The Issue The issue is whether the 100 foot separation of respondents/applicants sewage treatment plant from the surface water management system is adequate.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following supplemental findings of fact are determined: Background Respondents/applicant, John D. Remington and Bolton S. Drackett (applicants), are the owners of record of approximately two thirds, or around 2,700 acres, of Keewaydin Island (Key Island), which lies just south of the mainland portion of the City of Naples, Florida. In conjunction with a planned luxury development of forty-two homes on Key Island, applicants have filed an application with respondent, South Florida Water Management District (District), seeking the issuance of a permit authorizing the construction and operation of a surface water management system (system) through which stormwater runoff from the project will be directed and controlled. Petitioner, Florida Audubon Society (FAS), has initiated this proceeding to contest the issuance of a permit. In an earlier and separate proceeding (DOAH Case No. 90-2415), applicants applied for a permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) to construct a wastewater treatment plant (plant) to serve the planned development. The permit was issued on January 2, 1990, and because all appeals by FAS in Case No. 90-2415 have been concluded, that proceeding is now final. Although the wastewater treatment plant has not yet been constructed, the parties agree that it will be situated more than one hundred feet from the surface water management system. This distance (100 feet) is the minimum amount of space allowed by District rule between the plant and system. Even so, the purpose of the remand proceeding is to determine whether that amount of separation is adequate. Thus, the factual issue here is whether the treated wastewater from the plant and filter fields will enter the surface water management system and cause a violation of applicable water quality standards and other relevant District criteria. In support of their respective positions on this issue, the parties have presented the testimony of a number of experts. In resolving the conflict in their testimony, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive testimony which is embodied in the findings below. A Brief Description of the Development and System The proposed development and surface water management system were described in detail in the prior recommended order entered in this case. For purposes of this Supplemental Recommended Order, it need only be noted that Key Island now has a lodge, guest quarters and recreation facilities, all presently served by septic tanks. Access to the island is provided by motor launch from an existing shore station. Subaqueous utility crossings from the mainland provide electric power and potable water to the island. The planned development includes the construction of forty-two large luxury homes and an expansion of the lodge facilities to accommodate the needs of the new residents. The homes will be built in phases with approximately ten to be built in the first year. The entire project may take as long as seven or eight years to complete. The proposed surface water management system was designed to handle a seventy-five residential unit development. However, by virtue of a reduction in size imposed by the City of Naples, the project has been reduced to forty-two homes. Even so, the capacity of the system has not been downsized. Therefore, the system as designed will more than accommodate all proposed development on the island. The development area has been divided into seven surface water management basins based upon seven existing natural water sheds on the upland portion of the project. Each basin will have a system of inlets, culverts and swales which will direct runoff to control structures. The dry swales are approximately one foot deep and five to ten feet wide and run parallel on both sides of the cart paths that link the various portions of the project. The cart paths, which will be at an elevation of 5.5 feet above mean sea level (NGVD), will have culverts running underneath to aid in maintaining the natural flow of water and limit impounding of water. The swale bottoms are designed to be one foot below the cart path elevation, or at 4.5 feet NGVD, and will be dry, except during significant rain events, because they are designed so that the bottom of the swale is at least one foot above the average wet season water table. Both the cart paths and swale system utilize a design system that is common to residential developments. Once the water reaches a specified height, it goes over the control structure and is discharged downstream into spreader swales from which the water is dispersed into either interior, low wetland areas or into two artificial lakes (7.3 and 1.0 acres in size) created for wet detention. Basins one, two, three, four and seven are designed to treat water quality by the dry detention method, that is, by the unlined swales that parallel cart paths, while water quality is accomplished in basins five and six by best management practices and wet retention, that is, the two artificial lakes. The Wastewater Treatment Plant The DER permit was issued on January 2, 1990, and carries an expiration date of January 2, 1995. It authorizes applicants to: construct a 0.035 MGD extended aeration process wastewater treatment plant with reclaimed water to dual absorption fields located at the project site as depicted on Wilson, Miller, Barton, Soll & Peek, Inc. design drawings, project number 6270, sheets 1 thru 5 of 5, dated March 20, 1989, revised October 16, 1989 and received October 19, 1989. The design drawings were submitted in support of construction application, engineering report, hydrologeolic characteristics and hydraulic modeling for effluent disposal report and related documents, dated March 20, 1989. The hydraulic capacity of the plant is limited to 0.030 MGD based on the reclaimed water disposal system. The collection system shall not exceed the 0.030 MGD hydraulic capacity as well. The wastewater treatment plant is designed to meet all DER water quality, health and safety standards. For example, the plant must achieve 90% removal of biological oxygen demand (BOD) and 90% removal of total suspended solids from the raw wastewater, or effluent levels below 20 parts per million for BOD and 10 parts per million suspended solids, whichever is more stringent. The plant must also have twenty-four hour detention in the aeration chamber and four hours detention in the clarifer. Further, a chlorine chamber contact time of fifteen minutes is required. In addition, DER has issued the permit with certain specific conditions. Among others, these include standards as to effluent chlorine residuals, the requirement that a professional engineer inspect the construction, operation requirements, sampling schedules, defined perameter levels, and the establishment of a hydraulic plant load (permitted maximum daily flow) at 30,000 gallons per day. By issuing the permit, DER has concluded that up to 30,000 gallons per day of sewage effluent can be treated and disposed of by the plant filter fields without violation of applicable DER water quality, health and safety standards. The wastewater treatment plant will be located on a centralized utility site within basin seven of the system. There are also gravity sand filters and a drainfield effluent disposal system located in basin six, which is the northeastern corner of the project. The plant will provide a high degree of treatment and disinfection for the effluent before it is discharged to the filter field. The filtered (treated) effluent will flow by gravity main to the filter fields located in an adjacent basin. Two filter fields will be used in disposing of the treated wastewater effluent. Constructed as sand mounds at a grade level of two or three feet above the existing island elevation, each filter will have dimensions of twenty feet wide and four hundred feet long. The filter fields will be constructed as a bed of gravel wrapped in filter cloth and placed within a mound of soil. A perforated four-inch pipe will be installed within the gravel bed at 5.5 feet NGVD to distribute the effluent through the filter beds. The effluent will then percolate downward and laterally away from the bed and into the groundwater table. At that point, the effluent will become indistinguishable from the groundwater Because the total daily flow will be pumped alternately into one part of the two sections of the drainfield, this allows one filter field to "rest" for a seven-day period during the use of the other filter field, thereby avoiding saturation. Therefore, the average theoretical maximum input into a filter field over a one year period at the plant's maximum capacity is 15,000 gallons per day. The plant was designed and permitted for maximum daily flows at all times of the year. However, the actual operating conditions will reflect significantly less flows due to the seasonality of the population and occupancy levels. More specifically, the plant was designed and permitted for seventy- five dwelling units and ancillary uses with an estimated maximum design flow of 28,450 gallons per day. The approved planned development will contain only forty-two dwelling units and ancillary uses with a maximum design flow of 21,200 gallons per day. Therefore, the permitted plant will treat the wastewater to a higher level due to the reserve capacity, and the plant will rarely be used at over fifty percent of its available capacity. Revised projected wastewater flows will range from daily loads of 2,325 gallons per day during the months of August and September to a high of 15,137 gallons per day during the month of February. This projected usage is consistent with historical occupancy and usage trends in the Naples area which show that occupancy of homes is at its peak during the dry season (the cooler winter months) and substantially lower during the wet season (the hot summer months). Applicants' projected wastewater flows are found to be reasonable and are hereby accepted. In making this finding, the undersigned has rejected the contention by FAS that the daily wastewater flows will be higher than that projected by the applicants and the plant will operate at maximum capacity for sustained periods of time. The system plans reflect that there will be swales within basin six located between one hundred ten and one hundred twenty feet to the west of the filter fields. These swales run parallel along a cart path and flow to the north discharging into an artificial lake at the north end of the project. The swales in this basin have a bottom elevation of 4.5 feet NGVD and decrease to an elevation of 3.5 feet NGVD at the point of discharge into the artificial lake. Adequacy of Separation Between Plant and System Rule 40E-4.091, Florida Administrative Code, adopts and incorporates by reference a document known as the "Basis for Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District - September 1989" (Basis for Review). Section 3.2.2.8 of the Basis for Review reads as follows: Sewage treatment percolation ponds. Above ground pond dikes shall not be within 200 feet of water bodies or 100 feet of dry detention/ detention areas. Additional calculations by the applicant may be necessary in unusual cases requiring deviations from these dimensions. The purpose of the above section is to provide adequate separation between above-ground percolation ponds and surface water management systems in case the percolation pond dike fails. For example, above grade percolation ponds contain large volumes of sewage treatment plant effluent. If a pond dike should fail, a large portion of effluent would be quickly released into the adjacent ground. The minimum 100-foot separation is designed to provide adequate distance for percolation into the ground prior to infiltrating the surface water management system. However, filter fields contain lesser volumes of effluent than do percolation ponds, and should a filter field fail, the effluent will trickle out the side of the field with a much lower rate of effluent release than from a failed pond dike. In accordance with the District rule, applicants have proposed to locate the surface water management system more than one hundred feet from the wastewater treatment plant and filtration beds. Even though the rule standards have been met, the purpose of this remand proceeding is to determine whether that amount of separation is adequate to prevent adverse impacts to the water quantity and water quality functions of the system from the operation and location of the filter fields. The Computer Models As a part of their application filed with DER in 1989, applicants' witness Missimer prepared and submitted a report known as "Hydrogeologic Characteristics and Hydraulic Modeling for Effluent Disposal at Keewaydin Club". The report was based on a computer model known as "Modflow" and was designed to show the increase in elevation of the water table for a loading rate of 30,000 gallons per day alternating between the two filtration beds. The purpose of the modeling analysis filed with DER was to investigate whether the plant would continue to discharge effluent to the drainfields under the most extreme conditions. The model demonstrated that the effluent discharge would not be impaired even under conditions that are beyond any reasonable or probable operating conditions. After reviewing the model, DER accepted those results and issued a permit. Utilizing in large part the underlying assumptions and parameters of the Missimer model, and without performing any independent field evaluation on the site, FAS witness Chin ran the model to investigate the impact of the operation of the plant on the system. Because the model used by Dr. Chin was not constructed for the design of a surface water management system, but rather was constructed for the purpose of designing an adsorption field, without modification it provided a more than worst case scenario of impacts associated with the operation of a plant. In this case, Dr. Chin utilized the ultra- conservative assumptions used in designing the adsorption field and made no revisions to the model. Thus, it is found that the model as used by Dr. Chin, and any conclusions drawn from the model alone, are not a sufficient or reasonable basis for evaluating the impact of the plant on the system. The model used by Dr. Chin is not representative of the natural occurring conditions on the island or the reasonably expected plant flow rates. Moreover, in developing the worst case scenario, as opposed to reasonable expectations, both the Chin and Missimer models incorporated the simultaneous occurrence of certain conservative assumptions including an impermeable flow boundary, a year round wet season water table elevation, a conservative rate of transmissivity, and a constant rate of evapotranspiration. The use of these assumptions caused the model output to grossly overstate the effects of the plant on the system in the following manner. First, by assuming a flow barrier on the island, the model had the effect of overestimating the height of the groundwater mound from operation of the plant than would occur if no boundary were used. Second, the assumption of a year-round wet season groundwater level is unrealistic since groundwater levels fluctuate seasonally, receding to near zero NGVD on the island during the dry season. Thus, the model overestimated the height of the groundwater level. Further, by using only the upper ten feet of the water table aquifer in calculating the rate of transmissivity, the model incorporated a much lower rate than would be attained had the entire thickness (74 feet) of the aquifer been used. This also resulted in an over-estimation in the height of the mound from the operation of the plant. Finally, by assuming a constant rate of evapotranspiration, the model "grossly exaggerated" the impact to the groundwater level from operation of the plant. In reality, as the water table increases, the loss of water from evapotranspiration increases significantly and constitutes a major output of a water budget. Besides the foregoing assumptions, the Chin model also assumed a continuous loading rate of 30,000 gallons per day for a period of up to one year. While the District should properly consider the permitted flow rate of the plant in evaluating a worst case of potential impact, there was no evidence substantiating any likelihood of the plant actually producing 30,000 gallons per day for 365 consecutive days in conjunction with all other conservative assumptions discussed above. The more reasonable and accepted method of analyzing the impact of plant flows is to examine the peak month's average day flow over a six-month period. As noted earlier, for the proposed forty-two units, the peak day flow is estimated to be approximately 21,200 gallons per day. Therefore, it is highly probable that actual flow rates will be much lower than the maximum plant capacity of 30,000 gallons per day. By failing to use the more reasonable and realistic reduced flow rates, the Chin model overestimated the elevation of the groundwater level from the operation of the plant. In contrast, the Missimer analysis demonstrates that it is extremely unlikely that the plant output will ever elevate groundwater to the extent that it would reach the system swales by either surface water or groundwater flow. The foregoing modeling assessments, including the criticisms of the Chin model, were concurred in by the District expert. Water Quantity Impacts There is no credible evidence to support a finding that the operation of the plant will adversely impact the ability of the system to provide adequate flood protection and drainage. Indeed, the more credible evidence shows that an alteration of existing drainage patterns will not occur by virtue of the operation of the plant, and the post-development discharge rates will not exceed the pre-development discharge rates. Therefore, the undersigned's previous finding that applicants have provided reasonable assurance that the the system provides adequate protection and drainage is not altered after considering the operation and location of the plant. There is insufficient credible evidence to support a finding that the plant's operation will adversely impact the system functions in such a way as to cause adverse water quantity impacts on receiving waters and adjacent lands. Indeed, the post-development discharge rate approximates the pre-development discharge rate on receiving waters, the ultimate receiving water body (the Gulf of Mexico) has an infinite capacity to receive water, and there are no adjacent lands subject to flooding from discharge of the system regardless of whether there is any impact of the plant on the system. There is no credible evidence to support a finding that the plant will cause the system to have an adverse impact on surface and groundwater levels and flows. Rather, the more persuasive evidence shows that the plant's operation will not result in groundwater elevation in the area of the system that would cause the impoundment of water or prevent the percolation of water into the soil. In addition, the overflow levels for control structures will operate as designed to insure against over-drainage or flooding. Finally, the operation of the filter fields will not cause adverse impacts on surface and groundwater levels and flows. Water Quality Impacts The operation of the plant will not impair the water quality functions of the system. This is because the swales will continue to detain the first flush of run-off allowing the majority of the suspended solids and other pollutants to settle out regardless of the operation of the plant. Further, in the unlikely event the treated wastewater effluent reached the system, it would be indistinguishable from the stormwater or rainfall due to the high level of treatment from the plant, the filter fields and dilution from groundwater and rainfall. The operation of the plant will not cause adverse water quality impacts on the receiving waters. In making this finding, the undersigned notes initially that the plant is permitted by DER, and therefore it is assumed to comply with all DER water quality standards. Second, there is no evidence that the system will impact the operation of the plant. In the event the groundwater mixed with treated effluent resurfaces, there would be no adverse impact to the surface water quality. This is because the treated effluent from the plant exceeds state water quality standards. Once the treated effluent becomes a part of the groundwater, it is unlikely that it will resurface again in the areas of the swales, which are more than one hundred ten feet away. Indeed, in order for the groundwater with effluent to travel that distance, it would have been in the groundwater system for at least one hundred days. This period of time is more than sufficient for the denitrification and adsorption processes to remove all nutrients. Even if the worst case scenario became a reality and the groundwater reached the swale bottoms, it would only result in a wetting of the ground and would not be of sufficient quantity to create a flow of water in the swale to travel off-site impacting a receiving water. In any event, at that point, any groundwater resurfacing that distance away would no longer be effluent. Finally, during abnormal conditions, such as a hurricane or large storm event, the groundwater may rise to the surface and mix with the surface water and enter the system. However, any effluent already significantly diluted under normal circumstances would be indistinguishable from the stormwater or rainfall. Adverse Environmental Impacts There is no credible evidence that the operation of the plant filter fields will adversely impact the system in such a manner as to cause an adverse environmental impact. In so finding, the undersigned rejects the contention that the system will act as a conduit for treated effluent to travel off-site to the ponds, marsh, mangrove areas or receiving waters. The evidence shows that the design of the filter fields and high permeability of the island soils will prevent the surface flow of effluent to the system swales. The elevation of the swales above the groundwater table level will prevent the introduction of effluent into the swale system. In the unlikely event the groundwater reaches the bottom elevation of the swale, there would be no significant environmental impact because the quality of effluent would be indistinguishable from the groundwater due to the high level of treatment and dilution, and such water would still be further treated by the system before discharge to receiving bodies. The location of the plant and system will not have an adverse impact on the gopher tortoise population on the island. Rather, the system should enhance the gopher tortoise population by providing mananged land with vegetation suitable for gopher consumption. Further, the general development on the island will reduce the number of raccoons which prey on gopher eggs and young gophers. Miscellaneous During the remand hearing, FAS presented evidence concerning the impact of tides and mean sea level rise and saline lakes on the island. This evidence was essentially the same as that presented in the prior hearing and was rejected in favor of the more credible evidence presented by the applicants on this issue. Nothing was presented during the remand hearing which would alter these prior findings. During the hearing, and in response to a question by District counsel, witness Missimer agreed it would not be unreasonable to install a few monitoring wells to insure that the system is operating properly. Because this requirement is not unreasonable, will serve a valuable purpose, and has been utilized by the District as a special condition on numerous prior occasions, it should be incorporated into the permit conditions. Even though the evidence clearly shows that seasonal tidal fluctuations would not have an adverse impact on the functioning of the system, if such a tidal incursion were to occur, the placement of a check valve device on the water control structures would prevent sea water from flowing back into the system. Such a device would be a minor addition to the system, would not otherwise affect its design, and if deemed necessary by the District, should be incorporated into the permit conditions. Prior to hearing, the District retained the services of an outside consultant to assist it in preparation for trial. The consultant did not testify at final hearing and prepared no reports. He did make several computer runs, none of which are a part of this record. Among other things, District witness Rogers relied upon the computer runs in formulating his opinion on the issue presented on remand.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting the requested permit in accordance with the agency's proposed agency action dated March 28, 1990. DONE and ENTERED this 22 day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22 day of March, 1991.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted No Notice General Environmental Resource Permits for Lots 61, 245, and 247 within Unit of Development 11 of the Indian Trail Improvement District, pursuant to permitting criteria of Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, Chapters 40E-40 and 40E-400, Florida Administrative Code, and the South Florida Water Management District's "Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District--November 1996."
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Royal Palm Beach Colony (Royal Palm), is a limited partnership registered and authorized to do business in the State of Florida. Respondent, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), is a public corporation existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, as a water management district, with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida. Intervenor, 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc., is a not- for-profit, tax exempt membership corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. Intervenor, Indian Trail Improvement District (ITID), is a special district of the State of Florida established by special act of the Legislature, Chapter 57-646, Laws of Florida, and operating pursuant to applicable provisions of Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, as well as special acts of the Legislature. Royal Palm owns approximately 171 lots within Unit of Development 11 of ITID (Unit 11) in Palm Beach County, Florida. Each lot is approximately 1.25 acres. Not all of the lots owned by Royal Palm in Unit 11 are contiguous. Unit 11 is a rural subdivision within ITID, in which there are numerous private property owners. The property of Royal Palm that is the subject of dispute is comprised of three lots, Lots 61, 245, and 247. Unit 11 is within the C-18 Basin. Prior to the construction of the C-18 Canal, the area was typically drained by sheet flow to the north. Because of the flat topography, the drainage in the C-18 Basin is poor; therefore, following periods of heavy rainfall much of the land is inundated. Unit 11 contains an extensive amount of wetlands. There are currently no habitable structures within Unit 11. It consists of vacant lots with an interconnected network of roads, canals, and roadside swales. On August 15, 1975, SFWMD's predecessor, The Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, issued ITID a surface water management permit, Permit No. 50-00136-S (the 1975 permit) for construction and operation of a surface water management system serving Unit 11. The permit authorizes discharge from Unit 11 to the west leg of the C-18 canal via three culverts. In 1988, SFWMD undertook a comprehensive examination of the C-18 Basin, which resulted in a publication entitled "Technical Publication 88-11, Flood Management Study of the C- 18 Basin, August, 1988." The study documented that the western leg of the C-18 canal lacked capacity to accept the permitted discharge from Unit 11. SFWMD determined that the development of Unit 11's flood control and water quantity management system according to Permit No. 50-00136-S would be inconsistent with the overall objectives of SFWMD, harmful to the water resources and the public's health, safety, and welfare, and to the policies and purposes of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and not in the best interest of future residents of Unit 11. SFWMD and ITID entered into a consent agreement concerning Unit 11 on July 7, 1989 (the Consent Agreement). SFWMD and ITID agreed that ITID would apply for, process, and obtain a modification of Permit No. 50-00136-S to address and resolve SFWMD's flooding and water quality concerns. In addition, ITID was to construct the surface water management system authorized in the permit modification in accordance with the terms of the permit. ITID received a permit from SFWMD in 1990 authorizing modifications to the surface water management system in order to address the issues identified in the Consent Agreement, namely potential flooding of homes constructed for future residents of Unit 11. The improvements approved in the 1990 permit were never implemented, and the permit expired. In 1992, ITID proposed a different modification to the surface water management system that proposed an impoundment for retention of stormwater. The permit application was recommended for denial by SFWMD staff, but has never been presented to the SFWMD Governing Board for final agency action. The problems regarding the water quality and flooding problems set forth in the Consent Agreement have not been remedied. On December 4, 1997, Royal Palm obtained variances from the Palm Beach County Health Department (the Health Department), granting Royal Palm the right under certain specified conditions to construct on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems (OSTD Systems) on Lots 61, 245, and 247. Originally, the Health Department had denied Royal Palm's request for permission to construct the OSTD Systems on lots 61, 245, and 247 on the grounds that the lots were located in an area subject to frequent flooding and the drainage in the subdivision had not been constructed in accordance with SFWMD's requirements. Subsequent to the granting of the variance, Royal Palm revised its site plans for the three lots, and those revised plans have not been reviewed by the Health Department for compliance with applicable rules. On March 19, 1998, Royal Palm notified SFWMD that Royal Palm was entitled to a No Notice General Permit (NNGP) for Lots 61, 245, and 247 for activities in uplands pursuant to Rule 40E-400.315, Florida Administrative Code. On April 9, 1998, SFWMD issued its agency action by letter that informed Royal Palm that SFWMD staff had determined that the three lots did not qualify for a NNGP. The letter stated the reasons for denial as follows: Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that the proposed system or project is not part of a larger common plan of development. See Rule 40E- 400.315(1)(f), Fla. Admin. Code. Royal Palm Colony is the owner of approximately 170 lots within Unit 11 of the Indian Trail Improvement District, and the three proposed lots appear to be merely part of this large common plan of development. Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system with use of septic systems and the associated lack of water quality treatment will not cause pollution in violation of water quality standards. See Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e), and 40E-400.215(11), Fla. Admin. Code. There is not a viable or functioning stormwater management system in place or proposed to provide reasonable assurance that the septic systems would properly function. Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, including, but not limited to, significant interference with the construction and operation of a regional stormwater system needed for adequate flood protection and stormwater treatment in the Unit 11 area. See Rule 40E-400.301(1)(f), Fla. Admin. Code. Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system will not cause water quality impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands. See Rule 40E- 4.301(1)(a), Fla. Admin. Code. The proposed project adds impervious area and eliminates water storage. This consideration is especially relevant when considering the larger common plan of development. Reasonable assurance has not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system will not cause adverse flooding to on-site and or/or (sic) off-site properties. See Rule 40E- 4.301(10)(b), Fla. Admin. Code. The proposed project adds impervious area and eliminates water storage. This consideration is especially relevant when considering the larger common plan of development. Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. See Rule 40E-4.301(10)(c), Fla. Admin. Code. The proposed project adds impervious area and eliminates water storage. This consideration is especially relevant when considering the larger common plan of development. Reasonable assurance has not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species and other surface waters. See Rule 40-4.301(1)(d), Fla. Admin. Code. This consideration is especially relevant when considering the larger common plan of development. Reasonable assurance has not been provided to show that the proposed system or project is capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed. See Rule 40E- 4.301(1)(i), Fla. Admin. Code. On April 23, 1998, Royal Palm filed its Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with the clerk of SFWMD, initiating this proceeding. Rule 40E-400.315(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, is intended to authorize only very minor activities that have no potential to cause harm to water resources. Because the NNGP is issued by rule, SFWMD does not typically review projects that are conducted pursuant to a NNGP. A NNGP does not authorize projects that are part of a common plan of development or sale. In determining whether an activity is within a larger common plan of development, SFWMD staff look to see whether the project has shared infrastructure that facilitates development, such as canals, swales, and roads. A surface water management is in place in Unit 11. It consists of roads, swales, and drainage canals. The system drains to the C-18 canal via three culverts. The system was put into place as a result of the issuance of the 1975 permit, but there have been no modifications to the system as required by the Consent Agreement. During the last ten years ITID has done minimal maintenance to the system. A common road network within Unit 11 provides access to each of the three lots. The lots will depend on the swales and drainage canals as part of overall stormwater management system that serves Unit 11. Unit 11 is a common plan of development. Accordingly, the activities proposed by Royal Palm, filling in order to construct three single family houses with driveways, mounded septic tank systems, and wells within Unit 11 are not authorized pursuant to a NNGP. Royal Palm's predecessor company originally owned all the lots in Unit 11. Royal Palm is presently liquidating its assets. Royal Palm selected the three lots at issue in this case for permitting for individual homes because the lots represented a good overview of the different types of Royal Palm's holdings in the area. If Royal Palm is able to build homes on the three lots and depending on the market conditions and other outside factors, Royal Palm will make a decision on how to liquidate the other 168 lots in Unit 11. It is anticipated that the construction of the homes on the lots at issue will involve placement of fill. Land development, including the placement of fill, displaces stormwater that would, on a property in its natural condition, pond on the surface or soak into the ground. In order to determine whether a project complies with the flood protection criteria, SFWMD staff must consider the effect the proposed land development has off-site, and the effects surrounding lands may have on the lot to be developed. The flood routing calculations provided by Royal Palm in its application did not provide any analysis of how discharges from surrounding properties would affect the performance of the surface water management systems constructed on the lots at issue. Nor did Royal Palm address the potential for flooding of off-site properties by stormwater displaced by fill and impervious areas that are contemplated on Lots 61, 245, and 247. The three lots are not hydrologically separate from the remainder of Unit 11. Royal Palm's failure to include a detailed analysis of the surrounding area also precluded SFWMD from making a determination as to the impacts of the proposed activities upon existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. The proposed projects are single family houses. It is reasonable to expect that some discharge of untreated stormwater runoff from the system directly into wetlands and other surface water will occur. For Lots 245, 247, and 61, the proposed stormwater management system includes a dry detention area. Considering the topographic information for this site, part of the runoff from the fill area will not flow into the dry detention area but will flow untreated directly into wetlands and other surface waters. The runoff could reasonably be expected to include oils, grease, and petroleum from the driveway area and herbicide and pesticides from the yard area. The untreated runoff could pose an adverse impact. Development adjacent to wetlands has the potential to disrupt the usage of those wetlands by wildlife. Section 4.2.7 of the Basis of Review provides that secondary impacts to the habitat functions of wetlands associated with adjacent upland activities are not considered adverse if buffers with a minimum width of 15 feet and an average width of 25 feet are provided abutting those wetlands. In certain circumstances, additional measures are necessary. The Basis of Review provides that buffers must be in undisturbed condition, except that drainage features can be located in the buffer if their construction and operation will not negatively impact the wetlands. The design drawings for Lots 245 and 247 demonstrate that the buffers are not undisturbed because fill will be placed in the buffer areas. There is no treatment system in place for the roads in Unit 11; thus, there is a potential for untreated runoff from the roads, which could contain oils, grease, and petroleum constituents, to reach wetlands or surface waters. The roads in Unit 11 are sometimes under water and will require increased maintenance to correct erosion from increased vehicular traffic. Road maintenance and grading present the potential to discharge sediment laden water into adjacent wetlands. This threat is particularly great in Unit 11 because many of the roads go directly through wetlands. The engineering calculations submitted by Royal Palm anticipate that the elevation of the roads will be raised. Raising the elevations will require additional fill, and because several roads in Unit 11 go through wetlands, additional filling of wetlands can be anticipated. Section 6.9(a) of the Basis of Review, requires that residential projects must have the calculated ability to discharge a sufficient volume of stormwater such that the system can return to the control elevation within 12 days of a design storm event. Royal Palm failed to provide information demonstrating that the storage volume provided by the systems proposed for the three lots can be recovered and therefore available for subsequent storm events. Without an adequate understanding of the functioning of the overall surface stormwater management system in Unit 11, it is impossible to determine the amount of time necessary for the systems on the three lots to bleed down to control elevation. In order to allow access to the three lots from the roads, fill must be placed in the roadside swales. Because the elevation of the roadside swales is below the seasonal high water table, they are defined as other surface waters. The swales are depressional areas that support an abundance of obligate wetland vegetation; thus, they are encompassed within the definition of jurisdictional wetlands. Thus, the project will involve direct impacts to wetlands.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Royal Palm Beach Colony, L.P.'s application for No Notice General Permits for Lots 61, 245, and 237. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 9th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Samuel H. Poole, III, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Alfred J. Malefatto, Esquire Teresa J. Moore, Esquire Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel, P.A. 777 South Flagler Drive Suite 300 East West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Terrell K. Arline, Esquire 1000 Friends of Florida Post Office Box 5948 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles F. Schoesch, Esquire Caldwell & Pacetti 234 Royal Palm Way, Suite 300 Palm Beach, Florida 33480
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) should grant Individual Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) Application No. 4316067.00 for approval of a proposed surface water management system (SWMS) for a planned road improvement project.
Findings Of Fact County Line Road extends a short distance east from its intersection with U.S. 41, approximately along the boundary between Pasco County and Hillsborough County. It currently serves as access to residential and rural areas in its vicinity but does not connect with any major road east-west roadway at its eastern end. Since at least 1995, Pasco County's Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has considered it necessary by 2020 to connect County Line Road to Collier Parkway (which runs north and south to the east and north of County Line Road but connects at its southern end to Hillsborough County Road, which extends from there to the east) to create and serve as another major east-west roadway to alleviate traffic congestion on State Road 54 to the north. The MPO's plans are updated continually, most recently in 1998. The MPO's current plans call for building a half-mile segment of two-lane roadway by 2000 to connect County Line Road to Collier Parkway and widening it to a four-lane road by 2010. Once these plans were made, and the general corridor for the new roadway chosen by the MPO, Pasco County conducted a route study and decided to utilize and improve the existing County Line Road to the extent possible consistent with traffic safety considerations before routing the new roadway to the northeast towards a connection with existing roadway (known as Willow Bend Road), which in turn connects with Collier Parkway. In so doing, Pasco County would improve County Line Road where it now crosses 13-Mile Run Creek. 13-Mile Run Creek is the name for the water body and wetland area crossed by County Line Road. It is part of a system of connected lakes, wetland areas, and various natural and man- made water conveyances known as the 13-Mile Run that begins to the north of County Line Road in Pasco County and flows south into Cypress Creek and the Hillsborough River in Hillsborough County. After completing the route study, Pasco County surveyed the project area and identified wetlands in the project area. Then, the road improvements and new roadway, including the surface water management system, were designed. Pasco County designed its road project to accommodate widening to four lanes in 2010 without further direct impact to wetlands. This will allow traffic to flow much more safely on the two lanes built in 2000 while the additional two lanes are built in 2010. As part of this design, the culverts that will provide for north-to-south flow of 13-Mile Run under the roadway, as well as the animal-crossing tunnels under the roadway, will be oversized to accommodate the four-lane roadway in 2010. As a result, all direct impacts to wetlands from the ultimate four- lane road construction (approximately 1.5 acres of direct impact) will occur during the initial construction of two lanes in 2000; there will not have to be any additional wetland impacts in 2010. The Petitioner and Intervenors contend that Pasco County did not prove a need for the four-lane road Pasco County proposes for 2010. They point to evidence that Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) 1995 maps did not "code" the proposed road segment as a four-lane road in 2010, as well as evidence that in 1995 Hillsborough County objected (based on the DOT coding) to Pasco's plans for a four-lane road in 2010. But Pasco County proved that DOT's failure to code the proposed road segment as a four-lane road in 2010 was a mistake. Since 1995, DOT has corrected the error. When Pasco County's MPO updated its transportation plan in 1998, neither Hillsborough County nor anyone else objected to the plans for a four-lane road in 2010, despite Pasco County's solicitation of comments and advertised public workshops and hearings. The Intervenors in particular also point to evidence that the DOT has published "Standards for Low and High Volume Highways in Annual Average Daily Volumes" in a Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction and Maintenance for streets and Highways (1994)(also known as the "Green Book"). These standards characterize a two-lane urban collector highway with less than 11,000 AADT and a four-lane urban collector highway with less than 37,000 AADT as low-volume facilities and characterize a two-lane urban collector highway with more than 16,000 AADT and a four-lane urban collector highway with more than 45,000 AADT as high-volume facilities. Meanwhile, there was evidence was that, using a regional traffic demand forecasting model developed by DOT to determine future transportation needs for planning purposes: (1) Pasco County's MPO forecasts approximately 12,500 to 13,000 vehicles per day on the road in 2010 and 16,000 vehicles per day on the road in 2020; and (2) in 1997, the MPO forecasts 12,000 vehicles per day (1078 peak hour) on the road by 2015. But the only explanation of this evidence was the testimony of the MPO's transportation planner that the "Green Book" is not used for purposes of planning to meet future transportation needs. There was no other evidence as to the significance or proper use of the "Green Book." Assuming that AADT means "annual average daily trips" (there was no evidence as to what it stands for), there was no evidence that the Pasco County MPO's plan to four-lane County Line Road in 2010 is inconsistent with the "Green Book." The Intervenors also contend that the planned widening of State Road 54 will eliminate the need to four-lane the proposed road improvements at County Line Road. But the MPO's transportation planner testified that the MPO's forecast of the need to do so took into account the planned State Road 54 improvements. The Intervenors also contend that the proposed road improvements at County Line Road will not serve as an alternative to State Road 54 because Collier Parkway is a north-south highway, not an east-west highway. But, as indicated in Finding 1, supra, utilizing Collier Parkway for a short, north-south jog will connect the east-west roadways on either side of Collier Parkway. The Petitioner and Intervenors contend that Pasco County's design does not minimize direct impacts to wetlands precisely because it is designed to accommodate the four-lane widening project in 2010. Clearly, the direct impact to wetlands in 2000 could be reduced if Pasco County's design only accommodated a two-lane road. But it is not clear that the cumulative impact to the wetlands through the year 2010 will be less if the wetlands have to be impacted twice, once in 2000 for two lanes of roadway and again in 2010 for the other two lanes. A Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) witness for the Intervenors believed that it was preferable not to accommodate two additional lanes during the initial construction. But his familiarity with Pasco County's application was limited (in part because DEP has no regulatory jurisdiction), and several other experts testified persuasively that Pasco County's design would be better in terms of minimizing total, cumulative direct and secondary impacts to the wetlands. It also would cost significantly less to build the four-lane road in two stages if the first stage of construction of two lanes accommodates the subsequent stage of construction of the two additional lanes. In addition, traffic flow would be safer during construction of the two additional lanes if the first stage of construction accommodates the subsequent stage. Given the plan to accommodate a four-lane road in 2010, Pasco County designed its road project to minimize direct impacts on wetlands. First, the design uses the existing road in the wetland area. Second, the design uses concrete retaining walls instead of earthen berms in the wetland areas, which reduces the direct impact to the wetland areas by 30 percent. Third, the design was modified to further reduce the direct impact to wetlands by reducing the width of the median and eliminating one of two sidewalks at the creek crossing. The only way to further reduce the direct impacts to wetlands would have been to design and construct a bridge to cross the wetlands. The Intervenors called their DEP witness to testify in support of their contention that Pasco County should be required to bridge the wetlands. But again, the DEP witness's knowledge of Pasco County's application was limited, and several other witnesses testified persuasively that such a requirement for this road improvement project would be unreasonable in light of the existing County Line Road (which is a fill road.) In addition, bridging 13-Mile Run would create water flow and quantity problems that would have to be addressed, since it would remove the existing roadbed that serves to stop flow in times of high water. See Finding 19, infra. Pasco County's design provides for two wet detention ponds, one at either end of the project area, that will treat one-inch of runoff from the project area and will retain all of the runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour storm (nine inches of runoff.) As a result, there are reasonable assurances that there will be no adverse impact on water quality from the project; to the contrary, water quality probably will improve since the existing County Line Road does not provide any water treatment. Likewise, Pasco County has provided reasonable assurances that water discharges from the project area will not increase. As a result of the project, approximately 3.5 acre-feet of flood plain storage will be eliminated. To more-than- compensate for this loss of flood plain water storage area, Pasco County's design includes a flood plain mitigation area of approximately 4.5 acre-feet with a connection to 13-Mile Run Creek. The flood plain mitigation area also will serve as the project's wetland mitigation area at a ratio of approximately 4- to-1, i.e., four acres of created wetland for each acre of direct wetland impact. (Wetlands disturbed by the illegal installation of a Florida Gas Transmission pipeline just north of County Line Road and now under court-ordered restoration are considered pristine wetlands for purposes of the wetland mitigation ratio.) While wetland restoration has a mixed record of success, and it may be difficult to restore all of the values of the original wetland, the prospects for success of Pasco County's proposed wetland mitigation area are reasonably good. The mitigation plan calls for planting 780 emergent woody species per acre. To the extent that the mitigation plan for this project will replace disturbed wetlands and wetlands not successfully restored by the restoration of the area impacted by the Florida Gas Transmission pipeline (which appears to have been either inadequately planned or poorly implemented), the project may well result in a net improvement of the wetlands in the 13-Mile Run Creek area. Impacts from the roadway immediately to the west of the project area have been addressed in the SWMS permit for construction at the intersection of U.S. 41 and County Line Road. Impacts from Hillsborough County's planned widening of the roadway immediately to the west of the project area will be addressed in the SWMS for that widening project. The Petitioner in particular raised the question of flooding in the vicinity--at the U.S. 41/County Line Road intersection and along the shores of Hog Island Lake to the southeast of the creek crossing. The Intervenors initially also raised those questions but have been satisfied by the assurances given by Pasco County that the proposed project will not increase flooding in those areas. The SWMS associated with construction of the U.S. 41/County Line Road intersection appears to have been successful in alleviating flooding there, and Pasco County has given reasonable assurances that the proposed road project in this case will not increase flooding in the Hog Island Lake area. The generous flood retention compensation proposed by Pasco County may alleviate flooding in the Hog Island Lake area to some extent. It also is noted that, if the project were modified to bridge the creek crossing (without any other modifications), flooding in the Hog Island Lake area could increase. See Finding 13, supra. The Petitioner also opposed Pasco County's SWMS application on the ground that no minimum surface or ground water levels or minimum surface water flows have been established in the area under Section 373.042, Florida Statutes (1997). But Pasco County provided reasonable assurances that, regardless where the minimum levels ultimately are set, the proposed project will have no appreciable effect. Pasco County has designed the project to maintain water current flows and quantities. It is found that Pasco County has implemented practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts of the proposed project. (As used here, the term "modification" does not include the alternative of not implementing the SWMS in some form, nor the alternative of a project that is significantly different in type or function from that proposed.) As used in the preceding finding, the term "practicable" would eliminate modifications which would adversely affect public safety through the endangerment of lives or property. For example, one modification suggested by the Petitioner and Intervenors would have been to have the new road follow existing County Line Road further to the east. However, that would have made the connection between the new road and what would remain of County Line Road hazardous at the design speed of the new road and, depending on how much further east the new road follow existing County Line Road, there would be the hazard of residential driveways connecting to the new road. As used in Finding 21, the term "practicable" also would eliminate modifications which are not technically capable of being done or not economically viable. While there was no evidence that alternatives considered in this case were either not technically capable of being done or not economically viable, general consideration was given to the higher total project costs of not accommodating the planned addition of two lanes in 2010 (with no appreciable environmental benefit). Likewise, general consideration was given to the significantly higher cost (approximately two to three times as much, depending on whether the construction of the first two lanes accommodates the subsequent construction of the two additional lanes) to bridge the wetlands in an attempt to reverse direct wetland impacts from the existing fill road and somewhat decrease additional direct wetland impacts, as well as the dubious benefits of increasing the flow of 13-Mile Run, which certainly would not reduce (and might well increase) flooding in the Hog Island Lake area. In addition, bridging the creek crossing would create traffic engineering problems in providing access to residential areas in the vicinity, especially the Foxwood subdivision. Pasco County provided reasonable assurances that its proposed SWMS, with SWFWMD's general and specific conditions, will not violate state water quality standards applicable to waters as defined in Section 403.031(13), Florida Statutes (1997). Pasco County provided reasonable assurances that its proposed SWMS, with SWFWMD's general and specific conditions, will not be contrary to the public interest, considering and balancing the following factors: Whether the proposed project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, Florida Statutes (1997); and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. To the extent that the proposed project may not meet one or more of the public interest test criteria, Pasco County proposes mitigation measures that will offset any adverse effects. Pasco County provided reasonable assurances that its proposed SWMS, with SWFWMD's general and specific conditions: will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; will not cause adverse flooding to on- site or off-site property; will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife, and listed species including aquatic and wetland dependent species, by wetlands, other surface waters and other water related resources of the District; will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the water quality standards set forth in chapters 62-3, 62-4, 62-302, 62-520, 62-522 and 62-550, Florida Administrative Code, including any antidegradation provisions of sections 62- 4.242(1)(a) and (b), 62-4.242(2) and (3), and 62-302.300, Florida Administrative Code, will be violated; will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources; will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows established pursuant to Section 373.042, Florida Statutes (1997); will not cause adverse impacts to a work of the District established pursuant to Section 373.086; is capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being effectively performed and of functioning as proposed; and will be conducted by an entity with financial, legal and administrative capability of ensuring that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, if issued. Pasco County provided reasonable assurances that that its proposed SWMS, with SWFWMD's general and specific conditions, will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters, as delineated pursuant to the methodology authorized by subsection 373.421(1), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order granting ERP Application No. 4316067.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 18th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles J. Traina, Esquire Post Office Box 625 Brandon, Florida 33509-0625 Margaret Lytle, Assistant General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Mark F. Lapp, Assistant General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Barbara Wilhite, Esquire Pasco County West Pasco Government Center 7530 Little Road, Suite 340 New Port Richey, Florida 34654 David and Sheryl Bowman, pro se Post Office Box 1515 Lutz, Florida 33548-1515 E. D. Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the development order issued by Polk County for Robert Crowder's development known as Paradise Country Estates complies with Chapter 380, Fla. Stat. (1991). The Department of Community Affairs' Petition for Appeal of Development Order (the DCA Petition) alleges that the development order is contrary to Polk County's 1985 comprehensive plan for the following reasons: Paragraph 11 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to the provisions of Policy 9, Objective III, "Natural Resources," of the Land Use Element (LUE) of the 1985 Plan. Policy 9 states: "Structures should be placed in a manner which will not adversely affect the natural flow regime and which will not reduce the recharge capabilities." Paragraph 12 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to the provisions of Policy 10, Objective III, "Natural Resources," of the LUE. Policy 10 states: "Placement of structures shall be consistent with sound flood plain management practices such as compliance with the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973." Paragraph 13 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to the provisions of Policy 11, Objective III, "Natural Resources," of the LUE and Policies 9 and 10 of the "Water Resource Objective" of the Conservation Element of the Plan. Respectively, these policies state: 11. Groundwater withdrawal should not exceed the safe yield per acre as determined by Water Management Districts or successor agencies. * * * Minimize the adverse impacts of development on resources of the Floridan Aquifer, wetlands and flood-detention areas. Protect the normal quantity, quality and flow of ground water and surface water which are necessary for the protection of resources of state and regional concern. Paragraph 14 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to a section of Part II of the Conservation Element of the Polk County Comprehensive Plan entitled "Rare and Unique Natural Resources," which describes the Green Swamp as a "rare and unique land area resource for conservation consideration" and also states: The potentiometric high of the Floridan Aquifer lies within this area. . . . The area has a high potential for recreational and natural enjoyment. . . . The Green Swamp area is the largest expanse of forest in Polk County, with abundant water and wooded areas to provide for wildlife habitats. This area has great significance as an area for conservation of land, air, water, open space and wildlife habitats. Paragraph 15 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to the following section on "Density" found in Part IV of the Conservation Element, entitled "Summary of Special Problems, Areas, Issues, and Relationships": The subject of development density is a particular issue of vital importance to the county. Low density development in some areas and high density in other areas is important so that demands for public facilities can be economically and efficiently handled, so that environmental degradation is minimized, and so that land, not suitable for development, can be saved for important natural functions. The present zoning ordinance classifies most of the county in a Rural Conservation (RC) classification that permits low density development without proper regard for those areas that are best suited for development. Portions of the county should be protected from development pressures and appropriate areas should be zoned to accommodate rational densities. The present level of protection, provided by the zoning system is not brought to bear for conservation purposes. Paragraph 16 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to Policy 14 of the "Water Resource Objective" of the Conservation Element of the Plan: "Protect or improve existing ground and surface-water quality." Paragraph 17 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to Policy 2, Objective I, "Agricultural Uses," in Part V of the LUE: Protect, to the maximum extent possible, agricultural lands from encroachment of incompatible land uses and any detrimental effects of development adjacent to agricultural areas. Paragraph 19 1/ of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to Policy 2, Objective IV, "Residential Uses," in Part V of the LUE: Promote and encourage new residential development adjacent to established growth centers, to ensure the orderly use of land and the efficient provision of facilities and services. Paragraph 20 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to Section 5-1(6) of Polk County Ordinance 81-28 (the County Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code). 2/ Article V is entitled "Flood Protection Standards." Section 5-1 provides in pertinent part: GENERAL STANDARDS: The following minimum standards shall apply to new construction and substantial improvements in all areas of special flood hazard, and to any development, other than phosphate mining, within 100 feet of a watercourse: * * * (6) On-site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. Paragraph 21 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to Section 5-2(4) of Polk County Ordinance 81-28. 3/ Section 5-2 provides in pertinent part: SPECIFIC STANDARDS: The following minimum standards shall apply in all areas of special flood hazard where base flood elevation data has been provided: * * * Subdivision Proposals: All subdivision proposals and other proposed developments shall be reviewed by the County Engineer. [I]f the proposal is in an area of special flood hazard, it shall be reviewed to assure that the following standards are met: All such proposals shall be reasonably safe from flood waters resulting from the base flood. All such proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage. Base flood elevation data shall be provided for all such proposals. Roads shall be reasonably safe from flood waters resulting from the base flood. Paragraph 22 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to Section 6-2(3)(a) of Polk County Ordinance 81-28. Article VI of Polk County's Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code is entitled "Water Management Standards." Section 6-2 provides in pertinent part: GENERAL STANDARDS: The following minimum standards shall apply to all development which occurs within an area of special flood hazard and to any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate . . .. * * * (3) (a) The amount of site alteration within a wetlands soil association shall be limited to ten percent (10%) of the area of wetlands soil association within any given total site.
Findings Of Fact The Proposed Project and Location. The project site is on Dean Still Road in Polk County, approximately 2 miles west of State Road 33. It is approximately 6 and 1/2 miles from Polk City and 15 miles from the City of Lakeland. The proposed project is comprised of 356 lots on approximately 1280 acres with a gross density of 1 unit per 3.6 acres. Although the average lot size varies, the project was reviewed under the Southwest Florida Water Management District's (SWFWMD) criteria for rural development which requires that at least 90% of the lots be at least 2 acres in size (excluding jurisdictional wetlands), and 10% of the lots be at least 1 acre (excluding jurisdictional wetlands). The site has been zoned Rural Conservation under Polk County's Zoning Code for approximately 12 years. This designation allows a density up to 1 unit per acre. Individual water wells and on-site waste disposal systems (septic tanks) will be utilized for each home. There are no water or sewer extensions proposed for the site or for adjacent areas by any governmental entity. Access to the site from Polk City is along Dean Still Road, which is unpaved at this time. The County has plans to pave it in the near future. Of the 1280 acres comprising the project site, 362 acres have been claimed as jurisdictional wetlands and approximately 642 acres have been mapped within the 100-year floodplain by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 51 of the lots platted in the project are entirely within the FEMA 100- year flood plain. Several other lots contain large portions within FEMA 100- year flood plain. Despite the significant amount of wetlands and floodplains on the site, the project is designed so that no net loss will occur in the floodplains and less than 1% (.59%) of the jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by development. Impervious conditions on the site will only increase by 2.8% after development. All structures will be set at or above the 100 year flood elevation, as calculated by the project engineers, and will be constructed in accordance with the County's flood protection standards. The project is designed so that post-development runoff is less than pre-development runoff and post-development drainage basins conform to pre-development drainage basins. Existing drainage patterns for the site are designed to be maintained. The property comprising the project has been used through the years for a variety agricultural purposes, including harvesting watermelons, soybeans, corn, and silage. It has been drained and ditched to facilitate these activities. It is currently being used for grazing cattle. A sod farm is located to the south of the property. Additional cattle grazing lands run south from there to Polk City. To the north of the site are ranchlands which run to the border of the Withlacoochee Wildlife Area. Immediately to the west of the site are 20-30 scattered mobile homes and additional ranchlands in a subdivision known as Evans Acres. This subdivision was initially approved by DCA in 1983, and was comprised of 48 lots on approximately 1,290 acres. The original lots ranged in size from 5 to 60 acres. Apparently, individuals have since split their lots and many of the existing lots are 2 to 5 acres in size. A few of the original lots are used for both residential and ranching purposes. Including the large and small lots, there are approximately 163 lots on the property comprising Evans Acres. On the property directly to the east of the site are approximately 16 mobile homes along Melody Lane. These existing homesite numbers are small and scattered when compared to the 356 lots proposed for Paradise Country Estates. Approximately 120 families live in the general vicinity of the proposed project. The Green Swamp. The project is within the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). The site is within the drainage basin of the Withlacoochee River, which has been designated an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) and is approximately three and a half miles to the north. The Green Swamp ACSC was designated by the Legislature. Chapter 79- 73, 380.0551, Florida Statutes (1991). It was the second area to be designated and now is one of only four areas in the State retaining this designation. The Green Swamp was designated because the area's natural resources were considered to be of regional and statewide importance and because of concerns that uncoordinated development could endanger these resources. The Green Swamp is a regionally significant area for recharge of the Floridan Aquifer. The Green Swamp is unique because the top of the Floridan Aquifer is at or near the surface over much of the area. This creates what is known as the potentiometric high of the Floridan Aquifer. The potentiometric high pressurizes the Floridan Aquifer, permitting it to be used for drinking water wells. The Florida Aquifer serves as the principal source of drinking water for central Florida. It supplies the entire State with about 48 percent of its ground water supply. The potentiometric high also serves to hold back salt water intrusion into the Floridan. Recharge is important in maintaining the potentiometric high of the Floridan Aquifer. Although the Green Swamp has been characterized as a recharge area for the Floridan Aquifer, the actual recharge capabilities of the Green Swamp vary considerably throughout the region. Some areas within the Green Swamp, such as the high, dry, sandy ridge on the eastern boundary of the Green Swamp clearly are high recharge areas. In some areas, the Floridan Aquifer rises essentially to the ground surface, with no confining layer above it. In those areas, a considerable amount of surface water filters into the Floridan Aquifer. In other areas, including in the vicinity of the project site, recharge capability is considerably less. See "G. Review under the 1985 Plan and the Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code, (3) Ground Water Recharge." The head waters of several rivers, including the Withlacoochee River, are in the Green Swamp. Polk County's Comprehensive Plan. Polk County's Comprehensive Plan, as amended by Polk County Ordinance 85-08 (Ordinance 85-08), is referred to as Polk County's 1985 comprehensive plan, or the 1985 plan. It includes a Land Use Element (LUE) and a Conservation Element. The Land Use Element. The 1985 Plan is a "policy plan." As a "policy plan," the LUE does not map land use classifications or densities or intensities of development. The different parts of the plan must be considered together to ascertain their meaning. As stated in the Foreward to the LUE: The Policy Plan is a flexible and realistic guide to future public decisions. Existing conditions are first determined and analyzed. Then, community goals are identified providing a process of finding out where we are and where we want to go. * * * . . .. The challenge is to determine the means of achieving the identified community goals at minimal cost and the least possible hardship on any segment of our society. Under the policies planning process this is accomplished by developing all possible alternative courses of action that will advance the community toward the desire goal. The policies are then a general statement of purpose and outlining broad principles toward which the plan is guided in the implementation stage. A policy plan does not detail specific actions or locations on a map. Rather it provides a broad framework within which day-to-day decisions are made in a consistent manner toward an identified goal. The ultimate product of those community goals will be the heritage of Polk County's future. At 4-2, the LUE discusses the need to give attention to "the proper distribution of population densities in keeping with sound planning practices, the physical capabilities of the land, and the relationship of the population and housing densities to existing or proposed transportation facilities and other community services." It then speaks to "Retention of Open Spaces": A second potential problem to be faced, as urban growth continues, is the potential loss of the open space characteristics that now contribute substantially to its desirability as a community in which to live and visit. To a large extent, the desirable characteristics are provided by extensive agricultural areas. Such uses are compatible with residential and other types of urban land uses and should be encouraged to remain to the maximum extent possible. Desirable open space is also presently provided by . . . wetland areas not suited for urban development. By encouraging such areas to remain in their present condition, a substantial amount of open space can be retained to provide the needed visual relief and openness necessary within a highly urbanized community. At 4-5, discussing "Retention of Unique Agricultural Lands," the LUE states that cattle raising and field crops are subject to potential intrusion by urban development and states: "The development of planning techniques, which will encourage the retention of important agricultural lands and provide for orderly urban development, thus becomes a matter of considerable importance." The Goals, Objectives, and Policies (GOPs) of the LUE starting at 5-1 include the following: General Goal: To maintain productive and mutually compatible use of lands and waters within Polk County in a manner consistent with the economic, physical and social needs, capabilities, and desires of Polk County and its citizens. Objective I - Agricultural Uses: To ensure that a sufficient quantity of appropriate lands are available and protected for productive agricultural uses necessary to a sound economic base. Policies: * * * 2. Protect, to the maximum extent possible, agricultural lands from encroachment of incompatible land uses and any detrimental effects of development adjacent to agricultural areas. * * * 5. Provide all possible incentives for the retention of lands into agricultural production. * * * Objective III - Natural Resources Minimize adverse impacts of development on valuable natural resources including the protection of water quality and quantity in surface and ground waters. Policies: * * * 2. The subdivision and platting of land shall be permitted in accordance with the zoning district applied to the property and in compliance with the Polk County Subdivision Regulations and Flood Protection/Surface Water Management Ordinance. * * * Site alteration should be permitted only when such alteration will not adversely affect the natural flow regime or the natural recharge capabilities of the site. Site alteration should be permitted only when such alteration will not result in the siltation of wetlands or reduce the natural retention and filtering capabilities of wetlands. Site alteration activities should provide for water retention and settling facilities; should maintain an overall site runoff equivalent to the natural flow regime prior to alteration and should maintain a runoff rate which does not cause erosion. * * * Storm water runoff should be released into the wetlands in a manner approximating the natural flow regime. Structures should be placed in a manner which will not adversely affect the natural flow regime and which well not reduce the recharge capabilities. Placement of structures shall be consistent with sound flood plain management practices such as compliance with the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. Groundwater withdrawal should not exceed the safe yield per acre as determined by Water Management Districts or successor agencies. Objective IV - Residential Areas To ensure that an adequate supply of appropriately located lands are available for the development and maintenance of residential areas that can be efficiently and effectively provided with necessary public facilities and services. Policies: Promote and encourage the provision of a wide range of housing opportunities, in appropriate locations, to permit a choice of housing types to suit the particular needs of all citizens. Promote and encourage new residential development adjacent to established growth centers, to ensure the orderly use of land and the efficient provision of facilities and services. * * * Encourage new residential development that can be effectively served by the existing transportation facilities. Promote new residential development in non-urban areas, that is properly designed to combine with future adjacent development, to create a neighborhood of sufficient size to facilitate the efficient and effective provision of all necessary public facilities and services. Part VI of the LUE, entitled "Alternate Approaches," discusses the pros and cons of different concepts for planning and managing of growth. It settles on a "Resource-Responsive Concept" as the preferred growth alternative. This concept holds in part: Wherever possible, future growth should be encouraged to take place in or near established urbanized areas. Scattered growth incapable of functioning as meaningful self-contained communities should be discouraged. And it is preferable that the urbanizing area, as it extends over extensive areas within the County, not be developed in one continuous, monotonous maze of residential, commercial, and industrial uses - but that there be open space provided at appropriate intervals so as to provide visual relief and a sense of scale to the overall urban community. Such open space areas can be productively utilized for agricultural and conservation purposes or recreation areas, public facilities and services required. It is proposed that the most appropriate urban growth concept to meet such guide-lines and the policy statements of this land use plan be a resource-responsive growth concept. Under this concept, urban growth and development will be guided and encouraged with respect to its responsiveness to the natural and human resource capabilities of the County. Within any given area of the County, the resources will be careful evaluated in terms of their capability to support growth, and the physical form and intensity of development will be then shaped to provide the physical form and intensity of development will be then shaped to provide a balance with such resources. Prime resources to be considered are as follows: Natural Resources Topography and soil conditions Vegetation and tree cover Wildlife habitats present Drainage characteristics; relationship to rivers and lakes Natural water supply capabilities General aesthetic qualities Human Resources Transportation facilities (roads, railroads, airports) Available water supply and sewage facilities Community facilities, such as schools, parks, libraries Protective services, such as fire and police Established land uses within the area Economic conditions and potentials. Part VII of the LUE, entitled "Implementation," states: "Initial implementation of a Comprehensive Plan and initiation of the continuing planning process for growth management requires the establishment of principals and standards for measurement of proposed activities against the adopted policies of the community." It includes a section entitled "Principles and Standards for the Control and Distribution of Population Densities and Structural/Development Intensity," which provides in part: All Types of Urban Development: * * * Each new development or land use should follow sound land planning principles to maximize site advantages, avoiding when possible, adverse impacts on the natural resources and hazards to health, safety, or general welfare. * * * Residential Development: Low-density single-family development (1-4 units/acre), other than rural residences related to agricultural operations, shall be located in areas capable of being developed into stable, cohesive neighborhoods. In a section entitled "Legal Requirements of Implementation," it states that "all actions taken by local government, whether in the form of permitting private development to occur or in the provision of public facilities and services, are required to be fully consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The plan, once adopted, must occupy a central position in the consideration of all proposed development." In another section, entitled "Coordination with Other Plan Elements," it states that the "land use element cannot be implemented alone [but] must be coordinated with the [other elements]." In another section, entitled "Needed Improvements in the Zoning Ordinance," it is recognized that "it will be essential that a thorough review of the zoning ordinance be undertaken and that the ordinance be revised as appropriate to achieve consistency with overall planning objectives." It acknowledges that there were "major identified deficiencies in the current zoning regulations" and advises that "the following needs among others should be addressed as a minimum in making revisions to the zoning ordinance": "Revision of the Density Requirement in Residential Districts." Despite the admonitions in the 1985 Plan, to date there has been no revision of the land use classifications, densities, or intensities in the County's zoning code. As before the 1985 Plan was adopted, zoning in the Green Swamp ACSC remains Rural Conservation (RC) and allows up to one unit per acre residential development. The Conservation Element. Part II of the Conservation Element of the Polk County Comprehensive Plan is a "Summary of Natural Resources." At 2-18, there appears a section entitled "Rare and Unique Natural Resources," which describes the Green Swamp, as well as other natural resources in the County, as a "rare and unique land area resource for conservation consideration." At 2-19, as amended by Ordinance 85-08, this element of the comprehensive plan also states: This area comprises the hydrologic heartland of Central Florida and contains the headwaters of the Withlacoochee, Hillsborough, Peace and Oklawaha Rivers. The potentiometric high of the Floridan Aquifer lies within this area. . . . The area has a high potential for recreational and natural enjoyment. . . . The Green Swamp area is the largest expanse of forest in Polk County, with abundant water and wooded areas to provide for wildlife habitats. This area has great significance as an area for conservation of land, air, water, open space and wildlife habitats. Part IV of the Conservation Element is a "Summary of Special Problems, Areas, Issues, and Relationships." Starting at 4-2, it addresses the following: Displacement . . .. Cities in Polk County have historically developed on the ridges and the urbanized areas are spreading outward rapidly into the prime citrus lands and the "marginal" (flood prone) lands. There is considerable concern about urban development in wetland soils and flood prone areas. The double barreled concern for development in wetland soils and wetland areas is that they might well serve valuable natural functions and the private and public problems created by development subjected to flood damages. This property damage promotes public pressure for drainage in wet areas. The issue in wetland drainage and flood control is the jeopardy of natural functions that wetlands and water fluctuations provide in natural systems and flood damage costs. . . . [C]oncern for the growing demand for uplands development which steadily displaces [good pasture land] . . . relate[s] to the use of good pasture land for development. Density The subject of development density is a particular issue of vital importance to the county. Low density development in some areas and high density in other areas is important so that demands for public facilities can be economically and efficiently handled, so that environmental degradation is minimized, and so that land, not suitable for development, can be saved for important natural functions. The present zoning ordinance classifies most of the county in a Rural Conservation (RC) classification that permits low density development without proper regard for those areas that are best suited for development. Portions of the county should be protected from development pressures and appropriate areas should be zoned to accommodate rational densities. The present level of protection, provided by the zoning system is not brought to bear for conservation purposes. * * * Water * * * Another area of concern relates to the draw down and recha[r]ge of the Floridan Aquifer and is claimed to be a rational concern of an area much larger than Polk County. * * * Pollution Environmental pollution, as it relates to water, is a major local concern. * * * Water pollution is concerned because of its effects on recreation and tourism. Water degradation and the pollution of lakes and rivers tends to remove the intangible value that Polk County enjoys in thee form of its surface water resources. * * * Also, the related cost issues of municipal sewage treatment and disposal, effluent disposal techniques, septic tank useage are environmentally economic choices to be made by the public. Discussing the topic, "Preservation and Management," starting at 4-4, Part IV of the Conservation Element states in part: Many issues relate to what, how, or when something should be conserved. * * * Lakes, rivers and canals of the county are of concern as sources of flooding and as resources for flood control, if properly managed. Flood prone areas surrounding surface water have been identified for much of the county. These water bodies are also legitimate concerns as the habitat for fish and other wildlife that provide a significant value in their own right. The area of these water bodies are also special scenic and recreational values that contribute to tourism and development. Part V of the Conservation Element is where the "Goals, Objectives and Policies" are found. It start with some general observations, including in part: . . .. It can be expected, therefore, that the natural environment of the county will continue to undergo modification of one type or another in response to the needs of people. . . . The inventory of total space will, therefore, diminish as these changes take place, resulting in corresponding losses within particular categories of natural resources. What is important is that no critical loss of impairment of a natural resource take place; that development be managed so as to create minimum disturbance of the remaining natural resource systems; and that there be compensation replenishments of resources wherever possible. It then lists a General Goal and several resource-specific objectives and policies: General Goal: Maintain, protect, develop and utilized the natural resources in a manner that will balance and replenish the natural ecological systems and will best serve and promote the desired quality of life for Polk County resident, present and future. * * * Water Resource Objective: To conserve and protect the quality and quantity of water resources through proper management. * * * 6. Identify and protect significant acquifer [sic] recharge areas for maximum recharge capability and protect the water available for aquifer recharge. * * * Minimize the adverse impacts of development on resources of the Floridan Aquifer, wetlands and flood-detention areas. Protect the normal quantity, quality and flow of ground water and surface water which are necessary for the protection of resources of state and regional concern. Protect the functions of the Potentiometric High of the Floridan Aquifer. Prevent further salt-water intrusion into the Floridan Aquifer. Protect or improve existing ground and surface-water quality. Protect the water retention and biological-filtering capabilities of wetlands. Protect the natural flow regime of drainage basins. Rare and Unique Natural Resource Objective: To conserve and protect, through proper resources management, areas having unique natural characteristics and particularly sensitive environmental balance. * * * Policies: Identify all significant areas in Polk County deemed to have unique natural resource characteristics. Encourage proper management of unique wetland areas of the County as a vital water resource. Encourage a proper system for control of development in flood prone and wetland areas to regulate alternation [sic] of the natural system of water retention and storage during periods of heavy rainfall. Preserve and protect, to the maximum extent possible, all delineated areas having valuable unique resource characteristics. Part V of the Conservation Element concludes with a "Summary," which states in part: The objectives and policies set forth above should not be considered as controls to be rigidly applied in every instance of decision-making dealing with the natural environment. Rather, in dealing with resource conservation issues, guidance is preferable to control. . . . A number of potential implementation actions and programs, presented in the following part, will further assist in establishing the direction and scope of conservation activities in the County. Part VI of the Conservation Element is entitled "Implementation." While acknowledging at 6-1 that Polk County cannot establish an implementation program unilaterally, without regard to the co-responsibilities of other governmental authorities at the regional state and federal levels, it states at 6-2 that Polk County "can and should": Utilize the general objectives and policies established by this Element as considerations in all decision making concerning the use and improvement of land within the County. * * * 3. Utilize, to the fullest extent possible, the policies and implementation controls of other elements of the Polk County Comprehensive Plan, and those of other governmental entities having jurisdiction, to further the conservation of natural resources. Starting at 6-3, Part VI discusses the Conservation Element's "Relationship to Other Plans." At 6-4, after stating that the Conservation Element will be largely implemented through the policies and programs of other comprehensive plan elements, Part VI provides: Land Use Element - This element will provide the overall framework for conservation [sic] potentialities through the manner in which land uses are distributed, arranged, and interrelated throughout Polk County. Policies and implementation programs of this element will determine the degree to which new development is properly related to soil types and capabilities, natural habitats, flood prone areas, wetlands and unique resource areas of the County. Land regulatory controls such as zoning, subdivision regulations and development impact reviews provide the basic tools for implementation of the policies of the Land Use Element. Starting at 6-5, Part VI discusses "Guidelines for Implementation." At 6-5, it points out: The nature of conservation policy, being of such broad application and diversity of interest, requires that its effective implementation utilize many approaches, techniques and procedures. Its application is carried out, for the most part, in an indirect way as a by-product of other more direct decisions and actions relation to the development and growth of the County. It is essential, therefore, that Polk County draw upon all possible alternative mechanisms and techniques which will lead to the effective conservation of its natural resource systems. Among the various approaches which Polk County may utilize to further its conservation objectives are the following. * * * Influence in the allocation of resources to achieve the objectives of the conservation plan. Control of events which determine resources allocation in keeping with the conservation plan. * * * Specific procedures and techniques which may be utilized to facilitate the implementation process include the following. * * * 7. Protect natural water bodies and adjacent wetland areas through the regulation of development densities and proper management of stormwater runoff. This would require a cooperative effort with the Water Management Districts in identifying flood plains for various flood frequencies. Polk County's Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code. Polk County's Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code was enacted as Ordinance 81-28 and was amended by Ordinance 85-07. Article V is entitled "Flood Protection Standards." Section 5-1 provides in pertinent part: GENERAL STANDARDS: The following minimum standards shall apply to new construction and substantial improvements in all areas of special flood hazard, and to any development, other than phosphate mining, within 100 feet of a watercourse: * * * (6) On-site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. Section 5-2 provides in pertinent part: SPECIFIC STANDARDS: The following minimum standards shall apply in all areas of special flood hazard where base flood elevation data has been provided: * * * Subdivision Proposals: All subdivision proposals and other proposed developments shall be reviewed by the County Engineer. [I]f the proposal is in an area of special flood hazard, it shall be reviewed to assure that the following standards are met: All such proposals shall be reasonably safe from flood waters resulting from the base flood. All such proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas electrical and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage. Base flood elevation data shall be provided for all such proposals. Roads shall be reasonably safe from flood waters resulting from the base flood. Article VI of Polk County's Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code is entitled "Water Management Standards." Section 6-2 provides in pertinent part: GENERAL STANDARDS: The following minimum standards shall apply to all development which occurs within an area of special flood hazard and to any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate . . .. * * * (3) (a) The amount of site alteration within a wetlands soil association shall be limited to ten percent (10%) of the area of wetlands soil association within any given total site. Review under the 1985 Plan and the Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code. Land Use, Density and Intensity. DCA alleges that the land use, density and intensity of the development Crowder proposes for the site is inconsistent with: (1) the section on "Density" found in Part IV of the Conservation Element, entitled "Summary of Special Problems, Areas, Issues, and Relationships"; (2) a section of Part II of the Conservation Element of the Polk County Comprehensive Plan entitled "Rare and Unique Natural Resources"; (3) Policy 2, Objective I, "Agricultural Uses," in Part V of the LUE; and (4) Policy 2, Objective IV, "Residential Uses," in Part V of the LUE. 6/ As previously stated, the 1985 Plan is a policy plan that does not map land use classifications or densities or intensities of development. Crowder's Paradise Country Estates is consistent with the County's Zoning Code, which has not changed since before the 1985 plan, and Zoning Map. The development was not otherwise reviewed for land use, density or intensity. But it is clear that the 1985 plan does not condone exclusive resort to the zoning code to determine the appropriateness of the land use, density and intensity for development in the Green Swamp ACSC. See, especially, the section entitled "Density" in Part IV of the Conservation Element of the Plan. In the Green Swamp ACSC, especially, reference must also be made to the Plan itself. See Part VII of the LUE, entitled "Implementation." It is not found that all residential use on the Crowder property would be, in itself, inconsistent with the 1985 Plan. But, taking into consideration all of its land use, density and intensity provisions, it must be found that the development order issued in this case, especially at its level of density and intensity and especially in the manner of its issuance, is inconsistent with the 1985 Plan. The crux of the problem with this development, like others in the Green Swamp ACSC already permitted by County development orders, is that, first, the 1985 comprehensive plan and the County zoning regulations in place at the time were inadequate and, second, the steps envisioned in the plan to make them adequate have not been taken. For the plan and the zoning regulations to be adequate, and for a development order for a project in the Green Swamp ACSC in Polk County to be consistent with the 1985 comprehensive plan, either: (1) the plan must be amended to map land use classifications, densities and intensities of development in the Green Swamp ACSC; (2) the zoning code must be amended as envisioned in the comprehensive plan for the Green Swamp ACSC; or (3) the County must evaluate development orders for projects in the Green Swamp ACSC on a case- by-case basis for consistency with the comprehensive plan. None of these three possibilities happened in this case. 7/ Flood Plain Delineation. Paragraph 12 of the DCA Petition alleges that the Crowder development violates Policy 10 of Objective III, "Natural Resources," of the LUE: "Placement of structures shall be consistent with sound flood plain management practices such as compliance with the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973." Specifically, it is alleged that the use of a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) undetailed "A" zone to map the flood prone area on the site, and the failure to perform a detailed study, did not comply with the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. Other allegations in the DCA Petition also implicate the delineation of the flood prone areas on the site. See, (5) Ground and Surface Water Quality, below. A FEMA "A" zone is the zone depicting the area determined by FEMA to be flood prone. In this context, FEMA defines a "flood prone" area as an area flooded in a 100-year, 24-hour storm. At the time Polk County reviewed the Crowder project for approval of the roadway and construction drainage plans, FEMA was requiring that a detailed study be performed to delineate the flood prone area. Polk County apparently was not aware of this requirement and was not enforcing it. Nor, apparently, was Crowder's engineer aware of it. In any event, Crowder did not have a detailed study performed to delineate the flood prone area on the site, and the County did not require it. In approximately March, 1992, Polk County received a written communication from FEMA advising of the requirement for a detailed study of the flood prone area in the case of developments like Crowder's. Polk County now requires compliance with this FEMA requirement. Crowder did not rely simply on the FEMA undetailed "A" zone to map the flood prone area on the site. Crowder's engineers used the existing undetailed FEMA maps as a starting point for determining base flood elevations. The engineers digitized the areas which had been designated as flood prone on the FEMA panels. The engineer then overlayed the digitized FEMA map with the on- site wetlands survey of the property, which had been field-staked and field- shot. Topographical field shots of the property which had been conducted throughout the site at one foot intervals were also overlayed on the digitized FEMA map. In addition, the engineer took into consideration mapped wetlands soils and compared flooding conditions which had occurred on adjacent property to assess whether all areas actually prone to flooding had been characterized as flood prone on the FEMA map. The methodology used by the project engineers was based on sound engineering practices. Nonetheless, it does not qualify as a "detailed study" as far as FEMA is concerned. A "detailed study" would include the application of a computer program that would "route" hypothetical flood waters onto and through the property to ascertain flood elevations in different stages of the hypothetical flood. It is not possible to determine how a detailed study would change the delineation of the flood prone area in Crowder's proposal. The total area of flood prone area could either increase or decrease; it could increase in some places and decrease in others. As it is, several of the lots platted in the Crowder development would be entirely within both the FEMA undetailed "A" zone and the flood prone area mapped by Crowder's engineers. Ground Water Recharge. DCA alleges that platting Paradise Country Estates will adversely impact recharge of the Floridan Aquifer, contrary to Policy 9 and 11, Objective III, "Natural Resources," of the LUE, and Policies 9 and 10 of the "Water Resource Objective" of the Conservation Element, of the 1985 comprehensive plan. In the vicinity of the project site, the Floridan Aquifer comes to within 35 feet approximately of the ground surface. Above the Floridan Aquifer is a shallow aquifer, which rises to within approximately 12 inches of the surface. There is a layer of clastic soils (sand and clay) between the surficial aquifer and the Floridan Aquifer. This confining layer slows the rate of recharge to the Floridan. As a result, the project site is in an area having low, or even very low, to moderate recharge capabilities, at best. USGS Professional Paper 1403-E, which was released in 1990, uses groundwater modelling to quantify recharge rates, instead of using qualitative terms such as "low," or "poor," "moderate" and "high" to describe recharge capabilities. USGS Professional paper 1403-E reports that many areas in the Green Swamp previously labeled as good, moderate or high recharge areas are actually capable of only recharging at rates of 3 to 4 inches per year. The subject property appears to be in the 2 to 3 inch range per year for recharge according to USGS Professional Paper 1403-E. Only three known sample soil borings have been taken on the project site. As a result, the extent of permeability and overall thickness of the confining layer between the surficial and Floridan aquifers is not certain. But there is no reason to believe that there are any karst features or other geologic faults in the area that would allow for direct connections between the surficial and Floridan aquifers. The soil borings that have been taken on the site verify the various geological surveys and studies describing the recharge capabilities in the area. Due to the site's limited capabilities as a recharge area, it is unlikely that the platting of this site will result in any significant reduction in its natural recharge rate. The project is not inconsistent with Policy 9 or 11, Objective III, "Natural Resources," of the LUE, or Policies 9 or 10 of the "Water Resource Objective" of the Conservation Element, of the 1985 comprehensive plan. Individual Water Well Use. DCA alleges that the planned use of individual water wells in Crowder's Paradise Country Estates will impact the quantity of the Floridan Aquifer (and the surficial aquifer) contrary to Policy 11, Objective III, "Natural Resources," of the LUE, and Policies 9 and 10 of the "Water Resource Objective" of the Conservation Element, of the 1985 comprehensive plan. The potentiometric level of the Floridan Aquifer protects the Floridan Aquifer from salt-water intrusion. Significant de-watering of the aquifer caused by large municipal or industrial wells extracting a high volume of water from the aquifer at an intense rate can lower the potentiometric pressure, thus increasing the potential for salt-water intrusion into the aquifer. (Furthermore, the lowered potentiometric pressure creates a hydraulic gradient which encourages surface waters to percolate downward at a faster rate due to the decreased pressure in the Floridan Aquifer. See the preceding sections on Ground Water Recharge and the following section on Ground and Surface Water Quality.) Large municipal, industrial or agricultural wells which exceed 6 inches in diameter must obtain consumptive use permits from the SWFWMD. The Water Management District takes into account what the District determines to be a safe yield per acre when issuing a consumptive use permit. Small, residential wells are not subject to this permitting process as their impacts are much smaller and less intense, and not a concern with regard to their effect on the potentiometric pressure. For this reason, some coastal areas have begun using smaller, individual wells as an alternative to larger municipal wells. The Floridan Aquifer is replenishing itself fast enough for residential wells not to "de-water" or "draw down" the aquifer's supply of ground water. Residential wells do not lower the potentiometric pressure of the Floridan to a significant degree. Nor would they affect the normal supply of ground water, or contribute to salt-water intrusion. Pumping tests performed within two to three miles west of the project site which utilized several residential-size wells support the foregoing conclusions. For these reasons, it is found that the development will not adversely impact the normal supply of ground water and thus will not interfere with the functions of the potentiometric high of the Floridan Aquifer, including its protection against salt-water intrusion. Since the water wells would pump only from the Floridan Aquifer, they would not impact the supply of surface water. In regard to the use of water wells, the project is not inconsistent with Policy 11, Objective III, "Natural Resources," of the LUE, or with Policies 9 or 10 of the "Water Resource Objective" of the Conservation Element, of the 1985 comprehensive plan. Ground and Surface Water Quality. DCA alleges that Paradise Country Estates will result in unacceptable contamination of the Floridan Aquifer, the surficial aquifer, and the surface water (particularly the Withlacoochee River) contrary to Policies 9, 10 and 14 of the "Water Resource Objective" of the Conservation Element. Paragraph 20 of the DCA Petition alleges that the use of individual on-site disposal systems (OSDS), or septic tank systems, in violation of Section 5-1(6) of Polk County Ordinance 81-28 (the County Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code), 8/ in particular, will be part of the cause of the unacceptable contamination (other causes being from lawn and garden maintenance and automotive wastes.) On-Site Disposal Systems. Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth requirements for the use of on-site waste disposal, or septic tank, systems in the State of Florida. That chapter, which is administered by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS") through local health departments, provides construction standards for the installation of on-site waste disposal systems. The septic tank serves as a holding tank designed to separate solids and floatable materials and allows anaerobic digestion of organic materials. The remaining effluent exits the tank into the soil infiltrative process, which is referred to as the drainfield. The drainfield is composed of gravel placed around perforated pipes, which are designed to evenly distribute and release the effluent into soil material where the effluent undergoes aerobic digestion. Eventually, any constituents remaining in the effluent which have not been absorbed by the root zone or otherwise decomposed reach the subsurface waters which are referred to as the surficial water table. Each individual lot owner will be required to obtain a permit from the local health department prior to installing an on-site waste disposal system. Prior to issuing a permit, HRS inspects each site to assess soil limitations and to conduct a percolation test to determine the seasonal high water table for the site. Because the soils on the site are severely limited for filtration purposes and the high water table is only 10 to 12 inches below the surface, individual lot owners will be required to mound their on-site waste disposal systems to overcome these limitations. Although the fill used to mound the systems will be comprised of suitable soils, it is possible that the foreign soils will absorb moisture from the existing soils on this site, a phenomenon referred to as capillary fringe affect. This phenomenon can cause those portions of the fill which come in direct contact with the existing soils on the site to lose their filtration capabilities. Unless the fill becomes saturated from other sources, it is unlikely that capillary fringe affect will render the filtration process ineffective. The effects of capillary fringe affect can be lessened by mixing fill with soils found on the site, a practice undertaken by contractors when installing on-site waste disposal systems. In addition, increasing the amount of fill used to mound the system would decrease the potential affects of this phenomenon. 9/ Floridan Aquifer Water Quality. In some areas of the Green Swamp, the Floridan Aquifer is actually considered a surficial aquifer since no confining layers of soil or clay separate the subsurface water from the Floridan Aquifer. These areas would typically be characterized as areas with high recharge capabilities (or high potential for contamination). However, throughout the project site, a confining layer exists which is composed of clayey sands which have a very low permeability. Therefore, there is relatively little interaction between the surficial aquifer and the Floridan Aquifer on this particular site. For this reason, the use of individual on-site waste disposal systems on this site would pose no significant risk to the water quality of the Floridan Aquifer. Surficial Aquifer and Surface Water Quality.-- As for the surficial aquifer and surface water quality, Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, requires on-site waste disposal systems be located at least 75 feet from waterbodies. Normally, and when the systems are operating properly, this assures that adequate filtration and decomposition occurs before wastewater reaches surface waters on or near the site. But, in the case of the Crowder proposal, it is necessary to consider that at least some of the mounded systems will be subjected to flooding and will become saturated. Even based on the analysis by Crowder's engineers, 51 of the lots in Paradise Country Estates are entirely flood prone; there is no place to put an OSDS on those lots that is not flood prone. If a "detailed study" had been done, it is possible that more lots would be entirely within the flood hazard zone. Other lots not entirely within the flood zone may not be able to accommodate an OSDS on the part of the lot not within the flood zone. If the OSDS mound is saturated during flood conditions, the system will fail, and untreated waste, or inadequately treated waste, will be released into the surface flood waters. This waste water will move laterally across the project site. Roots may absorb some nitrates or other organic compounds; 10/ otherwise, the waste water and its constituents will remain in the surface water. Lateral movement across the site generally will be slow, as the site is relatively flat. Some of the waste water and its constituents will get into the surficial aquifer. There are ditches or canals alongside and on the site that will direct the rest of the surface water into Pony Creek and other tributories of the Withlacoochee River, an Outstanding Florida Water approximately three and a half miles to the north. The Department of Environmental Regulation issued a dredge and fill permit for the project's road network's impact on wetlands on the site. But it did not pass on the use of OSDS in the individual lots. It also erroneously referred to the Withlacoochee as a natural Class III, instead of an Outstanding Florida Water. See F.A.C. Rule 17-302.700(9)(i). The Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) issued a surface water management permit for the project. In evaluating a permit application, SWFWMD considers surface water quality. But the focus of SWFWMD's inquiry is the pre- and post-development peak flows. Also, when it considers water quality, SWFWMD considers the impact of site alteration on water quality, not the impact of the use of OSDS on the site. In addition, the Crowder project was reviewed under special criteria for low-density rural subdivisions that do not require the submission of as much information. It was not clear from the evidence precisely how SWFMD evaluates water quality under those criteria. For these reasons, based on the evidence, it cannot be said that the Crowder project's OSDS will be meet the minimum standard of being "located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding," as required by Section 5-1(6) of Polk County Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code, or that the project will "protect the normal . . . quality of ground and surface water . . . necessary for the protection of resources of state and regional concern," as required by Policy 10 of the "Water Resource Objective" of the Conservation Element of the Plan. Finally, the project will not "protect or improve existing ground and surface-water quality," as required by Policy 14 of the "Water Resource Objective" of the Conservation Element of the Plan. Other Appeal Issues. Except as set forth above, the Crowder development did not violate the 1985 comprehensive plan and Flood Protection and Surface Water Management Code provisions cited in the DCA Petition. Agency Practice - Other Development in the Area. As previously described, Evans Acres, to the west of the Crowder site, was approved by DCA in 1983. (See Finding 10, above.) As approved, it was comprised of 48 lots on approximately 1,290 acres (a density of one unit per 27 acres). The original lots ranged in size from 5 to 60 acres. Unbeknownst to the DCA, individuals apparently have since split their lots and many of the existing lots are 2 to 5 acres in size. A proposed development known as Turkey Creek is located between the project site and Evans Acres. Turkey Creek is comprised of approximately 57 lots on 170 acres with a gross density of 1 unit per 3 acres. The physical characteristics of the Turkey Creek property, including the abundance of wetlands and floodplains, are essentially the same as the proposed project site. DCA appealed Turkey Creek in June of 1992. However, in that case, the County had been approximately two years late in rendering the Turkey Creek development order to the DCA. Meanwhile, the developer incurred development expenses and already had constructed roads and drainage facilities for the development. The developer, the County and DCA executed a settlement agreement which allows the development to proceed according to the original construction plans, but requires homeowners to install dual septic tank systems and have their septic tanks cleaned and inspected every three years. Several other developments, which are in the general vicinity of the project site and have many of the same physical characteristics, including Yearling Trace and Buck Hill, have been appealed by DCA. Yearling Trace is comprised of 108 units on approximately 544 acres. Buck Hill is comprised of 55 units on approximately 214 acres. Those projects were appealed by DCA in June and April, 1992. In some of these cases, the County did not timely render development orders to DCA in a timely manner. In the case of Buck Hill, the DCA had been mailed an unapproved copy of development plans in October, 1990; in early 1992, DCA contacted the County to inquire, as no County-approved development plans ever had been sent to the DCA. In many of these cases, substantial development expenses had been incurred; in some cases, roads and drainage facilities already had been constructed. DCA decided to settle the pending appeals in which the County was late rendering the development order, and in which the developer already had constructed roads and drainage facilities, consistent with the Turkey Creek settlement. In cases where the County was late rendering the development order, but the developer had not already constructed roads and drainage facilities, the DCA determined to settle not only for stipulations to upgrade the OSDS, as in the Turkey Creek settlement, but also for requirements that a "detailed" flood zone study be done, in accordance with the FEMA requirements. Prior to the DCA appeal, Crowder had expended approximately $31,000 in permit fees. In addition, he has incurred development costs, primarily for engineering fees and related services. Through the time of the final hearing, he had spent approximately $99,000 on engineering fees and services. (The evidence was not clear how much had been incurred by the time of the DCA appeal.) However, the County was not late in rendering the Crowder development order, and Crowder has not constructed roads or drainage facilities. In view of the different circumstances in Crowder's case, DCA's prior agency practices do not compel that Crowder's development be treated in the same manner, i.e., be settled on the same terms, as the Turkey Creek and the others. DCA has argued that FLWAC's Final Order in the case of Dept. of Community Affairs v. Narbi International Company, Inc. and Lake County, 14 FALR 3223 (1992), controls this case and requires the Crowder development order to be overturned on appeal. Narbi involved development Green Swamp ACSC, albeit in Lake County. Factually, there are many differences between Narbi and this case. The Narbi development order was a rezoning from agricultural with a residential density of up to one unit per five acres to a residential planned unit development (PUD) zoning with a density of one unit per 1.35 acres. Also, Lake County's comprehensive plan had an "urban containment policy," which DCA equated with its non-rule policy preventing "urban sprawl" or "leap-frog development." Thirdly, in Narbi, it was found that a geologic fault existed on the project site which allowed a direct connection from the surficial aquifer to the Floridan Aquifer. Because of the factual differences, Narbi does not control the outcome of Crowder's case. Conditions for Approval. Based on the testimony of its witnesses, DCA has proposed that, notwithstanding its deficiencies, the Crowder project can be approved if its density is lowered to between one unit per ten acres and one unit per 20 acres. The rationale of DCA's witnesses seems to be that the proposed lower density, in and of itself, would cure at least the most significant of the deficiencies. Since the Crowder development order under review was for approval of particular road and drainage plans, the plans would have to be redrawn at the lower density and resubmitted for approval by the County subject to the final order to be entered in this case. It is not possible for the Commission to approve, on condition of lowered density, the plans that were the subject of the development order in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order rescinding and denying approval for the development order in this case. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 10th day of March, 1993.
The Issue Petitioners challenge the South Florida Water Management District’s (the District) proposed action to issue Individual Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) 50-06558-P to authorize conceptual approval of a surface water management (SWM) system to serve 1,919 acres of a phased, multiple-use development referred to as the Palm Beach County Biotechnolgy Research Park (BRP) and to authorize construction and operation of Phase 1A of that proposed project. The ultimate issue is whether the Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed activities will not be harmful to the water resources of the District; will not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the District; and will comply with the water quantity, environmental, and water quality criteria of the District’s ERP regulations, which are set forth in Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40E-4, et. seq.; and the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District – September 2003 (BOR).1
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES The Florida Wildlife Federation, Audubon Society of the Everglades, and Jupiter Farms Environmental Council, Inc. (d/b/a Loxahatchee River Coalition) are not-for-profit corporations in existence prior to 2003 with more than 25 members in Palm Beach County. Palm Beach County Environmental Coalition was formed in 1997 and is a private, county-wide, non-profit citizen’s organization. Ms. Ketter, Mr. Bell, Ms. Larson, and Mr. Christensen are individuals affected by the proposed BRP. The Respondents stipulated that the parties who remained Petitioners after Mr. Silver’s withdrawal as a Petitioner have standing to bring this proceeding. The District, a public corporation existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, operates pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, as a multipurpose water management district with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida. The County is a duly-constituted governmental entity. THE PROJECT SITE AND ADJACENT LANDS The site of the project is generally referred to as the Mecca Farms, which is a contiguous tract of 1,919 acres of land. At present, the Mecca Farms is used for farming and mining operations. There presently exists a permitted, SWM system on the Mecca Farms that was first permitted in 1979, and has been modified from time to time since then. The existing SWM system includes 73 acres of ditches and a 272-acre above-ground impoundment area. The Mecca Farms site is located within the C-18 Basin. There are no jurisdictional wetlands or delineated surface waters on the Mecca Farms. The following, which is taken from the Staff Report (SFWMD Ex. 1), accurately describes the project site and its adjacent lands: The project site consists of 1,919 acres presently supporting an active orange grove with approximately 73 acres of associated drainage and irrigation ditches/canals and a 30-acre active sand mining operation. The ditches/canals are presently maintained at an elevation of approximately 17 feet NGVD.[3] These ditches/canals provide drainage conveyance to a 272-acre above- ground impoundment located in the northeast corner of the site utilizing four (4) 22,000 gpm pumps. The above-ground impoundment discharges to the west leg of the C-18 Canal via gravity discharge. Project site ditches and canals also connect directly to the C-18 Canal through an 18,000 gpm pump. An additional 224-acre agricultural area east of the 1,919 acres of orange groves is connected to and drains into the canal/ditch system on the project site. This adjacent area was leased from the adjacent land owner by the grove owner for use as row crops and was connected to the grove canal/ditch system for better control of drainage and irrigation. The area is no longer used for row crops. There is also a small area on the site that contains caretaker housing and an equipment maintenance building for the orange groves. These facilities were originally permitted in 1979 under Surface Water Management Permit No. 50-00689-S and subsequent modifications. The citrus grove and primary drainage facilities have been in existence since the 1960s. The Hungryland Slough is located north of the project site, separated from the project site by the C-18 Canal. This area is comprised primarily of publicly-owned natural areas, including an area referred to as Unit 11, which is owned in the majority by Palm Beach County. To the west is the J.W. Corbett Wildlife Management Area (CWMA) owned and managed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). To the east, a large area of low-intensity agricultural land exists under the ownership of Charles Vavrus and within the City of Palm Beach Gardens. These lands contain extensive wetlands that are adjacent to the Loxahatchee Slough to the east. The Acreage, a low-density residential area, is located directly to the south of the project site. The only access to the site at this time is an unpaved extension of Seminole Pratt-Whitney Road (SPW), connecting the site at its southwestern corner to the Acreage. THE PROPOSED PROJECT The subject application is for conceptual approval of the SWM system for the BRP and for construction and operation of Phase 1A of the project. All of the proposed Phase 1A construction will occur on the Mecca Farms site. The following, taken from the Staff Report, accurately describes the proposed project: The [BRP] is a phased multiple use development planned for approximately 1,919 acres and will consist of land uses related to science and technology, biotechnology, biomedical, and other related research and development industries and manufacturing. Additionally, proposed support and complementary land uses include educational, institutional, residential, commercial, and recreational facilities, along with utilities and a large created natural area. THE PROPOSED SWM SYSTEM The proposed SWM system will consist of several interconnected lakes that will provide wet detention for storm water runoff from the property site and from 39 acres of off- site flows from SPW Road and a proposed Florida Power and Light (FPL) Substation. The lakes will collect, store, and treat the runoff. The storm water will pass through the lakes, through a 247-acre area referred to as the “Natural Area” (which will be created as part of the mitigation plan), and discharged to the C-18 Canal. To provide additional water quality treatment, these lakes will include planted littoral zones and the southern lake will include a filter marsh. The Natural Area will, in subsequent construction phases, be constructed on the western boundary of the Mecca site with discharge to the C-18 canal, which is adjacent to the northern boundary of the Mecca Farms. The southern boundary of the Natural Area will be the north boundary of the lake that is to be constructed on the southern end of the property. This is the area that is available for use as a flow-way (which will be discussed in greater detail in a subsequent section of this Recommended Order). The Natural Area will be a wetland type system that will move water slowly through that system providing additional storage and water quality benefits prior to discharging through a gravity control structure into the C-18 Canal. The C-18 Canal discharges to either the Northwest or Southwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River, depending on how structures are operated downstream. Discharges travel in the C-18 Canal for approximately nine miles before reaching the Loxahatchee River. The existing SWM system for the Mecca Farms currently discharges to the C-18 Canal, as will the proposed SWM system. The proposed project will not discharge to the CWMA or the Hungryland Slough. The Grassy Waters Preserve and the Loxahatchee Slough are several miles from the project site and will not be affected by the project’s proposed activities. The following, which is taken from the Staff Report, accurately describes the proposed SWM system. The proposed conceptual surface water management system which will serve the 1,919-acre site will consist of site grading, storm water inlets and culverts which will direct all runoff to a series of interconnected lakes for water quality treatment and attenuation of the peak runoff rate. Pumps will control the runoff rate from the developed site into the adjacent onsite BRP natural area. The BRP natural area will discharge into the C-18 canal via a gravity control structure. The system has been designed to accommodate 39 acres of off-site flows from SPW [Road] and a proposed Florida Power and Light (FPL) Substation. The existing control elevation of the citrus grove is 17.0’ NGVD. The proposed control elevations are 18.0’ NGVD for the developed area and 19.0’ NGVD for the natural area. The control elevations are being raised to provide a “step down” of water elevations from wetlands to the north, west and east of the site (20.5’ to 21.0’) to lower elevations to the south (17.0’). PHASE 1A CONSTRUCTION The following, which is taken from the Staff Report, accurately describes the proposed Phase 1A construction: The Phase 1A construction activities will allow the applicant to proceed with lake excavation, clearing and site grading of 536 acres in the southern portion of the site. No permanent buildings or parking areas are proposed at this time. Stormwater from Phase 1A and the remainder of the site, to remain in agricultural use, will be treated in the Phase 1A lakes and then pumped into the existing impoundment for additional water quality treatment and attenuation prior to discharging to the west leg of the C-18 Canal via the existing weir structures. The existing 18,000 gpm pump that connects the on-site ditches and canals directly to the C-18 Canal will remain, but will only be used if the impoundment is full. (See Special Condition No. 21). Approval of Phase 1A authorizes the use of the existing, previously permitted surface water management facilities, therefore, the previous permit no. 50-00689-S is superceded by this permit. The 224 acre agricultural area east of the existing grove that is connected to the grove canal/ditch system will be severed as part of Phase 1A. The pipe connecting this area will be removed and portions of the berm around this area will be regraded so the area will sheetflow into the adjacent pasture land’s canal/ditch system as it did previously [sic] to being connected to the grove system. Of the 536 acres involved in the Phase 1A construction, 87 acres will become lake bottom and 449 acres will remain pervious area, subject only to grading. CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL Pertinent to this proceeding, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.021(5) defines the term “conceptual approval” to mean an ERP issued by the District which approves a conceptual master plan for a surface water management system or a mitigation bank. Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.305, pertains to conceptual approvals and provides, in relevant part, as follows: Conceptual approvals constitute final District action and are binding to the extent that adequate data has been submitted for review by the applicant during the review process. A conceptual approval does not authorize construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, or abandonment of a surface water management system or the establishment and operation of a mitigation bank. * * * For phased projects, the approval process must begin with an application for a conceptual approval which shall be the first permit issued for the project. An application for construction authorization of the first phase(s) may also be included as a part of the initial application. As the permittee desires to construct additional phases, new applications shall be processed as individual or standard general environmental resource permit applications pursuant to the conceptual approval. The conceptual approval, individual and standard general permits shall be modified in accordance with conditions contained in Chapters 40E-4 and 40E-40, F.A.C. Issuance of a conceptual approval permit pursuant to Chapter 40E-4, F.A.C., shall not relieve the applicant of any requirements for obtaining a permit to construct, alter, operate, maintain, remove, or abandon a surface water management system or establish or operate a mitigation bank, nor shall the conceptual approval permit applicant be relieved of the District’s informational requirements or the need to meet the standards of issuance of permits pursuant to Chapters 40E-4 or 40E-40, F.A.C. . . . PERMITTING CRITERIA In order to obtain an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions for issuance set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. The conditions for issuance focus on water quantity criteria, environmental criteria, and water quality criteria. Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301 contains the following permitting conditions applicable to this proceeding: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit ... an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, or abandonment of a surface water management system: will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters; will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters ...; will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources; will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows ...; will not cause adverse impacts to a work of the District ...; will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed; will be conducted by an entity with the sufficient financial, legal and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, if issued; and will comply with any applicable special basin or geographic area criteria established in Chapter 40E-41 F.A.C. Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302 provides the following Additional Conditions for Issuance of Permits applicable to this proceeding: In addition to the conditions set forth in section 40E-4.301, F.A.C., in order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter or Chapter 40E-40, F.A.C., an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, and abandonment of a system: Located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters will not be contrary to the public interest, or if such an activity significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding Florida Water, that the activity will be clearly in the public interest, as determined by balancing the following criteria as set forth in subsections 4.2.3 through 4.2.3.7 of the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District: Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, F.S.; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. Will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters as set forth in subsections 4.2.8 through 4.2.8.2 of the Basis of Review. . . . THE BASIS OF REVIEW The District has adopted the BOR and incorporated it by reference by Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E- 4.091(1)(a). The standards and criteria found in the BOR are used to determine whether an applicant has given reasonable assurances that the conditions for issuance of an ERP have been satisfied. Section 1.3 of the BOR provides, in part, as follows: . . . Compliance with the criteria established herein [the BOR] constitutes a presumption that the project proposal is in conformance with the conditions for issuance set forth in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302, F.A.C. WATER QUANTITY The term “control elevation” describes the level of freshwater water bodies established by a SWM system. The existing SWM system has a control elevation of 17’ NGVD. The control elevation for the proposed lake system will be raised to 18’ NGVD, and the control elevation for the proposed Natural Area will be raised to 19’ NGVD. Raising the control elevations will permit more treatment of storm water prior to discharge and will permit a more controlled discharge. In addition, raising the control elevation will lessen seepage onto the project site from adjacent wetlands. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands, thereby satisfying the criteria set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E- 4.301(a). The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, thereby satisfying the criteria set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(b). The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, thereby satisfying the criteria set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(c). VALUE OF FUNCTIONS OF WETLANDS AND SURFACE WATERS Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(d), requires the Applicants to establish that “. . . the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, or abandonment of a surface water management system . . .” “. . . will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters.” The District established that the term “value of functions,” as used in the rule, refers to habitat and life support functions. Because there are no wetlands or delineated surface waters on the Mecca Farms site, there are no direct adverse impacts to the functions that wetlands provide to fish and wildlife. The Applicants have provided reasonable assurances to demonstrate that the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters will not be adversely affected. The existing project site does not contain nesting areas for wetland-dependent endangered or threatened wildlife species or species of special concern. The potential for use of the existing project site for nesting by such species is minimal. The existing project site does contain habitat for the American Alligator and foraging habitat for wading birds and birds of prey. The primary foraging habitat on the existing site is around the perimeter of the existing 272-acre impoundment area in the northeast portion of the site. The existing impoundment will be replaced by on-site storm water treatment lakes and the BRP Natural Area that will have shallow banks planted with wetland plant species common to the area. Wildlife is opportunistic; and wading birds commonly feed in areas where there is water, wetland vegetation and wetland plants. The end result will be that the proposed project will have more and better foraging habitat acreage than the existing site. The Natural Area will provide a wetland buffer between the developed area and CWMA that will prevent any adverse impacts both to the wetlands and other surface waters in CWMA and to the value of the functions those wetlands and other surface waters provide to fish, wildlife, and listed species. The Natural Area will provide a wetland buffer between the developed area and Unit 11 that will prevent any adverse impacts both to the wetlands and other surface waters in Unit 11 and to the value of the functions those wetlands and other surface waters provide to fish, wildlife, and listed species. There was no competent evidence that the proposed project would impact the ability of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to manage the CWMA through control burns or otherwise, thereby adversely affecting the diversity or abundance of fish and wildlife (including endangered species and their habitats). Petitioners attempted to raise the issue of mosquito control in their Petitions and at the Final Hearing. The allegations pertaining to mosquito control were struck by the District and Special Condition Number 26 was added before the Petitions were referred to DOAH. Petitioners made no attempt to amend their Petitions and have not challenged Special Condition 26. The Addendum to Staff Report (SFWMD Ex. 2) contains the following Special Condition Number 26: “Upon submittal of an application for construction of any buildings, the permittee shall submit a mosquito control plan for review and approval by District Staff.” Since there will be no buildings containing people or other facilities which would encourage the use of mosquito spraying, it is appropriate for the mosquito control condition to apply to only future phases of construction. There was no competent evidence of impacts attributable to pesticides associated with the application for the SWM system or for Phase 1A construction and operation that would adversely affect the diversity or abundance of fish and wildlife including endangered species and their habitats. The Applicants have satisfied the criteria set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(d). WATER QUALITY The primary concern during Phase 1A construction will be erosion control. Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) are operational and design elements used to either eliminate or reduce the amount of pollutants at the source so they do not get into a SWM system or move downstream. To contain erosion in Phase 1A, the Applicants will use the following BMPs: Silt screens and turbidity barriers within existing ditches and around the perimeter of property. Planned construction sequencing to reduce movement and stock piling of material; Slope stabilization and seeding or sodding of graded areas; and Containment of construction materials with berms. All erosion and turbidity control measures will remain in place until the completion of the on-site construction and approval by the District’s post-permit compliance staff. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed Phase 1A construction activities will not adversely impact the quality of receiving waters and that those activities will not violate State water quality standards. Section 5.2.1, BOR, requires that a SWM system provide wet detention for the first one inch of runoff. The proposed SWM system will provide wet detention for one and one-half inches of runoff. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances to demonstrate that the technical criteria in the BOR will be met. Under Section 1.3 of the BOR, compliance with the criteria in the BOR constitutes a presumption that the Proposed Project is in conformance with the conditions for issuance. This presumption was not rebutted by the Petitioners. The lake system will include planted littoral zones to provide additional uptake of pollutants. A filter marsh is also included in the southern lake. All of the storm water runoff from the lakes will pass through the filter marsh, which will be planted with wetland plants. The filter marsh will provide additional polishing of pollutants, uptake, and filtering through the plants. The discharge will then go into the BRP, which will provide the discharge additional uptake and filtering. BMPs utilized during the Operations and Maintenance phase will include regular maintenance inspections and cleaning of the SWM system, street-sweeping, litter control programs, roadway maintenance inspections and repair schedule, municipal waste collection, pollution prevention education programs, pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer storage, and application training and education. The littoral zones, filter marsh, BRP natural area, and BMPs were not included in the water quality calculations and are over and above rule requirements. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances to demonstrate that the proposed project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. Therefore, Rule 40E- 4.301(1)(e), F.A.C., will be satisfied and water quality standards will not be violated. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES Pursuant to Section 5.5.5 of the BOR, commercial or industrial zoned projects shall provide at least one-half inch of dry detention or retention pretreatment as part of the required retention/detention, unless reasonable assurances can be offered that hazardous materials will not enter the project's SWM system. The Addendum to Staff Report reflects the following Special Condition 25 pertaining to hazardous materials: Upon submittal of an application for construction of commercial or industrial uses the permittee shall submit a plan that provides reasonable assurances that hazardous materials will not enter the surface water management system pursuant to the requirements of section 5.2.2(a) of the Basis of Review. Applicable permitting criteria does not require the Applicants to present a hazardous substances plan at this point because no facilities that will contain hazardous materials are part of the Phase 1A construction. SECONDARY IMPACTS Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f) and Section 4.1.1(f) of the BOR, require an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed activities will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. A secondary impact is an indirect effect of a project resulting in adverse effects to wetlands or other surface waters. The District considers those adverse effects that would not occur "but for" the activities that are closely linked and causally related to the activity under review. This standard is discussed further in the Conclusions of Law section of this Recommended Order. The County’s Exhibit 3 is a secondary impact analysis identifying the secondary impacts that may potentially result from the proposed project. These impacts are: 1) the widening of SPW Road; 2) the construction of an FPL substation; 3) the extension of PGA Boulevard; and 4) the potential relocation of a runway at North County Airport. The secondary impact analysis performed pursuant to the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) contained in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-345 reflects that up to 153.3 acres of wetlands may be partially or completely impacted by these secondary impacts, resulting in approximately 71.21 units of functional loss. Where future activities are expected to directly impact wetlands, secondary impacts were assessed based on the loss of all current functional value within the direct footprint of that activity. Additionally, an assessment was conducted to determine the degree of partial functional loss where impacts beyond the footprint of these activities are anticipated. SPW Road is an existing dirt road which is in the County's five-year road plan to widen as a four-lane paved road. Because the widening of the existing dirt road to a four-lane paved road is part of the five-year road plan, the impacts of that widening are not attributable to the subject project. However, as part of the proposed project, it is proposed to widen SPW Road to a six-lane paved road. The additional impacts associated with the widening from four to six lanes will be caused by, and are linked to, the proposed project. These impacts amount to approximately 2.2 acres. The FPL substation, which is proposed to service the proposed project, may result in 1.6 acres of potential direct impacts to wetlands. In addition, 1.0 acre of potential indirect secondary impacts may occur to wetlands that are not going to be dredged and filled. Those indirect secondary impacts may have some adverse impact on the functional value to those wetlands for wildlife utilization. The extension of PGA Boulevard to the Mecca Farms site has the potential to result in 45.6 acres of direct impacts to wetlands and 56.6 acres of indirect secondary wetland impacts which will not be dredged or filled, but will be in close proximity to the road. The secondary impact assessment for PGA Boulevard assumed the incorporation of wildlife crossings to minimize habitat fragmentation. If the airport runway needs to be shifted, potential direct wetland impacts to an additional 22.7 acres may occur. Indirect impacts to 23.6 acres of wetlands in close proximity could also occur. Runway relocation may or may not be necessary due to the PGA Boulevard extension; however, the analysis assumed the need for the relocation. Each of the projects listed above as potential secondary impacts will require a separate construction and operation permit from the District. The issuance of this permit does not in any way guarantee the issuance of permits for any of these identified potential secondary impacts. MITIGATION PLAN The Applicants provided a conceptual mitigation plan using UMAM to demonstrate how potential secondary impacts could be offset. Mitigation options have the potential to provide more than twice the functional gain than the functional loss from the identified secondary impacts. The conceptual mitigation options include: 194 acres of the land that had been acquired for future mitigation needs in Unit 11. 227 acres of the BRP natural area. 32.6 acres in the southern lake wetland along with proposed upland habitat. Sufficient mitigation is available in these options to offset the potential secondary impacts. The mitigation for the four potential secondary impacts is not required to be implemented now because the impacts are not occurring now. Section 4.2.7 of the BOR requires that the District consider those future impacts now and that a conceptual mitigation plan be provided to demonstrate and provide reasonable assurances that those impacts, in fact, can be offset in the future. The Governor and Cabinet sitting as the Board of Trustees considered and approved a request for public easement of approximately 30 acres to use a portion of CWMA for SPW Road, an FPL substation, and the land area that may be needed by District in the future for the connection to the flow-way. As consideration in exchange for the public easement over 30 acres, the County will transfer fee simple title of 60 acres to the State. This public easement also provides a benefit for CERP as it includes the small portion that the District is going to need for its future CERP project to connect to the flow-way on the proposed project site. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that mitigation will offset secondary impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. UNIDENTIFIED SECONDARY IMPACTS Testimony at the final hearing raised a question as to whether there is nesting or roosting by listed wading bird species in adjacent off-site wetlands outside the eastern boundary of the project site. Evidence was inconclusive on nesting or roosting in these areas. Because the status of adjacent listed wading bird nesting or roosting is uncertain, the District suggested in its Proposed Recommended Order that a special condition requiring a wildlife survey prior to construction near the eastern project boundary be added to the permit as follows: Prior to application for construction within 1000 feet of the eastern boundary of the above-ground impoundment, the applicant shall conduct a wildlife survey to identify any nesting or roosting areas in the adjoining off-site wetlands utilized by listed species of wading birds. If such nesting or roosting areas are found the permittee shall, if determined necessary by the District, incorporate additional buffers or other appropriate measures to ensure protection of these wetland functions. The District represented in its Proposed Recommended Order that the County has no objection to adding the foregoing condition. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 373.414(8), Florida Statutes, the District is required to consider cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters delineated in Section 373.421(1), Florida Statutes, within the same drainage basin. Cumulative impacts are the summation of unmitigated wetland impacts within a drainage basin. The cumulative impact analysis is geographically based upon the drainage basins described in Figure 4.2.8-1 of the BOR. Cumulative impacts are unacceptable when they would result in unacceptable adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands and surface waters within a drainage basin. There are no wetlands or other surface waters delineated pursuant to Section 373.421(1), Florida Statutes, on the Mecca Farms site. Therefore, no cumulative impacts are created by the direct impacts of the project. Cumulative impacts may be created by a project's secondary impacts. If a wetland impact has been appropriately mitigated on-site within the drainage basin, there is no residual impact, and therefore no cumulative impact. The PGA Boulevard extension, a portion of the SPW Road widening, and the airport runway relocation are located within the C-18 Basin. The proposed mitigation options are all located in the C-18 Basin and will offset those impacts. Those potential secondary impacts are considered to meet the cumulative impact requirements of Section 373.414(8), Florida Statutes. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not result in cumulative impacts to the C-18 Basin. The FPL substation is located within the L-8 Drainage Basin. The majority of the SPW Road expansion is located within the C-18 Basin, but a portion is located on the basin line between the C-18 Basin and the L-8 Basin. Because the mitigation for the L-8 impacts are proposed in a different basin, the Applicants were required to conduct a cumulative impact analysis for the L-8 Basin impacts. Based on the Florida Land Use Cover Classification System, there are 43,457 acres of freshwater wetlands within the L-8 Basin. Approximately 41,000 acres of the wetlands in L-8 Basin are in public ownership. This total constitutes approximately 95 percent of all the wetlands in the L-8 Basin. Public ownership of these wetlands provide a high level of assurance that these lands will be protected in perpetuity. The Respondents established that proposed mitigation can fully offset the potential impacts from the SPW Road expansion and the FPL substation and the approximately four acres of impacted wetlands in the L-8 Basin. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that there are no unacceptable adverse cumulative impacts on the L-8 Basin.4 GROUND WATER FLOWS, SURFACE WATER FLOWS, AND MINIMUM FLOWS AND LEVELS Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(g) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed activity will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows established pursuant to Section 373.042, Florida Statutes. The term "maintenance of surface and groundwater levels or surface water flows" in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(g) means that a project will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface water flows that contribute to meeting the minimum flow for the water body. An adverse impact to the maintenance of surface or groundwater levels or surface water flows may occur when a project discharging to a water body with a designated minimum flow level is proposed to be diverted. An analysis was done to compare the peak discharge rate from the existing SWM system on the Mecca Farms site with the projected peak discharge rate from the proposed SWM system. The analysis showed that the peak discharge rate under the proposed system will be less than that of the existing system. That result was expected since the proposed system will have higher control elevations, which, as noted above, will provide better treatment and permit a better control of the discharge into the C-18 Canal. Under the existing SWM system, storm event water in a dry period is frequently stored in the existing impoundment for future irrigation purposes. Under the proposed SWM system such storm event water will be discharged downstream, which will benefit those downstream areas during dry periods. The proposed system will also provide better control over pulse discharges during heavy storm events. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed activities will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground levels or surface water flows as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(g). THE DISTRICT’S OBJECTIVES Sections 373.414 and 373.416, Florida Statutes, require an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that a regulated activity will not be harmful to the water resources and will not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the District. Congress initially authorized the Central and Southern Florida (“C&SF”) Project in 1948. Thereafter extensive work was undertaken pertaining to flood control; water supply for municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses; prevention of saltwater intrusion; and protection of fish and wildlife. The work included construction of a primary system of 1000 miles each of levees and canals, 150 water-control structures, and 16 major pump stations. Unintended consequences of the C&SF Project have included the irreversible loss of vast areas of wetlands, including half of the original Everglades; the alteration in the water storage, timing, and flow capacities of natural drainage systems; and the degradation of water quality and habitat due to over-drainage or extreme fluctuations in the timing and delivery of fresh water into the coastal wetlands and estuaries. In 1992, Congress authorized the C&SF Project Comprehensive Review Study, which is generally referred to as the “Restudy.” The objective of the Restudy was to reexamine the C&SF Project to determine the feasibility of modifying the project to restore the South Florida ecosystem and provide for the other water-related needs of the region, such as water supply and flood protection. In April 1999, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued the Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (“Restudy Report”). The Restudy Report recommends a comprehensive plan for the restoration, protection, and preservation of the water resources of Central and South Florida. The resulting plan is known as CERP. The North Palm Beach County Part I project, which includes restoration of the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River (“NWFLR”), is a component of CERP. The successful completion of CERP and the successful restoration of the NWFLR are high-priority objectives of the District. The Loxahatchee River is an important feature of the South Florida ecosystem, nationally and internationally unique, and an important natural and economic resource. Rules pertaining to MFL for the NWFLR and for the recovery of the NWFLR are found at Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-8.011; 40E-8.221(4); and 40E-8.421. Recovery goals, which are not presently being met, have been established; and strategies to meet those goals have been identified. The Mecca Farms site is located within the boundaries of the CERP North Palm Beach County Part I project and has the potential to affect CERP and the restoration of the NWFLR. Projects that potentially would affect or would be within or adjacent to a CERP project are evaluated on a case-by- case basis to determine whether a proposed project would not be inconsistent with CERP and other District objectives. There was a dispute between Respondents and Petitioners as to whether the proposed project was inconsistent with the District’s objectives, including CERP and its goals pertaining to the restoration of the NWFLR. Petitioners contend that the District has insufficient evidence that the Mecca Farms will not be needed for the construction of a reservoir. That contention is rejected. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that sufficient storage is available at a superior site known as the Palm Beach Aggregates (PBA) site in the L-8 Basin, which is a unique geological site that will provide in-ground storage of water.5 Water from the PBA storage site can be conveyed to the NWFLR to increase dry season flows. Water can be stored at the PBA site in the wet season to prevent potentially damaging high flows. The L-8 Basin, which is adjacent to the C-18 Basin, receives more water during the wet season than it uses. This means that at present a significant amount of water must be discharged to tide (lost) during the wet season to provide for flood protection in this area. As envisioned, the water currently lost to tide could be stored at the PBA site for use during the dry season. By combining the water storage in the L-8 Basin with connective flow-ways to the C-18 Canal, water demands within the C-18 Basin, including the NWFLR, can also be met by the PBA storage site.6 An increase in freshwater flows to the NWFLR will further the District’s restoration goals for the NWFLR. Storage at PBA has regional benefits for other significant natural areas because it will provide additional flows to the Loxahatchee Slough and Grassy Waters Preserve. Those additional flows will further the District’s CERP goals. Since October of 2003, County staff and the District’s ERP staff have coordinated review of the subject project with the District’s CERP Planning and Federal Projects Division and other District staff working on projects in this region. The County asked the District to determine if the Mecca Farms’ site could in some way accommodate CERP objectives, and three alternatives were considered: 1) no action; 2) a reservoir; and 3) a flow-way. As opposed to a reservoir, the more valuable and the more practical, use of the Mecca Farms site would be as part of the system to convey the stored water to the areas that would most benefit from its discharge. The proposed flow-way in the BRP Natural Area would be an integral part of that conveyance system and would provide the District with greater flexibility in managing and directing the discharge of the water stored at the PBA site. Prior to the development of the flow-way concept as part of the proposed development, CERP identified a single route to take water from PBA to the NWFLR. The flow-way will provide an additional route from PBA to the NWFLR. That additional route will provide the District with greater operational flexibility. The flow-way will complement the L-8 Basin flow- way and help reduce peak flows to the NWFLR and the Estuary. The flow-way also provides a potential route allowing excess water to be brought back from the C-18 Basin to the PBA site for storage. There are no other potential routes that allow water to be directed from the C-18 Basin in the wet season to the PBA site. The flow-way provides a feature that was not part of the CERP original plan and is therefore an unanticipated benefit for CERP. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project is not inconsistent with the District’s objectives.7
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District issue the subject ERP for the conceptual approval of the SWM system for the BRP and the Phase 1A construction and operation subject to the general and special conditions set forth in the Staff Report and the Amended Staff Report. It is further RECOMMENDED that the District add the following special condition: Prior to application for construction within 1000 feet of the eastern boundary of the above-ground impoundment, the applicants shall conduct a wildlife survey to identify any nesting or roosting areas in the adjoining off-site wetlands utilized by listed species of wading birds. If such nesting or roosting areas are found the permittee shall, if determined necessary by the District, incorporate additional buffers or other appropriate measures to ensure protection of these wetland functions. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 2004.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) should issue an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) for the redevelopment of property owned by G5 Properties, LLC (G5).
Findings Of Fact The property owned by G5 east of U.S. 41 and south of Sunrise Boulevard in Fort Myers was developed as separate parcels by different owners in the 1970’s and 1980’s under the stormwater management regulations in effect at that time. Similarly, the Duke’s property to the south was developed in that era under the same stormwater management regulations. The properties do not meet current ERP regulations. G5 acquired the two parcels comprising its property with the intention of redeveloping it, primarily by constructing a two-story medical office building on what was the southern parcel. G5 applied to upgrade the surface water management system on the property, primarily by installing a detention pond on the southern parcel and directing surface water flow from a designated sub-basin on the southern parcel into the detention pond. The detention pond was to serve the dual purposes of storage and water quality treatment. It was properly sized to store and treat the runoff from the sub-basin in a 25-year/3-day (the proper design) storm. Discharge from the detention pond was to be into the existing stormwater conveyance (an underground pipe) in the road right-of-way along the eastern property line (west of Austin Street). From there, water flows south into a drainage ditch to the south of the Duke’s property. From there, water flows west to Whiskey Creek and eventually into the Caloosahatchee River. (The River is impaired; neither the Creek nor the River are designated as Outstanding Florida Water). Although most of the redevelopment of G5’s medical office building is on what was the southern parcel, and most of the stormwater falling on the southern parcel is directed into the detention pond, there is a covered portico entrance on the north side of the medical office building with a driveway that ramps up to the entrance from the west and ramps down away from the entrance to the east. The covered portico and ramped driveway extend onto what was the northern parcel. Some of the surface water runoff from the driveway flows to the west into the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) swale in the U.S. 41 right-of-way, as it did before redevelopment; some of the surface water runoff from the driveway flows to the east and north, onto what was the northern parcel of G5’s property. Except for this runoff flow from the driveway, the drainage patterns on the northern parcel remain practically the same, the only differences being the replacement of a small amount of impervious surface with new impervious surface (pavement) and a small amount of impervious surface with pervious surface. G5’s redevelopment of its medical office building includes a driveway along the south side of the building, just north of the Duke’s property, leading to parking on the south and east side of the building. Some of the surface water runoff from the entrance to the driveway flows to the west into the DOT swale in the U.S. 41 right-of-way, as it did before redevelopment. G5’s ERP does not provide for any storage or water quality treatment for runoff from the northern parcel, except for the addition of removable (for cleaning) filter inserts for the storm drains in that part of the property. During the application process, G5 modified its proposal to deepen the detention pond. This was done to allow the redeveloper of the Taco Bell half a mile to the south of the Duke’s property to take credit for additional storage and water quality treatment in order to get a Lee County permit for its project. The Taco Bell also was developed under the old stormwater management regulations, but its redevelopment was able to use a SFWMD “No Notice General Permit” because it impacted no wetlands, was less than ten acres, and had less than two acres of impervious surface. However, it needed a Lee County stormwater permit, which it could not get without additional water quality storage and treatment. Lee County allowed the Taco Bell redevelopment project to take credit for an increase in the depth of the detention pond at the G5 site and issued its permit. Although Taco Bell got credit for water quality storage and treatment at the G5 property, no surface water runoff from the Taco Bell site actually reaches G5’s detention pond, or even the Duke’s property. It flows north through the pipe along Austin Street to the drainage ditch to the south of the Duke’s property, and from there to Whiskey Creek and the Caloosahatchee River. However, the deeper detention pond would provide additional storage and water quality treatment for the G5 site for storms bigger than the design storm. Petitioner’s surveyor testified that there are up to four places along the property line between the G5 property and the Duke’s property where topography indicates that some surface water runoff can flow from the G5 property across the property line to the Duke’s property, post-redevelopment. His testimony was based on a comparison of spot elevations he took in the vicinity of the property line with elevations taken by other surveyors. In addition, the surveyor could not say how much flow would occur in a 25-year, 3-day storm. There was persuasive testimony from G5’s engineer that the flow from one of the four locations identified by Petitioner’s surveyor (in the southeast corner of the southern parcel of G5’s property) existed pre-redevelopment. Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, this testimony actually did not contradict other testimony of the engineer that all runoff from the new pavement on the southern parcel of the G5 property was intended to flow into the new detention pond. In that location in the southeast corner, G5’s redevelopment project removed pavement, added 4-inch high curbing along the edge of the new pavement, and added grass between the curb and the property line (which would tend to reduce runoff onto the Duke’s property). Another location identified by Petitioner’s surveyor was between the new office building and the property line. The surveyor related a water stain on the pavement and an exposed tree root ball to significant standing water and high flow conditions. Petitioner contends that this occurs because an asphalt overlay, four-tenths of a foot thick, was placed on top of the existing pavement in that area. To the contrary, G5’s engineer testified that the surface water management system functions as it should and that the overlay did not change the grade but was “just to benefit the existing asphalt from deteriorating any more.” The water stain could be attributable at least in part to landscape irrigation, and the tree root may have been exposed mechanically. Even if the surveyor’s testimony proved that there is some water flow in that area, he could not testify as to the quantity of flow. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, G5 provided reasonable assurances that its surface water management system functions properly and that post-redevelopment runoff from the G5 property onto the Duke’s property does not exceed pre- redevelopment conditions. Petitioner cites significant standing water on the Duke’s property after a heavy rain on January 26, 2011, as proof that the G5 redevelopment has caused flooding of the Duke’s property. However, there was no standing water on the G5 property, and hardly any water in the detention pond. The standing water on Petitioner’s property was above two storm drains on the western part of the Duke’s property, which drain into the same pipe as the storm drains on the western side of the G5 property and the outfall structure discharging from the detention pond on the G5 property. The standing water on the Duke’s property probably was caused by clogs in the drains in the Duke’s stormwater management system, not by G5’s redevelopment. Mr. Harrow claimed that the Duke’s property was inspected when purchased, its stormwater management system was functioning properly, and it was properly maintained. But he also testified that maintenance ceased at some point and that it would require an engineer to correct what is wrong with it now, which Mr. Harrow believed to be cost-prohibitive and the responsibility of G5, not Petitioner. Petitioner contends that no ERP should issue for G5’s redevelopment project without the participation of Taco Bell in the operation and maintenance of the G5 detention pond. To the contrary, the Taco Bell permit might be deficient if Taco Bell has no control over the operation and maintenance of G5’s detention pond, but there is no reason why Taco Bell has to participate in the operation and maintenance of G5’s detention pond. By a preponderance of the evidence, G5 provided reasonable assurances that it has the legal and financial ability to operate and maintain its system, including the detention pond. If a new development, G5’s redevelopment project (which includes all 3.41 acres in the northern and southern parcels of the G5 property) would not meet the criteria for issuance of an ERP because there was no demonstration that there is enough water quality storage and treatment. However, because of the addition of water quality storage and treatment for the southern parcel and the addition of filters for the drains on the property, the redevelopment of the site resulted in a net improvement in water quality storage and treatment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that SFWMD deny G5 an ERP for its redevelopment for failure to meet BOR requirements as to water quality storage and treatment. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret M. Craig, Esquire Bricklemyer Smolker & Bolves, P.A. 500 East Kennedy Boulevard, 2nd Floor Tampa, Florida 33602-4936 Matthew D. Uhle, Esquire Law Office of Matthew D. Uhle, LLC 1617 Hendry Street, Suite 411 Fort Myers, Florida 33901-2926 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Sr., Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road, Mail Stop Code 1410 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007 Tommy B. Strowd, Interim Executive Director South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road, Mail Stop Code 1410 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007
Findings Of Fact The Proposed Permit This case involves a 65-acre site in north Lee County owned by the City of Ft. Myers. At all material times, the land has been zoned under industrial- equivalent designations. By leases that are not part of this record, Ft. Myers has leased 21.4 acres of the 65 acres to various governmental agencies, including Lee County, Lee County Sheriff's Office, and possibly the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (formerly known as Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services). The following facilities are presently located on the 21.4 acres: Juvenile Detention Center, Lee County Stockade, Price Halfway House, Sheriff's Office Aviation Department, and Emergency Operations Center. By lease dated September 20, 1993, Ft. Myers leased the remaining 43.6 undeveloped acres to Lee County for a term of 50 years. This lease allows Lee County to use the 43.6 acres for $1 per year, but only for the operation of a Juvenile Justice Facility. Under Paragraph 20 of the lease, Ft. Myers may terminate the lease if Lee County ceases to operate the facility. Likewise, Lee County may terminate the lease if the Department of Juvenile Justice ceases to fund the County's operation of the facility. Under the lease, preference is given to juvenile residents of Ft. Myers. Paragraph 22 of the lease allocates liability to Lee County for claims or damages arising from released fuels, including from pipelines. The lease is not assignable without Ft. Myer's consent. By agreement dated December 17, 1993, Ft. Myers consented to the sublease of the entire 43.6- acre parcel to the Department of Juvenile Justice for the purpose of the construction of a juvenile residential commitment facility. Lee County receives no rent from the Department of Juvenile Justice. In Paragraph 10 of the agreement, the Department of Juvenile Justice agrees to maintain, at its expense, "all improvements of every kind . . .." Lee County must make any repairs to improvements if the Department of Juvenile Justice fails to do so. By subsequent agreement, Respondent Department of Management Services (DMS) became the agent for the Department of Juvenile Justice for the design, permitting, and construction of the juvenile justice facility. By Application for a surface water management permit executed June 16, 1994, DMS applied for a surface water management permit for the construction and operation of a 10.9- acre project known as the Lee County Juvenile Commitment Facility. This 10.9-acre project is part of the 43.6 acres leased to Lee County and subleased to the Department of Juvenile Justice. The application states that the existing 21.4 acres of developed sites, which are leased under separate agreements to different governmental entities, "will be permitted as is." The Staff Review Summary of Respondent South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) describes the purpose of the application as follows: This application is a request for Authorization for Construction and Operation of a surface water management system to serve a 10.9 acre Institutional project discharging to Six Mile [Cypress] Slough via onsite wetlands and road- side swales. The application also requests Authorization for Operation of a surface water management system serving a 21.4 acre existing facility and 32.7 acres to remain unchanged for a total permitted area of 65.0 acres. Staff recommends approval of both authorizations with conditions. The Staff Review Summary accurately states that the owner of the land is Ft. Myers. Of questionable accuracy is the statement that Ft. Myers leases to Lee County the 21.4 acres devoted to the five existing facilities. Although Lee County probably is a lessee of some of these parcels, the Lee County Sheriff's Office is the lessee (or perhaps sublessee) of at least two parcels. One of the other parcels may involve a state agency, again under either a lease or a sublease. The Staff Review Summary inaccurately states that the project developer is Lee County. The project developer is DMS or its principal, the Department of Juvenile Justice. The Staff Review Summary reviews the existing development on the 21.4 acres. The improvements consist of the 4.8-acre Juvenile Detention Center, 2.9- acre Price Halfway House, 4.7-acre Lee County Stockade, 5.1-acre Sheriff's Office Aviation Department, and 3.9-acre Emergency Operations Center. The Staff Review Summary states that the footer of the Juvenile Detention Center was inspected in February 1980. The site drains into a 1.2- acre retention pond, which was a natural pond dug out to accept the drainage from the Juvenile Detention Center. A small amount of surface flow drains from the Juvenile Detention Center to a perimeter swale that drains west into a ditch running along Ortiz Avenue. The Staff Review Summary states that the building permit for the Price Halfway House was issued in October 1982. The site drains into the 1.2-acre retention pond, which was apparently enlarged a second time to accept the additional flow. A small amount of the flow from the Price Halfway House also drains to the perimeter swale and west into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary states that the building permit for the Lee County Stockade was issued on May 25, 1976. SFWMD issued an exemption and a determination that no permit was required for two additions to the stockade in 1988 and 1989. For the additional impervious surface added by these additions, one inch of water quality treatment was provided. After the abandonment of a pumping system, drainage of the stockade site consists of water building up in existing onsite ditches and sheet flowing into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary adds that a small retention area constructed at the southeast corner of the site treats stormwater from the stockade and the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department. The summary adds that a small amount of stormwater drains north into an exterior swale that drains into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary states that a building permit was issued for the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department in August 1977. Stormwater from the site sheetflows to exterior swales north and south of the building. When the swales fill up, the water flows into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary states that a building permit was issued for the Emergency Operations Center on October 11, 1977. Drainage from the center flows directly into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. Under "Water Quality," the Staff Review Summary reports that SFWMD "did not require compliance with discharge rate or criteria" based on Section 1.6, Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within the [SFWMD] March 1994 (Basis of Review), which contains guidelines issued by SFWMD for the construction and operation of surface water management systems. The summary adds that there have been no "water quality or quantity complaints associated with this site over the past 18 years since its initial construction." Noting that a surface water management permit is requested for the entire 65-acre parcel, the Staff Review Summary states that the above-described drainage systems for the five existing facilities are "operational and will remain as they now exist." Turning to the proposed development, the Staff Review Summary states that the remaining 43.6 undeveloped acres "will also be leased to Lee County by the City for the proposed commitment facilities." The facilities are accurately described as a 5.2-acre halfway house and a 5.7-acre bootcamp, both of which will be drained by internal drainage swales and culverts flowing into detention areas, which will discharge through a control structure into onsite wetlands leading to the Ortiz Avenue swale. Addressing designed discharge rates, the Staff Review Summary acknowledges that the bootcamp's discharge rate will exceed the allowable rate for a 25-year, three-day storm event. The allowable rate is .33 cfs, and the design rate is .37 cfs. The Staff Review Summary explains that this discrepancy results from the use of the minimum size orifice (three inches) in the control structure. Addressing water quality, the Staff Review Summary reports that commercially zoned sites are required to provide one-half inch dry pretreatment for water quality unless reasonable assurance can be provided that hazardous material will not enter the surface water management system. Determining that no hazardous material will be stored or generated on the site, SFWMD did not require the one-half inch dry pretreatment of runoff. Noting that no surface water management permits have ever been issued for any part of the 65-acre parcel, the Staff Review Summary recommends that, subject to the customary Limiting Conditions, SFWMD issue: Authorization for Construction and Operation of a 10.9 acre Institutional Project discharging to Six Mile Cypress Slough via onsite wetlands and roadside swales, Operation of a 21.4 acre existing facility and 32.7 acres to remain unchanged for a total permitted area of 65.0 acres. Limiting Condition 4 states that the permittee shall request transfer of the permit to the "responsible operational entity accepted by [SFWMD], if different from the permittee." Limiting Condition 8 adds: A permit transfer to the operation phase shall not occur until a responsible entity meeting the requirements in section 9.0, "Basis of Review . . .," has been established to operate and maintain the system. The entity must be provided with sufficient ownership or legal interest so that it has control over all water management facilities authorized herein. Special Condition 11 states: "Operation of the surface water management system shall be the responsibility of Lee County." The Permittee and the Entity Responsible for Maintenance The proposed permit consists of two authorizations. The first authorization is for the construction and operation of the surface water management system on the 10.9-acre parcel on which will be constructed the bootcamp and halfway house. The second authorization is for the operation of the existing surface water management system on the already-developed 21.4 acres and the unimproved surface water management system on the remaining 32.7 acres. There are two problems with the designation of Lee County as the entity responsible for maintaining the permitted surface water management systems. Basis of Review 9.1.B states: To satisfy [P]ermit [L]imiting [C]ondition [8], the Permittee must supply appropriate written proof, such as either by letter or resolution from the governmental entity that the governmental entity will accept the oper- ation and maintenance of all the surface water management system components . . .. The authorization for operation of the systems on the 21.4-acre and 32.7-acre parcels does not await any construction. Once the permit is issued, the authorization is effective. Therefore, all prerequisites to the designation must have been satisfied before the operation permit issues. For the 21.4-acre parcel, DMS has not provided reasonable assurance that Lee County is the lessee or sublessee of all of the parcels underlying the five existing facilities. In fact, it appears that Lee County is not the lessee or sublessee of all of these parcels. Even if Lee County were the lessee or sublessee of these five parcels, DMS has not provided reasonable assurance that Lee County has assumed responsibility for the maintenance of the surface water management system for the five parcels. Contrary to Basis of Review 9.1.B, there is no written agreement by Lee County to assume operational responsibility, nor is there even an actual agreement to this effect. SFWMD's rules sensibly require that written consent be obtained before the operation permit is issued. Likewise, DMS has failed to show that Lee County has agreed to assume responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the surface water management system for the 32.7-acre parcel. Again, SFWMD must obtain written consent before issuing the permit because no construction will precede operation for the surface water management system on this parcel. Unlike the situation as to the 21.4-acre parcel, the 32.7-acre parcel is leased to Lee County as part of the 43.6- acre parcel. But in the December 17, 1993, agreement, the Department of Juvenile Justice, not Lee County, assumes responsibility for maintaining all improvements, which arguably includes drainage improvements. As between Ft. Myers and Lee County, Lee County assumes secondary liability for the maintenance of all improvements. But the failure of the Department of Juvenile Justice to do so would likely represent a default under the agreement. In such a case, the lease and separate agreement probably would either be in litigation or Lee County would have terminated its obligations under the contracts. In either case, it is unlikely that Lee County would perform its secondary responsibility to maintain the drainage improvements, especially where it is receiving no rent from the Department of Juvenile Justice and priority is given to Ft. Myers juveniles in admission decisions. Construction will precede operation as to the 10.9- acre parcel so the parties have an opportunity, even after the construction and operation permit is issued, to secure the necessary written consent before the operation permit goes into effect. But similar deficiencies exist with respect to the 10.9- acre parcel because the same agreement imposes upon the Department of Juvenile Justice, not Lee County, the obligation to maintain improvements. An additional complication arises as to the 10.9-acre parcel. The Department of Juvenile Justice intends to contract with one or more private entities to operate the bootcamp and halfway house, so there is at least one more party that Lee County could claim was responsible for maintenance of the surface water management system. The question of who is responsible for maintaining the surface water management systems is important. Drainage quantities and directions can change if swales clog up with vegetation or other matter. In this case, one roadside swale in the area of the 21.4-acre parcel is blocked with vegetation. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the designated entity has assumed responsibility for the maintenance and operation of the existing systems or will assume responsibility for the maintenance and operation of the proposed system following its construction. Permit for Existing Development Section 1.6, Basis of Review, states: [SFWMD] issues construction and operation permits for proposed surface water management activities and operation permits for existing systems. The criteria herein are specifically designed to apply to proposed activities (construction and operation permits). Therefore, some of the criteria may not be applicable to the permitting of existing systems (operation permits). For example, in some cases, existing systems may not meet flood protection criteria. Criteria deviation for existing systems will be identified in staff reports. SFWMD has produced no evidence explicating the extent to which existing systems, such as the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels, are entitled to operating permits without meeting some of the criteria applicable to proposed systems, such as the system on the 10.9-acre parcel. There is nothing whatsoever in the record to explain why certain existing systems might not have to meet certain criteria, such as flood protection criteria. Except for the quantity deviation discussed below, there is nothing in the record disclosing the extent to which SFWMD has waived, or even considered the applicability of, certain or all criteria prior to the issuance of operation permits for the existing systems. In practice, SFWMD does not adhere even to the vague standards implied in 1.6. According to the SFWMD witness, the practice of SFWMD, as reflected in this case as to the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels, is to permit existing systems "as is, where is," as long as they have had no reported problems. There are numerous deficiencies in the "as is, where is" unwritten policy, apart from the obvious one that it conflicts with the assurance of 1.6 that only "some of the criteria may not be applicable" to existing systems. First, the record does not define what a "problem" is. Second, the record discloses no means by which reported problems are collected and later accessed, such as by a parcel index. The "as is, where is" policy is an abdication of the limited responsibilities that SFWMD imposes upon itself in 1.6, especially when applied to the present facts. The facts are straightforward. Neither Ft. Myers, Lee County, nor any other party has ever obtained a permit for any surface water management system, despite numerous improvements in the past 20 years requiring such permits, including the construction of a heliport, at which maintenance and refueling of helicopters takes place. In two relatively minor cases, discussed below, SFWMD erroneously determined that no permit was required. In one of those cases, the applicant, Lee County, candidly admitted the existence of a flooding problem. Based on the present record, neither DMS nor SFWMD has justified the issuance of an operation permit for the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels based either on Basis of Review 1.6 or on the "as is, where is" unwritten policy. Construction of the five improvements on the 21.4 acres began between 1975 and December 1977 with construction of a portion of the Lee County Stockade building and parking, Emergency Operations Center building and parking, and a now- removed barn for the Lee County Sheriff's Office. At the same time, a lake was dug, probably for fill purposes. By the end of 1977, about 2.39 acres of the 21.4 acres were converted to impervious surface. From 1978 to March 1980, another 0.96 acres of the 21.4 acres were converted to impervious surface by the construction of a perimeter dike and road. During this period, construction commenced on the Juvenile Detention Center, adding another 1.63 acres of impervious surface. Between March 1980 and December 1981, additions were made to the Lee County Stockade building and the lake for an additional 0.45 acres of impervious area. Between December 1981 and March 1984, the Price Halfway House building and parking were constructed, adding another 0.79 acres of impervious surface. Between March 1984 and February 1986, a heliport facility and landing area were constructed for the Lee County Sheriff's Office, adding another 1.01 acres of impervious surface. Between February 1986 and February 1990, an additional 2.31 acres of impervious surface were added through additions to the Lee County Stockade and parking area, juvenile detention center, and Emergency Operations Center parking area. Between February 1990 and April 1993, another addition to the Lee County Stockade added 0.62 acres of impervious surface. An additional 0.17 acres of lake was excavated. During this time, applicable rules and statutes required permits for the construction of "works" affecting surface water, including ditches, culverts, and other construction that connects to, or draws water from, drains water into, or is placed in or across the waters in the state. The buildings, parking, other impervious surfaces, ditches, swales, dikes, lake excavations, and, at one point, addition of a now- abandoned pump all constituted "works" for which surface water management permits were required. In 1988, Lee County or Ft. Myers applied for an exemption for an addition to the Lee County Stockade. The basis for the claim of exemption was that the parcel consisted of less than 10 acres and the total impervious surface did not exceed two acres. Although rules in effect at the time required consideration of the contiguous 65 acres under common ownership and the total impervious surface for the 9.7-acre "parcel" exceeded two acres, SFWMD erroneously issued an exemption letter. The second instance involving a claim of exemption took place in 1989 when Lee County submitted plans for another addition to the Lee County Stockade, adding 0.51 acres of impervious surface. The submittal acknowledged a "flooding" problem, but promised a master drainage plan for the "entire site." SFWMD determined that no permit would be required due to the promise of a master drainage plan. No master drainage plan was ever prepared. The flooding problem precluded issuance of the operation permit on an "as is, where is" basis for the already-developed 21.4-acre parcel, even assuming that SFWMD adequately justified the use of this unwritten permitting procedure. In fact, SFWMD has not explained adequately its "as is, where is" permitting procedure or even the undelineated permitting criteria referenced in 1.6, Basis of Review. The 65- acre parcel is a poor candidate for preferential permitting of existing systems. The owner and developer constructed the existing systems in near total disregard of the law. The two times that the owner and developer complied with the permitting process involved small additions for which exemptions should not have been granted. In one case, SFWMD exempted the proposed activity due to its error calculating minimum thresholds as to the areas of the parcel and the impervious surface. In the other case, SFWMD exempted the proposed activity partly in reliance on a promised master drainage plan that was not later prepared. To issue operation permits for the existing systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels would reward the owner and developer of the 65-acre parcel for noncompliance with the law and provide an incentive for similarly situated landowners and developers likewise to ignore the law. Before issuing operation permits on systems that have received no comprehensive review and that have been added piecemeal over the years, SFWMD must evaluate the surface water systems on the entire 65-acre parcel to determine whether they meet all applicable criteria. The "as is, where is" unwritten policy has no applicability where there have been reports of flooding. If SFWMD chooses to dispense with criteria in reliance upon Basis of Review 1.6, it must be prepared to identify and explain which criteria are waived and why. Water Quality Basis of Review 5.2.2 provides that projects that are zoned commercial or industrial, such as the present one, must provide one-half inch of "dry" detention or retention pretreatment, unless reasonable assurances are provided "that hazardous materials will not enter the project's surface water management system." There is no existing or proposed dry detention on the 65 acres. The existing development includes the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department, which serves as a heliport. The fueling and maintenance of helicopters means that contaminants may enter the stormwater draining off the site. The functioning of the surface water system on this site is therefore of particular importance. There also may be more reason to question the functioning of the surface water system on this site. It is south of the Lee County Stockade, where flooding has been reported. The heliport site has also been the subject of more elaborate drainage improvements, such as the location of a small retention pond near the Stockade boundary and a pump, the latter of which has since been abandoned. The existing system on the 21.4-acre parcel, as well as the existing and proposed systems on the remainder of the 65 acres, require dry pretreatment for reasons apart from the presence of the heliport. The materials likely to be used with the existing and proposed developments are similar to those found on residential sites. SFWMD and DMS contend that there is therefore no need to require dry pretreatment as to these areas. However, the existing and intended institutional uses, such as jails and bootcamps, represent an intensity of use that exceeds the use typical in areas zoned residential. This increased intensity implies the presence of typical residential contaminants, such as petroleum-based products or cleaning solvents, but in greater volumes or concentrations, if not also, in the case of solvents, different compositions. The lease addresses potential liability for released petroleum. In the absence of a showing that such hazardous materials are prevented from entering the runoff, SFWMD must require dry pretreatment for the systems occupying the entire 65-acre parcel. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the existing systems satisfy applicable water quality criteria or that the proposed system will satisfy applicable water quality criteria. Water Quantity The 65-acre parcel adjoins Ortiz Avenue on the west and property owned by Petitioners on the east and south that is undeveloped except for a borrow pit some distance from the 65- acre parcel. The parcel is roughly 1000 feet east- west and 2700 feet north-south. The proposed halfway house is at the north end of the parcel. The halfway house is situated between a proposed detention pond on the west and a recreation field on the east. A paved road divides the halfway house from the rest of the 65- acre parcel. South of the road are the Lee County Stockade on the west, which abuts Ortiz Avenue, and the Juvenile Detention Center on the east. A berm separates these two sites. The berm runs from the road along the west shore of the twice- enlarged 1.2- acre retention pond and the west boundary of the Price Halfway House, which is south of the Juvenile Detention Center. To the west of the berm, south of the Lee County Stockade, is the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department or heliport facility, which abuts Ortiz Avenue. South of the Aviation Department is an outparcel used by the Florida Department of Corrections that also abuts Ortiz Avenue. East of the outparcel is the proposed halfway house with a proposed detention pond west of the halfway house and south of the outparcel. The Emergency Operations Center, which abuts Ortiz Avenue, is south of the detention pond and surrounded on three sides by the 32.7 acres to be left undisturbed at this time. There are perimeter berms around all of the parcels except for the Juvenile Detention Center and Price Halfway House, which are served by a single berm, and the Emergency Operations Center, which appears not to be bermed. The prevailing natural drainage is not pronounced either by direction or volume because the land is nearly level. The natural direction of drainage is to the south and west and remains so on Petitioners' land to the east and south and the undisturbed 32.7 acres to the south. The variety of drainage directions within the remainder of the 65- acre parcel reflects the extent to which berms, swales, ponds, pumps, roads, buildings, parking areas, and other works have been added to the northerly parcels. Runoff reaching the northern boundary of the 65 acres will be diverted due west around the proposed detention pond to the swale running along the east side of Ortiz Avenue. Runoff from the recreation field and halfway house building and parking area drain into the proposed detention pond, which releases water through a gravity control device to the Ortiz Avenue swale. There appears to be a connection routing some runoff from the south side of the recreation field to the Juvenile Detention Center, where it travels west in a roadside swale to the Ortiz Avenue swale. A little less than half of the area of the Juvenile Detention Center site drains into perimeter swales along the north and east borders and then to the west before emptying into the Ortiz Avenue swale. The remainder of the Juvenile Detention Center drains into the retention pond. The same is true of the Price Halfway House. The Lee County Stockade drains to each of its borders where the water then runs west along the north or south border to the Ortiz Avenue swale. The southern half of the Lee County Stockade site drains into the small retention pond at the northwest corner of the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department. Most of the runoff from the heliport facility runs to the southwest corner of the parcel, which is the location of the abandoned pump. From there, the runoff continues to the Ortiz Avenue swale. Very little if any of the runoff from the heliport enters the small retention pond on the northwest corner of the parcel. The bootcamp drains into the detention pond, which then releases water by a gravity control structure into a portion of the undisturbed 32.7-acres before entering the Ortiz Avenue swale. The Emergency Operations Center site drains in all directions away from the building and parking area, eventually draining into the Ortiz Avenue swale. Stormwater discharge rates from the proposed halfway house and bootcamp are 0.28 cfs and 0.37 cfs. Under SFWMD rules, the allowable maximums in the Six Mile Cypress drainage basin are 0.30 cfs and 0.33 cfs, respectively. SFWMD and DMS contend that the excessive discharge from the bootcamp is acceptable because the gravity control device for the proposed detention pond is of the smallest size allowable, given the indisputable need to avoid clogging and ensuing upstream flooding. Initially, SFWMD approved the discharge rates for the halfway house and bootcamp because, when combined, they did not exceed the total allowable value. However, this approach was invalid for two reasons. First, the two sites contain entirely independent drainage systems separated by several hundred feet. Second, after correcting an initial understatement for the value for the halfway house, the actual total exceeds the maximum allowable total. SFWMD contends that the slight excess is acceptable because of the inability to use a smaller orifice in the gravity control structure. However, the discharge quantity easily could have been reduced by design alternatives, such as enlarging the detention pond, which is mostly surrounded by land that is to be left undisturbed. The ease with which the minimum-orifice problem could have been avoided rebuts the presumption contained in Basis of Review 7.2.A that excessive discharge quantities are presumably acceptable if due to the inability to use a smaller orifice. Also, SFWMD and DMS have failed to show that the effect of the excessive discharge quantities is negligible, so the exception in the SFWMD manual for negligible impacts is unavailable. Neither SFWMD nor DMS provided any reasonable assurance as to the quantity of discharge from the 21.4 acres. Rough estimates suggest it is more likely that the quantity of discharge may greatly exceed the allowable maximum. SFWMD must evaluate the water-quantity issues before issuing operation permits for the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7- acre parcels and a construction and operation permit for the 10.9-acre parcel. Obviously, if SFWMD determines that all water quantity criteria are met as to the existing systems, it may issue operation permits for the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7- acre parcels. Otherwise, SFWMD must quantify the extent of the deviation and, if it seeks to waive compliance with any or all quantity standards in reliance on Basis of Review 1.6, evaluate the effect of the waiver and explain the basis for the waiver. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the existing systems satisfy applicable water quantity criteria or that the proposed system will satisfy applicable water quantity criteria. Impacts on Adjacent Lands Petitioners' property is impacted by the above- described drainage in two ways. First, Petitioners' property abutting the east side of Ortiz Avenue, south of the 65 acres, is especially vulnerable to flooding because the Ortiz Avenue swale is not a V-notch, but a half-V. The closed side of the swale prevents the water from running onto Ortiz Avenue. The open side of swale abuts Petitioners' property, so, if the swale's capacity is exceeded, stormwater will be released onto Petitioners' land. Second, perimeter berming along the east side of the 10.9- and 21.4- acre parcels will impede flow off the part of Petitioners' property located to the east of the 65 acres. A swale between the proposed halfway house and the Juvenile Detention Center will receive runoff from a small portion of Petitioners' property to the east and mostly north of the 65 acres. But there is no indication how much runoff from Petitioners' property can be so accommodated, how much runoff is impeded by the existing berm along the east side of the Juvenile Detention Center and Price Halfway House, and how much runoff will be impeded by the addition of new berms along the east side of the proposed halfway house and bootcamp. Basis of Review 6.8 requires that swales and dikes allow the passage of drainage from off-site areas to downstream areas. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that a surface water management system will not cause adverse water quality or quantity impacts on adjacent lands. Neither SFWMD nor DMS obtained topographical information for Petitioners' property, as required by the Basis of Review. Rough estimates suggest that the proposed project may require Petitioners' property to retain considerably more stormwater from the design storm event of 25 years, three days. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed system would not have an adverse impact on Petitioners' upstream and downstream land.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order denying the application of the Department of Management Services for all permits for the operation and construction and operation of surface water management systems on the 65-acre parcel. ENTERED on June 19, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on June 19, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Proposed Findings of Petitioners 1-18: adopted or adopted in substance. 19: rejected as subordinate. 20-21: adopted or adopted in substance. 22-24 (first sentence): rejected as irrelevant. 24 (remainder)-46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47-53: rejected as subordinate. 54-64 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 64 (second sentence)-66: rejected as subordinate. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Respondent SFWMD 1-10: adopted or adopted in substance. 11: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 12: rejected as unnecessary. 13: adopted or adopted in substance. 14-15: rejected as subordinate. 16: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17 (except for last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 17 (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 18-32 (first sentence): rejected as unnecessary. 32 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 33: rejected as subordinate. 34: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that the proposed ponds are wet detention. 35 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 35 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 36-45: rejected as unnecessary. 46-47: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 48-50 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 50 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 51-52, 55-57 (first sentence), and 58: adopted or adopted in substance, although insufficient water quality treatment. 53: adopted or adopted in substance. 54: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 57 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 59: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 60: adopted or adopted in substance, except after "therefore." None of remainder logically follows from what is said in 1.6. 61: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 62-64: rejected as subordinate, unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, and irrelevant. 65: rejected as subordinate. 66: rejected as irrelevant. The burden is on the applicant and SFWMD, if it wishes to issue the permits, to provide reasonable assurances as to the adverse impact of the drainage systems. 67-68: rejected as subordinate. 69: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 70: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 71: rejected as repetitious. 72: rejected as irrelevant, except for past report of flooding, which is rejected as repetitious. 73: rejected as repetitious. 74: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 75 (first three sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 75 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 1 and 2: rejected as irrelevant insofar as the same result is reached with or without the permit modifications. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Respondent DMS 1-4: adopted or adopted in substance. 5: rejected as subordinate. 6: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8: rejected as subordinate. 9: adopted or adopted in substance, except that the excessive discharge was not "caused" by the minimum-sized orifice, only defended on that basis. 10: adopted or adopted in substance. 11-12: rejected as subordinate. 13: rejected as irrelevant. 14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15: adopted or adopted in substance, except for implication that no flooding problems existed. 16: rejected as recitation of evidence. 17: rejected as subordinate. 18: rejected as irrelevant. 19: adopted or adopted in substance, to the extent that separateness of systems is relevant. 20: rejected as subordinate. 21: adopted or adopted in substance, except for last sentence, which is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 22: rejected as subordinate. 23-30: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, recitation of evidence, and subordinate. 31: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, based on the present record. 33: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and relevance. COPIES FURNISHED: Tilford C. Creel Executive Director South Florida Water Management District P. O. Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416 Russell P. Schropp Harold N. Hume, Jr. Henderson Franklin P.O. Box 280 Ft. Myers, Fl 33902 O. Earl Black, Jr. Stephen S. Mathues Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Vincent J. Chen Toni M. Leidy South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, FL 33401
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent, Gables Engineering, is required to obtain a surface water management permit for its property known as the G-Bar-E Ranch in Okeechobee County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying and documentary evidence received, the following relevant facts are found: The South Florida Water Management District (District) is a public corporation of the State of Florida existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40E, Florida Administrative Code as a multipurpose water management district with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida. Cables Engineering, Inc., owns property known as the G- Bar-E Ranch which is located in Okeechobee County, Florida. The property is located at the confluence of Otter Creek and Taylor Creek. Otter Creek flows into Taylor Creek which flows offsite into Lake Okeechobee. On August 28, 1986, the District issued an Administrative Complaint and Order which ordered Gables to obtain a surface water management permit pursuant to Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes for the surface water management system on the G-Bar-E Ranch. Gables refused and requested an administrative hearing on the Complaint and Order. Don Dillard is a Vice President of Gables and has overall responsibility for operating the Ranch. He has been employed by Gables for nine years. Gables has in its employ a ranch manager who remains on site. Until recently, Gables operated the property as a cattle ranch. A portion of its herd was sold to a former ranch manager who also remains on site. Alvin Castro is a civil engineer employed by the District as an area engineer which includes the area of Okeechobee County. Mr. Castro conducted a site inspection on the G-Bar-E Ranch on January 6, 1987. The inspection documented that there are two pond systems on the subject property and eleven hydraulic connections from the subject property to Otter Creek and Taylor Creek. One pond system, identified as pond system No. 2, is located in the mid-western area of the ranch east of Taylor Creek. It consists of three main ponds which are interconnected in a chain with hydraulic control structures and outfall ditches. The ponds were at one time natural ponds but have been deepened and improved to provide a water source for cattle and to store and convey water. A water control structure is located at the western end of each of the three ponds. The structures are aligned and installed to convey water from the upstream ponds to the downstream ponds. The control structures are culvert riser type. A culvert is a man-made conduit that conveys water to a point and allows it to flow. A riser is a half-section of a culvert or pipe welded perpendicular to the outfall culvert. Its main function is to serve as a support structure for weirs or flashboards, which regulate the upstream stages in a ditch. It allows water, as its flows over the spillway or weir, to be collected and directed to the outfall pipe or culvert. Mr. Castro observed water flowing, at the time of inspection, through all three outfall ditches to the south and westward from the pond system to a hammock area. The ponds have been cleaned of vegetation and the culverts and risers have been maintained by Respondent. One culvert riser structure conveys water from Pond 1 to Pond 2 which consist of a 96-inch riser and a 60-inch culvert, approximately 50 to 60 feet long. At the time of the inspection, water was being discharged through the control structure to an outfall ditch that connects Pond 1 to Pond 2. The outfall ditch is a man-made ditch. A second control structure connects Pond 2 to Pond 3 and interconnecting ditches consisting of a 96-inch ditch riser with a 60-inch culvert in place to hydraulically connect Ponds 2 and 3. The control structure allows water to flow underneath a private road to Pond 3. Mr. Castro observed water flowing from Pond 2 to Pond 3 at the time of his inspection. In the absence of the culvert, the pond system would run together as a large pond. The culverts alter the natural water storage capacity and drainage arrangement on the G-Bar-E Ranch. The third controlled structure is located on the southwest end of Pond It consists of a 96-inch riser on a 60-inch culvert and a sheet pile weir. At the time of his inspection, Castro observed that there was flow of water from the control structure and Pond 3 through the outfall ditch to a hammock wetland area to the southwest. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photos 1-6). The other pond systems, identified as pond system 1, is located in the northern portion of the property near the east bank of Taylor Creek. It consists of three main ponds ranging in size of one to five acres. One pond is connected to an outfall ditch to the southwest through a twenty-four inch culvert which runs underneath an existing grass road. At the time of Mr. Castro's inspection, it was conveying water from the pond westward into a vegetated area. The other two ponds are connected to each other via a 12-inch culvert underneath an existing grass road. The ditch is about three to five feet wide. At the time of Mr. Castro's inspection, there was flow of water between the two ponds. The downstream pond has an open connection (no control structure) to a ditch, which ultimately discharges to Taylor Creek. At the time of the inspection, water flow was observed (by Castro) in the ditch and was being discharged from pond 6 to Taylor Creek. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photos 11-14) The ditches in the pond system are prismatic; fairly uniform in cross section top width, depth and bottom width, with a straight alignment which indicates that they are man-made. The pond system is well-maintained by Respondent and free of vegetation. (TR, 21). There are four ditch structural connections from the G- Bar-E Ranch to Otter Creek. The easternmost structure consists of a 24-inch riser with a 15- inch culvert. It serves to convey stormwater from an upstream ditch system on the G-Bar-E property to Otter Creek and thereafter, offsite. There was flow to the structure to Otter Creek at the time of Mr. Castro's inspection. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photo 7). The second structure is located westward from the first. It consists of a 20-inch riser and a 13-inch culvert. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photo 8). The third structure is located westward from the second. It consists of a 32-inch riser and a 16-inch culvert. Discharge of water from the G-Bar-E property to Otter Creek through the third structure was observed by Mr. Castro during his inspection. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photo 9). The fourth structure is located westward from the third, consisting of a 36-inch riser and a 24-inch culvert. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photo 10). There are several manmade hydraulic connections to Taylor Creek on the G-Bar-E Ranch. On the eastbank of the Creek, the northernmost, identified as Ditch A, is a straight channel. At the time of Mr. Castro's inspection, it was discharging water from the G-Bar-E property to Taylor Creek by means of a 36- inch riser and a 30-inch culvert. The discharge served to drain the G-Bar-E property. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photos 15-16). The next ditch south is a prismatic channel with a straight alignment and uniform cross section, connected to Taylor Creek by a 46-inch riser and a 36-inch culvert. At the time of Mr. Castro's inspection, it was discharging water from the G-Bar E property to Taylor Creek. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photos 19-22). The headwaters of the ditch is a hammock wetland area at its upstream reach. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photos 19-22). The next ditch south is connected to Taylor Creek via a hydraulic control structure consisting of a 42-inch riser and a 30-inch culvert. The structure has at least one flashboard, which is a temporary barrier affixed to the slots on the riser and used to hold and regulate upstream water levels and to increase or decrease the storage capacity. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photos 24-25) The ditch drains a hammock area in the interior of the G-Bar-E property which lies to the northeast. It controls water from the upper end of the G-Bar-E property. On the westbank of Taylor Creek, the northernmost connection is an open connection to Taylor Creek. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2, sheet 1; Petitioner's Exhibit 2, photo 17). South of that connection is another ditch with an open connection to Taylor Creek. To the South is another open channel connection to Taylor Creek which has a non-functional control structure at the downstream end. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photo 23). The existing system of ponds and ditches on the G-Bar-E Ranch will collect, convey and can regulate upstream storage and flow rates to Taylor Creek and Otter Creek. In 1963 Gables conveyed to Okeechobee County a permanent easement along Taylor Creek. The Taylor Creek easement runs through the G-Bar-E property, roughly from the northeast corner to the southeasternmost corner. The easement to Okeechobee County covers about 150 feet on each side of Taylor Creek through the property. The purpose of the easement, as stated on the face of the document, is for the construction necessary to improve the Taylor Creek channel including widening, deepening, straightening, spoil placement and spoil disposition, installation of drip and pipe drop spillways; for operation and maintenance of the channel; and for the flowage of water through the channel, spillways, and pipe drop spillways. The grantor (Gables) reserved the right to use the easement land at any time, in any manner and for any purpose not inconsistent with the full use and enjoyment thereof by Okeechobee County. A small portion of the ditches on the G-Bar-E Ranch which connect to Taylor Creek and the control structures in those ditches lie within the area covered by the easement granted to Okeechobee County (approximately 150 feet). However, the major portion of the ditches all lie outside the easement granted to Okeechobee County. (TR 63-64; Respondent's Exhibit 4). The ditches serve to drain the G-Bar-E property into Taylor Creek and benefit the G-Bar-E Ranch property. This use is consistent with and permitted by the county's easement. The ditches and structures serve the purpose of draining the property and facilitating the flow of water to Taylor Creek. Mr. Dillard testified that Gables Engineering has not constructed, repaired or maintained any of the ditches during his nine year tenure with the company. (TR 67). However, no evidence was presented to indicate that the ditches or structures were constructed by Okeechobee County pursuant to the easement or that they benefit Okeechobee County rather than Respondent. In 1966 and 1967, Respondent granted to Okeechobee County a permanent easement along Otter Creek and Bimeny canal, which run roughly from east to west near the northern boundary of the property. The easement is for construction necessary to improve Otter and Bimeny Creek including widening, deepening, straightening, spoil placement and disposition, installation of drop and pipe drop spillways; for operation and maintenance of the channel and the flow of water to the channel, spillways and pipe drop spillways. Gables Engineering, Inc. reserved the right to install pipe drop inlets, retain, impound and regulate the flow of water into Otter Creek and Bimeny Canal lying within the Grantor's land, provided they are installed in conformance with sound engineering practice. Respondent reserved the right to use the easement property at any time and for any purpose not inconsistent with its use by Okeechobee County. (Respondent's Exhibit 2). Four control structures lie within the easement area along Otter Creek and Bimeny Canal. A small portion of the ditches from the G-Bar-E Ranch property leading to the control structure lie within the easement area. There is no record evidence to establish that the control structure, which facilitates the flow of water to Otter Creek and Bimeny Canal, is maintained by Okeechobee County or in any way serve the purposes of the easement to Okeechobee County. It is unclear who actually constructed the structures. The structures serve to convey water from the G-Bar-E property to Otter Creek. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photos 7 and 9). This appears consistent with and expressly permitted by the easement granted to Okeechobee County. In 1964 Gables Engineering granted Okeechobee County a bridge and access road easement which consists of an existing graded road forty feet in width running from State Road 15 to the west boundary of Taylor Creek. The easement is for purposes in conjunction with the construction, maintenance and operation of an access road and bridge across Taylor Creek. The access road and bridge across Taylor Creek do not presently exist. The road easement crosses over a culvert between two of the ponds in pond system 2. However the pond system itself, including the outfall structure and ditch at the western end of the system, lie outside the easement. The easement also crosses a culvert in pond system 1, but the remainder of the pond system lie outside the easement. (TR 63-64). The ponds, control structures and ditches on the G-Bar- E Ranch serve to drain the property internally and to Otter Creek and Taylor Creek. One pond system drains water into a hammock area to the southwest. This system consist of three ponds with control structures between each pond and an outfall ditch at the southwestern end of the system. The other pond system drains water to wetland areas and to Taylor Creek. It consists of three ponds, control structures and outfall ditches to a wetland area and to a ditch leading to Taylor Creek. While Respondent maintains that the culverts were installed for the purpose of allowing vehicular access between the southern and northern areas of the Ranch, the credible evidence reveals that the control structures primary purpose is to drain the property and control the flow of water throughout the system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner, South Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order requiring Respondent, Gables Engineering, to file an application to obtain a surface water management permit to operate works on the G Bar-E Ranch pursuant to Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes and that an initial application be submitted to obtain a surface water management permit within 30 days of the entry of the Final Order in this case. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 18th day of September, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Sarah Nall, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Robert W. Stewart, Esquire Corrigan, Zelman & Bander, P.A. Rivergate Plaza, Suite 200 444 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131
The Issue The issues are whether to (a) issue an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) to the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Martin County (County) authorizing construction and operation of a surface water management system to serve a project known as the Indian Street Bridge; (b) issue DOT a letter of modification of ERP No. 43-00785-S authorizing roadway and drainage modifications to the Kanner Highway/Indian Street intersection; and (c) issue DOT a letter of modification of ERP No. 43-01229-P authorizing roadway and drainage modifications to Indian Street between the intersections of Kanner Highway and Willoughby Boulevard.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties Petitioner Citizens for Smart Growth, Inc., is a Florida 501(c)(3) corporation with its principal place of business in Palm City, Florida. It was formed by Odias Smith in August 2001, who serves as its president. The original directors were Kathie Smith, Odias Smith, and Craig Smith, who is the Smiths' son. The composition of the Board has never changed. According to the original Articles of Incorporation, its objectives are "preserving and enhancing the present advantages of living in Martin County (Quality of Life) for the common good, through public education, and the encouragement of reasonable and considered decision making by full disclosure of impacts and alternatives for the most appropriate use of land, water and resources." The exact number of members fluctuates from time to time. There are no dues paid by any member. At his deposition, Mr. Smith stated that no membership list exists; however, Kathie Smith stated that she currently has a list of 125 names, consisting of persons who at one time or another have made a contribution, have attended a meeting, or asked to be "kept informed of what's going on or asked to be on a mailing list or a telephone list, so they could be advised when we have meetings." No meetings have been held since 2006. Therefore, the Petitions filed in these cases have never been discussed at any meetings of the members, although Ms. Smith indicated that telephone discussions periodically occur with various individuals. Kathie Smith believes that roughly 25 percent of the members reside in a mobile home park north of the project site on Kanner Highway on the eastern side of the St. Lucie River, she does not know how many members reside on the western side of the St. Lucie River, and she is unaware of any member who resides on the South Fork of the St. Lucie River immediately adjacent to the project. Although the three Petitions allege that "seventy percent of the members . . . reside and/or recreate on the St. Lucie River," and in greater detail they allege how those members use that water body or depend on it for their livelihood, no evidence was submitted to support these allegations that 70 percent (or any other percentage of members) use or depend on the South Fork of the St. Lucie River for recreational or other activities. Petitioners Odias Smith and Cathie Smith reside in Palm City, an unincorporated community just south of Stuart in Martin County. They have opposed the construction of the new bridge since they moved to Palm City in 2001. It is fair to infer that Mr. Smith formed the corporation primarily for the purpose of opposing the bridge. Their home faces north, overlooking the South Fork of the St. Lucie River, from which it is separated by Saint Lucie Shores Drive and a narrow strip of common-ownership property. A boat dock extends from the common-ownership property into the St. Lucie River, providing 5 slips for use by the Smiths and other co-owners. The home is located three blocks or approximately 1,000 feet from the proposed western landfall of the new bridge. Due to the direction that the house faces (north) and the site of the new bridge, the surface water management system elements associated with the bridge will not be visible from their property. Mr. Smith believes, however, that when looking south through a veranda window on the second floor of his home, he will be able to see at least a part of the new bridge. From the front of their house, they now have an unobstructed view of the existing Palm City Bridge, a large structure that crosses the St. Lucie River approximately six- tenths of a mile north of their home, and which is similar in size to the new bridge now being proposed by the Applicants. The Smiths' home is more than 500 feet from the Project's right- of-way, and they do not know of any impact on its value caused by the Project. While the Smiths currently engage in walking, boating, running, fishing, and watching wildlife in the neighborhood or the South Fork of the St. Lucie River, there was no credible evidence that the Project would prevent them from doing so after the bridge and other improvements are constructed. Also, there was no evidence showing that the ERP Letter Modifications will cause them to suffer any adverse impacts. In fact, as noted below, by DOT undertaking the Project, the neighborhood will be improved through reduced flooding, improved water quality, and new swales and ponds. The County is a political subdivision of the State. It filed one of the applications at issue in this proceeding. DOT is an agency of the State and filed the three applications being contested. The District has the power and duty to exercise regulatory jurisdiction over the administration and enforcement of ERP criteria pursuant to Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E of the Florida Administrative Code. The Department of Environment Protection (DEP) has delegated certain authority to the District, including the authority to authorize an applicant to use sovereign submerged lands via a public easement within the District's geographic jurisdiction. The Project Construction of a new bridge over the St. Lucie River has been studied extensively by the Applicants for over twenty years. DOT has awarded the contract and nearly all of the right-of-way has been purchased. The Project will begin as soon as the remaining permits are acquired. The Project is fully funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and County funding. The Project is located in the County and includes 62.06 acres of roadway bridge development and 12.45 acres of sovereign submerged lands. The Project begins on the west side of the St. Lucie River on County Road 714, approximately 1,300 feet west of Mapp Road in Palm City and ends on the east side of the St. Lucie River approximately 1,400 feet east of Kanner Highway (State Road 76) on Indian Street. It includes construction and operation of a surface water management system to serve the road and bridge project. The total length of the Project is approximately 1.96 miles (1.38 miles of roadway and 0.58 miles of bridge) while the total area is approximately 74.51 acres. After treatment, surface water runoff will discharge to the tidal South Fork of the St. Lucie River. The Project encompasses a bridge crossing the South Fork of the St. Lucie River and the Okeechobee Waterway. Both are classified as Class III waters. The bridge transitions from 4 to 6 lanes east of the Okeechobee Waterway and will require a 55-foot vertical clearance and a 200-foot horizontal clearance between the fender systems at the Okeechobee Waterway. The bridge will cross over a portion of Kiplinger Island owned and preserved by the County. A part of the island was donated to the County in 1993-1994 by The Kiplinger Washington Editors, Inc., and the Kiplinger Foundation, Inc. Audubon of Martin County owns another part of the island. The transfer of title to the County does not include any restriction on the use of the island for conservation purposes only. Documentation submitted at hearing refers to a "two hundred foot wide road right-of-way" easement that the bridge will cross and allows the County to designate where on the island parcel such an easement would be. Therefore, spanning the bridge over a portion of the island owned by the County is clearly permissible. The Project also includes the roadway transition and widening/reconstruction of (a) County Road 714 from the beginning of the Project to Mapp Road from 2-lane to a 4-lane divided roadway; (b) Southwest 36th Street from Mapp Road to the beginning of the bridge from a 2-lane rural roadway to a 4-lane divided roadway with wide roadway swales; and (c) Kanner Highway (along Indian Street) from a 4-lane to a 6-lane divided urban roadway. Drainage improvements on both sides of the St. Lucie River are associated with the roadway construction. DOT proposes to provide both on-site and off-site mitigation for wetland and surface waters impacts pursuant to a mitigation plan approved by the District. The ERP Permitting Criteria In order to obtain an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions for issuance set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. Besides these rules, certain related BOR provisions which implement the rules must also be considered. The conditions for issuance primarily focus on water quality, water quantity, and environmental criteria and form the basis of the District's ERP permitting program. The parties have stipulated that the Project either complies with the following rule provisions or they are not applicable: Rules 40E-4.301(1)(a), (b), (g), (g), (h), and (k), and 40E- 4.302(1)(a)3. and 6. All other provisions remain at issue. Where conflicting evidence on these issues was submitted, the undersigned has resolved all evidentiary conflicts in favor of the Applicants and District. Based on the parties' Stipulation, the following provisions in Rule 40E-4.301(1) are in dispute and require an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, or abandonment of a surface water management system: will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters; will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the water quality standards set forth in chapters 62- 4, 62-302, 62-520, 62-522, 62-550, F.A.C., including any anti-degradation provisions of paragraphs 62-4.242(1)(a) and (b), subsections 62-4.242(2) and (3), and rule 62-302.300, F.A.C., and any special standards for Outstanding Florida Waters and Outstanding National Resource Waters set forth in subsections 62-4.242(2) and (3), F.A.C., will be violated; will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources; will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed; will be conducted by an entity with sufficient financial, legal and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, if issued; These disputed criteria are discussed separately below. Surface Water Storage and Conveyance Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c) requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that a proposed activity will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Through unrefuted evidence, this requirement was shown to be satisfied. The evidence also establishes that the surface water in and around the Project will actually improve if the Project is constructed as permitted. Further, it will create improved and upgraded surface water management and treatment in areas that now lack features such as swales, retention/detention ponds, curbs and gutters, and improve the overall surface water storage and conveyance capabilities of the Project and surrounding areas. In its current pre-development condition, flooding has occurred in certain areas adjacent to and within the Project area due to poor conveyance, low storage volume, and high tailwater conditions that result from high tides. The Project will remedy historic flooding issues in the Old Palm City area which lies adjacent to a portion of the Project alignment. Surface water runoff will be captured, controlled, and treated by a system of swales, weirs, and retention/detention facilities for pretreatment prior to discharging into the South Fork of the St. Lucie River. Reasonable assurances have been given that existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities will not be adversely affected. Value of Functions to Fish, Wildlife, and Species Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d) requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that a proposed activity will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. BOR Section 4.2.2 further implements this provision. For the following reasons, the rule and BOR have been satisfied. The evidence shows that the existing functions to fish and wildlife were assessed and analyzed by a number of federal and state fish and wildlife agencies. There were extensive review and site inspections by the District, DOT, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Army Corps of Engineers, and National Marine Fisheries Commission to assess the existence of, and potential impact on, fish and wildlife that may result from the Project. These studies revealed that while portions of the South Fork of the St. Lucie River provide potential habitat for aquatic or wetland-dependent or threatened species of special concern, no nesting or roosting areas within the vicinity of the Project were observed. The evidence further supports a finding that "other surface waters" over and under the Project will not receive unacceptable impacts due to their current condition, the detrimental influences of Lake Okeechobee discharges, and tidal impacts. Many of the wetlands to be impacted by the Project were shown to have been impacted by historic activities, and they provide diminished functions to fish and wildlife. The wetland functions were assessed through the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM). The UMAM is a standardized procedure for assessing the functions provided by wetlands and other surface waters, the amount that those functions would be reduced by a proposed project, and the amount of mitigation necessary to offset that loss. Detailed UMAM assessments were prepared by the Applicants and the District. They demonstrate that while certain functional units will be lost, they will be fully offset by the proposed mitigation. No credible evidence to the contrary was presented. Water Quality of Receiving Waters Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that a project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that State water quality standards will be violated. BOR Section 4.2.4 implements this rule and requires that "reasonable assurances regarding water quality must be provided for both the short term and long term, addressing the proposed construction, . . . [and] operation of the system." The receiving water body is the South Fork of the St. Lucie River, which is designated as an impaired water body. The evidence establishes that the Applicants will avoid and minimize potential short-term impacts to water quality by using silt screens and turbidity barriers, and implementing other best management practices to contain turbidity during construction of the Project. They will also use a temporary trestle rather than barges in the shallow portions of the South Fork to avoid stirring up bottom sediments. Finally, a turbidity monitoring plan will be implemented during construction and dewatering activities for all in-water work. All of these construction techniques will minimize potential impacts during construction. The evidence further establishes that water quality standards will not be violated as a result of the Project. In fact, in some cases water quality will be enhanced due to the installation and maintenance of new or upgraded surface water management features in areas where they do not exist or have fallen into disrepair. Over the long term, the Project is expected to have a beneficial effect on water quality. By improving existing surface water management and adding new surface water treatment features, the Project will provide net improvement to water quality. Wetland Delineation and Impacts The Project includes unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. A total of 18.53 acres of wetlands and other surface waters within the Project site will be impacted by the Project, including 3.83 acres of wetlands that will be directly impacted and 14.7 acres of wetlands and other surface waters that will be secondarily impacted. The delineated wetlands are depicted in the Staff Report as wetlands 2a, 19a, 19b, 22, 25-29, 30a, 30b, and 30c, with each having a detailed UMAM assessment of its values and condition. (Impacts to wetland 25 are not included in this Project because they were accounted for in a separate permit proceeding.) Using a conservative assessment and set of assumptions, the District determined that, with the exception of wetlands 19a, 19b, 22, and 27, all wetlands would be impacted by the Project. However, the wetlands that would be impacted suffer from varying historical adverse impacts that have compromised the functions and values they provide to fish, wildlife, and species. This is due to their proximity to urban development, vegetative connectivity, size, historic impacts, altered hydroperiod, and invasive plant species. Likewise, even though the wetlands to be impacted on Kiplinger Island provide certain resting and feeding functions for birds, the value of these functions is comparatively lower than other wetlands due to the presence of invasive species and lack of management. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the Project will not cause adverse impacts to fish, wildlife, or listed species. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.301(1)(d). Secondary Impacts Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f) and BOR Sections 4.1.1(f) and 4.2.7. require a demonstration that the proposed activities will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, both from a wetlands and water quality standpoint. Secondary impacts are those that occur outside the footprint of the project, but which are very closely linked and causally related to the activity to be permitted. De minimis or remotely-related secondary impacts, however, are not considered unacceptable. See § 4.2.7.(a). There will be secondary impacts to 6.83 acres of freshwater wetlands and 7.87 acres of mangroves, or a total of 14.7 acres. To address these secondary impacts, the Applicants have established extensive secondary impact zones and buffers along the Project alignment, which were based in part on District experience with other road projects and another nearby proposed bridge project in an area where a State Preserve is located. While Petitioners' expert contended that a 250-foot buffer on both sides of the roadway's 200-foot right-of-way was insufficient to address secondary impacts to birds (who the expert opines may fly into the bridge or moving vehicles), the greater weight of evidence shows that bird mortality can be avoided and mitigated through various measures incorporated into the Project. Further, the bird mortality studies used by the expert involved significantly different projects and designs, and in some cases involved projects outside the United States with different species concerned. Engineering and Scientific Principles Rule 40E-301(1)(i) requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that a project "be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed." Unrefuted evidence establishes that the proposed system will function and be maintained as proposed. Financial, Legal and Administrative Capability Rule 40E-4.301(1)(j) requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that it has the financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the permit. The evidence supports a finding that Applicants have complied with this requirement. Elimination and Reduction of Impacts Before establishing a mitigation plan, Rule 40E- 4.301(3) requires that an applicant implement practicable design modifications to eliminate and reduce wetland and other surface water impacts. In this case, there are unavoidable, temporary wetland impacts associated with the construction of the Project, as well as unavoidable wetland impacts for direct (project footprint), secondary, and cumulative impacts of the Project. The record shows that the Applicants have undertaken extensive efforts to eliminate and reduce wetland and other surface water impacts of the Project. For example, DOT examined and assessed several innovative construction techniques and bridge designs to eliminate and avoid wetland impacts. To eliminate and reduce temporary impacts occurring during construction, DOT has reduced the effect of scour on the pier foundation and reduced the depth of the footing to minimize the amount of excavation on the mangrove island. Also, during construction, the contractor is prohibited from using the 200- foot right-of-way on the mangrove island for staging or stockpiling of construction materials or equipment. The majority of the bridge width has been reduced to eliminate and avoid impacts. Also, the Project's alignment was adjusted to the north to avoid impacts to a tidal creek. Reasonable assurances have been given that all practicable design and project alternatives to the construction and placement of the Project were assessed with no practicable alternatives. Public Interest Test Besides complying with the requirements of Rule 40E- 4.301, an applicant must also address the seven factors in Rule 40E-4.302(1)(a)1.-7., which comprise the so-called "public interest" test. See also § 373.414(1)(a), Fla. Stat. In interpreting the seven factors, the District balances the potential positive and negative effects of a project to determine if it meets the public interest criteria. Because Petitioners agree that factors 3 and 6 of the rule are not at issue, only the remaining five factors will be considered. For the following reasons, the Project is positive when the criteria are weighed and balanced, and therefore the Project is not contrary to the public interest. Public Health, Safety, and Welfare The Applicants have provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not affect public health, safety, and welfare. Specifically, it will benefit the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens by improving traffic conditions and congestion, emergency and hurricane evacuation, and access to medical facilities. In terms of safety, navigation markers are included as part of the Project for safe boating by the public. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)1. Conservation of Fish and Wildlife The activity will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. The mitigation projects will offset any impacts to fish and wildlife, improve the abundance and diversity of fish and wildlife on Kiplinger Island, create mangrove habitat, and add to the marine productivity in the area by enhancing water quality. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-302(1)(a)2. Fishing or Recreational Values The Project has features that allow for pedestrian and bicycle utilization and observation areas which should enhance recreational values. The Old Palm Bridge, approximately one mile north of the Project, has had no adverse impact on the fishing recreation along the South Fork of the St. Lucie River. Navigation will not be affected due to the height and design of the new bridge. Finally, the bridge is expected to be a destination for boating, kayaking, fishing, and bird watching. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)4. Whether the Activity is of a Permanent Nature The parties have stipulated that the Project is permanent in nature. No future activities or future phases of the project are contemplated. Temporary and permanent impacts are all being fully mitigated. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E- 4.302(1)(a)5. Values of Functions Being Performed in Affected Areas Due to historic impacts to the areas affected by the Project, the current condition is degraded and the relative value of functions is minimal. Although Kiplinger Island will have temporary impacts, that island is subject to exotic species and has no recreational use or access by boaters or members of the public. The Applicants propose mitigation which will improve and enhance these wetland functions and values in the areas. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)7. Summary The evidence supports a finding that the Project is positive as to whether it will affect the public health, safety, welfare, or property of others; that the Project is neutral with respect to navigation, erosion and shoaling, and water flow, as well as to historical and archaeological concerns; and that the Project is positive as to conservation of fish, wildlife, recreational values, marine productivity, permanency, and current values and functions. When weighed and balanced, the Project is not contrary to the public interest. Cumulative Impacts Rule 40E-4.302(1)(b) requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that a project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters as set forth in BOR Sections 4.28 through 4.2.8.2. Cumulative impacts are the summation of unmitigated wetland impacts within a drainage basin. An analysis is geographically based upon the drainage basins described in BOR Figure 4.4.1. Petitioners' contention that Figure 4.4.1 is inaccurate or not representative of the basin in which the Project is located has been rejected. In this case, the North St. Lucie Basin was used. To assess and quantify any potential unacceptable cumulative impacts in the basin, and supplement the analyses performed by the Applicants, the District prepared a Basin Map that depicted all the existing and permitted wetland impacts as well as those wetlands under some form of public ownership and/or subject to conservation restrictions or easements. The District's analysis found that the wetlands to be mitigated were of poor quality and provided minimal wildlife and water quality functions. Cumulative impacts from the Project to wetlands within the basin resulted in approximately a four percent loss basin-wide. This is an acceptable adverse cumulative impact. Therefore, the Project will not result in unacceptable cumulative impacts. Mitigation Adverse impacts to wetlands caused by a proposed activity must be offset by mitigation measures. See § 4.3. These may include on-site mitigation, off-site mitigation, off- site regional mitigation, or the purchase of mitigation credits from mitigation banks. The proposed mitigation must offset direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts to the values and functions of the wetlands impacted by the proposed activity. The ability to provide on-site mitigation for a DOT linear transportation project such as a bridge is limited and in this case consists of the creation of mangrove and other wetlands between the realigned St. Lucie Shores Boulevard and the west shore of the St. Lucie River, north and south of the proposed bridge crossing. BOR Section 4.3.1.2 specifically recognizes this limitation and allows off-site mitigation for linear projects that cannot effectively implement on-site mitigation requirements due to right-of-way constraints. Off-site mitigation will offset the majority of the wetland impacts. Because no single on-site or off-site location within the basin was available to provide mitigation necessary to offset all of the Project's impacts, DOT proposed off-site mitigation at two established and functioning mitigation areas known as Dupuis State Reserve (Dupuis), which is managed by the County and for which DOT has available mitigation credits, and the County's Estuarine Mitigation Site, a/k/a Florida Oceanographic Society (FOS) located on Hutchinson Island. Dupuis is outside the North St. Lucie Basin and was selected to offset direct and secondary impacts to freshwater wetlands. That site meets the ERP criteria in using it for this project. The FOS is within the North St. Lucie Basin and was selected to offset direct and secondary impacts to estuarine wetlands. Like Dupuis, this site also meets the ERP criteria for the project. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the on-site and off-site mitigation projects fully offset any and all project impacts, and in most instances before the impacts will actually occur. Sovereign Submerged Lands and Heightened Public Concern Chapter 18-21 applies to requests for authorization to use sovereign submerged lands. The management policies, standards, and criteria used to determine whether to approve or deny a request are found in Rule 18-21.004. For purposes of granting a public easement to the Applicants, the District determined that the Project is not contrary to the public interest and that all requirements of the rule were satisfied. This determination was not disputed. The only issue raised by Petitioners concerning the use of submerged lands is whether the application should have been treated as one of "heightened public concern." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.0051(5). If a project falls within the purview of that rule, the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board), rather than the District, must review and approve the application to use submerged lands. Review by the Board is appropriate whenever a proposed activity is reasonably expected to result in a heightened public concern because of its potential effect on the environment, natural resources, or controversial nature or location. Id. In accordance with established protocol, the ERP application was sent by the District to DEP's review panel in Tallahassee (acting as the Board's staff) to determine whether the Project required review by the Board. The panel concluded that the Project did not rise to the level of heightened public concern. Evidence by Petitioners that "many people" attended meetings and workshops concerning the Project over the last 20 years or so is insufficient to trigger the rule. Significantly, except for general project objections lodged by Petitioners and Audubon of Martin County, which did not include an objection to an easement, no adjacent property owner or other member of the public voiced objections to the construction of a new bridge. Revised Staff Report On October 20, 2010, the District issued a Revised Staff Report that merely corrected administrative errors or information that had been previously submitted to the District. Contrary to Petitioners' assertion, it did not constitute a material change to the earlier agency action either individually or cumulatively. Therefore, it was properly considered in this proceeding. Letter Modifications The Letter Modifications were used as a mechanism to capture minor alterations made to previously issued permits for Kanner Highway and Indian Street. Neither Letter Modification is significant in terms of water quality, water quantity, or environmental impacts. Both were issued in accordance with District rules and should be approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order granting Application Nos. 091021-8, 100316-7, and 100316-6. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol Ann Wehle, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007 Jeffrey W. Appel, Esquire Ray Quinney and Nebeker, P.C. 36 South State Street, Suite 1400 Salt Lake City, Florida 84111-1401 Bruce R. Conroy, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 David A. Acton, Esquire Senior Assistant County Attorney Martin County Administrative Center 2401 Southeast Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34996-3397 John J. Fumero, Esquire Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, P.A. 950 Peninsula Corporate Circle Suite 2020 Boca Raton, Florida 33487-1389 Keith L. Williams, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road Mail Stop 1410 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Application No. 090107-1 for Environmental Resource Permit No. 56-03461-P and the Sovereignty Submerged Lands Public Easement for the Crosstown Parkway Extension should be issued as proposed in the notice issued by the South Florida Water Management District.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner resides in the City of Port St. Lucie, with a primary residence at 6470 Northwest Volusia Drive, Port St. Lucie, Florida. Petitioner frequents the area to be affected by the Proposed Project and uses the established Savannas Preserve State Park Halpatiokee Trail (“Halpatiokee Trail”) for birdwatching and engaging in activities, including lectures and tours, related to native plants found in the vicinity of the Halpatiokee Trail and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Intervenor is a 501(c)(3) corporation with its principal place of business in the City of Port St. Lucie. Intervenor’s standing was not challenged at the final hearing. The City is a Florida municipal corporation and the applicant for the Permit. The District is a water management district created by section 373.069, Florida Statutes. It has the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage, and control water resources within its geographic boundaries. See § 373.016, Fla. Stat. The District has the power and duty to exercise regulatory jurisdiction over activities subject to the Permit pursuant to chapter 373, Part IV, and to apply and implement statewide environmental resource permitting rules, including Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-330. § 373.4131(2)(a), Fla. Stat. In implementing responsibilities with regard to ERPs, the District has developed and adopted the ERP Applicant’s Handbook - Volume I (“A.H.”) to provide standards and guidance to applicants. § 373.4131(1)(a)9., Fla. Stat. The District also performs staff duties and functions on behalf of the BTIITF related to the review of applications for authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands necessary for an activity regulated under part IV of chapter 373 for which the District has permitting responsibility. § 253.002(1), Fla. Stat. The District has been delegated the authority to take final agency action, without any action by the BTIITF, on applications for authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands for any activity for which the District has permitting responsibility. § 253.002(2), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.0051(2). Background In 1980, the City had a population of approximately 20,000 residents. The City presently has a population of approximately 179,400 residents and is anticipated to reach 225,000 by 2035. The North Fork of the St. Lucie River (“NFSLR”) runs through the City in a general north-south direction. The City is divided by the NFSLR, with roughly two-thirds of the City being west of the NFSLR, and one-third of the City being east of the NFSLR. The NFSLR in the area of the Proposed Project is an Outstanding Florida Water Body and an Aquatic Preserve. The NFSLR within the City is spanned by two bridges linking and providing access to the two sides of the City. The southernmost bridge is the St. Lucie Boulevard Bridge, a six- lane bridge with three lanes in each direction. The northernmost bridge is the Prima Vista Boulevard Bridge, a four- lane bridge with two lanes in each direction. Both of the existing bridges, and intersections around the bridges, currently operate at peak hours with a level of service of “F”, which is the lowest level of service classification assigned by the Florida Department of Transportation. In addition to traffic congestion, the two existing bridges have been deemed to be deficient in matters of public health and safety, including emergency response times and the need for prompt evacuation in the event of a hurricane or a nuclear incident at the nuclear power plant on nearby Hutchinson Island. Planning The City first identified a third east-west crossing of the NFSLR in its 1980 Comprehensive Plan. A third crossing has been included in each revision to the Comprehensive Plan since that time. In January 2009, the City submitted a conceptual permit application for the Crosstown Parkway Extension to the District. The 2009 application included six proposed bridge alignment alternatives, designated as: 1(C); 1(F); 2(A); 2(D); 6(A); and 6(B). In order to evaluate alternatives for the proposed third crossing, the six alternatives were subjected to environmental assessments which included “purpose and need” considerations. The Proposed Project was evaluated by means of a Project Development and Environmental Study, and the City, in cooperation with the Florida Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration, prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. The City, along with Federal and state agencies, participated in the Efficient Transportation Decision Making Process (“ETDM”) to evaluate the alternative east-west corridors crossing the NFSLR. As part of the ETDM process, modifications to eliminate or reduce impact were analyzed, including widening the Prima Vista Boulevard and Port St. Lucie Boulevard bridges, construction of a tunnel, and construction of second decks on the existing bridges. For various legitimate reasons, those options were rejected. The EIS considered each of the proposed bridge alignment alternatives. Each of the alternatives would have affected the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve, though in differing degrees. The analysis of the six alternatives in the EIS was performed using three overall categories: socioeconomic; biological environment; and physical environment. Environmental impacts in terms of acreage and wetland functions were considered. The EIS also considered public health, safety, and welfare considerations as socioeconomic impacts of the six alternatives. Alternative 1(C) was ultimately identified as the preferred alternative corridor in the EIS. In February 2014, the City, the Florida Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration collectively chose Alternative 1(C) as the preferred route for the Crosstown Parkway Extension. The City amended the permit application in 2014 to request authorization for the construction of alternative 1(C). That amended application is the subject of the proposed agency action at issue. Alignment The existing Crosstown Parkway begins at the interchange of Interstate 95 on the west side of the City, and extends east to Manth Lane. The proposed Crosstown Parkway Extension would extend the existing Crosstown Parkway from its current terminus at Manth Lane for a distance of approximately 1.5 miles to the east side of Floresta Drive, then across a 4,000-foot bridge section over the NFSLR, ending at U.S. Highway 1. The proposed bridge is to be slightly north of midway between the existing bridges. The proposed Crosstown Parkway Extension bridge will have three lanes in each direction, with bicycle lanes and multi-use paths. Petitioners contend that Alternative 6(A) should have been selected as the preferred alignment. Alternative 6(A) would impact the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and wetlands, though to a lesser extent, but would have far greater impacts to residential communities on both sides of the NFSLR. More to the point, the City presented a prima facie case for the selection of Alternative 1(C) that included considerations of traffic flow, ease of evacuations, hospital access, and impacts to residential communities, all of which are “non-environmental safety factors” that are appropriate for consideration. See Fla. Bay Initiative, Inc., et al. v. Dep’t of Transp. and So. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., Case No. 95-5525 et seq. (DOAH Apr. 11, 1997; SFWMD June 23, 1997). Although Petitioners demonstrated that Alternative 6(A) would have fewer environmental effects, they failed to produce substantial competent evidence to counter the safety and public interest factors that are to be weighed and balanced in conjunction with the District’s evaluation of the Permit. The Environmental Resource Permit The proposed Crosstown Parkway Extension corridor includes portions of the NFSLR, Evans Creek, the Coral Reef Waterway, and associated floodplains. The Proposed Project area involves approximately 91.53 acres of development associated with the Crosstown Parkway Extension. Permanent in-water impacts include two sets of pilings. The total area of the pilings is 493 square feet, or 0.0113 acres. Construction of the Crosstown Parkway Extension bridge will involve secondary impacts resulting from shading of the water and benthic riverbed from the bridge, and temporary impacts related to construction. The application includes a 2.134 acre sovereignty submerged lands public easement. Approximately 1.44 acres of the Proposed Project will be constructed in, on, or over sovereignty submerged lands within the NFSLR. The difference in acreage is to account for temporary use of sovereignty submerged lands for construction and maintenance purposes. The area of the Proposed Project includes 14.202 acres of land owned by the BTIITF that are managed as part of the Savannas Preserve State Park. Those lands are not submerged. Authority to grant approval to use non-submerged state lands has not been delegated to the District, is not incorporated in the proposed agency action, and is not at issue in this proceeding. The City has applied for an easement for those state-owned lands from the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”). Water Quality and Water Quantity From the standpoint of water quantity permit criteria, the Proposed Project meets the discharge rate, design storm, floodplain encroachment, and flood protection criteria set forth in the ERP rules. The Proposed Project is divided into five stormwater basins. The stormwater management facilities are designed and permitted to provide water quality treatment and attenuation, including wet detention and dry retention areas. Stormwater from the bridge itself will not be drained into the waters of the NFSLR, but will be routed to the management facilities for treatment. The Permit authorizes the required water quality treatment volume of 2.5 inches times the percent of impervious area. The City has agreed to provide 50 percent more water quality treatment volume than is required by the permitting criteria. As to temporary impacts, the Permit includes implementation of a pollution prevention plan/turbidity and erosion control plan with additional conditions requiring compliance with water quality criteria during construction of the Proposed Project. By stipulation of the parties, the City has provided reasonable assurances to satisfy applicable water quality criteria pursuant to rule 62-330.301(1), and has provided reasonable assurances of compliance with rule 62-330.301(1). The Proposed Project is located within the watershed of DEP waterbody/WB ID/number 3194, the North St. Lucie Estuary, which has been identified as impaired for dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and fecal coliform. Since the existing ambient water quality of the receiving waters is impaired for nutrients, the City is required, pursuant to rule 62-330.301(2), to implement measures that will result in a net improvement of the water quality in the receiving waters for nutrients. The Stormwater Management Report, sections 3.1.6 and 4.4, demonstrate that the stormwater management system proposed for the Crosstown Parkway Extension will provide greater removal of nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorus, than currently exists, which will result in a net improvement of water quality. Thus, the City has established, through its prima facie case, that it meets the standards of rule 62-330.301(2). Petitioners failed to prove, by a preponderance of persuasive competent and substantial evidence, that the stormwater management system would be ineffective to remove nutrients as proposed. Natural Resources There are no seagrasses in the NFSLR in the vicinity of the proposed Crosstown Parkway Extension bridge out to the area subject to potential secondary impacts. Although Ms. Scotto speculated as to the existence of polychaete worms in the area, she had no direct knowledge of any benthic resources at the location. Wetlands within the Crosstown Parkway Extension area can generally be described as freshwater marsh, floodplain forest, and mixed wetland hardwoods. In addition, mangroves fringes exist along the edges of the open water bodies. Impacts Direct Impacts The Proposed Project will result in direct impacts to 7.9 acres of wetlands and 1.18 acres of surface waters with additional secondary impacts. The area of submerged lands physically impacted by the Proposed Project is limited to the pilings that support the bridge, which constitute a total of 0.29 acres of direct impacts. Wetland fill impacts of 1.53 acres will occur where the Crosstown Parkway transitions from a bridge to a roadway, to a width of 225 feet within the U.S. Highway 1 right-of-way. The low level of the bridge structure will result in canopy removal within forested wetlands, and shading of vegetation beneath the bridge structure. As a result, it was assumed that all wetlands underneath the bridge impacted by shading of the structure would be directly and fully eliminated. Petitioners assert that the permit application evaluation should have taken into account direct and secondary impacts to threatened plant species listed by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services in Florida Administrative Code Rule 5B-40.0055, particularly the rose pogonia and nodding pinweed. However, the District does not have authority to consider such species in the context of an ERP. Secondary Impacts Secondary impacts are not direct impacts of the Proposed Project, but are those adverse effects to the functions of the surrounding wetlands and habitats that would not occur but for the construction of the Proposed Project. Secondary impacts include shading from the Crosstown Parkway Extension bridge, and light and noise that could deter use of the area by fish and wildlife. Secondary impacts to wetlands were assessed in two zones extending outward from the direct impact area. The first zone extends from 0 to 50 feet from the bridge footprint, and the second zone extends from 50 to 250 feet from the bridge footprint. There was no persuasive competent and substantial evidence that the secondary impacts of the Proposed Project would have any measurable impact on surface waters, including temperature and salinity. The City provided reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts that would be caused by the Proposed Project will not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards, or adversely affect the functions of adjacent wetlands or other surface waters. Although there will be some locally evident impact to the functions of wetlands within the zones of secondary impact, because the City meets the “Opt-Out” provisions discussed below, the City is not required to implement practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate such impacts. There was no persuasive competent and substantial evidence that the secondary impacts of the Proposed Project would affect the functions of wetlands outside of the zone of secondary impacts. There was no persuasive competent and substantial evidence that the construction, alteration, and reasonably expected uses of the Crosstown Parkway Extension would adversely impact the ecological value of the uplands to aquatic or wetland-dependent listed species for enabling existing nesting or denning by these species. The loss of canopy, including issues of detrital export and functions related to downstream systems, were accounted for in the UMAM calculations for quantifying the functional loss of resource values resulting from the Proposed Project. Petitioners stipulated to the UMAM scores related to direct impacts of the Proposed Project. Petitioners disagreed with the UMAM scores related to secondary impacts because they were not “considered for the impacts to those [Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services]-listed threatened and endangered plants.” The ERP permitting criteria take into account a comprehensive list of invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals that are to be considered in the evaluation of secondary impacts that may result from a project. See A.H. Table 10.2.7-1. The City demonstrated, and Mr. Braun acknowledged, that the permitting standards do not list plants as a matter for consideration, either generically or by species. The suggestion that the evaluation of ecological values must include, by implication, species of plants is not accepted.3/ Mr. Braun also testified that the only issues in dispute regarding the quantification and mitigation of secondary impacts were those pertaining to the headwaters of Hogpen Slough. It was his opinion that the collection and treatment of stormwater from the bridge and road in the permitted stormwater basins will divert and interrupt sheet flow that currently flows from U.S. Highway 1 and undeveloped property to the north into the Hogpen Slough drainage area, and that such effects will alter the salinity envelope in Evans Creek and impact the fishery nursery in the area. However, Mr. Braun admitted that “there has been no modeling that would show how the effect of the changes in the water, how they will be effected by the project.” The basic thrust of Mr. Braun’s testimony was best characterized by the following exchange: Mr. Fumero: You don’t have any analysis to show that what's currently contemplated will result in a salinity imbalance? Your point is that the Applicant should demonstrate, should provide some analysis showing that it will not, correct? Mr. Braun: That's correct.[4/] In response to Petitioners’ concerns with the impacts to Hogpen Slough, the City demonstrated that the Hogpen Slough drainage basin encompasses an area of almost 700 acres, and extends for a mile and a-half to two miles east of the area discussed by Mr. Braun. Upon construction of the Proposed Project, the areas that currently drain to Hogpen Slough will continue to drain to Hogpen Slough, with enhanced water quality treatment and attenuation for the additional impervious area created by the road widening at the intersection with U.S. Highway 1. Thus, the Proposed Project will have a de minimis, if any, effect on the overall quantity of water draining from the Hogpen Slough drainage basin to Hogpen Slough, with the stormwater from the Proposed Project itself being subject to an enhanced degree of water quality treatment. Under the burden of proof applicable to this proceeding, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law herein, Mr. Braun’s concern as to the effect of the Proposed Project on Hogpen Slough, without more, is insufficient to support a finding as to any adverse secondary impacts. Cumulative Impacts The Proposed Project is considered not to have unacceptable cumulative impacts if mitigation offsets adverse impacts within the same basin where the impacts occur. As set forth herein, the proposed mitigation is located within the same basin as the impacts from the Proposed Project. Mitigation The City proposes to provide both on-site and off-site mitigation to offset impacts of the Proposed Project. The City has proposed proprietary mitigation for the easement to cross state lands and regulatory mitigation to compensate for impacts to natural resources. The ecological values of the areas affected by the Proposed Project’s direct, secondary, and temporary impacts to freshwater wetlands and surface waters, and the mitigation needed to offset those impacts, was determined using UMAM. UMAM is authorized by statute and adopted by rule. The undersigned accepts UMAM as an accurate and representative measure of the impacts of the Proposed Project. In order to calculate UMAM functional loss scores, and thereby the mitigation necessary to offset impacts, all areas under the Crosstown Parkway Extension bridge were accounted for as though they were to be filled in their entirety, with 100 percent functional loss. The loss of canopy was accounted for and included consideration of detrital export and functions related to downstream systems. In calculating the mitigation to be provided, the City developed a fictitious “hybrid corridor” that assumed the worst case scenario impacts of each of the six build alternatives identified in the 2009 application. That hybrid corridor included greater impacts than any single alternative corridor, including the Alternative 1(C) corridor at issue. That hybrid corridor was then used as the basis for the development of the mitigation plan used for the Alternative 1(C) corridor. As such, the mitigation proposed is conservative. Applying the UMAM methodology, it was determined that direct impacts would result in 6.64 functional loss units, secondary impacts would result in 2.47 functional loss units, and temporary impacts would result in 0.27 functional loss units, for a total of 9.38 functional loss units. Platt’s Creek To mitigate for the freshwater wetland and surface water impacts, the City constructed the Platt’s Creek mitigation area as authorized by District Permit No. 56-03199-P. Platt’s Creek, located approximately five miles upstream from the project and adjacent to the NFSLR, was an orange grove containing upland habitat and a retention pond. The Platt's Creek project, a joint mitigation area with St. Lucie County, is designed to restore and create hydric hammock, floodplain forest, and freshwater marsh. The mitigation at Platt’s Creek involves the same habitats that are being impacted by the project. Although Platt’s Creek is not located in the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve, it is located upstream of the Proposed Project, within the same basin as the Proposed Project’s impacts, and will provide downstream benefits to the Aquatic Preserve. The Platt's Creek project also provides a regional benefit to the NFSLR by improving water quality. The UMAM calculation established that 9.38 mitigation units would be required to offset the functional loss from all of the Proposed Project impacts. The City dedicated 11.25 functional units from the Platt’s Creek mitigation area to offset the impacts, which is in excess of the requirement. The City has completed construction and planting at Platt’s Creek, and is now monitoring success of the completed mitigation work. Pursuant to the Permit, St. Lucie County is responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Platt’s Creek mitigation area. Bear Point As mitigation to offset direct, secondary and temporary mangrove impacts, the City purchased mitigation credits from Bear Point Mitigation Bank located in the Indian River Lagoon. Bear Point provides the same type of mangrove habitat as that affected by the Proposed Project. Using the modified Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure, which was the method used to determine functional units when the Bear Point Mitigation Bank was created, it was determined that 0.26 functional units would be required to offset the worst case hybrid corridor mangrove impacts applied to the Proposed Project. The City purchased 0.50 functional units from the Bear Point Mitigation Bank to offset the 0.26 acres of functional loss, which is in excess of the requirement. The Proposed Project is in the Mitigation Service Area for the Bear Point Mitigation Bank. The proposed mitigation is within the same basin as the Proposed Project’s impacts. Mitigation Conclusion The City established, by a preponderance of competent substantial evidence, that the mitigation provided was sufficient to offset the environmental impacts. Petitioners failed to counter the City’s case. Mr. Braun’s concerns with the proposed mitigation were primarily directed to its failure to account for impacts to plants species as discussed herein. Ms. Scotto expressed no opinion as to whether the mitigation provided meets the ERP standards, whether the mitigation provided meets the standards for proprietary authorization, or whether the mitigation is consistent with the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve Management Plan. She did not review mitigation for secondary impacts. Ms. Goldberg, noting the extent of the proprietary mitigation provided, testified that mitigation should not be a “Christmas present” for agencies. She also noted that Platt’s Creek does not match the maturity and diversity of the impact areas. However, she did not dispute the UMAM scores that formed the basis for the mitigation. Elimination or Reduction of Impacts The City reduced the width of the main section of the bridge from 143 feet to 103 feet, resulting in a 3.27 acre reduction of impacts, an approximate 30-percent reduction. The evidence was convincing that the bridge could not be further reduced in width without compromising safety and functionality. The City proposed construction methods, including the use of top-down construction or construction by use of temporary pile-supported structures, designed to reduce temporary construction-related impacts. The City has committed to the installation of specialized light fixtures that direct light onto the pavement only, which will reduce light trespass on adjacent habitats. Impacts were eliminated and reduced through the location and design of the stormwater ponds as described in the Permit. No evidence was adduced to counter the prima facie case on that issue. Although Alternative 1(C) had greater environmental impacts than other build alternatives, the City demonstrated by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence that non- environmental safety factors, including traffic flow, ease of evacuations, hospital access, and impacts to residential communities, precluded further efforts to avoid impacts through the selection of a different corridor. Opt-Out Provision A.H. section 10.2.1.2(b) provides that: The Agency will not require the applicant to implement practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate impacts when: * * * b. The applicant proposes mitigation that implements all or part of a plan that provides regional ecological value and that provides greater long term ecological value than the area of wetland or other surface water to be adversely affected. Although the areas impacted by the proposed Crosstown Parkway Extension bridge are of high quality, the combination of using the Platt’s Creek Mitigation Area, the Bear Point Mitigation Bank, and the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve Management Plan Projects, provides regional ecological value and greater long- term ecological value than the areas affected. Based thereon, the City was not required to implement practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate impacts of the Proposed Project though, as indicated herein, it did so. Public Interest Balancing Test Portions of the Proposed Project are within Outstanding Florida Waters. Therefore, the City must provide reasonable assurances that the Proposed Project is clearly in the public interest, as described by the balancing test set forth in section 373.414(1)(a), rule 62-330.302(1)(a), and A.H. sections 10.2.3 through 10.2.3.7. To determine whether a regulated activity located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters is in the public interest, the following criteria must be considered and balanced: whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; whether the regulated activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; whether the regulated activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources; and the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed regulated activity. Public Health, Safety, or Welfare or the Property of Others A.H. section 10.2.3.1 establishes four criteria to be balanced in order to determine if regulated activities will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. The evidence in this case failed to demonstrate that impacts resulting from the Proposed Project would affect waters subject to a shellfish harvesting classification (A.H. section 10.2.3.1(b)), would cause or alleviate flooding on the property of others (A.H. section 10.2.3.1(c)), or would result in environmental impacts to the property of others (A.H. section 10.2.3.1(d)). A.H. section 10.2.3.1(a) requires an evaluation of hazards or improvements to public health or safety. The Crosstown Parkway Extension is calculated to relieve traffic and access problems that have earned the existing roadway infrastructure linking the east and west sides of the City a service level of “F”. By so doing, the Crosstown Parkway Extension is designed to improve emergency response times and evacuation times. The proposed Crosstown Parkway Extension corridor involves the fewest overall impacts to residences, communities, and businesses. Petitioners assert that the Crosstown Parkway Extension will create health issues from vehicle emissions, and adverse effects to wildlife and habitat from light pollution. Those alleged impacts would apply to all of the build alternatives, including Petitioners’ preferred Alternative 6(A). Furthermore, Petitioners failed to provide any quantification of either the amount or effect of any such impacts. Finally, as to the alleged light pollution, the City incorporated design modifications to the bridge lighting system to reduce such impacts. There was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the Crosstown Parkway Extension will, on balance, adversely affect public health or safety. Although more directly relevant to the sovereignty submerged lands easement, the water quality enhancement projects, including the installation of baffle boxes, reestablishment of oxbows, and dredging of unsuitable sediments in Evans Creek, will maintain and improve water quality in the NFSLR and, as a whole, result in an improvement to the water quality of the NFSLR. Thus, reasonable assurance has been provided that the Crosstown Parkway Extension will not adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. Conservation of Fish and Wildlife The Endangered Species Biological Assessment Report submitted as part of the ERP application was comprehensive in its scope, assessing each of the bridge alternatives. The Report concluded that the Proposed Project would have no effect on any federally-listed plant species, “may affect but [was] not likely to adversely affect” listed species, including the smalltooth sawfish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and manatee, and would have no effect on any other federally-listed species. The area of the Proposed Project includes no designated critical habitat. The report further concluded that each of the build alternatives, including the Proposed Project, could affect several state-listed plant and animal species, but that the Proposed Project would affect no threatened or endangered species. As to those state-listed species, the Report concluded that efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to species and their habitats had been implemented, and that a mitigation plan had been developed to compensate for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and fish habitat. The Report, which is part of the ERP application, and is, by law, part of the City’s prima facie case, is accepted. The City agreed to perform surveys for protected species and implement measures designed to protect those species from direct project effects as described by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the agreed-upon surveys and protective measures would be ineffective in preventing adverse impacts to the wildlife species of concern. Furthermore, the City incorporated design features and construction methodologies to reduce and eliminate impacts, and provided mitigation to replace functions provided to these species affected as a result of the project. More mitigation to provide habitat and improve water quality within or adjacent to the NFSLR and the Aquatic Preserve has been provided than was required. The mitigation provides regional ecological value and greater long-term ecological value than the wetlands to be impacted. There was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the Crosstown Parkway Extension will result in adverse impacts to the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters, or adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Petitioners assert that various plant species listed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services will be impacted by the Proposed Project. As set forth previously, the plant species of concern to Petitioners are not species defined in the A.H., and are not species that are subject to consideration in the decision to issue or deny an ERP. As set forth in paragraphs 54 and 55 above, Petitioners also assert that the alteration of the inputs to Hogpen Creek would affect the salinity regime in the Evans Creek receiving waters, thereby adversely affecting fishery nursery areas. Petitioners’ argument was made without information on the volume of water to be discharged over what period of time, without information as to the size of the Hogpen Slough watershed, without information as to the stormwater system design, and without modeling that would show how the waters would be affected by the Proposed Project. In sum, the evidence as to adverse impacts to Hogpen Slough, and resultant effects on the conservation of fish and wildlife, was made without evaluation, and was entirely speculative. The City demonstrated that areas that currently drain to Hogpen Slough will continue to drain to Hogpen Slough, with enhanced water quality treatment, and with attenuation for the additional impervious area created by the road widening at the intersection with U.S. Highway 1. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that post-construction discharges of water to Hogpen Slough will offer greater benefits to the conservation of fish and wildlife than current discharges. The City has demonstrated, by a preponderance of competent substantial evidence, that the proposed Project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, or their habitats. Navigation, Flow of Water, or Erosion or Shoaling The Proposed Project will not prevent fishing, boating, or other forms of recreation in the NFSLR. A bridge hydraulic analysis demonstrates that the Proposed Project will not cause impacts to water levels, flow, or velocity of the NFSLR or other water bodies. Navigation will not be adversely impacted as the bridge span will be at least as high as other bridges on the NFSLR. The bridge will meet Coast Guard minimum clearances, and Coast Guard-required aids to navigation will be included. Navigation by canoes and kayaks will be improved because of the dredging of the unsuitable sediments and the placement of a new and more accessible canoe launch. The Permit requires the implementation of best management practices to prevent erosion and sedimentation during construction. The City has demonstrated, by a preponderance of competent substantial evidence, that the Crosstown Parkway Extension bridge would cause no adverse effect on navigation or the flow of water, or harmful erosion or shoaling. Fishing or Recreational Values or Marine Productivity The Proposed Project is expected to have no effect on fishing, sport or commercial fisheries, or marine productivity. Although recreational values and fishing may be affected during construction, such impacts are temporary. The long-term effects of the Proposed Project, which include those direct and secondary impacts caused by shading of the vegetative and benthic resources under and adjacent to the Crosstown Parkway Extension bridge, are offset by mitigation including the reconnection of oxbows, which is designed to improve water quality and provide habitat that was previously isolated, and sediment dredging at Evans Creek, which will also improve water quality, fish habitat, and recreational values. The new Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”)- compliant canoe/kayak launch will allow for improved and more accessible recreational use. As has been discussed at length herein, the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the Proposed Project will be reasonably expected to eliminate or degrade fish nursery habitat, change ambient water temperature, change the normal salinity regime, significantly reduce detrital export, change nutrient levels, or otherwise have any adverse effects on populations of native aquatic organisms. Rather, with the mitigation proposed in terms of land acquisition, access enhancement, sediment removal and re-establishment of oxbows, water quality treatment projects, and the stormwater treatment and attenuation being provided, the City established that the Proposed Project would have no measurable adverse impact on fishing, recreational values, or marine productivity. There is no doubt that Petitioner’s enjoyment of the Halpatiokee Trail will be compromised. However, alternative, though more publically accessible areas for walking and canoeing will be provided. Petitioner was critical of the fact that the alternative areas would not be as wild and undeveloped as the existing trails and was particularly critical of the Savannas County Park Trail mitigation, since it is paved to provide access for handicapped nature lovers. This is, however, a balancing test. Based on the record as a whole, there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the Proposed Project will, on balance, have an adverse effect on fishing or recreational values and marine productivity. Temporary or Permanent Nature The Proposed Project is of a permanent nature. Temporary impacts will occur during construction, but are considered less harmful than the permanent impacts as the temporary impact areas will eventually recover. Although there will be permanent habitat loss, such loss will be offset through mitigation. Historical and Archaeological Resources There was no evidence of significant historical or archaeological resources on or near the Proposed Project. Current Condition and Relative Value of Functions The current condition and relative value of functions is high, as demonstrated by the UMAM scores. This value is due to the location in the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and state park, connectivity to other wetlands and surface waters, and utilization by fish and wildlife. To offset impacts to the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the Proposed Project, the City provided mitigation in excess of the rule requirements, including the purchase and enhancement of additional lands, and the construction of various types of water quality improvement projects. The mitigation projects and goals are described in the Aquatic Preserve Mitigation Plan. Public Interest Balancing Test - Conclusion The City has proven, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence adduced in this proceeding, that, upon balancing the impacts of the Proposed Project with its benefits, the activities authorized by the Permit will be clearly in the public interest. Sovereignty Submerged Lands The City requested an easement over 2.134 acres of sovereignty submerged lands. Approximately 1.44 acres of the 91.53-acre project will be constructed in, on, or over sovereignty submerged land. Permanent in-water impacts consist of two sets of piles to be installed in the Coral Reef Waterway, the NFSLR, and Evans Creek, with a total fill area within the sovereignty submerged lands of 492 square feet or 0.0113 acres. The submerged lands public easement is 157 feet wide, greater than the reduced 104-foot width of the Crosstown Parkway Extension bridge. The area of the easement in excess of the 1.44 acres over which the bridge will pass is to accommodate temporary construction and maintenance activities. Aquatic Preserve The area within the sovereignty submerged lands easement is in the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve. In order to obtain an easement in an aquatic preserve, the City is required to demonstrate that the benefits exceed the costs, and that the Proposed Project is consistent with the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve Management Plan. Consistency with the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve Management Plan is a component of the public interest assessment required by rule 18-20.004(2)(a)(3). Proprietary mitigation was proposed for recreation areas, water quality and quantity, wetlands, wildlife and habitat, floodplain social considerations, and relocations. Proprietary mitigation consistent with the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve Management Plan includes: the installation of baffle boxes within five waterways that discharge into the aquatic preserve. Baffle boxes are designed to slow the flow of water from upland and developed areas, allowing sediment to fall out before the water is discharged to the NFSLR. They are a proven and effective means of improving water quality in a receiving water body; the removal of muck and sediment from Evan’s Creek. The removal of such materials is designed to improve water quality, navigation, and habitat in Evans Creek; the construction of a new, ADA-accessible canoe/kayak launch to replace the current Halpatiokee launch that will be displaced by the Crosstown Parkway Extension, the creation of the ADA-compliant Savannas Recreation Area Trail between Savanna Road and Midway Road, and the improvement of the Savannas Preserve State Park Education Center. The Halpatiokee canoe/kayak launch was slated for closure by the DEP under any of the build alternatives. ADA-accessibility for the canoe/kayak launch and recreation trail, along with improved canoe/kayak launch parking, will enhance public access to the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and Savannas Preserve State Park5/; purchase and conveyance to the BTIITF of approximately 110 acres, including wetlands and uplands adjacent to the Aquatic Preserve at the Evans Creek, Crowberry, Brywood, Emerson, Highpoint, and Riverwalk sites. Acquisition also includes the Green River parcel in the Savannas Preserve State Park. Each of those sites was identified as priority acquisitions in the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve Management Plan or by the DEP. The conveyances also include an obligation for the City to remove exotic vegetation from the parcels over a period of five years; and oxbow reconnection and removal of accumulated sediments at Site 5 West and Riverplace Upstream, adjacent to the Aquatic Preserve, designed to improve water quality and habitat. Cost/Benefit Analysis Costs related to the 2.134-acre easement include reduced habitat at the bridge location, shading of the water column and areas of herbaceous and forested wetlands, including mangroves, pre-emption of public use, some of which is temporary and some of which due to the loss of functional use of the Halpatiokee Trail under the bridge, and reduced aesthetics. Those costs, except for the Halpatiokee Trail impacts, would be evident to varying degrees at each of the proposed build alternative routes. The City demonstrated that the Crosstown Parkway Extension is a public necessity for which no other reasonable alternative exists. The Crosstown Parkway Extension provides the most efficient means of addressing current traffic congestion, the severe traffic congestion anticipated in the future, and other access and evacuation issues described herein, with the least overall impact to the public. The Crosstown Parkway Extension will not involve dredging or filling in the Aquatic Preserve. Although there will be pilings in the Aquatic Preserve, pilings are not “fill” pursuant to rule 18-20.003(27). The DEP and the City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) that identifies projects that the City committed to undertake, and lands that the City committed to convey to state ownership to provide for proprietary and sovereignty submerged lands mitigation. The MOU projects are consistent with the approved NFSLR Aquatic Preserve Management Plan. Consistency with an adopted management plan is given great weight when determining whether the project is in the public interest. As set forth above, benefits of the Proposed Project to the Aquatic Preserve include enhanced public access, improved and enhanced water quality, and enhancement and restoration of natural habitats and functions. The City also proposes to convey approximately 110 acres to the BTIITF. The City has proven, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence adduced in this proceeding, that, upon balancing, the social, economic, and environmental benefits associated with the Proposed Project, including the extensive proprietary mitigation being provided, far exceed the costs of the 2.134-acre submerged lands easement. Findings of Fact - Conclusion Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, and as supported by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence, the standards and conditions for issuance of the Permit as set forth herein have been satisfied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order approving the issuance of Environmental Resource Permit and Sovereignty Submerged Lands Public Easement, Permit No. 56-03461-P, to The City of Port St. Lucie, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Notice of Consolidated Intent to Issue and Staff Report, as modified, and the complete Application for Environmental Resource Permit. Said approval shall not be construed as relieving The City of Port St. Lucie from obtaining an upland easement for the 14.202 acres of non-submerged state-owned land required for the Proposed Project. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of November, 2016. 1/ T.162:22-181:19.
