolidated sediment. As discussed below, man-made obstructions to circulation are not causing significant problems in the bay. Unless the first two problems are corrected, Rose Bay will continue to deteriorate. In that event, the degradation will spread to the surrounding populations of wildlife further reducing diversity. Freshwater has always drained into Rose Bay through surface runoff and subsurface flow. However, in its undeveloped state, the watershed did not discharge enough freshwater to disturb the salinity regime in the bay. Public and private development of Volusia County has altered the natural landscape. Since the turn of the century, Rose Bay's watershed areas have become highly urbanized. The urban areas are major sources of untreated stormwater runoff and associated pollution. The freshwater inputs have altered the natural conditions of the bay's salinity regime. The developments use drainage canals to funnel runoff directly into Rose Bay. The canals are open ditch systems which have no stormwater controls at their outfalls. When the water table elevation is high, the canals discharge fresh groundwater into the bay. They convey sediment as suspended material into Rose Bay. Several tributaries are responsible for the input of freshwater to Rose Bay. The largest contributors of freshwater are: (a) the Nova Canal System at the Halifax Canal outfall which drains part of Daytona Beach and Port Orange to the north; (b) the Cambridge Canal which drains part of Port Orange; and (c) and the Harbor Oaks Canal which drains the residential subdivision on the bay's northern shore between the existing causeway and the old highway island. Freshwater Inputs: Volume and Sediment Loading The first and most important step in the restoration of Rose Bay is to control the volume of freshwater inputs and reduce the sediment loading of runoff through these canals. There is not enough energy in Rose Bay's currents, with or without the causeway, to wash out the incoming material at the rate the surrounding watersheds are presently discharging it. If Petitioner removes the causeway and old highway island before the sediment loading of freshwater inputs is reduced, muck will still accumulate in the bay. There is no persuasive evidence that removal of the causeway alone will reduce the net sediment deposition in Rose Bay. More likely than not, causeway removal will result only in localized variations of sediment accumulation. To the extent that the causeway currently impedes the downstream movement of sediment, its removal presents a potential danger to the Halifax River and other downstream ecosystems. Reducing the sediment loading from the runoff of the surrounding watersheds will require a cooperative effort by federal, state and local governmental entities. These entities include, without limitation, Respondent, Volusia County, and municipalities such as the City of Port Orange. The record contains some evidence that the City of Port Orange is planning to make retrofit improvements for the treatment of stormwater in the Cambridge Canal basin with construction to begin in 1997. Volusia County is in the planning and budgeting stage for a stormwater box which will remove silt from the Harbor Oaks canal. Volusia County also has a conceptual plan and cost estimate for a detention facility in two places along the Nova Canal. There is no persuasive evidence that the entities involved in restoring Rose Bay will successfully accomplish their goals. The time frame in which they might achieve their objective of reducing the sediment inputs is entirely speculative and beyond Petitioner's control. Existing Sediment The second step in restoring Rose Bay requires the removal of the accumulated muck, cohesive materials that flocculate and settle out. This will ameliorate the damage done by decades of excessive freshwater input. It will also eliminate any danger that existing muck will travel downstream to the Halifax River if and when Petitioner agrees to remove the causeway and/or the old highway islands. Freshwater slows down when it enters the broader area of the bay allowing sediment to settle on the bottom. The muck in Rose Bay is high in organics and metal concentrations. Over the years, this silt or muck has accumulated to a greater degree in some areas than others. There is no accumulation of sediment in areas where the flow of water is constricted causing the current to have an increased rate of velocity. For instance, the bottom is firm where water flows under the railroad trestle bridge on the western side of the bay. The bottom is also firm where the water flows under the Rose Bay bridges. The tidal flow sours these areas. There is a minimal amount of muck on the seaward side of the causeway to the southeast of the spoil islands or old US 1 causeway. There is no impediment to tidal flushing in this area. The sediment ranges from 3.78 to 6.4 feet deep on the western side of the causeway and south of the Rose Bay bridges. The dredge hole for the new causeway is now level with silt to a depth of about two and half to three feet. In some areas of the central bay at low tide, there is a foot and a half of water over the muck. Below the water, the muck ranges between three and six feet deep. Areas along the northern shore of the bay's west lobe have hard bottoms where there is good circulation. On the other hand, muck in areas along the southern shore of the west lobe extends above the water level at low tide. In the middle of the bay's west lobe, at the midpoint between the causeway and the railroad trestle, the mud is four to five feet deep with less than a foot of water at mean-low tide. On the northwestern side of the bay near the isthmus, sediment has accumulated to the mean-water level. Therefore, mud is exposed at any tide below the mean high. In the eastern lobe of Rose Bay, the elevation of the water over the mud is almost three feet at mean-low tide and over four feet at mean-high tide. The muck in the middle of the eastern lobe is 8.79 feet deep. Sediment has accumulated to a depth of over six feet in places along the northern shore of the east lobe. Natural ecosystems generally have firm bottoms which allow animals like oysters and other shellfish to build communities. In their free swimming larvae stage, shellfish seek and anchor on hard bottoms so that they will not be washed away by tidal currents as they begin their life. They also need relatively silt-free tidal water to provide them with a plankton component because they are filter feeders. Other animals that depend on firm bottoms are marine worms, mussels and crown snails that move around on hard bottoms. Clams need a firm bottom so they can burrow into it and put up their siphon tube to get food. The bottom of Rose Bay is too soft for these types of animals to find attachment points or to support themselves. The accumulated silt in Rose Bay reduces the habitat for shrimp and crabs that move along the bottom. Crabs can move across softer substrates but the muck inhibits the growth of oysters on which the crabs can feed. One would expect to find redfish in parts of Rose Bay where the flow is constricted. However, the muck reduces the feeding habitat of the redfish. Live oysters and clams are only found in areas of the bay which have no sediment accumulation. Oysters have not been commercially harvested from Rose Bay since the 1960s. At that time, water quality tests showed high bacteriological counts which resulted in closure of the bay for purposes of commercial shellfishing. The accumulated silt in Rose Bay could be removed hydraulically or by traditional dredging. The muck is high in organics but contains no industrial wastes or hazardous material. Therefore, the material could be disposed of in a landfill or used for some beneficial purpose. The sediments can also be removed by bioremediation which injects nutrients and oxygen into the muck. Bioremediation would cause the muck to oxidize in place. Removal of the muck is a reasonable engineering alternative after its source is reduced. Once the demucking process begins, removal of the muck could take from five to ten years depending on the method used. The City of Port Orange has identified city property adjacent to Rose Bay as a location for a staging facility to remove the muck. The record contains no evidence of a commitment by the City of Port Orange or any other governmental entity to study the effects of removing sediment buildup much less to actually implement a plan to demuck the bay. Impediments to Flow Rose Bay's tidal force is naturally restricted by the distance it must travel from the ocean. It is hydraulically connected to the Halifax River which runs parallel to the coast east of the bay. In order to reach Rose Bay, the tide meanders through shallow creeks and around mangrove islands between Rose Bay and the main channel of the Halifax River. The tide's velocity and amplitude is already attenuated by the time it reaches the causeway. Even with no obstructions to flow, Rose Bay is too shallow and wide to cause a balanced flushing action. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Rose Bay did not really "flush" in its undeveloped state. The causeway acts like a dam to some extent. It constricts the uniform flow of water in and out of the western lobe of Rose Bay. The only opening in the causeway is the 200 foot span of the Rose Bay bridges. The narrow opening causes the velocity of the current to increase dramatically as it passes under the bridge. However, there is no persuasive evidence that the causeway actually reduces the quantity of water that passes under the bridge. The old highway island in the bay's eastern lobe also redirects the flow of water. The narrow openings on either side of the island increase the velocity of water as it passes through those areas creating circular flow patterns in the eastern lobe. During the application review process, Petitioner proposed a memorandum of understanding in which it agreed to consider removal of the old highway island and the man-made spoil islands at the mouth of Rose Bay for inclusion in an mitigation bank as credits for Petitioner's other projects. The parties were unsuccessful in concluding their negotiations regarding these matters. The record contains no other evidence as to what entity owns and controls the old highway island. Therefore, it is highly speculative whether Petitioner or any other entity will be able to remove this obstacle, and if so, when such a task might be completed. The railroad trestle on the bay's western shore is another constriction to flow. However, it is not a major obstruction because it has little or no causeway. Together, the causeway and old highway island alter the circulation patterns in the bay to some extent. They create circulation dead zones. Silt accumulates in their shadow. Removal of the causeway will eliminate some of the dead zones. Removal of the causeway and the old highway island will restore the bay's natural flow pattern and allow dispersion of the sediment over a larger area. Nevertheless, the causeway alone is not making a significant contribution to the process which is slowly changing the bay from an estuarine system to a freshwater system. The most significant factor that affects circulation in Rose Bay is related to the large volume of freshwater that is discharged into the bay from the drainage ditches. Tidal flows, with or without the causeway, are much less important than the freshwater flows in determining the bay's circulation regime. This flow of freshwater has created two-layer flow. With two layers of flow, one layer is isolated from the other and vertical mixing between the two does not occur. Mixing of the layers is important for the exchange of dissolved oxygen to the bottom layers. Without oxygen, the sediments at the bottom become anaerobic. Two-layered flow is common for an estuary with strong freshwater inputs and minor tidal forces. The influence of the freshwater flow in Rose Bay is so strong that, even after the removal of the obstacles, the direction of the residual current will be downstream in the top layer and upstream in the more saline bottom layer. The net direction for the residual velocity will always be downstream unless the freshwater inputs are reduced to the level that eliminates two-layer flow. It will be impossible to reduce all freshwater inflows to the bay; therefore, it will be necessary to reduce the suspended solids in the freshwater inputs substantially and to remove existing accumulations of muck before making any improvements that return the circulation regime to its natural condition. Otherwise, the downstream flow will transport the incoming sediment and the existing muck into the Halifax River. The circulation dead zones and places with circular flow patterns correspond to areas of accumulated sediment. Removal of both flow impediments will change the directional flow patterns in the eastern and western lobes of the bay to some extent--more in the former than the latter. However, there is no persuasive evidence that the change in flow patterns for either of the lobes will cause a significant reduction in the sediment accumulation except in localized areas. Installing a thirty foot opening or two ten by six foot culverts in the causeway will not create a significant improvement in the circulation of Rose Bay. Any thing less than complete removal of the causeway and the old highway island will not provide a noticeable change in the bay's circulation patterns. Wind is an important factor in the circulation of Rose Bay. The causeway impedes wind-driven flow. There have been no studies to document the impact of wind on the circulation regime in the bay with or without the causeway. Sediment accumulation will continue as long as the watersheds discharge suspended solids into the bay. Estuaries are depositional environments by nature; they naturally accumulate silt to some degree. Rose Bay is typical in this regard. As an open water system, Rose Bay and the mangrove detrital system in the marsh adjacent to the bay may be able to assimilate a higher level of sediment input than normal and still support a healthy estuarine system. However, the record does not document what the normal level of sediment absorption is or what higher level of sediment input the mangrove swamp might have to absorb to retain a healthy estuarine system after removal of the causeway. Evidence indicating that removal of the causeway alone will result in the slow, safe resuspension and assimilation of the muck over fifty years is not persuasive. Replacement of the causeway with a bridge span would add two and a half million dollars to the cost of the proposed project in bridge construction costs alone. That figure does not include the costs associated with: (a) redesign of the project; (b) causeway removal; (c) removal of the old highway island; and (d) all related activities. Redesign of the project to accommodate causeway removal will take two and a half years. The long term operation and maintenance of the Rose Bay bridges and causeway will not cause significant adverse impacts in the bay. The existing causeway is a minor hydraulic restriction. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that removal of the causeway will have no beneficial effect on the restoration of the bay without: (a) a substantial reduction in the freshwater inputs and sediment loading; (b) removal of the existing muck; and (c) removal of the old highway island. MITIGATION Petitioner initially proposed to install two ten by six foot side-by- side box culverts in the causeway as mitigation for the project's 0.2 acre of wetland impacts at an additional cost of approximately one hundred thousand dollars. Petitioner subsequently withdrew its proposal to install the culverts because of the difficulty in quantifying the long term effect the culverts would have on the bay, i.e. effects on water quality, downstream erosion, and flushing of accumulated sediments. The record now contains persuasive evidence that construction of the culverts alone will not benefit Rose Bay. Petitioner submitted a revised mitigation plan to reestablish a vegetated buffer of marsh species in those areas that will be disturbed and for areas which are unvegetated and susceptible to erosion. The total area of marsh plantings will be 0.7 acres along eleven shoreline lengths. Additionally, Petitioner plans to plant shrubs along upland portions of the causeway to further buffer the wetlands from the roadway. Respondent found this planting scheme insufficient to offset adverse impacts of the project. Respondent took the position that the impacts and effects of the proposed project extend beyond the immediate project vicinity. Respondent suggested that Petitioner consider removal of the causeway and construction of a bridge across Rose Bay. Petitioner did not find this alternative acceptable. The parties also considered development of a mitigation bank in which Petitioner could earn credits for other projects in exchange for performing mitigation in Rose Bay. These negotiations between the parties were unsuccessful. FACTUAL CONCLUSIONS Petitioner has provided reasonable assurances that the construction, maintenance and operation of the project will not adversely impact: (a) the quality of receiving waters; (b) navigation; (c) recreational opportunities; (d) conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats; (e) wetland functions; (f) existing surface water storage and conveyance capacity; and (g) Respondent's overall objectives for the district. Instead, the project will provide a net improvement to these factors over existing conditions. Concerns related to the project's discharge of untreated stormwater, constrictions which alter the bay's circulation patterns, and accumulation of sediment in the causeway's shadow are negligible when compared to the damage currently being caused by freshwater inputs loaded with sediment and total sediment accumulation. There is no persuasive evidence that the project will exacerbate the ongoing degradation of Rose Bay. The project's proposed design and best management practices are appropriate for the existing site specific conditions. The probable efficacy and costs of alternative plans, such as removal of the causeway and the old highway island, are not reasonable until such time as the freshwater inputs, sediment loading, and accumulated muck can be reduced and/or eliminated. Additionally, it is not reasonable to require Petitioner to make further expensive repairs to the existing causeway and bridges pending correction of the primary problems which may or may not ever occur. Even though the project is permanent in nature, it is, on balance, clearly in the public interest to proceed with the project as designed at this time. The project provides a net improvement to the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The increased elevation of the bridges will enhance navigational and recreational opportunities for many years to come. The new bridges will have fewer pilings thereby reducing adverse impacts to Spruce Creek and Rose Bay. Treatment of stormwater where none currently exists will improve the quality of water that the existing site is discharging, untreated, directly into the bay. The revised mitigation plan will be especially effective in offsetting the project's wetland impacts and reducing the potential for soil erosion in the immediate project vicinity. The totality of the record indicates that the current ambient water quality in Rose Bay is severely degraded and slowly continuing to deteriorate. This degradation is primarily due to factors not related to the existing causeway and bridges. The project will discharge some untreated stormwater due to unavoidable site limitations. However, this discharge of untreated stormwater will not significantly lower the existing ambient water quality or result in significant violations of water quality standards. To the contrary, the proposed project will result in a net improvement to the quality of the bay's receiving waters over time. The project provides for enhanced public use of Rose Bay. It facilitates the maintenance of a major transportation corridor that existed prior to the effective date of Rose Bay's designation as an OFW. Petitioner's design implements appropriate management practices and suitable technology for site specific conditions. There is no record evidence of a viable alternative to the proposed activity, including complete causeway removal or undertaking no change, except at an unreasonably higher cost. Nothing short of complete removal of the causeway and the old highway island will restore the bay's natural flow patterns or prevent the accumulation of sediment in their shadow. Petitioner has removed parts of causeways on other projects permitted by Respondent. Removal of the impediments to flow may at some point in the future be necessary to help balance tidal forces with freshwater inputs after the latter has been reduced and accumulated muck is eliminated. In the mean time, Petitioner is entitled to MSSW and WRM permits
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that Respondent enter a final order granting Petitioner a MSSW and a WRM permit for the subject applications in accordance with the terms and conditions as recommended in the technical staff reports presented at hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD, 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 13th day of June, 1996. APPENDIX The following constitutes specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-4. Accepted in Findings of Fact (FOF) 1-5. Accepted in FOF 18. Accepted in FOF 33. 7-8. Accepted in FOF 35-37. Accepted in FOF 6. Accepted in FOF 9. 11-13. Accepted in FOF 11-13. 14-16. Accepted in FOF 7-8. 17. Accepted in FOF 63, 69, & 74-83. 18. Accepted in FOF 9-10. 19-20. Accepted in FOF 19-20. 21. Accepted in FOF 3 & 5. 22. Accepted in FOF 16-17. 23. Accepted in FOF 18 & 27. 24. Accepted in FOF 14 & 16. 25. Accepted in FOF 21-22. 26. Accepted in FOF 23 & 27. 27. Accepted in FOF 24. 28. Accepted in FOF 26. 29-30. Accepted in FOF 25. 31. Accepted in FOF 27. 32. Accepted in FOF 29 & as restated in FOF 28. Accepted as subordinate to FOF 27-30. Accepted in FOF 30. 35-39. Accepted in FOF 31-37. 40-46. Accepted in FOF 38-45. Accepted in FOF 50. Accepted in FOF 15. 49-53. Accepted in FOF 7, 9, 12-13, & 42. 54-107. For the most part, these proposed findings of facts are repetitious of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact 1-53. To the extent they are not repetitious, the are accepted in part as subordinate to FOF 7-52, 112-115, & 116-122. Specifically reject any proposed finding of fact stating that the project will not result violations of water quality standards or lower the existing ambient water quality. However, any such impacts will not be significant. The project will result in a net improvement to the quality of receiving waters over existing conditions. See FOF 116-122. 108-144. Accepted as subordinate to 53-111, 112-115, & 116- 122. 145-154. Accepted as subordinate to 53-122. 155-202. Accepted in part and rejected in part. See FOF 53- 122. The hydrodynamic modeling analysis was persuasive evidence that the causeway alters the bays's circulation regime and that sediment accumulates in the shadow of the causeway. It was not persuasive evidence that the causeway restricts the quantity of water flowing in and out of the bay's west lobe. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that the freshwater inputs, loaded with sediment, are primarily responsible for the bay's degraded condition. The causeway is a minor hydraulic restriction. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-30. Accepted as restated in FOF 1-52. 31-58. Accepted in part and rejected in part. See FOF 53- 111. Specifically reject proposed findings 34 & 37. The causeway is not a major cause for the lack of circulation and flushing in the bay. The man-made obstructions to flow are not causing significant problems. Removal of the causeway and the old highway island will eliminate circulation dead zones and prevent the accumulation of sediment in their shadow. However, there is no persuasive evidence that removal of these obstructions to flow will significantly improve the habitat of Rose Bay as a whole. Reject proposed findings 38-40 because there is no persuasive evidence that creating an opening in the causeway would: create more flow; diminish the bay's bacterial problem; reduce the impact of freshwater inputs; or quickly restore the bay's biological system. Reject first sentence of proposed finding of fact 43 because the extent to which the bay can be restored is speculative. Reject the second sentence of proposed finding of fact 43 as not supported by persuasive evidence. Reject proposed findings of fact 45-58 in part because the extent and effect of commitment by Volusia County and the City of Port Orange to restore Rose Bay is vague and speculative. There is no persuasive evidence that either of these entities will ever achieve their alleged goals. 59-96. Accepted in part and rejected in part. See FOF 63- 93. Proposed findings of fact 61 is overbroad. The first sentence of proposed findings of fact 84 is over broad. Reject proposed finding of fact 88-95 because no persuasive evidence as to which method should be used to remove accumulated sediment or how long it will take to complete the job after that decision is made. There is no evidence that any entity will be able to secure the necessary permits and funding to remove the sediment. Proposed findings of fact 96 is rejected as contrary to more persuasive evidence. 97-152. Accepted in part and rejected in part. See FOF 94- 111. Reject any proposed finding that the causeway restricts the quantity of water flowing in and out of the bay's west lobe as contrary to more persuasive evidence. Proposed findings of fact 103-104 rejected as contrary to more persuasive evidence. Rose Bay does not and never did really "flush." Removing the causeway and the old highway island would restore a natural circulation pattern but would not cause the bay to flush. Proposed findings of fact 110-144 accepted but subordinate to FOF 94-111. Reject proposed findings of fact 145 because Rose Bay will always be a depositional environment. Reject proposed findings of fact 146 as overbroad and not supported by persuasive evidence. Proposed findings of fact 147 is misleading because removal of the causeway will have only a localized effect on sediment accumulation. Proposed finding of fact 152 is rejected as not supported by persuasive evidence. 153. Not a finding of fact. 154-176. Accepted in part as subordinate to FOF 31-52, 112- 115, 116-122. 177-178. Not findings of fact. 179. Rejected as overbroad and not supported by persuasive evidence. 180-181. Not findings of fact. 182. Rejected as not supported by persuasive evidence. 183. Not a finding of fact. 184-205. Rejected to the extent of any conflict with more persuasive evidence in support of FOF 116-122. 206-219. Accepted as subordinate to 112-115. COPIES FURNISHED: Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Nancy B. Barnard, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Henry Dean, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429
Findings Of Fact The petitioners Petitioners are special taxing districts and political subdivisions of the State of Florida, which were created pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes. The petitioners and their pertinent structures and operations were authorized by Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of providing irrigation, drainage and flood protection for the landowners within their respective boundaries. In order to effect this purpose, the petitioners designed and operate their water control structures to pump excess stormwater and surface water directly to Lake Okeechobee (the "Lake") in the case of East Beach Water Control District (East Beach) and directly to the Rim Canal at the southern end of the Lake in the case of South Shore Drainage District (South Shore), East Shore Water Control District (East Shore), and South Florida Conservancy District (South Florida). East Beach covers a total area of approximately 6,542 acres located along the southeast shore of the Lake. Approximately 75-80 percent of the lands contained within the District are used for agriculture, with most of those lands planted in sugarcane. The remaining 20-25 percent of the drainage area is urbanized. The urban area includes the City of Pahokee. South Shore covers a total area of approximately 4,230 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake. Approximately 80-85 percent of the lands contained within the District are used for agriculture, with most of those lands planted in sugarcane. The remaining 15-20 percent of the drainage area is urban and industrial. The urban area includes a portion of the cities in South Bay, Lake Harbor, Bean City, South Shore Village, and sparsely scattered home sites throughout the District. East Shore covers a total area of approximately 8,136 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake. With the exception of lands developed as canals, levees, roads, and other service-related systems, the entire district is used for agricultural purposes. South Florida covers a total area of approximately 32,754 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake with 28,649 acres located in Palm Beach County and 4,105 acres located in Hendry County. Approximately 85-90 percent of the land is used for agricultural purposes and the remaining 10-15 percent is used for urban or industrial purposes. The City of Belle Glade constitutes a major part of the urban land with the remainder situated around the cities of South Bay, Lake Harbor and other scattered home sites. Here, the parties have stipulated that petitioners have standing to maintain this challenge. Background Before 1986, petitioners' discharges into the Lake had not been regulated by the respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (Department). In 1985 the Governor of the State of Florida issued Executive Order Number 86-150. This executive order observed that the Lake Okeechobee Technical Committee, formed to study water quality and water supply conditions in the Lake, had found the Lake to be in danger of becoming hypereutrophic because of the excessive amounts of nutrients, especially phosphorus, it was receiving, and had recommended corrective actions to substantially reduce the nutrient load and provide for long-term monitoring, research and management needs for the Lake. To protect and preserve the Lake, the executive order directed, inter alia, that the Department "bring all private and publically controlled backpumping sources into the lake under permit review or under enforcement for operating without a permit." Pursuant to that executive order, the Department, in concert with petitioners, began the process of regulating petitioners' discharges into the Lake. The Department initially attempted to have the petitioners enter into consent orders; however, the petitioners objected to that concept. Ultimately, both the Department and petitioners agreed to the issuance of short-term operating permits (TOPs) containing specific conditions aimed at determining the composition of the discharges from petitioners' systems and at reducing the pollution loading into the Lake. The TOPs, issued December 30, 1986, and effective until September 23, 1988, were issued pursuant to the Department's regulatory authority over pollution sources contained in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. 2/ Pertinent to this case, Section 403.088, Florida Statutes, provided, and continues to provide, as follows: 403.088 Water pollution operation permits; temporary permits; conditions-- (1) No person, without written authorization of the department, shall discharge into waters within the state any waste which by itself or in combination with the wastes or other sources, reduces the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them . . . (2)(a) Any person intending to discharge wastes into the waters of the state shall make application to the department for an operation permit. Application shall be made on a form prescribed by the department and shall contain such information as the department requires. If the department finds that the proposed discharge will reduce the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them, it shall deny the application and refuse to issue a permit. . . (3)(a) A person who does not qualify for an operation permit or has been denied an operation permit under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) may apply to the department for a temporary operation permit . . . After consideration of the application, any additional information furnished, and all written objections submitted, the department shall grant or deny a temporary operation permit. No temporary permit shall be granted by the department unless it affirmatively finds: The proposed discharge does not qualify for an operation permit; The applicant is constructing, installing, or placing into operation, or has submitted plans and reasonable schedules of constructing, installing or placing into operation, an approved pollution abatement facility or alternate waste disposal system, or that the applicant has a waste for which no feasible and acceptable method of treatment or disposal is known or recognized but is making a bona fide effort through research and other means to discover and implement such a method; The applicant needs permission to pollute the waters within the state for a period of time necessary to complete research, planning, construction, installation, or operation of an approved and acceptable pollution abatement facility or alternate waste disposal system; There is no present, reasonable, alternative means of disposing of the waste other than by discharging it into the waters of the state; The denial of a temporary operation permit would work an extreme hardship upon the applicant; The granting of a temporary operation permit will be in the public interest; or The discharge will not be unreasonably destructive to the quality of the receiving waters. A temporary operation permit issued shall: Specify the manner, nature, volume, and frequency of the discharge permitted; Require the proper operation and maintenance of any interim or temporary pollution abatement facility or system required by the department as a condition of the permit; Require the permitholder to maintain such monitoring equipment and make and file such records and reports as the department deems necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of the permit and to evaluate the effect of the discharge upon the receiving waters; Be valid only for the period of time necessary for the permit holder to place into operation the facility, system, or method contemplated in his application as determined by the department; and Contain other requirements and restrictions which the department deems necessary and desirable to protect the quality of the receiving waters and promote the public interest. And, Section 403.927, Florida Statutes, provided, and continues to provide, as follows: 403.927 Use of water in farming and forestry activities.-- . . . it is the intent of the Legislature to provide for the construction and operation of agricultural water management systems under authority granted to water management districts and to control, by the department or by delegation of authority to water management districts, the ultimate discharge from agricultural water management systems. . . . The department may require a stormwater permit or appropriate discharge permit at the ultimate point of discharge from an agricultural water management system or a group of connected agricultural water management systems. . . (4) As used in this section, the term: * * * (b) "Agricultural water management systems" means farming and forestry water management or irrigation systems and farm ponds which are permitted pursuant to chapter 373 or which are exempt from the permitting provisions of that chapter. The agricultural water management systems owned and operated by petitioners fall within the definition of "agricultural water management systems" set forth in Section 403.927(4)(b), Florida Statutes. Consistent with the provisions of Section 403.088, Florida Statutes, Rule 17-4.070(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides: A permit shall be issued to the applicant upon such conditions as the Department may direct, only if the applicant affirmatively provides the Department with reasonable assurance based on plans, test results, installation of pollution control equipment, or other information, that the construction, expansion, modification, operation, or activity of the installation will not discharge, emit or cause pollution in contravention of Department standards or rules. However, for discharges of wastes to water, the Department may issue temporary operation permits under the criteria set forth in Section 403.088(3), F.S. Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, further delineates the specific procedures to obtain permits and the specific standards for issuing and denying permits. In July 1988, petitioners applied for an extension of their TOPs. The monthly water quality monitoring data petitioners had submitted to the Department reflected, however, that the discharges from petitioners' systems were in contravention of the Department's rules and standards. Accordingly, since petitioners had not met the obligations set forth in the TOPs, the Department advised petitioners that the TOPs would not be extended and that they were required to apply for new operating permits. The new permit applications Following the Department's refusal to extend the TOPs, petitioners filed applications for operating permits for their discharges, and the Department, consistent with its previous reviews, undertook its review pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Effective July 1, 1989, however, Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, was amended with regard to, inter alia, the definition of stormwater management systems so as to include pumped discharges such as petitioners. Further, pertinent to this case, Part IV of Chapter 373 provided: 373.416 Permits for maintenance or operation-- (1) . . . the governing board or department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the operation or maintenance of any stormwater management system, dam, impoundment, reservoir, appurtenant work, or works will comply with the provisions of this part and applicable rules promulgated thereto, will not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district, and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district. 373.418 Rulemaking; preservation of existing authority.-- It is the intent of the Legislature that stormwater management systems be regulated under this part incorporating all of existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403. Neither the department nor governing boards are limited or prohibited from amending any regulatory requirement applicable to stormwater management systems in accordance with the provisions of this part. It is further the intent of the Legislature that all current exemptions under chapters 373 and 403 shall remain in full force and effect and that this act shall not be construed to remove or alter these exemptions. In order to preserve existing requirements, all rules of the department or governing boards existing on July 1, 1989, . . . shall be applicable to stormwater management systems and continue in full force and effect unless amended or replaced by future rulemaking in accordance with this part. Upon the amendment of Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, petitioners amended their pending applications to reflect their desire that the applications be processed pursuant to the newly amended provisions of Part IV, Chapter 373, as they relate to stormwater management systems. The Department, acknowledging the amendments to chapter 373, processed the applications accordingly; however, in view of the provisions of section 373.418(1) which "incorporat[ed] all of the existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403," the Department did not in fact change the standards by which these applications were reviewed, to wit: Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. On March 14, 1991, the Department issued a notice of permit denial to each petitioner. In each of the denials, the Department noted the provisions of Section 373.416(1), Florida Statutes, ["the . . . department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the operation . . . of any stormwater system . . . will comply with the provisions of this part and applicable rules promulgated thereto . . . and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district"] and Section 373.418(1), Florida Statutes, ["incorporating all of existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403"], and concluded that the applications should be denied for the following reasons: The Department has completed its review of the subject application, supporting documents and the discharge monitoring reports submitted by the applicant as required by Department Permit NO. IT50- 125678. Based on this review the Department has made the determination that the applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the discharge from the agricultural stormwater management system proposed by the applicant will be in compliance with the aforementioned sections of Chapter 373, F.S. and the Class I Surface Water Quality Standards adopted by the Department pursuant to Chapter 403.061, F.S. and contained in Section 17-302.540, F.A.C. and the Antidegradation Policy for Surface Water Quality contained in Section 17-302.300(3), F.A.C. The Department's action is facially consistent with the provisions of chapter 373, and chapter 403 incorporated therein, as well as the existing rules adopted pursuant to such chapters which require, whether the system be exempt or not, that discharges comply with state water quality standards. See e.g., Sections 373.416, 373.418, 403.088 and 403.927, Florida Statutes, and Rules 17- 4.070(1), 17-25.060, 17-25.080, and Chapter 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code. Availing themselves of the point of entry accorded by the notice of permit denial, petitioners filed a request for administrative hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to contest the denial of their applications. Such proceedings are currently pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings, but distinct from this proceeding under Section 120.535, Florida Statutes. The Section 120.535 challenge The challenged policy, as alleged in paragraphs 19 of the petition, purports to be as follows: The Department has made a policy determination, which draws a distinction between "agricultural stormwater discharges" and other stormwater discharges regulated by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Department has identified the Petitioners' discharge as "agricultural stormwater discharges" and has subjected the petitioners to a set of rules and criteria that the Department has not adopted but which are apparently different from the general stormwater regulations adopted pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Such articulation of the challenged policy is substantially identical to petitioner's statement of the issue identified in their proposed final order, as follows: The issue for determination in this case is whether the Department's policy to apply criteria different from that contained in its "Regulation of Stormwater Discharge" Rule 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, and/or Rule 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code, of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), when seeking to regulate an agricultural stormwater management system, as defined in Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, constitutes a rule . . . . The premises for the petitioners' challenge are their contention that the Department has drawn a distinction between the agricultural stormwater discharges of petitioners and other stormwater discharges, which is not supported by statutory or duly promulgated rules, and that the Department has applied criteria, which are not supported by statutory or duly promulgated rules, to evaluate petitioners' applications. The credible proof fails, however, to support petitioners' premises. Contrary to the assertions raised by petitioners, the statutory and duly promulgated rules heretofore discussed provide ample authority for the Department's action, and there is no credible proof that the Department is applying any criteria that is not apparent from an application or reading of such statutes and existing rules. Indeed, Rule 17-25.060(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides: The permit requirements of Chapter 17-4 or other applicable rules, rather than those of this chapter, shall apply to discharges which are a combination of stormwater and industrial or domestic wastewater or which are otherwise contaminated by non-stormwater sources unless: (a) the stormwater discharge facility is capable of providing treatment of the non- stormwater component sufficient to meet state water quality standards . . . . Here, the proof is compelling that the Department's decision was predicated on existing statutory and rule authority, and that it did not apply any criteria not promulgated as a rule or not contained within existing statutory authority to evaluate petitioners' applications, or treat petitioners' discharges differently than any other stormwater discharge contaminated by non-stormwater sources.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC (Mosaic), has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed mining and reclamation of the South Fort Meade Mine in Hardee County can be conducted in a manner that comports with the applicable statutes and rules such that the proposed Environmental Resource Permit (ERP), Conceptual Reclamation Plan (CRP), variance from minimum standards for dissolved oxygen, and variance from littoral zone percentage provisions for the Project should be issued by Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (Department).
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Mosaic is a limited liability company authorized to do business in the State of Florida and is the applicant in these proceedings. It was formed by the merger of IMC Phosphates Company and Cargill, Inc., in 2004. Mosaic has applied for permits to mine, reclaim, and conduct associated activities on property in Hardee County, Florida, known as the South Fort Meade Hardee County tract. These activities are referred to in this Recommended Order as the "Project" or "site." The Department is a state agency with jurisdiction over ERP permitting under Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, for phosphate mining activities with jurisdiction over phosphate mining reclamation under Part III, Chapter 378, Florida Statutes, and with jurisdiction over variances associated with phosphate mining under Section 403.201, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to that authority, the Department reviewed the ERP, CRP, DO Variance, and Zone Variance applications for the Project. Lee and Sarasota Counties are political subdivisions of the State of Florida. Both Counties have filed challenges to other mining applications and have been found to have standing in those cases. The site is located within the Greater Charlotte Harbor Basin, approximately sixty percent of which lies within Lee County. In this case, Lee County is concerned about the potential destruction of stream and wetlands in the mine area and the impact of mining and its effects on Charlotte Harbor and the Peace River. Sarasota County is a member of the Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority, and they jointly hold a water use permit, which authorizes them to withdraw water from the Peace River for potable supply. Sarasota County operates a water treatment plant on the Peace River downstream from the site and is concerned with potential impacts to water quality and wetlands. After three years of data collection and site analysis, on October 13, 2006, Mosaic filed applications with the Department's Bureau of Mine Reclamation for an ERP/Water Qualify Certification for the disturbance of approximately 7,756 acres of uplands, wetlands, and other surface waters within a 10,856– acre area which makes up the site; a CRP for the same parcel; and the associated Zone and DO Variances. Three sets of additional information were requested by the Department, and on January 31, 2008, the applications were deemed to be complete. On June 30, 2008, the Department issued Notices of Intent to issue the permits and grant the variances. The Project is located within the Peace River Basin. Little Charlie Creek, a tributary to the Peace River, enters the site in the northeast part of the tract and flows diagonally across the tract in a general southwest direction. The Project is located to the east of the Peace River, east of the town of Bowling Green, northeast of the City of Wauchula, and just south of the Polk-Hardee County Line in Hardee County, Florida. The Project site is twenty-nine miles from the Sarasota County line and fifty-three miles from the Lee County line. The Peace River eventually empties into Charlotte Harbor near Port Charlotte in Charlotte County. The Project consists of approximately eighty percent of upland land cover types, including large acreages converted to agricultural uses, such as cattle grazing, citrus production, and row crop production. The Project site consists primarily of citrus groves and pasture. Richard W. Cantrell, Deputy Director of Water Resources for the Department, has extensive experience and knowledge concerning agricultural parcels of this size in Central Florida. Based on his familiarity with the site, he indicated that all the streams have been impacted, the impacts to some areas of the site are severe, and the "site contains some of the most polluted streams with respect to sedimentation that I have ever seen." The other Mosaic and Department ecological experts familiar with the site concurred in that assessment, and the substantial data collections and application information support that assessment of the site. Of the 2,590.7 acres of wetlands on the property, approximately 751 acres of wetlands and other surface waters will be impacted. Of that 751, 91 are upland cut ditches or cattle ponds, 108 acres are other surface waters, and 274 acres are herbaceous wetlands. Virtually all of the native upland vegetation on the site has been destroyed due to the agricultural activities that have been undertaken on the site over time. Only remnant patches of native upland remain on the site. These comprise approximately nine percent of the site and are predominantly within the riparian corridors of Little Charlie Creek and the Peace River and are proposed to be preserved. The evidence established that the majority of the wetlands and streams proposed for impact are lower in quality; the higher quality wetlands are typically associated with the riparian stream corridors and are proposed to be preserved. The preserved uplands are primarily pasture but also include one hundred thirty-nine acres of upland forest. Twenty-nine distinct vegetative communities were mapped on the site during approximately two years of evaluation and assessment utilizing the Florida Land Use, Cover and Classification System (FLUCCS). There are numerous natural stream segments that were mapped on the parcel including the primary drainage systems on site, consisting of the Peace River, Little Charlie Creek, Lake Dale Branch, Parker Branch, and Max Branch. Substantial portions of the natural streams and their flood plains will be preserved; sixty-two natural stream segments totaling 58,769 linear feet will be mined. No sovereign submerged lands are proposed to be impacted by the activities. The Peace River to its ordinary high water line is sovereign submerged lands; however, no other streams on site are claimed as sovereign. Therefore, no authorization to utilize or impact sovereign submerged lands is required. The field work assessing the ecological condition of the site's wetlands, streams, and surface waters consisted of detailed quantitative and qualitative assessments using FLUCCS, the Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure, and the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM) codified in Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62-345. The level of assessment expended in evaluating the native upland and wetland habitats on the site was considerable and provided reasonable assurances that the current condition and relative value of the systems were adequately considered in the permitting process. From 2002 to 2004, Mosaic conducted intense ecological evaluations of the site, evaluating historical and aerial photography and other site documentation and conducting extensive examinations in the field, including vegetative, macroinvertebrate, and fish sampling and surveying, surface and ground water quality and quantity monitoring, wildlife observations, surveys and trapping, stream mapping and evaluation, soil analysis, and other efforts, both in areas to be mined and areas to be preserved, and in both uplands and in wetlands. The ecological assessments were primarily conducted prior to the hurricane events of 2004, although additional field work was conducted following the hurricanes. Mosaic and the Department's experts revisited the site in the fall of 2008 and agreed that the various ecological and biological assessments conducted prior to the hurricanes would tend to overstate the quality of the site as compared to its current condition. The hurricanes caused a significant amount of damage to the remaining forested habitats on the site. A formal wetland jurisdictional determination was issued and published without challenge in 2007 and therefore conclusively establishes the boundaries of the wetlands and surface waters on the site for permitting purposes. Seasonal surveys for wildlife on the site were conducted in 2003-2004 using the wildlife survey methodology prescribed and approved by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Specialized wildlife surveys and night-time surveys were also conducted. A total of 4,600 man hours of effort were expended to evaluate the presence of fish and wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, on the site. The entire site was surveyed, with over 2,600 miles of wildlife transects, to assess the presence of wildlife, and detailed information was recorded for all wildlife observations, including anecdotal observations by the ecologists performing the wetland assessments. Mosaic also engaged in an extensive effort to identify the natural stream channels proposed for impacts on the site. After discussion with the Department staff, Mosaic distinguished the natural streams in accordance with FLUCCS codes 511, 512, 513, and 514, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-16.0051(4). Streams are a subset of the term "other surface waters" for ERP purposes. Although streams are defined in Section 373.019(18), Florida Statutes, as are other watercourses and surface waters, there is no operative use of, or reference to, streams in Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, governing ERP permits. Also, there are no specific ERP mitigation requirements applicable to streams. Thus, the only specific regulatory use of the word "stream" occurs in the context of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-16.0051, and not the ERP rules. The Department and Mosaic established that the delineation of streams proposed for impact by mining on the site was sufficient and adequate for purposes of the CRP rules. In addition, Mr. Cantrell stated that, for purposes of the acre- for-acre, type-for-type (for wetlands) and linear foot (for streams) reclamation requirements in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-16.0051, the Department required Mosaic to delineate a stream as such until the point it enters or after it leaves a wetland area and to delineate the wetland polygon itself as a wetland, not a stream. This is true even if water continues to flow through the wetlands and reform as a stream at the other side. If the stream will not be impacted, then nothing in either the ERP or CRP rules requires its precise delineation, because the CRP rules apply only to reclamation of impacted areas. Thus, Lee County's assertion that "streams" has some special status by virtue of the definition in Section 373.019(18), Florida Statutes, has not been accepted. Mr. Cantrell further testified that the Department utilizes a substantially similar definition to delineate "streams" pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-16.0051(4), but as noted in Findings of Fact 44-46, subsection (5) of the rule requires restoration on a linear foot basis only of natural streams. Lee County contended that over 12,000 feet of natural streams were omitted or misidentified in the application. However, based upon the evidence presented, both historical and current, and applying the applicable regulations and statutes, this argument has been rejected. This contention was based on after-the-fact approximation of stream locations and lengths plotted from memory in a desktop analysis. Further, during his site visit to mark stream locations, Lee County's expert failed to use a handheld GPS device or maps. Therefore, the evidence submitted by Mosaic and the Department as to the location and length of the streams proposed for impact has been credited. Mr. Cantrell testified that even the best of the streams proposed for impact have been subjected to at least sixty years of agricultural disturbance and manipulation. For example, the system 22 series of stream segments will be impacted and replaced by the clay settling areas. While the witness characterized segment 22(o) as the most stable and least impacted of the streams to be mined, that segment is 376 feet long and located at the uppermost reach of the 22 systems. It is an extremely small percentage of the overall 12,000 plus feet of less stable and more severely impacted parts of system 22. Mosaic and the Department analyzed the origins and current condition of the streams to be impacted, most of which are less than three-to-four feet wide and one foot or less deep and flow only intermittently and seasonally. The ecological and hydrologic conditions of the site and its fish and wildlife populations and habitat values were assessed for purposes of the ERP and CRP regulatory criteria. Respondents' characterization of the functional value of the wetlands, streams, and surface waters is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Lee and Sarasota Counties' assertion that the site wetlands and streams are in "good" condition and can be easily restored is not credited in light of the lack of empirical data to support this contention. The only way to recover the phosphate ore is through mining to remove the overburden layer and expose the phosphate matrix with a dragline. The first step prior to any land disturbance associated with phosphate mining is the installation of a "ditch and berm" system, which is recognized as a best management practice (BMP) by the Department and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Installation of the ditch and berm system proceeds in phases to protect unmined wetlands and habitats from mining impacts as mining progresses; it is not constructed all at once. The ditch and berm remains in place around an individual mining unit until mining and reclamation have been completed and monitoring indicates the revegetation is sufficiently established such that no violations of water quality standards will occur upon re-connection to adjacent and downstream waters. It is then removed in accordance with the reclamation plan. The system serves a number of purposes described below. Berms are required to be constructed in accordance with specific design criteria. The height of the berm will be designed in accordance with rules specific to such structures to prevent water from overtopping the berm during a 25-year, 24- hour storm event, even if the ditch becomes blocked. Following installation of a ditch and berm system, bulldozers clear the mining area of vegetation. Up to three large electrically powered draglines operate generally in parallel rows to remove the overburden layer (the upper layer of sand and clay soil), which is approximately 23.6 feet thick on average, to expose the phosphate matrix, which is approximately 13-to-15 feet thick on average. The overburden is cast to the side in piles to be later reused in reclamation. The phosphate matrix is a mixture of sand, clay, and phosphate, which must be separated after mining. At the beneficiation plant, washing, screening, and flotation processes are used to separate the phosphate rock from the sand and clay. After washing and screening, the sand is pumped back to the mine cuts for use in reclamation, and the clay is pumped to clay settling areas (CSAs) in slurry form to decant. Both the transport of sand back to the mine areas for use in reclamation and the transport of clays to CSAs are considered "mining operations," not "reclamation." See Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority, et al. v. IMC Phosphates Company, et al., DOAH Case No. 03-0791 (DOAH June 16, 2006; DEP July 31, 2006); Fla. Admin. Code R. 62C-16.0021(10) and (15). Thus, contrary to Lee County's allegation, the transportation of clays and sand is not a valid consideration in the financial responsibility required for mitigation. Through testimony and its materials balance tables, which are part of the application, Mosaic demonstrated that it has sufficient sand tailings and other waste materials to meet all of its reclamation requirements mine-wide, including both the Polk side and the Project site. However, while there is sufficient sand available to create the proposed reclamation topography and contours, the tables and testimony demonstrated a need, on a mine-wide basis, for lakes, as voids will remain otherwise. There will be only a very small pile of available sand remaining after all reclamation obligations on both the Polk side and the Project are met, an insufficient amount to eliminate the need for deep lakes as proposed. Mr. Myers, Mosaic's Vice-President of Mining, testified as to the three basic ways the waste materials generated by the beneficiation plant are disposed of on-site to facilitate reclamation. Sand tailings will be utilized in areas to be reclaimed as native habitats, wetlands, and streams. Clays will be disposed of in CSAs. However, based on the materials balance and logistical issues, the "land and lakes" reclamation method, which utilizes only the available overburden material remaining on-site after mining, will be used for the lake reclamation. This method allows sand tailings preferential use in reclamation of native habitats and use of shaped and contoured overburden in areas not proposed for wetland mitigation. Such is the case for the proposed reclaimed lakes. A CSA is an above-grade impoundment to hold clay slurry pumped from the beneficiation plant. This clay slurry is pumped into one side of a CSA in the form of muddy water. The clay settles to the bottom, and the clear water remains at the top. The clear water is drawn out from the opposite side of the impoundment, where it is recycled back to the beneficiation plant and mine for reuse. Over time, the clay consolidates and solidifies to form a solid soil, the surface area is drained, and the impoundment reclaimed. Three CSAs will be constructed on the northern portion of the site to hold the clay that cannot be stored in already- permitted CSAs in Polk County. The use of stage filling has allowed Mosaic to have additional usable space in its CSAs, minimizing the footprint of new CSAs in Hardee County. In addition, approximately fifty percent of the clay waste from the site will be disposed of at the Polk site to further minimize the clay disposal footprint and eliminate and reduce impacts. To evaluate the number of CSAs required, Mosaic asked Ardaman & Associates, a consulting firm, to examine different clay generation scenarios when predicting the CSAs required by mining and beneficiation. The life of mine waste disposal plan, most recently updated in September 2008, indicated that, in all but one scenario (the seventy percent clay containment scenario), all three CSAs would be required. However, Mosaic witness Garlanger established that all three CSAs in Hardee County would be necessary based on the best available information as to the amount of clays reasonably likely to be generated by mining; the seventy percent scenario is not likely. No evidence was presented to rebut that testimony. A diversion system was also voluntarily included for the CSAs by Mosaic. In the highly unlikely event of a dam failure, this system will re- direct any escaped water and/or clay materials to adjacent open mining cuts where they can be safely stored. The diversion system will be reclaimed when the CSAs are reclaimed. The evidence established that the ditch and berm system, CSAs, and diversionary structure are capable of being constructed and functioning as designed. The reclamation plan includes avoidance (no mining) of approximately 3,100 acres, or twenty-nine percent, of the site, including more than seventy-one percent of the total wetlands on-site. Of this, 2,100 acres will be placed in a perpetual conservation easement. There is a wide gamut of habitat types on the site that will be preserved and not mined, including both streams and wetlands. The most complex and least impacted habitats on the site have generally been included in the preserve area. The project includes disturbance of 751.3 acres of wetlands and other surface waters, which include non-wetland floodplains, cattle ponds, and upland-cut ditches, and mining of 58,769 linear feet of natural and modified natural streams. An additional 1,661 linear feet of stream channel will be disturbed but not mined for six temporary crossings for dragline/utility/ pipeline corridors. To mitigate for impacts to streams and wetlands under the ERP rules, Mosaic will create 641 acres of wetlands and other surface waters and 67,397 feet of stream channel and will also provide a conservation easement to the Department on 2,100 acres of unmined wetland and upland habitat associated with the major riparian systems. The conservation easement area will be permanently preserved and protected from secondary impacts. The UMAM rule is applied to ERP applications to measure the functional loss to wetlands and other surface waters proposed for impact and the functional gain associated with the proposed mitigation. Functional loss is compared to functional gain to determine whether sufficient mitigation has been offered that offsets the proposed impacts. The proposed preservation and wetland and surface water creation, along with certain upland enhancements, will provide more than enough UMAM mitigation "lift" (with 48 excess credits) to satisfy the ERP mitigation obligations and offset those wetland impacts that cannot be eliminated or reduced. The UMAM scores for the reclaimed areas are conservative, that is, using higher risk factors by assuming muck or other appropriate topsoil will not be available, and take into account the risk or difficulty associated with creation of a particular system, based on actual UMAM scores for existing reclaimed systems. Time lag, which is normally a factor considered in the UMAM mitigation equation, expressly does not apply to phosphate mines pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-345.600. Thus, Lee County's attempt to argue that some greater amount of mitigation of streams is required to account for the time required to construct and reinstate flow and vegetation to the streams is not credited. Mr. Cantrell confirmed that "fat" was built into the foot-for-foot stream reclamation because 7,000 more feet of stream will be reclaimed beyond the amount impacted; some "stream" segments, specifically, stream segment 18(i), probably should not have been required to be reclaimed at all. Under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-16.0051, the 511 and 512 classified "natural" streams are the only streams warranting reclamation as streams under the Department's reclamation rules. Only natural streams currently existing immediately prior to mining are required to be reclaimed on a linear foot basis. Reclamation meeting the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-16.0051 is adequate mitigation under the ERP program in Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, if it maintains or improves the functions of the biological systems currently existing onsite. See § 373.414(6)(b), Fla. Stat. Mr. Cantrell established that, under subsection (5) of the rule, the Department has discretion to request the applicant to restore wetlands and streams to a different type of system than existing on the site if "mitigating factors indicate that restoration of previously modified streams as a different type of lotic system would produce better results for the biological system and water quality." The evidence established that the rules do not require reclamation of artificially created water courses or remnant stream segments that lack the functions or landscape position one normally associates with natural streams. Instead, a better lotic system will be created that will improve existing functions and water quality, consistent with Section 373.414(6)(b), Florida Statutes, and the CRP rules. In addition to the wetlands and surface waters created to meet mitigation requirements, the Project will also reclaim uplands and will include what is known as "land and lakes" reclamation in the southeastern portion of the site. Utilizing shaped and contoured overburden, Mosaic will create four lakes totaling 180 acres and 43 acres of associated herbaceous littoral zone as CRP reclamation. This is based predominantly on the mine-wide materials balance showing a need for reclaimed lakes to account for mine voids on the Hardee site, the Polk site, or both. As a result, Mosaic has proposed 180 acres of reclaimed lakes in Hardee County in lieu of 500 acres of reclaimed lakes in Polk County, as this results in eliminating overall reclaimed lake acreage while satisfying Hardee County's request for deep lakes. In addition, timing and property logistics in that portion of the site make transport of tailings to the area from the beneficiation plant problematic. As the site is an extension of the existing South Fort Meade Mine in Polk County, Mosaic possesses permits that are not at issue in this proceeding, but are relevant to the project. Discharges from a mine recirculation system require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Discharges may only occur at specified discharge points upon verification that the discharge meets stringent water quality conditions in the permit, which are set to ensure that water quality standards in the receiving water are met at the point of discharge (without mixing) and that downstream water quality will be protected. A separate NPDES permit is not needed for the Project, because Mosaic already has a valid NPDES permit for the Polk County beneficiation facility, which will serve the site. Mosaic currently has a Water Use Industrial Permit (WUP) issued by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). The WUP includes both the Polk County and Hardee County portions of the South Fort Meade mine and governs both dewatering of the mine area prior to mining and operation of water supply wells located in Polk County that will be used to provide supplemental water to the recirculation system. Mosaic's evidence demonstrated that the Project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts, consistent with Florida Administrative Code Rules 40D-4.301(1)(a), 40D-4.302(1), and 62C-16.0051 and related BOR provisions. Mosaic presented evidence concerning the potential long term impacts of the proposed project on surface and ground water quantities and flows both during active mining and reclamation activities, and after reclamation is complete. Extensive analyses were presented by Mosaic's expert witnesses and evaluated by the Department. Such analyses showed no adverse impacts to water quantity on the site, adjacent properties, or in the Peace River or Charlotte Harbor. The site was studied extensively by Mosaic, and detailed hydrology characteristics were assessed as part of the preparation of the ERP and CRP applications. Various surface water stations, topographic maps, and ground water sampling points were utilized and geologic information was developed by evaluation of various borings across the site. Mosaic witness Burleson, a professional engineer, further considered soil types, land use and vegetative cover, and existing site hydrologic factors such as culverts, bridges, and other such changes to the site by the prior owners. Mosaic's modeling expert, Dr. Mark Ross, considered these factors on a regional scale in his integrated modeling for the 360 square mile regional basin. In the region of Florida that encompasses the site, there are three major hydrogeologic layers that are significant to a hydrologic analysis: (1) the surficial aquifer system, comprised of the overburden (the top layer of soil) and the phosphate matrix; (2) the confining layer and intermediate aquifer system; and (3) the Floridan, or deep, aquifer system. The confining layer separates the surficial from the intermediate and Floridan aquifer systems. By understanding the surface and ground water systems and physical characteristics of the site, the Mosaic experts were able to apply appropriately-calibrated hydrologic models to assess (1) pre-mining and post-reclamation floodplains and storm event runoff comparisons; (2) base flows to reclaimed streams; (3) potential hydrologic impacts of stream crossings; (4) effectiveness of the perimeter "recharge ditches"; (5) hydroperiod of reclaimed wetlands; and (6) potential impacts of the project on flows in the Peace River. These models were used to predict with reasonable certainty the effect of the Project on water quantity on-site, off-site, and on a regional scale. As set forth below, the evidence established that water quantity and flows in adjacent unmined wetlands and streams will be maintained during mining activities as a result of the installation of the ditch and berm system as proposed. Before the ditch and berm system is constructed, Mosaic will refine the design of the system based on actual geological data and gradient information to assure the ditch and berm will function as proposed and modeled. The ditch and berm system is inspected regularly. Recharge wells within the recharge ditch are not required unless localized conditions dictate use of the wells. Contrary to Lee County's assertions, this site is distinguishable from the Ona mine site (which is also in Hardee County), and the depth of mining is far more shallow with relatively few areas mined to a depth of fifty feet, which was common at the Ona mine site. Additionally, Mosaic must install perimeter monitor wells at regular intervals adjacent to and downgradient of the ditch and berm system prior to mining. These wells are monitored prior to mining to establish a baseline and regularly throughout mining in accordance with the requirements of Mosaic's WUP and the ERP to assure that the water table in adjacent areas is not adversely affected by mining activities. The water in the ditch portion of the perimeter system must be maintained at levels sufficient to maintain groundwater levels in undisturbed areas. Maintaining water in the ditch at appropriate levels precludes drainage of groundwater from adjacent sites into open mine cuts. Mosaic witness Pekas, a professional engineer, conducted modeling to determine whether adequate base flow will be provided to protected streams and reclaimed streams during mining. Provided the ditch and berm system is operated properly, proper base flows will be maintained. All of the hydrologic experts agreed that proper operation of a ditch and berm system assures that adequate groundwater outflow, or base flow, is available to support adjacent streams and wetlands during mining. During active mining operations, the ditch and berm system collects rainfall on areas within the system. The ditch and berm system temporarily detains this rainfall, preventing the direct discharge of untreated, turbid runoff to adjacent wetlands and waters, but does not permanently retain the rainfall. The evidence demonstrated that most of the rainfall that falls on areas disturbed by mining and mining-related activities is detained by the perimeter ditches, routed to the mine recirculation system, and is subsequently discharged, when it meets water quality standards, through NPDES-permitted outfalls to waters of the state. This will serve to attenuate surface water flows, allowing surface water retained during storm events to be discharged during extreme low flow events, providing for less "flashiness" in the streams. Lee County's assertion that runoff will be permanently retained is not credited; the evidence clearly established that controlled releases of treated stormwater occur through the permitted NPDES outfalls. The evidence shows that Mosaic will re-connect mined and reclaimed areas at the mine in Polk County at a rate exceeding the rate at which the Project's mine areas will be diverted by the ditch and berm system. Thus, any potential downstream impact of the ditch and berm construction on the site will be offset and buffered beyond the safeguards incorporated in the project design. The evidence demonstrated that the proposed ditch and berm recharge and monitoring system described here is capable, based upon generally accepted engineering principles, of being effectively performed and functioning as proposed and will preclude any adverse impact on the surficial aquifer beneath the preserved areas and adjacent properties and on adjacent surface waters and wetlands. The Department will apply the relevant BOR criteria concerning water quantity impacts on a pre-mining/post- reclamation basis consistent with the application of these same criteria to other non-mining ERP applicants. In this case, the Department reviewed Mosaic's submittals, assessed the impacts, and determined no adverse impacts to water quantity would occur during mining. Mosaic submitted a detailed analysis of potential surface water quantity impacts that may occur after reclamation is complete. This analysis included evaluation of post- reclamation floodplains and storm event run-off compared to pre- mining patterns, and characteristics of reclaimed natural systems. Floodplains, run-off, and reclaimed natural systems were assessed in the manner described below. Mosaic modeled potential impacts of the project on surface water flow using existing site conditions to calibrate and verify the model. Mr. Pekas developed a water balance hydroperiod spreadsheet model calibrated using existing, on-site wetlands to evaluate the expected hydroperiods of various types of wetland systems proposed to be reclaimed at the site. The evidence shows that the Pekas spreadsheet model was an appropriate model for predicting hydroperiods for reclaimed wetlands. Appropriate ranges for the expected hydroperiods and other hydrological characteristics needed for the different types of wetland systems to be created in the post-reclamation landscape were established. In order to reflect natural conditions, the Department specifically requested that the targets for expected hydroperiods of reclaimed wetlands vary across the established range of the hydroperiod for the type of wetland at issue, and these target hydroperiods are summarized in Table E-6 to the draft ERP. Mosaic demonstrated and verified that the Pekas spreadsheet reasonably predicts the hydroperiods to be expected from a given design for a proposed reclaimed wetland. After mining, site-specific conditions such as hydraulic conductivity will be reassessed and final design parameters will be developed accordingly. Lee County's witness Jonas demonstrated the importance of hydraulic conductivity when she adjusted the value for wetland 2-1C (one of Mr. Pekas' verification wetlands) from 0.5 to 30, based on a value not from the Project site, but from an off-site reclamation project. Not surprisingly, she concluded that a conductivity of 30 would not provide hydrology to support the wetland functionality. Her analysis demonstrates the importance of requiring reclamation of subsurface hydrology not based on an off-property conductivity value, but on site- specific hydraulic conductivity information. In his own analysis, Mr. Pekas relied on actual soil borings on-site, and at wetland 2-1C the average hydraulic conductivity was 0.5, which when modeled, provided appropriate hydrology for that wetland. Furthermore, ERP Specific Condition 11 requires Mosaic to reclaim wetlands with functionally equivalent hydraulic conditions based on verified field information as to site- specific hydrologic properties existing after mining, and the wetlands will not be released until functioning as required. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that reclaimed wetland can be designed and built in a manner that will achieve the required hydroperiods for each wetland type proposed to be disturbed and reclaimed at the site, including the bay swamps. In addition, each of the wetlands must be individually evaluated immediately prior to construction to provide additional verification of site-specific hydrologic conditions to assess, re-model, and verify the final wetland designs prior to construction. Condition 11c of the draft ERP also requires Mosaic to mimic the existing hydraulic conductivity and gradients near streams to ensure that base flows will be present post-reclamation. All of this will ensure that reclaimed streams will be hydrologically supported, and wetlands with the target hydroperiods requested by the Department will be constructed. The contrary testimony of Lee County's hydrologists does not credibly rebut this evidence. In performing their calculations, they utilized unrealistic numbers. The claim of Lee and Sarasota Counties' experts that they lacked sufficient information to form an opinion as to the accuracy of the modeling is not sufficient to overcome the evidence submitted by Mosaic to meet this criterion. See, e.g., National Audubon Society, et al. v. South Florida Water Management District, et al., DOAH Case No. 06-4157, 2007 Fla. ENV LEXIS 164 at *21 (DOAH July 24, 2007, SFWMD Sept. 13, 2007). Mr. Burleson determined that the original drainage patterns of the site would be restored post-reclamation. Mosaic provided reasonable assurances that the proposed reclamation is capable of being constructed and functioning as proposed. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the proposed mining and reclamation of the site will not cause adverse water quantity impacts post-reclamation, as addressed by Florida Administrative Code Rules 40D-4.301(1)(a) and (c), associated BOR provisions, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-16.0051(8)(b). Mosaic presented evidence demonstrating reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, consistent with Florida Administrative Code Rules 40D-4.301(1)(b) and 62C- 16.0051(8) and associated BOR provisions. During mining, there is no reasonable likelihood that active mining and reclamation activities at the site will result in any increased flooding conditions upstream of, on, or downstream of the site. The ditch and berm system reduces direct surface water runoff from areas disturbed by mining operations during peak rainfall events. Subsequent NPDES discharges of water typically lag slightly behind the rainfall events. This lag during mining decreases peak discharges in adjacent streams while augmenting lower flows slightly, thereby attenuating peak flows. Mr. Burleson evaluated the pre-mining and post- reclamation peak flow analyses for the project site to determine whether the post-reclamation topography, soils, and vegetative cover would result in flooding, using the Interconnected Pond Routing program or "ICPR" model, an accepted model for stormwater modeling, as required by the BOR. Mosaic's evidence established that the Project will not adversely impact existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, consistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-4.301(1)(c) and related BOR provisions. Additionally, Mosaic proposes to preserve from mining the 100-year flood plain of Little Charlie Creek and the Peace River and most of the higher quality small tributaries on the site. The smaller streams to be mined will be restored in a way that maintains or improves pre-mining conditions and will not cause harmful or erosional flows or shoaling. The federal Hydrologic Engineering Center Reservoir Analysis System and the National Flood Frequency Program were used by Mr. Burleson to verify the floodplains are accurately mapped and also that there will not be an increase in flood risk in the post-reclamation condition. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates reasonable assurances that the proposed mining and reclamation activities at the site will not result in adverse flooding impacts, consistent with Florida Administrative Code Rules 40D- 4.301, 40D-4.302(1)(a)3., and 62C-16.0051(8), and the BOR, including water quality standards in Chapter 4. The evidence presented by Dr. Ross established that the proposed mining and reclamation activities on the site will not adversely impact flows in the Peace River. No adverse effects of the Project will be observable at the Zolfo Springs United States Geological Survey (USGS) gauging station. A minimum flow for the Upper Peace River has been established pursuant to Section 372.042, Florida Statutes. A minimum low flow of 45 cfs from April to June (Upper Peace MFL) was established at Zolfo Springs by the SWFWMD; since the MFL has not been met since adoption, a recovery plan has been instituted. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D-8.041(7). Lee County asserts that the Project will violate the Upper Peace MFL and the recovery plan, arguing that a reduction in average annual flow, regardless of how infinitesimal, constitutes a violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-4.301(1)(g). This argument was refuted by Dr. Ross, who established that the project would increase flows during low flow periods. The Department concurred with, and the evidence supports, Dr. Ross' assessment that the project would not exacerbate the Upper Peace MFL or interfere with the recovery plan. Dr. Ross created a regional-scale integrated model utilizing public domain computer programs in an iterative fashion that coupled surface water and ground water to comprehensively evaluate the effects of the project on the flows in the Peace River post-reclamation. The regional approach included a full range of upstream and downstream influences on the site, not simply mining, that could affect the hydrologic evaluation of any impacts from the Project on the Peace River. The model domain included 360 square miles. To account for site-specific impacts in the model, Dr. Ross increased the refinement and discretization over the site. Thus, the model was capable of considering impacts from the site in its entirety within the region as measured at the Zolfo Springs USGS gauging station. Zolfo Springs is the first USGS gauging station directly downstream of the site and is the point of compliance for minimum flows adopted for the Upper Peace River system. The regional model predicted virtually no change in flows at the Zolfo Springs gauging station after the project as proposed is reclaimed, and that both the high and low flows observed at Zolfo Springs would be maintained post-reclamation. Dr. Ross concluded that there would not be any reduction of low flows at Zolfo Springs due to the Project. He further concluded that the Project will not impact or affect the recovery of minimum flows. Dr. Ross calculated the differences between the model- predicted high flows and low flows from the observed flows and found that the modeled high flows were slightly attenuated and the modeled low flows were slightly augmented at Zolfo Springs. The attenuation is consistent with the increased storage for water in the post-reclamation system. Consistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 40D-8, the Department considered potential impacts to low flows as the determining factor in determining whether a minimum low flow requirement like the one set for the Upper Peace MFL will be met. It concluded that the project is consistent with the Upper Peace MFL and its recovery strategy. The recovery strategy discusses projects which, like the one proposed, would yield a long-term increase in low flow conditions by storing some peak flow volumes and releasing them in low flow conditions. The Department's interpretation of its ERP rules and BOR provisions regarding MFLs, as well as other governing rules, is reasonable and has been accepted. Lee County's experts based their MFL testimony on an inappropriate use of annual average flow information and improper interpretation of Mosaic's data. Further, they inappropriately attempted to reach conclusions by estimates and extrapolation, and the overall weight of the evidence supports Mosaic's evidence that mining and reclamation will not cause a violation of the Upper Peace MFL. Accordingly, Mosaic has provided reasonable assurances that the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D- 4.301(1)(g) and associated BOR provisions have been satisfied. The ditch and berm system and other proposed BMPs, such as silt fences, at the site will provide water quality protection to adjacent undisturbed surface waters and wetlands during mining and reclamation activities. The actual construction of the ditch and berm and stream crossings will be conducted using BMPs to avoid adverse construction-related impacts. During mining, the ditch and berm system will preclude uncontrolled releases of turbid water to adjacent un-mined areas. The evidence established that the proposed Project will not cause a violation of water quality standards, either in the short-term or long-term. Dr. Durbin, an ecologist, evaluated water quality data from the existing South Fort Meade mine in Polk County and compared data from the 10-year period before the mine opened against the 10-year period after the mining began, finding water quality to be equivalent or better after mining began in Polk County. This allowed him to conclude that water quality on the site will not be adversely affected and, in light of existing agricultural activities, will be maintained or improved both during mining and post-reclamation; water quality in reclaimed systems will be sufficient to maintain designated uses of the systems. Dr. Durbin opined that the ERP contains detailed water quality monitoring requirements that, based on his long experience, are sufficient to establish a baseline, assess compliance, and detect significant trends. Sarasota County's witness has no experience in ERP or CRP permitting and his suggestion for far more frequent monitoring is not credited. No additional monitoring conditions or criteria are warranted. For the above reasons, Mosaic has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that reasonable assurances that water quality standards will not be violated either during mining, while reclamation is underway, or post-reclamation. The evidence further established that accepted BMPs will be used during mining to protect the water quality of adjacent and downstream waters, and that these measures can be expected to be effective to prevent any violations of water quality standards. Dr. Durbin provided unrebutted evidence that water quality standards in waters of the state and downstream of the project will be met post-reclamation and existing water quality in the unmined and reclaimed wetlands and waters will be maintained or improved post-reclamation. Thus, no adverse water quality impacts to the Peace River or Charlotte Harbor will occur during mining or post-reclamation. Therefore, reasonable assurances have been given that the requirements of Sections 373.414(1) and 373.414(6)(b), Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rules 40D- 4.301(1)(e) and 62C-16.0051(7), and associated BOR provisions are satisfied as to water quality. There is a wide range of habitat types on the site that will be preserved and not mined, including both streams and wetlands. The most complex and least impacted habitats on the site have generally been included in the no-mine and preserved areas. Mosaic does not propose to mine all or even most of the jurisdictional wetland and surface waters. In fact, seventy-one percent will be avoided. When developing a mining plan, Mosaic considers how to eliminate or reduce proposed impacts to waters and wetlands. The evidence established that Mosaic and the Department engaged in a protracted elimination and reduction discussion throughout the review process associated with the site's ERP/CRP applications. BOR Section 3.2.1 emphasizes the effort required to assess project design modifications that may be warranted to eliminate and reduce impacts to ecological resources found on the site. This effort was undertaken with the Department as early as 2004 during the DRI pre-application conferences. The major project design modifications involved the preservation of the named stream channels, the 100-year floodplain of the Peace River and Little Charlie Creek, and the 25-year floodplain of the other named tributaries. These areas will be permanently preserved by a 2,100-acre conservation easement; 1,000 additional acres will remain unmined. Also, the project design was modified and developed to maximize resource protection by integrating the Polk and Hardee mining operations. The testimony established how the activities at the Hardee operation will be greatly facilitated by relying upon and using the beneficiation plant and infrastructure already in place and permitted at the Polk site. Almost fifty percent of the clays generated at the Hardee mine will be disposed of in the existing Polk County CSAs, thereby eliminating one CSA altogether and substantially reducing the footprint needed for CSAs on the site. Likewise, the Department established that mine-wide, approximately 320 acres of lakes were eliminated. The Department discussed further modifications to the mine plan with Mosaic throughout the lengthy review process, doing a wetland and stream-by-stream assessment of the functions provided and the reclamation capability to maintain or improve the functions of the biological systems present prior to mining. The balance was struck between temporary resource extraction, recognized by Florida law as inextricably related to wetland disturbance, and the significantly altered natural resource features found on the site. In light of the 3,100 acres already eliminated and reduced from impact consideration, the Department in its discretion did not find it necessary to pursue economic data or analysis on the "practicability" of any further reductions. The highly disturbed nature of the wetlands and other surface waters being impacted gave the Department a high degree of confidence that mitigation and reclamation of these areas would in fact maintain and improve the functions provided prior to mining. Specifically, Mosaic has eliminated impacts to stream systems to the greatest extent practicable. Based on a Department field evaluation in late August 2008, Mosaic was directed to revise the no-mine line in the 3A stream system to more accurately reflect the floodplain of the stream draining the two bay heads north of the stream. In October 2008, Mosaic made the revision to add approximately 2.7 acres to the no-mine area. The majority of the streams proposed for impact by mining cannot be avoided, given the location of the three CSAs that are required for clay disposal associated with mining. The evidence established that there is no other location for the three CSAs that will have a lesser ecological or public health, safety, or welfare impact than the proposed location, given the site topography. As noted above, the volume of clays to be disposed of on the site has been reduced by half, and three CSAs are still needed. The location was chosen to move the CSAs as far from the Peace River and Little Charlie Creek as possible in light of the site topography, and this location avoids all impacts to named stream systems. As set forth above, Mosaic has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the best and most complex habitats on the site have been preserved at the expense of a loss of a significant amount of phosphate reserves in the preserved areas. All significant stream systems have been avoided to the extent practicable in light of the necessary CSAs. Both Mosaic and Department witnesses testified that the proposed no-mine area was the result of design modifications to eliminate or reduce impacts to wetlands to the greatest extent practicable. This satisfies the requirements of applicable rules and Section 373.414(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-16.0051(4) and (5) provides specific guidance on the classification and reclamation of natural streams. The Department provided direction to the applicant through the review process in the identification of natural streams and the design guidance manual to ensure foot-for-foot replacement and functional replacement or improvement. The permit reflects the 58,769 feet of the streams identified as numbers 511 and 512 to be impacted, and Mosaic has proposed approximately 65,700 feet of restored stream. Lee County's assertion that 2.3 miles of additional unmapped streams should be added to the reclamation obligation has been rejected. It is clear many of the areas alleged to be unmapped streams were depressions, low lying areas, or standing water within wetland areas more accurately identified as marshes or swamps. The fact that a discernible natural stream channel exists upstream and downstream of a wetland did not change the accuracy of acknowledging the different structure, form, and functional attributes that result in the wetland being distinct from the stream. Also, many of the alleged unmapped streams were located in the no-mine areas, and thus the alleged lack of delineation is of no consequence. Lee County's witness Erwin admittedly took no measurements of the alleged streams. Also, he provided no evidence that he or his staff delineated the alleged streams on- site. Rather, he reconstructed where they were located as a desktop exercise from memory, without any aids or tools used in the field. He then superimposed an alignment and put it on a GIS layer over an aerial photograph, resulting in an electronically generated approximation. The witness offered no physical evidence of depth, width, length, or bankfull width of stream function, but merely an assertion as to areas that appeared to have a bed or channel, even if dry, and the attributes or functions of a stream were immaterial or irrelevant to his analysis. No other independent witness attested to the alleged stream discrepancy, whereas both Mosaic's expert, Mr. Kiefer, a recognized fluvial geomorphologist, and the state's expert on jurisdictional delineations, Mr. Cantrell, who was the author of the applicable rules, expressly disagreed with these allegations. The testimony of Mosaic and the Department is found to be the most persuasive on this issue. Mosaic and the Department established that the proposed stream restoration plan is more than adequate to meet the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C- 16.0051(5) and will ensure the reclaimed streams maintain or improve the biological function of the streams to be impacted. Dr. Janicki, a scientist who testified on behalf of Lee County, was critical of the stream restoration plan. However, he acknowledged he was not an expert in stream restoration and that part of his job was to "look at how we might improve . . . on some of those shortcomings in the [stream] restoration plan." Dr. Janicki incorrectly assumed the design curve numbers were based on regional curves from north and northwest Florida rather than site-specific measurements. He stated that the guidance document was generalized and lacking specificity, but Table 4 contained in the guidance document contains nineteen stream morphological parameters for all forty- nine of the stream segments to be reclaimed. Dr. Janicki has never designed nor implemented a stream restoration project, and he acknowledged that he is not a fluvial geomorphologist. Conversely, Mosaic witnesses Boote and Kiefer, both accepted in this area, stated unequivocally that the plan was sufficiently detailed and that a qualified restoration and construction contractor could implement the plan in the field with appropriate field adjustments and construction level refinements based on site conditions. The allegation that the plan does not comport with ERP and CRP requirements because it lacks sufficient specificity is not credited. First, the ERP rules do not contain stream-specific restoration criteria. Second, the CRP stream rules adopted in May 2006 have never been applied in a prior case, and in this case the Department determined in its discretion that the plan as proposed meets the stream reclamation requirements of the CRP rules. Similarly, the stream restoration plan was criticized because measurements from every single segment or reach of stream were not used to develop the post-mining stream. However, Mr. Boote and Mr. Kiefer confirmed that only the most stable and least impacted of the stream segments on site were used as templates for stream reclamation. None of the recognized stream experts suggested that erosive, unstable "F" and "G" classified stream segments should be replaced in that unstable form or used as the template for reclamation. By a preponderance of the evidence, Mosaic has established that the reclamation plan for the site will more than offset any adverse impacts to wetlands resulting from the mining activities, because it will maintain or improve water quality and the functions of biological systems present on the site today, as required by Sections 373.414(1) and 373.414(6)(b), Florida Statutes. The evidence established that applicable Class III water quality standards will not be violated and that the water in wetlands and surface waters on-site post-reclamation will maintain or improve and be sufficient to support fish and wildlife in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rules 62C-16.0051 and 40D-4.301(1)(e) and relevant BOR provisions. The proposed mitigation will also restore a more appropriate or more natural hydrologic regime that will allow for a better propagation of fish and invertebrates in reclaimed systems. The reclamation plan will maintain the function of biological systems of wetlands to be mined on-site by replacing the wetlands to be impacted with wetlands of the same type and similar topography and hydrology in the post-reclamation landscape. In many cases, it will enhance the function of those systems by improving the landscape position of the wetlands, relocating them closer to the preserved Little Charlie Creek corridor, and moving cattle ponds and pasture away from the corridor. Likewise, the existing streams proposed for mining will be replaced with stream reaches modeled on streams that are comparable or better than the existing, unstable, and eroded streams. The Department has determined that Mosaic can reclaim the streams and wetlands to at least as good as or better than existing condition on the site. Mosaic has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed reclamation plan will maintain or improve the existing function of biological systems. Mosaic's reclamation plan for the site therefore satisfies the mitigation requirements of Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the implementing regulations and the BOR, as applied to phosphate mining activities through Section 373.414(6)(b), Florida Statutes. Through the testimony of witnesses Durbin, Kiefer, and Simpson, as well as documentary evidence, Mosaic has established that the proposed project, as reclaimed, will cause no adverse impacts on the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species and their habitats, as required by Section 373.414(1)(a)2., Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rules 40D- 4.301(1)(d) and 40D-4.301(1)(a)2., as well as the associated BOR Section 3.2.2 provisions. Likewise, the CRP criteria pertaining to fish and wildlife will be met. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62C- 16.0051(11). Mosaic's reclamation and site habitat management plan will maintain or improve the functions of the biological systems on the site with respect to fish and wildlife, including threatened and endangered species and their habitat. Mosaic witness Simpson provided unrebutted testimony that the proposed mining and reclamation will not have adverse impacts on wildlife populations or conservation of wildlife including threatened or endangered species and their habitats and that proposed reclamation would maintain or improve wildlife habitat values. The evidence shows that the mining and reclamation will not have adverse impacts on fish populations or conservation of fish. The fish habitat on the site will either be preserved or, if mined, will be replaced with in many cases superior habitat. There will be a net increase in suitable fish habitat post-reclamation. The wetland and stream fish habitats on the site will provide appropriate habitat for the fish and wildlife that can be expected to occur in the region. The sampling described above can be expected to reflect the majority, if not all, of the fish species reasonably expected to be present on the site. Mosaic witness Durbin further confirmed that the fish species collected on-site are consistent with similar sites in the immediate vicinity with similar agricultural usage with which he is familiar. In August and September 2008, verification of that fish sampling effort was performed by Dr. Durbin, an outside consulting firm (ECT), and the Department. They confirmed that the fish collection efforts reasonably reflect the native and exotic fish species that are likely to occupy the site. Through the testimony of Dr. Fraser, Lee County compared two streams on the Ona mine site with three stream segments on the Project site. However, the sole basis of the witness' comparison was recollections of field work he participated in over four years ago and photos taken at that time compared with photos taken at the new site. The witness conceded that he did not consider or compare sedimentation levels in the two stream systems. On the other hand, Department witness Cantrell established that the streams compared by Dr. Fraser were dissimilar. In fact, one of the streams Dr. Fraser held up as an apparent example of prime aquatic habitat was Stream 20C, which Mr. Cantrell demonstrated is nearly completely choked by sand and sedimentation. All of the streams proposed for impact are first or second order streams; most of them are intermittent, carrying flow only seasonally and therefore are only periodically occupied by fish and macroinvertebrate communities. The fish that do tend to utilize such systems in the wet season tend to be very small, usually less than one inch in size. The proposed preservation will preserve the best aquatic habitat on the property; the streams to be preserved are the main pathways and aquatic habitats utilized by fish. Mosaic witnesses Durbin, Keenan, and Kiefer all testified that the reclamation plan will restore better aquatic habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms than exists presently on site on a greater than acre- for-acre, type-for-type and linear foot basis. They further testified that the proposed reclamation will provide better aquatic habitat for fish and wildlife than currently provided, consistent with both ERP and CRP requirements. In addition, Dr. Fraser's suggestion that the fish sampling done on the site was insufficient and that the ERP should be modified to require fish collection as a success criterion for the reclaimed streams is not credited. This is because such a proposal is not a requirement of the ERP or CRP rules. Dr. Fraser's comparisons of reclaimed to unmined streams were inconsistent with his own anecdotal fish observations, and he testified as to the difficulty of ensuring adequate fish sampling or knowing where fish will be on any given day, given their mobility. Also, he provided no comparisons as to how the reclaimed streams sampled are constructed compared to the plan for the site and admitted he did not know how or when they were built. Dr. Fraser's discussion of fish in basins where mining has occurred was discredited by his own data showing that no reduction in the number of native fish species has occurred over time in those basins. Mosaic's reclamation plan, which consolidates the native upland and wetland habitats along the Little Charlie Creek corridor, will improve the fish and wildlife function of those systems and increase fish and wildlife abundance and diversity, as set forth above. There will be no adverse impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitat or to the conservation of fish and wildlife, including listed species, post-reclamation, because the fish and wildlife function of the tract will be maintained and in many cases improved by the reclamation and habitat management plans. This is particularly true in light of the existing condition, hydrologic connection, location, and fish and wildlife utilization of the wetlands and surface waters on site. Therefore, Mosaic has provided reasonable assurances that the requirements of Section 373.414(1)(a)2., Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rules 40D-4.301(1)(d) and 40D- 4.302(1)(a)2., and the relevant BOR provisions have been satisfied. Mosaic demonstrated that it has reclaimed wetlands, uplands, and streams consistent with the regulatory requirements and permit conditions in place at the time the area was reclaimed. Indeed, many of these reclaimed areas, whether or not under different ownership and control or whether released from further regulatory requirements, continue to demonstrate that they are successful and functioning ecosystems. The reclamation proposed for the site is state-of- the-art, reflecting the most recent evolution of reclamation techniques for uplands, wetlands and streams, with more planning and detail that should achieve the reclamation goals faster. Many older wetland projects were designed to meet a +/- 1-foot contour and were designed with older generations of equipment and survey techniques. However, Mosaic's third party contractor's bulldozers/tractors are now equipped with GPS and sensors to enable grade tolerances within two inches, allowing for much more accurate backfilling and wetland construction. Accordingly, Mosaic's newer wetlands contain both deep and shallow areas with gradation/zonation in between. Hydrologic regimes and hydroperiods can thus be effectively created to target and achieve more specific hydrologic conditions required by certain wetland systems such as seepage slopes and wet prairies. Nonetheless, the projected UMAM scores for the reclaimed systems take into account a higher risk factor for systems that historically were more difficult to reclaim. Mosaic has provided reasonable assurances of its ability to restore the hydrology and types of vegetation found on the site and of its ability to create ecosystems that will maintain or improve the function of the biological systems proposed for mining on the site. Mosaic has restored wetlands in a variety of configurations ranging from small round depressions of less than a few acres to large complex polygons in excess of two hundred acres, as well as wetlands with low slope gradients. For example, Mr. Kiefer described and depicted Mosaic's ability to restore a bay swamp at point 84(5) at the Fort Green Mine and at Alderman Bay. Lee and Sarasota Counties focused on bay swamps in particular, but failed to acknowledge that Mosaic will be reclaiming 98.5 acres of bay swamps while only impacting 62.1 acres. Mosaic demonstrated that herbaceous and forested wetlands can be and have been restored by Mosaic and its predecessors. Mosaic has demonstrated that it can restore the various zones and depths of freshwater marshes, including shrub marshes, from the deep emergent zone to the wet prairie fringe, and has demonstrated that these zones in reclaimed marshes are providing important and key wetland functions, such as water quality, food chain support, habitat, and other functions, similar to those functions provided by site marshes. This evidence was not effectively rebutted by Lee or Sarasota Counties. In fact, Sarasota County witness Lipstein acknowledged Mosaic is proposing to mitigate for all impacts. When asked if the proposed bay swamps will be successful or unsuccessful, she replied that she did not know and, "you will have to just wait and see if it reaches that success criteria." There have been different success criteria applied in Department permits over the years, and Mosaic has demonstrated the ability to meet those changing and more stringent criteria. In the past, stream restoration was accomplished relatively simply by contouring the stream valley and floodplain to support wetland vegetation, then allowing a flow channel to self-organize. While this technique has resulted in successful streams that met Department permit criteria, it can take many years to occur. For example, Dogleg Branch (which is located on the site of another mining operation) took almost twenty years to achieve success. Mosaic has previously developed successful stream restoration projects which have been documented to provide flow regimes similar to that of natural flatwoods streams, with in- stream aquatic habitat diversity similar to or better than the stream segments proposed for mining at the site and which met reclamation criteria. Mosaic witness Kiefer demonstrated this with evidence of the functions that various reclaimed streams provided. He also showed that, in newer stream restoration projects, like Maron Run, certain functions and form, such as habitat availability, bank stability, meander, and pool-riffle sequence, are developing rapidly. Also, Department witness Rivera testified to Mosaic's commitment to achieving stream success in its efforts to retrofit certain of these earlier reclaimed streams to achieve greater function and habitat diversity. Using an average sinuosity of 1.35, over 65,700 linear feet of streams will be created as part of the mitigation plan. The foot-for-foot requirement for the reclaimed streams will be exceeded by 7,000 feet. Mosaic's mitigation proposal incorporates state-of- the-art stream restoration techniques and the post-reclamation topography to be used as guidance for the final construction plans. The guidance is based on extensive data collected from twenty-one cross sections of reference reaches within the project area, including measurements for channel dimensions, sinuosity, bankfull, and entrenchment ratios. Snags, debris, and other woody material will be placed at appropriate intervals within the channel to provide in-stream habitat and aid in-channel stabilization and development. Restored streams will have primarily forested riparian zones. Trees will be planted using techniques that will assist rapid canopy closure and aid in rapid bank stabilization. Biodegradable erosion control blankets will be used to control erosion. The streams will be designed such that the stream morphology fits within the Rosgen Stream Classification System (Rosgen) described in the reference reaches. To create a design template, Mosaic's experts carefully measured the important geomorphic characteristics of the stream segments to be disturbed. The plan incorporates, among other factors, design specifications for meander patterns, longitudinal valley and bed slopes, bank slopes, cross-sectional area, widths, depths, large woody debris, pools, riffles, bends, and sediment composition. It is the second known low-order stream creation plan in Florida to provide this level of detail. The stream plan represents an overall improvement upon the existing conditions at the site, as Mosaic is generally only mining small, shallow, intermittent stream segments of significantly lower ecological value and will create streams that are less erosive and will have greater in-stream habitat diversity and availability than the segments to be mined. Accordingly, the reclaimed streams segments will at least maintain and in many cases improve the ecological functions served by the existing segments. Special emphasis has been placed on assuring that post-reclamation soils are a suitable growing medium for the proposed reclaimed habitat. Soils will be used to closely mimic the native Florida soils profile. Mosaic witness Schuster established that proposed reclaimed soil conditions do not pose limitations on Mosaic's ability to create upland and wetland ecosystems. The soil reclamation plan uses parent materials available after mining in a sequence similar to the textural or horizon sequence in soils present at the site before mining. This soil profile will have a created topsoil layer as a suitable growing medium and subsurface layers whose thicknesses can be adjusted to achieve the drainage class, that is, hydraulic conductivity or permeability, that is needed to support the post-reclamation hydrology. The overburden used to form the lower part of the reclaimed soil sequence is native Florida soil and underlying geologic material. The overburden is excavated so that the matrix can be mined, but then the material is put back in the mined areas in a sequence that resembles native soil horizons. Where available, the top layer of the soil sequence will be a direct transfer of muck/topsoil pursuant to the permit conditions. Where donor topsoil is not available, other appropriate materials can be used if approved by the Department. Possible methods may include establishment of cover crops, green manuring, mulching, and sod placement, all of which have been demonstrated to provide organic matter and a suitable growing medium for reclaimed wetlands and will facilitate success of the wetlands. These methods comport with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-16.0051(3). For reclamation, Mosaic will use various thicknesses of materials including sand tailings and overburden, depending on the area to be reclaimed and the needed hydraulic conductivity as dictated by the modeling that is required. Sand tailings will be utilized in native habitats. Sand tailings have a much higher rate of hydraulic conductivity than overburden, which is low, but not impermeable. Reclaimed soils behave similarly to native soils. On site development of soil morphology at reclaimed sites has occurred, including organic matter accumulation in the topsoil formation of redox concentrations, and other components of soil structure, which evidence that the same natural processes are present in both reclaimed and native soils. Lee County's witnesses incorrectly assumed an overburden cap that will not be present. Mosaic has provided appropriate cost estimates for financial assurances of reclamation and has satisfied the BOR requirements of providing third-party estimates and draft financial assurance documentation. The first three years of mitigation at one hundred ten percent is $3,957,356.00. This amount is determined to be sufficient. Lee and Sarasota Counties' witnesses could provide no contrary cost estimates of actual comparable large-scale projects. The proffered costs of Lee County witness Erwin were rejected in another mining case (the Ona case), they ignore the definitions of "waste" and "mining operations," and they assume mitigation requirements not found in the BOR. The evidence supports a finding that all adverse impacts, including any secondary impacts, associated with the Project will be temporary and will be offset by the proposed reclamation. All of the proposed impacts from the Project will occur within the Peace River Basin, and Mosaic's proposed mitigation will all occur within the Peace River Basin as well. Therefore, the cumulative impacts review requirements of Section 373.414(8)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-4.302(1)(b) are satisfied. The BMPs put into place will prevent adverse secondary impacts from occurring during mining, and no adverse secondary impacts are expected from the project post- reclamation. No secondary impacts to listed wildlife are reasonably expected to occur, based on the buffers and on the post-reclamation habitat that will exist. In summary, Mosaic has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed project meets the permitting criteria of Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-4.301 and associated BOR provisions. Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-4.302(1)(a) requires reasonable assurances the proposed activities "will not be contrary to the public interest" as determined by balancing seven factors. See also § 373.414(1), Fla. Stat. For the reasons set forth below, the preponderance of evidence supports a finding that the public interest factors set forth in the statute and rule weigh in favor of issuing the permit. The Florida Legislature has recognized that phosphate mining "is important to the continued economic well-being of the state and to the needs of society." See § 378.202(1), Fla. Stat. Mosaic has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that both the public and the environment will benefit from the project as described above. Mining of the site will also result in a more general benefit to the public, including local residents. It is estimated that mining of the site will result in fifty million tons of recoverable phosphate rock reserves, which will be used to make fertilizer. Mosaic employs 272 people at its South Fort Meade facility and spends approximately $75,000.00 per employee per year for direct wages, benefits, and compensation. In addition, it has been estimated there are four to five persons employed in support industries for each direct Mosaic employee, considering contractors, vendors, and suppliers. The site project is expected to generate up to $23 million in severance taxes, tangible taxes, property taxes, and other benefits to Hardee County over the life of the mine. The evidence shows that the proposed activities will not cause adverse impacts to the public health, safety, or welfare or to the property of others. Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D- 302(1)(a)1. Witness Burleson established that the water quantity criteria in BOR Chapter 4 have been satisfied and that no flooding problems will occur. No environmental hazards or public health and safety issues have been identified. Section 373.414(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-4.302(1)(a)1., and BOR Section 3.2.3.1 have accordingly been satisfied. The evidence established that the proposed mining and reclamation will not cause adverse impacts to the conservation of fish and wildlife or their habitat, including endangered or threatened species, satisfying Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-4.302(1)(a)2. and BOR Sections 3.2.2, 3.2.2.3, and 3.2.3.2. The evidence shows that the proposed activities will not cause adverse impacts to navigation or flow and will not cause harmful erosion or shoaling. Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D- 4.302(1)(a)3. The evidence shows that the proposed activities will not cause adverse impacts to fishing or recreation or marine productivity, and the lakes will enhance fishing and recreation. Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D-4.302(1)(a)4. As a matter of law, Section 378.202(1), Florida Statutes, provides that phosphate mining is a temporary activity. Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D-4.302(1)(a)5. The parties have stipulated that there will be no adverse impacts on historical or archaeological resources. Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D-4.302(1)(a)6. The evidence shows that the current condition and relative value of functions of the site landscape have been significantly affected over time by agricultural activities, causing alteration of natural streams and wetlands and low fish and wildlife utilization. A preponderance of the evidence established that these negative impacts will be ameliorated by the proposed reclamation. Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D-4.302(1)(a)7. In light of the above, Mosaic has provided reasonable assurances that Section 373.414(1)(a), Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-4.302(1)(a), and associated BOR requirements for the public interest test have been satisfied, and those criteria weigh in favor of issuing the permit. Section 373.414(6)(b), Florida Statutes, establishes the appropriate mitigation for wetland and surface water impacts associated with phosphate mines as follows: "Wetlands reclamation activities for phosphate and heavy minerals mining undertaken pursuant to chapter 378 shall be considered appropriate mitigation for this part if they maintain or improve the water quality and the function of the biological systems present at the site prior to the commencement of mining activities." Part III of Chapter 378, Florida Statutes, addresses phosphate land reclamation, and the Department has adopted specific regulations pursuant to this part, which are found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-16.0051. For the reasons set forth below, Mosaic has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the reclamation and restoration standards in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-16.0051 have been met. The parties stipulated the Project will meet the safety standards in subsection (1) of the rule. Any temporary structures will be removed following mining and the area then reclaimed. Appropriate BMPs will also be installed. The Project will meet the backfilling and contouring requirements of subsection (2). Specifically, the evidence shows that the area will be backfilled and contoured to achieve the desired landforms; slopes will be no steeper than a 4:1 ratio; bank stabilization techniques will be used; and post- reclamation contouring and topography will help ensure that the reclamation plan and hydrologic response is successful. The reclamation will meet the requirement in subsection (3) that Mosaic use good quality topsoil when available and other suitable growing media to achieve the planned vegetative communities. The Project will meet the acre-for-acre requirement for wetlands because more acres of wetlands and surface waters are being proposed to be restored than will be impacted. The Department uses FLUCCS Category II to determine whether the minimum type-for-type requirement is met. Thus, the type-for-type requirement is met by looking at the forested wetlands acreage overall and the herbaceous wetlands acreage overall. Subsection (4) has been satisfied by the proposed CRP. While the herbaceous wetland fringe of the lakes is included in the acre-for-acre, type-for-type calculation, the open waters of the lake are not. The Project will meet the type-for-type requirement in the rule because, category-by- category, type-for-type, more than a 1:1 ratio of forested and herbaceous wetlands are being restored. As noted above, the wetlands and streams were mapped during the application process in accordance with the directives of the Department and the requirements of subsection (4). Where wetlands are directly associated with or adjacent to streams, restoration of both is integrated and included in the restoration plan. Non-wetland and wetland floodplains will be restored as directed by the Department in accordance with this rule. No natural lakes or ponds exist on site, thus the portion of this rule related to natural lakes does not apply. All natural streams proposed for impact will be restored foot-for-foot based on Rosgen Level II. More stream linear feet (65,700 feet) are being replaced than are being mined (58,769 feet). Therefore, the requirements of subsection (5) have been met. Subsection (6) has been satisfied after accounting for the Littoral Zone Variance described below authorized by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-16.0051(13). The design of the reclaimed wetlands and lakes will maximize beneficial drainage, provide fish and wildlife habitat, maintain downstream water quality, and incorporate a variety of vegetation and hydraulic zones. Greenbelts of vegetation are incorporated. Subsection (7) has been satisfied. There will be no water quality concerns either during mining or post-reclamation with the reclaimed streams, lakes, wetlands or other surface waters. Subsection (8) has been met; the Project is not expected to cause flooding, and the original drainage pattern will be restored to the extent possible. Subsection (9) has been satisfied with respect to waste disposal. Areas used for clay settling will be minimized, and only three CSAs are proposed for the site, as fifty percent of the clays generated at the site will be disposed of in previously-permitted CSAs in Polk County. Backfilling of mine cuts is the highest priority use for the site's sand tailings. No tailings will be sold. The evidence showed that sand tailings will not be permanently stored above natural grade, although temporary stock piles are authorized to facilitate reclamation. Reclamation of CSAs will occur as expeditiously as possible. Solid waste was not an issue in this proceeding. The revegetation proposed for the Project will succeed to achieve permanent revegetation and meets the requirements of subsection (10). Mosaic has submitted a plan for revegetation that lists species by species what will be replaced through planting or seeding into each of the different types of wetlands. The revegetation plan and planting tables provide clear guidance to the entire reclamation plan and will minimize erosion, conceal the effects of mining, and recognize the requirements for fish and wildlife habitat. Upland cover and forested upland requirements in the rule will be met under the CRP; the appropriate forested densities are set forth in the CRP and can reasonably be expected to be established within one year. Likewise, the wetland vegetative cover requirements in the CRP meet the rule requirements and can be easily met. As set forth above, the wetlands to be created are of the types Mosaic has successfully recreated in the past, and advances in reclamation and maintenance techniques will further ensure the vegetation plan is successfully implemented. The vegetative plans, including the stream plan, provide appropriate habitat for fish and wildlife. The best available technologies will be used to restore and revegetate wetlands. Furthermore, the vegetation plan meets and exceeds the requirements for the use of indigenous species. Native plants and grasses will be used in all native habitats. As required by subsection (11), measures have been identified and incorporated into the CRP to offset fish and wildlife values lost as a result of mining operations. Special programs to restore and/or reclaim particular habitats, especially for endangered and threatened species have been identified. A Site Habitat Management Plan has been incorporated to prevent adverse impacts to threatened and endangered species, and the proposed conservation easement and reclamation plan will protect and restore currently impaired habitat to a better condition. Specifically, Dr. Durbin testified with respect to the CRP requirements for aquatic species, including fish and macroinvertebrates; the best fish and wildlife habitat onsite will be preserved. Mr. Simpson testified regarding habitat preservation and reclamation activities, the proposed wildlife management plans, and the proposed enhancements to habitat that will benefit wildlife, including listed wildlife. Mosaic has sufficiently addressed the requirements of subsection (11) of the rule in the CRP. Subsection (12) has been satisfied. The proposed mining and reclamation schedule in the application documents comports with the rule requirements by including time schedules for mining, waste disposal, contouring, and revegetation, and the completion dates for such activities comport with the rules. Mosaic has proposed, and the DEP has indicated an intent to issue, the Littoral Zone Variance as an experimental technique to improve the quality of the reclaimed lakes pursuant to this subsection and Section 378.212(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Given the depth of the proposed reclamation lakes, Mosaic applied for, and the Department has proposed to grant, a variance from the water quality standard for DO in the lower portions of the lakes. The DO Variance from Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.530(31) is being sought pursuant to Sections 373.414(6)(a), 373.414(17), and 403.201(1)(a), Florida Statutes, which provide the minimum standards for DO levels in surface waters. Class III freshwater water quality standards apply to those portions of the site that constitute surface waters as defined by Florida law. For at least those reclaimed lakes that will connect offsite to downstream waters or wetlands (Lakes 1, 3, and 4), there is no dispute that Class III water quality standards would apply. The minimum water quality standard for DO in freshwater systems is 5.0 milligrams per Litre (mg/L). The evidence demonstrated that alternatives to the lakes in terms of both size and location were considered. The Department considered the proposed lakes as part of the elimination and reduction of overall wetland impacts on both South Fort Meade Polk and Hardee. On balance, it is a preferable alternative to use the available sand resulting from mining of the Hardee County portion of the South Fort Meade mine to eliminate lakes and create additional wetlands on the Polk County portion of the mine rather than utilize that sand to eliminate all lakes on the Hardee County portion of the site. This is especially true given the desire of Hardee County for recreational lakes and the Department's preference to reduce the overall acreage of the reclaimed lakes at the South Fort Meade mine. It is not feasible to make the lakes shallower given the available materials. There is no practicable means known or available for increasing DO in the deep pockets of lakes of the proposed depths that would not have a potential negative effect. This fact has been established and recognized by the Florida Legislature in Section 373.414(6)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides that the deep pits left by mining operations may not meet the DO criteria below the surficial layers of the lakes. The Legislature has further provided that a variance from the DO standard can be issued where deep lakes must be left as part of the reclamation plan. Id. The evidence established that lower DO levels may at times occur in the deep pockets of some of the reclaimed lakes to the same extent and effect as those lower levels occur in natural lakes of similar depths. This effect will occur only in the hypolimnion, or lower levels, of the lakes in the hotter summer months. The evidence likewise established that it is very unlikely that DO levels below 1.0 mg/L will occur at any time in any of the proposed reclaimed lakes. Provided the DO levels do not drop below 1.0 mg/L for any extended period of time, the only expected effect of the occasional seasonal reduction in DO in the lowest level of the reclaimed lakes will be to temporarily exclude fish from those lower portions of the lake during the summer months, which is also true of natural deep lakes. The evidence established that reclaimed lakes function well and provide habitat for fish and wildlife. Water quality standards will be met in all of the lakes other than occasional seasonal DO violations in the lower portions of the deepest lake. All water quality standards, including DO, will be met at all lake outlets and discharge points. All other applicable regulatory criteria will be met in the reclaimed lakes. Dissolved oxygen levels in the upper layers of the lakes are expected and required to meet the minimum DO criteria in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 302.530 and will be adequate to support healthy fish populations. The evidence showed no downstream impacts will occur due to the DO Variance for the lakes. The evidence showed reclaimed lakes support healthy fish and macroinvertebrate communities and provide recreational fishing opportunities. Even older lakes, such as the Tenoroc lakes (located in an old mining area in Polk County), provide substantial recreational fishing and wildlife utilization opportunities. This testimony was not rebutted. The evidence offered by Lee and Sarasota Counties as a means to increase DO levels in the reclaimed lakes actually demonstrated that artificially attempting aeration of a deeper lake can have negative environmental effects. Therefore, the testimony of witnesses Janicki and Merriam has not been credited. By a preponderance of the evidence, Mosaic proved entitlement to the DO Variance for the lakes pursuant to Sections 373.414(6)(a) and 403.201(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Given the location of the reclaimed lakes and as a means of experimenting with different reclamation planting techniques to create a variety of shorelines, Mosaic also applied for, and the Department has proposed to grant, a variance from the reclamation requirements in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-16.0051 pertaining to the planting of littoral shelves or zones around reclaimed lakes. The Littoral Zone Variance is being sought under Section 378.212(1)(e), Florida Statutes, from Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-16.0051(6)(a) and (b), which provides minimum water zones for emergent and submerged vegetation, known as the littoral zones of the lakes. Subsection (6) of the rule provides for a twenty-five percent high-water zone of water fluctuation to encourage emergent and transition zone vegetation, and that a twenty percent low water zone between the annual low water line and six feet below the annual low water line to provide fish bedding areas and submerged vegetation zones. These vegetative zones are collectively known as the littoral zone of a lake. Traditionally, these percentages have been met in reclaimed lakes by sloping and creation of a uniform fringe of herbaceous wetland vegetation completely encircling the lake; however, such uniform fringes are not typical around natural lakes, which vary in composition and width. Rather than create a uniform band of vegetation around the lakes, Mosaic has proposed to reclaim the littoral zones around the reclaimed lakes by concentrating them in several broad, shallow areas, including the outlets of the lakes where such outlets occur (Lakes 1, 3 and 4). Of the proposed lakes, one will meet the littoral zone requirement, two will have over twenty percent of the total area in littoral zone, and the remaining lake will have a littoral zone of just under fourteen percent of the total area. The littoral zones will be reclaimed by constructing broad shelves of differing depths and planting the shelves with herbaceous wetland plant species. This design provides the environmental benefit of herbaceous vegetation at the outlet to provide increased filtration of nutrients or sediments of any water overflowing from the lakes during other high water events. This increases environmental benefits at the outlet of the lakes and has the potential to improve water quality downstream. Further, the proposed clustering of the littoral zones in several broad shallow shelves, rather than creation of a thin fringe around the lakes as is customary, will benefit wildlife and fish by creating a more extensive wetland ecosystem in lieu of the monoculture typically created by the thin littoral fringe. The proposed littoral zone clustering also creates more useable shoreline for boating, fishing, and recreational activities in the areas where the littoral zones are not clustered, with the added benefit of tending to separate the wildlife usage in the littoral zone clusters from the human usage in the upland forested areas of the shoreline where minimal littoral zones are planned. This is an experimental technique that advances reclamation methods by balancing habitat, water quality, and recreational considerations. Mosaic has demonstrated that the Littoral Zone Variance comports with Section 378.212(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and may be issued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting Mosaic's applications for the requested permits and variances. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 2008.
The Issue Whether a consumptive use permit for the quantities of water requested in the application should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Application No. 7500160 requests water to be withdrawn from seven existing wells for the use of a housing development. The use applied for is an average daily withdrawal of 1,105,000 gallons as an existing use for public water supply in Citrus County, Florida. The maximum daily withdrawal sought is 2.752 million gallons per day. Notice of the intended use was published in a newspaper of general circulation, to wit: The Citrus County Chronicle, Inverness, Florida, on November 13 and 20, 1975, pursuant to Section 373.146, Florida Statutes (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1). No letters of objection were received by the District concerning the requested use. Jeffrey A. Pohle, Hydrologist of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, testified that he had reviewed the application in the light of Chapter 16J-2.11 which sets forth conditions for a consumptive use permit, and that the application meets the criteria stated therein for the issuance of a permit. He therefore recommended that the permit be granted on the condition that all wells be metered and that records be kept on a monthly basis and submitted quarterly to the District. Correspondence between Mr. Pohle and Mr. Hilger was admitted into evidence as Composite Exhibit 2, whereby the applicant agrees to the proposed condition.
Recommendation It is recommended that Application No. 7500160 submitted by Rolling Oaks Corporation, P. O. Box 1, Beverly Hills, Florida 32661 for a consumptive water use permit be granted in the amount set forth in the application, with the condition that ground water withdrawals be metered, and that monthly records be kept and submitted quarterly to the Data Section of the Southwest Florida Water Management District. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District P. O. Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Rolling Oaks Corporation P. O. Box 1 Beverly Hills, Florida Warren H. Hilger, Esquire Hilger and Ray Engineering Associates, Inc. 137 South Highway 19 Crystal River, Florida 32629 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Lake Worth Drainage District requested a variance from the provisions of Rule 17-3.121(13) , Florida Administrative Code, related to dissolved oxygen parameters which would be involved in the installation of a canal known as the S-9 Canal to be located in Palm Beach County, Florida. That request was met by the Department of Environmental Regulation's Statement of Intent to Deny, leading to a request for formal hearing filed by Petitioner with the Department on May 26, 1983. On June 1, 1983, the Department requested the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a formal hearing in that matter. The variance request became D.O.A.H. Case No. 83-1741. Contemporaneous with the variance request that was pending before the Department of Environmental Regulation, was petitioner's request for necessary construction permits to install the S-9 Canal. Again, the Petitioner was informed of the agency's intent to deny that permit request. As a consequence, Petitioner requested a formal hearing to question the Department's policy decision. That request for formal hearing was made on June 23, 1983. Effective July 1, 1983, the Department asked the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a formal hearing related to that permit request. The case related to the dredge and fill permit is D.O.A.H. Case No. 63-2132. WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS In the final hearing, petitioner presented the testimony of Richard Wheeliahn, Assistant Manager for Lake Worth Drainage District; John Adams, General Counsel for Lake Worth Drainage District; Mike Slaton, supervisory biologist with the United States Corp. of Engineers; William Winters, Lake Worth Drainage District's in-house engineer; Rebecca Serra, South Florida Water Management District's Water Management Engineer, who was accepted as an expert in water management engineering; Raleigh Griffis, Agricultural Agent with the United States Department of Agriculture, accepted as an expert in the agricultural practices found within the area of the proposed S-9 Canal; William E. Hill, Consulting Engineer for Petitioner, who was accepted as an expert in civil engineering and drainage design; and Robert D. Blackburn, consultant to Lake Worth Drainage District, accepted as an expert in freshwater ecology to include water quality and biology. Respondent called as witnesses Dan Garlick, Environmental Specialist for the Department of Environmental Regulation, accepted as expert in dredge and fill matters; Keith McCarron, Environmental Specialist for the Southeast Branch of the Department of Environmental Regulation, accepted as an expert in dredge and fill matters and Helen Setchfield, Technical Assistant to the Department's Director of the Division of Environmental Permitting. In addition, Richard L. Miller, Rebecca Butts, Francis T. Kuschell, Donald King and Dan alley were public witnesses in favor of the proposed project. Rosa Druando and Sherry Cummings were public witnesses opposed to the project. Petitioner offered 45 exhibits which have been received. Respondent introduced two exhibits which were admitted. The public offered two composite exhibits which were admitted. SPECIFIC FACTS Lake Worth Drainage District is a governmental entity created by the Florida Legislature. The District's function is that of the control of water supply and elevation related to lands within its jurisdiction. Those areas in dispute in the present case are within that jurisdictional ambit. In this instance, Lake Worth Drainage District has proposed the construction of a drainage facility involving dredging and filling of approximately 45,000 cubic yards of material. In particular, Petitioner seeks necessary permits from Respondent to construct a canal known as the S-9 Canal, whose purpose would be to transport the flow of water from an agricultural operation north of the canal site. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 depicts the area in question with the north- south orange tape representing an unnamed drainage ditch or canal and the blue tape showing the proposed S-9 connecting it to the east-west orange tape line which is L23W. The primary type of water expected in the canal is stormwater; however, surface and groundwater will also be in the canal system at times. The agricultural operation is capable of discharging at a rate which would utilize 145 CFS of the potential capacity of the canal system contemplated for construction which ultimate capacity is 170 CFS. The proposed canal by its connection of the existing agricultural drainage ditch or canal and L23W, becomes part of a water transport system flowing to the Atlantic Ocean through the South Florida Water Management District and Lake Worth Drainage District canal network. The principal benefit of the construction of S-9 would be to create a uniform connection of water discharge from the agricultural operation into L23W. Secondarily, it would relieve periodic flooding of a residential area west of the unnamed drainage ditch and northwest of the proposed S-9 Canal. It is not designed to receive direct water input from that residential area. Only the agricultural operation has been granted permits to discharge into the unnamed canal through two pumping stations to the east of that canal and as a result of the present permit request through S-9 and thus to L23W. Those persons living in the residential area west of the unnamed canal have not sought necessary permitting for discharge into the proposed S-9 System. Moreover, even if permits were granted to the residents, the S-9 system would only allow the addition of 25 CPS over and above the 145 which the agricultural operation has preempted. The 25 CPS would not satisfactorily address high water problems found in the residential area. A more particular description of the limited value of the project's benefit to the homeowners is that it protects against occasional flooding which occurs when the farm operation discharges into the unnamed canal, causing water incursion in the southeast corner of the residential area to the west of the unnamed canal. If the S-9 Canal is constructed, it will be built within an 80 foot right-of-way held by petitioner. The canal as depicted in petitioner's Exhibit 35 admitted into evidence is 40-45 feet wide, approximately 5-8 feet deep and is configured in a u-shape transversing an area of 7,730 feet. The applicants in this present proposal have added a vegetated iittoral zone on one side of the canal and it covers approximately 20 percent or 1.9 acres of the canal surface. This zone affords a limited amount of treatment of the water in the system. In this regard, approximately 30 percent of the nutrients found within the water flowing in the system would be expected to be taken up or absorbed in the vegetational zone, except in the months of August and September, when optimum retention time within the system will not be afforded to allow the littoral zone to uptake 30 percent of contaminants in the water. A 21 foot maintenance berm would be constructed on the east side of the canal and bleeder pipes would be installed to control water elevations in the adjacent wetlands. The 170 CFS volume mentioned before is the design capacity of the proposed system. At that volume, the flow velocity is less than 2.6 feet per second, a velocity at which the canal's structural integrity would be expected to continue, i.e., erosion will not occur. The 145 CFS expected from the agricultural operation pursuant to permits for discharge issued by the South Florida Water Management District would promote a flow velocity of approximately 2 feet per second. This farm activity is known as the DuBois farm. (Its permit from the South Florida Water Management District allowing the 145 CFS to be discharged into the unnamed drainage ditch or canal is not contingent upon the construction of S-9.) The configuration of the S-9 Canal has been brought about principally to advantage the Petitioner in obtaining a construction permit from the United States Corps of Engineers. The Corps had an interest in protecting that corridor of land over which it has jurisdiction which is adjacent to the S-9 Canal and is described as a wetland area. A consequence of this choice of design for S-9 is the typical 72 to 80 hour travel time of water introduced into the system providing some settling of pollutants and some assimilation of pollutants within the littoral zone of the canal discussed before. 10..Necessary permits have been obtained from South Florida Water Management District and the United States Corps of Engineers to allow the construction of the proposed project. The configuration of this project takes into account the special concerns of those two agencies. In this sequence of collateral permitting, South Florida Water Management District has been responsible for an examination of stormwater quality considerations in deciding to grant a permit to Petitioner. With the construction of S-9 and connection of the unnamed canal to S- 9 and thus to L23W, all the waters within that conveyance system become Class III waters of the state in keeping with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes and its associated rules of the Florida Administrative Code. In effect, this is a dredge and fill activity under the Respondent's jurisdiction found in Rule 17- 4.20, Florida Statutes. As such, it becomes a stationary installation which can reasonably be expected to be a source of water pollution of waters of the state by discharge of pollutants into waters of the state as envisioned by Section 403.087, Florida Statutes. During the construction phase of the canal, water quality degradation can be controlled related to turbidity, transparency and other criteria. Upon connection of the S-9 Canal to L23W and the utilization of that system, problems will be experienced with dissolved oxygen levels and to a lesser extent, nutrients and total coliform. Oils and greases problems are possible though not probable. No other water quality impacts are expected after connection. In expectation of the difficulty in achieving compliance with Respondent's water quality standards related to dissolved oxygen, the Petitioner has sought a variance under Section 403.021, Florida Statutes. This request is necessary because the dissolved oxygen levels in the proposed S-9 Canal, the unnamed canal or drainage ditch and L23W are not expected to uniformly exceed 5 mg/1. See Rule 17-3.121(13), Florida Administrative Code. The problem with dissolved oxygen in the unnamed canal and L23W and expected in the S-9 canal is not an enigma. This condition is prevalent in the South Florida area to include Palm Beach County, the site of the project. The water in the canals and drainage ditches in the region is frequently in violation of the standards related to dissolved oxygen, given the elevations of the land, climatic conditions, type of plant life, water temperature and constituents of the water. The addition of S-9 to the system would neither improve nor significantly degrade the quality of water related to the dissolved oxygen values for Class III waters, of which this proposed system is constituted. This finding acknowledges the fact that dissolved oxygen values in the unnamed canal are superior to L23W. Nonetheless, upon completion of S-9 and connection to the two other canals, no significant positive improvements of dissolved oxygen will be realized. Moreover, considering the fact that the installation of the S-9 Canal will stop the flooding on the southeast corner of the residential area west of the unnamed drainage ditch or canal, an increased volume of water flowing into L23W at any given moment can be expected, compared to the present outfall primarily along the Florida Power and Light system road into L23W. This has significance related to the dissolved oxygen standard to the extent of an increased volume of water in which substandard dissolved oxygen levels are found being introduced into L23W. It is more significant related to nutrients and bacteriological quality of the water, in particular fecal coliform. While there is no reason to believe that the quality of cleansing of water involved in sheet flow into L23W related to nutrients and coliforms is remarkably better at present, given the sparse vegetation along the power-line road which leads to L23W, than would be the case with S-9 with littoral zone, the increased volume of cater being introduced at the connection of S-9 and L23W during times of peak discharge, can be expected to present greater quantities of nutrients and coliform. In essence, the treatment afforded by the littoral zone and the transport in the S-9 Canal, contrasted with the treatment afforded during the transport of waters by sheet flow along the relatively barren stretch of land adjacent to the power-line road is found to be comparable, and the differences relate only to volume of discharge. This difficulty with nutrients and coliform count has been confirmed by tests made in the unnamed canal showing excessive levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and coliform and the water treatment features of the S-9 Canal will not entirely remove these materials. Although the farming practices of the DuBois operation tend to alleviate some nutrient loading in the unnamed canal, the test results established that those practices do not entirely eliminate the introduction of those nutrient materials into the canal. Consequently, some problems related to the effects of nutrient loading on populations of flora and fauna in the proposed system can be expected. In the context of the variance request, alternatives to the construction of the S-9 Canal are here considered. The alternative to leave the circumstance as it now exists carries with it the risk of periodic flooding of the southeast corner of the residential property west of the unnamed canal. That area and the balance of the residential acreage are subject to flooding without regard for the agricultural operation to the east. To deal with the difficulty related to the elevated water table, rainfall events and the flooding due to farm operation, some persons who reside in that residential tract have employed their own pump systems and ditches and retention areas to combat problems related to the geography of their property. In addition, the property is protected to some extent from outside influences by the existence of a dike and associated ditch, which limit some off-property incursion of water and assists to an extent in the transport of water away from their property. Moreover, the DuBois farm operation recently has placed a barrier at the end of the unnamed canal which directs water south along the Florida Power and Light road into L23W. In addition, the farm management has held down the pump speed during a rain event to protect the residential area. Nonetheless, at times the dike in the southeast corner adjacent to the residential property has breached in heavy rain events. As an alternative, the installation of S-9 would be only partially effective in alleviating the adverse conditions in the residential area west of the unnamed canal. It principally helps the DuBois farm operation. The relief afforded the residents would be the cessation of flooding caused by the operation of the farm pumps to the east as they breach the area in the southeast corner of the residential property, the future possibility of introducing as much as 25 CFS into the S-9 System subject to appropriate permits and the more tenuous possibility that the farm operation and the residential area could share the remaining 145 CPS capacity in the proposed system. The latter point isn't tenable from an examination of testimony at hearing. First, because the farmer wishes to conserve fertilizer and to maintain the moisture gradient and he does this by pumping off stormwater in a rainfall event, which events are most prevalent during his agricultural season. Secondly, the residential area is most in need of relief when the farmer is. Finally, the question of necessary permits to share capacity is unclear. Other alternatives related to a more comprehensive protection of the residential area by diking, a direct connection canal system to L23W from the unnamed canal, or dispersed sheet flow through the wetland area adjacent to the proposed S-9 Canal are not viable either for reason of design infirmity or impediments from other permitting agencies or inadequate property rights. Therefore, the viable choices are to either leave the property as it now stands or grant a permit to allow the construction of S-9. Between the remaining choices, no particular advantage is gained by the construction of this project. Dissolved oxygen problems in L23W, the receiving body of water, will not improve with the S-9 construction in a significant way and given the increased volume of discharge into L23W promoted by this construction are made worse. Nothing in the construction is so compelling to cause the exercise of the Respondent's discretion in favor of the grant of a variance related to dissolved oxygen values. 16..In examining the variance request by affording deference to Petitioner's regulatory responsibility, the need of the Lake Worth Drainage District to provide relief to those residents who are paying for drainage services is conceded. To that end, the proposed project does provide a certain amount of relief but it does not have as its primary emphasis purported assistance to those residents. As often stated, its principal benefit is to the DuBois farm operation. Left unresolved is the major source of suffering which is the lay of the land, a source which has prevailed from the beginning of the utilization of that property on the part of the residents. Plainly stated, much of the residential area was from the beginning and continues to be under water. The removal of the farm flooding and the future possibility of introducing a small increment of discharge into the S-9 system from the residential area subject to necessary permitting does not modify the characterization of this project as being one primarily for the farmer and to a much lesser extent for the residents. On this occasion, Petitioner's choice to fulfill its change is not persuasive enough to create special permission to violate the dissolved oxygen standard. In summary, a variance from the dissolved oxygen standard for Class III waters is not indicated. On the question of the permit application, in addition to failing to give reasonable assurances related to dissolved oxygen, the applicant has failed to satisfactorily address the problems with nutrients and coliforms. Other water quality standards have been satisfactorily addressed. Again, most of the water that will be introduced into the proposed system shall be stormwater; however, there will be other water components in the system constituted of surface water an groundwater, which also carry nutrients arid bacteriological deposits. Surface and groundwater are involved, given the level of elevations in the area, the depths of the unnamed canal, S-9 Canal and L23W and the fact that the DuBois farm operation can extract waters from the E-l Canal to the east of the farm properties as well as discharge water into that canal. It will not always be possible to distinguish whether the water in the proposed system is stormwater, groundwater or surface water. Consequently, South Florida Water Management's permitting related to stormwater is not definitive.
Findings Of Fact The Navy intends to construct a 160 unit residential housing project at Key West, Florida. This project will be built on a 25.89 acre site that is bordered on the north by Eaton Street and Palm Avenue, on the east by Eisenhower Drive, on the south by Angela Street, and on the west by White Street. As designed, the completed site will have approximately 58 percent pervious area and 42 percent impervious area. In its undeveloped state, storm water runoff for the Peary Court site sheetflows to the north where a concrete containment wall directs the runoff to an existing inlet and storm drain. This existing inlet and drain connects to the City of Key West's drainage system at the corner of Palm Avenue and Eisenhower Drive and eventually discharges into a nearby surface water body known as "Garrison Bight". Runoff capacity that cannot be managed by the City of Key West's drainage system collects and discharges onto Palm Avenue. On September 21, 1992, the Navy submitted its initial permit application to the Department for the issuance of seven Class V storm water injection well permits. The seven injection wells are designed to function as part of a surface water management system. The storm water management system must be permitted by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The injection wells must be permitted by the Department. The proposed surface water management system for Peary Court was designed to meet SFWMD permitting criteria and will utilize dry detention with filtration through grassy swales and grassy retention ponds for the pretreatment of the project's storm water runoff. The Navy applied to SFWMD for a permit for the proposed surface water management system. The SFWMD tentatively approved the application. Thereafter, a challenge was filed to the proposed agency action, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case No. 92-6254. A Recommended Order was entered in DOAH Case NO. 92-6254 which recommended that the surface water management system be approved. A Final Order has been entered in DOAH Case 92-6254 by the SFWMD approving the Navy's surface water management system permit for Peary Court. The period for appeals of the Final Order has not expired as of the entry of this Recommended Order. The Department gave notice on December 4, 1992, of its intent to issue the permits to the Navy for not more than seven injection wells to be operated as part of the Peary Court surface water management system. The permit the Department intends to issue contains 16 general conditions and 10 specific conditions. None of the conditions are being challenged by the Navy. Among the specific conditions are the following: This permit is valid only for the specific process and operation indicated in the application. Any changes in these which may result in altered characteristics of the discharge are not permitted without the prior approval of the Department and modification of this permit. The discharge authorized by this permit shall be consistent with the water quality standards set forth in Chapter 17-3, F.A.C. [S]hould conditions in the receiving body warrant, the Permittee may be required by the Department to upgrade, reduce or cease discharge of run-off approved by this permit, and adopt an alternative method of disposal within a reasonable time. The permittee shall establish a periodic maintenance program that assures the integrity of the storm water drainage system to function as designed. "Detention" as that term is used in the context of surface water management systems is the temporary detaining of water on a site prior to eventual offsite discharge. "Retention" is the permanent retaining of water on a site with no offsite discharge. The proposed surface water management system will utilize grassy inlets and swales to direct runoff into four large grassy detention ponds as well as smaller pond areas prior to discharge from the surface water management system. Storm water that does not evaporate or percolate into the ground will be discharged through a v-notch weir discharge structure into Garrison Bight or to ground waters via the proposed injection wells. The detention ponds are connected with one another and act as one system so that the ponds fill and empty at the same rate. The surface water management system for Peary Court is designed so that there will be no offsite discharge during the first inch of a rainfall event. The on-site detention of the first inch of rainfall results in the removal of approximately 90 percent of all pollutants prior to discharge through what is referred to as "first flush". With the exception of one cul-de-sac in the northeast corner of the project near the v-notch weir, all runoff draining into the proposed detention areas will flow through grassy swales and inlets. The proposed grassy inlets and swales will transport runoff to the grassy detention ponds at a rate of one quarter to one half inch per second and thus will provide adequate filtration for the storm water runoff before it gets to the detention pond. The storm water that comes from the cul-de-sac will include storm water from Palm Avenue, which is adjacent to the Peary Court site. This storm water will travel through at least 50 feet through pipe before entering the detention pond and will receive little filtration prior to entering the detention pond. The water from the cul-de-sac will receive some filtration in the detention pond. The system is designed to detain the amount of storm water runoff which would be expected from a twenty-five year, three day storm event. Such a storm event in Key West would be expected to represent roughly a six to seven inch rainfall. The proposed injection wells are Class V, Group 5 storm water drainage wells pursuant to Rule, 17-28.130(1)(e)5, Florida Administrative Code, and meet all pertinent construction standards. The proposed injection wells will be located on the north side of Peary Court. The exact location and number of injection wells to be utilized will be determined by data received from conducting a well capacity test after the installation of the first injection well. The pre-development runoff from Peary Court was 55 cubic feet per second (cfs). Pursuant to SFWMD permitting criteria, the post-development discharge cannot exceed the pre-development discharge. The discharge capacity from the v-notch weir into Garrison Bight is 11 cfs. Consequently, the maximum discharge from the injection wells will be 44 cfs. The proposed location and number of wells are based on conservative estimates. No allowance is made in the surface water management system for naturally occurring evaporation or percolation. Discharges down the proposed injection wells is not continuous and is only expected to occur during rare storm events. The bottom of the detention ponds will be set at elevation 1.0 NGVD. The water inlets for the injection wells will be set at elevation 1.5 NGVD. Because the proposed water inlet for the v-notch weir discharge structure will be set at elevation 1 NGVD, offsite discharge to Garrison Bight will begin through the v-notch weir before any discharge through the injection wells. Discharge of storm water down the proposed injection wells will only occur when water levels in the ponds reach six inches (0.5 NGVD). The proposed wells will be drilled to a depth of ninety feet with grouted steel casing extending down to a depth of sixty feet below land surface. The wells are to be grouted to ensure that there will be no vertical migration along the borehole. Each injection well will have a concrete wellhead with a built in baffle to prevent floating debris, silt or sand from entering the well. The baffle will not prevent contaminants that are suspended in the storm water from being discharged through the injection well. The Navy provided a bedrock assessment and groundwater quality profile by drilling two exploratory boreholes at Peary Court. The subsurface strata underlying Key West consists of distinct horizontal layers of Miami Oolite and Key Largo Limestone. Beneath Peary Court, Miami Oolite extends from ground surface down to between forty-seven and fifty feet below land surface. The Key Largo Limestone extends below the Miami Oolite formation. Key Largo Limestone consists mainly of coral and limestone and is generally more porous and more permeable than Miami Oolite. Miami Oolite consists mainly of small sand like particles cemented together. Both formations can contain clays and lime or silicate muds. The Miami Oolite layer is not considered by the Department to be a "confining layer" as that term is used in the Department's rules determining the classification of wells because of its limited ability to retard the flow of fluids. The injection zone for the proposed injection wells will be between 60 to 90 feet below land surface, which is in the Key Largo Limestone formation. Ground water in the injection zone contains 35,000 to 40,000 milligrams per liter (mg/l) of total dissolved solids (TDS). Ground water in the injection zone is classified under Department rules as G-III because it is ground water having more than 10,000 mg/l TDS. A freshwater lens (the Key West lens) underlies a portion of Key West. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) documented the water quality and approximate size of the lens in 1990 by analyzing water samples taken from shallow monitoring wells. The results were compiled into what is referred to as the McKenzie Report. This thin layer of freshwater, varying in depths from two to ten feet, sits on top of a transition zone between the seawater and freshwater. This transition extends downward to approximately 40 feet below the surface of the land. The freshwater lens does not underlie Peary Court. The Key West lens is classified under Department rules as G-II because it is ground water having less than 10,000 mg/l TDS. The McKenzie Report documents the size of the lens using chloride concentration contours, with 250 mg/l chloride at the center of the lens out to 5,000 mg/l at the edge of the lens. Chloride concentrations of 250 mg/l or less is the standard maximum chloride level for drinking water. The locations of the proposed injection wells are outside of the 5,000 mg/l chloride concentration contour. There is no potable water source in the immediate vicinity of the proposed wells. The proposed injection wells will not be installed through G-II ground water (Key West lens), nor will it inject storm water into G-II ground water. Movement of water in the injection zone will be governed by two forces, pressure gradients and buoyancy factors. The injected water is more buoyant than sea water because it is less dense. Consequently, there will be a tendency for the injected water to move upward. The injected water also moves outward along pressure gradients associated with the Key West lens. The Key West Lens is thicker in the center and thinner towards the sides. Because of this fact, it has varying pressure gradients which is greater toward the center and will cause the injected water to move away from the Key West Lens. It is an established geologic principle that subsurface sedimentary rock formations generally favor lateral movement of water over vertical movement. Because the Key Largo Limestone strata is more porous and more permeable than the Miami Oolite strata and because of the pressure gradients of the Key West Lens, the storm water injected through the injection wells will move laterally away from the Key West Lens and towards Florida Bay. Tidal action will contribute toward the movement of the injected storm water away from the Key West Lens. It is not expected that the injected storm water will reach the Key West lens. When the relative densities of the injected water and the ground water equalize, upward movement of the storm water will cease. Subsurface tidal flows will have a washing machine effect on the discharging storm waters that will enhance the mixing and dispersion of the storm water. The mixing and dispersion of the storm water caused by subsurface tidal flows serve to reduce the buoyancy of the storm water, which retards its upward movement. The Department has relied, in part, on the review by SFWMD of the surface water management system in reaching the conclusion that the storm water discharged through the wells will meet water quality criteria after having moved through the surface water management system. When the Navy first applied for the surface water management system permit, it was believed that Garrison Bight had been designated as an Outstanding Florida Water. Consequently, SFWMD required that the surface water management system be designed to meet discharge criteria applicable to Outstanding Florida Waters. Notwithstanding such design, it can still be expected that minute levels of various contaminants typically found in storm water, such as heavy metals and those contained in pesticides, petroleum products, and animal waste, will remain in the discharged storm water. Saline ground waters contain microorganisms which live off trace amounts of organic material. Highly active zones of microorganisms, such as those found around injection wells, feed on and effectively break down organic compounds, including petroleum constituents, which may be discharged from injection wells. Any heavy metals that may remain in the storm water when it is injected through the injection wells will likely be absorbed onto the minute clay particles present in the Key Largo Limestone and Miami Oolite. Other natural constituents found in ground water will precipitate phosphorus and will break down nitrates. The Department's review of the Navy's application included an analysis of the proposed injection well design, the geologic, hydrogeologic, and water quality data and test reports provided in the permit application, and certain geologic literature, including the McKenzie report and other studies. Because of the known existence of the Key West lens, the Department required the Navy to submit more water quality and geologic data than would normally be submitted for a Class V injection well. Rule 17-28.520, Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The variety of Class V wells and their uses dictate a variety of construction designs consistent with those uses, and precludes specific construction standards for each type of Class V well outlined in this rule. However, a well must be designed and constructed for its intended use, in accordance with good engineering practices, and the design and construction must be approved by the Department. Rule 17-28.530, Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: All Class V wells shall be operated in such a manner that they do not present a hazard to an underground source of drinking water. ... Rule 17-28.620, Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: All owners of operators of Class V wells shall obtain a two-part Construction/Clearance permit ... The applicant shall submit to the Department at least the following information before receiving permission to construct: * * * Well location and depth, and casing diameter and depth for all water supply wells on the applicant's property, and well location for all water supply wells of public record within a 1000 foot radius of the proposed well; Description and use of proposed injection system, including type and construction of injection wells, physical and chemical analyses, estimated quantity, pertinent bacteriological analyses of injected fluid, and any proposed pretreatment; Proposed drilling and testing plan for any exploratory borehole or exploratory well proposed for the purpose of determining feasibility of Class V well injection at the site; If the flow of surface or other waters is directed by ditches or other artificial methods to the well, a delineation of the area drained by these features shall be provided. Rule 17-28.610(2), Florida Administrative Code, prohibits the injection of contaminants into underground sources of drinking water where the contaminant may cause a violation of any primary drinking water regulations under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-22, Florida Administrative Code, or where the contaminants may adversely affect the health of persons. The Navy has provided reasonable assurances that the injected storm water will have no effect on G-II groundwater, that the injected storm water will have little or no effect on the water quality of G-III groundwater, and that the injected storm water will not result in a violation of the minimum criteria and standards for G-II and G-III groundwater. Further, the Navy has provide reasonable assurances that the proposed injection wells will not cause or contribute to any adverse effects on public health. These findings are based, in part, on the design of the surface water management system, on the different permeability of the geologic formations that underlie Key West, the biological and chemical factors in the saline environment into which the storm water will be injected, and on the pressure gradients and other dynamics of the Key West Lens. Although there was some disagreement among the various expert witnesses who testified in this proceeding, the most persuasive testimony establishes that the water discharged through the injection wells will not reach the Key West lens and that the water will likely have no detectable levels of contaminants if it ever reaches Florida Bay.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order issuing the requested permit for the injection wells with all conditions contained in the notice and intent to issue. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1993.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Communities Financial Corporation is a Florida corporation engaged in the subdivision and sale of real property. In 1971 CFC purchased approximately twenty-two sections, or 22 square miles, of real property ("the land") in Township 34 South, Range 33 East, Okeechobee County, Florida, which it proposed to sell as individual one-and-one-quarter (1-1/4) acre lots. The subsequent development of that land is the subject of this proceeding. Respondent Coquina Water Management District ("Coquina") was organized pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, by judgment of the Circuit Court for Okeechobee County, Florida to perform drainage activities on the land. The land which CFC purchased in 1971 was originally platted in 1912 in a grid system with roads, drainage canals, and ditches. Extensive drainage was required for use of the land because it was very flat and had a high water table. Approximately one-half of the land was subject to flooding. After it was originally platted it was utilized for cattle ranching with drainage ditches connecting the low areas to encourage runoff. Ten-acre tracts surrounded by dikes and two to three foot deep ditches were used for tomato farming. Such agricultural ditching covered approximately 15 square miles of the property. At one time a hotel was situated on a portion of the property. North-South and East-West roads and a 5,000-foot airstrip were constructed across the property. The East-West road along the South boundary of the property, which is now a state road, has an adjacent drainage ditch which received ranchland water runoff from property east of the land. In 1971 and 1972 CFC registered the platted lots for sale with the Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums ("Land Sales") of the State of Florida Department of Business Regulation. In the normal course of compiling the documentation to be submitted for registration, CFC contacted several state regulatory agencies to determine whether such agencies required CFC to obtain permits for development of the property. CFC provided those agencies copies of its drainage plans, which included roads, swales, canals, and control structures. The State of Florida Department of Natural Resources ("DNR") stated that the construction of improvements as planned in the development would not be subject to that agency's jurisdiction for purposes of a dredge and/or fill permit. The State of Florida Department of Pollution Control ("DPC"), predecessor of DER, first stated in a letter of October 4, 1971, to Mr. Moseley Collins, who submitted a "plan of reclamation to DPC, that it had no regulatory responsibilities over the project: In response to your request for comments this Department has conducted a preliminary review of the proposed plan. We have no basic objections to the overall plan of development and believe it could be platted as shown. Specific details as to drainage techniques will be reviewed at a latter [sic] date. It is brought to you [sic] attention that although we have no regulatory responsibili- ties in this area we will welcome the opportunity to review cross sections and details at a latter [sic] date. We thank you for the opportunity to review a project of this magnitude at an early date. [Emphasis added.] The DPC, in a letter of March 30, 1972, to Collins, also observed that: This Department has conducted a review of the revised plan for the subject project and endorse the approach that you are contemplating in developing these areas. I have coordinated with other agencies and organizations and they concur with the approach. We would like to review the project at a future date to deter- mine the method of construction of the swales or greenways to move the water from one lake to another through the complete watershed area. You and your client are to be commended on this approach. From the preliminary layout you can see the possibilities for the potential develop- ment of an area for residential usage that will retain a large percentage of the natural resources and minimize the downstream effect on the overall watershed. Please advise when you want to review the project in greater detail. [Emphasis added.] In connection with the registration of the development, CFC submitted to Land Sales the above-referenced letters from DNR and DPC, detailed evidence of the proposed plan of development, and a public offering statement for use in solicitation of lot sales from the general public. Each offering statement contains several statements to the effect that "this is not a homesite subdivision." Land Sales approved use of the offering statement. In using it to solicit sales, CFC committed to the purchasers that it would complete the required road and drainage improvements by December 31, 1979. CFC commenced sales of lots in the development in 1971. The Agreements for Deed approved by Land Sales and subsequently entered into by CFC with lot purchasers required CFC to deliver improved lots by December 31, 1979. Most of the land sales were made between 1971 and 1973. (6,412 lots were sold and 1,146 were conveyed by June 23, 1977.) Approximately eighty percent of the lots have been sold to date. Up to one-half of the approximately nine thousand lot purchasers hold legal title to their lots pursuant to deeds issued to them by CFC upon full payment. CFC began construction of the promised improvements, consisting of roads and drainage, in 1972. At the present time approximately $1,000,000 of improvements have been completed and approximately $750,000 remain to be completed. In 1973 or 1974, CFC and Coquina submitted plans for the surface water management system which CFC proposed to construct for the property to the South Florida Water Management District ("SFWMD"). The initial plan of development called for the construction of a road and canal system. At the request of SFWMD, the plan was subsequently changed to a road and swale system, and the configuration of one of the control structures was changed. The design changes resulted in more water retention on the property and the preservation of sensitive areas. After several years of analysis and review of the design plan, inspection of the project site, and a public hearing, SFWMD granted conceptual approval for the surface water management system to be constructed by CFC in 1977. The conceptual approval was partially based on the SFWMD staff's assessment than pollutant loadings from the property after development would be less than existing loadings, and that adverse water quality impacts as a result of the proposed development were unlikely. The 1977 SFWMD conceptual approval of the drainage plan for the development was followed by the issuance of a construction permit for the westernmost seven sections on March 15, 1979. Throughout this period construction was continuing. The drainage system as approved consists of grassed lot, roadside, and collector "swales" together with a retention area comprised of natural wetlands in the area of the property known as Ash Slough. The volume of water leaving the property after development will be the same as that leaving the property before development. The drainage conveyances are designed with gradually sloping sides, vary to widths of over 100 feet for the larger collector conveyances, and have depths varying from 2 feet for the "lateral" swales to 3 feet for the larger collector swales. The groundwater table in the area of the project site varies from zero to approximately 30 inches below ground surface. The swales were designed at the request of SFWMD in lieu of the canals proposed within the same easements in the original drainage plan for the development. It appears from the evidence that these drainage conveyances are designed so as to contain contiguous areas of standing or flowing water only following the occurrence of rainfall or flooding. Although some testimony indicated that these conveyances contained contiguous areas of standing water, these observations were made either at isolated times during the progress of construction or soon after a major hurricane passed through the area. Since the purpose of the "swales" is to facilitate drainage from the property, it would appear necessary from an engineering viewpoint to allow some period of time after construction of the swales for them to stabilize to make a valid determination that they will not function as designed. Accordingly, it would not appear unusual that the swales contain areas of standing water until they have been given ample opportunity to stabilize. On the basis of the record in this proceeding, a determination simply cannot be made at this point in time that the swales will not function as designed. Following DPC's initial determination of no jurisdiction in 1971 and 1972, it and DER, its successor agency, were not involved with the project until 1974, when DPC received an inquiry concerning land sales matters from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In 1975, a DER staff member conducted a critical review of the Project and filed an internal memorandum faulting the project on the same essential grounds that are the basis for the Notice of Violation issued June 1, 1979. DER representatives participated in various SFWMD meetings from 1975 to 1977 when the conceptual approval of the drainage plan for the project was discussed. During this period, SFWMD forwarded copies of various materials dealing with the project to DER. Further, a DER representative attended the public hearing on September 8, 1977, when the conceptual approval of the project was granted by SFWMD. Respondents' first indication of DER's renewed interest in the development was a letter from DER Subdistrict Manager Warren Strahm to Robert Birenbaum on June 23, 1977. This letter stated, in part, that: The above referenced application/staff report has been supplied to this office by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). It has been determined that your project is subject to Chapters 403 and/or 253, Florida Statutes. A review of drainage plans by our staff indicates the referenced project will comply with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes permit requirements for pollutant discharge. Since these plans have been incorporated into the SFWMD permit, no discharge permit or monitoring in addition to SFWMD permit requirement will be required by the Department at this time. It appears, however, that the referenced project may fall within the permitting requirements set forth in Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to F.A.C. 17-4.28(2) should any excavation take place in submerged lands or within the transitional zone of submerged lands, dredge and fill permits will be required by this Department prior to commencement of said activi- ties. [Emphasis added.] Please contact Mr. Roger G. Gallop, at the Fort Pierce Branch Office, telephone (305) 464-8525, at your convenience in order to discuss the need for a construction dredge and fill permit. Thank you for your cooperation. Three months later, in a letter from James Brindell to Coquina, Respondents were notified that: A review, by this agency, of the plans associated with your Surface Water Management Permit Applica- tion No. 02187-A indicates that permits will be required from the Department of Environmental Regulation pursuant to Chapter 403 and/or Chapter 253, Florida Statutes for the construction con- templated. Specifically, permits will be required for the construction and operation of discharge structures as well as for any dredging and/or filling in the waters of the state including the submerged lands and transitional zone of these submerged lands. Additionally, certification pursuant to section 401 of F.L. 92-500 may be required. Formal or conceptual appova1 of your project by the South Florida Water Management District does not imply that your project will satisfy the requirements of this agency. Please contact Mr. Warren G. Strahm, Subdistrict Manager, 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, phone 305/689-5800, at your earliest convenience concerning application for these permits. (Emphasis added). This letter was followed one-and-one-half months later by a "Letter of Notice" from DER advising Respondents that DER had reason to believe the project was in violation of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and requesting CFC to cease any further work. Throughout this series of correspondence, CFC and Coquina maintained that DER did not have permit jurisdiction. This position was reasserted in a letter of November 1, 1977, from Emerson Allsworth, counsel for Coquina, to DER. During this period, numerous meetings were held involving representatives of Respondents and DER in which Respondents were urged by DER to apply for permits. Respondents failed to do so, and, on June 1, 1979, DER issued its Notice of Violation. Natural drainage from the property occurs southwestward into an area known as Ash Slough; southward from the central portion of the property into Gore Slough; and from the northeast section of the property into Company Slough. The headwaters of both Ash Slough and Gore Slough originate on the project site and periodically extend off Respondents' property to the south to join the waters of Chandler Slough. Chandler Slough, in turn, eventually empties into Lake Okeechobee 11 to 15 miles from the property. Company Slough also extends off the project site eastward onto the lands of others. There is, however, insufficient evidence in this record from which to conclude that Company Slough regularly exchanges flow with any other body of water. A "slough", as that term is used in the context of this proceeding, is a surface conveyance pathway for waters whose lateral boundaries are not as well-defined as a stream bed, and whose rate of flow is relatively slow. Due to the flat topography of the project site, Ash, Gore and Company Sloughs have imprecise boundaries, and their rates of flow appear to range at various times from very slow to nonexistent. By Cease and Desist Order dated March 28, 1978, the United States Army Corps of Engineers required Respondents to halt any further work then being conducted on the project, asserting that work in progress at that time was being conducted in waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands, without first having acquired a permit from the Corps of Engineers. This Order provided, in part, that: Section 301(a) of the [Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972] makes it unlawful to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States unless author- ized by a Section 404 permit issued by the Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief of Engineers. Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 prohibits the excavation or depositing of material or erecting any struc- tures in navigable waters of the United States unless authorized by a Department of the Army permit. The work referred to in the paragraph above is deemed to have occurred in waters subject to these statutory requirements without the requisite permits and is considered unlaw- ful by this office. Prior to 25 July, the Corps of Engineers limited the requirement for Section 404 type permits to areas either below the mean high water line in tidal areas or below the ordinary high water line of rivers and streams which either now sup- port, had supported, or were capable of supporting interstate commerce. However, on 25 July 1975, the regulatory juris- diction of the District was expanded to all waters of the United States and adjacent wetlands. [Emphasis add.] Subsequently, however, by memorandum dated May 17, 1978, the United States Army Corps of Engineers determined that it did not have jurisdiction over Respondent's activities for the following reasons: In the northeast and eastern portion of the tract the flagponds and saw grass prairies are isolated with no discernible drainage sloughs or patterns. The other area of concern, in the south west sector, contains isolated ponds and an old man-made drainage canal that comprises shallow, intermittent potholes above the natural headwaters of Ash and Gore Sloughs. There was no recognizable flow in any part of the canal and the point at which average annual flow appear to be 5 c.f.s. or greater is located to the south a considerable distance from the subject tract. The project, as proposed, will not destroy or threaten any endangered species or their habitat nor adversely impact water quality of the ultimate receiving waters in Kissimmee River and Lake Okeechobee. In 1971, the Soil Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture classified Ash and Gore Sloughs, as well as Fish Slough, to which Company Slough is alleged by DER to connect, as "intermittent". This determination is supported by hydrological data compiled by the South Florida Water Management District which shows no net flow in Chandler Slough for as many as six months in 1975 and four months in 1976. In the South Florida Water Management District report concerning flow patterns in Chandler Slough, it was pointed out that: The climate in this portion of Florida is subtropical with warm summers and moderate winters. Rainfall is seasonal with about 75 percent of the total occur- ring in a well-defined wet season, from May to October. This distribution of rainfall results in considerable surface water flow during part of the year. During the late winter and early spring many of the creeks and sloughs, such as Chandler Slough, become completely dry. [Emphasis added.] In addition, testimony in the record in this proceeding establishes that on at least one occasion during the time in which construction on the property was being conducted, Company Slough was completely dry. There is no data in the record quantifying the annual flow of water from Ash and Gore Sloughs into Chandler Slough. Further, there is no evidence concerning the periodicity of any such water exchanges between Ash and Gore Sloughs and Chandler Slough. As indicated above, the evidence establishes that Chandler Slough, which is the larger collector slough into which both Ash and Gore sloughs allegedly discharge, periodically becomes "completely dry." DER witnesses testified that they had observed contiguous areas of standing water in Ash, Gore and Company Sloughs during visits to the site, and had also determined the existence of an exchange of waters between Ash, Gore and Company Sloughs with other sloughs connecting to Chandler Slough by analyzing aerial photographs. However, those aerial photographs were not made a part of the record in this proceeding. Additionally, the relatively few visits to the site by these witnesses, in the absence of validly derived data establishing pertinent flow rates, is insufficient to establish "normal" conditions in the area. This is especially true in light of the aforementioned countervailing determinations based upon data compiled by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the United States Department of Agriculture and the South Florida Water Management District. The evidence shows that some of the types of vegetation listed in DER's vegetation indices by which DER determines whether areas are "submerged lands" or "transitional zones" of submerged lands have been found on the project site. Among the types of vegetation observed in and around Ash, Gore and Company Sloughs are maidencane, water willow, pickerelweed, button bush, saw grass and St. John's wort. Although these species were detected in some locations by visual observation, apparently no attempt was made to quantify these plants vis-a-vis other vegetative types, nor were any physical measurements made to locate their boundaries. In a report dated August 26, 1977, the SFWMD attempted to identify the acreage, but not boundaries, of wetlands on the development site. The findings of that report show that approximately 2,014 of 14,080 acres, or 14.3 percent of the total site, contains wetlands vegetation. The report also indicates that the wetlands vegetation is scattered in different locations over the site, with the median occurrence being 68 acres per 640-acre section. DER presented quantified evidence showing turbidity readings in the Ash Slough area of the development during the construction of swales in August, 1979, of 325 Jackson Units and November and December, 1979, of 155 and 176 Jackson Units, respectively. It should be noted that these readings were performed after the filing of the Notice of Violation herein. Although samples of August 6, 1979, were taken without a background sample in Ash Slough, the evidence establishes that background readings in Ash Slough were less than 25 Jackson Units. The evidence clearly establishes that DER's water quality sampling and analysis were conducted in accordance with applicable requirements of Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. The evidence establishes that these readings are attributable to construction of swales and control structures and would not be expected to continue after completion of construction. There is no evidence to show the duration of the discharges resulting in these turbidity readings, nor is there any showing of actual damage to animal, plant or aquatic life. Petitioner and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact in this proceeding. To the extent that those findings of fact are not adopted in this Recommended Order, they have been specifically rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties and on the evidence received at the final hearing in this case, the following findings of fact are made. Respondent, DER, is the state agency charged with administering the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder, including the issuing of dredge and fill and certain stormwater permits/water quality certifications. Developers Diversified applied to DER for a dredge and fill permit/water quality certification to construct a shopping center and associated stormwater facilities by filling approximately four acres of DER jurisdictional wetlands. The project site is located at the intersection of State Road 71 and U.S. Highway 90, east of Marianna, Jackson County, Florida. The project is to be known as the Crossroads Shopping Center. It will be constructed on a 20-acre site and will consist of 165,000 square feet of enclosed area and approximately 1000 parking spaces. The center will include a major department store, a grocery store, a junior department store, and various other retail stores. The project site includes an unnamed watercourse (hereinafter known as the "north/south watercourse") which exits the site under U.S Highway 90 and connects to a flood plain to the Chipola River, an Outstanding Florida Water, which is about one mile away. Existing improvements to the property include a metal building, which is being used as an auto parts store, a vacant concrete building, and a residence. Developers Diversified has already removed five or six houses from the site. To the west of the site are several restaurants, a Holiday Inn, gas stations, and automobile dealerships. Other surrounding land use is a mixture of residential, commercial, and agricultural development. Developers Diversified subsequently modified its application and the application was eventually deemed complete on January 15, 1988. On April 12, 1988, DER issued an Intent To Deny. The Intent To Deny indicated that the project would be permittable if certain further modifications were made. After receipt of the Intent to Deny, Developers Diversified further modified the project and reduced wetland impacts to the point that only approximately 0.83 acres of DER jurisdictional wetlands will be filled. Other project modifications included moving the project approximately thirty feet to the west to reduce the amount of fill in the wetlands; the addition of wing walls at areas where fill will be sloped, thereby removing fill from stream areas; the use of an elevated pipe system to convey stormwater across the stream, so as not to impact natural flow; reduction of the project size by approximately 10,000 square feet; and the removal of one outlet, a one-half acre to one acre parcel. The stormwater treatment system was also redesigned to alleviate DER's water quality concerns. The stream systems on site comprise four identifiable watercourses: a) The largest is a north/south stream system which originates off site at a groundwater spring located adjacent to the northeast of the site and then flows south parallel to the eastern boundary of the project site and continues off site through a culvert beneath Highway 90 on the southern boundary of the site. b) The next largest is a small, intermittent forked tributary system which originates in a seepage slope system in the north central area of the project site and discharges into the larger north/south watercourse. c) The next largest is an intermittent east/west watercourse originating in a seepage slope system in the northwestern area of the project site which discharges into the north/south watercourse. d) The smallest is an intermittent watercourse located in the western central area of the site which originates at an outfall pipe from an unidentified source. The streams on site are tributaries to the Chipola River, which is designated in Rule 17-3.041(4)(i), Florida Administrative Code, as an Outstanding Florida Water. The streams themselves are classified as Class III waters pursuant to the standards in Rule 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code. The site currently receives untreated stormwater runoff from both State Road 71 and Highway 90. Stormwater collection systems from these roads discharge directly through outfall pipes into the stream systems on site. The streams on site currently appear to receive discharges from a number of septic tank systems located either on site or on adjacent sites. High fecal and total coliform levels found in water samples taken by the applicant's experts in the course of water quality analysis of the stream systems on site are evidence of these discharges. The ecosystem found in the undisturbed portion of the project site is a wet mesic hardwood system which is a product of the geologic and hydrologic character of the site. This type of ecosystem is uncommon in the state of Florida and is generally found only in the north central area of the Florida Panhandle. The dominant physical characteristic of the undisturbed wet mesic hardwood ecosystem on site is the presence of functioning seepage slopes. The seepage slopes on this site are hydrogeological formations which are relatively rare within the boundaries of the state of Florida. They occur as gently sloping hillsides or steeper ravines with characteristically porous upper layers of soil composed of sand or sandy clay situated atop lower strata of impervious white clays or limestone rock. Rainwater percolates through the upper layers of these slopes and collects on top of the lower impervious layers. The water then flows down gradients beneath the soil surface, following the contour of the impervious layer until it either encounters a fissure which allows an avenue to the surface in the form of small sinkholes and seepage points, or reaches the bottom of the ravine or slope where it discharges into the larger visible stream systems on the site. The effect of the seepage slope is the attenuation of rainfall-related moisture content in the soils on site and the resultant flattening of the hydroperiod in the system. This effect creates a wet hardwood ecosystem on this site which supports relatively unusual floral and faunal communities for Florida. Despite their hydrologic functions in relation to the wetlands on the site, most of the seepage slope systems on the site are not considered jurisdictional wetlands pursuant to the Department's rule criteria contained in Rule 17-12.030, Florida Administrative Code. The functions of the seepage slope systems on and adjacent to the project site not generally sensitive to adjacent development activities which do not impair the integrity and porosity of the upper strata of the soils on the slope. Department dredge and fill regulations do not provide protection from the adverse effects of silvicultural and agricultural activities for any part of the seepage slope systems on site. Developers Diversified would not be precluded from using for future commercial development purposes a substantial portion of the seepage slope systems on site which is not directly impacted by the proposed project and not within the Department's wetlands jurisdictional area. The natural hydroperiod of a large portion of the seepage slope systems associated with the Chipola River system was destroyed when a dam was constructed nearby at Highway 90 to create Merrits Mill Pond. Because of this factor, the function of the remaining seepage systems is more important. On June 16, 1988, DER, in response to the applicant's permit modifications, issued an Intent to Issue with ten permit conditions, including a mitigation plan consisting of a conservation easement over approximately 12.54 acres on and adjacent to the project site. On June 21, 1988, Developers Diversified filed with DER Proof of Publication of Notice of Proposed Agency Action. The stormwater system is designed to meet the requirements of Chapter 17-25, Florida Administrative Code. The stormwater discharge system utilizes filter fabric and sand to filter oil and grease to prevent water quality violations. The detention ponds have over 50 per cent more storage volume than required by Chapter 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, and are designed to drain through the filters in 36 hours or less. The filtration system is designed using sand media in accordance with Rule 17-25.025(2), Florida Administrative Code. This media is separated from perforated drain pipe by filter fabric which will hold the sand in place. As both ponds are designed to draw down in 36 hours or less, a safety factor of at least 2 is provided (72 hours divided by 36 hours 2). The stormwater system is not only designed to meet the minimum requirements of Chapter 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, but is also overdesigned to accommodate the first three- quarters of an inch of runoff. The system was overdesigned in order to receive not only the stormwater runoff from the project, but also DOT discharges from U.S. Highway 90 and State Road 71, which presently discharge into waters of the state in an untreated condition. Developers Diversified proposes utilization of construction and post- construction Best Management Practices ("BMP") to minimize the potential for adverse water quality impacts. These BMP include the construction of a ten-foot high retaining wall to prevent encroachment into the adjacent small, intermittent channel; steep embankment slopes sodded or stabilized to minimize erosion; silt fencing used along the limits of jurisdictional areas prior to construction; hay bales to reduce erosion upgradient from silt fences; sheet pilings to construct foundations of the pipe bridge; geotextile material to stabilize fill embankments to reduce erosion; disturbed areas to be sodded, grassed, or landscaped to minimize erosion after construction; use of Marafi- Miragrid fabric to stabilize slopes where staking sod alone would be ineffective to hold the slopes; and the use of natural vegetation in uplands, where possible, to retard erosion. Developers Diversified will also employ an on-site full-time engineer to assure that the stormwater system is properly constructed, that all permit conditions are complied with by the contractor, and that construction impacts are minimized. Developers Diversified will conduct the following post-construction activities: monthly monitoring of stormwater inlets to check for buildup of debris; regular sweeping of the parking lot; mowing of the berms of the stormwater retention ponds and removal of debris from the ponds; regular inspection of the ponds for signs of erosion; and regular inspection of the filter fabric by an engineer to make sure that the filtration system is functioning properly. BMP during and after construction will minimize erosion. The stormwater design assures that virtually no particulate load will reach waters of the state. Further, the drainage basin for this site is only approximately 0.2 square miles. Consequently, relatively little runoff from the site potentially contributes to the Chipola River. Improved water quality will result from treating the presently untreated DOT stormwater. In addition, water quality will also be improved by eliminating presently untreated discharge which appears to include sewage. There is, therefore, little potential for degradation of the Chipola River. DER has imposed as a permit condition, and Developers Diversified has agreed to, the posting of a construction bond equal to the amount of the construction costs of the stormwater system plus 10 per cent, to ensure that the stormwater system is constructed in accordance with permit conditions. Water quality sampling was conducted at 11 locations on site and in the conservation area. The results of this sampling indicate a violation of state water quality standards (Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code) at Sampling Station No. 4. Sampling Station No. 4 was selected to measure the water quality from the 6-inch PVC pipe located west of the north/south watercourse. Sampling at this station indicates water quality violations of standards for conductivity (specific conductance), ammonia, and total and fecal coliform. The apparent source of this discharge is effluent from untreated domestic wastewater. Residences and commercial establishments in the vicinity of the project currently use septic tanks. Developers Diversified has agreed to fund the extension of the City of Marianna's sewer system to the project site. Pursuant to Chapter 371, Florida Statutes, all commercial establishments and residences in the area of the project site which are currently on septic tank systems will be required to hook up to city sewage. Therefore, the presence of untreated effluent in waters on the site should be eliminated. The stormwater system at the Crossroads Shopping Center will be constructed so as to provide adequate retention areas to pick up the DOT discharge, which is presently discharging to waters of the state in an untreated condition. Therefore, the improvement in site conditions relating to elimination of the untreated sewage and DOT discharges should be considered a public benefit. No threatened and endangered animal species were observed on site during the course of extensive site inspections by both Developers Diversified's consultants and DER staff. Because of the altered character and location of the site, it is unlikely that any such animal species would be found in the particular habitat on this site. Furthermore, DER permitting staff requested comments from the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission regarding threatened and endangered animal species, and no comments were received. There is no evidence of record in this proceeding that shows the existence of any threatened or endangered animal species on site. No identified populations of plants on the threatened or endangered species list were found on the project site, with the exception of a single pyramid magnolia sighted in the upland area adjacent to the spring head of the north/south tributary. The project site is populated by ubiquitous animal species that can forage in the wetlands and uplands adjacent to the 0.83 acres proposed for filling. Small salamanders, frogs, and minnows were observed in the few areas of pooled or flowing water. It is unlikely that these animals would be significantly affected by the project because they are either located in the conservation area or can forage in areas which will be left undisturbed. Wetlands to be filled on the site also provide minimal opportunities for detrital export. The site contains no water deep enough to have permanent fish populations or to otherwise be of recreational value. Due to the relatively small area to be filled, the small size of the drainage basin, and the large area of wetlands within the Chipola River Basin which contributes to the Chipola River, removal of these wetlands will result in no measurable impact to fish and recreational values in the Chipola River. Permit conditions and construction and post-construction BMP will prevent harmful erosion or shoaling. This project will have no effect on navigation or the flow of water either on site or in the Chipola River. On-site waters present no opportunity for fishing or recreation. There should be no direct or indirect impacts on fishing and recreational values in the Chipola River. Since the on-site system is not a marine system, the proposed project will not affect marine productivity. This shopping center development will be permanent in nature. The construction activity associated with the development will, of course, be temporary. DER typically does not require applicants to conduct archeological site surveys. Instead, DER staff routinely requests comments on potential historic or archeological impacts of dredge and fill projects from the Secretary of State's office. DER staff requested comments from the Secretary of State's office in this case, but no comments were received. Consequently, there is no evidence of record to show the existence of any significant historical or archeological resources on the project site. The City of Marianna and Jackson County have no zoning code, land use map, regulations on development in wetlands, or restrictions on commercial development and only limited restrictions on residential development related to the dedication of infrastructure to the county. There is no evidence in the record indicating that existing projects impact waters of the state in the area of the project, nor is there evidence that there are other projects which are under construction, have been permitted, or have been the subject of a jurisdictional determination. Similarly, there is no evidence that any other specific projects may "reasonably be expected" in nearby jurisdictional areas. Commercial and agricultural uses already surround the site. Since the site is located at a major road intersection, the possibility of future development exists. Should development occur, the conservation easement proposed by the applicant will be especially valuable because it will preserve a majority of the wetland system in the vicinity of the project site. Since the enactment of the mitigation provisions of Section 403.918(2)(b), Florida Statutes, in 1984, the Department has attempted to adopt a rule to carry out this legislative provision. The Environmental Regulation Commission has approved a mitigation rule for adoption, but the rule has been the subject of successive administrative rule challenges. As a result, the Department has been operating under evolving non-rule mitigation policy in processing dredge and fill applications since 1984. Three Department memoranda provide guidance to Department staff involved in the evaluation of mitigation issues raised in connection with dredge and fill applications currently pending before the Department: a) a March 24, 1987, memorandum from Department Secretary Dale Twachtmann to Randy Armstrong on the subject of "Interim Mitigation Policy," b) an April 30, 1987, memorandum from Randy Armstrong to Department District Mangers and Mark Latch on the subject of "Evaluation of Mitigation," and c) a June 20, 1988, memorandum from Secretary Dale Twachtmann to Randy Armstrong titled "Policy for Wetlands Preservation as Mitigation." The selection of the proposal which will be considered to ameliorate the adverse impacts of a project is a site specific, fact specific, and project specific type of determination. Therefore, it is difficult to describe in general terms what kind of measures will be acceptable as mitigation. As indicated in all three memos, the Department does consider a wide variety of types of proposals in determining how a permit applicant can best mitigate the adverse impacts of the proposed project. The Department's dredge and fill permitting technical staff and policy makers generally go through at least three steps in considering what type of mitigation will be best suited for a specific project. The first step is to consider reasonable modifications to project placement and design which will minimize or eliminate any of the anticipated adverse impacts. If, for some reason, the applicant cannot reasonably comply with the Department's suggested modifications to minimize the adverse impacts by redesigning its project, the applicant is then allowed to develop alternatives for the creation of artificial wetland habitat or the enhancement of existing impacted wetlands on the project site. If for some reason the creation and enhancement of wetland areas on-site is not feasible, then the option of the creation or enhancement of wetland areas adjacent to the project may be explored. As a final matter, the Department may consider the dedication of property rights to the state as means of preserving wetlands and other valuable natural areas as a means of mitigating for expected adverse impacts. Property dedication can take the form of perpetual conservation easements or the conveyance of fee simple title on properties within the project boundaries or adjacent to the project site. As a result of a finding by the Department that Developers Diversified's proposed project proposed project was not permittable because of the adverse impacts of the habitat loss in the more valuable western potions of the east/west tributary and the northern forked seepage stream system, the Department considered modification options and mitigation proposals with the applicant in an effort to ameliorate those adverse impacts. The Department suggested a list of modifications which the applicant could make to the proposed project to eliminate or minimize the filling of jurisdictional wetlands on the project site. The applicant made the following modifications to the project in response to the Department's suggestions: The project was moved 30 feet to the west to reduce encroachment into the wetlands from 1.26 acres to 0.83 acres. An elevated stormwater drain crossing of the jurisdictional area was designed to eliminate the fill pipeline crossing originally proposed. A retaining wall 10 feet high and 150 feet long was designed to prevent encroachment of the project into approximately 1,000 square feet of wetlands to preserve a small, intermittent stream channel. Steep embankment slopes (1:1.5) were designed to reduce encroachment into the wetlands. These slopes will be sodded or otherwise stabilized to minimize erosion. Silt fencing will be installed along all limits of project construction adjacent to jurisdictional areas prior to commencement of construction and will be maintained during the entire construction phase. Geotextile or equivalent will be used to stabilize the fill (embankment) to support the building foundations and roadwork along the east side of the site. This will serve to reduce erosion of the fill into the jurisdictional area during and after project construction. All areas disturbed during construction and not paved or covered by structures will be sodded, grassed, or landscaped to minimize erosion after project construction. Mirafi-Miragrid fabric will be used to stabilize slopes where staking sod alone would be ineffective. This material will hold sod firmly in place until it is established. The Department considered wetlands creation and enhancement proposals provided by the applicant for areas both within the boundaries of the site and adjacent to the site. The Department and Developers Diversified discussed the feasibility of developing plans for the re-creation of both the hardwood slope forest type environment and the seepage slope environment either on site or adjacent to the site. However, in further exploring those options, both Department staff and the applicant's engineers agreed that the topography and soil characteristics of the area, combined with the complex nature of the systems which would have to be re-created, made both options impractical and most likely impossible. The department considered the option of accepting preservation of the seepage slope system as mitigation only after determining that wetland creation and/or enhancement options were not available to mitigate the adverse impacts of the project. As a means of utilizing the option of preservation of the remaining wetlands and other natural features within or adjacent to the project site, the Department considered the applicant's proposal for conveying conservation easements over all of the approximately 6 acres, both jurisdictional wetlands and uplands, which remained on the northern and eastern side of the project site. In addition, the applicant arranged for the donation of a conservation easement over approximately 6.5 acres of additional jurisdictional wetlands and related upland areas adjacent to the northern and eastern boundaries of the project site. The proposal provided for the execution of perpetual conservation easements over approximately 12.564 acres of high quality seepage slope and stream systems on or adjacent to the project site. The Department's guidelines on the acceptance of preservation proposals as mitigation recognize that the State of Florida is paying high prices for environmentally unique and threatened land through public land acquisition programs such as the Conservation and Recreation Lands Program. As a result, the Department considers that the possibility of acquiring such properties by donation makes the serious consideration of such preservation proposals environmentally and economically necessary. The Department considered the following factors in determining whether or not it was appropriate to accept the proposed conveyance of conservation easements in this case: Whether or not the parcel is under consideration for purchase and management as a conservation area or is immediately adjacent to one, or is of such high quality as to provide clear benefit to the state as preserved land; The current degree of threat to the parcel; The proximity of the parcel to the site of the project for which mitigation is required; The quality of the conveyance instrumcnt and the status of other encumbrances, such as mineral rights; Whether the parcel is within, near, or adjacent to any waters with a special designation such as parks, aquatic preserves, and Outstanding Florida Waters; The condition of the property as a result of previous activities, such as the disposal of hazardous or solid waste. The Department considered the following factors in assessing the relative value of the areas proposed for preservation on and adjacent to this project site: Relative proximity to existing or anticipated activity that would affect its environmental value; Existing water quality; Presence of threatened or endangered species; Presence of feral animals that would affect resources; Presence of historic or archeological sites; The hydrological importance of the surface water and ground water at that location; The configuration of the parcel. The proposed conservation easements mitigate the adverse effects of the proposed filling by perpetually preserving virtually all of the watershed for the north/south tributary on site and ensuring the continued functioning of this system in the face of future unrestricted commercial development in the area. The proposed preservation option ratio preserves over 15 acres of similar or better quality wetland and related uplands slope systems for every acre of jurisdictional wetlands to be filled. This 15:1 ratio is within the limits of the acceptable range of 10:1 to 100:1 proposed in the Department Secretary's June 20, 1988, memorandum for this type of preservation proposal. The Department has already accepted a mitigation proposal in one standard form dredge and fill permitting matter which involved the use of preservation through conservation areas alone. The DER Southwest District Office has issued Warning Notices to Developers Diversified for two shopping center projects in Pasco County, known as Bayonet Point and Pasco Square. At Pasco Square, the stormwater system was allegedly not constructed in accordance with permit specifications and the mitigation and enhancement areas were allegedly also not constructed. At Bayonet Point, a retention area was allegedly overgrown with nuisance species, a littoral shelf for a retention area was not complete, and portions of the stormwater system were not properly constructed. In addition, DER did not have proof that the conservation easement had been recorded with the Clerk of the Court. Subsequently, the permit was modified to eliminate the littoral shelf requirement. At the time of this hearing, all work on Bayonet Point has been completed to DER's satisfaction. Required work is underway at Pasco Square. No Notice of Violation or other enforcement action has been pursued against Developers Diversified relating to these or any other projects. The CBPG is a not-for-profit corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida and, as such, is considered to be a citizen of the state for the purposes of Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. The CBPG filed a verified petition for hearing alleging that the activities sought to be permitted will impair, injure, or pollute the natural resources of the state. The CBPG was concerned about the loss of wetlands on the proposed development site. The totality of the evidence fails to support a finding that CBPG undertook this action for an improper purpose or that its motives were frivolous. The correct full name of the Florida Sierra is "the Florida Chapter of the Sierra Club." The nature of Florida Sierra and of the Sierra Club is described as follows in Section 1.1 of Article 1 of the Bylaws of the Sierra Club Florida Chapter: This Chapter is constituted by action of the Board of Directors of the Sierra Club on February 14, 1971, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Bylaws of the Sierra Club. This Chapter is an integral part of the Sierra Club and is governed by its Bylaws; it is not a separate legal entity. The Sierra Club is a California- based corporation registered as a foreign non-profit corporation with the Florida Secretary of State. Section 1.5 of Article 1 of the same Bylaws provides, in pertinent part: "The members of this Chapter shall be those members of the Sierra Club who reside within the geographical limits of the Chapter. . . ." Those geographical limits are identical to those of the State of Florida. And Section 2.1 of Article 2 of the subject Bylaws requires that the management of the affairs and activities of Florida Sierra be carried out in a manner consistent with the purposes of Sierra Club National and the policies and directives of the National Board. The purposes of Florida Sierra include the protection, exploration, and enjoyment of the natural resources of the state. In that regard, the organization has an outings program, is involved in conservation issues, distributes a newsletter, and educates and champions other activities promoting the protection of the natural resources of the state. Florida Sierra has its own bank account with a treasurer responsible for its finances. The Bylaws of Florida Sierra vest the powers and duties of "the Florida Chapter of the Sierra Club" in a board of directors referred to as the Florida Executive Committee. Florida Sierra has not alleged, and there is no evidence of record, that it is a Florida corporation. Florida Sierra has not registered in any county in Florida under the Fictitious Name Statute, Section 865.09, Florida Statutes. Furthermore, Florida Sierra is not an unincorporated association. The national Sierra Club, Inc., a California corporation, is registered in Florida as a foreign corporation authorized to do business in this state.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order granting the application of Developers Diversified, Inc., to fill approximately 0.83 acres of wetlands and for the construction and operation of a stormwater treatment and conveyance system in relation to the development of the Crossroads Shopping Center in Marianna, Florida, and issuing permits with appropriate conditions governing the construction of a shopping center and the stormwater collection and treatment system and the execution of conservation easements as included in the Department's Intent to Issue dated June 16, 1988. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-3355 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Developers Diversified Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5: Accepted. Paragraph 6: Most rejected as unnecessary historical details. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13: Accepted in substance, with some unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 14: Covered in introduction; not necessary in findings of fact. Paragraph 15: Accepted. Paragraph 16: First two sentences covered in introduction; not necessary in findings of fact. The remainder of this paragraph is accepted in substance. Paragraph 17: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23: Accepted. Paragraph 24: Accepted in substance with some redundant language omitted. Paragraph 25: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details not fully supported by the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 26, 27, and 28: Accepted. Paragraphs 29 and 30: Accepted in substance with some clarifying additions. Paragraphs 31, 32, and 33: Accepted. Paragraph 34: Accepted with clarifying addition. Paragraph 35: Accepted. Paragraphs 36 and 37: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary material omitted. Paragraphs 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, and 48: Accepted in substance, although findings actually made are more closely modeled on the proposals submitted by the DER. Paragraphs 49 and 50: Rejected as constituting conclusions of law or argument, rather than proposed findings of fact. (Matters addressed by these paragraphs are discussed in the conclusions of law.) Paragraph 51. Accepted. Paragraph 52: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Findings proposed by Petitioner Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4: Accepted in substance with a number of unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 5: First sentence accepted. Remainder rejected as not fully supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence and as, in any event, subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 6: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 7: (There is no paragraph 7.) Paragraphs 8 and 9: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 10: Rejected as an unnecessary generality in light of other evidence about this specific system. Paragraph 11: Accepted. Paragraph 12: Rejected as irrelevant because not found in this system. Paragraph 13: Accepted in part; some parts rejected as unnecessary historical background. Paragraphs 14 and 15: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 16: A few details from this paragraph have been incorporated into the findings, but most have been rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 17 and 18: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 19: Rejected in part as speculative and in part as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 20: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 21: First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Third sentence rejected as irrelevant. Fourth sentence accepted. Paragraph 22: First sentence accepted. Remainder rejected as argument and as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 23: Rejected as constituting primarily argument rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraphs 24 and 25: Accepted. Paragraph 26: Rejected as speculation and as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 27: Rejected as constituting argument or conclusions of law rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraphs 28, 29, and 30: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 31: Rejected as constituting for the most part argument rather than proposed findings of fact. To the extent findings are proposed, they are irrelevant or not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 32: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 33, 34, and 35: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 36: Accepted with additional clarifying details. Paragraph 37: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 38: Rejected as redundant. Paragraph 39: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 40: First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant. Third sentence rejected as constituting argument rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 41: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 42: For the most part rejected as unnecessary details. Paragraph 43: Rejected in part as constituting unnecessary details and in part as constituting argument rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 44: Rejected as primarily constituting argument rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 45: Accepted in substance, with the exception of the last sentence, which suggests an incorrect inference. Paragraphs 46 and 47: Accepted. Paragraph 48: Accepted with the exception of the proposition that Florida Sierra acts "independently" of the national organization. (It cannot be truly independent if it is not a separate legal entity.) Paragraph 49: Accepted in substance, with some unnecessary details omitted. Findings proposed by DER Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18: Accepted. Paragraphs 19, 20, 21, and 22: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 23: Accepted in substance, with exception of last two sentences, which are conclusions of law. Paragraph 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 32: Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact. This proposed conclusion is discussed in the conclusions of law. Paragraphs 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44: Accepted. Paragraph 45: Last sentence accepted. Remainder omitted as constituting unnecessary historical background. Paragraphs 46, 47, and 48: Accepted. Paragraph 49: Rejected as redundant and unnecessary. Paragraph 50: Accepted. Paragraph 51: Accepted in substance, with clarification of ratio figures. (The formula appears to be 12.54 divided by .83 = 15.108433.) Paragraph 52: Accepted. Paragraph 53: Rejected as redundant and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter B. Belmont, Esquire 511 31st Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 William E. Williams, Esquire Robert D. Fingar, Esquire J. D. Boone Kuersteiner, Esquire Huey, Guilday, Kuersteiner & Tucker P. O. Box 1794 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Steven K. Hall, Esquire Carol Forthman, Esquire Richard Donelan, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 =================================================================
