The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Dames Point Workboats, LLC, is entitled to issuance of the Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Recommended Intent to Grant Sovereignty Submerged Lands Authorization, Permit No. 16-0345934-003-EI, as announced by Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, in the Consolidated Notice of Intent to Issue Environmental Resource Permit and Lease to Use Sovereignty Submerged Lands issued on July 20, 2018, and subsequently amended on December 11, 2018.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner City is a consolidated municipality and county political subdivision of the State of Florida. The Project is located within the geographic boundary of the City. The City initiated this proceeding by filing its Verified Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing ("Petition") with DEP on August 17, 2018. Respondent Workboats is the applicant for the Project. Its business address is 5118 Heckscher Drive, Jacksonville, Florida 32226. Workboats' owner, Shafnacker, owns the property located upland of the sovereignty submerged lands on which the Project is proposed to be constructed and operated. Respondent DEP is the administrative agency of the State of Florida statutorily charged with, among other things, protecting Florida's water resources. As part of DEP's performance of these duties, it administers and enforces the provisions of chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes, and the rules adopted pursuant to those statutes. Pursuant to that authority, DEP determines whether to issue or deny applications for environmental resource permits. Pursuant to section 253.002, DEP also serves as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund ("Board of Trustees") and in that capacity, reviews and determines whether to issue or deny applications for sovereignty submerged lands leases. The Back Channel and Vicinity of the Project The Project is proposed to be located in the "Back Channel" area of the St. Johns River, directly across from Blount Island. The Back Channel, as a part of the St. Johns River, is classified as a Class III waterbody. It is not designated an Outstanding Florida Water, is not located within an Aquatic Preserve, and is not designated for Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting. The Back Channel is configured in the shape of an inverted "U" and runs between Blount Island and Heckscher Drive, from the southeast corner of Blount Island to the bridges located on the northwest side of Blount Island. It constitutes a portion of the historic main channel of the St. Johns River and was used for all vessel navigation in the river until the Dames Point Cut was dredged through a peninsula to the south, creating Blount Island and a new straight channel to the Atlantic Ocean. Most vessels, including large ships, use the Dames Point Cut for ingress into and egress from the St. Johns River. However, the Back Channel remains navigable and is used for recreational activities and some commercial and industrial navigation. A mix of residential, commercial, and industrial and land uses is located on the north shore of the Back Channel in the vicinity of the Project. These uses consist of approximately 90 single-family residences having docks, three fish camps/recreational marinas, two restaurants, and docking structures used for mooring inshore shrimping vessels. A docking facility owned by M & M Shrimp and used for mooring shrimping vessels is located on the Back Channel immediately to the west of the Project site. A residence owned by Wood is located on the Back Channel immediately east of the Project site. Four other residences are located immediately east of Wood's residence, and back up to the Back Channel. Most of the shoreline on which these residences are located consists of riprap; however, a small patch of salt marsh borders the shoreline on Wood's residential parcel. Although Blount Island is a heavy industrial port, its northern shoreline on the Back Channel, across from the proposed Project site, consists of relatively undisturbed salt marsh and trees. The northeastern shoreline of the Back Channel generally consists of salt marsh and riprap, with docks constructed along the shoreline. Two bridges connect Blount Island to the mainland a short distance west of the proposed Project. These bridges each have a clearance of approximately ten feet, so they cannot be cleared by large vessels. As a practical matter, this has the effect of limiting the size of vessels that use the Back Channel in the vicinity of the Project. The Back Channel west of the bridges to the southwestern tip of Blount Island is fronted by heavy industrial uses, and numerous multi-family residential and industrial docking facilities are located in this area. A slow speed, minimum wake zone for boat operations extends 300 feet out into the Back Channel from both the north and south shorelines. The Back Channel is approximately 1,340 feet wide at the point at which the Project is proposed to be constructed. The Proposed Project The proposed Project will be constructed and operated4/ as a commercial tugboat/work boats mooring and loading/ offloading facility. The Project is proposed to be constructed and operated on sovereignty submerged lands5/ and in surface waters subject to State of Florida regulatory jurisdiction. Therefore, an environmental resource permit and sovereignty submerged lands lease are required for construction and operation of the Project.6/ The Project will be located waterward of the mean high water line on sovereignty submerged lands adjacent to four upland waterfront parcels that are owned by Shafnacker. These lots are: Lot 6 (5100 Heckscher Drive, RE 159971 0000); Lot 7 (5110 Heckscher Drive, RE 159972 0000); Lot 8 (5118 Heckscher Drive, RE 159973 0000); and Lot 9 (5120 Heckscher Drive, RE 159974 0000). Collectively, these lots have approximately 425 feet of linear shoreline, as measured at the mean high water line, bordering the Back Channel. This shoreline is comprised of salt marsh and riprap. A substantial portion of lots 6, 7, and 8 consists of salt marsh wetlands. No structures are proposed to be constructed on Lot 6. The salt marsh areas on lots 7 and 8 are traversed by existing pile-supported piers/access docks. To the extent they are replaced, such replacement will be by like-for- like structures, so there will be no new impact to the salt marsh wetlands on these lots. Most of Lot 9 consists of upland, some of which is authorized to be refilled under the Consolidated Authorization. A small wetland area consisting of approximately 18 square feet of salt marsh will be crossed by a new dock, but will not be filled or otherwise physically impacted. Dock A is proposed to be located on sovereignty submerged lands waterward of Lot 7, and will consist of a 15.4-foot-long by 8-foot-wide extension added to the waterward end of an existing 150.8-foot-long by 8-foot-wide wooden dock, plus a 4-foot-long gangway attached to the waterward end of the extension, which will connect to a 100-foot-long by 9.5-foot wide concrete floating dock. Dock B is proposed to be located on sovereignty submerged lands waterward of Lot 8, and will consist of a 40-foot-long by 10.3-foot-wide concrete floating dock with an 18-foot-long by 6-foot-wide platform, and a 4-foot-long gangway attached to an existing 125.2-foot-long by 5-foot-wide wooden dock. Dock C is proposed to be located on Lot 9, and will consist of a new inverted-L-shaped dock consisting of a 71-foot- long by four-foot wide pile-supported finger dock extending perpendicular to the shoreline into the Lease area, and a 26-foot long by 4-foot-wide dock running roughly parallel to the shoreline that will be constructed outside of the Lease area. Four wooden pilings also are proposed to be installed waterward of Lot 9. Three of these pilings will be located along the eastern boundary of the Lease, and the piling closest to the shoreline of Lot 9 will be located outside of the Lease area. All of these pilings will be set back 25 feet from Workboats' eastern riparian rights line. The newly constructed piling-supported dock additions to docks A and B, and new Dock C, will be elevated four feet above the marsh and will be constructed by hand-laying planks from the shoreline outward into the water, using the previously- laid planks as support while laying the new planks. Three three-pile mooring dolphins also are proposed as part of the Project. They will be installed within the Lease area, set back 38 feet from the southern boundary. No dredging is proposed or authorized for the Project. The Lease will be issued for a term of ten years and will preempt approximately 49,746 square feet of sovereignty submerged lands. The western boundary of the Lease is located 25 feet east of the upland property's western riparian rights line, and the eastern boundary of the Lease is located 25 feet west of the upland property's eastern riparian rights line. With the exception of a portion of Dock C and one wood piling that will be constructed on submerged land owned by Shafnacker,7/ all other structures proposed as part of the Project will be constructed within the boundaries of the Lease, and all vessel mooring and over-water operational activities authorized as part of the Project will occur within the Lease area. The Consolidated Authorization authorizes the placement of approximately 3,500 square feet of fill landward of the mean high water line and the jurisdictional wetland line, to replace historic fill eroded by hurricanes in 2017. Additionally, as a condition of the Consolidated Authorization, Workboats is required to restore approximately 250 square feet of salt marsh cord grass waterward of the mean high water line on Lot 9 as corrective action for unauthorized filling/destruction of salt marsh wetlands. As noted above, when constructed, the Project will operate as a tugboat/work boats mooring and loading/unloading facility. Workboats owns a fleet of approximately 40 vessels, comprised of barges, tow/push boats, and work boats, which are used to provide a range of marine services to third parties, including the transport/delivery of food and other supplies; artificial reef placement; marine demolition; and pile driving. These vessels will be moored at the docks, mooring dolphins, and mooring piles comprising the Project.8/ Of these 40 vessels, 28 are barges that range from ten to 130 feet in length, and have drafts ranging from 1.5 to 7.5 feet deep. The remaining 12 vessels are boats that range from 14 to 46.2 feet in length, and have drafts ranging from one foot to 6.8 feet deep. The water depths within the Lease area range from one tenth of one foot immediately adjacent to the shoreline, to between 39.5 and 43.5 feet deep at mean low water at the southern boundary of the Lease. Only one or two of the smaller boats in Workboats' fleet have drafts that are shallow enough to enable them to moor on the shoreward sides of Docks A and B. In any event, all vessels must moor in areas within the Lease area having depths at mean low water sufficient to ensure that they do not come into contact with submerged resources. To that end, a condition is included in the Consolidated Authorization requiring a minimum 12-inch clearance between the deepest draft of a vessel with the motor in the "down" position and the top of submerged resources at mean low water. The parties stipulated, and Shafnacker testified, that with the exception of the 32-foot-long Marlin Barge and the 10- foot-long Galligan barges, all other barges in Workboats' fleet will moor at the three-pile dolphins near the southern boundary of the Lease. Some barges will be anchored to the substrate by spuds, and the condition requiring 12 inches of clearance between the vessel bottom and the top of submerged resources would not apply to the spuds themselves. The parties stipulated, and Shafnacker testified, that Workboats will only load vessels from Dock B, which is appurtenant to Lot 8, and that the only equipment that will be used to load vessels will be equipment small and light enough to traverse Dock B——specifically, a Takeuchi mini-excavator, small forklift, or similarly-sized equipment. These limitations regarding the loading of vessels within the Lease area are not currently included as conditions of the Consolidated Authorization. Based on the parties' stipulation and competent substantial evidence in the record, conditions should be added to the Consolidated Authorization expressly limiting the loading of vessels in the Lease area to occurring only on Dock B, and limiting the type of equipment used for vessel loading and unloading to forklifts, mini-excavators, or similar light equipment. Shafnacker testified that the only other work that may be performed within the Lease area would consist of certain minor maintenance activities on Workboats' vessels; these minor repair activities include non-routine paint touchups and handrail painting, minor cable and winch repairs, and minor steel-rod (non-lead) welding. DEP Review and Approval of the Project Workboats filed a Joint Application for Individual Environmental Resource Permit/Authorization to Use State-Owned Submerged Lands/Federal Dredge and Fill Permit ("Application") on or about June 15, 2018. The Application was determined to be complete. DEP staff reviewed the Application and determined that the Project, as proposed, met the applicable statutory standards and rule requirements for issuance of the Consolidated Authorization. DEP issued the Consolidated Notice of Intent on or about July 20, 2018, proposing to issue the environmental resource permit and Lease for the Project. The Application, Consolidated Notice of Intent, and Consolidated Authorization were admitted into evidence at the final hearing. Compliance with Rule 62-330.301 For Workboats to be entitled to issuance of the environmental resource permit for the Project, it must provide reasonable assurance9/ that the Project meets the requirements of rule 62-330.301.10/ Water Quantity, Storage, Conveyance, and Flooding Impacts The entire Project, as proposed, will be constructed waterward of the mean high water line and will consist of mooring piles, piling-supported docks, and floating docks. These structures will not affect, impound, store, divert, or impede the amount or flow of surface water. The evidence demonstrated that the Project, if constructed and operated as proposed, 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; and will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Impacts to Value of Functions Provided to Fish, Wildlife, Listed Species, and Habitat Two types of habitat exist at the Project site: salt marsh and submerged benthic habitat. The evidence established that the salt marsh at the Project site is healthy, high-quality, high-functioning salt marsh habitat. Among the functions the salt marsh provides are preservation and improvement of water quality by filtering runoff, serving as a nursery for fish species, preventing shoreline erosion, and forming the base of the estuarine food chain. The salt marsh, in combination with existing riprap at the edge of the salt marsh, forms a "living shoreline" at the Project site that helps protect the shoreline from erosion and scouring due to wave action. This living shoreline is not being removed or otherwise affected, and will remain in place at the Project site. The submerged benthic sediment at the Project site consists of high organic silts and a sand base. The evidence established that the benthic sediment provides habitat for infauna, such as polychaete worms; and for epifauna, such as shrimp, crabs, and mollusks. No submerged aquatic vegetation or oyster bars were found at the Project site. Docks A and B consist of extensions that will be added to two existing docks that previously were constructed through the salt marsh. These extensions will be constructed four feet above the marsh floor to reduce shading, using minimally- impactful construction techniques, discussed above, to help avoid and minimize construction impacts to the marsh. The floating components of docks A and B will not have any impact on the salt marsh habitat. Dock C will be constructed waterward of Lot 9, across a very small section of salt marsh grass. It also will be elevated four feet above the marsh floor to reduce shading, and will be constructed using the same minimally-impactful technique, to avoid and minimize impacts to the marsh. Because Dock C will have only de minimis impacts on the salt marsh, no mitigation has been required. The Consolidated Authorization contains conditions requiring Workboats to avoid impacts to emergent grasses during construction and operation of the Project, and prohibiting Workboats from storing or stockpiling tools, equipment, materials, and debris within wetlands. These conditions will help ensure that the Project will have only minimal impacts on the salt marsh habitat at the Project site. The Consolidated Authorization contains a specific condition requiring maintenance of a minimum 12-inch clearance between the deepest draft of the vessel, with the motor in the down position, and the top of submerged resources for all vessels that will use the docking facility. Additionally, the construction of mooring areas over submerged grass beds is prohibited. These conditions will help protect benthic habitat at the Project site. The Florida Manatee is the only listed species that inhabits the Project site. Video evidence presented by the City showed manatees present at, and in the vicinity of, the Project site. The Project is located in an area designated, in the most recent Duval County Manatee Protection Plan (November 2017) ("MPP"), as "preferred" for boat facility siting. Boating facilities located in designated "preferred" areas generally do not have any limits on the number of slips at the facility. "Preferred" boat facility siting areas were designated in the MPP based on many factors, including manatee abundance, presence of manatee feeding habitat, proximity to boating destinations, manatee mortality in the area, existing boating slip numbers and locations, boating facility type and number, and existence of speed zones. To protect manatees in the Back Channel, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ("FWC") has, by rule, established a slow speed, minimum wake zone extending 300 feet from the shorelines into the Back Channel. A slow speed, minimum wake zone means that a vessel must be fully off-plane and completely settled into the water, proceeding at a speed which is reasonable and prudent under the prevailing circumstances so as to avoid the creation of an excessive wake or other hazardous condition which endangers or is likely to endanger other persons using the waterway.11/ Fla. Admin. Code R. 68C-22.02(4). The existence and enforcement of this speed zone will help protect manatees in the Back Channel. Conditions also have been included in the Consolidated Authorization to help protect manatees from impacts from the Project. As previously discussed, for each vessel, a minimum 12-inch clearance between the deepest draft with the motor down, and the top of the submerged resources at mean low water, must be maintained. This condition will help ensure that manatees do not become trapped under or crushed by a vessel while moored in the Lease area. Additionally, bumpers or fenders must be installed and maintained to provide at least three feet of separation between moored vessels and between the docks/mooring piles and vessels, to help prevent trapping or crushing of manatees. The Consolidated Authorization also requires the Project to be constructed and operated in accordance with the Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work. These conditions include: instructing all personnel, including construction personnel, about the presence of manatees and manatee speed zones, and the need to avoid collisions with and injury to manatees, as well as about civil and criminal penalties imposed for harming, harassing, or killing manatees; operating all vessels associated with construction of the Project at "idle speed/no wake" at all times in the vicinity of the Project and where the draft of the vessel provides less than a four-foot clearance from the bottom; the requirement that all in-water operations, including vessels, must shut down if a manatee comes within 50 feet of the operation and cannot resume until the manatee either moves beyond the 50-foot radius of the operation or 30 minutes has elapsed and the manatee has not reappeared within 50 feet of the operation; the installation of specified temporary signage; and the installation of specified permanent signage. The inclusion of these conditions in the Consolidated Authorization provides reasonable assurance that the construction and operation of the Project will not adversely affect the value of functions provided to fish, wildlife, or listed species and their habitats. Water Quality Impacts As previously noted, the St. Johns River, including the Back Channel, is a Class III waterbody. Accordingly, the surface water quality standards and criteria applicable to Class III waters in Florida codified in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300 apply to the Back Channel. The Back Channel portion of the St. Johns River has been identified as impaired for lead, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-303. The credible, persuasive evidence demonstrates that the Project, if constructed and operated in accordance with the conditions currently included in the Consolidated Authorization along with additional conditions discussed below, will not cause or contribute to water quality violations. Specifically, the Project will be required to install and maintain turbidity barriers during the construction phase to help ensure that any sediment disturbed during construction does not cause or contribute to water quality violations. Additionally, as discussed above, a minimum 12-inch clearance between the deepest draft of each vessel, with the motor down, and the top of the submerged resources at mean low water must be maintained. This will help prevent the suspension of sediments, and any constituents in those sediments, from being suspended in the water column and causing or contributing to water quality violations, as a result of the Project. The Consolidated Authorization also prohibits the storage or stockpiling of tools, equipment, materials, such as lumber, pilings, riprap, and debris within wetlands or other waters of the state; prohibits the discharge of construction debris into waters of the state; prohibits the overboard discharge of trash, human or animal waste and fuel at the docks; and requires all work to be done in periods of average or low water, so that impacts to submerged resources, including bottom sediment, can be avoided. Collectively, these conditions help provide reasonable assurance that the construction and operation of the Project, including the mooring and operation of vessels in the Lease area, will not violate water quality standards. White testified that, generally, the water quality in, and in the vicinity, of marinas degrades over time due to the discharge of oils, greases, and other waste; and the suspension in the water column of sediments and toxins, pesticides, herbicides, and heavy metals in those sediments, as a result of propeller dredging. However, Irwin testified that because the Project site is located in a tidally-influenced area, with an approximate 3.5-foot tide range over multiple tide changes per day, the Project site will be adequately flushed such that there will not be an accumulation of pollutants that may violate water quality standards. Based on Irwin's persuasive testimony, it is determined that water quality violations will not occur due to an accumulation of pollutants at the Project site. To further ensure that the Project will not degrade water quality or violate water quality standards at the Project site, the Consolidated Authorization requires Workboats to submit a facility management plan to address maintenance and unexpected spills of fuels and other pollutants. The facility management plan must include a spill response plan for fuel spills; a plan for maintenance of gray water collection systems and return systems, to the extent applicable; a plan addressing garbage collection and vessel cleaning systems to prevent disposal of waste in wetlands; and an education plan for all employees at the Project regarding fueling, sewage and gray water pump operations, waste management, and facility maintenance. Sewage pump-out facilities are not proposed as part of the Project. Shafnacker testified, and the Consolidated Authorization, Project Description section currently states, that domestic waste from boat heads will be handled through use of a waterless incinerating toilet (Incinolet or similar), and the remaining ash shall not be disposed of in waters of the state. However, it is noted that this requirement is not currently included as an enforceable condition. The undersigned finds that a specific condition expressly prohibiting any sewage pump-out at the docks or on vessels, requiring the use of an incinerator toilet, and prohibiting the discharged of ash waste should be included in the Consolidated Authorization to provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not violate water quality standards due to the discharge of sewage into waters of the state. The Consolidated Authorization, Project Description section, states: This permit does not authorize the installation and use of fueling equipment at the Dock; the discharge of waste into the water; liveaboards; fish cleaning or the installation of fish cleaning stations; repair and maintenance activities involving scraping, sanding, stripping, recoating, and other activities that may degrade water quality or release pollutants into Waters of the State. Major repair, reconstruction, and/or other service must be performed at a facility approved for vessel haul-out and repair. This does not preclude the light maintenance allowed under Specific Condition 18 to be performed at the facility. This language, which expressly identifies numerous activities that are prohibited in connection with the operation of the Project, is not currently included as an enforceable condition in the Consolidated Authorization. The undersigned determines that in order to protect water quality at the Project site, this language must be included as a specific condition in the Consolidated Authorization. As previously noted above, the Back Channel is impaired for lead. Both Irwin and Hallett testified that Workboats would not use lead paint or lead-containing welding equipment on the docks or vessels moored in the Lease area. To provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not constitute a source of lead that will contribute to the impaired status of the Back Channel, a specific condition prohibiting the use of lead-based paints and other sources of lead should be included as an enforceable condition in the Consolidated Authorization. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that, with the addition of the conditions discussed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70 above, Workboats has provided reasonable assurance that applicable water quality standards will not be violated as a result of construction or operation of the Project. Adverse Secondary Impacts to Water Resources Secondary impacts are impacts caused by other relevant activities very closely linked or causally related to the activity itself, rather than the direct impacts of the proposed activity itself.12/ The conditions currently included in the Consolidated Authorization, along with the conditions addressed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70 above, provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water quality. Additionally, the Project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the functions of wetlands and surface waters, aquatic or wetland-dependent species, or listed species. As discussed above, the salt marsh habitat will not be disturbed during construction and operation of the Project, and the benthic habitat will be protected by the minimum 12-inch vessel to the top of submerged resource clearance requirement discussed above. These Project features and conditions will help ensure that there are no adverse impacts to wetland functions and to aquatic or wetland-dependent species, such as fish and benthic fauna. Additionally, the Project will be located within a slow speed, minimum wake zone, and Workboats will be required to operate all of its vessels in compliance with that standard within the 300-foot buffer along the shorelines of the Back Channel. This operational constraint, along with additional manatee protection conditions discussed above, provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to manatees. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that, with the addition of the conditions addressed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70, above, Workboats has provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not have adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. Impacts to Ground and Surface Water Levels and Surface Water Flows As discussed above, the Project will be constructed waterward of the mean high water line, and will consist of piling-supported and floating docks and mooring piles that will not adversely impact the maintenance of minimum surface or ground water levels or surface water flows at the Project site. Impacts to Works of the District The Project is not proximate to any works of the district, as approved pursuant to section 373.086; accordingly, it will not cause adverse impacts to such works. Capable of Performing and Functioning as Designed The Project was designed by an engineer and will be installed by Shafnacker, who is an experienced marine contractor. The Consolidated Authorization requires that the Project must be implemented in accordance with the approved plans, specifications, and performance criteria. Within 30 days of completion of construction of the Project, Workboats must submit an as-built survey, signed and sealed by a Florida licensed Surveyor and Mapper in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61G17-7, depicting the boundaries of the Lease, and showing the size and dimensions of all existing overwater structures and activities within the Lease area. Additionally, the surveyor must provide a statement that all of the depicted structures and activities are located within the Lease area; or identify, and depict on an as-built survey, any structures or activities outside of the Lease area. These requirements will ensure that the Project performs and functions as designed. Financial, Legal, and Administrative Capability Rule 62-330.301(1)(j) requires an applicant for an environmental resource permit to provide reasonable assurance that the project will be conducted with a person having the financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit.13/ The Environmental Resource Permit Applicant's Handbook, Volume I (General and Environmental) ("Handbook"), section 1.5.1., which provides further guidance regarding compliance with the requirement in rule 62-330.301(1)(j), states that "[c]ompliance with this requirement must be demonstrated through subsections 62-330.060(3) and (4), the certification required in the Application Form 62-330.060(1), and section 12.0 of the Handbook." As part of the Application, Workboats submitted copies of warranty deeds for lots 6, 7, and 8, and Disclaimer No. 22146 for Lot 9. These documents establish that Shafnacker holds title to the uplands on lots 6 through 9 and to certain submerged lands waterward of Lot 9. Pursuant to Handbook section 4.2.3, these documents satisfy the "sufficient upland interest" requirement in rules 62.330.060(3) and 62- 330.301(1)(j). Rule 62-330.060(3) also requires the applicant and/or the applicant's agent to sign specific parts of the application. Here, Workboats, and Shafnacker, as Workboats' agent, signed the pertinent portions of the Application, as required by this rule. Rule 62-330.060(4) and pertinent provisions of section 12.0 of the Handbook——specifically, provisions in sections 12.1 and 12.2——require that once construction of the permitted activity is complete, it must be converted to the operational phase by submitting an as-built certification and request for conversion to operational phase. Here, the Consolidated Authorization for the Project requires submittal of this form, once construction is complete, as a condition for operation of the Project. These are the only rules and Handbook provisions regarding demonstration of financial, legal, and administrative capability that are pertinent to the Project. No other environmental resource permitting rules or Handbook provisions impose any other requirements regarding financial capability, and the City has not identified any case law or other statutes or rules imposing additional pertinent financial capability requirements. Thus, the evidence establishes that Workboats meets rule 62-330.301(1)(j) and all other pertinent rules and Handbook requirements, showing it has the financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure the Project will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Consolidated Authorization. The City did not present any evidence to show that Workboats lacks the financial, legal, and administrative capability to undertake the Project as permitted. Compliance with Rule 62-330.302 For Workboats to be entitled to issuance of the environmental resource permit for the Project, it also must provide reasonable assurance that the Project meets the requirements of rule 62-330.302,14/ which establishes additional standards for issuance of environmental resource permits for activities in surface waters or wetlands. Adverse Effects to Public Health, Safety, or Welfare, or Property of Others In determining whether a proposed activity in surface waters or wetlands would adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, or the property of others, the focus is on environmental hazards or injuries that may result from the proposed activity.15/ Thus, alleged threats to personal safety and enjoyment of neighboring property resulting from alleged unlawful activities on the upland areas of lots 6, 7, and 916/—— which are not part of the Project——are not appropriately considered as part of the public interest determination under rule 62-330.302. As discussed above, the Consolidated Authorization contains conditions aimed at ensuring that water quality is not degraded and water quality standards are not violated due to the Project. These conditions, along with conditions addressed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70, above, provide reasonable assurance that the public health, safety and welfare, and property of others will not be adversely affected as a result of water quality degradation or violations. The Project, as designed and approved, will have 25-foot setbacks from the eastern and western riparian rights lines for lots 6 through 9. These setbacks will help ensure that the construction and operation of the Project will not interfere with the adjoining properties' riparian rights. The City presented the testimony of O'Connor, who opined that some of Workboats' vessels, operated at full throttle, were capable of generating a wake as high as three feet. O'Connor testified that a wake of this height could damage docks along the shoreline of the Back Channel, cause shoreline erosion, and create a safety hazard for recreational boaters, kayakers, and others engaged in in-water recreational activities. As discussed above, the Back Channel is approximately 1,300 feet wide at the Project site. Per the location map provided as part of the specific purpose survey, the portion of the Back Channel east of the Project site is at least this wide for its entire length. Shafnacker testified, credibly, that his vessels typically operate closer to the Blount Island shoreline than the northern shoreline of the Back Channel, so are approximately 800 feet away from the northern shoreline where the residential docks and access points for boaters, kayakers, and other recreational uses are located. Additionally, Shafnacker credibly testified that Workboats' boats and barges would be operated at speeds such that the highest wake that any of his vessels would generate is two feet. Based on the foregoing, and with the inclusion in the Consolidated Authorization of the conditions addressed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70, above, Workboats has provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare, and property of others. Adverse Effects to Conservation of Fish, Wildlife, Listed Species, and their Habitats As previously discussed, the Consolidated Authorization requires Workboats to avoid impacts to emergent grasses during construction and operation of the Project, and prohibits Workboats from storing or stockpiling tools, equipment, materials, and debris within wetlands. These conditions will help ensure that the Project will have minimal impact on the salt marsh habitat at the Project site. The Consolidated Authorization also contains a condition prohibiting the construction of mooring areas over submerged grass beds. This, along with the condition requiring a minimum 12-inch clearance between vessel bottom and submerged resources, will help protect the benthic habitat at the Project site. Additionally, the Consolidated Authorization imposes conditions to protect manatees from impacts due to the Project. Specifically, bumpers or fenders must be installed and maintained to provide at least three feet of separation between docks or mooring piles and vessels, and between vessels, and a minimum 12-inch clearance between the deepest draft of the vessel and the top of the submerged resources at mean low water must be maintained. The Project also must be constructed and operated in accordance with the FWC's Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work, which imposes construction and operational requirements to protect manatees for the life of the Project. The inclusion of these conditions in the Consolidated Authorization provides reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including threatened species and their habitats. Adverse Effects to Navigation, Flow of Water, or Shoaling The Back Channel is navigable, and is over 1,300 feet wide at the point at which the Project is proposed to be located. It is used by a mix of recreational vessels and commercial and industrial vessels, although, as noted above, the low-clearance bridges on the western end of Blount Island effectively limit the commercial and industrial traffic to smaller-sized vessels. As depicted on the specific purpose survey submitted as part of the Application, the southern boundary of the Lease extends waterward approximately 196 feet from the shoreline at the eastern boundary of the Lease, and approximately 174 feet from the shoreline at the western boundary of the Lease. Thus, at its most waterward point, the preempted area of the Lease will extend waterward approximately 14 percent of the width of the Back Channel.17/ The specific purpose survey shows docks A and C extending waterward approximately 60 feet from the shoreline, and shows Dock B extending waterward approximately 45 feet from the shoreline.18/ The three three-pile dolphins, which will be used to moor the largest barges, will be set back approximately 38 feet from the southern boundary of the Lease. Shafnacker testified that barges moored at the three-pile mooring dolphins will be tied between the dolphins, by ropes at their bows and sterns, to ensure that they do not drift out of the Lease area and create a navigational hazard. The Consolidated Authorization contains a condition requiring the waterward ends of the docks and the mooring dolphins to be marked by reflectors so as to be visible from the water at night by reflected light. However, at the hearing, Shafnacker testified that he intended to mark the dolphins and barges with solar battery-powered lights so that they would be more visible at night than if only reflectors are used. Based on this testimony, it is recommended that Specific Condition No. 13 in the Consolidated Authorization be modified to require the barges and mooring dolphins to be marked by lights, as well as reflectors, to make them more visible from the water. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that the Project, as proposed, will not adversely impact navigation in the Back Channel. Specifically, the Lease will not extend a significant distance out into the Back Channel; approximately 86 percent of the width of the Back Channel at the Project site remains open for navigation by the public. Additionally, the docks will be located relatively close to the shoreline, well within the Lease preempted area, and will be marked so that they are visible from the water. The mooring dolphins also will be set back a substantial distance from the Lease boundary and will be marked so as to be visible from the water. The evidence shows that the Project will not have any adverse effects on the flow of water. As discussed above, the Project will not impede, impound, or otherwise affect the flow of water. The evidence also shows that the Project will not cause harmful shoaling or erosion. No dredging or placement of dredged spoil is proposed or authorized as part of the project, and the Consolidated Authorization requires Workboats to use silt fencing and other specified best management practices to stabilize the sediment and prevent erosion and shoaling during construction of the Project. For these reasons, it is determined that the Project will not adversely impact navigation in the Back Channel, will not adversely affect the flow of water, and will not result in harmful shoaling or erosion. Adverse Effects to Fishing, Recreational Values, or Marine Productivity The Back Channel is a meander of the St. Johns River that no longer is used as the main navigational channel for the river. Thus, it is relatively calm and is extensively used for boating, kayaking, swimming, fishing, jet skiing, and other in- water recreational activities. The evidence establishes that the Project will not adversely affect fishing, recreational values, or marine productivity in the vicinity. The salt marsh habitat in the vicinity of the Project, which serves as the base of the estuarine food chain and as a nursery and refuge for small fish, will not be disturbed during construction of the Project. As such, the Project will not adversely affect fish habitat or marine productivity. Additionally, because the Project will be constructed within the boundaries of the Lease and set back 25 feet from the riparian lines for the adjoining properties, it will not physically interfere with or displace fishing activities from those properties, or from any other property in the vicinity. The Consolidated Authorization imposes conditions to protect water quality during construction and operation of the Project. These conditions, and the additional conditions, discussed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70, above, will protect water quality, and therefore help protect fish habitat and marine productivity. The credible evidence establishes that vessel operation associated with the Project will not adversely affect boating, kayaking, fishing, or other recreational activities in the vicinity. As discussed above, the Project is located in a slow speed, minimum wake zone that extends 300 feet from the shoreline into the Back Channel, and all vessels traversing into and out of the Lease area must operate at this speed until they are beyond 300 feet from the shorelines. Additionally, Shafnacker credibly testified that once out of the 300-foot slow speed, minimum wake zone, the vessels will operate at speeds such that they will generate a wake of two feet, at most. The evidence showed that wakes of this height are not anticipated to adversely affect recreational activities in the Back Channel. Temporary or Permanent Activity The Project will be permanent. However, the evidence establishes that there are numerous permanent docking facilities along the northern shoreline of the Back Channel, so the Project is not unique in that regard. Adverse Impacts to Significant Historical or Archaeological Resources The Department of State, Division of Historical Resources ("DHR"), did not provide any comments indicating that significant historical or archaeological resources are anticipated to be present at the Project site, and no evidence was presented showing that the Project would have any adverse impacts to such resources. As a precaution, the Consolidated Authorization contains a specific condition requiring Workboats to immediately cease all activities involving subsurface disturbance and to contact DHR if any prehistoric or historic artifacts, such as pottery or ceramics, project points, dugout canoes, metal implements, historic building materials, or any other physical remains that could be associated with Native American, early European, or American settlements are encountered at any time within the Project site. Accordingly, it is determined that the Project will not adversely affect significant historical or archaeological resources. Current Condition and Relative Value of Functions The salt marsh wetlands in the vicinity of the Project are healthy, high-functioning, and part of a "living shoreline" that will not be disturbed by construction or operation of the Project. Although Dock C will be constructed across a very small patch of salt marsh, it will be elevated to reduce shading and will be constructed using minimally-impactful construction techniques. Any impacts to the salt marsh from the Project will be de minimis. The Project is also not anticipated to adversely affect the condition and relative value of the benthic habitat on the Project site. As discussed above, the Consolidated Authorization imposes a minimum 12-inch clearance from vessel bottom to top of submerged resources requirement, which will help prevent physical impact to, and propeller dredging of, the benthic habitat at the Project site. Conditions in the Consolidated Authorization, as well as the conditions addressed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70, above, also will help protect the current condition and relative value of the salt marsh and benthic habitat on the Project site. Unacceptable Cumulative Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters With the conditions currently contained in the Consolidated Authorization, along with the conditions addressed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70, above, the Project is not anticipated to have adverse water quality impacts. Additionally, as discussed above, the Project is not anticipated to cause adverse impacts to fish, wildlife, protected species, and their habitat. Therefore, with the inclusion of the conditions discussed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70, above, reasonable assurance has been provided that the Project will not have unacceptable cumulative impacts, in violation of rule 62- 330.302(1)(b). Past Violations of Water and Wetlands Statutes and Rules The City presented evidence consisting of videos and photographs taken from the Wood residence immediately east of Lot 9. These videos and photographs show a variety of activities that are potentially damaging to surface waters and wetlands, including dumping sediment into surface waters from a moored vessel; earthmoving; moving floating docks onto, and off of, the shoreline using heavy equipment; operating heavy equipment in wetlands and surface waters along the shoreline; and mooring boats in extremely shallow water. Wood testified, credibly, that he contacted DEP numerous times, and that DEP occasionally visited Shafnacker's property——typically days after Wood had contacted the agency. Upon inspecting the Workboats site, DEP determined that barges or other equipment or materials had been dragged onto the shoreline without proper authorization, and DEP issued a compliance assistance offer letter to address this noncompliance. DEP ultimately determined that, rather than taking enforcement action for this noncompliance, a salt marsh restoration corrective action requirement should be included in the Consolidated Authorization. The corrective action conditions require Workboats to submit a salt marsh restoration plan and impose restoration plan completion timeframes, success criteria, and monitoring requirements. Given Workboats' noncompliance history, the undersigned determines that in order to provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not violate environmental resource permitting statutes and rules, the conditions addressed above in paragraphs 35, 68, 69, and 70, above, must be included as enforceable conditions in the Consolidated Authorization. Compliance with Chapter 18-21 for Issuance of the Lease For Workboats to be entitled to issuance of the Lease, it must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it will meet the applicable requirements and standards codified in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 18-21 for issuance of a sovereignty submerged lands lease. Water Dependent Activities Rule 18-21.004(1)(g) requires activities on sovereignty submerged lands to be limited to those that are water dependent. A "water dependent activity" is one that can only be conducted in, on, over, or adjacent to water areas because the activity requires direct access to the water body or sovereignty submerged lands for specified activities, including recreation, and where the use of water or sovereignty submerged lands is an integral part of the activity. Fla. Admin. Code R. 18- 21.003(71). The Project's proposed docks, mooring piles, mooring dolphins, and vessel mooring operations are water dependent activities. The Project's primary purpose is the water dependent activity of mooring vessels and the ancillary activity of loading vessels with supplies as part of Workboats' operation. Case law interpreting Florida Administrative Code Chapter 18-21 holds that because the primary purpose of docks and other mooring structures is to moor vessels, they are "water dependent" activities for purposes of rule 18-21.004(1)(g).19/ As discussed in paragraphs 35, 68, 69, and 70, above, a condition should be included in the environmental resource permit and Lease specifically prohibiting any major repair, reconstruction, or maintenance activities within the Lease area, in order to ensure that only water dependent activities are conducted within the Lease area. Resource Management Requirements Rule 18-21.004(2)(a) requires sovereignty submerged lands to be managed primarily for the maintenance of natural conditions, propagation of fish and wildlife, and traditional recreational uses such as fishing, boating, and swimming. Additionally, the rule authorizes compatible secondary uses that will not detract from or interfere with these primary purposes. As discussed above, the evidence establishes that the Project, as proposed and conditioned in the Consolidated Authorization, will not adversely affect salt marsh or benthic habitat, will not degrade water quality or cause or contribute to water quality violations, and will not adversely affect fish, wildlife, listed species, and marine productivity. Accordingly, the Project will not detract from, or interfere, with fish and wildlife propagation. The evidence also establishes that the Project will not detract from, or interfere with, traditional recreational uses. As discussed above, the Back Channel is wide enough to accommodate vessels traveling to and from the Project site without detracting from or interfering with recreational activities conducted in the Back Channel. Additionally, vessels traveling to and from the Project site must be operated in accordance with the slow speed, minimum wake zone within the 300-foot shoreline buffer, and will be operated at speeds that will generate a maximum two-foot wake outside of the shoreline buffer. The evidence shows that these speeds will not detract from, or interfere with, traditional recreational uses in the Back Channel. The Project also has been designed, and will be operated, to minimize or eliminate wetland vegetation impacts and impacts to fish and wildlife habitat and cultural resources. Specifically, as discussed above, impacts to the salt marsh habitat have been minimized through the use of minimally- impactful construction techniques and elevating docks four feet above the marsh to reduce shading of the marsh grasses. Additionally, the 12-inch minimum vessel/submerged resource clearance condition will reduce impacts to the benthic habitat in the Lease area. As discussed above, DHR did not provide comments indicating that significant historical or archaeological resources are anticipated to be present at the Project site, and no evidence was presented showing that the Project would have any impacts to such resources. Additionally, the Consolidated Authorization contains a specific condition establishing protocol for Workboats to follow if any specified artifacts are encountered at any time within the Project site. Rule 18-21.004(7)(e) requires that construction, use, or operation of the structure or activity not adversely affect any species listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern in FWC rules. As discussed above, the Florida Manatee is the only listed species determined to be present the Project site. The Project site is located within an established slow speed, minimum wake zone, and vessels entering and leaving the Project site must comply with this speed limitation within the 300-foot shoreline buffer area. Additionally, the Consolidated Authorization includes several conditions designed to reduce and minimize potential impacts to manatees that may enter the Lease area. Collectively, these requirements and conditions will help ensure that the construction and operation of the Project will not adversely affect manatees. Riparian Rights As part of the Application, Workboats submitted deeds and Disclaimer No. 22146, demonstrating that Shafnacker holds title to lots 6, 7, 8, and 9. These documents constitute "satisfactory evidence of sufficient upland interest," as that term is defined in rule 18.21.003(60). Consistent with rule 18-21.004(3)(d), the Project is proposed to be constructed in the riparian area appurtenant to lots 6, 7, 8, and 9, and all structures that are part of the Project will be set back at least 25 feet from the eastern and western riparian lines for the upland property. No evidence was presented showing that the construction or operation of the Project would unreasonably restrict or infringe upon the riparian rights of adjacent upland owners, in violation of rule 18-21.004(3)(c). It is determined that the Project will not unreasonably infringe on or restrict the riparian rights of adjacent upland riparian owners, so meets the requirements and standards in rule 18-21.004(3) regarding riparian rights. Navigational Hazard For the reasons discussed in paragraphs 102 through 107, above, it is determined that the Project will not constitute a navigational hazard, in violation of rule 18- 21.004(7)(g). However, the inclusion of a condition requiring lighting of the mooring dolphins, discussed in paragraph 106, is recommended to ensure the Project will not constitute a navigational hazard. Lease Fees As part of the Application, Workboats submitted a financial affidavit attesting to its ability to pay the required fees for the Lease, imposed pursuant to rules 18-21.008 and 18-21.011. Not Contrary to the Public Interest Rule 18-21.004 establishes the sovereignty submerged lands management policies, standards, and criteria to be used in determining whether to approve activities on sovereignty submerged lands. The term "public interest" is defined to mean "demonstrable environmental, social, and economic benefits which would accrue to the public at large as a result of the proposed action, and which would clearly exceed all demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs of the proposed action." Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.003(51). To meet the "not contrary to the public interest" standard in rule 18-21.004(1)(a), it is not necessary that the applicant show that the activity is affirmatively in the "public interest," as that term is defined in rule 18-21.003(51). Rather, it is sufficient that the applicant show that there are few, if any, "demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs" of the proposed activity. Castoro v. Palmer, Case Nos. 96-0736, 96-5879 (Fla. DOAH Sept. 1, 1998; Fla. DEP Oct. 19, 1998). Here, the City asserts that the Lease is contrary to the public interest because it will cause adverse impacts to benthic and salt marsh habitat; discharge pollutants into the waters of the Back Channel; harm manatees; pose a navigational hazard; and detract from, and interfere with, recreational activities in the Back Channel. However, as discussed above, the evidence shows that the Project has been designed specifically to minimize many of these impacts, and the Consolidated Authorization contains conditions specifically aimed at preventing many of these alleged impacts. As discussed above, other conditions, discussed in paragraphs 68, 69, 70, 106, and 138, also should be included in the Consolidated Authorization to ensure that the Project will not cause adverse impacts to habitat resources, water quality, manatees, and navigation. Case law interpreting the public interest test in rule in 18-21.004(1)(a) applicable to proprietary approvals holds that when proposed structures or activities meet the applicable standards and criteria in chapter 18-21, those structures or activities are presumed to be not contrary to the public interest. See Spinrad v. Guerro and Dep't of Envtl. Prot., Case No. 13-2254 (Fla. DOAH July 25, 2014), modified in part, Case No. 13-0858 (Fla. DEP Sept. 8, 2014); Haskett v. Rosati and Dep't of Envtl. Prot., Case No. 13-0465 (Fla. DOAH July 31, 2013), modified in part, Case No. 13-0040 (Fla. DEP Oct. 29, 2013). Here, Workboats has demonstrated that the Project meets all applicable standards and criteria in chapter 18-21; thus, the Project is presumed to be not contrary to the public interest under rule 18-21.004(1)(a).20/ The City did not present persuasive evidence showing that, on balance, the demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs of the Project exceed the demonstrable environmental, social, and economic benefits accruing to the public.21/ Accordingly, it is determined that the Project meets the public interest test in rule 18- 21.004(1)(a). Entitlement to Environmental Resource Permit Workboats met its burden under section 120.569(2)(p) to present a prima facie case of entitlement to the environmental resource permit by entering into evidence the Application, Notice of Intent, Consolidated Authorization, and supporting information. Workboats also presented credible, competent, and substantial evidence beyond that required to meet its burden to demonstrate prima facie entitlement to the environmental resource permit. The burden then shifted to the City to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that the Project does not comply with sections 373.413 and 373.414 and applicable environmental resource permitting rules. For the reasons discussed above, it is determined that the City did not meet its burden of persuasion under section 120.569(2)(p). Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, it is determined that, with the inclusion of conditions in the Consolidated Authorization addressed in paragraphs 35, 68, 69, 70, and 106, above, Workboats meets all applicable requirements for issuance of the environmental resource permit for the Project. Entitlement to Lease As discussed above, Workboats bore the burden of proof in this proceeding to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Project meets all applicable statutory and rule requirements for issuance of the Lease. For the reasons discussed above, it is determined that Workboats met this burden, and, therefore, is entitled to issuance of the Lease for the Project. The City's Standing As previously noted, the City is a consolidated municipality and county political subdivision of the State of Florida. The Project is located within the geographic boundary of the City. On or about July 26, 2018, the Council of the City of Jacksonville, Florida, adopted Resolution 2018-499-A, finding that issuance of the environmental resource permit and Lease affects the substantial interests of a significant number of residents in Duval County. The City initiated this proceeding by filing its Petition with DEP on August 17, 2018, alleging that the Project will have the effect of impairing, polluting, or otherwise injuring the air, water, or other natural resources of the state.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order approving the issuance of Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Recommended Intent to Grant Sovereignty Submerged Lands Authorization, Permit No. 16-0345934-003-EI, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Consolidated Notice of Intent and attached draft amended Permit No. 16-0345934-003-EI, as modified to include the conditions addressed in paragraphs 35, 68, 69, 70, 106, and 137, above. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 1st day of March, 2019.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and the Property. The Respondent, Saddlebrook Resorts, Inc. (Saddlebrook), is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Florida, and is wholly owned by the Dempsey family. Saddlebrook is located on approximately 480 acres in central Pasco County, east of I-75 and south of State Road 54. The Petitioner, Wiregrass Ranch, Inc. (Wiregrass) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Florida, and is wholly owned by the Porter family ("the Porters"). Wiregrass owns approximately 5,000 acres of property which extends from Saddlebrook west approximately one mile to State Road 581 and south for approximately four miles. The Respondent, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), is a political subdivision created pursuant to Chapter 61-691, Laws of Florida, which exists and operates under the Water Resources Act, Fla. Stat., Ch. 373. SWFWMD is charged with regulating, among other things, surface water management systems in Pasco County. Saddlebrook discharges surface water onto Wiregrass at two locations on the southern and western boundaries of Saddlebrook, known as the south outfall and the west outfall. Saddlebrook's property is part of a drainage basin totalling approximately 1400 acres that contributes runoff to Wiregrass' property. Until approximately 1973, the Saddlebrook property was undeveloped and owned by the Porters. In approximately 1973, the Porters sold the Saddlebrook property to the Refram family, which began developing the property. In approximately 1979, Saddlebrook acquired the property from the Reframs. The Saddlebrook property includes residential development, a conference center, and golf course and tennis facilities. Wiregrass' property, which is largely undeveloped and used for ranching, consists of pine-palmetto flatwoods, wetland strands, isolated wetlands, and improved pastures. The Porters' Civil Action Against Saddlebrook. The Porters instituted a civil action against Saddlebrook, Porter, et al. v. Saddlebrook Resorts, Inc., Case No. CA 83-1860, in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Pasco County, complaining that post-development discharges from Saddlebrook exceed pre-development discharges. In the civil litigation, the Porters contended that Saddlebrook's peak flow discharges should be returned to pre-development, or 1973, levels. A primary purpose of Saddlebrook's proposed redesign is to return peak flow discharges to those levels that existed in 1973, in response to the Porters' complaints in the civil action. Saddlebrook's current surface water management system is deemed by SWFWMD to be in compliance with Rule 40D-4, and SWFWMD's regulations do not require redesign or modification of the current system. Prior to Saddlebrook's submission of its application, SWFWMD advised Saddlebrook that, because Rule 40D-4 became effective on October 1, 1984, SWFWMD considered that date to be the "pre-development" condition for purposes of evaluating Saddlebrook's discharges. Saddlebrook requested that SWFWMD evaluate its application using 1973 as the pre-development condition. SWFWMD advised Saddlebrook that it would apply 1973 as the pre-development condition if the Porters consented. By letter from the Porters' counsel to SWFWMD dated January 31, 1990, the Porters provided their express consent to SWFWMD's use of 1973 as the pre- development date for purposes of evaluating those discharges relevant to Saddlebrook's MSSW permit application. Saddlebrook's MSSW Permit Application. On or about February 8, 1990, Saddlebrook submitted its application for MSSW permit no. 497318.00, seeking SWFWMD's conceptual approval of the redesign of Saddlebrook's surface water management system. The proposed redesign calls for modification of most of the existing drainage control structures at Saddlebrook and installation of new control structures at several locations, including the south and west outfalls. After submission of its initial application, Saddlebrook made various subsequent submittals in response to SWFWMD requests for additional information. Saddlebrook's response to SWFWMD's requests culminated in final submittals on March 7, 1991 and April 5, 1991. In its various submittals, Saddlebrook provided, among other things, detailed descriptions of all proposed modifications to its drainage system, engineering reports, and computerized flood-routing analyses of runoff from Saddlebrook under pre-development (1973) and post-modification conditions. Saddlebrook provided all information requested, and SWFWMD thereafter deemed its application complete. SWFWMD's Review of Saddlebrook's Application. In the fifteen months following Saddlwbrook's initial February, 1990, submittal, SWFWMD conducted an intensive review of the application. During the course of this review, SWFWMD staff performed numerous field inspections, made an independent determination of all input data to the computer analyses of Saddlebrook's discharges, and made six separate formal requests for additional information. SWFWMD's requests for additional information required, among other things, that Saddlebrook modify various input data and rerun its computer analyses of discharges under the pre-development and post-modification conditions. In addition, SWFWMD required Saddlebrook to perform computer modelling analyses of discharges from Wiregrass' property onto the property of downstream landowners. Because, unlike the Porters, these downstream owners had not provided consent to use 1973 as the relevant pre-development date, SWFWMD required Saddlebrook to model this downstream discharge using a "pre- development" date of 1984. SWFWMD performed its standard review procedures in connection with Saddlebrooks' application. In addition, SWFWMD also performed its own computer-modelling analyses of Saddlebrook's discharges. This modelling was based on input data independently collected by SWFWMD staff in the field and from other sources. SWFWMD staff also met with the Porters' hydrologist, Dr. Gerald Seaburn, and thoroughly reviewed concerns he expressed in connection with Saddlebrook's application. In addressing these concerns, SWFWMD performed additional work, including conferring with an independent soils expert, performing additional field inspections, and modifying the SWFWMD computer modelling analyses based on alternative input parameters suggested by Dr. Seaburn. In reviewing Saddlebrook's application, SWFWMD applied the design and performance criteria set forth in its "Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications" ("Basis of Review"), which is incorporated by reference in F.A.C. Rule Chapter 40D-4. Based upon its review of Saddlebrook's application, SWFWMD concluded that Saddlebrook had demonstrated compliance with the design and performance criteria set forth in SWFWMD's Basis of Review and the conditions for permit issuance under F.A.C. Rule 40D-4.301. By a Staff Report dated April 29, 1991, and Notice of Proposed Agency Action dated May 3, 1991, SWFWMD recommended approval of Saddlebrook's application. Compliance With SWFWMD Permitting Criteria. The design and performance criteria for MSSW permitting set forth in SWFWMD's Basis of Review fall into four categories: (1) water quantity, in terms of peak flow discharges for projects, like Saddlebrook's, located in open drainage basins; (2) flood protection; (3) water quality; and (4) wetlands impacts. Water Quantity. Under the Basis of Review's water quantity standards, SWFWMD requires that projected peak flow discharges during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event under the proposed system be reasonably similar to peak flow discharges under the pre- development condition. The evidence presented at the formal hearing demonstrated that Saddlebrook's application satisfies SWFWMD's water-quantity standards. This evidence demonstrated that peak flow discharges during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event under the proposed system will be less than, but reasonably similar to, pre-development (1973) peak flow discharges. The evidence presented at the formal hearing also demonstrated that, under the proposed system, peak flow discharges during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event from Wiregrass' property onto downstream landowners will be less than, but reasonably similar to, 1984 peak flow discharges. The evidence presented by Saddlebrook further demonstrated that storage will be increased under the proposed redesign versus the pre- development, 1973 condition. On Saddlebrook's property, there will be approximately 35 percent more storage than existed in 1973, and the total storage for Saddlebrook and the contributing drainage basin upstream of Saddlebrook will be increased by approximately 15 percent over that existing in 1973. Flood Protection. Under the flood-protection standards of the Basis of Review, SWFWMD requires that the applicant demonstrate that under the proposed condition the lower floor of all residential and other buildings on-site, and in areas affected by the site, will be above the 100-year flood elevation. SWFWMD also requires that there be no net encroachment into the flood plain, up to that encompassed by the 100-year event, which will adversely affect conveyance, storage, water quality or adjacent lands. The evidence presented at the formal hearing demonstrated that Saddlebrook's application satisfies SWFWMD's flood-protection standards. The testimony of Mr. Fuxan and Wiregrass' related exhibit, Ranch Ex. 35, purporting to show that in a 25-year, 24-hour storm Saddlebrook's proposed redesign will "flood the [Saddlebrook perimeter] roads and just sheet flow onto the Porter property" is not accurate. As part of its redesign, Saddlebrook will construct an additional berm along the southwestern and southern perimeters of its property. This berm will detain water on Saddlebrook's property during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event and prevent it from "sheet-flowing" onto the Wiregrass property. Water Quality. Under the water-quality standards of the Basis of Review, SWFWMD requires, for systems like Saddlebrook's involving wet detention and isolated wetlands, that the applicant provide sufficient storage to treat one inch of runoff from the basins contributing runoff to the site. This volume must be discharged in no less than 120 hours, with no more than one-half of the volume being discharged within the first 60 hours. The evidence presented at the formal hearing demonstrated that Saddlebrook's application satisfies SWFWMD's water-quality standards. Wetland Impacts. Under the wetland-impacts standards of the Basis of Review, SWFWMD requires that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that the proposed system will not adversely impact on-site and downstream wetlands. The evidence presented at the formal hearing demonstrated that Saddlebrook has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed redesign will cause no adverse impacts to on-site wetlands. Saddlebrook's proposed redesign will impact only approximately .167 acres of on-site wetlands, for which Saddlebrook will fully mitigate by creating .174 acres of forested wetlands and buffer area. The evidence presented at the formal hearing also demonstrated that Saddlebrook has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed redesign will cause no adverse impacts to off-site wetlands. Reasonable assurance that off- site wetlands will not be adversely impacted was demonstrated by, among other things, evidence establishing that: (1) discharge points will not change under the proposed condition; (2) discharge elevations will be reasonably similar under the proposed condition; (3) there will be no significant variation in the water fluctuations in the wetlands adjacent to the south and west outfalls as a result of the proposed condition; (4) the drainage basin areas will be reasonably similar under the proposed condition; and (5) the proposed redesign will satisfy SWFWMD's water quality requirements. Wiregrass' Petition. In its Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing, Wiregrass focused primarily on water quality issues and stormwater runoff rates (or peak flow discharges), alleging the following "ultimate facts" which it claimed "entitle [it] to relief": The application, as submitted, contains insufficient storage to meet water quality criteria. The application, as submitted, will result in storage volumes on the project site which will not be recovered within 72 hours [sic] as required by the DISTRICT criteria. The application, as submitted, contains calculations based on erroneous hydraulic gradients. The application, as submitted, will result in storage volumes insufficient to meet water quality criteria as required by DISTRICT criteria. Post development stormwater runoff rates are underestimated in the application, resulting in system design with insufficient retention storage capacity to meet the DISTRICT's water quantity criteria. The failure to store stormwater or irrigation runoff impacts the substantial interest of the RANCH in that it deprives it of groundwater resources necessary for the successful operation of the ranch. Further, the lack of storage of stormwater and irrigation water is a prohibited waste of the water resources. At the formal hearing, Wiregrass presented no evidence to support any of the foregoing allegations of its Petition. Objections Raised by Wiregrass At The Hearing. At the final hearing, Wiregrass' opposition to Saddlebrook's permit application focused on three different grounds: For purposes of evaluating peak flow discharges, SWFWMD does not have jurisdiction to use a pre-development date prior to October 1, 1984. Under F.A.C. Rule 40D-4.301(1)(i), which provides that an applicant must give reasonable assurance that the surface water management systems "is consistent with the requirements of other public agencies," SWFWMD must apply not only its own permitting criteria but also those of other governmental entities, including county planning ordinan Under F.A.C. Rule 40D-4.301(1)(b), which provides that a permit application must give reasonable assurances that the surface water management system "will not cause adverse water . . . quantity impacts", SWFWMD must consider whether the annual volume of runoff will increase as a result of the proposed surface water management system. None of the foregoing objections was raised in Wiregrass' Petition as a basis for denying Saddlebrook's application. (Annual volume was alluded to in the Petition only as being pertinent to the question of Wiregrass' "substantial interest" for purposes of standing.) In any event, for the reasons set forth below, each of these objections was refuted by the evidence presented at the formal hearing. The 1973 Pre-Development Date. In their civil action against Saddlebrook, the Porters took the position that Saddlebrook's surface water management system should be redesigned so that discharges approximate those levels existing in 1973, before development of the Saddlebrook property. Dr. Gerald Seaburn, a hydrologist retained by the Porters, testified in the civil action that 1973 is the appropriate pre-development date for purposes of evaluating Saddlebrook's peak flow discharges. David Fuxan, a civil engineer retained by the Porters, took the position in the civil action that Saddlebrook should modify its surface water management system so as to return peak flow discharges to 1973 levels. At the formal hearing in this proceeding, Mr. Fuxan testified that it is still his position that Saddlebrook should modify its surface water management system so as to return peak flow discharges to 1973 levels. By letter from the Porters' counsel to SWFWMD dated January 31, 1990, the Porters provided their express consent to SWFWMD's use of 1973 as the pre- development date for evaluating those discharges relevant to Saddlebrook's MSSW permit application. Use of a 1984 "pre-development" date would prevent Saddlebrook from making the modifications the Porters claim in the civil litigation that it must make. Saddlebrook's existing system, about which the Porters complain in the civil litigation, is in all material respects the same system that was in place on October 1, 1984. Use of this existing system as the benchmark of comparison for attenuation of peak flows, therefore, would mean that substantial modifications to the existing system could not be made without substantially increasing retention storage on Saddlebrook. Substantially increasing retention storage on Saddlebrook is not possible due to the high water table and proximity of the lower aquifer. See Finding of Fact 70, below. In addition, a primary claim of the Porters in the civil action is that duration of flow under Saddlebrook's existing system exceeds 1973 levels and has resulted in expanded wetlands on the Porter property. But duration of flow and peak flow discharges are inversely related: duration of flow can be decreased only if peak flow discharges are increased. Accordingly, the only way that Saddlebrook can reduce the duration of flow onto Wiregrass to 1973 levels, as the Porters have demanded, other than increasing retention storage on Saddlebrook, is to return peak flow discharges to 1973 levels. Other Governmental Agencies' Requirements. F.A.C. Rule 40D-4.301(1)(i) provides that a permit applicant must give reasonable assurance that the surface water management system "is consistent with the requirements of other public agencies." SWFWMD has consistently interpreted this provision to be "advisory", i.e., to apprise applicants that they must also comply with other applicable laws and that issuance of an MSSW permit by the District does not relieve them of the responsibility to obtain all necessary local and other permits. SWFWMD's long-standing and consistently-applied interpretation and practice is not to require applicants to prove compliance with the regulations of other govermental agencies in order to obtain an MSSW permit. There are two primary reasons for this interpretation and practice. First, the Southwest Florida Water Management District includes 16 counties and 96 municipalities. In addition, other state and various federal agencies have jurisdiction within its territory. It is impracticable for SWFWMD to become familiar with, and to apply, the permitting and other regulations of more than 100 other agencies. Second, SWFWMD has concluded that, under Part 4 of Secton 373 of the Flordia Statutes, it does not have authority to deny a permit application based on its interpretation of another governmental agency's regulations. In any event, the evidence demonstrates that Saddlebrook has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed redesign will be "consistent with the requirements of other public agencies" as provided in F.A.C. Rule 40D- 4.301(1)(i). Limiting Condition No. 3 of the proposed permit requires that Saddlebrook must comply with Pasco County and other local requirements: The Permittee shall comply with all applicable local subdivision regulations and other local requirements. In addition the permittee shall obtain all necessary Federal, State, local and special district authorizations prior to the start of any construction or alteration of works authorized by this permit. In addition, Standard Condition No.3 ensures that SWFWMD approval will not supersede any separate permitting or other requirements imposed by Pasco County: The issuance of this permit does not . . . authorize any . . . infringement of federal, state or local laws or regulations. (Emphasis added.) Finally, the Pasco County ordinance upon which Wiregrass relies imposes requirements that are in substance identical to SWFWMD's with respect to MSSW permit applications. Saddlebrook's compliance with SWFWMD's regulations likewise would satisfy the substance of the requirements of the county ordinance. Annual Volume of Runoff. F.A.C. Rule 40D-4 (incorporating the Basis of Review) does not address, and SWFWMD does not regulate, the annual volume of runoff in open drainage basins. If annual volume of runoff is relevant under Rule 40D-4.301, as Wiregrass contends, that rule requires only that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that "the surface water management system" will not cause adverse quantity impacts. Saddlebrook's existing surface water management system has not caused a significant increase in the annual volume of runoff onto Wiregrass' property. The increase in the annual volume of runoff from Saddlebrook that has occurred over the pre-development 1973 condition has resulted from the urbanization of Saddlebrook's property. The increase in the annual volume of runoff from Saddlebrook over that existing prior to development (1973) is approximately 3.4 inches. This increase is only a small fraction of the natural year-to-year variation in runoff resulting from differences in rainfall alone. Rainfall can vary up to 30 inches on an annual basis, from 40 to 70 inches per year. The resulting year-to-year variations in runoff can total as much as 20 inches. The approximately 3.4 inches increase in the annual volume of runoff from Saddlebrook due to urbanization has caused no adverse impact to Wiregrass. The natural drainage system on the Wiregrass property has in the past and throughout its history received and handled increases in the annual volume of runoff of up to 20 inches due to rainfall differences. Such increases simply flow through Wiregrass' property. Of the approximately 3.4 inch increase in annual runoff due to urbanization, only approximately one-third of an inch is due to the filling in of bayheads by Saddlebrook's prior owner. This increase is insignificant and has not caused a substantial adverse impact to Wiregrass. Any reduction of storage resulting from the filling of bayheads will be more than compensated for under the proposed redesign. Storage on Saddlebrook's property will be increased by approximately 35 percent under the proposed condition over that existing in 1973, before the bayheads were filled. In open drainage basins, like Saddlebrook's, downstream flooding is a function of the rate of peak flow of discharge, not the annual volume of runoff. This is one of the reasons why, in the case of open drainage basins, SWFWMD regulates peak flow discharges and not the annual volume of runoff. Because Saddlebrook's proposed redesign will attenuate peak flow discharges to those levels that existed in the pre-devlopment 1973 condition, Saddlebrook has provided reasonable assurance that there will not be increased flooding on Wiregrass' property in the future. The evidence does not establish that Wiregrass has suffered, or will suffer, any adverse impact due to an increase in the annual volume of runoff from Saddlebrook as a result of the design, or redesign, of the system, or as a result of urbanization, or otherwise. It is not possible to design a surface water management system at Saddlebrook that would reduce the annual volume of runoff. Such a system, which involves the percolation of surface water from retention ponds into a deeper, aquifer system, requires a deep water table. At Saddlebrook, the water table is near the ground surface. As a result, it is not possible to store a significant quantity of water in retention ponds between storm events. In addition, the water levels in the deeper and the shallower aquifer systems at Saddlebrook are approximately the same and, therefore, there is insufficient hydraulic pressure to push the water through the confining layer between the two systems and into the deeper aquifer system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order granting Saddlebrook's application for surface water management permit no. 497318.00, subject to the terms and conditions in the SWFWMD Staff Report. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1992, 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 31st day of March, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-3658 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-4. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 7.-9. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. First sentence, accepted. Second sentence, rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but not necessary. 12.-13. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but not necessary. The extent of the wetland expansion is rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The rest is accepted. However, the increased volume is due in large part to urbanization, not to the surface water management system. It also is due in part to alterations to the property done by the Porters. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted. However, this would occur only during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, and there was no evidence that one has occurred or, if it has, whether Mr. Porter was there to observe it. 18.-20. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Characterization "much of" is rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that lichen lines, by themselves, are ordinarily are sufficient to set jurisdictional lines. 26.-29. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Even if it were proven that the wetlands had expanded, it was not proven, and is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, that Saddlebrook (and, especially, Saddlebrook's surface water management system) caused the expansion. First sentence, accepted but cumulative. The rest is rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. In any event, both factors are undeniably significant. 32.-34. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 39.-41. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that SWFWMD does not apply it. The evidence was that SWFWMD interprets it differently than Wiregrass proposes and applies its own interpretation. Under the SWFWMD interpretation, the permit conditions requiring compliance with other legal requirements constitute the necessary "reasonable assurance." In addition, SWFWMD's review and evaluation is not complete until this formal administrative proceeding is completed, and the Pasco County ordinance has been considered as part of this proceeding. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Again, SWFWMD's review and evaluation is not complete until this formal administrative proceeding is completed, and annual volume has been considered as part of this proceeding. That consideration has affirmed SWFWMD's position that, at least in this case, the proposed stormwater management system does not cause an increase in annual volume that would result in denial of the application. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. First sentence, accepted (although the characterization "far exceed" is imprecise) and incorporated. Second sentence, rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary that no "stipulation" was entered into. But the evidence is clear that Wiregrass, Saddlebrook and SWFWMD all agreed to the use of 1973 as the point of comparison for peak flow discharges. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact. The proposed findings of fact contained in the Proposed Recommended Order of Respondents Saddlebrook Resorts, Inc., and Southwest Florida Water Management District are accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas P. Manson, Esquire Foley & Lardner 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 3650 Tampa, Florida 33602 Stephen R. Patton, Esquire Jeffrey A. Hall, Esquire Kirkland & Ellis East Randolph Drive Chicago, Illinois 60601 Enola T. Brown, Esquire Lawson, McWhirter, Grandoff & Reeves East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 800 Post Office Box 3350 Tampa, Florida 33601-3350 Mark F. Lapp, Esquire Edward Helvenston, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD, or District) should issue a Modification to Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 11- 02055-P, Application No. 060713-9, to G.L. Homes of Naples Associates II, Ltd. (G.L. Homes, or Applicant), which authorizes modifications to the surface water management system (SWMS) for a residential development known as Saturnia Falls (the Project).
Findings Of Fact PARTIES The District is a water management district with the power and duty to exercise regulatory jurisdiction over the administration and enforcement of ERP criteria, pursuant to the provisions of Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, and Sections 373.413, 373.414, and 373.416, Florida Statutes. G.L. Homes is an entity with the administrative, legal, and financial capabilities of undertaking the activity in accordance with the terms and conditions of the 2006 ERP, meeting the criteria in Rule 40E-4.301(1)(j). The Conservancy was duly incorporated in 1966 under the laws of the State of Florida as a not for-profit corporation and has it headquarters in Collier County, Florida. G.L. Homes contests the Conservancy's assertion of "associational standing." But there is no question as to the Conservancy's "citizen standing" under Section 403.412(6), Florida Statutes. The Conservancy has approximately 6,200 members, with approximately 4,200 residing in Collier County. Twenty-five current members in good standing who reside in Collier County were identified during the hearing. The Conservancy's purpose is to "protect and sustain the natural environment of southwest Florida through advocacy, education, research, land acquisition and other lawful means." Specific purposes relevant to the subject matter of this case include: "to acquire and protect sanctuaries, greenbelts, parks, and beaches"; "to assist governing bodies to remedy present pollution and to prevent future pollution of water, air, and our waterfronts and beaches"; and "to encourage and stimulate the interests of residents and visitors to the area, to increase their knowledge of, and to promote the preservation of the southwest Florida natural environment." The Conservancy also asserts standing under Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. In furtherance of its corporate purpose, the Conservancy owns approximately 300 acres of land for preservation in Collier County, including a 46-acre parcel located on the Cocohatchee River downstream from the proposed Saturnia Falls development. The Conservancy also conducts scientific research in the waters of the Wiggins Pass Estuary downstream from the proposed Saturnia Falls development, including water quality monitoring and research on seagrass restoration. Further impacts to the water quality in the Cocohatchee River would affect the value of the Conservancy's property for conservation and would affect its interests in research in the area. These interests of the Conservancy would be adversely affected if the 2006 ERP were issued improperly. The Conservancy's assertion of "associational standing" is based on the testimony of eight of its members who engage in various recreational activities, including boating, fishing, bird-watching, nature study, and observation of wildlife. Some visit Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary and the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) to view endangered wood storks and other wildlife. Some also visit and recreate in downstream waters, such as the Wiggins Pass Estuary, for fishing, boating, or wildlife observation. These interests would be adversely affected if the 2006 ERP were issued improperly. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PERMITTING HISTORY The Project site is located one mile north of Immokalee Road, approximately 2 miles east of 1-75 and lies near the CREW lands in Collier County. The entire Project site consists of approximately 646 acres, of which 533.1 acres are wetlands. The Project has a permitting history dating back to 1997, when the previous owner, Robert Vocisano, applied to construct a development called Wildewood Lakes. The Wildewood Lakes application was denied in 1998, at least in part because wetland impacts were not reduced and eliminated to the extent practicable, and was mediated pursuant to Section 120.573, Florida Statutes. After three years of responding to additional requests for information, the application was submitted to the Governing Board for approval in May 2002. This ERP, referred to as “the 2002 ERP,” authorized the construction and operation of a SWMS to serve a residential and golf course development, discharging to the Cocohatchee Canal via a conveyance channel/Flow-way known as the Mirasol Flow-way (Flow-way). The Flow-way feature was to be built on lands owned by three different property owners, one of whom was the owner of the Terafina Project, and was intended to address flooding and storage criteria in the BOR and alleviate flooding problems in the region that resulted from previous drainage and development projects that altered the natural sheet-flow through the region to the Cocohatchee and Imperial Rivers, and on to the Gulf Coast. As reported in the Staff Report for the 2004 ERP, studies current at the time indicated that, during the initial part of the rainy season, the wetland systems in the vicinity of the proposed Flow- way carried the flow between the Corkscrew Swamp and the Cocohatchee Canal with the peak stages contained with the limits of the wetland areas. However, as the wet season progressed, the wetland vegetation impeded the conveyance of flow and resulted in elevated water stages that inundated properties adjacent to those wetlands, including portions of the eastern half of the Project. There were approximately 288 acres of direct impacts to wetlands under the 2002 ERP. There was a total of 291.20 acres of onsite preserve, including 259.97 acres of wetlands and 31.23 acres of uplands. Part of the Flow-way was to be located within the eastern third of the property (225.74 acres, including 217.80 acres of wetlands and 7.94 acres of uplands), which would be preserved after construction of part of the Flow- way in 23 of those acres. There also would be off-site mitigation in the form of a payment of $1,232,000 "specifically for the purchase of 154 acres . . . of land within CREW, a project within the District's Save Our Rivers Program." Of that total, $712,404 was to be deposited in an account for the land purchase, $437,206 in an account to pay for restoration work within the CREW project, and $82,390 in an escrow account for general operations and maintenance costs incurred by the District within the CREW project. On March 10, 2004, the Governing Board approved a modification to the 2002 ERP authorizing the construction and operation of the Project, at the time known as the Terafina PUD. This ERP is referred to as “the 2004 ERP.” The 2004 ERP removed the golf course and proposed a residential development within the same 646-acre parcel. It also discharged to the Cocohatchee Canal via the Flow-way. The 2004 ERP modified the Project to consist of: single-family residential areas; a recreation area; internal roadway; onsite wetland preserve areas within the development of approximately 73.99 acres; and 210 acres of wetland preserve east of the development, which included the Flow-way, and is referred to as the Eastern Preserve. The 2004 ERP proposed to impact approximately 280 acres of wetlands, slightly less than in the 2002 ERP. To mitigate for the impacts, the 2004 ERP authorized onsite mitigation consisting of the preservation and enhancement of 253.04 acres of wetlands, preservation of 31.27 acres of uplands, creation of 0.1 acres of wetlands, and offsite mitigation by a payment to the District for the purchase, restoration, and management of lands in CREW. Apparently by mistake, the amount of the CREW payment was reduced to $1,001,000, with $418,404 to go into the purchase account, $437,206 to go into the restoration account, and $82,390 to go into the escrow account for general operations and maintenance. In addition, the time for deposit of the funds was extended to June 30, 2004. The District included Special Condition No. 18 in the 2004 ERP, delaying any construction under the 2004 ERP until the Flow-way was completed. However, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) refused to permit construction of the Flow-way. On July 13, 2006, G.L. Homes submitted an application to modify the 2004 ERP (the 2006 Application), which is the subject of this proceeding. (A letter modification was issued on October 5, 2006, authorizing installation of a 48" outfall pipe within the Logan Boulevard right-of-way to convey the discharge from the Project to the Cocohatchee Canal. This letter modification was not challenged by the Conservancy and is not at issue in this proceeding.) On November 9, 2006, SFWMD proposed issuance of the 2006 ERP authorizing the construction and operation of the residential development now known as Saturnia Falls (the 2006 ERP). The 2006 Staff Report proposes elimination of the Flow- way, and enhancement and preservation of the 23.5 acres that would have been located in the eastern third of the Project area, similar to the rest of the Eastern Preserve. The SWMS also was altered, and the Staff Report noted that the CREW payment was made in June 2004 in the amount of $1,260,000 "as funding for the off-site mitigation in CREW," which was said to have "provided a substantial amount of up-front mitigation in CREW." The Conservancy did not challenge the 2002 ERP or the 2004 ERP but did challenge the 2006 ERP. THE MODIFIED SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM In addition to removal of the 23.5-acre segment of the Flow-way from the Eastern Preserve, the current proposal would modify the SWMS under the 2004 ERP by replacing the 80-foot weir at Lake 9, which was the sole final outfall under the 2004 ERP, with two operable Water Control Structures (WCS), located at the eastern (WCS-2) and western (WCS-1) boundaries of the Project, as the final outfall structures. The 80-foot weir in the 2004 ERP consisted of a rectangular notch in the 17.7 foot NGVD berm between Lake 9 and the Eastern Preserve, with a crest elevation of 13.8 foot NGVD and a 5 foot wide, .4 foot deep rectangular notch (that is, with an invert elevation of 13.4 foot NGVD) within the 80-foot weir, which served as a bleeder for water quality. The structure was fixed, and water was to pass freely through the bleeder and over the weir depending on the water levels on either side of the structure. In contrast, the structures proposed in the 2006 ERP are operable based on water levels in the Eastern Preserve. WCS- 1 is located in Lake 4 and discharges to the Cocohatchee Canal via a 48" reinforced concrete pipe located in the Logan Boulevard right-of-way. WCS-2 is located to the east of the development and discharges to the Eastern Preserve and then ultimately to the Cocohatchee Canal. As modified under the 2006 ERP, the SWMS continues to consist of eleven controlled sub-basins with a total area of 397.46 acres. The remainder of the proposed Project also is the same as under the 2004 ERP, including road alignments, type and number of houses, lots, lakes and grading information, and wetland impacts. It is the position of the Applicant and the District that the mitigation proposal also is identical; but Petitioner takes the position that proposed onsite mitigation will be adversely affected by the proposed modifications and that offsite mitigation no longer has the same benefit, so that mitigation no longer fully offsets the wetland impacts. The SWMS is set at the control elevation of 13.4 feet NGVD, which represents the wet season water table (WSWT) for the currently existing wetlands. The seasonal high water level for the wetlands was determined to be approximately 14.0 feet NGVD. When water levels in the Eastern Preserve are below 14.00 feet NGVD (typically in the dry season), the SWMS discharges to the Eastern Preserve through WCS-2, which is located in the perimeter berm to be constructed with sloping banks and a crest elevation of 17.7 feet NGVD between the Eastern Preserve and one of the western wetland preserves, called preserve P-5. WCS-2 consists of a 23-foot weir fitted with an operable bleeder at the control elevation of 13.40 feet NGVD, and a fixed discharge V-Notch weir with an invert elevation of 14.20 feet NGVD, and a crest elevation of 15.40 feet NGVD. This discharge will flow southerly through the Eastern Preserve to the receiving waterbody, the Cocohatchee Canal. WCS-1 will be closed during these periods. The maximum discharge rate under these conditions will be 15.28 cubic feet per second (cfs) to the Eastern Preserve. Based on the hydraulic modeling results, the Eastern Preserve experiences levels below 14 feet NGVD approximately 70% of the time on an annual basis. When water levels in the Eastern Preserve are above 14.00 feet NGVD (typically in the wet season), the SWMS will discharge predominately to the west via WCS-1 to the Cocohatchee Canal. When the water level in the Eastern Preserve reaches 14.00 ft NGVD, the operable bleeder on WCS-2 will close and the operable bleeder/discharge structure on WCS-1 will open. During the 25- year 3-day storm, the maximum discharge rate through WCS-1 is 13.50 cfs. During these conditions, discharge will also occur through the fixed 60-degree V-notch in WCS-2, with a maximum discharge of 2.10 cfs, ensuring bidirectional flow of water so long as the water level in the SWMS stays above 14.20 feet NGVD. The total discharge rate from both structures under this condition is 15.61 cfs. During the 25-year 3-day storm event, water levels in the Eastern Preserve fluctuate from 13.40 feet NGVD to 15.31 feet NGVD. When the water levels in the Eastern Preserve are higher than 14.20 feet NGVD, and the water level in the SWMS is lower than 14.20 feet NGVD, water from the Eastern Preserve will enter into the SWMS through the 60-degree V-Notch in WCS-2. The SWMS is designed to receive water from the Eastern Preserve to provide flood storage and hydrology to the onsite wetlands within the development. THE ERP PERMITTING CRITERIA In order to obtain an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions for issuance set forth in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. In this case, the evidence must be viewed under Rule 40E-4.331(2)(a), pertaining to modification of permits, which requires the District to review permit modification applications “using the same criteria as new applications for those portions of the project proposed for, or affected by, the modification.” The test in this case is not whether the District properly evaluated the 2004 ERP, but whether the areas proposed to be modified or affected by the modification meet the applicable conditions for issuance. Rule 40E-4.301(1) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a SWMS: Will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; Will not cause adverse flooding to on- site or off-site property; Will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; Will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters; Will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the water quality standards set forth in Chapters 62- 4, 62-302, 62-520, 62-522, 62-550, F.A.C., including any antidegradation provisions of paragraphs 62-4.242(1)(a) and (b), subsections 62-4.242(2) and (3), and Rule 62-302.300, F.A.C., and any special standards for Outstanding Florida Waters and Outstanding National Resource Waters set forth in subsections 62-4.242(2) and (3), F.A.C., will be violated; Will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources; Will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows established pursuant to Chapter 373.042, F.S.; Will not cause adverse impacts to a work of the District established pursuant to Section 373.086, F.S.; Will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed; Will be conducted by an entity with the sufficient financial, legal and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, if issued; and Will comply with any applicable special basin or geographic area criteria established in Chapter 40E-41, F.A.C. The parties stipulated that the Project either complies with Rules 40E-4.301(1)(g),(h),(j), and (k), and Sections 4.3.8, 7.5, and 9.0 of the BOR, or that those rules are not applicable. THE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT CRITERIA Water Quantity (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a)) As indicated, the 2006 modifications eliminate the Flow-way and change the manner in which water flows in and out of the proposed SWMS. Otherwise, there are no changes to the engineered features of the SWMS. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a) requires that G.L. Homes demonstrate that the Project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands, and not exceed the capacity of the downstream receiving water bodies. Section 6.2 of the BOR requires that a project be designed so it is consistent with the downstream carrying capacity of the receiving waters. The receiving waterbody for this Project is the Cocohatchee Canal. The allowable discharge rate for the Cocohatchee Canal is 15.9 cfs. The Project’s calculated rate of discharge is 15.6 cfs, so the Project does not exceed the allowable discharge rate. The Project's discharge rate is lower in 2006 (15.6 cfs) than it was in the 2004 ERP (291 cfs). Petitioner argued that the significant difference in discharge rates between the 2006 and the 2004 ERPs violated the District’s water quantity criteria. But the discharge rate calculated in 2004 was associated with the Flow-way and entailed a different overall analysis for the entire area served by the Flow-way. G.L. Homes provided reasonable assurances that the discharge rate allowed for its Project would not be exceeded, as required in Section 6.2 of the BOR. G.L. Homes complied with Section 6.3 of the BOR which requires the 25-year, 3-day storm event to be used when computing the discharge rate for the Project. Section 6.8 of the BOR is entitled “Offsite Lands.” Compliance with this Section requires that a project allow the passage of drainage from offsite areas to downstream areas, which is necessary to demonstrate that off-site receiving waterbodies are not being adversely affected. G.L. Homes complied with Section 6.8 by conducting a hydrologic analysis, using the 25-year, 3-day storm event, which demonstrated that discharge would be directed to WCS-1 and WCS-2, allowing for the passage of drainage from offsite areas to the downstream areas. Section 6.10 of the BOR requires that the design of the Project conserve water and not over-drain wetlands. There is nothing about the modifications that violate Section 6.10. In this case, the control elevations have been set at 13.4 feet NGVD, which is the average WSWT. The WSWT was established using biological indicators to determine the average elevation in the Project’s wetlands during the wet season. Setting the control elevation at the WSWT does not violate Section 6.10. To the contrary, when water levels are at or above the control elevation, the design helps prevent the wetlands from being drawn down below 13.4 feet NGVD, and not over-drain them. The WSWT of 13.4 was permitted in the 2004 ERP. The structures also allow for the interchange of water from the Eastern Preserve into the preserve wetlands within the SWMS. This exchange of water helps preserve the Project’s environmental values. Setting the control elevation at 13.4 also reduces unnecessary runoff from the Project, retaining the water for recharge. In addition, the ability of the SWMS to accept flows from the Eastern Preserve also conserves freshwater by preventing that water from being discharged downstream. As indicated, when water levels in the Eastern Preserve are below the control elevation, no water will enter the SWMS from the Eastern Preserve. During those times, it is possible that wetlands within the SWMS will be drained into the deep lakes dug as part of the project. However, that would not be the result of 2006 modifications but would be inherent in the previously-approved SWMS. The 2006 modifications do not re-open the soundness of that previously-approved part of the design. Section 6.10 also requires that a project not lower water tables so that the existing rights of others would be adversely affected. Again, by setting the control elevations at the WSWT, the water table is not expected to be lowered so as to affect the existing rights of others. The Project also must demonstrate that the site’s groundwater recharge characteristics will be preserved through the design of the SWMS. G.L. Homes complied by setting the control elevations at the WSWT, allowing standing water in the wetland preserves to recharge the groundwater. Section 6.11 addresses Detention and Control Elevations which are intended to assist in complying with the provisions of Section 6.10. By designing WCS-1 and WCS-2 at control elevation 13.4, the Project maintains the detention component and the control (wetland protection) elevations under the previously-approved SWMS. The Required Design Information and Assumptions are contained in Section 8.0 of the BOR. This Section includes various assumptions and information regarding the design of the SWMS. By incorporating these assumptions into the Project, G.L. Homes complied with Section 8.0. Flooding (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(b)) This Rule requires G.L. Homes to demonstrate that the Project will not cause adverse flooding to onsite or offsite property. Section 6.4 requires that building floors be designed to be protected from a 100-year, 3-day storm event. G.L. Homes complied with this provision by providing construction plans demonstrating that the building floors are being built higher than the 100-year, 3-day storm event. Likewise, Section 6.5 pertains to providing flood protection for the Project’s roads and parking lots. G.L. Homes complied with this provision by exceeding the District’s 5-year design criteria, and instead designing the roads and parking lots using the 25-year, 3-day storm event. G.L. Homes was required to comply with the Historic Basin Storage provision in Section 6.7, which requires the Project to replace or otherwise mitigate the loss of historic basin storage provided by the site. In this case, the amount and extent of historic storage that is being displaced by the 2006 ERP is the same as that in the 2004 ERP. However, the replacement or mitigation for loss of historic basin storage is reduced due to elimination of the Flow-way. Instead of relying on the Flow-way to address this criterion, G.L. Homes relied on the “Saturnia Falls Slough Hydraulic Study” prepared by Taylor Engineering, the “Taylor Report” (RJ Ex. 32), which demonstrates the current flood levels in the Eastern Preserve and other adjacent properties and wetlands, and that the Project’s configuration would not affect the basin’s historic storage. Lastly, to demonstrate that the Project will not cause adverse flooding to offsite properties, G.L. Homes was required to comply with Section 6.9, Minimum Drainage. This provision requires that the SWMS recover, consistent with the environmental criteria in 6.10 of the BOR, within 12 days or less. The Taylor Report also demonstrated that the Project will recover from the design storm event in time to provide the required attenuation for the next storm event, while preserving environmental or wetland features. There may be times when the recovery may exceed 12 days, but the need to protect the hydrology of the wetlands required the control elevations to be set at 13.4 ft NGVD. Balanced against Section 6.10, G.L. Homes still complies with Section 6.9. Accordingly, G.L. Homes provided reasonable assurances demonstrating that the 2006 ERP will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, satisfying Rule 40E- 4.301(1)(b). Storage and Conveyance (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c) requires that an applicant demonstrate that the proposed development will not adversely impact existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. In order to accomplish this demonstration, applicants are to consider the capability of the adjacent properties to both store and convey stormwater runoff from their developments. Section 6.6 of the BOR, entitled Floodplain Encroachment, specifies the parameters by prohibiting a net encroachment into the floodplain, between the average WSWT and the 100-year event, which will adversely affect the existing rights of others. G.L. Homes addressed this criterion through the analysis submitted and contained in the Taylor Report. The Taylor Report used the hydrologic model, HEC-HMS, and hydraulic model, HEC-RAS, to provide a simulation of flood stages propagating through the Eastern Preserve and the adjacent wetland system. This analysis assessed the existing flood stages within the offsite areas, starting at the Cocohatchee Canal and ending approximately 2-3 miles northeast of the eastern boundary of the Project. The analysis captured the expected flood levels during both the 25-year, 3-day and the 100-year, 3-day storm events in the area's current condition, and then compared the analysis of the two storm events considering the Project in its development condition. The analysis relied on the Project’s proposal to remove the current melaleuca infestation from the Eastern Preserve as part of the Project’s post-development condition. The Taylor Report concluded that the removal of such exotics would remove a flow impediment and allow the water to flow through the Eastern Preserve at a higher rate, and therefore at lower flood stages. The Taylor Report made these conclusions while accounting for the development as well as the mitigation-required plantings. The Taylor Report, along with Mr. Hull’s testimony, demonstrated that even with the mitigation reaching full maturity, the removal of melaleuca results in lower flood stages than the study area is currently experiencing. The evidence was that the model used by Taylor Engineering, the HEC-RAS model, is an appropriate model to determine flood stages and to calculate the floodplain conveyance. Furthermore, although Petitioner attacked the choice of inputs, mainly the “Manning’s n coefficients” used to determine the roughness or the friction provided by current and post-development vegetation, the balance of the evidence supports the coefficients contained in the Taylor Report as reasonable and within the ranges of the cited data and models. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Van Lent, who conducted no analysis of his own, admitted that HEC-RAS was an accepted tool to use for floodplain conveyance and that the other models he suggested are either inappropriate or rarely used by ERP applicants. The Applicant provided reasonable assurances demonstrating that the 2006 ERP will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, satisfying Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c). However, that is not to say that the 2006 ERP replaces the storage and conveyance capabilities that would have been provided under the 2004 ERP with the proposed Flow-way, which also required removal of melaleuca and required the same mitigation plantings except within the Flow-way itself. To the contrary, storage and conveyance capability under the 2004 ERP clearly would have been greater. Wetland Impacts (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d)) This Rule provision, while typically associated with the wetland ERP criteria review, also applies to the SWMS through Section 6.12 of the BOR, which requires that a lake system be designed so that an adverse gradient is not created between the lakes and wetland areas. G.L. Homes complied with this criterion by setting the control elevation at 13.4 feet NGVD, the WSWT, for the lake system, the SWMS wetland preserves and the Eastern Preserve, ensuring no gradient (or difference in elevation) between the wetland elevation and the lake elevation. Petitioner argued that additional analysis regarding the timing and levels of inundation in the wetland preserves is necessary to fully determine the impacts to the wetlands. Contrary testimony indicated that setting the control elevations within the development area at the WSWT protects the onsite wetlands and ensures that those wetlands will function as expected. Mr. Waterhouse testified that additional analysis, such as groundwater or evapotranspiration, is not necessary because the Project was designed so that the control elevation that affects the lake levels and the wetlands are the same. The testimony was that, since the control elevation was set using the WSWT, the timing and levels within the wetlands will not be affected by the revised SWMS, and that no additional modeling, as recommended by Dr. Van Lent, is necessary because the SWMS complies with Section 6.12. As indicated, it is questionable on this record whether wetlands within the SWMS will be drained during dry conditions by adjacent deep lakes. No such analysis was presented in evidence in this case. However, such an impact on the wetlands within the SWMS would not be the result of 2006 modifications but would be inherent in the previously-approved SWMS. The 2006 modifications do not re-open the soundness of that previously-approved part of the design. As for the 2006 modifications, the evidence was persuasive that no additional analysis regarding the timing and levels of inundation in the wetland preserves is necessary to determine that the elimination of the 80-foot weir and its replacement with WCS-1 and WCS-2 will not impact the wetlands. Water Quality (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the Project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that water quality standards will be violated. Section 5.2 describes the District’s standard water quality criteria. This provision, requiring a minimum of one inch detention of stormwater, is referred to as a “presumptive criterion” because it is presumed that if an applicant provides the required one inch of detention, Class III water quality standards and rule requirements will be met. In this case, G.L. Homes provides one inch of detention in its lake system in the exact manner it did in the 2004 ERP. A difference from the 2004 to the 2006 ERP is the classification of the Cocohatchee Canal, the Project’s receiving waterbody, as impaired for iron and dissolved oxygen (DO). Therefore, G.L. Homes was also required to comply with Section 4.2.4.5 of the BOR to demonstrate that it is not contributing to the impairment. See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.301(2). Section 4.2.4.5, entitled "Where Ambient Water Quality Does Not Meet State Water Quality Standards," states as follows: If the site of the proposed activity currently does not meet state water quality standards, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the water quality standards by meeting the provisions in 4.2.4.1, 4.2.4.2, and 4.2.4.3, as applicable, and for the parameters which do not meet water quality standards, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed activity will not contribute to the existing violation. If the proposed activity will contribute to the existing violation, mitigation may be proposed as described in subsection 4.3.1.4. To comply, G.L. Homes must show that neither short- term (4.2.4.1) nor long-term (4.2.4.2) water quality impacts will occur. G.L. Homes complied with the short-term requirements by submitting the Construction Pollution Prevention Plan (CPPP), detailing how water quality will be protected during the construction process. In addition to the inch of treatment, the long-term water quality requirement was addressed, in part, by the Urban Stormwater Management Plan (USMP), which details various source controls or best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented once the Project is built and operating. These BMPs help keep pollutants out of the lake system. In addition to the BMPs, the USMP requires G.L. Homes to institute a water quality monitoring plan and submit results to the District for review after the Project is developed. Dr. Harper concurred with Petitioner that the USMP as proposed (in R.J. 28, § 6.0) was deficient in certain respects and recommended that it be clarified or supplemented to specify testing for oxygen, iron, nitrogen, phosphorus, hardness, and a few heavy metals, namely copper, lead, and zinc. Dr. Harper also concurred and recommended that that samples should be collected at both WCS-1 or WCS-2, not just at one of them, depending on which structure is discharging water at the time of sampling. (Dr. Harper confirmed the propriety of testing three times per year, which is a common frequency for monitoring in situations like this.) Mr. Waterhouse agreed with Dr. Harper's additions/clarifications and testified that the USMP, as supplemented and clarified, would comply with District’s criteria. G.L. Homes accepted Dr. Harper's additions/clarifications to the USMP. Another component of Section 4.2.4.5 requires additional assurance for parameters that do not meet water quality standards. The District prepared the “Terrie Bates Water Quality Memo dated June 11, 2004,” referred to as “the Bates Memo,” to provide guidance on the implementation of Section 4.2.4.5 for projects which discharge into an impaired waterbody. The Bates Memo suggests that an additional 50 percent of treatment, among other BMPs, be incorporated into a SWMS. G.L. Homes complied with the Bates Memo because runoff from the lakes, after meeting the one inch detention treatment requirement, spills into the wetland preserves within the SWMS for an additional 50 percent of treatment. In terms of operation of the SWMS, this is no different from the 2004 ERP, but the 2006 ERP simply calculates and takes credit for the additional treatment that was also provided by the onsite wetlands in the 2004 ERP. It is uncontested that the wetland preserves within the development are not impaired and are only required to meet Class III water quality standards. When the stormwater spills into the SWMS wetland preserves, it is presumed to meet Class III water quality standards due to the one inch of detention treatment. Accordingly, the SWMS wetland preserves can be used to provide the additional 50 percent of treatment. The Bates Memo also lists seven BMPs as potential options to consider, in addition to the extra 50 percent treatment volume. G.L. Homes is implementing 6 of the 7 items as follows: (1) the CPPP, which is a stormwater pollution prevention plan; (2) an operation plan or long-term plan addressing routine maintenance is included in the USMP; (3) planting littoral zones; (4) some utilization of onsite wetlands for additional treatment downstream of the SWMS by discharging into the Eastern Preserve wetland system through WCS-2 at times; (5) a site-specific water quality evaluation for the Project’s pre- and post-development conditions is addressed by the Harper Report (RJ Ex. 25); and (6) a Water Quality Monitoring Plan, which is required under the USMP. Petitioner erroneously argued that the Bates Memo does not allow the 50 percent treatment to occur in the preserve wetlands within the development. The argument stems from the phrase “in addition to the extra 50% treatment volume” at the bottom of page 3 of the memo, and bullet No. 5 on page 4, which recommends “treatment in wetlands downstream of the SWMS.” Absent any analysis of her own or any experience in the application of the Bates Memo, Ms. Hecker contended that the Bates Memo precludes the use of onsite wetlands. The argument is contradictory and confusing because Hecker admits that the preserve wetlands within the development are not downstream of the SWMS, and acknowledges that the Eastern Preserve is the wetland downstream of the SWMS. Ms. Hecker, along with Mr. Boler, ultimately admitted that criteria exist allowing the use of wetlands as part of the SWMS. Mr. Waterhouse, who has vastly more experience with the District’s water quality criteria than Ms. Hecker, and participated in the drafting of the Bates Memo, refuted Ms. Hecker’s position about the intent of the Bates Memo, citing to Section 5.3.1 of the BOR as additional support for the use of onsite wetlands for water quality treatment. In addition to these water quality submittals, G.L. Homes also provided a water quality analysis specific to the Project prepared by Dr. Harvey Harper. The analysis, entitled “Evaluation of Water Quality Issues Related to the Saturnia Falls Project” (RJ Ex. 25), referred to as the “Harper Report,” analyzed the Project’s pre- and post-development pollutant loads to help demonstrate that the Project would not contribute to the impairment of the Cocohatchee Canal. The Harper Report estimated the removal efficiency of the SWMS lakes to determine how much pollutant removal would be achieved by the lakes on the Project. Dr. Harper relied solely on the lakes without accounting for any of the additional treatment expected to occur in the wetlands or from the source control BMPs contained in the USMP, which means his report errs on the conservative side in those respects. Although the Canal is impaired for dissolved oxygen (DO), it is uncontested that a nutrient analysis is the appropriate method to assess DO conditions. The Harper Report, as summarized in the table below, concluded that the Project would result in lower post-development loading rates than the pre-development loading rates for nutrients. Nitrogen (N) Pre-Development Total N Load 390.6 kg Post-Development Removal (Dry4) Total N Load 204.99 kg Post-Development Removal (Wet5) Total N Load 194.69 kg Phosphorus (P) Pre-development Total P Load 15.12 kg Post-Development Removal (Dry) Total P Load 5.29 kg Post-Development Removal (Wet) Total P Load 4.49 kg The Harper Report compared the Post-Development Total Basin Loading numbers for P (136.43 kg) and for N (922.57 kg), on an average annual basis, coming from the residential areas (roads and lots) to the Post-Development Removal Loads for P [5.29 kg (dry) and 4.49 kg (wet)] and for N [204.99 kg (dry) and 194.69 kg (wet)] discharging from the lakes after treatment. The calculations demonstrated that approximately 77 percent of N would be removed by the lakes in the dry season conditions and approximately 78 percent would be removed in the wet season conditions. Approximately 95 percent of P would be removed by the lakes in both the dry and wet season conditions. Additional removal and treatment above these percentages is expected due to a number of other source control measures not accounted for in the Harper Report. The Harper Report also concluded that iron discharges from the SWMS would be extremely low and substantially less than the Class III standard of 1 mg/l. Petitioner presented no evidence to counter this conclusion. Petitioner questioned the validity of Harper Report’s use of wetlands as part of the loading calculations, and attacked his underlying methodology. Petitioner's witnesses called it "bad science" to attribute pollutant loading to wetlands because wetlands remove nutrients from the water column and because attributing nutrient loading to wetlands would make it easier to obtain a permit to destroy wetlands. However, none of Petitioner's witnesses were able to credibly defend the position that wetlands cannot contribute to the loading calculations and at times conceded to this fact. Generally, wetlands can in fact contribute some nutrients that pass through without being taken up by wetland vegetation, either because the water is moving through the wetlands too fast or because the nutrient load in the wetland overtaxes the wetland's ability to take up nutrients. That does not necessarily mean that the nutrient load attributable to a wetland will be greater than the load attributable to other post-development land uses. Indeed, the only post-development land use characterized by Dr. Harper as having a lower pollutant load than a wetland was low- intensity commercial, and that was only for total nitrogen. (Dr. Harper's use of data from some distance away in Corkscrew Swamp as the basis for characterizing the pollutant loadings for the onsite wetlands, instead of data from a closer monitoring station in the Cocohatchee Canal weir, was justified; his use of that data instead of collecting data onsite was a valid criticism, but there was not enough evidence in support of that criticism to undermine the additional assurance derived from Dr. Harper's work.) As for the argument that the "Harper method" makes it easier to obtain a permit to destroy wetlands, there are many regulatory criteria other than just water quality that are supposed to be considered before a permit is issued to impact wetlands. Another component of Petitioner’s attack on the Project’s water quality compliance included vague references to an 80 percent removal efficiency. In actuality, the 80 percent removal efficiency is not adopted or incorporated into any District rule criteria. In any event, the Harper Report and other evidence give reasonable assurance that, along with other source controls, the proposed SWMS probably will remove 80 percent of pollutants on an average annual basis. Lastly, the District clarified why Section 4.2.8 of the BOR, regarding cumulative impacts for water quality, was not applicable in this case. Since no contribution or impacts to water quality are expected, a cumulative impacts analysis is not necessary to assess the extent of the impacts. The combination of all these water quality measures, when taken together, give reasonable assurance that the 2006 ERP will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that State water quality standards will be violated, and that Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) will be satisfied. Engineering Principles (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the SWMS will be capable, based on generally-accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed. Section 7.0 of the BOR specifies implementation of the Rule. Since WCS-1 and WCS-2 are proposed as operable structures, the District is requiring that G.L. Homes enter into an operable Control Structure Agreement with the Big Cypress Basin Board. The agreement provides for the Big Cypress Basin Board to operate and maintain the two operable structures, instead of the Saturnia Falls Homeowners Association. As Mr. Waterhouse explained, this is a reasonable and logical requirement. WETLAND ERP CRITERIA As with the SWMS criteria, the wetland criteria review of this modification compares the Project to 2004 ERP. Functions To Fish & Wildlife And Listed Species (Subsection 40E- 4.301(1)(d)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances to demonstrate that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, or abandonment of a SWMS will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Section 4.2.2 of the BOR provides further specificity to ensure that a project will not impact the abundance and diversity of fish, wildlife and listed species. The 2006 ERP makes no changes or modification to the 280 acres of wetland impacts allowed in the 2004 ERP. Since the impacts remain the same, the 2006 ERP does not modify or affect the values the wetlands provide to either the abundance or diversity of fish and wildlife, compared to the 2004 ERP. Review of this criterion was determined in the 2004 ERP and should not be re- opened. Section 4.2.2.3 of the BOR addresses the functional assessment of the values provided by the Project’s wetlands. The wetland values were not reassessed in the 2006 ERP because the wetland impacts remain the same as in the 2004 ERP. The evidence was that the current value of the wetlands remains low due to heavy melaleuca infestation, with 75 percent coverage in most locations. While Petitioner may disagree with how the current wetlands were evaluated, nothing in this modification request requires a reassessment of their value. Accordingly, the value of the wetlands currently onsite has not changed, and this criteria should not be re-opened. Section 4.2.2.4 of the BOR requires that a regulated activity not adversely impact the hydroperiod of wetlands or other surface waters. Specifically, the criterion states as follows: [An] applicant must provide reasonable assurances that the regulated activity will not change the hydroperiod of a wetland or other surface water, so as to adversely affect wetland functions or other surface water functions as follows: Whenever portions of a system, such as constructed basins, structures, stormwater ponds, canals, and ditches, are reasonably expected to have the effect of reducing the depth, duration or frequency of inundation or saturation in a wetland or other surface water, the applicant must perform an analysis of the drawdown in water levels or diversion of water flows resulting from such activities and provide reasonable assurance that these drawdowns or diversions will not adversely impact the functions that wetlands and other surface waters provide to fish and wildlife and listed species. Increasing the depth, duration, or frequency of inundation through changing the rate or method of discharge of water to wetlands or other surface waters or by impounding water in wetlands or other surface waters must also be addressed to prevent adverse effects to functions that wetlands and other surface waters provide to fish and wildlife and listed species. Different types of wetlands respond differently to increased depth, duration, or frequency of inundation. Therefore, the applicant must provide reasonable assurance that activities that have the potential to increase discharge or water levels will not adversely affect the functioning of the specific wetland or other surface water subject to the increased discharge or water level. Whenever portions of a system could have the effect of altering water levels in wetlands or other surface waters, applicants shall be required to: monitor the wetland or other surface waters to demonstrate that such alteration has not resulted in adverse impacts; or calibrate the system to prevent adverse impacts. Monitoring parameters, methods, schedules, and reporting requirements shall be specified in permit conditions. Subsection (a) applies if the Project was expected to reduce the depth, duration, or frequency of inundation or saturation in any of the Project’s wetlands. Subsection (b) applies if the Project is expected to increase the depth, duration, or frequency of inundation through changing the rate or method of discharge of water to wetlands or other surface waters. Subsection (c) requires monitoring of the wetlands to determine the effects of the hydrological changes. Persuasive engineering and biological testimony demonstrated that no change (neither a reduction nor an increase) in the hydrology on the preserved wetlands or the Eastern Preserve will occur from what was permitted in the 2004 ERP. By analyzing the various biological indicators onsite, control elevations within the SWMS and the wetlands (both the Eastern Preserve and onsite preserve wetlands) were set at 13.4 feet NGVD, which is the WSWT. This matched the control elevation under the 2004 ERP. Ms. Bain and Mr. Passarella both testified that the hydroperiods in the wetlands would remain the same as in the 2004 ERP during normal conditions, the most important indicator of wetland success, and that the wetlands would be unaffected by the modifications. The WSWT is a common indicator of average wet season water levels in a wetland, which generally is the best indicator of maintaining appropriate hydrology and thereby maintaining the expected level of wetland function. However, as indicated, the deep lakes next to preserved wetlands within the SWMS could draw down those wetlands during dry conditions; but the potential lake effect was present in the 2004 ERP. Both Dr. Van Lent and Jason Lauritsen conceded that, with the elimination of the Flow-way, the hydrology in the Eastern Preserve would be better in the 2006 ERP than in the 2004 ERP. But, as indicated, there was no detailed analysis of wetland impacts from the 2006 modifications because G.L. Homes and the District took the position that no detailed analysis was necessary since the control elevation remained unchanged. Petitioner attempts to cast doubt as to the level of data reviewed by the District to conclude that no changes will occur in the hydrology of the wetlands. But the additional modeling recommended by Petitioner is unnecessary and unwarranted in the face of the biological indicators collected from the Project site over several years. These biological indicators are reliable and customary information to use when ensuring compliance with Section 4.2.2.4. They also resulted in the same control elevation that was set in the 2004 ERP. Petitioner never disputed the credibility of the biological indicators, nor did they present any contrary evidence (either a model or otherwise) that purported to show the wetlands would not function as permitted in the 2004 ERP based on these indicators. Instead, they simply asserted that additional analysis should be done. Although not precipitated by this criterion, G.L. Homes will conduct monitoring of the wetlands by implementing the Monitoring Plan as additional reasonable assurances that the wetlands will not be affected. Secondary Impacts To Water Resources (Subsection 40E- 4.301(1)(f)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f) and Section 4.2.7 of the BOR require a demonstration that the proposed activities will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. No secondary impact analysis was done because the site plan and wetland impacts remained unchanged from the 2004 ERP. Additional Wetland Provisions (Subsection 40E-4.301(3) and 40E- 4.302 Subsection 40E-4.301(3) addresses the remaining wetland criteria in the BOR, including mitigation and elimination or reduction of impacts. Rule 40E-4.302(1)(b) addresses the cumulative impacts analysis contained in Section 4.2.8 of the BOR. No assessment of elimination and reduction of wetland impacts was done because the wetland impacts remain unchanged from the 2004 ERP. The 2006 modifications do not warrant another elimination and reduction analysis. No cumulative impacts analysis is necessary because, as in the 2004 ERP, all proposed mitigation for wetland impacts are within the same drainage basin (West Collier) as the impacts. Logically, if the mitigation proposed for the 2006 modifications fully offsets the wetland impacts, there will be no impacts to cumulate with others impacts of other development activities. On the other hand, if the mitigation does not fully offset the impacts, the application will be denied for that reason, without the need for a cumulative impacts analysis. Section 4.3 of the BOR specifies criteria for mitigation proposed as part of an ERP application. Both G.L. Homes and the District took the position that, similar to the wetland impacts, the proposal for both onsite and offsite mitigation did not change from the 2004 ERP, and that no detailed analysis of the mitigation proposal, or comparison to wetland impacts, was required. Indeed, the onsite mitigation proposal--which includes preservation, restoration of wetlands by removing melaleuca, and the creation of four shallow depressional areas for wood stork habitat--remains unchanged from the 2004 ERP, including the Grading and Planting Plan, the Monitoring Plan, and Mitigation, Monitoring and Maintenance Plan. It was proven that the Flow- way footprint never was considered to be either a wetland impact or a part of the mitigation proposal, and that its removal from the Eastern Preserve does not decrease the amount or the value of the mitigation. (Actually, its removal probably increases the value of the mitigation, but the amount of any such increase was not analyzed or quantified.) It also was proven that the onsite wetlands will not be adversely affected as a result of the 2006 modifications so as to decrease their mitigation value, as Petitioner contended. Petitioner also raised the concern that the wetland mitigation within the SWMS would not function as permitted in the 2004 ERP due to the storage of the additional 50 percent within those wetlands, thereby affecting the mitigation assessment. However, as already indicated, when the water reaches those internal wetland preserves, it will have been treated to Class III water quality standards. In addition, operationally, the water also would have been stored in those wetlands under the 2004 ERP; the only difference is that the 2006 modifications calculate and claim credit for the storage, which was not necessary or done for the 2004 ERP. In addition to the onsite mitigation, G.L. Homes previously had been permitted to provide offsite mitigation in the form of a $1.26 million cash payment to the District. The payment was for the purchase, restoration, and enhancement of 154 acres of lands within the boundaries of the District’s environmental restoration project called CREW. Payment of cash for use by the District is addressed in Section 4.3.1.8 of the BOR. These types of offsite mitigation opportunities are referred to as a regional offsite mitigation areas or “ROMAs.” Unlike most mitigation banks, ROMAs, such as CREW, involve a land acquisition component and are owned and operated by the District. G.L. Homes and the District take the position that, under Section 4.3.1.8 of the BOR, and the previous 2004 ERP, G.L. Homes’ responsibilities ended when it paid the cash donation to the District. They take the position that the mitigation is unaffected by the modification, and that re- opening of the offsite mitigation requirement is unwarranted. However, while the Staff Report characterizes the $1.26 million payment as "a substantial amount of up-front mitigation for the proposed wetland impacts," no land in CREW has been purchased as of yet. In addition, the evidence was that, as a result of the passage of time and market forces, it unlikely that 154 acres of land within CREW can be purchased, enhanced, and maintained with the funds paid to the District under the 2004 ERP. Indeed, for a number of reasons, including the lack of willing sellers to participate in the CREW ROMA, in 2004 the District stopped accepting payment of funds to purchase land in CREW as an acceptable form of mitigation for wetland impacts. As a result, it no longer can be said that the proposed mitigation package, which includes and relies on the use of the funds to purchase, enhance, and maintain 154 acres in CREW, fully offsets the proposed wetland impacts. (In addition, under Rule 40E- 4.331(2)(a), any new mitigation proposal would have to analyzed using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology, Rule 62- 345.100.) Finally, if the offsite mitigation outside the drainage basin is used, a cumulative impact analysis will be necessary. Public Interest Test (Rule 40E-4.302(1) In addition to complying with Rule 40E-4.301, since the Project is located in, on, or over wetlands, G.L. Homes must also address the criteria contained in the Public Interest Test, Rule 40E-4.302 and Section 4.2.3 of the BOR, by demonstrating that the Project is not contrary to the public interest. (Since the Project is not within an OFW or does not significantly degrade an OFW, the higher standard of “clearly in the public interest” does not apply.) The District considers and balances the following seven factors in determining compliance with the test: Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others (40E-4.302(1)(a)1.); 93. G.L. Homes provided reasonable assurances that the Project will not cause any onsite or offsite flooding, nor will the Project cause any adverse impacts to adjacent lands because the SWMS is designed in accordance with District criteria and the post-development peak rate of discharge does not exceed the allowable discharge rate. The Project is considered neutral as to this factor. However, it appears from the evidence that the 2002 ERP and the 2004 ERP viewed those proposals as positive as to this factor due to the inclusion of the Flow-way in an effort to alleviate regional flooding. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats (40E-4.302(1)(a)2.); 94. As indicated, the Project proposes onsite mitigation which has not changed from the 2004 ERP, but passage of time and market conditions have changed the offsite mitigation proposal. As a result, it no longer can be said based on the evidence in this case that the overall mitigation proposal offsets potential impacts to fish and wildlife, including wood stork habitat, even though the mitigation plan for the Eastern Preserve would improve wood stork habitat from its current melaleuca-infested condition. For these reasons, the Project cannot be considered positive as to this factor. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling (40E-4.302(1)(a)3.); 95. The Project will not adversely affect navigation. In addition, no evidence was introduced to suggest that the Project’s construction would result in harmful erosion or shoaling. The balance of the testimony pertaining to the flow of water in the Project indicated that it will not be adversely affected. Although there will be reduced discharge to the Eastern Preserve as a result of the 2006 modifications, the Project is considered neutral as to this factor. In contrast, it appears from the evidence that the 2002 ERP and the 2004 ERP would have viewed those proposals as positive as to this factor due to the inclusion of the Flow-way in an effort to alleviate regional flooding. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity (40E-4.302(1)(a)4.); 96. The Project does not provide any fishing, recreational values, or marine productivity. Therefore, the Project is neutral as to this factor. Whether the regulated activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature (40E-4.302(1)(a)5.); 97. The Project is permanent in nature and is considered neutral as to this factor because reasonable assurances have not been given that mitigation will fully offset the permanent wetland impacts. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, F.S. (40E- 4.302(1)(a)6.); 98. There are no significant archeological or historical resources that will be adversely affected by the Project. In addition, no new information was received by the District indicating that historical resources would be impacted. Therefore, the Project is considered neutral as to this factor. The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed regulated activity (40E-4.302(1)(a)7.); As found, reasonable assurance has not been given that the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by the areas affected by the Project will be fully offset by mitigation. Therefore, the Project should be considered negative as to this factor. On balance, the Project, overall, is negative when measured against these criteria. Accordingly, it must be determined that reasonable assurance has not been given that the Project, as a whole, is not contrary to the public interest.
Conclusions DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. Under Section 403.412(6), Florida Statutes: Any Florida corporation not for profit which has at least 25 current members residing within the county where the activity is proposed, and which was formed for the purpose of the protection of the environment, fish and wildlife resources, and protection of air and water quality, may initiate a hearing pursuant to s. 120.569 or s. 120.57, provided that the Florida corporation not for profit was formed at least 1 year prior to the date of the filing of the application for a permit, license, or authorization that is the subject of the notice of proposed agency action. It is concluded that use of virtually the identical statutory language is not mandatory for standing under this statute and that the Conservancy meets the requirements for standing under this statute. Party status under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, also can be based on proof that "substantial interests will be affected by proposed agency action." § 120.52(12)(b), Fla. Stat. This requires proof of "an injury in fact which is of sufficient immediacy and is of the type and nature intended to be protected" by the substantive law. § 403.412(5), Fla. Stat. See also Agrico Chemical Co. v. Dept. of Environmental Reg., 406 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). An organization like the Conservancy may allege and prove either that its own substantial interests or those of a substantial number of its members will be affected. See Florida Home Builders Ass'n v. Dept. of Labor and Employment Security, 412 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1982); Farmworker Rights Organization, Inc. v. Dept. of Health, etc., 417 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). In addition, Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes, provides: No demonstration of special injury different in kind from the general public at large is required. A sufficient demonstration of a substantial interest may be made by a petitioner who establishes that the proposed activity, conduct, or product to be licensed or permitted affects the petitioner's use or enjoyment of air, water, or natural resources protected by this chapter. The Conservancy made a sufficient demonstration under this statute that the proposed 2006 ERP will affect its use or enjoyment of water and natural resources protected by Chapter 403. As a result, the Conservancy also proved standing under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. Because the Conservancy has "citizen standing" under Section 403.412(6), Florida Statutes, as well as standing under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, it is not necessary to decide G.L. Homes' challenge to the Conservancy's "associational standing." It also is unnecessary and premature to determine whether any party would be entitled under Section 120.68(1), Florida Statutes, to judicial review of the final order entered in this case as "a party who is adversely affected." It is believed that such a determination, if it becomes necessary, can be made upon the evidence in the record. BURDENS OF PROOF AND PERSUASION This is a de novo proceeding designed to formulate final agency action. See Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So. 2d 778, 786-787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); and § 120.57(1)(k), Fla. Stat. As an ERP applicant, G.L. Homes has the ultimate burden of proof and burden of persuasion. See J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So. 2d at 786-789. In light of the evidence presented in this case, the option suggested in the J.W.C. case to shift the burden of presenting evidence was not useful. ERP CRITERIA The permitting criteria for G.L. Homes' proposed Project are found in Parts I and IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-345, Florida Administrative Code Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302, and the BOR, which is adopted by reference in Rule 40E-4.091(1)(a). For its proposed Project to be permitted, G.L. Homes must give reasonable assurance of compliance with those criteria. Issuance of an ERP must be based solely on compliance with applicable permit criteria. See Council of the Lower Keys v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 429 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Reasonable assurance contemplates a substantial likelihood that the project will be successfully implemented. See Metropolitan Dade County v. Coscan Florida Inc., 609 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Absolute guarantees are not necessary, and a permit applicant is not required to eliminate all contrary possibilities or address impacts that are only theoretical and cannot be measured in real life. See City of Sunrise v. Indian Trace Community Development District, et al., DOAH Case No. 91- 6036, 1991 Fla. ENV LEXIS 6997, 92 ER FALR 21 (DOAH 1991, SFWMD 1992); Manasota-88, Inc. v. Agrico Chemical Co. and Department of Environmental Regulation, DOAH Case No. 87-2433, 1990 Fla. ENV LEXIS 38 (DOAH Jan. 5, 1990; DER Feb. 19, 1990). The test in this case is not whether the District properly evaluated the 2004 ERP, but whether the areas proposed to be modified or affected by the modification met the applicable conditions for issuance. When a permittee seeks to modify an existing permit, the District’s review includes only that portion of the existing permit that is proposed to be modified or is affected by the modification. Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.331(2). See also Friends of the Everglades, Inc., v. Dep't. of Envt'l. Reg., 496 So. 2d 181, 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Behrens v. Boran, ORDER NO. SWF 02-052, ER FALR 257 (SWFWMD Aug. 27, 2002), DOAH Case No. 02-0282, 2002 Fla. ENV LEXIS 192 (DOAH July 29, 2002); Kunnen v. Southwest Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., ORDER NO.: SWF 02-003, DOAH Case No. 01-2571, 2002 Fla. ENV LEXIS 4 (DOAH Dec. 17, 2001; SWFWMD Jan. 29, 2002). The "reasonable assurance" requirement applies to the activities for which permitting is presently sought and, except to the extent affected by the proposed modification, does not burden the applicant with "providing 'reasonable assurances' anew with respect to the original permit." Friends of the Everglades, supra at 183. Accordingly, Petitioner’s arguments that certain criteria must be revisited because they were not properly addressed in previous permits is irrelevant to this proceeding; but previously-decided criteria must be reviewed again to the extent that proposed modifications affect those criteria. CONSIDERATION OF THE ERP CRITERIA In order to provide reasonable assurances that a Project will not be harmful to the water resources of the District, the applicant must satisfy the conditions for issuance set forth in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. In this case, the evidence must be viewed under the rule pertaining to modification of permits. Rule 40E-4.331(2)(a) requires the District to review permit modification applications “using the same criteria as new applications for those portions of the project proposed for, or affected by, the modification.” Surface Water Management Criteria Water Quantity and Flooding Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a) and (b) address adverse water quantity to receiving water bodies and flooding either onsite and offsite. As found, G.L. Homes complied with the applicable criteria to satisfy both of these rules. Storage and Conveyance Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c) requires G.L. Homes to provide reasonable assurances that the Project will not adversely impact storage and conveyance capabilities. As found, the submittal of the Taylor Report provides reasonable assurances that the Project will not adversely affect the conveyance of water. Moreover, although some criticism was aimed at the choice of the friction coefficients used in the Taylor Report, the evidence as a whole proves that the coefficients in the Taylor Report are reasonable and scientifically defensible. Water Quality Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) requires G.L. Homes to provide reasonable assurances that the Project will not result in adverse water quality impacts. As found, coupled with the clarifications/additions to the USMP suggested by Dr. Harper and accepted by G.L. Homes, the numerous water quality submittals demonstrated compliance with this Rule, including assurances regarding the impairment status of the Cocohatchee Canal. While Petitioner leveled numerous criticisms against the Project’s ability to comply with water quality, none of the criticisms rose to the level of “contrary evidence of equivalent quality.” Taken as whole, and balanced against Petitioner’s lack of equivalent evidence and credible witnesses, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that, with the Monitoring Plan additions/clarifications, G.L. Homes meets the District’s water quality criteria. Engineering Principles As required by Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i), G.L. Homes has provided reasonable assurances to demonstrate that the SWMS will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and functioning as proposed. Wetlands Criteria Elimination and Reduction, Secondary and Cumulative Impacts 115. Rules 40E-4.301(1)(f) and (2) and 40E-4.302(1)(b) require G.L. Homes to demonstrate compliance with the following District criteria pertaining to wetland impacts: (1) elimination and reduction; (2) secondary impacts; and (3) cumulative impacts. As found, the 2006 ERP proposes no changes or modifications to the wetlands impacts approved in the 2004 ERP. Therefore, Petitioner’s arguments that these assessments were either not done or done improperly in the previous permit are not valid bases to relitigate those issues. Accordingly, elimination and reduction, secondary impacts, and cumulative impacts addressed in the 2004 ERP are not properly litigated in this modification proceeding, except to the extent that they are affected by the proposed modifications. While the proposed modifications do not affect either elimination and reduction or secondary impacts, they could affect cumulative impacts, depending on whether offset mitigation needed to fully offset wetland impacts is accomplished in the West Collier drainage basin. Wetland Values and Functions to Fish and Wildlife Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d) requires G.L. Homes to provide reasonable assurances that the Project will not adversely impact the value and functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands. Rule 40E-4.301(3) requires an applicant to comply with the District’s mitigation provisions in the BOR. As found, Petitioner’s contention that the revised SWMS affected the values and functions provided to fish and wildlife, particularly the wood stork, was not supported by the weight of the evidence as to onsite mitigation. However, the passage of time and market conditions affected the offsite mitigation proposed and presumably evaluated for the 2004 ERP, and the impacts and mitigation were not re-evaluated for the 2006 ERP. Under Rule 40E-4.331(2), they must be re-evaluated using UMAM, as required by Rule 62-345.100. Public Interest Test The public interest test is limited in scope to only the seven factors set forth in Rule 40E-4.302(2). As found above, after a balancing of the factors, reasonable assurance was not provided that the Project is not contrary to the Public Interest.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the proposed 2006 ERP be denied. If it is granted, it should include the additions/clarifications to the USMP suggested by Dr. Harper and accepted by G.L. Homes. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 2007.
The Issue The issue in this matter is whether Respondent, Polk County Board of Commissioners (Polk County or County) has provided Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), with reasonable assurances that the activities Polk County proposed to conduct pursuant to Standard General Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 4419803.000 (the Permit) meet the conditions for issuance of permits established in Rules 40D-4.301, and 40D-40.302, Florida Administrative Code. (All rule citations are to the current Florida Administrative Code.)
Findings Of Fact Events Preceding Submittal of ERP Application The Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system dates back to at least the 1920's, and has been altered and modified over time, especially as a result of phosphate mining activities which occurred on OFP property in the 1950's-1960's. The system is on private property and is not owned and was not constructed by the County. Prior to 1996, the Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system was in extremely poor repair and not well- maintained. The Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system originates at Eagle Lake, which is an approximately 641-acre natural lake, and discharges through a ditch drainage system to Lake Millsite, which is an approximately 130-acre natural lake. Lake Millsite drains through a series of ditches, wetlands, and ponds and flows through OFP property through a series of reclaimed phosphate pits, ditches and wetlands and ultimately flows into Lake Hancock, which is an approximately 4500-acre lake that forms part of the headwaters for the Peace River. The drainage route is approximately 0.5 to 1 mile in overall length. The Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system is one of eight regional systems in the County for which the County and SWFWMD have agreed to share certain funding responsibilities pursuant to a 1996 letter agreement. To implement improvements to these drainage systems, Polk County would be required to comply with all permitting requirements of SWFWMD. During the winter of 1997-1998, Polk County experienced extremely heavy rainfall, over 39 inches, as a result of El Nino weather conditions. This unprecedented rainfall was preceded by high rainfalls during the 1995-1996 rainy season which saturated surface waters and groundwater levels. During 1998, Polk County declared a state of emergency and was declared a federal disaster area qualifying for FEMA assistance. Along the Lake Eagle and Millsite Lake drainage areas, septic tanks were malfunctioning, wells were inundated and roads were underwater. The County received many flooding complaints from citizens in the area. As a result of flooding conditions, emergency measures were taken by the County. The County obtained SWFWMD authorization to undertake ditch cleaning or vegetative control for several drainage ditch systems in the County, including the Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system. No SWFWMD ERP permit was required or obtained for this ditch cleaning and vegetative control. During its efforts to alleviate flooding and undertake emergency ditch maintenance along the Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage route, the County discovered a driveway culvert near Spirit Lake Road which was crushed and impeding flow. The evidence was unclear and contradictory as to the size of the culvert. Petitioner's evidence suggested that it consisted of a 24-inch pipe while evidence presented by the County and by SWFWMD suggested that it was a 56-inch by 36-inch arched pipe culvert. It is found that the latter evidence was more persuasive. On February 25, 1998, the County removed the crushed arched pipe culvert at Spirit Lake Road and replaced it with two 48-inch diameter pipes to allow water to flow through the system. The replacement of this structure did not constitute ditch maintenance, and it required a SWFWMD ERP. However, no ERP was obtained at that time (although SWFWMD was notified prior to the activity). (One of the eight specific construction items to be authorized under the subject ERP is the replacement of this culvert.) Old Florida Plantation, Ltd. (OFP) property also experienced flooding during February 1998. OFP's property is situated along the eastern shore of Lake Hancock, and the Eagle- Millsite-Hancock drainage system historically has flowed across the property before entering Lake Hancock. In the 1950's and 1960's, the property was mined for phosphate. The mining process destroyed the natural vegetation and drastically altered the soils and topography, resulting in the formation of areas of unnaturally high elevations and unnaturally deep pits that filled with water. OFP purchased the property from U.S. Steel in 1991. The next year OFP initiated reclamation of the property, which proceeded through approximately 1998. In 1996, OFP applied to the County for approval of a development of regional impact (DRI). OFP blamed the flooding on its property in 1998 on the County's activities upstream, claiming that the property had never flooded before. But upon investigation, the County discovered a 48-inch diameter pipe on OFP property which, while part of OFP's permitted drainage system, had been blocked (actually, never unopened) due to OFP's concerns that opening the pipe would wash away wetlands plants recently planted as part of OFP's wetland restoration efforts. With OFP and SWFWMD approval, the County opened this pipe in a controlled manner to allow flowage without damaging the new wetlands plants. Following the opening of this blocked pipe, OFP property upstream experienced a gradual drop in flood water levels. When the water level on OFP's property stabilized, it was five feet lower and no longer flooded. Nonetheless, OFP continues to maintain not only that the County's activities upstream caused flooding on OFP property but also that they changed historic flow conditions. This contention is rejected as not being supported by the evidence. Not only did flooding cease after the 48-inch pipe on OFP's property was opened, subsequent modeling of water flows also demonstrated that the County's replacement of the crushed box culvert at the driveway on Spirit Lake Road as described in Finding 8, supra, did not increase flood stages by the time the water flows into the OFP site and did not cause flooding on OFP property in 1998. (To the contrary, OFP actions to block flows onto its property may have contributed to flooding upstream.) On October 6, 1998, the County entered into a contract with BCI Engineers and Scientists to initiate a study on the Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system, identify options for alleviating flooding along the system and prepare an application for an ERP to authorize needed improvements to the system. Prior to the County's submittal of an ERP application, SWFWMD issued a conceptual ERP to OFP for its proposed wet detention surface water management system to support its proposed DRI on the OFP property. OFP's conceptual permit incorporated the Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system and accommodated off-site flowage into the system. Before submitting an ERP application to SWFWMD, the County had communications with representatives of OFP concerning an easement for the flow of the drainage system through OFP property. In March 1999, the County reached an understanding with OFP's engineering consultant whereby OFP would provide the County with an easement across OFP lands to allow water to flow through to Lake Hancock. In turn, the County would: construct and pay for a control structure and pipe east of OFP to provide adequate flowage without adversely affecting either upstream or downstream surface waters; construct and upgrade any pipes and structures needed to convey water across OFP property to Lake Hancock; and provide all modeling data for OFP's review. The ERP Application Following completion of the engineering study, the County submitted ERP Application No. 4419803.000 for a Standard General ERP to construct improvements to the Eagle-Millsite- Hancock drainage system on August 18, 1999. Eight specific construction activities are proposed under the County's project, at various points along the Eagle- Millsite-Hancock drainage system as follows: 1) Add riprap along channel bottom; 2) Modify culvert by replacing 56-inch by 36- inch arch pipe by two 48-inch pipes (after-the-fact, done in 1998, as described in Finding 8, supra); 3) Add riprap along channel bottom; 4) Add box, modify culvert by replacing existing pipe with two 48-inch pipes, add riprap along channel bottom; 5) add riprap along channel bottom; 6) Add weir, modify culvert by replacing existing 24-inch pipe with two 48-inch pipes, add riprap along channel bottom; 7) Add box and modify culvert by replacing existing 24-inch pipe with two 48-inch pipes; 8) Modify existing weir. Under the County's application, construction activities Nos. 6, 7, and 8 would occur on OFP property. In addition, it was proposed that surface water would flow across OFP's property (generally, following existing on-site drainage patterns), and it was indicated that flood elevations would rise in some locations on OFP's property as a result of the improvements proposed in the County's application. (Most if not all of the rise in water level would be contained within the relatively steep banks of the lakes on OFP's property--the reclaimed phosphate mine pits.) In its application, the County stated that it was in the process of obtaining easements for project area. As part of the ERP application review process, SWFWMD staff requested, by letter dated September 17, 1999, that the County clarify the location of the necessary rights-of-way and drainage easements for the drainage improvements and provide authorization from OFP as property owner accepting the peak stage increases anticipated in certain OFP lakes as a result of the County's proposed project activities. On September 28, 1999, OFP obtained a DRI development order (DO) from the County. In pertinent part, the DRI DO required that OFP not adversely affect historical flow of surface water entering the property from off-site sources. Historical flow was to be determined in a study commissioned by the County and SWFWMD. The DO appeared to provide that the study was to be reviewed by OFP and the County and approved by SWFWMD. Based on the study, a control structure and pipe was to be constructed, operated and maintained by the County at the upstream side of the property that would limit the quantity of off-site historical flow, unless otherwise approved by OFP. OFP was to provide the County with a drainage easement for this control structure and pipe, as well as a flowage easement from this structure, through OFP property, to an outfall into Lake Hancock. The DO specified that the flowage easement was to be for quantitative purposes only and not to provide water quality treatment for off-site flows. The DO required OFP to grant a defined, temporary easement prior to first plat approval. In its November 11, 1999, response to SWFWMD's request for additional information, the County indicated it would obtain drainage easements and that it was seeking written acknowledgment from OFP accepting the proposed increases in lake stages. During the ERP application review process, the County continued efforts to obtain flowage easements or control over the proposed project area and OFP's acknowledgment and acceptance of the increase in lake stages. At OFP's invitation, the County drafted a proposed cross-flow easement. But before a binding agreement could be executed, a dispute arose between OFP and the County concerning other aspects of OFP's development plans, and OFP refused to enter into an agreement on the cross- flow easement unless all other development issues were resolved as well. On August 4, 2000, in response to SWFWMD's request that the County provide documentation of drainage easements and/or OFP's acceptance of the increased lake stages on OFP property, the County submitted a proposed and un-executed Perpetual Flowage and Inundation Easement and an Acknowledgment to be signed by OFP accepting the increased lake stages. On August 7, 2000, the OFP property was annexed by the City of Bartow (the City). On October 16, 2000, the City enacted Ordinance No. 1933-A approving OFP's DRI application. The City's DO contained essentially the same provision on Off- Site Flow contained in the County's DO. See Finding 18, supra. However, the City's DO specified that the historical flow study was required to be reviewed and approved by OFP (as well as by the County and by SWFWMD). OFP has not given formal approval to historical flow studies done to date. On October 6, 2000, SWFWMD issued a Notice of Final Agency Action approving Polk County ERP No. 4419803.000. Permit Specific Condition No. 7 provides that "all construction is prohibited within the permitted project area until the Permittee acquires legal ownership or legal control of the project area as delineated in the permitted construction drawings." As a result of this permit condition, the County cannot undertake construction as authorized under the Permit until any needed easement or legal control is obtained. Precise Easement Route Approximately two months before final hearing, a dispute arose as to the precise cross-flow easement route proposed by the County. OFP had understood that the County's proposed route was based on a detailed survey. But closer scrutiny of the County's proposed route indicated that it cut corners of existing lakes on OFP's property, crossed residential lots proposed by OFP, and veered north into uplands (also proposed for residential use) in the western portion of the route before looping south and then north again to the outfall at Lake Hancock. Information subsequently revealed in the course of discovery suggested that the County's proposed route may have been based on pre-reclamation topography of OFP's property. After OFP recognized the implications of the cross- flow easement route being proposed by the County, OFP provided the County with several different alternative easement routes through the OFP property. While agreement as to the precise route has not yet been reached, the precise route of the easement is not significant to the County, as long as water can flow across OFP property to Lake Hancock and so long as the County does not have to re-locate existing ditches. Such adjustments in the location of the proposed flowage easement would not affect SWFWMD staff's recommendation for permit issuance, as long as it covered the defined project areas. In addition, OFP's current site plan is a preliminary, conceptual plan subject to change before it is finalized. Regardless what cross-flow easement route is chosen, it will be temporary and subject to modification when OFP's development plan is finalized. If the County is unable to not negotiate a flowage easement across OFP property, it could obtain whatever easement is required through use of the County's eminent domain powers. The County's acquisition of an easement to accommodate a flowage route and anticipated increased stage on OFP property gives reasonable assurance that any stage increases will not cause adverse impacts to OFP property and gives reasonable assurance that the County will have sufficient legal control to construct and maintain the improvements. Project Area The County applied for a Standard General Permit and specified a total project area of 0.95 acre. This acreage reflects the area required for actual construction and alteration of control structures and drainage ditches in the preexisting Eagle-Millsite-Hancock system. It does not reflect the entire acreage drained by that system (approximately 1,800 to 2,000 acres). It also does not reflect the area of the cross-flow easement, which the County has yet to obtain. When determining project size for purposes of determining the type of permit applicable to a project, SWFWMD staff considers maximum project area to be limited to the acreage owned or controlled by the applicant. In addition, since this is a retrofit project for improvement of an existing drainage system not now owned or controlled by the County, SWFWMD staff only measured the area required for actual construction and alteration of control structures and drainage ditches. Future easements necessary for future maintenance of the system were not included. When OFP applied for its conceptual ERP for its proposed DRI, the project area was considered to be the acreage owned by OFP. The rest of the basin draining through OFP's property to Lake Hancock (again, approximately 1,800 to 2,000 acres) was not considered to be part of the project area. Water Quantity Impacts The County's project will retrofit certain components of the same drainage system which OFP will utilize for surface water management and treatment pursuant to its conceptual ERP. Modeling presented in the County's application demonstrates that there will be some rises and some lowering of some of the lake levels on OFP's property during certain rain events. Anticipated rises are lower than the top of banks authorized in OFP's conceptual permit; hence the system will continue to function properly. While there are some differences in the County's permit application and OFP's conceptual permit application concerning modeling estimates of flow rates through OFP property, the differences are minor and are attributed to differences in modeling inputs. The County used more detailed modeling information. Any such differences are not significant. Differences in flow rates provided in the County's proposed permit and in OFP's conceptual permit do not render the permits as incompatible. If the County's permit were issued, any modeling undertaken in connection with a subsequent application by OFP for a construction permit would have to be updated to include the County's improvements to the system. This outcome is not a basis for denial of the County's permit. While the rate at which water will flow through the system will increase, no change in volume of water ultimately flowing through the drainage system is anticipated as a result of the County's proposed improvements. The increased lake stages which are anticipated to occur on OFP property as a result of the County's project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to the receiving waters of Lake Hancock or adjacent lands. The project will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property. The project will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. The project will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows established pursuant to Chapter 373.042, Florida Statutes. Water Quality Impacts No adverse impacts to water quality on OFP property are anticipated from the County's proposed drainage improvements. The project will not add any pollutant loading source to the drainage system and is not expected to cause any algae blooms or fish kills in OFP waters or cause any additional nutrient loading into OFP's surface water management systems. As reclaimed phosphate mine pits, the lakes on OFP's property are high in phosphates. Meanwhile, water quality in upstream in Millsite Lake and Eagle Lake is very good. Off-site flow of higher quality water flushing the OFP lakes will improve the water quality on the OFP site. The County's project will have no adverse impact on the quality of water in the downstream receiving of Lake Hancock (which currently has poor water quality due in large part to past phosphate mining). Upstream of OFP, the project will not cause any adverse water quality impacts and is anticipated to result in positive impacts by lessening the duration of any flooding event and thereby lessening septic tank inundation from flooding. This will have a beneficial impact on public health, safety, and welfare. Thus, there is a public benefit to be gained in having the County undertake the proposed drainage and flood control improvements now, rather than waiting for OFP to finalize its plat and construct its development project. The County's proposed improvements do not require any formal water quality treatment system. The improvements are to a conveyance system and no impervious surfaces or other facilities generating pollutant loading will be added. Upstream of OFP, the Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system flows through natural lakes and wetlands systems that provide natural water quality treatment of the existing drainage basin. OFP expressed concern that the County's improvements to drainage through these areas (including the ditch maintenance already performed in 1998) will increase flow and reduce residence time, thereby reducing natural water quality treatment. But ditch maintenance does not require an ERP, and the County gave reasonable assurances that reduction in natural water quality treatment will not be significant, especially in view of the good quality of the water flowing through the system out of Eagle Lake and Millsite Lake. As a result, it is found that the County's proposed project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that any applicable quality standards will be violated. Indeed, OFP's expert consultant conceded in testimony at final hearing that OFP has no reason to be concerned about the quality of water at present. Rather, OFP's real concern is about water quality in the future. Essentially, OFP is asking SWFWMD to require the County to guarantee OFP that future development in the area will not lead to any water quality problems. Requiring such a guarantee as a condition to issuance of an ERP would go far beyond SWFWMD requirements and is never required of any applicant. Besides being speculative on the evidence in this case, future development in the area will be required to meet applicable SWFWMD water quality requirements. SWFWMD permitting required for such future development would be the proper forum for OFP to protect itself against possible future reduction in water quality (as well as possible future increase in water quantity). Environmental Impacts The drainage ditches to be improved by the County's project were originally constructed before 1984. These upland cut ditches were not constructed for the purpose of diverting natural stream flow, and are not known to provide significant habitat for any threatened or endangered species. The County provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project will not change the hydroperiod of a wetland or other surface water, so as to adversely affect wetland functions or other surface water functions. The functions of the wetlands and surface waters to be affected by the proposed project include conveyance, some water quality treatment, and possibly some wildlife movement or migration functions between the wetlands served by the ditches. Wetland impacts from the project consists of .63 acre of permanent impacts and .21 acre of temporary impacts, for a total of .84 acre of impact. The permanent impacts consist of the replacement of pipes with new structures in the ditches and the addition of rip rap in areas to prevent sedimentation and erosion. The proposed project's anticipated increase in the rate of flow is expected to lessen the duration of any flooding event at the upper end of the drainage system, and at the downstream end is expected to create a subsequent rise in some of the lakes and storage areas on the OFP property during certain rain events. The anticipated rise in some of the reclaimed lakes on OFP property is not anticipated to have any adverse impact on the functions that those surface waters provide to fish, wildlife or any threatened or endangered species. The reclaimed lakes subject to rise in water levels for certain rain events are steep-sided and do not have much littoral zone, and little, if any, loss of habitat will result. The County's application provides reasonable assurance that the anticipated stage increase in affected wetlands or surface waters will not adversely affect the functions provided by those wetlands or surface waters. The County provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project will not violate water quality standards in areas where water quality standards apply, in either the short- term or the long-term. Long-term effects were addressed in Finding 43-51, supra. Short-term water quality impacts anticipated during the construction of the proposed improvements will be addressed through the use of erosion and sediment controls. The proposed project also will not create any adverse secondary impacts to water resources. The project will not cause any adverse impacts to the bird rookery located to the north on OFP property. The project will not cause any adverse impacts to the bass in OFP's lakes, a concern expressed by OFP relatively recently. To the contrary, since the project will improve water quality in OFP's lakes, the impact on OFP's bass is expected to be positive. OFP raised the issue of a bald eagle nesting site located on its property. The evidence was that a pair of bald eagles has built a nest atop a Tampa Electric Company (TECO) power pole on the property in October of each year since 1996. Each year the pair (which is thought to be the same pair) has used a different TECO power pole. Most of the nests, including the one built in October 2000, have been on poles well south of any construction proposed under the County's ERP and clearly outside of the primary and secondary eagle management zones designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. But one year, a nest was built on a pole farther north and possibly within the secondary eagle management zone. OFP presented testimony that U.S. Fish and Wildlife would require OFP to apply for an "incidental take" in order to build homes within the primary eagle protection zones around any of the four poles on which eagles have built nests since 1996; timing of construction of homes within the secondary protection zones may be affected. Even accepting OFP's testimony, there was no evidence as to how U.S. Fish and Wildlife would view construction of the County's proposed drainage improvements on OFP property within those zones. In addition, the evidence was that, in order to accomplish its DRI plans to build homes in the vicinity of the TECO power poles that have served as eagle nests in recent years, without having to apply for an "incidental take," OFP plans to place eagle poles (more suitable for eagle nests than power poles, which actually endanger the eagles) in another part of its property which is much more suitable habitat in order to encourage the eagles to build their nest there. The new location would put the County's proposed construction activity far outside the primary and secondary eagle management zones. Other Permitting Requirements The County's proposed project is capable, based on generally accepted scientific engineering and scientific principles, of being effectively performed and of functioning as proposed. The County has the financial, legal, and administrative capability of ensuring that the activity proposed to be undertaken can be done in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project will cause adverse impacts to any work of the District established under Section 373.086, Florida Statutes. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the project will not comply with any applicable special basin or geographic area criteria established under Chapter 40D-3, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order issuing Standard General Environmental Resource Permit No. 4419803.000. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September, 2001, 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 17th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda L. McKinley, Esquire Polk County Attorney's Office Post Office Box 9005, Drawer AT01 Bartow, Florida 33831-9005 Gregory R. Deal, Esquire 1525 South Florida Avenue, Suite 2 Lakeland, Florida 33803 Margaret M. Lytle, Esquire Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 E. D. Sonny Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue This case involves a challenge to St. Johns River Water Management District’s (District or SJRWMD) intended issuance of an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) granting the City's Application No. 4-127-97380-1, for the construction and operation of a surface water management system for a retrofit flood-relief project known as Drysdale Drive/Chapel Drive Drainage Improvements consisting of: excavation of the Drysdale Drive pond (Pond 1); improvement to the outfall at Sterling Lake; and the interconnection of Pond 1 and four existing drainage retention areas through a combination of pump stations and gravity outfalls (project or system). The issue is whether the applicant, the City of Deltona (City or Deltona), has provided reasonable assurance the system complies with the water quantity, environmental, and water quality criteria of the District’s ERP regulations set forth in Chapter 40C-4, Florida Administrative Code,1 and the Applicant’s Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters (2005) (A.H.).2
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order issuing to the City of Deltona an ERP granting the City's Application No. 4-127-97380-1, subject to the conditions set forth in the Technical Staff Report. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 2006.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the Respondents, Florida Department of Transportation (“FDOT”) and Palm Beach County (also referred to as “the Applicants”), are entitled to the issuance of an Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) to construct an extension of State Road 7 (“SR 7”) and its associated surface water management system in Palm Beach County.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The City is a municipality incorporated under Florida law. The District is a regional agency with the authority to regulate the construction, operation, and maintenance of any surface water management system pursuant to chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Titles 40E and 62. FDOT is an agency of the state of Florida charged with the establishment, maintenance, and regulation of public transportation. It is a co-applicant for the ERP permit. Palm Beach County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and is a co-applicant for the ERP permit. Background State Road 7 Extension The ERP was issued by the District for an 8.5-mile extension of SR 7 between Okeechobee Boulevard and Northlake Boulevard in Palm Beach County. The purpose of the proposed roadway is to relieve traffic now moving through rural residential areas and two large residential developments known as The Acreage and Jupiter Farms. The proposed roadway would also improve hurricane evacuation by providing additional capacity and connectivity, and reduce emergency response time in the rural residential areas. The proposed roadway alignment was selected by FDOT after a multiyear corridor study under a National Environmental Protection Policy Act process. Four corridors were considered using federal selection criteria that addressed social, environmental, property, physical, and financial impacts. There are two segments of the proposed roadway covered by the ERP. The southern segment would add two more lanes to the existing two-lanes of SR 7 from Okeechobee Boulevard North to 60th Street North, just south of the M-Canal. This segment is 4.4 miles long. The southern segment is not at issue in this case. The northern segment would extend four lanes of SR 7 east from 60th Street North about one mile, and then north 3.1 miles to Northlake Boulevard. This is the roadway segment challenged by Petitioner. Hereafter, all references to “the Project” are to the northern segment. The Project includes a raised roadway, median, sidewalks, bike lanes, and stormwater swales. It also includes a bridge over the M-Canal and a bridge over a water control outfall. The Project would be constructed in an existing right- of-way (“ROW”). FDOT owns a ROW that is approximately 200 feet wide. The County owns an adjacent 120-foot-wide ROW, so that the total width of the Project ROW is 320 feet. Running north/south within the ROW is a dirt service road, a ditch, and a fence. Much of the vegetation in the ROW is dominated by invasive and exotic plant species, including Melaleuca, Carolina Willow, Brazilian Pepper, and Australian Pine. The Ibis Development West of the Project ROW is the 1,958-acre Ibis Golf and Country Club residential development (“Ibis”). In 1989, an ERP was issued for Ibis’ surface water management system (“the Ibis system”). The Ibis system includes almost 300 acres of interconnected lakes that provide water management and water quality treatment for Ibis. The 1989 permit required the Ibis system to be sized to receive and treat runoff from a segment of Northlake Boulevard and from an existing two-lane road off of Northlake Boulevard that serves the commercial area of Ibis, which is directly north of the Ibis residential area. The Ibis system was also required to receive and provide water treatment and storage for the stormwater runoff from 46.8 acres of the ROW for SR 7. The parties introduced evidence about modifications to the 1989 permit, which the City contends reduced the treatment capabilities of the system. It is found from the preponderance of the evidence that the original system and its modifications continued to meet design requirements to store and treat future runoff from 46.8 acres of the SR 7 ROW.1/ When the water in the Ibis lakes reaches elevation 17.5 feet NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum), pumps at two pump stations at the south end of Ibis begin pumping water over a berm into Ibis Preserve, a 366-acre natural area directly south of Ibis. Water is retained in Ibis Preserve unles it exceeds an elevation of 18.5 feet, when it then passes over an outfall structure into the Grassy Waters Everglades Preserve (“Grassy Waters”) to the east. Ibis Preserve provides additional water quality treatment for the water pumped from Ibis, but this additional treatment was not part of the calculation of water quality management for Ibis. The Ibis system was required to meet District permitting criteria before discharge to Ibis Preserve. The North Palm Beach County Improvement District (“Improvement District”) owns and has operational and maintenance responsibility for the Ibis system. It also owned and managed Ibis Preserve, but transferred ownership and management of Ibis Preserve to the City in 2004. Grassy Waters/Water Catchment Area To the east of the Project is the City-owned “Water Catchment Area,” which covers about 14,700 acres or 23 square miles. The Water Catchment Area is owned by the City and is part of its public drinking water supply system. Water in the Water Catchment Area flows to Lake Mangonia where it is withdrawn, treated, and then delivered to residents and businesses in the City, the Town of Palm Beach, and the Town of South Palm Beach. There is a statement in the Project application that Grassy Waters refers only to the open water marsh within the Water Catchment Area. The Water Catchment Area includes other habitat types besides open marsh. Most of the information in the record indicates that Grassy Waters and the Water Catchment Area have the same boundaries. Therefore, in this Recommended Order, Grassy Waters and the Water Catchment Area are treated as being two names for the same area. Grassy Waters was once connected to the Everglades and large portions of it have the same characteristics, being an open water marsh with an extended hydroperiod. It is oligotrophic, meaning it is low in nutrients and has an ecosystem adapted to low nutrient conditions. It was undisputed that most areas of Grassy Waters are of high or even pristine environmental quality. Grassy Waters has periphyton, an assemblage of algae that only survive in phosphorous levels of less than 10 parts per billion (“ppb”). Periphyton is the base of the food chain in the open water marsh area of Grassy Waters and is consumed by apple snails and many invertebrates and fish. Grassy Waters has a visitor and nature center and provides recreational opportunities, such as canoeing, hiking, and bird watching. There appeared to be disagreement about whether the Project ROW is located in Grassy Waters or adjacent to it. The ROW is not within Grassy Waters, it is adjacent. However, the wetlands and other surface waters within the ROW are hydrologically connected to Grassy Waters. In the western part of Grassy Waters, which ends at the Project ROW, there are hammock islands and hydric pine flatwoods. The City contends these areas and the rest of the ROW were historically open water marsh, but were changed by human activities. The more persuasive evidence is that this western area was not all open marsh, historically. It was an area of natural transition from open water marsh to other habitat types. Ibis Impacts to Grassy Waters The parties disputed whether the Ibis system is a “failed system.” This is not a technical or defined term. The relevant issue is whether the Ibis system is operating in conformance with the requirements of its permit. The City contends the Ibis lakes are eutrophic and that sediment accumulation in the lakes is releasing phosphorus back into the water, which ends up in Grassy Waters. However, the City’s expert witness, Dr. Harper, admitted that the phosphorus concentration being discharged from the Ibis system, about 40 ppb, is typical for surface water management systems serving large residential developments, although that concentration is at the high end of the range. The phosphorus concentration is closer to 30 ppb in discharges from Ibis Preserve into Grassy Waters, showing that Ibis Preserve provides additional treatment to the waters coming out of Ibis. The characterization of the nutrient loading from the Ibis system as “typical” did not address the additional nutrients in the drainage that the Ibis system is required to accept from the SR 7 ROW. The record does not show that the nutrient concentrations from the Ibis system would still be typical if all of the ROW drainage were added without pre-treatment, as was contemplated by the 1989 Ibis permit. Because Grassy Waters is an oligotrophic ecosystem, it can be adversely affected by phosphorus levels above 10 ppb. When phosphorus is introduced into an oligotrophic system in concentrations over 10 ppb, the system begins to change to denser wetland vegetation, which can include invasive and nuisance species, such as cattail. There is denser vegetation and cattails in Grassy Waters near the Ibis Preserve outfall. There is also more phosphorus in sediments near the outfall. These effects decrease with distance from the outfall, but some effects were detected as far as a half mile from the outfall. The City’s expert witness, Dr. Gaiser, testified that periphyton is dissolved by high nutrient levels and replaced by weedy algae. She found adverse effects on periphyton near the outfall. Dr. Gaiser also found microcystis near the outfall. Microcystis is a toxic algae caused by high elevations of phosphorous. Microcystis comprised over 10 percent of the cell density of the algal community near the outfall. The District’s witness, Mr. Waterhouse, conceded that there is a problem with nuisance vegetation at the discharge point into Grassy Waters. He said the District was not aware of the problem before information was developed for this case. No evidence was presented about what consideration the District gave in 1989, when Ibis was permitted, to the potential adverse impacts of discharging phosphorus into the oligotrophic ecosystem of Grassy Waters. Based on the evidence that a phosphorus concentration of 30 ppb is expected for this kind of surface water management system, it must be concluded that the Ibis system was not designed to prevent harm to oligotrophic receiving waters. Respondents presented evidence to show that phosphorus loadings from the M-Canal could be the cause of the adverse impacts found near the Ibis Preserve outfall. The M-Canal was constructed by the City for the primary purpose of delivering water from Lake Okeechobee, via connection to the L-8 Canal, to the Water Catchment Area for public water supply. For most of its length, the M-Canal runs through Grassy Waters. The City generally maintains the water level in the M-Canal below the elevation of Grassy Waters so water in the canal will not flow into Grassy Waters. However, on some occasions, water flows from the M-Canal into Grassy Waters. High phosphorus concentrations have been recorded in the M-Canal; as high as 300 ppb. Nuisance vegetation is growing in the area where the M-Canal connects to the Water Catchment Area. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the adverse impacts described by the City’s experts in the area of the Ibis Preserve outfall are caused primarily by discharges from Ibis Preserve. There are three other developments adjacent to Grassy Waters that occasionally discharge to Grassy Waters. These discharges are likely to contain some nutrients, but the amount of nutrients and their effects, if any, on Grassy Waters were not described in the record. The Water Catchment Area is a Class I waterbody because it is used for public water supply. The water quality standard for phosphorus and other nutrients in a Class I waterbody is set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.530(48)(b): In no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna. Grassy Waters was designated by the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) as a stream. Rule 62-302.531(2)(c) states that the narrative criterion “shall be interpreted as being achieved in a stream segment where information on chlorophyll a levels, algal mats or blooms, nuisance macrophyte growth, and changes in algal species composition indicates there are no imbalances in flora or fauna.” The City presented some evidence regarding nuisance macrophyte growth and changes in algal species composition in Grassy Waters near the Ibis Preserve outfall. Little evidence was presented regarding the practice of DEP or the District in the application of the narrative nutrient standard, but the preponderance of the evidence indicates the agency practice is to consider a stream segment as a whole to determine whether it exhibits an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna.2/ During the course of this proceeding, the District issued administrative complaints against the Improvement District and the City, which include Orders for Corrective Action. The complaints were issued pursuant to section 373.119, Florida Statutes, which authorizes such action when a water management district believes that a violation of any provision of chapter 373 or district rule has occurred. However, at the final hearing, the District was reluctant to say the Improvement District had violated any law or permit condition. The Improvement District did not challenge the enforcement action against it and, therefore, the District’s enforcement order became final. The Improvement District is required to address the accumulation of sediment in the Ibis Lakes, develop a nutrient source control plan, eliminate and reduce the use of herbicides containing copper sulfate, and reassess pumping schedules. There is no target nutrient limit specified in the District’s Orders for Corrective Action. The District’s enforcement action against the City seeks to require the City to increase secondary treatment and retention in Ibis Preserve, provide a plan to remove the exotic/invasive vegetation at the outfall, provide a vegetation monitoring plan, and develop source control measures for residential developments that discharge into Grassy Waters. The City challenged the enforcement action and it remains pending. Snail Kites The Everglades snail kite gets its name from its primary food, the apple snail. In the Everglades, snail kites also feed on an exotic island snail, which occurs there in about equal numbers as apple snails. There was no evidence presented that there are exotic island snails in Grassy Waters. Snail kite habitat is dependent on conditions conducive to apple snails, which are the open marsh and oligotrophic conditions where periphyton flourish. If a sufficient number of apple snails are present, snail kites will find suitable nesting nearby. Dense wetland vegetation is not good forage for snail kites because, even if apple snails are present, the apple snails will be difficult or impossible for the snail kites to see. Dr. Welch, who was the state snail kite conservation coordinator at the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and wrote the snail kite management plan for Florida, testified for the District, where he is now employed as a senior scientist. He said field surveys of snail kite nests in Grassy Waters indicate their numbers are relatively low compared to other areas where snail kites are found. There were only ten successful nests (eggs laid) observed from 2000 to 2016. The City’s Everglades expert, Dr. Lodge, speculated that the low nest counts could be due to difficulty in seeing the nests, but he was not familiar with the survey techniques used and, therefore, his opinion that the numbers could be materially underestimated is not credited. Snail kites nest throughout the Water Catchment Area, but primarily in the open marsh areas of the central and eastern portions of the Water Catchment Area. Over 90 percent of snail kite nests are more than a mile from the Project ROW. Dr. Lodge said there are four snail kite nests within 800 feet of the Project, but he was not more specific about their locations. Most nests are closer to Northlake Boulevard, State Road 710, and the Florida Turnpike. The major factor that adversely affects successful nesting by snail kites and production of offspring is predation, usually by raccoons and rat snakes. “Cold snaps” and drought are also factors. Impacts of The Proposed Project Water Quantity Impacts Water storage for the Project, which was going to be handled in the Ibis system under the 1989 Ibis permit, would be provided in the roadside swales. The Project is designed to retain water volumes greater than typically required for roadways. Stormwater would not flow out of the Project into the Ibis system except in unusually large storm events, in excess of six inches of rainfall. The City did not dispute the Project’s compliance with the applicable water quantity criteria in the District rules. Water Quality Impacts To address the City’s concerns about adverse impacts caused by the Ibis system, the Applicants expanded the roadside swales by ten feet and raised the outfall elevation by 0.05 feet. With these modifications, the Project would provide water quality treatment for its stormwater and no longer rely on the Ibis system for treatment. The swales would provide treatment in excess of the treatment required by District rules. Respondents contend that, when the treatment provided by the Ibis system is added, the total treatment provided for the Project stormwater is more than twice as much as required by District rules. The City, on the other hand, claims that no additional water quality treatment can be provided by the Ibis system because the Ibis Lakes are eutrophic. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Project runoff to the Ibis system would receive additional water quality treatment in the Ibis system and in Ibis Preserve before flowing to Grassy Waters. The effect of the Project’s on-site treatment of its stormwater is that the amount of nutrients that would otherwise flow into the Ibis system from SR 7 would be reduced. Therefore, the effect of the Project is to reduce the nutrient load that the Improvement District was permitted to discharge to Ibis Preserve and Grassy Waters. The City did not dispute the Applicants’ evidence that the Project exceeds the District’s design criteria for water quality. The City focused instead on its contention that, despite its compliance with water quality design criteria, the Project would result in additional nutrient loading to Grassy Waters, which would cause additional adverse impacts to its flora and fauna. The Applicants and the City performed nutrient loading analyses even though such analyses are only required by the District when the receiving waters have been designated by the Department as “impaired” by nutrients or in the case of certain other specially designated waters. Grassy Waters does not have any of these special designations. The Applicants’ nutrient loading analysis concluded that the post-development loading of phosphorus and nitrogen from the Ibis system would be less than the pre-development condition, so there would be a net decrease in nutrients discharged into Grassy Waters. Petitioner’s expert witness, Dr. Harper, believes the Project would increase nutrient loading to Grassy Waters, even if stormwater from the Project did not carry additional nutrients, because the increased volume of water moving through the Ibis system would entrain more nutrients from sediments in the Ibis lakes. Dr. Harper believes the Project would also cause nutrient loading via groundwater seepage through the roadway swales into Grassy Waters. The preponderance of the evidence does not support his opinion that groundwater seepage would cause additional nutrient loading.3/ Dr. Harper believes another source of nutrient loading from the Project would be from surface flow down the roadway embankments. On the eastern embankment, this flow would enter the mitigation area 150 feet from Grassy Waters. Dr. Harper’s estimated total loading from all sources is not persuasive. The estimate gives a false sense of precision. It is based on a number of variable assumptions, some of which are not widely known or in use by experts in the field. In addition, Dr. Harper’s opinion did not appear to appropriately account for the modifications to the Project’s storage capacity. Dr. Harper’s estimated loading was not translated into physical effects in Grassy Waters. The Applicants’ estimate of total nutrient loading also gives a false sense of precision, but it is based on a well-known and widely used methodology. The City failed to prove that the Project would result in more nutrient loading to Grassy Waters than is currently contributed by the ROW. Because the Project would not rely on the Ibis system for stormwater treatment, the Project would reduce the loading that the Improvement District was permitted to discharge to Grassy Waters. To address potential vehicular spills into Grassy Waters, FDOT produced a Spill Response Plan. The swales would capture and contain any material spilled on the roadway or swale. The curb and gutter, a guardrail, gravity wall, and fence also provide protection against spills. The bridge over the M-Canal would use a 54-inch traffic barrier, which is higher than FDOT specifications for the design speed for the bridge. The City did not present evidence to show that the protective measures proposed by the Applicants are less than what is usually considered adequate under similar circumstances, or fails to meet a relevant safety standard. Wetland Impacts Direct Impacts The Project would directly impact 52.37 acres of wetlands and 7.86 acres of surface waters. The impacted wetlands are fresh water marsh, mixed shrubs, and hydric pine flatwoods. The surface waters affected consist of vegetated ditches and un- vegetated channels or canals. The impacted wetlands include 11.77 acres of freshwater marsh. The impacted surface waters are ditches. Most of these wetlands are disturbed and their functional values have been reduced. Secondary Impacts District rules require an applicant to account for the secondary impacts caused by a project that could adversely affect the functions of adjacent wetlands or other surface waters. The Applicant’s Handbook defines secondary impacts to include impacts on wetland functions, water quality, and endangered species, including impacts on areas needed by endangered species for foraging. Part of the Applicants’ assessment of secondary impacts of the Project was made by reviewing the effects of the Acreage Reliever Road on Pond Cypress Preserve, a 1,737-acre conservation area managed by the County that is immediately south of the proposed Project. The County has been monitoring the effect of the Acreage Reliever Road on hydrology, vegetation, and species compensation ever since the road was built. The County found no adverse secondary impacts caused by the road. The species that use the wetlands near the road, including wading birds, appear to be unaffected by the road. The scoring of secondary impacts for the Projects, using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (“UMAM”), was conservative, meaning that assumptions were made at the high side of the potential range of impacts. This resulted in more mitigation being required. The Applicants claim the Project would “maintain a 300-foot buffer between the project’s construction boundary and [Grassy Waters].” This appears to be a misstatement. The Applicants’ combined ROW is only 320 feet wide. Going east from the limits of construction, it is 160 feet to Grassy Waters. The Project’s buffer is 160 feet wide. The District accounted for secondary impacts to wetland dependent species, including snail kites, from noise and lights that might discourage use of the area. The Project would provide a tree buffer that will reduce noise and light impacts to Grassy Waters. The roadway lighting plan is also intended to reduce light penetration into Grassy Waters. Most of the threatened and endangered bird species are tolerant of roadways for foraging and roosting, but not for nesting. Section 10.2.7 requires the Applicants to provide reasonable assurances that any future phase of a project or project-related activities will not result in adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or water quality violations. The Applicants satisfied this requirement by releasing of FDOT ROW north and south of the Project. Cumulative Impacts An applicant must provide reasonable assurance that a regulated activity will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters within the same drainage basin as the regulated activity for which a permit is sought. Some of the proposed mitigation for the Project is out- of-basin. If an applicant proposes to mitigate impacts in another drainage basin, District rules require consideration of factors such as “connectivity of waters, hydrology, habitat range of affected species, and water quality” to determine whether there are unacceptable cumulative impacts. The Project is located in the eastern Palm Beach County Basin, which has approximately 21,000 acres of wetlands. About 89 percent of the wetlands in the basin are publicly-owned conservation lands, which means their wetland functions will continue into the future. The cumulative impact analysis was conservative, meaning that the actual impacts are likely to be fewer. Petitioner contends that Respondents’ cumulative impact analysis did not account for the unique nature of the Grassy Waters ecosystem as the only remaining low nutrient oligotrophic wetland in the region. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the historical wetland types in the Project area were not all like the open marsh found in the central and eastern portion of Grassy Waters. Respondents accounted for the loss of open water marsh that would be caused by the Project. On-Site Mitigation There would be 52.4 acres of on-site mitigation within a 160-foot-wide strip of land along the eastern limits of proposed construction. This area of the ROW would be managed by removing or treating the exotic vegetation, such as Brazilian Pepper and Maleleuca. Removing the exotic vegetation seed source would prevent further spread of these nuisance species into Grassy Waters. Where native habitats have been altered with ditches and berms, the land would be graded to create a slope from the limits of construction eastward to the edge of the ROW. The eastern elevation would be similar to the adjacent marsh or hydric pine areas of Grassy Waters. Then, native vegetation would be planted. The habitats enhanced, restored, or created would include freshwater marsh, hydric pine flatwoods and mixed forested wetlands, including cypress. The planting of mixed, forested species would provide sound and light buffering for snail kites and other species in Grassy Waters. Two wildlife passages would be created underneath the Project with fencing designed to direct wildlife to use the wildlife passages. Slats would be placed in the roadway fencing to prevent small animals from going through the fence and onto the roadway. The on-site mitigation was scored using UMAM and determined to result in functional gain. The UMAM analysis was conservative, meaning that the actual functional gain is likely to be greater. The City did not contest the UMAM scoring. Off-site Mitigation FDOT is applying mitigation credits from 210 acres at the Pine Glades Natural Area (“Pine Glades”) to offset impacts to 15.7 acres of herbaceous marsh and 26.78 acres of forested wetland impacts. Pine Glades is a regional off-site mitigation area located in the Loxahatchee River Basin and is owned and operated by Palm Beach County. Pine Glades consists of a mix of wet prairie, depression marshes, hydric pine flatwoods, and mesic flatwoods. The restoration work in Pine Glades has already been completed. Pines Glades implements a detailed management plan that provides regional ecological value. Robbins testified that Pine Glades has similar habitats to Grassy Waters. Pine Glades has periphyton, apple snails, snail kites, wood storks, and sand hill cranes. Pine Glades has some areas with oligotrophic conditions. Additional off-site mitigation to offset 52 acres of wetland impacts caused by the Project would be provided at the DuPuis Reserve (“DuPuis”). DuPuis is a regional off-site mitigation area located between the L-8 Canal and the C-44 Canal in western Palm Beach and Martin Counties, and is owned and operated by the District. DuPuis would provide mitigation with 34.71 acres of herbaceous wetlands and 43.8 acres of forested wetlands. DuPuis is appropriate to offset the impacts associated with the Project because it provides similar habitats with similar values of functions for similar wildlife. DuPuis implements a detailed management plan that provides regional ecological value. The City argues that there is little similarity between the Grassy Waters ecosystem and Pine Glades or DuPuis, so the mitigation there cannot offset the unique assemblage of plants and animals that would be lost in Grassy Waters. It is unnecessary for Pine Glades and DuPuis to be dominated by open water marshes like Grassy Waters. It is only necessary that they have some of these areas to offset Project impacts to open water marsh. Proposed snail kite mitigation would provide 52.5 more acres of snail kite habitat than would be directly impacted by the Project. The mitigation for snail kites will be located in FDOT ROW adjacent to the Project, south of the M-Canal, and north of Northlake Blvd. Erwin expressed concern about fragmentation of the ecosystems that would be caused by the Project. The areas that would be affected by the Project have already been fragmented by berms, ditches, and fences. Grassy Waters is surrounded by berms, a canal, and highways. The Project would cause fragmentation, like all roads. However, the fragmentation was reduced where practicable, and the City did not show that the roadway would cause the loss of any significant “greenway” now used by wildlife. Snail Kite Impacts Section 10.2.2(a) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that a proposed activity would not impact wetlands and other surface waters so as to reduce the abundance and diversity of listed species. Snail kites, wood storks, sandhill cranes, white ibises, and little blue herons are listed species that have been observed within the Project corridor. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, the UMAM process is designed to mitigate for wetland functional losses, not snail kite functional losses. However, the potential impact to any listed species warrants close attention to the issue of whether function-for-function wetland mitigation would be provided. There will be 11.5 acres of direct impacts to snail kite habitat within the footprint of the Project area. Dr. Welch believes secondary impacts to wetland functions associated with snail kites could extend 800 feet east of the ROW. Mitigation for snail kites would be located in the Rangeline corridor south of the M-Canal and north of Northlake Boulevard. Dr. Welch estimated there were about 64 acres of snail kite habitat in the Rangeline corridor similar to the 11.5 acres of habitat located in the Project footprint. Dr. Welch conceded that he has no evidence that snail kites currently use the Rangeline, but he believes the habitat is suitable and is appropriate mitigation. Petitioner claims there are studies of “similar birds” indicating that snail kites avoid highways due to noise. However, the studies were not of similar birds. More weight is given to Dr. Welch’s testimony that snail kites are not particularly sensitive to roadway noise. Dr. Welch stated that Pine Glades would likely have value for snail kites because it is near the Hungryland Wildlife Management Area, which has the same number of successful snail kite nests as Grassy Waters. The City contends that Pine Glades is too far away from Grassy Waters to mitigate Project impacts to snail kites. However, snail kites range long distances to forage; several hundred miles in a few days. Satellite telemetry of snail kites shows snail kites from Grassy Waters are using Pine Glades for feeding. Dr. Welch reviewed snail kite nesting data to determine whether roads deterred nesting and found that snail kites frequently nested within 500 feet of major roadways. Dr. Welch refuted the idea that Grassy Waters provided snail kite refuge during drought conditions, because Grassy Waters is also subject to drought conditions that adversely affect snail kites. There are conditions in the permit to limit potential impacts to snail kites during construction of the Project. If snail kite nesting is observed within 1,640 feet of construction, all Project construction must cease. Thereafter, monitoring of the nest and notification of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required. Construction cannot resume until that nest has been considered finished. FDOT would place a conservation easement over 82.6 acres in the FDOT ROW between Okeechobee Boulevard and the M-Canal, south of the Project area that is the subject of this proceeding. The conservation easement would maintain connectivity between the Pond Cypress Natural Area and Grassy Waters and ensure that no future southern extension of the roadway will be constructed. A conservation easement would be placed on the FDOT ROW between Northlake Boulevard and SR 710, an area of approximately 43.5 acres. Preserving this area protects a hydrologic connection between Loxahatchee Slough Natural Area and Grassy Waters. It also ensures no future northern extension of the roadway. A conservation easement would be placed on a portion of the FDOT ROW between SR 710 and Jupiter Farms, an area of 44.5 acres. This section of ROW is in the Loxahatchee Slough and the release of the ROW would be a direct benefit to Loxahatchee Slough. The preservation of these areas would benefit fishing and recreational values in the Pond Cypress Natural Area, Grassy Waters, and the Loxahatchee Slough Natural Area. These conservation areas did not receive UMAM credits to reduce the wetland acreage needed to offset wetland functional losses, but they were included in the mitigation credit for benefits to snail kites and other wildlife. Summary The preponderance of the evidence established that the proposed mitigation offsets the impacts to wetlands and other surface waters that would be caused by the Project and exceeds the requirements of District rules. Practicable Design Modifications District rules require an applicant to consider alternatives that would avoid or reduce wetland impacts. The City claims the Applicants failed to comply with this rule because FDOT selected a roadway corridor that was expected to have greater environmental impacts than some of the other three corridors that were being considered. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, this argument is misplaced. The District’s review of the Applicants’ measures to avoid or minimize wetland impacts was appropriately confined to Corridor 3, the corridor selected by FDOT where the Project is proposed. The Applicants reduced and eliminated impacts of the Project in several ways. For example, the footprint of the road was narrowed from six lanes to four lanes, wildlife underpasses were provided, retaining walls were used to narrow stormwater features, the median was reduced in size, and the design speed limit was reduced for the bridge at the M-Canal crossing. Under two circumstances, District rules allow an applicant to avoid the requirement to implement practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate wetland impacts, which are referred to as the “opt-out” provisions. Section 10.2.1.2, Volume I, of the Applicant’s Handbook (“A.H.”) provides: The ecological value of the functions provided by the area of wetland or other surface water to be adversely affected is low, based on a site specific analysis using the factors in section 10.2.2.3, below, and the proposed mitigation will provide greater long term ecological value than the area of wetland or other surface water to be adversely affected, or The applicant proposes mitigation that implements all or part of a plan that provides regional ecological value and that provides greater long term ecological value than the area of wetland or other surface water to be adversely affected. The District determined that the Applicants meet both tests. The preponderance of the evidence supports the District’s determination. The ecological value of the functions provided by the affected wetlands and surface is low and the proposed mitigation would provide greater long-term ecological value than the area being impacted. Pine Glades and DuPuis are part of a plan to restore the ecological value of Northern Palm Beach County and create an “ocean to lake” system of preserves and natural areas.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order approving Permit Number 50-05422-P on the terms and conditions set forth in the amended Staff Report, and the complete application for the Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The SFWMD is a public corporation in the state of Florida existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and operating pursuant to Chapter 573, Fla. Stat., and Title 40E, Fla. Admin. Code, as a multi-purpose water management district, with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida. The Navy has proposed construction of a naval housing facility on the Peary Court site (the "Site") in Key West, Florida. The Site is approximately 25.89 acres and will provide 160 housing units for junior enlisted Navy and Air Force personnel and their families. The Site is the center of a larger, 37 acre drainage basin. The Site was formerly the location of military housing. However, for the past 18 years, the Site had been used by the City of Key West, with the assent of the Navy, for active and passive recreation for city residents. The Site contains a cemetery of historic value and a former military housing structure now being used by the Navy Key West Federal Credit Union with an associated parking area of paved asphalt. On February 6, 1992, the Navy submitted an application for a Surface Water Management District General Permit for the Project. The proposed surface water management system (the "System") was designed by Rice Creekmore, a registered professional engineer, and his company Johnson, Creekmore, and Fabray. The proposed System utilizes the existing topography and incorporates a number of drainage control mechanisms to manage the run-off from the Site. The System employs inlets, swales and culverts to direct stormwater run-off into dry detention areas (ponds) for pretreatment prior to discharging into seven 24-inch Class V injection wells (drainage wells). As discussed below, these injection wells must be permitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation ("FDER"). The dry pond areas utilize key ditches, bottom elevation 1.0' NGVD, in order to hydraulically connect all of the dry pond areas together into one dry system prior to overflowing into the drainage wells beginning at elevation 1.5' NGVD. In other words, the detention ponds are interconnected with pipes. The design includes only one point where run-off would be discharged from the Site during any storm equal to a 25 year, three day storm event. That discharge would occur at the lowest point of the Site at the corner of Eisenhower and Palm. The water would be discharged through a V notch weir (the "Weir") into the City's stormwater system. An existing 12" storm drain line at the discharge point will be replaced by a 13.5" by 22.0" Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Pipe culvert. As discussed in more detail below, the System is designed so as to detain 1" of run-off within the dry detention ponds prior to any discharge through the Weir. After review of the application and submittals, the SFWMD issued a Notice of Intent to issue General Permit and Stormwater Discharge Certification No. 44-00178-S (the "Permit") on September 29, 1992. Petitioner and Intervenor timely petitioned for an administrative hearing challenging the SFWMD decision to award the Permit. There is no dispute as to the standing of either Petitioner or Intervenor. The SFWMD has adopted rules that set forth the criteria which an applicant must satisfy in order for a surface water management permit to issue. The criteria are set forth in Rule 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(m) and 40E-4.091(1)(a) incorporate by reference The Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within South Florida Water Management District - April, 1987, ("The Basis for Review"). The Basis for Review explicates certain procedures and information used by the SFWMD staff in reviewing a surface water management permit application. The SFWMD issues general permits for projects of 40 acres or less that meet specific criteria. All other projects must obtain individual permits which are reviewed by the District Board. The specific rules relating only to general permits are set forth in Rule 40E-40. In addition, the Basis for Review sets forth certain technical requirements which must be met for the issuance of a general permit including general construction requirements and special requirements for wetlands. The Basis for Review also sets forth criteria for how a proposed system should address water quantity and water quality issues. The SFWMD assumes that water quantity and water quality standards will be met if a system satisfies the criteria set forth in the Basis for Review. Water Quantity Criteria Rule 40E-4.301(a), Florida Administrative Code, requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that a surface water management system will provide adequate flood protection and drainage. The purpose of the water quantity criteria is to insure that pre- development flows and post-development flows are equal. The SFWMD requires calculations of a project's projected post-development flow to guarantee that the post-development discharge rate will not be in excess of the pre-development discharge rate. These calculations are based on a 25 year, 3 day storm event. There is no stormwater management system in place at the Project Site. The pre-development topography results in a pre-development discharge point from the Site at the corner of Eisenhower Drive and Palm Avenue. At this point, a discharge or outfall pipe leads into the City of Key West's stormwater management system. The City's system ultimately discharge into Garrison Bight, a nearly waterbody which is discussed in more detail below. At the time the Navy began planning for the Project, the Navy was told that the discharge pipe had a capacity of accepting water at a rate of 40 cubic feet per second ("CFS"). The Navy initially designed a system to utilize this capacity. Subsequently, it was discovered that, due to the size of the pipe at the discharge point and the capacity of the pipes downstream in the City of Key West's stormwater management system, the City would not allow or accommodate a discharge of more than 11 CFS from the Site. Thus, the System had to be redesigned so that the discharge to the City's system would not exceed 11 CFS. The system was redesigned to incorporate the seven (7) Class V injection wells. The injection wells are intended to insure that discharge from the Project into the City stormwater system through the surface water discharge pipe at Eisenhower Drive and Palm Avenue will not exceed 11 CFS. The injection wells introduce treated stormwater into the ground before it reaches the discharge point. The pre-development rate of surface water discharge from Peary Court in a 25 year, 72 hour storm event was 55 CFS. This rate was calculated based upon a site survey, a determination of the existing amount of pervious versus impervious surface area, and a calculation made through a generally accepted civil-engineering computer program. 1/ This predevelopment discharge is the amount of water which would be expected to discharge off-site after percolation occurs. The number and size of the injection wells for the proposed system were determined based upon tests of an on-site twelve-inch fire well. The results of the tests revealed that the on-site test well could manage in excess of 2 CFS. Due to test limitations, the exact capacity could not be measured, but the capacity was clearly more than 2 CFS. These results were then compared with data obtained from the engineering firm of Post, Buckeley, Schuh & Jernigan for installed wells in the Florida Keys of a similar nature and size to the wells in the proposed surface water management system. The Post, Buckeley test results indicated that 24-inch wells had a capacity of 31 CFS. In addition, the design engineer consulted with South Florida Well Drillers, who have drilled other wells in the Florida Keys including 24-inch wells at the Key West airport which were completed shortly before the application for this Project. South Florida Well drillers found the capacity of 24-inch wells in Key West to be in the 25 to 30 CFS range. Based upon the results of the test well and the related reports described above, the project engineer based his design of the surface water management system on an estimated well capacity of 8.4 CFS for each well. These estimates were submitted by the Navy in its application and were appropriately determined to be reasonable by the SFWMD staff. Indeed, the evidence established that 8.4 CFS was a conservative estimate. The seven injection wells, at an estimated capacity of approximately 8.4 CFS each, provide in excess of 56 CFS of well discharge capacity, which is beyond the necessary discharge volume for the Project. Limiting Condition No. 13 of the Permit requires the Navy to obtain a well capacity test from a Florida Registered Professional Engineer or Professional Geologist following the installation of the first Class V injection well at the Site. If the results of this test indicate that the capacity of the well is different than that submitted by the Navy in its application, the Navy must apply for a permit modification to provide a design which incorporates a representative injection well flow-rate and an appropriate number of wells for the Site. In view of the reasonableness of the capacity rates utilized for the wells, it is unlikely that the results of the capacity test will result in any major design change in the proposed surface water management system. The use of the injection wells in the proposed surface water management system will significantly reduce the amount of run-off which would otherwise reach Garrison Bight from the Site. After the System is completed, it is expected that the amount of run-off from the Site that will reach Garrison Bight will be only 20 percent of the predevelopment amount. In addition, because there has previously been no management of the run-off from the Site and surrounding areas, there has been a frequent flooding problem at the corner of Eisenhower Drive and Palm Avenue after heavy rain storms. The proposed surface water management system will accommodate the overflow of water which historically occurred when discharges from Peary Court and the surrounding areas could not be accommodated by the Key West storm water management system. Petitioner and Intervenor suggest that the effect of tidal flow on the capacity of the wells was not fully considered. The evidence established that the design engineer considered normal high tides in calculating groundwater elevations. Respondent's engineering experts have concluded that the proposed surface water management system is effectively designed to accommodate the Florida Keys' tidal flows. Petitioner and Intervenor offered no expert testimony to refute this conclusion and/or to establish that the tides would impact the effectiveness of the proposed surface water management system. In the event that an extremely high tide occurs at the time of a storm, the detention ponds may hold standing water for a short time. This water would not be discharged off-site. There is no evidence that tidal influences would in any way adversely affect the System's ability to uptake pollutants in the "first- flush". The Class V shallow injection wells are an integral part of the proposed Peary Court surface water management system. Without the injection wells it is not clear whether the Project could meet the SFWMD water quantity criteria. The SFWMD does not have authority to permit Class V injection wells. FDER must permit those wells. The Peary Court site is not the first Florida Keys' project permitted by the SFWMD which utilizes injection wells. The surface water management permits for the other projects were issued contingent upon obtaining the necessary permits for the injection wells. Special Condition No. 14 of the Permit provides that the Permit is conditioned on the Applicant obtaining the applicable permits from FDER for the injection wells. During the interim while the Navy is seeking the FDER permits, it should be required to retain all run-off on-site. If the Navy is not able to obtain the necessary FDER permits for the injection wells, the Navy should be required to either retain all run-off on-site or propose an alternate design to meet the SFWMD's water quantity requirements. A modified permit application with a new Notice of Intent should be required for any alternate design. The following Special Condition Number 14 was offered by the SFWMD at the hearing (language revised from original condition is highlighted and underlined): THIS PERMIT IS ISSUED BASED ON THE APPLICANT OBTAINING THE NECESSARY CLASS V INJECTION WELL PERMITS FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION (FDER). THE PERMITTEE SHALL SUBMIT AN APPROVED CLASS V DRAINAGE WELL PERMIT FROM FDER PRIOR TO OPERATION OF THE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. IN THE INTERIM, THE PERMITTEE SHALL CERTIFY TO THE DISTRICT THAT NO OFF-SITE DISCHARGE WILL OCCUR UNTIL THE APPROVED CLASS V DRAINAGE WELLS ARE IN OPERATION. IF THE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DESIGN MUST BE MODIFIED AS A RESULT OF FDER REQUIREMENTS OR IF THE CLASS V INJECTION WELL PERMITS ARE NOT ISSUED, THE APPLICANT SHALL APPLY FOR A PERMIT MODIFICATION TO PROVIDE A SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DESIGN WHICH SHALL MEET DISTRICT CRITERIA IN EFFECT AT THAT TIME. The proposed additional language requires the Navy to certify that no off-site discharges will occur until the injection wells are permitted and are operating. This revised language should be added to Special Condition No. 14 to clarify that the injection wells must be in operation prior to any off-site discharge from the surface water management system. Maintenance of the surface water management system entails upkeep of the dry detention areas and routine grass cutting, as well as inspection of the injection wells on a periodic basis to guard against clogging and reduced capacity. The system is essentially designed to operate without direct surveillance or intervention. Injection wells do not require any additional maintenance over and above that which is routinely required for other types of surface water management systems. The injection wells will require routine maintenance to ensure that manholes and inlets do not become clogged. Limiting Condition No. 8 of the Permit requires that the surface water management system, including the injection wells, be maintained. At the hearing, the SFWMD proposed that a condition be added to the Permit to further clarify the maintenance requirements. A condition requiring long-term maintenance would be desirable and reasonable. A new special condition should be added to the Permit requiring long-term maintenance of grass swales and inspections of injection wells for clogging. Acceptable language for such a condition would be: SPECIAL CONDITION NO. 15 The permittee shall provide long-term maintenance of the surface water management system, encompassing the injection wells, including, but not limited to, (a) maintenance of the vegetation in the grass swales and detention ponds and (b) routine inspections of wells and discharge structures for clogging. Water Quality Criteria As noted above, there is no designed system for surface water management and/or water quality pretreatment at the Site in its undeveloped state. Surface water run-off that can not be managed by the City of Key West's storm water management system collects in roads adjacent to the Site, resulting in adverse water quality and quantity impacts to adjacent land and receiving waters. The applicable water quality criteria, contained in Rule 40E-4.301, Florida Administrative Code, require an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that a surface water management system will not cause adverse water quality impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands, and will not cause discharge which results in any violation of the standards and criteria of Chapter 17-302 for surface waters of the state. Rule 40E-4.301 provides that: In order to obtain a permit under this chapter, an applicant must give reasonable assurances that the surface water management system is consistent with the State Water Policy as set forth in Chapter 17-40, Florida Administrative Code (40E-4.301(1)(h), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 17-40.420 provides in pertinent part: Minimum Stormwater Treatment Performance Standards. When a stormwater management system complies with rules establishing the design and performance criteria for stormwater management systems, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that such systems will comply with state water quality standards. The Department and the Districts, pursuant to Section 373.436, Florida Statutes, shall adopt rules that specify design and performance criteria for new stormwater management systems which: 1. Shall be designed to achieve at least 80 percent reduction of the average annual load of pollutants that would cause or contribute to violations of state water quality standards. The Basis for Review, which is incorporated into Title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, by reference, further delineates the applicable water quality permit criteria for surface water management systems. Regarding water quality criteria, the Basis for Review provides: 3.2.2.1 State standards - Projects shall be designed so that discharges will meet state water quality standards, as set forth in Chapter 17-3 [revised to 17-302], Florida Administrative Code. The SFWMD's water quality criteria do not require chemical testing of stormwater for residential projects. The SFWMD's water quality criteria require that the design of a surface water management system meet applicable design/technology based criteria. Section 3.2.2.2 of the Basis for Review contains the specific water quality criteria for the design of a surface water management system. The SFWMD allows applicants to design their surface water management system using either dry or wet detention or dry or wet retention, so long as the treatment provided by the system meets water quality and quantity criteria. Dry detention consists of a system of grass swales and vegetative- covered ponds which detain water at a predetermined rate prior to off-site discharge. Wet retention can contain canals, ditches, lakes or ponds to retain water on-site. If a system is designed to meet the criteria specified in 3.2.2.2(a) of the Basis for Review and incorporates Best Management Practices ("BMP's") for the type of system proposed, the SFWMD presumes that water quality standards will not be violated. In determining which system is appropriate for a particular site, water quantity (flooding impacts) and water quality impacts must be balanced. In some cases, water quantity concerns may preclude certain types of water quality treatment methods. At the hearing in this case, Petitioner and Intervenor suggested that retention is superior to detention in designing surface water management systems. The evidence presented in this case was insufficient to support this conclusion. In any event, this contention focuses only on water quality considerations. One drawback to retention is that it may have on-site flooding impacts. With respect to this Project, the evidence indicates that retention may not have been an acceptable alternative because of possible adverse water quantity impacts. The Navy's proposed surface water management system was designed to utilize dry detention with filtration for treatment of surface water prior to discharge into the injection wells and/or off-site. The design uses a system of grass swales and grass-covered detention ponds to detain and filter pollutants from the surface water as it makes its way through the dry detention system. The System is designed to utilize as many grass swale areas as possible to filter or treat the surface water before it reaches the detention ponds which provide further treatment. The swales restrict the flow of water to approxmiately one half to one foot per second which allows for percolation and a tremendous amount of filtration. The System utilizes the natural topography of the Site to direct water through the dry detention system to the lowest point of the Site at the corner of Eisenhower Drive and Palm Avenue. Any water which makes it to this last detention pond and is not drained into one of the injection wells can flow through the discharge structure (the Weir) at 11 CFS and ultimately make it into Garrison Bight. Petitioner and Intervenor have suggested that the design of the proposed System is defective because water discharged from the cul-de-sacs in the Project design will flow directly into detention ponds without passing over any of the grass swales. The permit criteria do not specify that all surface water must contact grass swales prior to reaching a detention pond. While greater filtration is achieved the longer the run-off remains in the system, the evidence established that the detention ponds by themselves provide sufficient water quality treatment. With respect to all but one of the cul-de-sacs, the water must pass through at least two detention ponds before it is discharged. Run-off from the cul-de-sac closest to the Weir will receive treatment only in the last discharge pond. Petitioner and Intervenor questioned whether the run- off from this last cul-de-sac will receive adequate treatment, in other words, whether the "first flush" will be adequately detained prior to discharge, especially in circumstances when the detention pond is already wet. However, the evidence was insufficient to establish that their concerns are justified and/or that this situation would constitute a violation of water quality standards. This cul-de-sac is only 100 ft in diameter and accounts for no more than 8 percent of the total run-off from the Site. After considering all of the evidence, it is concluded that the water from the cul-de-sacs will be adequately treated in accordance with the permit criteria prior to any discharge. In assessing the Navy's proposed surface water management system the following criteria from the Basis for Review are pertinent in determining whether the proposed System will provide appropriate water quality treatment: 3.2.2.2 Retention and/or detention in the overall system, including swales, lakes, canals, greenways, etc., shall be provided for one of the three following criteria or equivalent combinations thereof. . .: Wet detention volume shall be provided for the first inch of run-off from the developed project, or the total run-off of 2.5 inches times the percentage of imperviousness, whichever is greater. Dry detention volume shall be provided equal to 75 percent of the above amounts computed for wet detention. If the receiving waterbody, is a "sensitive receiving water," which would include an Outstanding Florida Water, the following additional criteria regarding direct discharges are applicable: 3.2.2.2 d. Projects having greater than 40 percent impervious area and which discharge directly to sensitive receiving waters shall provide at least one half inch of dry detention or retention pretreatment as part of the required retention/detention. The SFWMD interprets the permitting criteria as creating a rebuttable presumption that a surface water management system that provides detention in accordance with BMP's of the first inch (1") of run-off from a Site, commonly referred to as the "first-flush", will meet state water quality standards. The "first-flush" occurs at the onset of a rainfall when most pollutants run off paved areas and percolate into the grass swales. It is an accepted design parameter that the "first flush" contains 90 percent of the pollutants which will be collected in the run-off. The 90 percent of the pollutants in the first flush are consequently retained on-site through pure percolation and never reach the discharge facility. Although Petitioner and Intervenor suggest that dry detention does not provide this degree of filtration, the evidence was insufficient to support this contention. The proposed System for this Project provides treatment for the first one inch (1") of run-off from the developed Project, thereby meeting the permitting criteria for sensitive receiving waters. Intervenor and Petitioner contend that the development of this Project will necessarily result in a larger amount of pollutants in the run-off from the Site. They argue that the Applicant has not provided reasonable assurances that capturing 90 percent of the increased level of pollutants in the first flush will meet water quality standards. As noted above, compliance with the permit criteria creates a rebuttable presumption that water quality standards will be met. Insufficient evidence was presented to overcome this rebuttable presumption. In calculating the appropriate volume for the dry detention ponds, the Project engineer used the Site's percentage of impervious area. The percentage of impervious area was determined in accordance with SFWMD criteria. The calculations do not account for any percolation from the impervious areas even though much of that run-off will pass through swales and other grassy areas of the Site. In addition, there is a built-in buffer between the berm elevation around the ponds and the expected water level in the ponds. These factors confirm that there is significant additional capacity in the ponds which is an overage or safety net. In sizing the detention ponds, the project engineer also factored in additional off-site water that will be coming on-site from Palm Avenue. This water currently ponds on Palm Avenue contributing to a recurring flooding problem in the area. This off-site water will be routed through an inlet and pumped directly into on-site detention areas thereby reducing flooding on Palm Avenue and providing some treatment for off-site run-off that was not previously treated before entering the City's stormwater system. As noted above, additional water quality criteria requirements apply to projects which discharge to an Outstanding Florida Water. These additional criteria are set forth in paragraph 40 above. Outstanding Florida Water or OFW is the designation given exclusively by the FDER to certain waterbodies in Florida which have special significance, either for ecological or recreational reasons. Outstanding Florida Waters are afforded the highest degree of water quality protection. The criteria for designation of waters as Outstanding Florida Waters is found in Chapter 17-302, Florida Administrative Code. When the SFWMD initially reviewed the Permit application for this Project, it erroneously assumed that Garrison Bight, the ultimate receiving body for the waters discharged from the project through the City stormwater system, was an OFW. Although the SFWMD applied water quality criteria for OFW's when it reviewed the subject permit application, the evidence at the hearing in this case established that Garrison Bight is not an Outstanding Florida Water. A FDER representative, qualified as an expert in the designation of Outstanding Florida Waters, testified that the Outstanding Florida Water designation does not apply to certain waterbodies that were degraded at the time of designation or did not have the significance or pristine water quality that merit special protection. The designation also does not apply to artificial waterbodies. Artificial waterbodies are defined in Rule 17-302.700(9)(i), Florida Administrative Code, as a waterbody created by dredging or excavation or by the filing in of its boundaries on at least two sides. The FDER has formally determined that Garrison Bight is not an Outstanding Florida Water because Garrison Bight is an artificial waterbody in accordance with the definition. Furthermore, Garrison Bight is the site of extensive boating and marina activities. The water quality of Garrison Bight is currently degraded in comparison to ambient conditions and offshore/unconfined water. In sum, the evidence established that proposed surface water management system meets or exceeds the current permit criteria. Consequently, the water flowing into Garrison Bight from the Site will be significantly less and much cleaner after the proposed surface water management system is installed than it currently is without a designed surface water management system.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving the issuance of Surface Water Management General Permit No. 44-01785 in accordance with the Notice of Intent dated September 29, 1992 and the additional conditions noted in this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 14th day of May, 1993.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent HBJ Investments, Inc. is entitled to an environmental resource permit to facilitate the construction of the Betty Jones Spa on property adjacent to property owned by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact On November 17, 1998, Respondent HBJ Investments, Inc. (Applicant) filed an application (Application) with the South Florida Water Management District (District) for an environmental resource permit (ERP). The Application is for a Standard General (minor systems) ERP. The Application states that the proposed surface water management system is to serve a 11,564 square foot health spa with associated infrastructure improvements, such as parking, utilities, landscaping, and a stormwater detention facility. Section H of the Application responds to form questions that are intended to determine whether an application meets the requirements of a standard general ERP for a minor surface water system. Among the threshold requirements is that the proposed discharges from the site "will meet State water quality standards, and the surface water management system will meet the applicable technical criteria for stormwater management in the Basis of Review." Another threshold requirement is that the proposed activities will not cause significant adverse impacts individually or cumulatively. The Application states that the water quality treatment system will be on-line detention with effluent filtration. The Application and related documents describe the system in greater detail. The system consists of drains, inlets, a swale, an underground vault to provide effluent filtration through a sand filter and perforated pipe, an internal oil and grease skimmer, a control box, and a 15-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe providing outfall from the vault. By Notice of Final Agency Action for Approval dated February 4, 1999, the District proposed the issuance of a "Standard General for Minor Surface Water Management Systems" ERP for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed system (Permit). Permit Specific Condition 2 requires: "The discharges from this system shall meet state water quality standards as set forth in Chapter 62-302 and Rule 62-4.242, F.A.C., for class waters equivalent to the receiving waters." Permit Specific Condition 8 requires, for vault systems, that the system become dry within 72 hours after a rainfall event. Permit Specific Condition 9 requires the operation and maintenance entity to submit inspection reports for inspections to be performed every 18 months. Permit Specific Condition 10 requires a water quality monitoring program for systems, such as the proposed system, using an internal oil and grease skimmer. This condition obligates HBJ to take three samples during each of the first two annual rainy seasons following the commencement of operation of the system. The monitoring must take place immediately after rainfall events of sufficient magnitude to cause a discharge from the outfall structure. If the discharged water does not meet water quality standards for oil and grease, as established by Rule 62.302.510(3)(k), Florida Administrative Code, then the permittee must alter the system to attain compliance for this water quality parameter. The subject parcel is bounded by Fourth Avenue South on the north, First Street South on the east, Second Street South on the west, and an unnamed alley on the south. This site is just south of Al Lang Field. In its present state, the parcel is nearly entirely pervious surface. Some of the stormwater flowing onto the parcel percolates into the soils, and the remainder flows into City of Saint Petersburg stormwater sewers, from which it is carried about two city blocks to Tampa Bay, where it is discharged. The parcel was formerly used for single-family residential housing, but is now mostly cleared. The runoff from the site presently carries mostly sediments. After the proposed construction, 79 percent of the parcel would consist of impervious surface. Although small areas of the developed parcel might remain vegetated, and thus add nutrients into the runoff, the primary change in the runoff will consist of the addition of automobile-related contaminants, including, but not limited to, oil and grease. HBJ's engineer designed the proposed surface water management system to treat the first one-half inch of stormwater runoff. The engineer's report notes, in a letter dated November 13, 1998, that siltation in the vault reduces storage volume, so it is "required that cleaning be done every six (6) months." The report suggests the removal of grass clippings from the parking area, so that they are not transported to the retention vault. The report suggests that the underdrain system should be backflushed periodically, and the control structure should be checked monthly and all debris cleared. In general, the system would collect runoff from the roof downspouts and parking area. The system would provide treatment of the first 1/2 inch of runoff by capturing it in the vault, where it would filter through a layer of several cubic feet of sand before entering a perforated pipe leading to the City stormwater sewer. Runoff from rainfall in excess of the first 1/2 inch would receive little, if any, treatment. It is implicit that the first 1/2 inch of rainfall contains the first flush of contaminants from impervious surfaces. Nothing in the record specifies the efficacy of treatment provided by this standard, although it obviously is less than 100 percent efficient because of the higher standard imposed upon systems discharging into Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). However, a pre- and post-development analysis of the runoff from the subject parcel would reveal an unknown additional volume of runoff from the developed site, due to the replacement of pervious surface with impervious surface. It is unclear whether the developed site would generate a reduced volume of sediments in this increased volume of runoff. Although little vegetated surface would exist post-development, the record does not reveal the extent to which the pre-development pervious area fails to capture the sediments prior to their entering the City stormwater system. More problematic are the automobile-related contaminants, such as oil and grease, that will be introduced into the runoff by the developed site. Presumably, the runoff from the undeveloped site contains few, if any, such contaminants. Thus, any automobile-related contaminants discharged from the surface water management system would likely be an increase from the amount of such contaminants presently discharged from the site. The runoff from the developed site would enter the City of Saint Petersburg stormwater sewer system and would be released in the nearby Tampa Bay. The record does not disclose the stormwater sewer line transporting the discharge, nor the outfall of the line into Tampa Bay. By stipulation, the parties agreed that Tampa Bay is an OFW and that discharge from the developed site would enter the City of Saint Petersburg stormwater sewer system. Tampa Bay is classified as Class II waters, which are approved for shellfish harvesting. The record does not disclose the point of discharge of the City stormwater line that would receive discharge from the developed site. However, the proximity of the site to Tampa Bay strongly suggests that the outfall would be in Tampa Bay, and it is only slightly less probable that the outfall would be at a point in the bay in the immediate vicinity of the site. The record suggests that the waters of Tampa Bay likely to receive the discharge from the site are impaired. For example, water quality conditions mandated the closing of "Lower Tampa Bay" to shellfish harvesting, for an unstated period of time, effective at sunset on July 5, 1999. Also, the Department of Environmental Protection listed two bayous in the immediate vicinity of the site as noncompliant with federal water quality standards due to excessive coliform bacteria counts and nutrients and insufficient levels of dissolved oxygen. The Basis of Review (BOR) is a document adopted by the District. It contains specific "criteria" for permitting. However, as BOR Section 1.3 explains, the goal of these criteria is to meet District water resource objectives, and the criteria are "flexible." Alternative methods of meeting "overall objectives" may be acceptable, depending upon the "magnitude of specific or cumulative impacts." The criteria, which are flexible, are the means by which the District assures that it meets its objectives, which are not flexible. BOR Section 3.1.0 recognizes that "a wide array of biological, physical and chemical factors affect the functioning of any wetland or other surface water community. Maintenance of water quality standards in applicable wetlands and other surface waters is critical to their ability to provide many of these functions." BOR Section 3.1.0 elaborates: "It is the intent of the Governing Board [of the District] that the criteria in subsections 3.2 through 3.2.8 be implemented in a manner which achieves a programmatic goal and a project permitting goal of no net loss of wetlands or other surface water functions." BOR Section 3.1.1 requires that an applicant provide "reasonable assurance" of several things. BOR Section 3.1.1(a) requires that "a regulated activity will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish, wildlife and listed species, including aquatic and wetland dependent species, by wetlands and other surface waters and other water related resources of the District. (paragraph 40D-4.301(1)(d), F.A.C.) (see subsection 3.2.2)." BOR Section 3.1.1(c) provides that: a regulated activity 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, F.A.C., including any antidegradation provisions of Sections 62-4.242(1)(a) and (b), 62-4.242(2) and (3), and 62-302.300 and any special standards for Outstanding Florida Waters . . . set forth in sections 62-4.242(2) and (3), F.A.C., will be violated (paragraph 40D-4.301(1)(e), F.A.C.). BOR Section 3.1.1(d) provides that "a regulated activity . . . located in close proximity to Class II waters . . . will comply with the additional criteria in subsection 3.2.5 (paragraph 40D-4.302(1)(c), F.A.C.)." BOR Section 3.1.l(f) provides that "a regulated activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources (paragraph 40D-4.301(1)(f), F.A.C.) (see subsection 3.2.7)." BOR Section 3.1.1(g) provides that "a regulated activity will not cause adverse cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters . . . (paragraph 40D-4.302(1)(b), F.A.C.) (see subsection 3.2.8)." BOR Section 3.2.4 provides that an applicant must provide "reasonable assurance that the regulated activity will not violate water quality standards in areas where water quality standards apply. . . . The following requirements are in addition to the water quality requirements found in Chapter 5." BOR Section 3.2.4.2(c) provides that the applicant must address the long-term water quality impacts of a proposed system, including "prevention of any discharge or release of pollutants from the system that will cause water quality standards to be violated." BOR Section 3.2.5 provides: The special value and importance of shellfish harvesting waters to Florida's economy as existing or potential sites of commercial and recreational shellfish harvesting and as a nursery area for fish and shell fish is recognized by the District. In accordance with section 3.1.1.(d), the District shall: (b) deny a permit for a regulated activity in any class of waters where the location of the system is adjacent or in close proximity to Class II waters, unless the applicant submits a plan or proposes a procedure which demonstrates that the regulated activity will not have a negative effect on the Class II waters and will not result in violations of water quality standards in the Class II waters. BOR Section 3.2.7 provides that an applicant must provide "reasonable assurance" that "a regulated activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resource" as described in this section. However, this section explicitly disregards negligible or remotely related secondary impacts. BOR Section 3.2.8 provides that an applicant must provide "reasonable assurance" that "a regulated activity will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters " BOR Section 4.2 limits off-site discharge "to amounts which will not cause adverse off-site impacts." For a proposed activity within an open drainage basin, as is the subject proposed activity, the allowable discharge is (presumably the greatest of) any amount determined in previous District permits, the legally allowable discharge at the time of the permit application, or historic discharge. Historic discharge is the peak rate at which runoff leaves a parcel of land by gravity under existing site conditions. BOR Section 5.1 requires that proposed discharges meet applicable state water quality standards. This chapter of the BOR requires that proposed systems satisfy certain quantitative criteria, depending on the type of water treatment system. However, BOR Section 5.1 warns: in certain instances a design meeting those standards may not result in compliance with the state water quality standards referenced above. Unless an applicant has provided reasonable assurance that a design will not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards, the District may apply more stringent design and performance standards than are otherwise required by this chapter. Projects designed to the criteria found in this section shall be presumed to provide reasonable assurance of compliance with the state water quality standards referenced above. . . . BOR Section 5.2 sets quantitative criteria for various types of surface water management systems. The subject system is a detention, on-line treatment system. BOR Section 1.7.5 defines "detention" as the "delay of storm runoff prior to discharge into receiving waters." BOR Section 1.7.28 defines "on-line treatment system" as a "dual purpose system that collects project runoff for both water quality and water quantity requirements. Water quality volumes are recovered through percolation and evaporation while water quantity volumes are recovered through a combination of percolation, evaporation, and surface discharge." BOR Section 5.2.b applies to "[d]etention with effluent filtration system (manmade underdrains)." BOR Section 5.2.b.1 provides that proposed activities draining less than 100 acres "shall treat the runoff from . . . the first one-half inch runoff." BOR Section 5.2.b.6 adds: "Maintenance of filter includes proper disposal of spent filter material." BOR Section 5.2.c applies to "on-line treatment system[s]." This section also requires the treatment of the first one-half inch of runoff. However, BOR Section 5.2.e provides: Projects discharging directly into Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) shall be required to provide treatment for a volume 50 percent more than required for the selected treatment system . . .. Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed surface water management system would not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands and would not cause flooding. In terms of water quantity, the proposed system is designed to meet the requirements of the ten-year storm. The subject site is a short distance from Tampa Bay, and, as already noted, it is very likely that the runoff discharges into Tampa Bay at a location not far from the subject site. Thus, water quantity and flooding are irrelevant to this case. However, Applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the proposed surface water management system would not cause adverse impacts to the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife by nonwetland surface waters and would not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. The receiving waters of the discharge from the subject site are Class II waters that are OFW. However, these waters are also impaired sufficiently as to be in violation of certain federal water quality standards and to require the closure, at least at times, of shellfish harvesting. There are three deficiencies in the proposed permit. First, it does not specify, in clear and enforceable language, an inspection and maintenance program, which includes the undertaking by the Applicant to backwash the system at specified intervals, to replace the sand filtration medium at specified intervals, to dispose of the sand filtration medium so that the captured contaminants do not reenter waters of the state, to monitor the water discharged from the oil and grease skimmer at specified intervals following the first two years' monitoring, and generally to take any necessary action to correct deficiencies uncovered from inspections. Second, the treatment of the first 1/2 inch of runoff is insufficient for the system, which is discharging directly into an OFW. BOR Section 5.2.e raises this standard to 3/4 inch. Direct discharges requires the identification of the first receiving waters. Receiving waters are waters of the state that are classifiable as Class I-V waters. Receiving waters thus do not include waters in a stormwater sewer pipe, which are not waters of the state nor are they classifiable. Water quality determinations often require comparison of the quality of the discharged water with quality of the receiving waters. The off-site piping of the discharged water does not preclude such comparison. In such case, the analysis extends to the first receiving waters into which the pipe empties. The District's argument to the contrary invites circumvention of those provisions enacted and promulgated for the protection of OFWs. For example, several owners of land abutting an OFW could establish a jointly owned stormwater sewer line so that the point of comparison for their discharge would be the waters in the pipe rather than the OFW. Third, Applicant failed to submit a plan or propose a procedure demonstrating that the proposed activity would not have a negative effect on the Class II waters of Tampa Bay and would not result in violations of water quality standards in these Class II waters. The District failed to determine the outfall of the discharge from the subject site, so it failed to enforce the requirement of the plan required by BOR 3.2.5 for the protection of the special value of Class II waters. Although required to account for cumulative impacts, the plan will necessarily reflect the characteristics of the site--e.g., 1.6 acres contributing largely automobile-based contaminants and not nutrients--and the characteristics of the receiving waters--e.g., Tampa Bay is vast and relatively impaired, though, in the vicinity of the subject site, more likely due to excessive nutrients.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order denying the ERP application of HBJ Investments, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: E. D. "Sonny" Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 John R. Thomas Wyckoff & Thomas, P.A. 233 Third Street North, Suite 102 Saint Petersburg, Florida 33701 Michael Jacobs Director, Legal Affairs 25 Second Street North, Suite 160 Saint Petersburg, Florida 33701 Anthony J. Mutchler Assistant General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that application number 07256-F be APPROVED subject to the special conditions set forth above. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of July 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 15th day of July 1987.
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
