The Issue Whether a consumptive-use permit for quantities of water as applied for should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Application No. 7500043 requested water from one (1) well. The center of withdrawal will be located at Latitude 27 degrees 40' 38" North, Longitude 82 degrees 29' 31" West in Hillsborough County. Said withdrawal is for disposal off-site. This application is for an existing use. Notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation, to-wit: The Tampa Tribune on May 14 and May 21, 1975 pursuant to Section 373.146, Florida Statutes. Notices of said public hearing were duly sent by certified mail as required by law. The application, map of the premises, legal description, receipts of certified mail, copy of the Notice, and affidavit of publication were received without objection and entered into evidence as Exhibit 1. No letters of objection were received. The witness for Permittee was duly sworn and agreement was reached on each point enumerated as required by Rule 16J-2.11, Rules of the Southwest Florida Water Management District and Chapter 373, Florida Statutes with the exception as enumerated in No. 7. Upon request of the Hearing Officer a Joint Stipulation was filed in which it was agreed that the following conditions to the permit should be attached: "1. That applicant, Carol A. Ranallo, construct two observation wells on the south side of the pit mutually agreeable locations by inserting six (6) inch casings and screens to the depth of at least fifty (50) feet. The casings to be grouted in the bore hole from the bottom of the casing to the top of the ground level. The sites of the observation wells shall be selected by James Hudson of Delta Engineering Company and G. P. Szell within 15 days after issuance of the Consumptive Use Permit. 2. That the applicant or its agents or employees submit monthly readings to the staff of the Southwest Florida Water Management District of the chloride content of the water being withdrawn from the two wells and the level of the water table as read and determined under static conditions."
The Issue The issue is whether an Environmental Resource Permit should be issued to Conquest Developments USA, L.C., authorizing the modification of an existing stormwater management system serving a residential development known as Silver Lakes in Collier County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this environmental permitting dispute, Respondent, South Florida Water Management District (District), proposes to issue an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) to Respondent, Conquest Developments USA, L.C. (Applicant), authorizing the modification of an existing stormwater management system serving a private, gated residential community known as Silver Lakes RV and Golf Club, Inc. (Silver Lakes) in unincorporated Collier County, Florida. As the agency responsible for the administration of the ERP program, the District has the authority to grant or deny the requested permit. Preliminary action approving the application was taken by the District on August 15, 2001. Silver Lakes is a 146-acre residential development located adjacent to, and on the east side of, County Road 951 approximately 1.5 miles south of the intersection of U.S. Highway 41 and County Road 951 in southwestern Collier County, Florida. The project site is a part of the larger development and consists of approximately forty undeveloped acres (40-acre site) just north of, and adjacent to, the residential community. If the application is approved, the Applicant would be allowed to construct an open storage facility on a 7.02-acre tract of land in the western part of the 40-acre site on which trailers, boats, motor homes, tow dollies, and similar items will be stored. It would also allow the Applicant to relocate previously permitted lots along the southeastern boundary of the 40-acre site which border the Silver Lakes development. Petitioners, Jerome and Susan Strauss, own Lots 14, 15, and 16 within Silver Lakes. Petitioners, Joseph H. and Patricia Belanger, own Lot 26 within Silver Lakes, which is adjacent to the proposed storage facility. For obvious reasons, the Belangers do not wish to have a storage facility next to their property. Rather, they and the other Petitioners have suggested that the storage facility be reduced in size and moved to a 3.0-acre site in the northeastern portion of the 40-acre site. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners have standing to bring this action. As reflected in the parties' Prehearing Stipulation, Petitioners contend that the proposed construction of the storage area will cause flooding, adverse secondary impacts, and adverse water quantity impacts; that the proposed activity will result in a violation of state water quality standards; that the proposed system will cause adverse impacts to surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters, and the conservation of fish and wildlife; that the Applicant has failed to minimize or avoid impact to jurisdictional wetlands to the greatest extent practicable; that the proposed site provides a wildlife corridor connected to protected lands directly to the west; that the proposed site is jurisdictional wetlands; that the Applicant has engaged in District activities without a permit; and that the proposed site is subject to a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These objections, where relevant, have been grouped into five categories - wetlands, wildlife, secondary and cumulative impacts, water quality and quantity, and prior enforcement activities - and they are addressed separately below. Wetlands The District has adopted and incorporated by reference in Rule 40E-4.091(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, a document known as the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District (Basis of Review). The standards and criteria found in the Basis of Review are used to determine whether an applicant has given reasonable assurances that the conditions for issuance of an ERP have been satisfied. Compliance with the criteria in the Basis of Review creates a presumption that the standard and additional conditions for issuance of an ERP in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E- 4.302, Florida Administrative Code, respectively, have been met. See Section 1.3, Basis of Review. Section 4.2.1 of the Basis of Review generally requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that wetland impacts be eliminated or reduced to the greatest extent practicable. This can be done through the implementation of "practicable design modifications" to the project, or where adverse impacts still remain after such modifications, through mitigation. There are 36.82 acres of wetlands throughout the 40- acre site. If the application is approved, there will be adverse impacts to 9.9 acres of wetlands in the western portion of the site (where the storage facility will be located) and to 3.37 acres in the southeastern portion of the site. To avoid and minimize wetland impacts, the Applicant has been required to reduce the number of acres impacted from its original proposal, and to place the storage area on the western part of the 40-acre site near County Road 951. In the original application, the Applicant proposed to place the storage area in the eastern part of the site and to create a larger storage area. Although the western part of the 40-acre site contains higher quality wetlands than the central or eastern parts, the western area is not pristine, and it is substantially impacted by exotic species, such as wax myrtle and Brazilian pepper. In addition, the western area is adjacent to County Road 951, which reduces wetland functions and values, reduces habitat values because of increased light and noise encroachment, and increases risk to wildlife because of passing vehicles. Further, the central and eastern areas are adjacent to other undeveloped lands, and this creates the potential for larger tracts of preserved and enhanced wetlands and maximizes wetland functions and values. Impacts to wetlands will be adequately mitigated by the Applicant preserving and enhancing 26.92 acres within the 40-acre site in a recorded conservation easement; by monitoring and reporting on the on-site mitigation (easement) for a five-year period and by maintaining the property in perpetuity; by purchasing 3.66 mitigation credits of similar wetland habitat from the Panther Island Mitigation Bank; and by adhering to a remediation plan (found in the Special Conditions in the permit) to address any future deficiencies in the mitigation. Given these considerations, it is found that the Applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the wetland impacts from the proposed activities will be eliminated or reduced as required by Section 4.2.1 of the Basis of Review. Impact on Wildlife Section 4.2.2 of the Basis of Review requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the activity will not impact the values of wetlands and other surface water functions so as to cause adverse impacts to the abundance, diversity, or habitat of fish, wildlife, and listed species. The primary agency responsible for the protection of wildlife is the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (Commission), and not the District. Therefore, Section 4.2.2 of the Basis of Review requires that the District provide the Commission with a copy of all ERP applications for its review and comment as to wildlife issues. In this case, the Commission offered no comments or objections regarding wildlife on the property in question. The evidence shows that listed and endangered species such as Florida panthers, wood storks, and Big Cypress fox squirrels have been spotted on infrequent occasions on the 40-acre site by residents of Silver Lake. However, the parties stipulated that there was no evidence of any nesting, denning, or breeding activity on the same site. Based on the evidence of record, including the Applicant's Protected Species Survey, it is fair to infer that there is limited or no use of the property by protected wildlife species. Indeed, Petitioners' own expert found no evidence of endangered or threatened species on the 40-acre site during his two inspections. Two Special Conditions have been incorporated into the permit to protect endangered, threatened, or other listed species. First, in the event that Big Cypress fox squirrels are observed on or near the property, Special Condition 24 requires that the Applicant prepare a habitat management plan, in consultation with the Commission, to address issues related to nesting habitat. Second, if any endangered or threatened species are ever found on the property, Special Condition 25 requires that the Applicant coordinate with the Commission or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Commission for guidance or recommendations. Given the above, the evidence supports a finding that the Applicant has given reasonable assurances that the requirements of Section 4.2.2 of the Basis of Review have been satisfied. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Section 4.2.7 of the Basis of Review requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that the proposed activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. At the same time, Section 4.2.8 requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that a regulated activity will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters within the same drainage basin as the regulated activity for which the permit is being sought. In providing the necessary reasonable assurances regarding cumulative impacts, Section 4.2.8.2 authorizes an applicant to use preservation and mitigation measures to prevent cumulative impacts. The more persuasive evidence shows that the project will not cause secondary impacts to wetlands. This is because a water quality berm system surrounds the wetlands, isolating the wetland system from the surface water management system; a 50-foot preserved area lies between the storage area and the adjacent property boundary to the north; the storage area is being placed in an area already secondarily impacted by County Road 951; and the wetland preservation area will be placed in the conservation easement. Further, the project will not cause secondary impacts to wildlife. This is because structural buffers will prevent future encroachment into the wetlands and distance any wildlife away from the more dense residential functions. These buffers include a 50-foot wide natural preserve on the north side of the storage area (Special Condition 26), an already-erected structural buffer to the south of the storage area (Special Condition 26), and a 17 to 21-foot structural buffer (planted with native vegetation or vegetated buffers) on the eastern side of the 40-acre site where the new lots are proposed. Except for two conclusionary opinion statements by Petitioners' expert, without further facts or explanation, no other evidence on secondary impacts was offered. The project will not cause cumulative impacts to the wetlands. This is because the proposed mitigation for the project adequately offsets the impacts of the 40-acre site, and the impacts from other permitted projects in the basin area have been sufficiently offset. In addition, very little property in the area remains to be developed, and there are no new applications before the District involving the same basin. In the event a new application may be filed, however, the District will require the applicant to offset any impacts associated with its project with buffers and conservation easements, like the Applicant in the instant case. Water Quantity and Quality Section 5.0 et. seq. of the Basis of Review contains water quality criteria that must be satisfied in order for an ERP to be issued, while Section 6.0 et. seq. addresses water quantity criteria for an ERP. Given the limited nature of changes to the existing system and the lack of a hydrologic connection to the wetlands, and for the following additional reasons, the Applicant has given reasonable assurances that the project complies with the water quality and quantity criteria. The project as designed includes a grass swale near the storage area on the western part of the 40-acre site. The rainfall and run-off from the storage area flows into an internal road, through the grass swale, into a storm drain, and then into the pre-existing water management system associated with the original permit for Silver Lake. The project also allows rainfall and run-off from the proposed lots on the southeastern border of the 40-acre site to sheetflow onto an internal road, where waters are collected in existing catch basins and conveyed into the previously permitted water management system associated with the original permit. Since the rainfall and run-off from the storage area and lots drain into the existing lakes (Lakes 1 and 2) that are part of the Silver Lakes water management system, those waters will be treated for water quality through wet detention before their eventual discharge to McIlvane Bay, which lies to the southwest of Silver Lake. The basin discharge rates, minimum floor elevations, road designs, parking lot designs, structure control elevations, and structure sizes are specified in the the District's Staff Report, and were set at or above the calculated design limitations to meet water quality and quantity requirements. Section 5.2.1(a)1. of the Basis of Review specifies that wet detention volume shall be provided for the first inch of runoff from the developed project. The evidence shows that the proposed system captures one inch of run-off over the entire site, which drains into the existing lake system to provide water quality treatment. The system is also designed to meet the relevant discharge rate requirements for a 25-year, 3-day storm event, and the minimum floor elevations were based on a 100-year, 3- day storm event. The wetland preserve area is outside the area served by the surface water management system, is not hydrologically connected to that system, and will not be affected by run-off from the storage area or lots. Just prior to the final hearing, the District added Special Condition 23 to create a 50-foot buffer zone along the southern boundary of the storage area for aesthetic purposes and to reduce secondary impacts. Implementation of that buffer must be in accordance with the staff report, will not change the surface water management system, will have no impact on water quality or flood control, and will be implemented after additional consultation with the District. Past Enforcement Rule 40E-4.302(2), Florida Administrative Code, requires that the District take into consideration past violations of various rules adopted by the District. No enforcement action relating to the property has ever been taken by the District against the Applicant for any violation of ERP requirements. Although Petitioners suggested that unpermitted fill activities have taken place on the southeastern part of the 40-acre site, an inspection by District personnel revealed that unpermitted activities were "not significant." Further, Special Condition 23 requires that the Applicant restore "that portion of the disturbed wetland area located in the southeast corner of the site which is to be included in the wetland preserve area." Therefore, any impacts to the 40-acre site resulting from past unpermitted activities have been considered and remedied.
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 Permit Application No. 010223-5 of Conquest Developments USA, L.C., for an Environmental Resource Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 Anthony P. Pires, Jr., Esquire Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, P.A. 3200 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34103-4105 Robert E. Murrell, Esquire Samouce, Murrell & Francoeur, P.A. 800 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34108-2713 Keith W. Rizzardi, Esquire South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 Kenneth B. Cuyler, Esquire Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103-3556
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent Land Trust #97-12 (“Land Trust”) is entitled to an Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) for its proposed project on Perico Island in Bradenton, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Joseph McClash is a resident of Bradenton, Florida, who uses the waters in the vicinity of the project for fishing, crabbing, boating, and wildlife observation. Petitioner Manasota-88, Inc., is an active Florida nonprofit corporation for more than 20 years. Manasota-88 has approximately 530 members, most of whom (approximately 300) reside in Manatee County. The mission and goal of Manasota-88 includes the protection of the natural resources of Manatee County, including Anna Maria Sound and Perico Island. Petitioner FISH is an active Florida nonprofit corporation in existence since 1991. FISH owns real property in unincorporated Cortez in Manatee County and maintains a Manatee County mailing address. FISH has more than 190 members and more than 150 of them own property or reside in Manatee County. The mission and goal of FISH includes protection of the natural resources of Manatee County, including Anna Maria Sound and Perico Island. Intervenor Suncoast Waterkeeper, Inc., is an active Florida nonprofit corporation in existence since 2012. The mission of Suncoast Waterkeeper is “to protect and restore the Suncoast’s waterways through enforcement, fieldwork, advocacy, and environmental education for the benefit of the communities that rely upon coastal resources.” Suncoast Waterkeeper provided the names and addresses of 25 members residing in Manatee County. A substantial number of the members of Suncoast Waterkeeper use the area and waters near the proposed activity for nature-based activities, including nature observation, fishing, kayaking, wading, and boating along the natural shorelines of Anna Maria Sound and Perico Island. Intervenor Sierra Club, Inc., is a national organization that is a California corporation registered as a foreign nonprofit corporation in Florida. Sierra Club has been permitted to conduct business in Florida since 1982. The mission of Sierra Club includes protection of the natural resources of Manatee County, which include Anna Maria Sound and Perico Island. Sierra Club provided the names and addresses of 26 members who live in Manatee County. A substantial number of the members of Sierra Club use the area and waters near the proposed project for nature-based activities, including observing native flora and fauna, fishing, kayaking, wading, and boating along the natural shorelines of Anna Maria Sound and Perico Island. Respondent Land Trust is the applicant for the challenged ERP and owns the property on which the proposed project would be constructed. Respondent District is an independent special district of the State of Florida created, granted powers, and assigned duties under chapter 373, Florida Statutes, including the regulation of activities in surface waters. The proposed project is within the boundaries of the District. The Project Site The project site is 3.46 acres of a 40.36-acre parcel owned by Land Trust. The parcel includes uplands, wetlands, and submerged lands, on or seaward of Perico Island, next to Anna Maria Sound, which is part of Lower Tampa Bay. Anna Maria Sound is an Outstanding Florida Water. The project site is adjacent to a large multi-family residential development called Harbour Isles, which is currently under construction. Access to the Land Trust property is gained through this development. The Land Trust parcel contains approximately seven acres of high quality mangroves along the shoreline of Anna Maria Sound. They are mostly black and red mangroves, with some white mangroves. The mangroves on the project site amount to a total of 1.9 acres. Mangroves have high biological productivity and are important to estuarine food webs. Mangroves provide nesting, roosting, foraging, and nursery functions for many species of wildlife. Mangroves also provide a buffer from storm surge and help to stabilize shorelines. Wildlife species found on the project site include ibises, pelicans, egrets, spoonbills, mangrove cuckoos, bay scallops, fiddler crabs, mangrove tree crabs, horseshoe crabs, marsh rabbits, raccoons, mangrove bees, and a variety of fish. No endangered species have been observed on the project site, but mangroves are used by a number of listed species. The Proposed Project The proposed project is to construct a retaining wall, place fill behind the wall to create buildable lots for four single-family homes, construct an access driveway, and install a stormwater management facility. The stormwater management facility is a “Stormtech” system, which is an underground system usually used in situations where there is insufficient area to accommodate a stormwater pond. Riprap would be placed on the waterward side of the retaining wall. The retaining wall would be more than 35 feet landward of the mean high water line in most areas. Petitioners contend the proposed retaining wall is a vertical seawall, which is not allowed in an estuary pursuant to section 373.414(5). “Vertical seawall” is defined in section 2.0(a)(111), Volume I, of the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook (“Applicants Handbook”) as a seawall which is steeper than 75 degrees to the horizontal. It further states, “A seawall with sloping riprap covering the waterward face to the mean high water line shall not be considered a vertical seawall.” The retaining wall is vertical, but it would have riprap covering its waterward face and installed at a slope of 70 degrees. The retaining wall is not a vertical seawall under the District’s definition. Stormwater Management Stormwater in excess of the Stormtech system’s design capacity would discharge into Anna Maria Sound. Because Anna Maria Sound is an Outstanding Florida Water, District design criteria require that an additional 50 percent of treatment volume be provided. The Stormtech system meets the District’s design criteria for managing water quality and water quantity. Projects which meet the District’s design criteria are presumed to provide reasonable assurance of compliance with state water quality standards. Petitioners’ evidence was not sufficient to rebut this presumption. Petitioners contend the District waiver of water quality certification for the proposed project means that Land Trust was not required to meet water quality standards. However, that was a misunderstanding of the certification process. All state water quality criteria are applicable. Petitioners contend water quality monitoring should be imposed for this project. However, section 4.7 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume II, provides that if the applicant meets the District’s design criteria, water quality monitoring is not required. Petitioners failed to prove the proposed stormwater management system cannot be constructed, operated, or maintained in compliance with applicable criteria. Wetland Impacts In order to create buildable lots, 1.05 acres of the 1.9 acres of mangroves on the project site would be removed and replaced with fill. A swath of mangroves approximately 40 feet wide would remain waterward of the retaining wall. The proposed direct and secondary impacts to the functions provided by wetlands were evaluated using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (“UMAM”) as required by Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-345. UMAM is used to quantify the loss of functions performed by wetlands considering: current condition, hydrologic connection, uniqueness, location, fish and wildlife utilization, time lag, and mitigation risk. The District determined the filling of 1.05 acres of wetlands would result in a functional loss of 0.81 units and the secondary impacts resulting from installation of the retaining wall would result in a loss of 0.09 units for a total functional loss of 0.9 units. Petitioners contend the functional loss would be greater. Petitioners contend the wetland delineation performed by Land Trust and confirmed by the District did not extend as far landward as the hydric soils and, therefore, the total acreage of affected wetlands would be greater. However, Petitioners did not produce a wetland delineation for the project site, and their evidence was not sufficient to rebut Land Trust's prima facie evidence on this issue. Petitioners’ experts believe the secondary impacts caused by the proposed project would be greater than calculated, including fragmentation of the shoreline mangrove system, damage to the roots of mangroves near the retaining wall, and scouring effects caused by wave action associated with the retaining wall. Respondents assert that the analysis by Petitioners’ expert Jacqueline Cook relied on federal methodology and that “the science used in her analysis is not contained in the state or district rule criteria.” Reliance on science is always appropriate. However, Ms. Cook’s use of a federal impact assessment methodology creates doubt about whether her scoring is consistent with UMAM. Despite the unreliability of Ms. Cook’s UMAM score, it is found that Respondents’ UMAM score under-calculated secondary impacts due to scour and other effects of changed water movement that would be caused by the retaining wall. It was not explained how the loss of storm buffering and erosion prevention functions of wetlands are accounted for in the UMAM score. Elimination or Reduction of Impacts Section 10.2.1 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume I, states that in reviewing a project the District is to consider practicable design modifications to eliminate or reduce impacts to wetland functions. Section 10.2.1.1 explains: The term “modification” shall not be construed as including the alternative of not implementing the activity in some form, nor shall it be construed as requiring a project that is significantly different in type or function. A proposed modification that is not technically capable of being completed, is not economically viable, or that adversely affects public safety through the endangerment of lives or property is not considered “practicable.” A proposed modification need not remove all economic value of the property in order to be considered not “practicable.” Conversely, a modification need not provide the highest and best use of the property to be “practicable.” In determining whether a proposed modification is practicable, consideration shall also be given to cost of the modification compared to the environmental benefit it achieves. Land Trust originally proposed constructing a surface water retention pond. The Stormtech stormwater management system would cause less wetland impact than a retention pond. Land Trust contends the use of a retaining wall reduces wetland impacts because, otherwise, more mangroves would have to be removed to account for the slope of the waterward side of the fill area. However, this proposition assumes the appropriateness of the size of the fill area. Land Trust also contends wetland impacts are reduced by using the adjacent development to access the proposed project site, rather than creating a new road. However, the evidence did not establish that Land Trust had a practicable and preferred alternative for access. Unlike the Stormtech system, the retaining wall and access driveway were not shown to be project modifications. The proposed project would cause fewer impacts to wetlands if the fill area was reduced in size, which was not shown to be impracticable. Reducing the size of the fill area would not cause the project to be significantly different in type or function. Land Trust did not demonstrate that it implemented reasonable design modifications to eliminate or reduce impacts to wetland functions. Mitigation Land Trust proposes to purchase credits from the Tampa Bay Mitigation Bank, which is 17 miles north of the proposed project site. The Tampa Bay Mitigation Bank is in the Tampa Bay Drainage Basin. The project site is in the South Coastal Drainage Basin. Pursuant to section 10.2.8 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume I, if an applicant mitigates adverse impacts within the same drainage basin, the agency will consider the regulated activity to have no unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters. However, if the applicant proposes to mitigate impacts in another drainage basin, factors such as “connectivity of waters, hydrology, habitat range of affected species, and water quality” will be considered to determine whether the impacts are fully offset. The parties disputed whether there was connectivity between the waters near the project site and the waters at the Tampa Bay Mitigation Bank. The more persuasive evidence shows there is connectivity. There was also a dispute about the habitat range of affected species. The evidence establishes that the species found in the mangroves at the project site are also found at the mitigation bank. However, local fish and wildlife, and local biological productivity would be diminished by the proposed project. This diminution affects Petitioners’ substantial interests. The loss or reduction of storm buffering and erosion prevention functions performed by the mangroves at Perico Island cannot be mitigated for at the Tampa Bay Mitigation Bank. Cumulative impacts are unacceptable when the proposed activity, considered in conjunction with past, present, and future activities would result in a violation of state water quality standards, or significant adverse impacts to functions of wetlands or other surface waters. See § 10.2.8.1, Applicant’s Handbook, Vol. I. Section 10.2.8(b) provides that, in considering the cumulative impacts associated with a project, the District is to consider other activities which reasonably may be expected to be located within wetlands or other surface waters in the same drainage basin, based upon the local government’s comprehensive plan. Land Trust did not make a prima facie showing on this point. Land Trust could propose a similar project on another part of its property on Perico Island. Anyone owning property in the area which is designated for residential use under the City of Bradenton’s comprehensive plan and bounded by wetlands could apply to enlarge the buildable portion of the property by removing the wetlands and filling behind a retaining wall. When considering future wetland impacts in the basin which are likely to result from similar future activities, the cumulative impacts of the proposed project would result in significant adverse impacts to wetland functions in the area. Public Interest For projects located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the project will not be contrary to the public interest, or if such activities significantly degrade or are within an Outstanding Florida Water, are clearly in the public interest, as determined by balancing the criteria set forth in rule 62- 330.302(1)(a), and as set forth in sections 10.2.3 through of the Applicant’s Handbook. Rule 62-330.302, which is identical to section 373.414, Florida Statutes, lists the following seven public interest balancing factors to be considered: Whether the activities will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activities will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activities will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activities will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activities will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activities will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, F.S.; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed regulated activity. The Parties stipulated that the proposed project would not have an adverse impact on public health, navigation, historical resources, archeological resources, or social costs. Land Trust proposes to give $5,000 to the City of Palmetto for an informational kiosk at the City of Palmetto’s public boat ramp. A District employee testified that this contribution made the project clearly in the public interest. Reasonable assurances were not provided that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest because of the adverse cumulative effects on the conservation of fish and wildlife, fishing and recreational values, and marine productivity of Anna Maria Sound, an Outstanding Florida Water.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District issue a final order that denies the Environmental Resource Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2015, 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 25th day of June, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Christian Thomas Van Hise, Esquire Abel Band, Chartered Post Office Box 49948 Sarasota, Florida 34230-6948 (eServed) Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 7601 Highway 301 North Tampa, Florida 33637 (eServed) Douglas P. Manson, Esquire MansonBolves, P.A. 1101 West Swann Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 (eServed) Joseph McClash 711 89th Street Northwest Bradenton, Florida 34209 (eServed) Ralf G. Brookes, Esquire Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway, Suite 107 Cape Coral, Florida 33904 (eServed) Justin Bloom, Esquire Post Office Box 1028 Sarasota, Florida 34230 (eServed) Robert Beltram, P.E., Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899
The Issue Whether Rules 40B-1.702(4); 40B-4.1020(12) and (30); 40B-4.1030; 40B-4.1040(1)(b) and (c); 40B-4.2030(4); 40B-4.3000(1)(a); 40B-4.3010; 40B-4.3020; 40B-4.3030; 40B- 4.3040; and 40B-400.103(1)(h), Florida Administrative Code, of the Suwannee River Water Management District, are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority for reasons described in the Second Amended Petition to Determine Validity of Rules.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Angelo's is a Florida Limited Partnership, whose address is 26400 Sherwood, Warren, Michigan 48091. The District is an agency of the State of Florida established under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, with its address at 9225 County Road 49, Live Oak, Florida 32060. Angelo's owns property in Hamilton County approximately four miles to the east of Interstate 75 and to the north of U.S. Highway 41, immediately to the east of the Alapaha River. Angelo's conducts commercial sand mining operations on a portion of its property pursuant to various agency authorizations, including an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department), Permit No. 158176-001, and a Special Permit issued by Hamilton County, SP 98-3. The ERP was issued by the Department pursuant to its authority under Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes. Angelo's mining operations constitute a "mining project" as that term is used in Section II.A.1.e of an Operating Agreement Concerning Regulation under Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Aquaculture General Permits under Section 403.814, Florida Statutes, between the District and the Department (Operating Agreement). The Operating Agreement has been adopted as a District rule pursuant to Rule 40B-400.091, Florida Administrative Code. Angelo's has filed with the Department an application to modify its ERP to expand its sand mining operations into an area of its property immediately to the west of its current operations (the "proposed expanded area"). Angelo's application is being processed by the Department at this time. Angelo's ERP modification application is being processed by the Department under the Operating Agreement. The District has asserted permitting jurisdiction over the proposed expanded area because the proposed sand mining activities would occur in what the District asserts to be the floodway of the Alapaha. The District asserts that an ERP would be required from the District so that the District can address the work of the district (WOD) impacts. Petitioner has not filed a permit application with the District regarding the project. It is Petitioner's position that to do so would be futile. The Challenged Rules The rules or portions thereof which are challenged in this proceeding are as follows: Rule 40B-1.702(4), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: (4) A works of the district permit under Chapter 40B-4, F.A.C., must be obtained prior to initiating any project as outlined in (3) above within a regulatory floodway as defined by the District. Rule 40B-4.1020(12) and (30), Florida Administrative Code, read as follows: (12) "Floodway" or 'regulatory floodway" means the channel of a river, stream, or other watercourse and adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the 100-year flood without cumulatively increasing the 100-year flood elevation more than a designated height. Unless otherwise noted, all regulatory floodways in the Suwannee River Water Management District provide for no more then one-foot rise in surface water. * * * (30) "Work of the district" means those projects and works including, but not limited to, structures, impoundments, wells, streams, and other watercourses, together with the appurtenant facilities and accompanying lands, which have been officially adopted by the governing board as works of the district. Works of the district officially adopted by the board are adopted by rule in Rule 40B-4.3000 of this chapter. Rule 40B-4.1030, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: The implementation dates of this chapter are as follows: January 1, 1986 for Rule 40B- 4.1040(1)(a) which requires persons to obtain surfacewater management permits. April 1, 1986 for Rule 40B- 4.1040(1)(b) and Rule 40B-4.3040 which require persons to obtain works of the district development permit if the proposed development is in one of the following areas adopted as a work of the district. The Alapaha River and its floodway in Hamilton County, Florida; The Aucilla River and its floodway in Jefferson, Madison, or Taylor counties, Florida; The Suwannee River or its floodway in Columbia, Hamilton, Lafayette, Madison, or Suwannee counties, Florida; or The Withlacoochee River and its floodway in Hamilton or Madison counties, Florida. (c) July 1, 1986 for Rule 40B-4.1040(1)(b) or 40B-4.3040 which require persons to obtain work of the district development permit if the proposed development is in one of the following areas adopted as a work of the district. The Santa Fe River and its floodway in Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Gilchrist, Suwannee, or Union counties, Florida; or The Suwannee River and its floodway in Dixie, Gilchrist, or Levy counties, Florida. Rule 40B-4.1040(1)(b) and (c), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: (1) Permits are required as follows: * * * Works of the district development permit prior to connecting with, placing structures or works in or across, discharging to, or other development within a work of the district. When the need to obtain a works of the district development permit is in conjunction with the requirements for obtaining a surfacewater management permit, application shall be made and shall be considered by the district as part of the request for a surfacewater management permit application. Otherwise, a separate works of the district development permit must be obtained. Rule 40B-4.2030(4), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: (4) The new surfacewater management systems or individual works shall not facilitate development in a work of the district if such developments will have the potential of reducing floodway conveyance. (emphasis supplied) Rule 40B-4.3000(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: The governing board is authorized to adopt and prescribe the manner in which persons may connect with or make use of works of the district pursuant to Section 373.085, Florida Statutes. Further, Section 373.019(15) provides that works of the district may include streams and accompanying lands as adopted by the governing board. In order to implement the non-structural flood control policy of the district, the governing board finds it is necessary to prevent any obstruction of the free flow of water of rivers and streams within the district. Therefore, the governing board does hereby adopt the following rivers and their accompanying floodways as works of the district: The Alapaha River and its floodway in Hamilton County, Florida; . . . . Rule 40B-4.3010, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: A general works of the district development permit may be granted pursuant to the procedures in Rule 40B-1.703 to any person for the development described below: Construction of a structure for single-family residential or agricultural use including the leveling of land for the foundation and associated private water supply, wastewater disposal, and driveway access which is in compliance with all applicable ordinances or rules of local government, state, and federal agencies, and which meets the requirements of this chapter. A general permit issued pursuant to this rule shall be subject to the conditions in Rule 40B-4.3030. Rule 40B-4.3020, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: Content of Works of the District Development Permit Applications. Applications for a general work of the district development permit shall be filed with the district and shall contain the following: Form 40B-4-5, "Application for General Work of the District Development Permit," Suwannee River Water Management District, 4-1-86, hereby incorporated by reference and which contains the following: The applicant's name and complete address including zip code; The owner's name and complete address if applicant is other than the owner; If applicable, the name, complete address, phone number, and contact person of the applicant or owner; Copies of all permits received from local units of government, state, or federal agencies, specifically a copy of the building or development permit issued by the appropriate unit of local government, including any variances issued thereto, and a copy of the onsite sewage disposal system permit issued by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services under Chapter 10D- 6, Florida Administrative Code; A site plan to scale showing all improvements, work, or works with any conditions or limitations placed thereon; and Any supporting calculations, designs, surveys, or applicable documents, which in the applicant's opinion, may support the application. Applications for individual or conceptual approval works of the district development permits shall be filed with the district and shall contain the following: Form 40B-4-4, "Application for Surfacewater Management System Construction, Alteration, Operation, Maintenance, and/or Works of the District Development", Suwannee River Water Management District, 10-1-85, hereby adopted by reference and which contains the following: The applicant's name and complete address including zip code; The owner's name and complete address if applicant is other than the owner; If applicable, the name, complete address, phone number, and contact person of the owner. General project information including: The applicant's project name or identification number; The project location relative to county, section, township, and range, or a metes and bounds description; The total project area in acres; The total land area owned or controlled by the applicant or owner which is contiguous with the project area; A description of the scope of the proposed project including the land uses to be served; A description of the proposed surfacewater management system or work; A description of the water body or area which will receive any proposed discharges from the system; and Anticipated beginning and ending date of construction or alteration. Copies of all permits received from, or applications made to, local units of government, state, or federal agencies. A site plan to scale showing all improvements, work, or works with any conditions or limitations placed thereon. Any supporting calculations, designs, surveys, or applicable legal documents, which in the applicant's opinion, support the application. Copies of engineer or surveyor certifications required by this chapter. Rule 40B-4.3030, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: Conditions for Issuance of Works of the District Development Permits. The district will not approve the issuance of separate permits for development in a work of the district for any proposed project that requires a district surfacewater management permit pursuant to Part II of this chapter. For such projects, development in a work of the district may be authorized as part of any surfacewater management permit issued. The district will not approve the issuance of a works of the district development permit for any work, structures, road, or other facilities which have the potential of individually or cumulatively reducing floodway conveyance or increasing water-surface elevations above the 100-year flood elevation, or increasing soil erosion. The district will presume such a facility will not reduce conveyance or increase water-surface elevations above the 100-year flood elevation or increase soil erosion if: Roads with public access are constructed and laid out in conformance with the minimum standards of local government. Where roads are not required to be paved, the applicant must provide design specifications for erosion and sediment control. Where roads are required to be paved, swales will generally be considered adequate for erosion and sediment control; Buildings in the floodway are elevated on piles without the use of fill such that the lowest structural member of the first floor of the building is at an elevation at least one foot above the 100-year flood elevation; The area below the first floor of elevated buildings is left clear and unobstructed except for the piles or stairways; A permanent elevation monument is established on the property to be developed by a surveyor. The monument shall be adequate to establish land surface and minimum buildup elevations to the nearest 1/100 of a foot; No permanent fill or other obstructions are placed above the natural grade of the ground except for minor obstructions which are less than or equal to 100 square feet of the cross-sectional area of the floodway on any building or other similar structure provided that all such obstruction developed on any single parcel of land after the implementation date of this chapter is considered cumulatively; No activities are proposed which would result in the filling or conversion of wetlands. For any structure placed within a floodway which, because of its proposed design and method of construction, may, in the opinion of the district, result in obstruction of flows or increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood, the district may require as a condition for issuance of a work of the district development permit that an engineer certify that such a structure will not obstruct flows or increase 100-year flood elevations. The following conditions shall apply to all works of the district development permits issued for development on lands subdivided after January 1, 1985: Clearing of land shall be limited [except as provided in (b) and (c) below] to that necessary to remove diseased vegetation, construct structures, associated water supply, wastewater disposal, and private driveway access facilities, and no construction, additions or reconstruction shall occur in the front 75 feet of an area immediately adjacent to a water. Clearing of vegetation within the front 75 feet immediately adjacent to a water shall be limited to that necessary to gain access or remove diseased vegetation. Harvest or regeneration of timber or agricultural crops shall not be limited provided the erosion of disturbed soils can be controlled through the use of appropriate best management practices, the seasonal scheduling of such activities will avoid work during times of high-flood hazard, and the 75 feet immediately adjacent to and including the normally recognized bank of a water is left in its natural state as a buffer strip. As to those lands subdivided prior to January 1, 1985, the governing board shall, in cases of extreme hardship, issue works of the district development permits with exceptions to the conditions listed in Rule 40B-4.3030(4)(a) through (c). The 75-foot setback in paragraphs (a) through (d) above shall be considered a minimum depth for an undisturbed buffer. The limitations on disturbance and clearing within the buffer as set out in paragraphs through (d) above shall apply, and any runoff through the buffer shall be maintained as unchannelized sheet flow. The actual depth of the setback and buffer for any land use other than single-family residential development, agriculture, or forestry shall be calculated in accordance with the methodology in: "Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds", U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Engineering Division, Technical Release 55, June 1986; and, "Buffer Zone Study for Suwannee River Water Management District", Dames and Moore, September 8, 1988, such that the post-development composite curve number for any one-acre area within the encroachment line does not exceed; a value of 46 for areas within the encroachment line with predominantly Class A soils; a value of 65 for areas within the encroachment line with predominantly Class B soils; a value of 77 for areas within the encroachment line with predominantly Class C soils; or a value of 82 for areas within the encroachment line with predominantly Class D soils. (emphasis supplied) Rule 40B-4.3040, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: Unlawful Use of Works of the District. It shall be unlawful to connect with, place a structure in or across, or otherwise cause development to occur in a work of the district without a works of the district development permit. The district may use any remedy available to it under Chapter 120 or 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40B-1, Florida Administrative Code, to cause an unpermitted development to be removed or permitted. It shall be unlawful for any permitted use to violate the provisions of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, or this chapter, or the limiting conditions of a works of the district development permit. The district may use any remedy available to it under Chapter 120 or 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40B-1, Florida Administrative Code, to cause the unpermitted use to be removed or brought into compliance with Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and this chapter. Damage to works of the district resulting from violations specified in Rule 40B-4.3040(1) and (2) above shall be repaired by the violator to the satisfaction of the district. In lieu of making repairs, the violator may deposit with the district a sufficient sum to insure such repair. Rule 40B-400.103(1)(h), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: (1) In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter or chapter 40B-4, F.A.C., an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * (h) Will not cause adverse impacts to a work of the District established pursuant to s. 373.086. . . . Facts Based Upon the Evidence of Record History of the rules Mr. David Fisk is Assistant Director of the District. At the time of the hearing, he had been employed there for 26 and one-half years. He played a significant role in the rule adoption process of the rules that are the subject of this dispute. As part of that process, the District entered into a consulting contract with an engineering, planning, and consulting firm and consulted with the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to conduct what are described as the FEMA flood studies. Additionally, the district commissioned an aerial photography consultant who provided a series of rectified ortho photographs of the entire floodplain of the rivers within the District, and a surveying subcontractor who provided vertical control and survey cross sections and hydrographic surveys of the rivers. The District also worked in conjunction with the United States Geological Survey to accumulate all of the hydrologic record available on flooding. The information was given to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who, operating under FEMA guidelines for conducting flood insurance rate studies, performed the analytical and computer modeling work to identify the flood plains and floodway boundaries. The District used the amassed knowledge of maps, cross sections and surveys that were developed as part of the FEMA flood studies as technical evidence or support for the adoption of the works of the district rules. Following a series of public workshops and public hearings in 1985, the rules were adopted and became effective in 1986. None of the rules were challenged in their proposed state. The District adopted the floodways of the Suwannee, Santa Fe, Alapaha, Aucilla, and Withlacoochee Rivers as works of the district. According to Mr. Fisk, the District adopted the rules pursuant to Section 373.086, Florida Statutes, which provided authority to the District to adopt district works and Section 373.085, Florida Statutes, which provided authority to regulate activities within those works. The Floodway Line Petitioner hired Mr. John Barnard, a professional civil engineer, with extensive environmental permitting experience, to look at the floodway and floodplain issues associated with Petitioner's site and project. Mr. Barnard conducted an engineering study entitled, "Floodplain Evaluation." It was Mr. Barnard's opinion that FEMA's determination of the floodway line was less than precise. Mr. Barnard used FEMA's data regarding the base flood elevation but manually changed the encroachment factor resulting in his placement of the floodway line in a different location than determined by FEMA. Mr. Barnard acknowledged that different engineers using different encroachment factors would reach different conclusions.1/ Respondent's expert in hydrology and hydraulic engineering, Brett Cunningham, noted that the definition of floodway in Rule 40B-4.1020(12), Florida Administrative Code, is essentially the same definition that used is in the FEMA regulations and which also is commonly used across the country in environmental rules and regulations. Mr. Barnard also acknowledged that the District's definition of "floodway", as found in Rule 40B-4.1020(12), Florida Administrative Code, is fairly commonly used by environmental regulatory agencies. Moreover, it was Mr. Cunningham's opinion that the Alapaha River is a stream or watercourse within the meaning of the rule and its floodway an accompanying land. In Mr. Cunningham's opinion, the FEMA flood insurance studies are widely used across the country for a variety of reasons and are typically relied upon by hydrologists and engineers to locate floodways. The definition of "works of the district" in Rule 40B-1020(30), Florida Administrative Code, is taken directly from the language found in Section 373.019(23), Florida Statutes. The statutory definition includes express references to streams and other watercourses, together with the appurtenant facilities and accompanying lands. Petitioner alleges that the phrase "will not cause adverse impact to a work of the SRWMD" as found in Rule 40B- 400.103(1)(h) is not clear because it does not identify what specific adverse impacts are being reviewed. While Petitioner's expert, Mr. Price, was not clear as to what the phrase means, Respondent's expert, Mr. Cunningham, understood the meaning of the phrase and noted that "adverse impact" is a phrase which is very commonplace in the rules and regulations of environmental agencies and is attributed a commonsense definition. The expert engineers differed in their opinions as to the meaning of the term "potential for reducing floodway conveyance" as used in Rule 40B-4.2030(4), Florida Administrative Code. According to Petitioner's expert engineer, Mr. Barnard, "potential for reducing floodway conveyance" is not a specific term that is open to interpretation as an engineer, and that he cannot quantify what constitutes "potential." Respondent's expert, Mr. Cunningham, understood the meaning of the phrase to be any increase in floodway conveyance. It was his opinion that there was nothing about that phrase to cause confusion. Rule 40B-4.3030, Florida Administrative Code, addresses conditions for issuance of works of the district development permits. Petitioner's expert Mr. Price testified that there is no quantification to what constitutes an "increase in soil erosion" as referenced in subsection (2) and linked the reference of soil erosion to a 100-year flood event referenced in the same subsection. Mr. Cunningham was of the opinion that there is no need to quantify an increase in soil erosion in the rule. He noted that soil erosion is used in a common sense manner and that attempting to put a numerical limit on it is not practical and "it's not something that's done anywhere throughout the country. It's just not something that lends itself to easy quantification like flood stages do". Mr. Cunningham's opinion that the words and phrases which Petitioner asserts are vague are words of common usage and understanding to persons in the field is the more persuasive testimony. This opinion is also consistent with statutory construction used by courts which will be addressed in the conclusions of law.
The Issue The issue is whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District's (District's) proposed construction of a temporary floating weed barrier across the mouth of the canal exiting to the southwest side of Lake Hancock in Polk County, Florida, is exempt from regulatory review under Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background This proceeding involves a request by the District for authorization to construct a temporary floating weed barrier across the mouth of the canal exiting the southwest side of the Lake in Polk County, Florida (County). After reviewing the request, and based on its determination that the project would "have only minimal or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the water resources of the State," on September 27, 2002, the Department concluded that the project qualified for an exemption from regulatory review under Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes. The Department also authorized the District to use state-owned submerged lands, if applicable, for the construction of the project, and it found that the project was in compliance with the SPGP program and thus required no further permitting from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps of Engineers). Even if the Department had not considered the project to be exempt, it concluded that it had sufficient information and assurances from the District to grant a Noticed General Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) authorizing the requested activity. On December 2, 2002, Petitioner, Bruce Lahey, who has resided and owned property on the southwest side of the Lake for 15 years and regularly uses the Lake for fishing and recreational purposes, filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing (Petition) challenging the proposed agency action. In his Petition, as later clarified and narrowed in the parties' Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Mr. Lahey contends that a weed barrier is no longer necessary since there has not been a weed problem in the Lake since late 2002; that the placement of a weed barrier will make access to and from the Lake more difficult and create a safety hazard; and that in the event a problem arises again, the more desirable options for removing the weeds are "a 'cookie-cutter,' mechanical harvester, or the spraying of [the] tussocks," rather than erecting a barrier. Finally, Mr. Lahey contends that as a matter of law, Section 369.20, Florida Statutes, bars the construction of a barrier. He has not challenged the Department's authorization for the District to use state-owned submerged lands or its determination that the project complies with the SPGP program, and therefore those aspects of the proposed agency action are not in issue. Respondents do not dispute that Mr. Lahey has standing to bring this action. The Lake and Control Structure The Lake is an approximately 4,500-acre Class III waterbody located east of Highway 98 and Highland City, southeast of Lakeland, and just northeast of the City of Bartow (Bartow). It receives drainage from a significant portion of the County, including three streams and runoff from a surrounding 131-square mile watershed. Waters discharge from the Lake to Saddle Creek (the canal), which exits at the southwest end of the Lake and runs in a southerly direction for around a mile and a half until it merges with the Peace Creek, where the two then become the Peace River. At the confluence of the canal and Peace Creek, the waters flow through a broad, flat floodplain. Water moves slowly through this area, which can affect the ability of the Lake to discharge, especially during flood conditions. Like the Lake and canal, the Peace Creek also has a significant contributing basin. The canal contains a District-owned and operated water control structure known as Water Control Structure P-11 (the control structure) consisting of two twenty-foot radial arm gates that are raised when necessary to manage the water levels on the Lake and prevent the flooding of lakefront property. The control structure is approximately 3,000 feet or so south of the Lake and is the only control structure regulating water levels for the Lake. The gates are designed to discharge at a flow level of 1,100 cubic feet per second (cfs). The invert elevation of the control structure is 91.7 feet and the crest elevation is 98.7 feet. Flows from the Lake will exceed 1,100 cfs when the water levels are higher than the crest elevation of the structure. At this point, water flows over the structure’s weirs and flood control is no longer provided. The maximum desirable water elevation level for the Lake is 98.5 feet above mean sea level (msl). Typically, the District begins to operate, or open, the control structure when the Lake's water elevation reaches 98.25 feet msl. A water level of 99.0 feet msl is considered minimum flood level (or high guidance level). The low management water elevation (low guidance level) is 96.0 feet msl. These established water levels have been maintained at the Lake since approximately 1981. The District seeks to hold the water level of the Lake close to the maximum desirable level, and typically tries to hold the water level at 98.25 feet msl, which is slightly below the maximum desirable level of 98.5 feet msl, to allow storage of water and some response time. The control structure is intended primarily to be a water conservation structure that regulates the Lake's water levels to benefit the water resources, to include the Lake and the Peace River. In managing the Lake's levels, the District balances conservation of the water resource and public safety/flooding concerns. The Lake's water level elevations are monitored through the District’s Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA), which measures the water level and transmits hourly data to the District offices via satellite. SCADA monitors are located immediately upstream and downstream of the control structure. Since the tussock blockage events in the summer and fall of 2002, described more fully below, the District has installed an additional SCADA monitor on the north end of the Lake so that water levels in the Lake and canal can be compared. The Lake does not have direct public access or a public boat ramp and is not easily accessible. In addition, in the canal, there is only one unimproved location upstream from the control structure where boats can be placed in the water and gain access to the Lake. That portion of the canal which lies between the Lake and the control structure has not always been open to boat access. In the 1980’s, a floating weed barrier extended across the canal approximately 1,000 feet upstream from the current control structure, which blocked the canal and boat access. This floating weed barrier was installed primarily to address problems with water hyacinths that would float down the canal and interfere with the control structure. This floating barrier gave way sometime in the 1990’s. An earlier control structure also used to exist in this area, which blocked canal access. Navigation of the canal is limited due to the existence of the control structure and a number of other blockages further downstream, including a low bridge where old Highway 17 crosses the canal. Thus, boats coming from the Lake cannot navigate down the canal any further than the control structure, or slightly more than one-half mile, without taking the boat out of the water. Between 1999 and 2001, the District experienced one of the most severe droughts on record. During this time, the Lake went dry except for some isolated pools of water. Because of these conditions, a significant amount of wetland or aquatic vegetation began to grow on the exposed bottom of the Lake. The Lake historically did not support much plant growth, due to its eutrophic condition, poor water quality, and gelatinous mucky lake bottom. The types of vegetation currently existing in the Lake include cattails, pickerelweed, duck potato, and primrose willow. Following the return of summer rains and El Nino conditions in 2002, the Lake rebounded to within normal water levels. Because of the return of water in the Lake, the buoyant pressure of the water combined with the flaccid nature of the mucky lake bottom caused significant portions of vegetation to become uprooted, which formed an extensive amount of tussocks. Tussocks are floating mats of uprooted aquatic vegetation. They contain plant and organic material accumulated around the plant roots, can range from a few feet across to one hundred feet across or larger, and can reach a height of more than four feet. Once tussocks form, they move about the Lake by wind and water currents. The amount of vegetation currently existing in the Lake exceeds historic levels. At the present time, the District estimates that approximately 2,000 acres of the Lake are covered with tussocks, and that due to the flaccid nature of the lake bottom, the tussocks are susceptible to becoming uprooted through fluctuating water levels, wind, and wave action. Therefore, there is a strong potential that much of the currently rooted vegetation will form tussocks. Tussocks first impacted the District’s ability to operate the control structure in July 2002. During this event, the canal became partially filled with tussocks. Because the blockage occurred during the rainy and hurricane seasons, the District undertook efforts to clear the canal of tussocks. District staff used mechanical equipment commonly called a cookie cutter to break up the tussocks and flush them downstream through the control structure. During this tussock event, the Lake's water levels rose briefly above the maximum desirable level of 98.5 feet msl and then fell back to within normal elevations. In late August 2002, approximately three weeks after the first tussock blockage event, a number of homeowners on the Lake, including Petitioner's wife, contacted District staff to advise that the water level of the Lake was rising and flooding their yards. A rise in water levels did not register on the District’s water level monitoring SCADA system. Visual observation of the Lake did reveal, however, that there was a significant difference between the water levels being experienced on the Lake and the water levels reported at the control structure via the SCADA system. During this tussock event, masses of tussocks had completely filled the 3,000-foot length of the canal all the way to the control structure and were jamming against the control structure gates. Tussocks had also formed a vegetation dam approximately 900 to 1,400 feet north of the control structure where they compacted and became lodged on the bottom of the canal, significantly impeding the flow of water. During this event, flows out of the Lake were significantly diminished to a fraction of what they should have been. The tussock dam caused the Lake's level to rise above the minimum flood elevation of 99.0 feet and flood Petitioner's yard. There was an approximately one to one and one-half foot difference in the water levels in the Lake and in the canal. In response to this disparity, the District installed a third water level elevation monitor at the northern end of the Lake, so that it can monitor any differences in water elevations between the Lake and the canal and be alerted in the event that a blockage occurs in the canal. To eliminate the tussock blockage and restore flow through the control structure, the District had to employ mechanical means to break up and remove the tussocks. At the control structure, a trac-hoe was initially used in an attempt to force tussocks through the control structure, as tussocks would not flow through the structure unassisted. A cookie cutter was also employed, but it became sucked into the control structure and was damaged and had to be removed with a crane and repaired. The cookie cutter proved ineffectual in addressing the tussock blockage problem. If the canal were to again become clogged with tussocks, any resulting blockage of flow from the Lake would cause water levels to rise, which would endanger public safety and welfare. Prior to the tussock blockages experienced in the summer and fall of 2002, problems with tussocks had never been experienced at the Lake. The magnitude of the tussock formation on the Lake is unique and has not been experienced elsewhere in the District. In 2002, the Department expended over $46,000.00 in contracting for mechanical equipment and for spraying herbicide on tussocks to respond to the tussock buildup on the Lake. Since their formation after the summer of 2002, tussocks have blocked Petitioner's access to his dock on several occasions, thereby preventing him from being able to take his boat out into the Lake or to return to the dock once out on the Lake. The potential for similar blockages to occur remains, regardless of whether a floating weed barrier is erected as proposed. The direction of the winds is a major factor in determining where and how many tussocks will stack up in front of anyone’s property along the Lake. Access to the canal could become blocked with tussocks at any time, depending upon how the wind blows. Breaking up tussock blockages and flushing tussocks through the control structure does not eliminate water resource problems for the District. Tussocks that are pushed through the control structure cause downstream problems requiring the District to expend resources to push the tussocks through and under low downstream bridges crossing the canal, as well as break up tussock blockages that form in downstream waters. In January 2003, tussocks again accumulated at the control structure in such volume as to require assistance in flushing through the control structure. As a result of the large volume of tussocks pushed through the control structure, a tussock blockage occurred at a downstream bridge crossing, for which the District had to use mechanical equipment to restore flow. During March 2003, tussocks flushed through the control structure created a jam downstream on the Peace River. The tussocks were jammed up in a bend in the river and were blocking navigational access to the river. An El Nino weather cycle is currently being experienced. Water levels, including the Lake's water level, are already at their maximum and the ground is saturated. Localized flooding events have occurred. A very active summer rainy season is anticipated, which will mean significant flood control operations for the District. As the summer season approaches, the District must keep the control structure open and operational, which requires that the canal be kept open and flowing. A floating weed barrier at the entrance to the canal would keep tussocks from clogging the canal and prevent problems affecting operation of the control structure, downstream tussock blockages, and possible flooding. The Project To address the problem of tussocks entering the canal and causing blockages or possible flooding, on September 11, 2002, the District applied to the Department for a Noticed General ERP under Rule 62-341.475(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, to authorize the construction of a floating weed barrier at the entrance to the canal. On September 27, 2002, the Department issued its notice of intent to authorize the requested activity. The proposed barrier will be constructed in two sections arranged at approximately 90-degree angles to each other, with a twenty-foot opening between the sections to allow boat access to the canal. A schematic drawing of the barriers is found in District Exhibit 5 received in evidence. As originally proposed, the barrier would consist of a total of sixteen nine-inch diameter pilings driven twenty-one feet apart, with twenty-foot sections of floating foam-filled polyvinyl chloride pipe (pvc) connected to the pilings. Pilings will be marked with reflective tape and five of the pilings will have three-foot diamond-shaped reflective danger signs reading "DANGER PILE/FLOAT BARRIER" placed on their upstream and downstream sides. The pilings are twenty-five feet in length and will extend above the Lake's water level approximately twelve to fourteen feet. Since the District's submittal of the application and the Department's authorization notice, the District has located commercially manufactured floating booms, called "Tuffbooms," that, if authorized, will be installed in lieu of the foam-filled pvc pipes. Use of these booms reduces the number of pilings needed from sixteen to eight, and their bright orange color is more visible than pvc piping. All other aspects of the proposed activity remain the same. The change in material to be used in the construction of the proposed floating barrier does not present any water quality issues, nor does it affect the Department's determination that the proposed activity will have minimal or insignificant adverse impacts on the water resources. The staggered layout of the proposed floating weed barrier is intended to keep tussocks in the Lake, where they can remain subject to the winds, while providing boat access to the canal in such a manner that is more difficult for tussocks to enter the canal. The Department's Exemption Process The Department's Tampa District Office routinely approves around 800 projects each year under various exemptions authorized by statute or rule. One type of exemption is found in Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes, referred to as the de minimus exemption, which allows the Department to exempt from regulation those activities that are determined will have only minimal or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the water resources of the District. The Department is authorized to make this determination on a case-by-case basis. In determining whether an activity qualifies for a de minimus exemption from permitting, the Department looks for parallels to other specific statutory or rule exemptions and analyzes the proposed activity similarly in terms of its scope, construction methods, potential to create water quality impacts or impediments to navigation, and other factors, because these recognized exemptions are also deemed to have minimal or insignificant impacts to the water resources. There is no specific exemption for a floating weed barrier as proposed by the District, but the Department considers this type of project to be similar in scope and potential impacts to other specific activities that have been determined to have minimal or insignificant adverse impacts to the water resources, such as docks and other piling-supported structures, navigational aids, and buoy systems. In assessing whether a project is appropriate for the de minimus exemption, the Department also looks to the criteria for Noticed General ERPs for guidance in determining whether a proposed project will have minimal or insignificant adverse individual or cumulative impacts upon the water resources. Under Section 373.406(5), Florida Statutes, the Department may by rule establish general permits for activities that have, either singularly or cumulatively, minimal environmental impact. Chapter 62-341, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the Noticed General ERPs established by the Department. Department Rule 62-341.475(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code (as does District Rule 40D-400.475(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code), allows noticed general permits for piling supported structures of less than 1,000 square feet over wetlands or other surface waters, which are not designated Outstanding Florida Waters. To qualify for a noticed general permit for such activity, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the proposed structure: Does not significantly impede navigation and does not entail the construction of a structure for the launching or mooring of a boat when navigational access to the structure does not currently exist; Does not cause a violation of state water quality standards; Does not impede the conveyance of a stream, river or other watercourse in a manner that would increase off-site flooding; Does not adversely impact aquatic or wetland dependent listed species; Does not cause the drainage of wetlands; and Is not located in, on or over a coral community, macro-marine algae or submerged grassbed community. Will the Project Impact Water Resources? The District’s proposed floating weed barrier will involve less than 7.1 square feet of impact to the water resources, which is significantly less impact in square footage to the water resources than is allowed by Rule 62- 341.475(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, or occurs with other specified exempt projects. Best management practices will be used in the erection of the pilings and in the construction of the barriers. Pilings will be jetted into the lake bottom without need for any dredging or lake bottom removal. Installation of a floating weed barrier will not result in any significant detriment to existing conditions in the Lake or the canal. Installation of the proposed floating weed barrier will benefit the public interest and the water resources by allowing unimpeded operation of the control structure without risk of tussocks causing blockages and flooding. Installation of the proposed floating weed barrier will not have significant adverse impacts on fishing, boating, or recreational use of the Lake or canal. A blockage of the canal entrance by tussocks, or a tussock jam anywhere on the Lake, could occur under present conditions, and similar blockages have already occurred. The potential for tussocks to block the opening between the sections of the floating weed barrier is considered remote and of temporary duration, due to the potential for shifting winds. The District’s proposed floating weed barrier is a reasonable means of addressing the continuing potential for tussocks to interfere with operation of the control structure. Use of mechanical equipment such as a cookie cutter or harvester would not be an effective or economical means of addressing tussock blockages in the canal or preventing their occurrence and possible interference with operation of the control structure. Pushing tussocks through the control structure would not be an effective means of addressing the potential for tussocks to cause blockages and possible flooding. Merely pushing the material through the control structure moves the potential blockage problem downstream and does not alleviate the potential for tussocks to cause adverse impacts to the water resources of the District. Spraying tussocks with herbicides would not be an effective means of addressing tussock blockages due to the fact that, once treated, tussocks can take weeks to die and fall to the lake bottom. Floating tussocks are and will continue to be treated with herbicide sprays when found in the Lake to reduce the amount of tussocks. However, once tussocks enter the canal, spraying serves little benefit in preventing tussocks from causing blockages or other problems. Tussocks originate in the Lake and not in the canal. Tussocks in the Lake have had and likely will continue to have an impact on boating and recreational use of the Lake and canal, as evidenced by tussock blockages to Petitioner's dock. By confining the tussocks to the Lake, the potential for tussocks to impact boating and recreational use of the Lake will remain the same as current conditions, but the potential for tussocks to affect operation of the control structure and contribute to Lake flooding will be eliminated. Petitioner contends that the proposed floating weed barrier will impede navigation, either by itself or as a result of tussocks piling up in front of the barrier. The proposed barrier will be marked and visible through reflective tape and signage. The barrier does not create a navigational hazard and is not a significant impediment to access to the canal. Constructed in two sections, the barrier provides an opening that allows boat access to the canal. As noted above, the likelihood of tussocks piling up at the barrier and blocking the opening between the barrier sections is considered remote and temporary. Based upon the information provided by the District, the proposed floating weed barrier will not significantly impede navigation; will not cause a violation of state water quality standards; will not impede the conveyance of a stream, river, or other water course in a manner that would increase off-site flooding; will not adversely impact aquatic or wetland dependent listed species; and will not cause the drainage of wetlands. There is no evidence that the proposed activity is located in, on, or over a coral community, macro-marine algae, or submerged grassbed community or that it entails the construction of a structure for the launching or mooring of a boat for which navigational access does not currently exist. The proposed activity would have only minimal or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the water resources of the District. As an activity that has minimal or insignificant adverse impacts on the water resources of the District, either individually or cumulatively, the District’s project qualifies for an exemption pursuant to Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes, as well as a Noticed General ERP under Rule 62- 341.475(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Department's exemption determination authorized the District’s floating weed barrier for one year, presumably so that the effectiveness of the barriers can be evaluated during that period of time. If they are effective, an extension or renewal of the authorization will be sought. If the tussocks problem becomes less acute, or the barriers do not achieve the desired purpose, they will be taken down. In contrast, Noticed General ERPs authorize a particular activity for five years. Other Contentions by Petitioner Petitioner has also contended that the proposed activity may violate a condition of the District's Corps of Engineers general permit by interfering with general navigation. As found earlier, however, the more credible evidence indicates otherwise. Moreover, it is presumed that this issue was considered by the Corps of Engineers prior to its approval of the project. In any event, that matter should be raised with the Corps of Engineers, and not with the Department. Finally, Mr. Lahey contends that since at least late 2002, the Lake has been free of a tussocks problem and therefore barriers are no longer needed. As noted above, however, blockages have occurred at the control structure and in the Peace River as recently as January and March 2003, and such blockages were the direct result of tussocks which originated in the Lake. Given the likelihood of a very active summer rainy season, it is essential that the canal be kept open so that the District can properly manage and control the water resources.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection issue a final order determining that the Southwest Florida Water Management District's proposed project qualifies for an exemption under Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes; that authorization to use state-owned lands be given; and that the project is in compliance with the State Programmatic General Permit program. DONE AND ENTERED this _____ day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this _____ day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Bruce Lahey 5280 Waterwood Drive Bartow, Florida 33830-9766 Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 Doreen Jane Irwin, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Respondent Communities Financial Corporation is a Florida corporation engaged in the subdivision and sale of real property. In 1971 CFC purchased approximately twenty-two sections, or 22 square miles, of real property ("the land") in Township 34 South, Range 33 East, Okeechobee County, Florida, which it proposed to sell as individual one-and-one-quarter (1-1/4) acre lots. The subsequent development of that land is the subject of this proceeding. Respondent Coquina Water Management District ("Coquina") was organized pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, by judgment of the Circuit Court for Okeechobee County, Florida to perform drainage activities on the land. The land which CFC purchased in 1971 was originally platted in 1912 in a grid system with roads, drainage canals, and ditches. Extensive drainage was required for use of the land because it was very flat and had a high water table. Approximately one-half of the land was subject to flooding. After it was originally platted it was utilized for cattle ranching with drainage ditches connecting the low areas to encourage runoff. Ten-acre tracts surrounded by dikes and two to three foot deep ditches were used for tomato farming. Such agricultural ditching covered approximately 15 square miles of the property. At one time a hotel was situated on a portion of the property. North-South and East-West roads and a 5,000-foot airstrip were constructed across the property. The East-West road along the South boundary of the property, which is now a state road, has an adjacent drainage ditch which received ranchland water runoff from property east of the land. In 1971 and 1972 CFC registered the platted lots for sale with the Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums ("Land Sales") of the State of Florida Department of Business Regulation. In the normal course of compiling the documentation to be submitted for registration, CFC contacted several state regulatory agencies to determine whether such agencies required CFC to obtain permits for development of the property. CFC provided those agencies copies of its drainage plans, which included roads, swales, canals, and control structures. The State of Florida Department of Natural Resources ("DNR") stated that the construction of improvements as planned in the development would not be subject to that agency's jurisdiction for purposes of a dredge and/or fill permit. The State of Florida Department of Pollution Control ("DPC"), predecessor of DER, first stated in a letter of October 4, 1971, to Mr. Moseley Collins, who submitted a "plan of reclamation to DPC, that it had no regulatory responsibilities over the project: In response to your request for comments this Department has conducted a preliminary review of the proposed plan. We have no basic objections to the overall plan of development and believe it could be platted as shown. Specific details as to drainage techniques will be reviewed at a latter [sic] date. It is brought to you [sic] attention that although we have no regulatory responsibili- ties in this area we will welcome the opportunity to review cross sections and details at a latter [sic] date. We thank you for the opportunity to review a project of this magnitude at an early date. [Emphasis added.] The DPC, in a letter of March 30, 1972, to Collins, also observed that: This Department has conducted a review of the revised plan for the subject project and endorse the approach that you are contemplating in developing these areas. I have coordinated with other agencies and organizations and they concur with the approach. We would like to review the project at a future date to deter- mine the method of construction of the swales or greenways to move the water from one lake to another through the complete watershed area. You and your client are to be commended on this approach. From the preliminary layout you can see the possibilities for the potential develop- ment of an area for residential usage that will retain a large percentage of the natural resources and minimize the downstream effect on the overall watershed. Please advise when you want to review the project in greater detail. [Emphasis added.] In connection with the registration of the development, CFC submitted to Land Sales the above-referenced letters from DNR and DPC, detailed evidence of the proposed plan of development, and a public offering statement for use in solicitation of lot sales from the general public. Each offering statement contains several statements to the effect that "this is not a homesite subdivision." Land Sales approved use of the offering statement. In using it to solicit sales, CFC committed to the purchasers that it would complete the required road and drainage improvements by December 31, 1979. CFC commenced sales of lots in the development in 1971. The Agreements for Deed approved by Land Sales and subsequently entered into by CFC with lot purchasers required CFC to deliver improved lots by December 31, 1979. Most of the land sales were made between 1971 and 1973. (6,412 lots were sold and 1,146 were conveyed by June 23, 1977.) Approximately eighty percent of the lots have been sold to date. Up to one-half of the approximately nine thousand lot purchasers hold legal title to their lots pursuant to deeds issued to them by CFC upon full payment. CFC began construction of the promised improvements, consisting of roads and drainage, in 1972. At the present time approximately $1,000,000 of improvements have been completed and approximately $750,000 remain to be completed. In 1973 or 1974, CFC and Coquina submitted plans for the surface water management system which CFC proposed to construct for the property to the South Florida Water Management District ("SFWMD"). The initial plan of development called for the construction of a road and canal system. At the request of SFWMD, the plan was subsequently changed to a road and swale system, and the configuration of one of the control structures was changed. The design changes resulted in more water retention on the property and the preservation of sensitive areas. After several years of analysis and review of the design plan, inspection of the project site, and a public hearing, SFWMD granted conceptual approval for the surface water management system to be constructed by CFC in 1977. The conceptual approval was partially based on the SFWMD staff's assessment than pollutant loadings from the property after development would be less than existing loadings, and that adverse water quality impacts as a result of the proposed development were unlikely. The 1977 SFWMD conceptual approval of the drainage plan for the development was followed by the issuance of a construction permit for the westernmost seven sections on March 15, 1979. Throughout this period construction was continuing. The drainage system as approved consists of grassed lot, roadside, and collector "swales" together with a retention area comprised of natural wetlands in the area of the property known as Ash Slough. The volume of water leaving the property after development will be the same as that leaving the property before development. The drainage conveyances are designed with gradually sloping sides, vary to widths of over 100 feet for the larger collector conveyances, and have depths varying from 2 feet for the "lateral" swales to 3 feet for the larger collector swales. The groundwater table in the area of the project site varies from zero to approximately 30 inches below ground surface. The swales were designed at the request of SFWMD in lieu of the canals proposed within the same easements in the original drainage plan for the development. It appears from the evidence that these drainage conveyances are designed so as to contain contiguous areas of standing or flowing water only following the occurrence of rainfall or flooding. Although some testimony indicated that these conveyances contained contiguous areas of standing water, these observations were made either at isolated times during the progress of construction or soon after a major hurricane passed through the area. Since the purpose of the "swales" is to facilitate drainage from the property, it would appear necessary from an engineering viewpoint to allow some period of time after construction of the swales for them to stabilize to make a valid determination that they will not function as designed. Accordingly, it would not appear unusual that the swales contain areas of standing water until they have been given ample opportunity to stabilize. On the basis of the record in this proceeding, a determination simply cannot be made at this point in time that the swales will not function as designed. Following DPC's initial determination of no jurisdiction in 1971 and 1972, it and DER, its successor agency, were not involved with the project until 1974, when DPC received an inquiry concerning land sales matters from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In 1975, a DER staff member conducted a critical review of the Project and filed an internal memorandum faulting the project on the same essential grounds that are the basis for the Notice of Violation issued June 1, 1979. DER representatives participated in various SFWMD meetings from 1975 to 1977 when the conceptual approval of the drainage plan for the project was discussed. During this period, SFWMD forwarded copies of various materials dealing with the project to DER. Further, a DER representative attended the public hearing on September 8, 1977, when the conceptual approval of the project was granted by SFWMD. Respondents' first indication of DER's renewed interest in the development was a letter from DER Subdistrict Manager Warren Strahm to Robert Birenbaum on June 23, 1977. This letter stated, in part, that: The above referenced application/staff report has been supplied to this office by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). It has been determined that your project is subject to Chapters 403 and/or 253, Florida Statutes. A review of drainage plans by our staff indicates the referenced project will comply with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes permit requirements for pollutant discharge. Since these plans have been incorporated into the SFWMD permit, no discharge permit or monitoring in addition to SFWMD permit requirement will be required by the Department at this time. It appears, however, that the referenced project may fall within the permitting requirements set forth in Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to F.A.C. 17-4.28(2) should any excavation take place in submerged lands or within the transitional zone of submerged lands, dredge and fill permits will be required by this Department prior to commencement of said activi- ties. [Emphasis added.] Please contact Mr. Roger G. Gallop, at the Fort Pierce Branch Office, telephone (305) 464-8525, at your convenience in order to discuss the need for a construction dredge and fill permit. Thank you for your cooperation. Three months later, in a letter from James Brindell to Coquina, Respondents were notified that: A review, by this agency, of the plans associated with your Surface Water Management Permit Applica- tion No. 02187-A indicates that permits will be required from the Department of Environmental Regulation pursuant to Chapter 403 and/or Chapter 253, Florida Statutes for the construction con- templated. Specifically, permits will be required for the construction and operation of discharge structures as well as for any dredging and/or filling in the waters of the state including the submerged lands and transitional zone of these submerged lands. Additionally, certification pursuant to section 401 of F.L. 92-500 may be required. Formal or conceptual appova1 of your project by the South Florida Water Management District does not imply that your project will satisfy the requirements of this agency. Please contact Mr. Warren G. Strahm, Subdistrict Manager, 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, phone 305/689-5800, at your earliest convenience concerning application for these permits. (Emphasis added). This letter was followed one-and-one-half months later by a "Letter of Notice" from DER advising Respondents that DER had reason to believe the project was in violation of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and requesting CFC to cease any further work. Throughout this series of correspondence, CFC and Coquina maintained that DER did not have permit jurisdiction. This position was reasserted in a letter of November 1, 1977, from Emerson Allsworth, counsel for Coquina, to DER. During this period, numerous meetings were held involving representatives of Respondents and DER in which Respondents were urged by DER to apply for permits. Respondents failed to do so, and, on June 1, 1979, DER issued its Notice of Violation. Natural drainage from the property occurs southwestward into an area known as Ash Slough; southward from the central portion of the property into Gore Slough; and from the northeast section of the property into Company Slough. The headwaters of both Ash Slough and Gore Slough originate on the project site and periodically extend off Respondents' property to the south to join the waters of Chandler Slough. Chandler Slough, in turn, eventually empties into Lake Okeechobee 11 to 15 miles from the property. Company Slough also extends off the project site eastward onto the lands of others. There is, however, insufficient evidence in this record from which to conclude that Company Slough regularly exchanges flow with any other body of water. A "slough", as that term is used in the context of this proceeding, is a surface conveyance pathway for waters whose lateral boundaries are not as well-defined as a stream bed, and whose rate of flow is relatively slow. Due to the flat topography of the project site, Ash, Gore and Company Sloughs have imprecise boundaries, and their rates of flow appear to range at various times from very slow to nonexistent. By Cease and Desist Order dated March 28, 1978, the United States Army Corps of Engineers required Respondents to halt any further work then being conducted on the project, asserting that work in progress at that time was being conducted in waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands, without first having acquired a permit from the Corps of Engineers. This Order provided, in part, that: Section 301(a) of the [Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972] makes it unlawful to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States unless author- ized by a Section 404 permit issued by the Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief of Engineers. Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 prohibits the excavation or depositing of material or erecting any struc- tures in navigable waters of the United States unless authorized by a Department of the Army permit. The work referred to in the paragraph above is deemed to have occurred in waters subject to these statutory requirements without the requisite permits and is considered unlaw- ful by this office. Prior to 25 July, the Corps of Engineers limited the requirement for Section 404 type permits to areas either below the mean high water line in tidal areas or below the ordinary high water line of rivers and streams which either now sup- port, had supported, or were capable of supporting interstate commerce. However, on 25 July 1975, the regulatory juris- diction of the District was expanded to all waters of the United States and adjacent wetlands. [Emphasis add.] Subsequently, however, by memorandum dated May 17, 1978, the United States Army Corps of Engineers determined that it did not have jurisdiction over Respondent's activities for the following reasons: In the northeast and eastern portion of the tract the flagponds and saw grass prairies are isolated with no discernible drainage sloughs or patterns. The other area of concern, in the south west sector, contains isolated ponds and an old man-made drainage canal that comprises shallow, intermittent potholes above the natural headwaters of Ash and Gore Sloughs. There was no recognizable flow in any part of the canal and the point at which average annual flow appear to be 5 c.f.s. or greater is located to the south a considerable distance from the subject tract. The project, as proposed, will not destroy or threaten any endangered species or their habitat nor adversely impact water quality of the ultimate receiving waters in Kissimmee River and Lake Okeechobee. In 1971, the Soil Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture classified Ash and Gore Sloughs, as well as Fish Slough, to which Company Slough is alleged by DER to connect, as "intermittent". This determination is supported by hydrological data compiled by the South Florida Water Management District which shows no net flow in Chandler Slough for as many as six months in 1975 and four months in 1976. In the South Florida Water Management District report concerning flow patterns in Chandler Slough, it was pointed out that: The climate in this portion of Florida is subtropical with warm summers and moderate winters. Rainfall is seasonal with about 75 percent of the total occur- ring in a well-defined wet season, from May to October. This distribution of rainfall results in considerable surface water flow during part of the year. During the late winter and early spring many of the creeks and sloughs, such as Chandler Slough, become completely dry. [Emphasis added.] In addition, testimony in the record in this proceeding establishes that on at least one occasion during the time in which construction on the property was being conducted, Company Slough was completely dry. There is no data in the record quantifying the annual flow of water from Ash and Gore Sloughs into Chandler Slough. Further, there is no evidence concerning the periodicity of any such water exchanges between Ash and Gore Sloughs and Chandler Slough. As indicated above, the evidence establishes that Chandler Slough, which is the larger collector slough into which both Ash and Gore sloughs allegedly discharge, periodically becomes "completely dry." DER witnesses testified that they had observed contiguous areas of standing water in Ash, Gore and Company Sloughs during visits to the site, and had also determined the existence of an exchange of waters between Ash, Gore and Company Sloughs with other sloughs connecting to Chandler Slough by analyzing aerial photographs. However, those aerial photographs were not made a part of the record in this proceeding. Additionally, the relatively few visits to the site by these witnesses, in the absence of validly derived data establishing pertinent flow rates, is insufficient to establish "normal" conditions in the area. This is especially true in light of the aforementioned countervailing determinations based upon data compiled by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the United States Department of Agriculture and the South Florida Water Management District. The evidence shows that some of the types of vegetation listed in DER's vegetation indices by which DER determines whether areas are "submerged lands" or "transitional zones" of submerged lands have been found on the project site. Among the types of vegetation observed in and around Ash, Gore and Company Sloughs are maidencane, water willow, pickerelweed, button bush, saw grass and St. John's wort. Although these species were detected in some locations by visual observation, apparently no attempt was made to quantify these plants vis-a-vis other vegetative types, nor were any physical measurements made to locate their boundaries. In a report dated August 26, 1977, the SFWMD attempted to identify the acreage, but not boundaries, of wetlands on the development site. The findings of that report show that approximately 2,014 of 14,080 acres, or 14.3 percent of the total site, contains wetlands vegetation. The report also indicates that the wetlands vegetation is scattered in different locations over the site, with the median occurrence being 68 acres per 640-acre section. DER presented quantified evidence showing turbidity readings in the Ash Slough area of the development during the construction of swales in August, 1979, of 325 Jackson Units and November and December, 1979, of 155 and 176 Jackson Units, respectively. It should be noted that these readings were performed after the filing of the Notice of Violation herein. Although samples of August 6, 1979, were taken without a background sample in Ash Slough, the evidence establishes that background readings in Ash Slough were less than 25 Jackson Units. The evidence clearly establishes that DER's water quality sampling and analysis were conducted in accordance with applicable requirements of Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. The evidence establishes that these readings are attributable to construction of swales and control structures and would not be expected to continue after completion of construction. There is no evidence to show the duration of the discharges resulting in these turbidity readings, nor is there any showing of actual damage to animal, plant or aquatic life. Petitioner and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact in this proceeding. To the extent that those findings of fact are not adopted in this Recommended Order, they have been specifically rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
The Issue The issue is whether the District should approve Environmental Resource Permit No. 43024788.002 for the construction of a surface water management system to serve the proposed residential subdivision on Westfield’s property in southern Pasco County, and based upon the prior litigation between the parties in DOAH Case No. 04-0003 and the pre-hearing rulings in this case, the issue turns on whether Westfield has provided “reasonable assurances” in relation to the proposed development's potential impacts on Wetland A3 and fish and wildlife.
Findings Of Fact Parties Dr. Blanco is a veterinarian. He grew up on, and has some sort of ownership interest in the property (hereafter “the Blanco property”) immediately to the west of the property on which the proposed development at issue in this case will occur. Dr. Blanco is particularly concerned about the impacts of the proposed development on the ecological health of Wetland A3, a significant portion of which is on the Blanco property. He has spent considerable time over the years observing and enjoying that wetland. Westfield is the applicant for the ERP at issue in this case, and it owns the property (hereafter “the Westfield property”) on which the development authorized by the ERP will occur. The District is the administrative agency responsible for the conservation, protection, management, and control of the water resources within its geographic boundaries pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40D. Among other things, the District is responsible for reviewing and taking final agency action on ERP applications for projects within its boundaries. The District includes all or part of 16 counties in southwest Florida, including Pasco County. The Proposed Development (1) Generally The Westfield property consists of 266.36 acres.3 It is located in southern Pasco County on the north side of State Road 54, approximately three miles west of U.S. Highway 41 and less than one-half mile east of the intersection of State Road 54 and the Suncoast Parkway. The Westfield property is bordered on the south by State Road 54,4 on the north by an abandoned railroad right-of- way and undeveloped woodland property, on the east by pastureland and property that has been cleared for development, and on the west by the Blanco property. The development proposed for the Westfield property is a residential subdivision with 437 single-family lots and related infrastructure (hereafter “the Project” or “the proposed development”). The ERP at issue in this proceeding is for the surface water management system necessary to serve the Project. There are 19 isolated and contiguous wetlands on the Westfield property, including Wetland A3, which is partially on the Westfield property and partially on the Blanco property. Wetlands cover 72.69 acres (or 27.3 percent) of the Westfield property. The proposed development will result in 1.61 acres of the existing wetlands -- Wetlands B4 and C4, and a portion of Wetland B12 -- being permanently destroyed. The remaining 71.08 acres of existing wetlands will be preserved. Wetlands B4 and C4 are small (each less than 0.75 acres), shallow, wet depressions in a pasture that have been significantly impacted by livestock grazing and periodic mowing. Wetland B12 is a low-quality, small (0.58 acres), isolated, forested wetland that has been impacted by livestock grazing and the intrusion of exotic species. The proposed development will create 2.89 acres of new wetlands, which means that the Project will result in a net gain of 1.28 acres of wetlands. The created wetlands, referred to as Wetland B2 or the “mitigation area,” are in the northern portion of the property along the abandoned railroad right-of-way and to the east of Wetland A3. The proposed ERP includes a number of special conditions, Nos. 6 through 11, related to the mitigation area. Among other things, the conditions require monitoring of the mitigation area to ensure that it develops into the type of forested wetland proposed in the ERP application. (2) Prior ERP Application The ERP at issue in this case is the second ERP sought by Westfield for the Project. The first ERP, No. 43024788.000, was ultimately denied by the District through the Final Order in Blanco-I. Blanco-I, like this case, was initiated by Dr. Blanco in response to the District’s preliminary approval of Westfield’s ERP application. Administrative Law Judge David Maloney held a three- day final hearing in Blanco-I at which the parties, through counsel, fully litigated the issue of whether Westfield satisfied the regulatory criteria for the issuance of an ERP for the proposed development. On December 17, 2004, Judge Maloney issued a comprehensive, 64-page Recommended Order in which he recommended that Westfield’s ERP application be denied. Judge Maloney determined in his Recommended Order that Westfield failed to provide reasonable assurances as required by the applicable statutes and rules because “[1] it omitted an adequate wildlife survey from the submission of information to the District and [2] it failed to account for seepage from Pond P11 and its effect on Wetland A3 and the Cypress-forested Wetland.”5 In all other respects, Judge Maloney determined that the applicable permit requirements had been satisfied. Dr. Blanco did not file any exceptions to the Recommended Order in Blanco-I. Westfield’s exceptions to the Recommended Order in Blanco-I were rejected by the District, and the Recommended Order was adopted “in its entirety” in the District’s Final Order. The Final Order in Blanco-I was rendered on January 27, 2005, and was not appealed. (3) Current ERP Application On April 29, 2005, approximately three months after the Final Order in Blanco-I, Westfield submitted a new ERP application for the Project. The current ERP application, No. 43024788.002, is identical to the application at issue in Blanco-I, except that the depth of Pond P11 was reduced in certain areas from a maximum of approximately 25 feet to a maximum of approximately 12 feet, an analysis of the potential impact of Pond P11 on Wetland A3 resulting from “seepage” was included with the application, and additional wildlife surveys were included with the application. On July 29, 2005, the District gave notice of its preliminarily approval of the current ERP application. The notice was accompanied by a proposed ERP, which contained a description of the Project as well as the general and special conditions imposed by the District. On August 24, 2005, Dr. Blanco timely challenged the District’s preliminary approval of the current ERP application. The Request for Administrative Hearing filed by Dr. Blanco in this case is identical to the request that he filed in Blanco-I. Disputed Issues Related to the Current ERP Application Impact of Pond P11 on Wetland A3 Dr. Blanco’s primary objection to the Project is the excavation of Pond P11 adjacent to Wetland A3. Wetland A3 is on the western border of the Westfield property and, as noted above, the wetland extends onto the Blanco property. The portion of Wetland A3 that is on the Westfield property is approximately 30 acres, and the portion of the wetland on the Blanco property appears to be slightly larger. Wetland A3 is a large, mature, Cypress-forested wetland. It has been impacted by nearby development and is not a pristine wetland, but it is still a mid to high quality wetland for the area.6 Wetland A3 is part of a larger wetland system that extends northward and westward beyond the abandoned railroad right-of-way that serves as the northern boundary of the Westfield and Blanco properties. Cypress-forested wetlands, such as Wetland A3, are very tolerant of prolonged periods of drought and inundation. The seasonal high groundwater level in Wetland A3 is approximately one foot below the surface in most areas of the wetland. There are, however, areas in Wetland A3 in which water is frequently a foot or two above the surface. The groundwater levels in Wetland A3 have, in the past, been significantly impacted by drawdowns in the aquifer caused by pumping in nearby wellfields. The impact has been less significant in recent years as a result of the reductions in pumping mandated by the Tampa Bay Consolidated Water Use Permit. The planned interconnection of several nearby wellfields is also expected to minimize the drawdowns in the aquifer and should further stabilize the groundwater levels in Wetland A3. Pond P11 will be located adjacent to Wetland A3. There will be a 25-foot buffer between the pond and the wetland. The location of Pond P11 is unchanged from the first ERP application. Pond P11 will have a surface area of approximately 37 acres. The surface area of Pond P11 is unchanged from the first ERP application. Pond P11 is a necessary component of the surface water management system for the Project. It also serves as a “borrow pit” because the soil excavated from the pond will be used on- site as fill for the proposed development. The excavation of Pond P11 to the depth proposed in the current ERP application is not necessary for water storage. The pond could be excavated to the seasonal high water level -- approximately 2.5 feet deep -- and still function as intended as part of the proposed surface water management system. Pond P11 will be used for attenuation, but the pond is also expected to provide at least some amount of water quality treatment, which is an added benefit to Wetland A3 into which the proposed surface water management system will ultimately discharge through Pond P11. The only change made to Pond P11 between the first and current ERP applications was a reduction in the pond’s maximum depth. The pond, which had a maximum depth of approximately 25 feet in the first ERP application, was “shallowed up” in the current ERP application. Pond P11 will now be approximately 12-feet deep at its deepest point, unless the District authorizes excavation to a greater depth in accordance with special condition No. 28. The shallowest area of Pond P11 will be along the western edge of the pond adjacent to Wetland A3 where there will be an expansive “littoral shelf” that will have almost no slope and that will be excavated only to the seasonal high water level.7 There was no change in the design of the surface water management system between the first ERP application and the current ERP application. The reduction in the depth of Pond P11 will have no impact on the operation of the system, which was described in detail in Blanco-I.8 Pond P11 will have a control structure to allow water to be discharged into Wetland A3 near its southern end, which is a more upstream location than water is currently discharged as a result of the ditches that intercept surface water flowing across the Westfield property. This design feature of the surface water management system is intended to mimic historic hydrologic conditions and is expected to increase the hydration of Wetland A3. The ERP includes a special condition, No. 28, relating to the excavation of Pond P11. The condition provides: Maximum depth of excavation will be +38 feet NGVD[9] unless additional field observations and data are provided that support excavation to greater depth, subject to review and approval by District staff. Proposed maximum depths of excavation . . . may be exceeded based upon field observations and approval as specified. Due to the potentially irregular depths to limestone, excavation will be stopped at a shallower depth if confining soils are encountered before reaching the maximum depth specified in Subcondition A, above. A geotechnical field technician will be present on site during the entire excavation process in order to monitor excavated soils. The field technician will be under the supervision of a Professional Geologist or Professional Engineer. For the purposes of the specific project, confining soils are defined as soils with more then 20 percent fines passing a No. 200 sieve. The field technician will be authorized to halt depth of excavation when confining soils are encountered. Excavation may proceed deeper than soils containing 20 percent or more fines if the soils are shown to be an isolated lens of material significantly above underlying confining soils or limestone, as determined by field observations and data subject to approval by District staff. Confining soils do not uniformly overlie the limestone; therefore it is possible that the underlying limestone could be encountered in spite of precautions in Subconditions A and B above. If the underlying limestone is encountered, excavation will be halted in the area of exposed underlying limestone. The area of exposed limestone will be backfilled to a minimum depth of two feet with compacted material meeting the specification of confining soils, having more than 20 percent fines passing a No. 200 sieve. The geotechnical field technician must certify that the backfill material meets this specification. One of the reasons that the ERP application was denied in Blanco-I was that Westfield failed to take into account the potential hydrologic impacts on Wetland A3 caused by “seepage” of water from Pond P11 due to the depth to which the pond was to be excavated and the corresponding removal of the confining layer of soils between the bottom of the pond and the aquifer. After Blanco-I, Westfield retained Marty Sullivan, a professional engineer and an expert in geotechnical engineering and groundwater and surface water modeling, to evaluate the seepage issue and the potential hydrologic impacts of Pond P11 on Wetland A3. Mr. Sullivan developed an integrated or “coupled” groundwater/surface water model to assess these issues. The model was designed to project the change in groundwater levels caused by the proposed development more so than absolute groundwater levels. The model utilized a widely-accepted computer program and incorporated data from topographic and soil survey information maintained by the U.S. Geologic Service; data from soil borings performed on the Westfield property in the vicinity of Wetland A3 in the area where Pond P11 will be located; data from groundwater monitoring wells and piezometers installed around the Westfield property; data from soil permeability tests performed on-site and in the laboratory; data from a rain gauge installed on the Westfield property; and data from the District’s groundwater monitoring wells in the vicinity of the Westfield property. Mr. Sullivan “calibrated” the model based upon known pre-development conditions. He then “ran” the model with the data from the Interconnected Pond Routing (ICPR) model10 used to design of the surface water management system in order to project the post-development groundwater conditions over a simulated ten-year period. Mr. Sullivan’s coupled groundwater/surface water model addresses the shortcoming of the ICPR model set forth in Blanco- I.11 The model projects that the post-development groundwater levels at the western boundary of the Westfield property in Wetland A3 adjacent to Pond P11 will be the same as the pre-development levels during the “wet season” of June to September, and that, on average and during the “dry season” of October to May, the post-development groundwater levels will be 0.3 feet higher than the pre-development levels. Mr. Sullivan summarized his conclusions based upon these projections in a report provided to the District with the current ERP application. The report states that: no adverse hydrologic effects will result from the excavation of Pond P11 and the development of the surrounding area. Particularly, Wetland A3 will be essentially unaffected and will be slightly enhanced by this development. Some additional hydration of wetland A3 will occur due to eliminating the north-south drainage ditch and instead routing runoff to Pond P11, which is adjacent to Wetland A3. The relative differences in the pre- and post- development levels are more important than the absolute levels projected by the model and, in this case, there is almost no difference in the levels. The minimal change in the water levels expected in Wetland A3 will not affect the wetland’s ecological functioning or its viability. A 0.3-foot change in the water level is well within the normal range of hydroperiod fluctuation for Wetland A3. The rate at which water increases and decreases in a wetland can impact wetland ecology and wetland-dependent species. The proposed surface water management system will not increase the surface water discharges from the Westfield property, and in compliance with Section 4.2 of the Basis of Review (BOR),12 the post-development discharge rates will not exceed the pre-development peak discharge rates. There is no credible evidence that there will be an adverse impact on Wetland A3 caused by changes in the discharge rate from the Westfield property through Pond P11 into Wetland A3. The range of error, if any, in Mr. Sullivan’s model is unknown. He has never performed a post-development review to determine how accurately the model predicts the post-development conditions that are actually observed. Nevertheless, the more persuasive evidence establishes that Mr. Sullivan’s model is reasonable, as are his ultimate conclusions based upon the model’s projections. Mr. Sullivan recommended in his report that Pond P11 be excavated no deeper than two feet above the limestone to avoid potential breaches of the confining soils above the aquifer. That recommendation led to the pond being “shallowed up,” and it was incorporated by the District into special condition No. 28. The provisions of special condition No. 28 are reasonable to ensure that excavation of Pond P11 will not breach the confining layer. The standards in special condition No. 28 pursuant to which a geotechnical field technician will monitor the excavation of Pond P11, and pursuant to which the District will determine whether to authorize deeper excavation of the pond, are generally accepted and can be adequately monitored by professionals in the field and the District. There is a potential for the loss of “significant volumes of water” from Pond P11 through evaporation “[d]ue to the sheer size of P11’s open surface area.”13 It is not entirely clear how the evaporation of water from Pond P11 was taken into account in Mr. Sullivan’s model, but it appears to have been considered.14 Dr. Mark Rains, Petitioner’s expert in hydrogeology, ecohydrology, and geomorphology, testified that evaporation from open water is generally about 12 inches more per year than evaporation from a wet meadow or Cypress forest, but he did not offer any specific criticism of the projections in Mr. Sullivan’s model related to the issue of evaporation. In sum, the more persuasive evidence establishes that Wetland A3 is not likely to suffer any adverse ecological or hydrological impacts from the proposed surface water management system and, more particularly, from Pond P11. Westfield has provided reasonable assurances in that regard. (2) Adequacy of the Wildlife Surveys The other reason why the first ERP application for the Project was denied in Blanco-I was that the wildlife surveys submitted with that application were found to be inadequate. Wildlife surveys are not required with every ERP application and, in that regard, Section 3.2.2 of the BOR provides that: [t]he need for a wildlife survey will depend on the likelihood that the site is used by listed species, considering site characteristics and the range and habitat needs of such species, and whether the proposed system will impact that use such that the criteria in subsection 3.2.2 through 3.2.2.3 and subsection 3.2.7 will not be met. Westfield conducted a “preliminary” wildlife assessment in 2001. No listed species were observed, nor was any evidence of their presence on the Westfield property. Nevertheless, as detailed in Blanco-I,15 the District requested that Westfield perform a wildlife survey of Wetlands B4, C4, and B12, because all or part of those wetlands will be permanently destroyed by the proposed development. In an effort to comply with the District’s requests, Westfield conducted additional field visits in 2003 and also performed specific surveys for Southeastern Kestrels and Gopher Tortoises. The field visits “confirmed” the findings from the preliminary wildlife assessment, and no evidence of Southeastern Kestrels and Gopher Tortoises was observed during the surveys for those species. Judge Maloney found in Blanco-I that the wildlife surveys conducted by Westfield were inadequate because they “did not employ the methodology recommended by the District: the FWCC methodology.”16 However, the wildlife surveys were not found to be inadequate in Blanco-I because they focused on Wetlands B4, C4, and B12, instead of evaluating the entire Westfield property and/or all of the potentially impacted wetlands, including Wetland A3. After Blanco-I, a team of qualified professionals led by Brian Skidmore, an expert in wetlands, Florida wetlands ecology, and listed species assessment, conducted additional wildlife surveys of the Westfield property. Mr. Skidmore and his team had performed the preliminary wildlife assessment and the supplemental surveys submitted with Westfield’s first ERP application. The “FWCC methodology” referenced in Blanco-I is a methodology developed by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) to evaluate potential impacts to listed species from large-scale projects, such as developments-of- regional impact and new highways. It is not specifically designed for use in the ERP process, which focuses only on wetland-dependent species. Mr. Skidmore adapted the FWCC methodology for use in the ERP process. The methodology used by Mr. Skidmore was reviewed and accepted by the District’s environmental regulation manager, Leonard Bartos, who is an expert in wetland ecology and ERP rules. The surveys performed by Mr. Skidmore and his team of professionals occurred over a five-day period in February 2005. The surveys focused on Wetlands B4, C4, and B12, and were performed at dawn and dusk when wildlife is typically most active. Additional wildlife surveys of the entire site were performed on five separate days between October 2005 and January 2006. Those surveys were also performed at dawn and dusk, and they included observations along the perimeter of Wetland A3 and into portions of the interior of that wetland on the Westfield property. Mr. Skidmore reviewed databases maintained by FWCC to determine whether there are any documented waterbird colonies or Bald Eagle nests in the vicinity of the Project. There are none. Mr. Skidmore contacted the Florida Natural Area Inventory to determine whether there are any documented rare plant or animal species on the Westfield property or in the vicinity of the Project. There are none. The post-Blanco-I wildlife surveys did not evaluate the usage of the Westfield property by listed species during the wetter spring and summer months of March through October even though, as Mr. Skidmore acknowledged in his testimony, it is possible that different species may use the property during the wet season. The post-Blanco-I wildlife surveys, like the original wildlife surveys, focused primarily on the species contained in Appendix 5 to the BOR -- i.e., wetland-dependent species that use uplands for nesting, foraging, or denning -- but Mr. Skidmore testified that he and his surveyors “were observant for any species,” including wetland-dependent species that do not utilize uplands. No listed wetland-dependent species were observed nesting or denning on the Westfield property. Several listed wetland-dependent birds -- i.e., snowy egret, sandhill crane, wood stork, and white ibis -- were observed foraging and/or resting on the property. Those birds were not observed in Wetlands B4, C4, or B12. The parties stipulated at the final hearing that the determination as to whether Westfield provided reasonable assurances with respect to the statutory and rule criteria related to fish and wildlife turns on whether the wildlife surveys submitted by Westfield are adequate.17 BOR Section 3.2.2 provides that “[s]urvey methodologies employed to inventory the site must provide reasonable assurance regarding the presence or absence of the subject listed species.” The wildlife surveys conducted by Westfield subsequent to Blanco-I in accordance with the FWCC methodology meet this standard. Although the surveys could have been more extensive in terms of the species assessed and the period of time over which they were conducted, the more persuasive evidence establishes that the wildlife surveys are adequate to document the presence or, more accurately the absence of listed wetland- dependent species on the Westfield property. The wetlands that will be directly impacted by the proposed development -- Wetlands B4, C4, and B12 -- do not provide suitable habitat for listed species. Those wetlands are small, low-quality wetlands, and Wetland B12 is technically exempt from the District’s fish and wildlife review because it is a small isolated wetland. There is no credible evidence that there will be any other adverse impacts to fish and wildlife from the proposed surface water management system. For example, even if there are undocumented listed species -- e.g., frogs, snakes, snails, etc. -- in Wetland A3, Mr. Skidmore credibly testified that the expected 0.3-foot increase in groundwater levels in that wetland during the dry season is not likely to adversely affect those species or their habitat because the water will still be below the surface. In sum, Westfield has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed development will not adversely affect fish and wildlife.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District issue a final order approving Environmental Resource Permit No. 43024788.002, subject to the general and special conditions set forth in the proposed ERP dated July 29, 2005. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 2006.
