Findings Of Fact On December 31, 1976, Respondent's territorial jurisdiction was expanded by transfer of substantial areas formerly regulated by other water management districts. The transfer was effected pursuant to legislative revision of Section 373.069, F.S., which delineates the geographic boundaries of Florida's water management districts. The following rule promulgated by Respondent became effective on January 31, 1977, and was amended on February 3, 1981: 40C-4.031 (previously 16I-4.04, Florida Administrative Code). Implementation. These regulations shall become effective February 1, 1981, throughout the District and will be implemented in those areas transferred to the St. Johns River Water Management District from the Central & Southern Florida Flood Control District and the Southwest Florida Water Management District on the same date. Implementation in other areas will be effected pursuant to public hearing at subsequent dates determined by the Board. The regulations implemented by the above rule establish permitting procedures for projects which involve holding, diversion, or discharge of significant quantities of water. However, permits are required only in the transferred territory. Petitioner owns 11,500 acres located within the territory where permits are required. Petitioner seeks to improve his property for agricultural purposes, which involves the holding and diversion of surface waters. He has accepted Respondent's determination that his property is within the permitting area and has filed the requisite application. However, Petitioner contends that he is unable reasonably to confirm Respondent's determination that his property is situated in the regulated territory. Respondent demonstrated that a determination can be made by comparing the statutory descriptions of Respondent's jurisdiction prior to and after the transfer, and has maps available which reflect the permitting area. To accomplish this task independently requires knowledge of legal territorial descriptions (section, township, range) and a laborious comparison of legal descriptions set out in the 1975 and 1977 versions of the Florida Statutes. At the time reorganization of the water management districts became effective (December 31, 1976) , Respondent had limited regulatory capability. Its decision to implement permitting only in the transferred territory was based on this limited capability and the need to preserve continuity 1/ in areas where permits had previously been required. In the years following this decision, Respondent has continued to require permits only in those areas transferred in 1976. The evidence established that the boundary between the regulated and unregulated areas is one of convenience and has no hydrological or other scientific basis. Respondent is considering a revision of its rules to become effective sometime in 1982. This revision may enlarge the permitting territory and modify the criteria for grant or denial of permits. Petitioner asserts that his application is being evaluated by rules not yet adopted and fears that new standards may be applied after hearing on the application, which is now under consideration pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), F.S., (DOAH Case No. 81-1588). Hearing is scheduled for December, 1981. In support of this contention, Petitioner points to the technical staff report prepared in May, 1981, which recommends denial of the application giving, among others, the following reasons: Volumes 1 and 2 of Phase 1 of the Upper Basin Plan catalogue a history of a diminish- ing water resource in the upper basin. The water resources in the upper basin have been harmed and the proposed project aggravates the existing harm to the resource. Moreover the proposed project is inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district for the upper basin. Resolutions 75-11 and 81-2, the 1977 Management Plan, and Volumes 1 and 2 of Phase I of the Upper Basin Plan indicate that the objectives of the District are to curtail inter-basin diversion and maintain and enhance, if possible, the existing hydro- logic regime in the upper basin. The pro- posed project is not in conformance with either of these statutory requirements. (Emphasis added.) An earlier technical staff report prepared in November, 1980, recommended grant of the application, with some modification. This report did not refer to inter-basin diversion.
The Issue The issue is whether the applicant for an Environmental Resource Permit ("ERP"), the City of Deltona ("City" or "Applicant"), has provided reasonable assurance that the system proposed complies with the water quantity, environmental, and water quality criteria of the St. Johns River Water Management District's ("District") ERP regulations set forth in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40C-4, and the Applicant's Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters (2005).
Findings Of Fact The District is a special taxing district created by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, charged with the duty to prevent harm to the water resources of the District, and to administer and enforce Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. The City of Deltona is a municipal government established under the provisions of Chapter 165, Florida Statutes. The Lake Theresa Basin is comprised primarily of a system of interconnected lakes extending from Lake Macy in the City of Lake Helen to the Butler Chain of Lakes (Lake Butler and Lake Doyle). The Lake Theresa Basin is land-locked and does not have a natural outfall to Lake Monroe and the St. Johns River. In 2003, after an extended period of above-normal rainfall in the Deltona area, the lakes within the land-locked Lake Theresa Basin staged to extremely high elevations that resulted in standing water in residential yards, and rendered some septic systems inoperable. Lake levels within the Lake Theresa Basin continued to rise and were in danger of rising above the finished floor elevations of some residences within the basin. On March 25, 2003, the District issued an Emergency Order (F.O.R. No. 2003-38) authorizing the construction and short-term operation of the Lake Doyle and Lake Bethel Emergency Overflow Interconnection. Since wetland and surface water impacts would occur, the Emergency Order required the City of Deltona to obtain an ERP for the system. The project area is 4.1 acres, and the system consists of a variable water structure on the west shore of Lake Doyle connected to a series of pipes, swales, water control structures, and wetland systems which outfall to a finger canal of Lake Bethel, with ultimate discharge to Lake Monroe and the St. Johns River. The first segment of the system extends downstream from the weir structure on the west shore of Lake Doyle via a pipe entrenched in the upland berm of the Sheryl Drive right-of-way. The pipe passes under Doyle Road and through xeric pine-oak uplands to the northeast shore of a large (approximately 15 acres) deepwater marsh. Water flows south through the deepwater marsh where it outfalls through four pipes at Ledford Drive. Two of the four pipes are overflow structures, controlled by canal gates. The pipes at Ledford Drive discharge into a ditch and into a large (greater than 20 acres) shallow bay swamp. The south end of the bay swamp is defined (and somewhat impounded) by a 19th Century railroad grade. Water flows through the bay swamp where it outfalls through five pipes at the railroad grade. Three of the five pipes are overflow structures, controlled by channel boards. The pipes at the railroad grade discharge to a 1500-foot long finger canal that was dug some time during the period 1940-1972 from the north central shore of Lake Bethel. The overflow interconnection system has three locations whereby the system can be shut down: 1) Lake Doyle--a control weir, controlled by three sluice gates; 2) Ledford Drive--two thirty-inch reinforced concrete pipes, controlled by canal gates; and 3) railroad grade--three thirty-inch reinforced concrete pipes, controlled by channel boards (collectively referred to as "Overflow Structures"). The Overflow Structures are designed to carry the discharge of water from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel. With the Overflow Structures closed the system returns to pre-construction characteristics, meaning there will be no increase or decrease in the quantity or quality of water throughout the path of the system as a result of the project. An unequivocal condition of the permit is that the system would operate with all of the Overflow Structures closed. As an added assurance, the City proposes to place a brick and mortar plug in the Lake Doyle weir structure outfall pipe to prevent any discharge from the weir. The City has submitted to the District preliminary plans for a future phase in which the system would be modified for the purpose of alleviating high water levels within the Lake Theresa Basin when the water level in Lake Doyle rises above an elevation of 24.5 feet. The District shall require a separate permit application to be submitted for such future plans. Petitioner, Barbara Ash, has lived on Lake Theresa for 19 years. Ms. Ash lives upstream from the area of the weir that will be plugged in accordance with the ERP. She does not trust either the City of Deltona to comply with or the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP applied for by the City. Petitioner, Barbara Ash, also served as the qualified representative for Petitioners, Francell Frei, Bernard J. and Virginia Patterson, and Ted and Carol Sullivan. Ms. Ash represented that Ms. Frei has lived on Lake Theresa for 12 years, and both the Pattersons and the Sullivans live on Lake Louise, which is within the area of concern in this proceeding. Petitioner, Diana Bauer, has lived on Lake Theresa since February 2004. She fears that the lake will become too dry if the system is allowed to flow. She also believes the wildlife will be adversely affected if the water levels are too low since many species need a swampy or wet environment to thrive. She fears her property value will decrease as a result of the approval of the ERP. She also does not trust either the City to comply with or the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP. Petitioner, Howard Ehmer, lives two to three hundred yards down Lake Theresa from Ms. Bauer. He is concerned about the lake bed being too dry and attracting people on all terrain vehicles who enjoy driving around the lake bottom. He is concerned about his property value decreasing if the lake bed is dry. Further, when the lake level is too low, people cannot enjoy water skiing, boating, and fishing on Lake Theresa. Petitioner, Phillip Lott, a Florida native, has also owned and lived on property abutting Lake Theresa since 1995. Mr. Lott has a Ph.D. in plant ecology, and M.P.A. in coastal zone studies, an M.B.A. in international business, and a B.S. in environmental resource management and planning. Mr. Lott has been well acquainted with the water levels on Lake Theresa for many years. Based upon his personal observations of the lake systems in the Deltona area over the years, Mr. Lott has seen levels fluctuate greatly based upon periods of heavy and light rainfall. Mr. Lott is concerned that the District will permit the City to open the weir to let water flow through the system and cause flooding in some areas and low water levels in other areas. He fears that the District will allow the water to flow and upset the environmental balance, but he admits that this ERP application is for a closed system that will not allow the water to flow as he fears. Mr. Lott similarly does not trust the City to comply with and the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP. Petitioners, James E. and Alicia M. Peake, who were represented by Steven L. Spratt at hearing as their qualified representative, live on Lake Louise, which is interconnected with the Lake Theresa basin. The Peakes are concerned that if the level of Lake Louise drops below 21 feet, nine inches, they will not be able to use the boat launch ramps on the lake. Petitioner, Steven L. Spratt, also lives on Lake Louise, and is concerned about the water levels becoming so low that he cannot use the boat launch on the lake. He has lived on the lake since 2000, and remembers when the water level was extremely low. He fears that approval of the ERP in this case will result in low levels of water once again. Petitioner, Gloria Benoit, has live on Lake Theresa for two years. She also enjoys watching recreational activities on the lake, and feels that approval of the ERP will devalue her lakefront property. Ms. Benoit appeared at the first day of the hearing, but offered no testimony on her behalf. J. Christy Wilson, Esquire, appeared prior to the final hearing as counsel of record for Petitioners, Steven E. Larimer, Kathleen Larimer, and Helen Rose Farrow. Neither Ms. Wilson nor any of the three Petitioners she represented appeared at any time during the hearing, filed any pleadings seeking to excuse themselves from appearing at the final hearing, or offered any evidence, testimony, pre- or post- hearing submittals. Petitioner, Gary Jensen, did not appear at hearing, did not file any pleadings or papers seeking to be excused from appearing at the final hearing, and did not offer any evidence, testimony, pre- or post-hearing submittals. Both the City and the District recognize that areas downstream from the project site, such as Stone Island and Sanford, have experienced flooding in the past in time of high amounts of rainfall. The system proposed by the City for this ERP will operate with the overflow structures closed and a brick and mortar plug in the outfall pipe to prevent water flow from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel. So long as the overflow structures are closed, the system will mimic pre-construction flow patterns, with no increase in volume flowing downstream. The District has considered the environment in its proposed approval of the ERP. The area abutting the project is little urbanized and provides good aquatic and emergent marsh habitat. With the exception of the western shore area of the deepwater marsh ("west marsh area"), the bay swamp and remaining deepwater marsh area have good ecological value. In the 1940's, the west marsh area was incorporated into the drainage system of a poultry farm that occupied the site. This area apparently suffered increased nutrient influxes and sedimentation that contributed to a proliferation of floating mats of aquatic plants and organic debris. These tussocks reduced the deepwater marsh's open water and diminished the historical marsh habitat. Water under the tussocks is typically anoxic owing to total shading by tussocks and reduced water circulation. Thick, soft, anaerobic muck has accumulated under the matted vegetation. Exotic shrubs (primrose willow Ludwigia peruvania) and other plants (cattails Typha spp.) dominate the tussocks. The construction of the project, from the 2003 Emergency Order, resulted in adverse impacts to 1.3 acres of wetlands having moderately high- to high ecological value and 0.2 acres of other surface waters. The 0.2 acre impact to other surface waters was to the lake bottom and the shoreline of Lake Doyle where the weir structure was installed. The 0.3 acres of wetland impacts occurred at the upper end of the deepwater marsh where the pipe was installed. The largest wetland impact (1.0 acre) was to the bay swamp. The bay swamp is a shallow body dominated by low hummocks and pools connected inefficiently by shallow braided channels and one acre is filled with a 1-2 foot layer of sediment following swamp channelization. Disturbance plants (e.g., primrose willow, Ludwigia peruvania, and elderberry Sambucus Canadensis) now colonize the sediment plume. Pursuant to the District's elimination and reduction criteria, the applicant must implement practicable design modifications, which would reduce or eliminate adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. A proposed modification, which is not technically capable of being done, is not economically viable, or which adversely affects public safety through endangerment of lives or property is not considered "practicable." The City reduced and/or eliminated the impacts to the lake bottom and shoreline of Lake Doyle and deepwater marsh, to the extent practicable. The impacts were the minimum necessary to install the weir structure and pipe for the system; the weir structure and pipe were carefully installed on the edges of the wetland and surface water systems, resulting in a minimum amount of grading and disturbance. To compensate for the loss of 1.3 acres of wetlands and 0.2 acres of other surface waters, the City proposes to preserve a total of 27.5 acres of wetlands, bay swamp, marsh, and contiguous uplands. Included in this 27.5 acres are 6.4 acres of the west marsh, which are to be restored. The parties stipulated that the mitigation plan would adequately compensate for losses of ecological function (e.g. wildlife habitat and biodiversity, etc.) resulting from the project. Water quality is a concern for the District. Lake Monroe is included on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's verified list of impaired water bodies for nitrogen, phosphorous, and dissolved oxygen. Water quality data for Lake Monroe indicate the lake has experienced high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous and low levels of dissolved oxygen. Prior to construction of the project, there was no natural outfall from the Lake Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe and therefore no contribution from this basin to nitrogen and phosphorous loadings to Lake Monroe. Lake Colby, Three Island Lakes (a/k/a Lake Sixma), and the Savannah are surface waters within the Lake Theresa Basin for which minimum levels have been adopted pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40C-8. The system will operate with the overflow structures closed and a brick and mortar plug in the outfall pipe to prevent water flow from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel, resulting in no outfall from the Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe. Minimum flows established for surface waters within the Lake Theresa Basin will not be adversely impacted. Under the first part of the secondary impact test, the City must provide reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts from construction, alteration, and intended or reasonable expected use of the project will not adversely affect the functions of adjacent wetlands or surface waters. The system is designed as a low intensity project. As proposed, little activity and maintenance are expected in the project site area. The reasonably expected use of the system will not cause adverse impacts to the functions of the wetlands and other surface waters. None of the wetland areas adjacent to uplands are used by listed species for nesting or denning. In its pre-construction state, the project area did not cause or contribute to state water quality violations. Under the second part of the secondary impact test, the City must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, and intended or reasonably expected uses of the system will not adversely affect the ecological value of the uplands to aquatic or wetland dependent species for enabling existing nesting or denning by these species. There are no listed threatened or endangered species within the project site area. Under the third part of the secondary impact test, and as part of the public interest test, the District must consider any other relevant activities that are closely linked and causally related to any proposed dredging or filling which will cause impacts to significant historical and archaeological resources. When making this determination, the District is required, by rule, to consult with the Division of Historical Resources. The Division of Historical Resources indicated that no historical or archaeological resources are likely present on the site. No impacts to significant historical and archaeological resources are expected. Under the fourth part of the secondary impact test, the City must demonstrate that certain additional activities and future phases of a project will not result in adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or water quality violations. The City has submitted to the District preliminary plans for a future phase in which the system would be modified for the purpose of alleviating high water levels within the Lake Theresa Basin when the level in Lake Doyle rises above an elevation of 24.5 feet. Based upon the plans and calculations submitted, the proposed future phase, without additional measures, could result in minor increases in the loadings of nitrogen and phosphorous to Lake Monroe. Lake Monroe is included on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's verified list of impaired water bodies due to water quality data indicating the lake has experienced high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous, and low levels of dissolved oxygen. Under this potential future phase, there would be an outfall from the Lake Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe. To address the impact on water quality of this potential future phase, the City has submitted a loading reduction plan for nitrogen, phosphorous, and dissolved oxygen. The plan includes compensating treatment to fully offset the potential increased nutrient loadings to Lake Monroe. Specifically, the loading reduction plan includes: Construction and operation of compensating treatment systems to fully offset anticipated increased nutrient loadings to Lake Monroe. Weekly water quality monitoring of the discharge from Lake Doyle for total phosphorous and total nitrogen. A requirement that the overflow structure be closed if the total phosphorous level reaches 0.18 mg/l or higher or the total nitrogen level reaches 1.2 mg/l or higher in any given week and will remain closed until levels fall below those limits. The implementation of these water quality mitigation measures will result in a net improvement of the water quality in Lake Monroe for nitrogen, phosphorous, or dissolved oxygen. The future phase was conceptually evaluated by the District for impacts to wetland functions. The future phase as proposed could result in adverse impacts to wetland functions. Operation of the system with the overflow structures open could impact the bay swamp and deepwater marsh. The City has demonstrated that any adverse impacts could be offset through mitigation. Based upon the information provided by the City and general engineering principles, the system is capable of functioning as proposed. The City of Deltona will be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the surface waster management system. A local government is an acceptable operation and maintenance entity under District rules. The public interest test has seven criteria. The public interest test requires the District to evaluate only those parts of the project actually located in, on, or over surface waters or wetlands, to determine whether a factor is positive, neutral, or negative, and then to balance these factors against each other. The seven factors are as follows: the public health, safety, or welfare of others; conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats; fishing, recreational value, and marine productivity; temporary or permanent nature; 5) navigation, water flow, erosion, and shoaling; 6) the current condition and relative value of functions; and 7) historical and archaeological resources. There are no identified environmental hazards or improvements to public health and safety. The District does not consider impacts to property values. To offset any adverse impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitats, the City has proposed mitigation. The areas of the project in, on, or over wetlands do not provide recreational opportunities. Construction and operation of the project located in, on, or over wetlands will be permanent in nature. Construction and operation of the project located in, on, or over wetlands will not cause shoaling, and does not provide navigational opportunities. The mitigation will offset the relative value of functions performed by areas affected by the proposed project. No historical or archaeological resources are likely on the site of the project. The mitigation of the project is located within the same drainage basin as the project and offsets the adverse impacts. The project is not expected to cause unacceptable cumulative impacts.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting the City of Deltona's application for an environmental resource permit with the conditions set forth in the Technical Staff Report, and dismissing the Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by Gary Jensen in Case No. 04-2405, and by Steven E. Larimer, Kathleen Larimer, and Helen Rose Farrow in Case No. 04-3048. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: George Trovato, Esquire City of Deltona 2345 Providence Boulevard Deltona, Florida 32725 Diana E. Bauer 1324 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 Barbara Ash, Qualified Representative 943 South Dean Circle Deltona, Florida 32738-6801 Phillip Lott 948 North Watt Circle Deltona, Florida Howard Ehmer Nina Ehmer 32738-7919 1081 Anza Court Deltona, Florida 32738 Francell Frei 1080 Peak Circle Deltona, Florida 32738 Bernard T. Patterson Virginia T. Patterson 2518 Sheffield Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Kealey A. West, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 J. Christy Wilson, Esquire Wilson, Garber & Small, P.A. 437 North Magnolia Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Gloria Benoit 1300 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 Gary Jensen 1298 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 James E. Peake Alicia M. Peake 2442 Weatherford Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Steven L. Spratt 2492 Weatherford Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Ted Sullivan 1489 Timbercrest Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Kirby Green, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177
The Issue Whether a consumptive use permit for the quantities of water as applied for should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Application No. 7500112 requested water from three (3) wells for the purpose of industrial use. This application is for a new use. The center of withdrawals will be located at Latitude 27 degrees 38' 58" North, Longitude 81 degrees 48' 21" West, in Hardee County, Florida. The application is for the use of not more than 470 million gallons of water per year and not more than 2,592,000 gallons of water during any single day to be withdrawn from the Florida Aquifer. Application received as Exhibit 1. Notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation, to-wit: The Herald Advocate, published weekly in Wauchula, Florida, on August 7 and 14, 1975, pursuant to Section 373.146, Florida Statutes. Notices of said public hearing were duly sent by certified mail as required by law. The affidavit of publication was received without objection and entered into evidence as Exhibit 2. Letters of objection were received from the following: Mr. Joseph F. Smith, Route 1, Box 238, Wauchula, Florida 33273. Mr. Smith states that in his opinion such withdrawal of water will severely damage his property. He is developing a mobile home park on eight (8) acres and is fearful that the amount of water requested in this application will diminish his supply of water for his project. A letter from Mr. and Mrs. A. H. Van Dyck, written on August 16, 1975, Route 2, Box 657, Wauchula, Florida 33873. They are fearful that the large amount of water American Orange Corporation proposes to pump each day will affect their shallow well which provides water for their home. They would like to see some type of agreement whereby American Orange Corporation would be willing to pay for replacement of the well if the corporation should cause their well to go dry. Mr. Stanley H. Beck, Counselor at Law, wrote a letter in behalf of his client, Harold Beck, requesting information as to the applicable statutes and regulations which affect the matter of the consumptive use permit. A telegram was sent by Harold Beck of Suite 1021, Rivergate Plaza, Miami 33131, stating that he objected to the application of American Orange Corporation's withdrawal of water or the reason that it would reduce the property value. The witness for the permittee is Barbara Boatwright, hydrologist, who 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. The staff hydrologist recommended that the permit be granted with two (2) conditions. One was that each of the wells be metered and two, that the District receive monthly reports from each meter. The applicant has consented.
Findings Of Fact S. A. Williams Corporation (Williams) is a Florida corporation which has its principal place of business in Florida, has a net worth of less than two million dollars, has fewer than 25 employees, and was the prevailing party in the initial proceedings. Williams has operated a construction and demolition landfill in Hernando County since prior to the adoption of zoning ordinances by the county, and its use of the land for this purpose was grandfathered. Subsequently, William sought to comply with certain conditions established by the County for expanding the landfill site. These improvements necessitated construction of a basin to retain surface water. On April 6, 1993, William applied for a surface water drainage permit from the Southwest Water Management District. On June 16, 1993, the District gave notice of its intent to issue the surface water drainage permit to Williams. On May 26, 1993, while Williams' application was pending with the Water Management District, the County revoked the zoning of Williams to operate a construction and demolition landfill site. Williams sought and obtained an injunction against the County to prevent it from revoking its zoning, and the County appealed the Circuit Court's order enjoining the revocation of the zoning. The Hernando County Commission was advised by their attorney on May 10, 1993, that the County might desire to challenge the issuance of permits by the Water Management District or the Department of Environmental Regulation to Williams to prevent Williams from proceeding with its operation during the appeal of the injunction. At a meeting on June 24, 1993, before the County challenged issuance of the permit, the Water Management District staff advised the County Attorney and a member of the County Commission, who were attending the presentation in their official capacity, that there would be no adverse drainage impacts to any property owned by the County, its rights-of-way, or any property of any citizen of the county because the drainage would be retained on Williams' property by a close basin system large enough to retain surface water drainage on the property during a 100 year storm. Subsequent to this meeting and prior to filing its petition challenging issuance of the permit, the County did not bring to the attention of the Water Management District any concerns to be resolved between the District, Williams, and the County over adverse drainage impacts to County property or rights-of-way. 7 On June 30, 1993, Hernando County filed a petition in the original proceeding challenging the issuance by Southwest Water Management District to Williams of a surface water drainage permit. That petition alleged two grounds for standing: (1) that the County was substantially affected because of adverse impacts to county property and the rights-of-way to county roads, and (2) that the County had standing to challenge the issuance of the permit under its general police powers. The County Engineer was not asked by the County Attorney to review the drainage impacts of the surface water drainage permit prior to filing the challenge, and did not review the District's file until after his first deposition on October 22, 1993. After reviewing the information, to include a new survey of the berm contours, furnished to the Water Management District by Williams, the County Engineer determined that there were no adverse drainage impacts off site. The County Engineer's opinion that there were no adverse impacts to County property was known by the County Attorney prior to the formal hearing in Case Number 93-4212 on November 16, 1993. At the formal hearing on November 16, 1993, in Case Number 93-4212, Williams moved to dismiss the petition filed by Hernando County for lack of standing on the basis that the County was not substantially effected by the Water Management District's decision to issue a surface water drainage permit to Williams. The County receded from its allegation of damage to County property and rights-of-way at the commencement of the hearing, but asserted standing on the basis of its general police powers. The County specifically denied at the formal hearing acting in a representative capacity in the manner of an association in behalf of the county's citizens. After hearing the argument of counsel and being fully advised in the premises, the undersigned hearing officer recommended that the County's petition be dismissed. At the conclusion of the hearing, Williams moved for the award of attorney's fees and expenses from the County after argument on the motion to dismiss the County's petition. Thereafter, Williams filed a written motion for the award of attorney fees and expenses. The Hearing Officer retained jurisdiction to consider the Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses when the recommended order was entered. The Water Management District adopted the Recommended Order in its Final Order dated December 20, 1993, and the County appealed the District's Final Order which was affirmed per curiam without opinion in Hernando County v. Southwest Florida Water Management District, 647 So. 2d 124, (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The instant case was established to consider William's motion which is treated as a collateral fact finding proceeding. The style of the original case was retained to prevent confusion. An evidentiary hearing on the motion for attorney's fees was held on May 10, 1995 which revealed the following facts. During the work-up period prior to notice of intent to issue the permit, the county's engineer and environmental specialist did not raise issues regarding drainage, contours, wetlands, and wildlife. (Tx-220). Although the County Attorney and one of its commissioners had been advised by the District that there would be no impact to County property or rights-of-way, the County Engineer was not asked to investigate whether the drainage from the proposed project would remain on the site as stated in the application and as concluded by the staff of the Water Management District prior to the County challenging the issuance of the permit. (Tx-198,199) The County Engineer looked at the Water Management District's file on the issuance of the permit only after the County had filed its challenge. (Tx-209). The County Engineer had expressed concerns to the District staff about suspected changes in the topography on the site. (Tx-208). When the Water Management District was made aware of the County engineer's concerns, a new survey was conducted which resolved the County engineer's concerns about changes in topography on the site, and revealed that the tops of the berms were as high or higher than represented in the application. The results of this new survey was shared with County Engineer prior to the original hearing. (Tx-208,211-219). The County's environmental specialist did not review the complete file on the Williams' permit application until within two weeks of the original formal hearing, well after the challenge was filed. (Tx-161). The environmental specialist had no basis to question the validity of the number of acres of wetlands stated in the second permit. (Tx-176). The environmental specialist did not have any personal knowledge regarding the flora or fauna on the site because she had never been on the site, and her information was based solely on material provided to her by individuals living in the vicinity of the site. (Tx-176,180-181). She did not have authority to enter on the site because the County had no enforcement authority over endangered species. When the county's concerns about endangered species on the site were voiced, an on site inspection was conducted by the District. The District staff found no endangered species, or evidence of endangered species, or persons who had seen them on the site. The District staff's findings were shared with the County prior to the original hearing. (Tx-220.) Williams incurred attorney fees and expenses responding to the challenge of the County to issuance of the surface water drainage permit. The expenses incurred by Williams were primarily in response to the County's allegations of adverse impacts to County property. However, it is impossible to reasonably separate the expenses incurred by Williams responding to the allegations of off-site impacts from those related to standing based upon general police power. The County's assertion of general regulatory authority was primarily a legal argument which was addressed by the District's staff. Williams sought no fees for the appeal which was litigated principally by the District and County. By agreement of the parties the evidence on the amount of attorney fees and rate were submitted by affidavit without agreement regarding the facts asserted in the affidavits. The rate charged by counsel for Williams of $195/hour was a reasonable rate for the type of service provided in the geographic area in which it was provided considering the skill and experience of counsel. The number of hours billed through preparation of the post hearing briefs in the original formal hearing in this case, 160.25 hours, was not excessive given the number of depositions taken, the motions hearings which were held, and the legal and factual issues raised. The Williams' affidavits of attorney's fees and expenses are as follows: Attorney fees thru original hearing: $31,248.75 Estimate of costs related to preparation and service of Motion for Attorneys Fees and Expenses: $ 1,560.00 Teleconference charges on motion to compel: $ 127.73 Outside copying expense: $ 8.73 Expert Witness fee: $ 1,277.90 Court Reporter fees for depositions & transcripts: $ 1,692.45 Expert fees on Motion for Attorney Fee and expenses: $ 788.00 24. The attorney's fees, expert witness fees, and costs incurred by Williams in the hearing on attorney fees May 10, 1995 of $3,894.81 are reasonable. Williams incurred an expense of $1,019.00 for publication of the transcript in the almost seven hour hearing.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and the Property. The Respondent, HORNE, owns or has options to purchase approximately 24.35 acres of real property at the southwest corner of U.S. Highway 41 and State Road 50 Bypass in Brooksville, Florida. The Petitioner, the ASSOCIATES, owns approximately 67.5 acres of real property to the south and downstream from the HORNE property. The ASSOCIATES' property is presently undeveloped. The HORNE property contains an existing Publix shopping plaza, a mobile home sales office and vacant lands. The Publix plaza was previously permitted by the DISTRICT before it was constructed. The Surface Water Permit Application On August 7, 1992, HORNE submitted its application for surface water permit No. 400317.02. The application sought approval to construct a surface water management system for a proposed new K-Mart store on HORNE's property. On November 3, 1992, the DISTRICT issued notice of final agency action approving issuance of permit No. 400317.02 to HORNE. The day before the original final hearing in this matter scheduled for March 1993, new information from a study called the Peck Sink Watershed Study came to light which rendered the project as then designed unpermittable. This information resulted in the surface water management system being redesigned. On April 1, 1993, the DISTRICT notified all of the parties that the redesigned surface water management met District rule criteria. This resulted in issuance of what became known as the April 1 submittal. On May 12, 1993, in response to concerns raised by the ASSOCIATES at depositions on May 10, 1993, HORNE produced the May 12 submittal and provided it to all parties on that same date. The changes in design reflected on the May 12 submittal related to lowering the pond bottoms one foot below the orifices and changing the contour lines on the outside of Pond 5A. On May 13, 1993, further minor changes were made to the permit materials. Specifically, the changes were: reflecting on the engineering worksheets the lowering of the pond bottoms accomplished on the May 12 submittal, correction of the contour line on the outside of Pond 5A and showing the amount of additional fill into the 100-year floodplain caused by the addition of the contour line to the outside of Pond 5A. In reviewing HORNE's application, the District applied the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 40D-4, Florida Administrative Code, and the Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications. Compliance with DISTRICT Permitting Criteria Water Quantity The main two areas considered by the DISTRICT in assessing water quantity in a closed basin are: attenuating the peak rate of discharge for the 25 runoff for the 100 The peak rate of runoff for this project for the 25 (2) cubic feet per second (cfs) less in the post-developed condition than in the pre-developed condition, as shown on the April 1 submittal. No changes were made between the April 1 and May 12 or 13 submittals relating to the peak rate of discharge. The difference in the volume of runoff between the pre-developed and post-developed condition during the 100-year storm is being retained on site, as shown on the April 1 submittal. Therefore, DISTRICT rule criteria for the peak rate and volume of runoff were met on the April 1 submittal. Lowering the bottoms of the detention ponds on the May 12 and 13 submittals resulted in additional post 100 system, as redesigned to retain this additional 100-year volume, exceeds the DISTRICT's 100 Floodplain Encroachment Under the DISTRICT's floodplain encroachment standards, any fill within the 100 out an equivalent volume of fill elsewhere on the property. HORNE's application satisfies the DISTRICT's floodplain standards. HORNE is filling 1.59 acre feet of the floodplain and creating 1.75 acre feet of compensation. The floodplain compensation will be above the seasonal high water table, as required by Section 3.2.1.4 of the DISTRICT's Basis of Review. The original, existing seasonal high water table will be lowered as a result of the excavation so that the entire floodplain compensation area will be above the seasonal high water table. Water Quality A wet detention system as proposed by HORNE is an acceptable means under the DISTRICT's rules of treating runoff for water quality purposes. The bottoms of the ponds, as shown on the May 12 submittal, are all at least one foot below the orifice elevations, as required by the Basis of Review. Thus, the project met all relevant DISTRICT water quality requirements as of the May 12 submittal. Operation and Maintenance DISTRICT rules require that reasonable assurances be provided that the surface water management system can be effectively operated and maintained. HORNE will be the operation and maintenance entity for this surface water management system. The DISTRICT's main concerns at the time of permit review are that the design of the surface water management system not be an exotic design, that the design insure that littoral zones can be established, that the system orifice can be cleaned, that the overall system will be stable and that there is a viable operation and maintenance entity. HORNE's project can be effectively operated and maintained. Remaining District Rule Criteria As stipulated to by the parties that the project will not cause adverse impacts to wetlands and will not diminish the capability of a lake or other impoundment to fluctuate through the full range established for it in Chapter 40D Additionally, the proof establishes that the project will not cause adverse impacts on surface and groundwater levels and flows will not adversely affect the public health and safety; is consistent with the requirements of other public agencies; will not otherwise be harmful to the water resources within the District; will not interfere with the legal rights of others as defined in Rule 17 Objections Raised by the ASSOCIATES at the Hearing Pond Slopes and Operation and Maintenance Contrary to the assertion that the pond slopes will not be stable and cannot be effectively operated and maintained, the pond side slopes at this project are going to be constructed out of a heavy clay type of soil. Sodded side slopes of 1:1, as proposed for three of the ponds, can be stabilized and effectively operated and maintained. Although there is no DISTRICT requirement that sodded side slopes be mowed, so on these slopes could, if necessary, be cut. In the event the side slopes were to erode, easy repair is possible. All of the ponds except one side of one pond have areas at least 20 feet wide and slopes no steeper than 4:1 where maintenance can be performed. With regard to the pond that does not have this characteristic, equipment can enter and perform necessary maintenance. Water Quality Treatment Concerns that at least a portion of the bottoms of the ponds need to be below the seasonal high water table and that circulation of the ponds needs to be maximized in order to meet water quality treatment criteria are misplaced since there is no requirement that the pond bottoms be below the seasonal high water table in wet detention systems such as the one at issue in this case. Further, the entire bottoms of the ponds are littoral zone and meet DISTRICT rule requirements that 35 per cent of the pond be littoral zone, concentrated at the outfall. Additionally, the ponds at issue maximize circulation through the location of points of inflow and outflow. Floodplain Mitigation Concerns that volume in the floodplain mitigation area is not available because of problems with the seasonal high water table are also misplaced. Specifically, the floodplain area encroachment requiring mitigation relates to Pond 5A. There is more than enough volume within the area which will be excavated to compensate for the area where the fill will be deposited. The seasonal high water table will be at or below the floodplain mitigation area after the required excavation takes place. Although the seasonal high water table will be lowered where the excavation or cut is made and later raised where the fill is placed, no adverse effects on the water table will result from such lowering and raising of the water table. Volume In Pond 5A Allegations that the May 12 and 13 submittals reflect that Pond 5A has less volume available than the modeling calculations contemplate are incorrect. The changes in the contour lines of Pond 5A on the May 12 and 13 submittals from what was shown on the April 1 submittal occurred on the outside of the pond. The volume on the inside of the pond was not reduced actually increased when the pond bottom was lowered for water quality purposes. In determining how much volume a pond is to have when it is constructed, the computer modeling figures take precedence over the scaled plan drawings. In this case, the computer modeling figures never changed after the April 1 submittal. HORNE submitted a computer model that calculated the volume of Pond 5A. The output data clearly reflects that the top of the bank was 82 feet. Publix's Status as an Existing Site Assertions that the Publix site should have been considered in its pre-developed state since there will be approximately one acre foot of volume of runoff, or possibly less, leaving the site without retention are without validity. The Publix plaza was permitted by the DISTRICT in 1985 and constructed in 1986. The amount of peak flow discharge and overall discharge is currently authorized by a valid MSSW permit. When the DISTRICT reviews a permit application, all existing permitted surface water management systems must be accepted in their present state. There is no authority in the DISTRICT's rules to consider an existing permitted site in its pre Even if the Publix site is considered in its pre project has only .02 of an acre foot more volume of runoff in its post-developed condition than in the pre Storage of 100-Year Volume Allegations that the amount of 100-year volume being retained on site in the ponds has been incorrectly calculated by the DISTRICT and HORNE are also invalid. The DISTRICT's rules require that the difference between the pre- and post-development volume for the 100-year storm be retained on site. In the ponds which are the subject of this proceeding, the 100-year volume is retained in the ponds below the orifice. This volume cannot leave the site through the orifice; it can only leave the site by percolation into the ground or evaporation into the air.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order granting HORNE's Application for Surface Water Management Permit No. 400317.02. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 1993. APPENDIX The following constitutes my rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties Proposed findings submitted by Petitioners (Petitioner's proposed findings begin at paragraph number 13.) 13.-19. Accepted. 20.-30. Rejected, unnecessary. 31.-44. Rejected, subordinate to hearing officer findings. 45.-47. Accepted. 48.-77. Rejected, subordinate to hearing officer findings. 78.-79. Rejected, recitation of documents. 80.-84. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 85.-88. Rejected, unnecessary. 89.-93. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 94.-95. Rejected, unnecessary. 96. Accepted. 97.-98. Rejected, subordinate, weight of the evidence. 99.-100. Rejected, unnecessary. 101.-126. Rejected, subordinate. 127. Accepted. 128.-129. Rejected, unnecessary. 130.-135. Rejected, argument. 136.-144. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Respondents Joint Proposed Findings. 1.-56. Accepted, though not verbatim. 58.-59. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: David Smolker, Esquire Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn 2700 Landmark Centre 401 East Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Rodney S. Fields, Jr., Esquire Blain & Cone, P.A. 202 Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Richard Tschantz, Esquire Mark F. Lapp, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34609-6899
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD, or District) should issue a Modification to Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 36-00583- S-02, Application No. 050408-15 to Plantation Development, Ltd. (PDL), for construction and operation of a surface water management system serving a 78.11-acre condominium development known as Harbour Pointe at South Seas Resort, with discharge into wetlands adjacent to Pine Island Sound.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and arguments, the following facts are found: The Parties PDL, the applicant, is a limited partnership which is the successor to Mariner Group, Inc. (Mariner). SFWMD has jurisdiction over PDL's application, as amended, and has given notice of its intent to grant PDL's application, as amended, with certain conditions. Petitioners, CCA and SCCF, and Intervenor, CSWF, are Florida not-for-profit corporations that challenged the proposed ERP. Development and Permit History The property subject to PDL's application was part of approximately 310-acres on the northern end of Captiva Island in Lee County, Florida. Redfish Pass is to the immediate north, separating Captiva Island from North Captiva Island. Farther to the north is Cayo Costa Island, a large island to the south of Boca Grande Pass. Most of Cayo Costa is a State Park. To the south of Captiva Island is Sanibel Island, the site of the Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge. To the northeast of Sanibel Island and to the east of the rest of the string of barrier islands just mentioned is Pine Island Sound, which is to the west of Pine Island. Pine Island Sound is a state-designated Aquatic Preserve and Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). Pine Island Sound also is state-designated Class II water, but shell-fishing is prohibited in the immediate vicinity of Captiva Island. To the east of Pineland Island is Little Pine Island, which is surrounded by the Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve, which includes the Matlacha Pass National Wildlife Refuge. All of these features are part of the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary (CHNE). San Carlos Bay is farther south. The Lee County mainland is to the east of Matlacha Pass and San Carlos Bay. The 310-acre site was purchased by Mariner in 1972 for development of a resort that became known as the “South Seas Plantation.” Mariner's property included both Captiva Island proper and a smaller island immediately to the east across Bryant Bayou to the north and Chadwick Bayou farther to the south. Bryant Bayou has a narrower inlet from the north, and Chadwick Bayou has a narrower inlet to the south. Both inlets lead to Pine Island Sound. When Mariner purchased the property, it theoretically was possible to develop a maximum of 3,900 dwelling units on the 310-acre property, pursuant to Lee County zoning. In 1973, Mariner submitted an application to Lee County for the right to develop of 912 dwelling units on its 310 acres. PDL characterizes this as a "voluntary down-zoning" for the purpose of protecting the environment and unusual for a developer to do at that point in time. However, it is speculative how much more than 912 dwelling units would have been approved by Lee County at the time. The purpose of Mariner’s application to Lee County was to create a resort where recreational, single family, multi- family, and some commercial uses would coexist in a resort setting. The overall development plan was to construct the resort while conserving many of the property’s natural resources, including several miles of mangrove and Gulf of Mexico shoreline. Lee County approved the rezoning and the concept of the South Seas Plantation in 1973. Mariner's development began with Captiva Island proper and included a marina, golf course, and a variety of residential condominiums and single-family home sites. Some of the residential units were sold, and others remained in Mariner's ownership. Mariner marketed the rental of units at South Seas Plantation and served as rental agent for units not owned by Mariner. Development of the marina included dredging, and spoil was deposited on the northern tip of the smaller island, helping to create approximately 1.4 acres of upland there. In the 1950's or 1960's, a natural sand-and-shell berm along the eastern shore of the smaller island was built up and maintained by addition of fill material to create a two-track sand/shell road, which was used for vehicular access to the northern tip via an east-west road that divided the smaller island roughly in half and connected it to Captiva Island proper and the main road at South Seas Plantation. At a later point in time, the east-west portion of the road was paved for better access to a drinking water plant, a wastewater treatment plant, and a helicopter pad used by the Lee County Mosquito Control District. In 1985, Mariner received from SFWMD a “Master Stormwater Permit” for its entire development (the 1985 Permit). At that time, SFWMD did not regulate wetland impacts, only surface water management systems. The Department of Environmental Regulation regulated wetland impacts through its dredge and fill permit program, and there was no evidence relating to any dredge and fill permitting on the property. The 1985 Permit was for surface water management systems for construction in uplands on the property. No surface water management systems were needed or permitted in any wetlands. The 1985 Permit included a surface water management system for an 18-unit hotel on the spoil uplands of the northern tip of the smaller island. Permit drawings showed plans for a golf course on much of the remainder of the smaller island, which consisted mostly of wetlands. Access to the facilities was envisioned to be by water taxi, with emergency access via the utility and sand/shell road. Together, the hotel and golf course was to become a part of the resort known as Harbour Pointe. The 1985 Permit was modified several times in the years since its initial issuance, during which time Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, was amended to give SFWMD authority to regulate activities in waters and wetlands. However, until the pending application, none of the modifications had wetland impacts. In 1998, Mariner negotiated the sale of ten resort properties it owned in Florida, including South Seas Plantation, to Capstar, which later became Meristar S.S. Plantation Co., LLC (Meristar). Meristar was a real estate investment trust which specialized in hotels. Because it was not in the development business, Meristar was not interested in purchasing the as-yet undeveloped Harbour Pointe portion of South Seas Plantation, or Mariner's remaining development rights. As a result, Meristar purchased all the developed land on South Seas Plantation but not the approximately 78 acres of undeveloped land which is the subject of the pending application, or any of Mariner's development rights. Thus, after the sale of South Seas Plantation, Mariner retained its development rights and the 78 acres of undeveloped land, which are the subject of PDL's application. In 2002, Lee County issued an Administrative Interpretation which clarified that those development rights consisted of a maximum of 35 more residential units. Eleven units subsequently were built, leaving a maximum of 24 residential units when PDL filed its application in this case. The 78-acre Harbour Pointe site consists of mangrove wetlands, privately owned submerged lands, the 1.4-acre upland area at the northern tip of Harbour Pointe and another 1.4 acres of upland, which contain a Calusa Indian mound, known as the Chadwick Mound for its location west of Chadwick Bayou. While agreements between Meristar and PDL contemplate that PDL's subsequent development at Harbour Pointe would be marketed as part of the South Seas Resort and share some amenities and services, the parcels which comprise the Harbour Pointe development are the only undeveloped lands PDL owns or controls. PDL has no contractual or other legal right to develop on property owned by Meristar. Because it was modified several times since issuance, the 1985 Permit has not expired. However, Harbour Pointe never was constructed, and that part of the 1985 Permit expired in that Mariner lost its entitlement to proceed with construction. Instead, development of Harbour Pointe would require a permit modification under the new laws and rules, which included the regulation of wetland impacts. The Application and Proposed ERP In October 2003, PDL applied to SFWMD to further modify the 1985 Permit for construction of a water taxi dock for access to Harbour Pointe. After being informed by SFWMD that modifications to the 1985 Permit for development of Harbour Pointe would be reviewed under current laws and regulations, PDL withdrew the application. In April 2005 PDL applied for modification of the 1985 Permit to construct six 9,500 square-foot, four-plex condominium buildings (each two stories over parking, and accommodating units having 3,600-3,800 square feet of air-conditioned living space), a pool and spa, a tennis court, an access road, a filter marsh and surface water management facilities. Additionally, the site plan deleted all boat docks, except for a single water taxi slip and possibly a dock for launching kayaks and canoes and proposed a drawbridge across the inlet to Bryant Bayou to connect the project site to the South Seas Resort and eliminate the need for the emergency access road on the smaller island. This application described a development site of 7.4 acres, which included 4.8 acres of direct impacts to (i.e., destruction and fill of) mangroves and .1 acre of shading impacts from construction of the drawbridge. The proposed mitigation for the mangrove impacts included: restoration (by removal and replanting) of .6 acre of the north-south sand/shell road, with resulting enhancement of the adjacent preserved mangrove wetlands through improved hydrologic connection across the former shell/sand road and improved tidal connection to Pine Island Sound to the east; and preservation of the rest of PDL's property. The preserved areas would include: approximately 36 acres of mangrove wetlands adjacent to and south of the impacted wetlands (included the road to be restored) (Parcel A); 24.5 acres of mangrove wetlands south of the utility road and east of the narrow inlet to Chadwick Bayou (Parcel B); 9.3 acres of mangrove wetlands (7.9 acres) and tropical hardwoods (1.4 acres, which includes the Chadwick Mound), south of the utility road and west of the inlet to Chadwick Bayou, (Parcel C); .9 acre of mangrove wetlands to the west of Parcel C and the South Seas Resort main road (Parcel D); and .8 acre of mangrove wetlands separated from Parcel A by Bryant Bayou and adjacent to the South Seas Resort main road. A monitoring program lasting at least five years was offered to ensure success of the restoration and mitigation proposal. The application itself incorporated some reduction and elimination of wetland impacts. The total site consists of five separate tax parcels which could be developed into a number of single-family home sites. Such a development plan would have greater direct impacts than the proposed project and would require the shell/sand road to be significantly widened to meet current code requirements. By using the bridge as access, .11 acre of wetlands would be disturbed, as compared to 3.9 acres of total impact that would occur because of the widening the road. This approach results in the entire project causing less wetland impact than would occur from the use of the road alone. After the application was filed, PDL responded to two written requests for additional information and several other questions raised during meetings, phone conversations, and email exchanges with one or more SFWMD staff members. During this process, the application was amended. The tennis court was eliminated, and the filter marsh was replaced by a five dry detention ponds. In addition, the resulting development was concentrated more into the northern tip of the island to reduce and eliminate the greater secondary impacts (from more "edge effect") to the preserved wetlands to be expected from a more linear site plan. These changes reduced the footprint of the proposed project to 5.24 acres, the building size to 6,400 square feet each, the residential unit size to 2,400 to 2,600 square feet each, and wetland impacts to 2.98 acres, plus .11 acre of shading impacts from construction of the drawbridge. In addition, since the project was more concentrated at the northern tip, another tenth of an acre of the sand/shell road was to be restored. A conservation easement was offered for the 73.31 acres to be preserved, including 71.10 acres of wetlands, in Parcels A through E. PDL also offered to purchase .11 credits of offsite mitigation from the Little Pine Island Wetland Mitigation Bank (LPIWMB). On February 2, 2006, SFWMD's staff recommended approval of the amended application with 19 standard general conditions and 30 special conditions. Some of the special conditions in the Staff Report addressed prevention of erosion, shoaling, silt, turbidity, and water quality problems during construction or operation; remediation of any such problems not prevented; and restoration of any temporary wetland impacts. A pre-construction meeting was required to discuss construction methods, including construction dewatering. Although PDL indicated that dewatering would not be necessary for construction of the project, the Staff Report recommended that a dewatering plan be submitted before any dewatering occurred and noted that PDL would have to obtain all necessary Water Use authorizations, unless the work qualified for a No-Notice Short-Term Dewatering permit pursuant to Rule 40E- 20.302(3) or is exempt pursuant to Rule 40E-2.051.1 On February 8, 2006, SFWMD's Governing Board gave notice of its intent to approve the amended application with two additional conditions that were added to the Staff Report: PDL was required to apply for and receive a permit modification for the roadway necessary to access the project (i.e., the road leading from the South Seas Resort main road to the proposed drawbridge), and the applicant for the road to the drawbridge was required to document that proposed construction was consistent with the design of the master surface water management system, including land use and site grading assumptions; and a perpetual maintenance program for restored and preserved areas, including removal of exotic and nuisance vegetation in excess of five percent of total cover between regular maintenance activities, or such vegetation dominating any one section, was required to ensure integrity and viability. The parties interpreted the first of the two additional conditions to mean that construction access to build the project would be via the new roadway and drawbridge. On May 30, 2006, to address certain issues raised by the pending challenge to SFWMD's intended action, PDL further amended the application to substitute two wet retention ponds and three dry retention ponds for the five dry detention ponds and to make associated minor changes to the proposed surface water management system's water quality treatment methods to further reduce water quality impacts from the discharge of the system into the adjacent preserved wetlands. In addition, in view of disagreements among the parties as to the ability of PDL's onsite mitigation proposal to offset wetland impacts, PDL offered to increase offsite mitigation by purchasing as many additional credits from the LPIWMB as necessary to completely offset wetland impacts, as determined by the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM). Water Quantity Impacts Pursuant to Rule 40E-4.301(1), an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; will not cause adverse flooding to on- site or off-site property; will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Section 6.0 of the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District (BOR), entitled Water Quantity Criteria, outlines the criteria that the applicant must meet for water quality at the project site. As outlined in BOR Section 6.2, the off-site discharge is limited to rates not causing adverse impacts to existing off- site properties. The proposed surface water management system consists of a series of swales, dry retention, and then a wet retention system with an outfall into the areas to the south. Ordinarily, stormwater runoff eventually will be absorbed into the ground. Any discharge associated with the system, typically only in conjunction with major rain events, will flow into a preserved wetland that will be hydrologically connected to Bryant Bayou and Pine Island Sound. As outlined in BOR Section 6.2, the off-site discharge rate is limited to historic discharge rates. As required by BOR Section 6.3, a storm event of 3-day duration and 25-year return frequency is used in computing off- site discharge rates. As required by BOR Section 6.4, building floors must be at or above the 100-year flood elevations. PDL conducted a hydrologic analysis of the existing condition of the property, analyzed the runoff patterns that would result during the 25-year rainfall event and then compared the development plan hydrologic analysis to the existing condition. The conclusion was that the development plan would not adversely affect offsite area. PDL analyzed a series of storm conditions for the protection of road elevations and the protection of finished floors. There are no off-site areas that contribute to runoff through this piece of property. The proposed system will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to waters and adjacent lands, flooding to onsite or offsite properties, or adversely impact existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Water Quality Impacts Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters so that State water quality standards will not be violated. BOR Section 5.0 is entitled Water Quality Criteria. BOR Section 5.1 states that projects shall be designed and operated so that offsite discharges will meet State water quality standards. BOR Section 5.2.1 requires that either retention or detention, or both retention and detention be provided in the overall system in one of the following three ways or equivalent combinations thereof: Wet detention volume shall be provided for the first inch of runoff from the developed project, or the total runoff of 2.5 inches times the percentage of imperviousness, whichever is greater. Dry detention volume shall be provided equal to 75 percent of the above amounts computed for wet detention. Retention volume shall be provided equal to 50 percent of the above amounts computed for wet detention. Retention volume included in flood protection calculations requires a guarantee of long term operation and maintenance of system bleed-down ability. BOR Section 5.9 states that all new drainage projects will be evaluated based on the ability of the system to prevent degradation of receiving water and the ability to conform to State water quality standards. In the design of the system, PDL proposed a series of best management practices. The first is to treat runoff through grassed swale areas adjacent to buildings and some of the internal roadways. From there, the water would discharge through a series of dry retention areas where there would be further removal and treatment. The water would discharge through a proposed wet retention area prior to outfall under more significant rainfall events, southward into the preserved wetland area. Because of the hydrological connection from there to Bryant Bayou and Pine Island Sound, a more detailed evaluation was conducted. PDL's detailed evaluation included source control measures. The first one is a construction pollution prevention plan. PDL also proposed an urban storm water management plan. PDL is going to provide guidance to property owners about pesticide and fertilizer management control. The Applicant also submitted a street-sweeping proposal. The design of the system incorporates an additional 50 percent water quality treatment volume, over and above the requirements of the BOR. The wet retention system, located to the north of the proposed outfall structure, incorporates submerged aquatic vegetation. That is not a requirement of the District. It is an extra measure that will remove additional levels of pollutants prior to outfall. PDL proposed an urban stormwater management plan. The plan requires annual inspection of the water management facilities, and it must be documented that the system is functioning as originally designed and built. The stormwater management system is capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of functioning as proposed. The stormwater management system satisfies the District's water quality criteria. Petitioners and Intervenor criticized the method used by PDL's water quality consultant, Dr. Harvey Harper, for projecting and evaluating water quality impacts to be expected from PDL's stormwater management design. They contended that the so-called "Harper method" has been criticized by other experts, none of whom testified. Dr. Harper ably defended himself against the criticism leveled at him. He testified that most if not all of the components he has incorporated into his evaluation method are not new but rather have been accepted and used by experts in his field for years. He also explained that he refined his evaluation method in response to some early criticism and that the method he used in this case has been peer-reviewed and accepted by the Department of Environmental Protection for evaluation of stormwater design criteria. While some of the assumptions incorporated in his evaluation method are simple averages of a relatively small samples, and sometimes averages of averages, Dr. Harper was confident in the ability of his method to accurately evaluate the expected water quality impacts from PDL's system. While there is potential for error in any projection, Dr. Harper's evaluation provided reasonable assurances that utilization of PDL's proposed stormwater management and treatment method will not result in violation of any State water quality standards or significantly degrade the water quality of Bryant Bayou or Pine Island Sound. Value of Wetland and Surface Water Functions In general, as part of the CHNE, the mangrove wetlands to be impacted by the proposed ERP are very important. The CHNE Coast Conservation Management Plan identifies three major threats to the estuary and local ecosystem: fish and wildlife habitat loss; water quality degradation; and hydrological alteration. The plan calls for the preservation of mangroves within the CHNE. A wide array of wildlife uses the habitat in the vicinity of the mangrove wetlands to be impacted. The site is in an important coastal fly-way for migratory birds, including numerous species of waterfowl and songbirds that migrate across the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico to and from South and Central America. The project area also provides habitat for several listed wildlife species, including the American crocodile, wood stork, and West Indian manatee. The mangrove wetlands that will be impacted directly and indirectly by the proposed ERP are in relatively good condition and are very important due primarily to their location near Redfish Pass at the northern end of Captiva Island and to their relationship to the rest of the relatively large area of contiguous and relatively undisturbed wetlands in Parcels A through E. These attributes make them especially important as a nursery ground for several valuable fish species. Existing impacts attributable to the spoil and other disturbances in the adjacent uplands, the northernmost extent of the sand/shell road, and the South Seas Plantation/Resort development to the west across the inlet to Bryant Bayou keep these impacted wetlands from being of the very highest quality. Clearly, and obviously, the project will destroy and fill 2.98 acres of these wetlands. Indirect (secondary) impacts to the adjacent preserved wetlands will result from alteration of hydrology of the 2.98 acres of directly impacted wetlands. Instead of sheet-flowing across the uplands on the northern tip of Harbour Pointe into those wetlands, surface water on the 5.24- acre development project will be directed into a series of swales, to the dry retention ponds, and to the wet retention ponds with an outfall to the adjacent preserved wetlands to the south. Secondary impacts from the Harbour Pointe project will be similar to the existing secondary impacts to the 2.98 acres attributable to the adjacent spoil and the South Seas Plantation/Resort development, if not somewhat greater due to the absence of any buffer like the inlet. On the other hand, PDL's mitigation proposal will restore .7 acre of wetlands where the northern end of the north- south sand/shell road now exists. Eventually, the restored wetland would be expected to become an extension of the existing, adjacent red and basin black mangrove forest. In addition, the resulting improved hydrologic connection to Pine Island Sound will enhance the value of functions in the preserved wetlands, including possibly expanding the existing fish nursery and making it accessible to fish larvae and juvenile fish entering from the east as well as from the west via Bryant Bayou. There was much debate during the hearing as to whether the sand/shell road is natural or man-made and whether it is reducing what otherwise would be the natural tidal and hydrologic connection between the wetlands to the west of the road and Pine Island Sound. As indicated, a prior owner added fill material to the natural sand and shell berm in the 1950's and 1960's to create better vehicular access. See Finding 9, supra. The evidence was reasonably persuasive that those man-made changes have altered hydrology and tidal connection to some extent and that the restoration project will enhance the value and functions of the preserved wetlands to some extent. Impacts to the value of wetland and surface water functions, and corresponding mitigation for impacts, are required to be assessed using UMAM. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-345.100. While the mitigation assessment method might be uniform, its application and results are not. Three different experts used UMAM with differing results. SFWMD's expert, Mr. Cronyn, and PDL's consultants, Kevin L. Erwin Consulting Ecologist, Inc. (KLECE), conferred after their initial assessments, resulting in changed results by both (as well as correction of errors in initial scoring by Mr. Cronyn.) Dave Ceilley, an expert for Petitioners and Intervenor, scored the 2.98 acre impact area significantly higher in its current state than the final score of either Mr. Cronyn or KLECE, resulting in a higher functional loss from its destruction and filling. He also gave no credit for restoration of the sand/shell road, in contrast to KLECE and Mr. Cronyn, and scored PDL's mitigation proposal as it affected 36.6 acres of preserved wetlands (essentially, Parcel A) as a functional loss instead of a functional gain, as scored by KLECE and Mr. Cronyn. Mr. Ceilley also scored PDL's mitigation proposal as it affected 24.5 acres of preserved wetlands (Parcel B) as a functional loss instead of a functional gain, as scored by KLECE and Mr. Cronyn. Finally, he gave no credit for preservation of Parcels A through E via a conservation easement because he was under the mistaken impression that the land already was under a conservation easement in favor of Lee County. (Actually, PDL had agreed to preserve 65 acres of mangrove forest in return for the right to develop Harbour Pointe, although a conservation easement actually was imposed on only about six acres. Although not identified, the 65 acres probably would have included the preserved wetlands in the proposed ERP.) Mr. Cronyn gave credit for preservation of Parcels B through E. KLECE did not claim credit, because KLECE did not think it was necessary, but KLECE accepts Mr. Cronyn's assessment of those parcels. Mr. Ceilley's recent onsite field work was extremely limited, and much of his assessment was based general knowledge of the area and dated (14-year old) onsite field work. In addition, this was the first "real-life" UMAM assessment performed by Mr. Ceilley. His only other use of UMAM was for practice in training. Finally, his assessment was entirely independent without the input of any other consultants to aid him. In contrast, both KLECE and Mr. Cronyn had extensive prior experience using UMAM. In addition, KLECE functioned as a three- man team in performing its UMAM assessments and talked out any initial discrepancies and disagreements (albeit with Mr. Erwin being the final arbiter). KLECE and Mr. Cronyn also consulted with one another, as well as experts in other related fields before finalizing their respective UMAM assessments. KLECE was able to draw on field work conducted during over 200 man-hours onsite in recent years. While KLECE was the retained consultant and agent for the applicant in this case, Mr. Ceilley conceded that Mr. Erwin adheres to high ethical standards. Petitioners and Intervenor were critical of credit given in the UMAM assessments performed by Mr. Cronyn for preservation of Parcels B through E. (KLECE did not claim credit for their preservation in its UMAM assessment.) Petitioners and Intervenor contend that PDL already has agreed to preserve the wetlands in those parcels in return for the ability to utilize the remaining 24 residential units of development rights at Harbour Pointe and that development of the Chadwick Mound is unlikely. Actually, as found, PDL's agreement with the County only specified six of the 65 acres of wetlands to be preserved. Besides, the preserved wetlands in the proposed ERP would implement the agreement with the County. As for the Chadwick Mound, preservation without the proposed ERP is not a certainty, although residential development there would be difficult now that its existence is common knowledge. In any event, the relative unlikelihood of development in Parcels A through E, especially after development of 24 units at Harbour Pointe, was taken into consideration by Mr. Cronyn in determining the amount of credit to be given for their preservation. Taking all the evidence into account, Mr. Cronyn's UMAM assessment of the value of wetland functions with and without the proposed ERP are accepted. According to his assessment, the proposed ERP will result in a functional loss of .34 functional units, meaning an equivalent amount of mitigation credit would have to be purchased from the LPIWMB to offset wetland impacts. Based on the functional assessment used to permit that mitigation bank, approximately an additional .9 of a mitigation bank credit would be needed, in addition to the .11 already offered. The evidence as to cumulative impacts did not clearly define the pertinent drainage basin. Logically, the pertinent drainage basin either would encompass all land draining to surface waters connected to Pine Island Sound, which would include Little Pine Island, or would be limited to the land that is subject to the proposed ERP. If the former, all offsetting mitigation would be within the same drainage basin. If the latter, there would be no cumulative impacts, since the proposed ERP would complete all development. Reduction and Elimination of Wetland Impacts According to BOR Section 4.2.1.1, if a proposed surface water management system will result in adverse impacts to wetland or other surface water functions such that it does not meet the requirements of Sections 4.2.2 through 4.2.3.7, the District must consider whether the applicant has implemented practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate such adverse impacts. The term "modification" does not mean not implementing the system in some form, or requiring a project that is significantly different in type or function, such as a commercial project instead of a residential project. Elimination and reduction also does not require an applicant to suffer extreme and disproportionate hardship--for example, having to construct a ten mile-long bridge to avoid half an acre of wetland impacts. However, Anita Bain, SFWMD's director of ERP regulation, agreed that, in interpreting and applying BOR Section 4.2.1.1, "the more important a wetland is the greater extent you would require elimination and reduction of impact." As reflected in Findings 17-19, supra, PDL explored several design modifications in order to reduce and eliminate impacts to wetland and other surface water functions. However, several options for further reducing and eliminating wetland impacts were declined. PDL declined to eliminate the swimming pool and move one or more buildings to the pool's location at the extreme northern tip of Harbour Pointe because that would not be a practicable means of reducing the Harbour Pointe footprint. First, the undisputed testimony was that a residential building could not be sited as close to the water's edge as a swimming pool could. Second, because it would block the view from some of Meristar's residential properties, and Meristar has the legal right to approve or disapprove PDL's development on Harbour Pointe. PDL declined to reduce the number of buildings because, without also reducing the number and/or size of the residential units, reducing the number of buildings would make it difficult if not impossible to accommodate all cul-de-sacs required by Lee County for use by emergency vehicles and meet parking needs beneath the buildings, as proposed. (In addition, it would reduce the number of prime corner residential units, which are more marketable and profitable.) PDL declined to further reduce unit size because a further reduction to 2,000 square feet would only reduce the footprint of the six proposed buildings by a total of 5,000 square feet--less than a ninth of an acre. Reducing unit size to much less than 2,000 square feet would make it difficult if not impossible to market the condos as "luxury" units, which is what PDL says "the market" is demanding at this time (and also what PDL would prefer, since it would maximize PDL's profits for the units.) But it was not proven that smaller condos could not be sold at a reasonable profit. PDL declined to reduce the number of condo units at Harbour Pointe (while maintaining the conservation easement on the remainder of PDL's acreage, which would not allow PDL to develop all of the 24 dwelling units it wants to develop and is entitled to develop on its 78 acres, according to Lee County). However, it was not proven that such an option for further reducing and eliminating wetland impacts would not be technically feasible, would endanger lives or property, or would not be economically viable. With respect to economic viability, SFWMD generally does not examine financial statements or profit-and-loss pro formas as part of an analysis of a site plan's economic viability. This type of information is rarely provided by an applicant, and SFWMD does not ask for it. As usual, SFWMD's reduction and elimination analysis in this case was conducted without the benefit of such information. Rather, when PDL represented that any reduction in the number of units would not be economically viable, SFWMD accepted the representation, judging that PDL had done enough elimination and reduction based on the amount of wetland impacts compared to the amount of wetlands preserved, in comparison with other projects SFWMD has evaluated. As Ms. Bain understands it, "it's almost like we know it when we see it; in that, you wouldn't ask an applicant to build a ten-mile bridge to avoid a half an acre wetland impact, so something that's so extreme that's obvious, rather than how much profit would a particular applicant make on a particular project." Although SFWMD did not inquire further into the economic viability of modifications to reduce and eliminate wetland and surface water impacts, Petitioners and Intervenor raised the issue and discovered some profit-and-loss pro formas that were presented and addressed during the hearing. A pro forma prepared in August 2003 projected a profit of $2.79 million for the first 8 of 12 units and an additional $1.72 million profit on the next four units (taking into account construction of a drawbridge and road to the west at a cost of $1.8 million). This would result in a total profit of $4.51 million, less $800,000 for a reserve to pay for maintenance of the drawbridge (which PDL said was required under timeshare laws). Another pro forma prepared in February 2004 projected profits of $11.99 million on 16 "big-sized" units (3,000 square feet), $11.81 million on 20 "mid-sized" units (2,200 square feet), and $13.43 million on 24 "mixed-size" units (16 "mid- sized" and 8 "small-sized" at 1,850 square feet), all taking into account the construction of the drawbridge and road at a cost of $1.8 million. After production of the earlier pro formas during discovery in this case, PDL prepared a pro forma on June 7, 2006. The 2006 pro forma projected net profit to be $4.9 million, before investment in the property. However, PFL did not make its investment in the property part of the evidence in the case. In addition, Petitioners and Intervenor questioned the validity of the 2006 pro forma. PDL answered some of the questions better than others. To arrive at the projected net profit, PDL projected significantly (33%) higher construction costs overall. The cost of the drawbridge and road to the west was projected to increase from $1.8 million to $2.5 million. Based on its experience, PDL attributed the increase in part to the effect of rebuilding activity after Hurricane Charlie and in part to the effect of Sanibel Causeway construction (both increased overweight charges and limitations on when construction vehicles could cross the causeway, resulting construction work having to be done at night, at a significantly higher cost). At the hearing, PDL did not present any up-to-date market surveys or other supporting information on construction costs, and the Sanibel Causeway construction is expected to be completed before construction on the Harbour Pointe project would begin. In addition, without a full enough explanation, PDL replaced the bridge operation and maintenance reserve of $800,000 with an unspecified bridge reserve fund of $2 million. On the revenue side of the 2006 pro forma, gross sales of $1.9 million per unit were projected, which is less than PDL was projecting per square foot in February 2004, despite the assumed increased construction costs. PDL also attributes this to the effects of Hurricane Charlie. Again, there were no market surveys or other information to support the pricing assumptions. Besides predicting lower price potential, the 2006 pro forma deducts a pricing contingency of $2.3 million. PDL did not calculate or present evidence on whether it could make a profit building and selling 16 or 20 units, thereby eliminating a building or two (and perhaps some road and stormwater facility requirements) from the project's footprint. The absence of that kind of evidence, combined with the unanswered questions about the 2006 pro forma for the maximum number of units PDL possibly can build, constituted a failure to give reasonable assurance that wetland and surface water impacts would be reduced and eliminated by design modifications to the extent practicable, especially given the very high importance of the wetlands being impacted. Public Interest Test An ERP applicant who proposes to construct a system located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters must provide reasonable assurances that the project will “not be contrary to the public interest, or if such an activity significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding Florida Water, that the activity will be clearly in the public interest.” § 373.414(1)(a), Fla. Stat.; Rule 40E-4.302(1)(a); and SFWMD BOR Section 4.2.3. This is known as the “Public Interest Test,” and is determined by balancing seven criteria, which need not be weighted equally. See Lott v. City of Deltona and SJRWMD, DOAH Case Nos. 05-3662 and 05-3664, 2006 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 106 (DOAH 2006). The Public Interest criteria are as follows: Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others. There are no property owners adjacent to the site, and the closest property owners to the site are located across the inlet which connects Bryant Bayou to Pine Island Sound. While mangrove wetlands generally provide maximum protection from hurricanes, it does not appear from the evidence that existing conditions would provide appreciably more protection that the conditions contemplated by the proposed ERP. Otherwise, the project would not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare, or property of others. Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. The proposed ERP would impact (fill and destroy) 2.98 acres of very important, high quality mangrove wetlands. Even with the restoration or creation of .7 acre of probable former wetlands and improvements in the hydrologic connection of the 36.5-acre preserved wetland (Parcel A) to Pine Island Sound, the proposed ERP probably will have a negative effect on the conservation of fish and wildlife, including listed species. However, the negative effect would not be considered "adverse" if the elimination and reduction requirements of BOR 4.2.1.1 are met. Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The proposed drawbridge will be constructed over the inlet connecting Bryant Bayou with Pine Island Sound, a distance of approximately 65 feet. Boaters use the inlet for navigation. However, by its nature, a drawbridge allows for and not adversely affect navigation. The proposed ERP does not contain specifics on operation of the drawbridge, but PDL's consultant, Mr. Erwin, testified that there would be no adverse effect on navigation, assuming that the bridge would remain in the open position between use for crossings by road. The drawbridge would not adversely affect the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity. The question whether the proposed ERP will adversely affect fishing or recreational values is informed by both the UMAM functional assessment and the reduction and elimination analysis. If impacts to wetlands and surface waters are reduced and eliminated, and offset by mitigation, there should be no significant adverse effects on fishing and recreational values. Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature. The proposed development is permanent in nature. vi. Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, Florida Statutes. There are no significant archaeological resources on the Harbour Pointe project site. Although shell scatter left by the Calusa Indians has been found on Parcel A, they have been evaluated in the permit application process by Corbett Torrence, an archeologist, and found to be of limited historical or archaeological value. The reduced scope of the project avoids most of these areas. The proposed ERP will, however, enhance significant archaeological resources by placing a conservation easement on Parcel C, which is the site of the Chadwick Mound, one of the largest Calusa Indian mounds in Lee County. Further studies of this site could lead to a much better understanding of the Calusa culture. This Indian mound is a very valuable historical treasure, and its protection through inclusion in a conservation easement is very much in the public interest. vii. The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. This subject also was considered in the reduction and elimination analysis and in the UMAM functional assessment. As in the Findings the current condition and relative value of the functions being performed by the areas affected by the proposed activity are very valuable. That is why the reduction and elimination analysis is particularly important in this case. Assuming appropriate reduction and elimination, mitigation according to the UMAM assessment can offset unavoidable impacts to the functions performed by the areas affected by the proposed activity. Standing of CCA, SCCF, and CSWF CCA, SCCF, and CSWF each has at least 25 current members residing within Lee County and was formed at least one year prior to the date of the filing of PDL's application. CCA's mission statement includes protection of "our residents' safety, the island ecology, and the unique island ambience . . . ." CCA also is dedicated to "preserving and expanding, where possible, the amount of native vegetation on Captive Island" and preservation of natural resources and wildlife habitat on and around Sanibel and Captiva Islands. SCCF's mission is the preservation of natural resources and wildlife habitat on and around Sanibel and Captiva. It manages just over 1,800 acres of preserved lands, including mangrove forest habitat similar to that being proposed for development by PDL. Management activities involve invasive non- native plant control, surface water management, prescribed burning, native plant habitat restoration and wildlife monitoring. CSWF's purpose is to sustain and protect the natural environment of Southwest Florida through policy advocacy, research, land acquisition and other lawful means. Its four core programs are: environmental education; scientific research; wildlife rehabilitation; and environmental policy. Of CCA's 464 members, approximately 115 live within the boundaries of South Seas Plantation/Resort. Approximately 277 of SCCF's 3,156 members live on Captiva Island, and 40 live within the boundaries of South Seas Plantation/Resort. The members of CCA and SCCF who own property on Captiva Island rely on the mangrove systems for protection from storms. A substantial number of the Captiva Island residents and the other members of CCA and SCCF engage in recreational activities in the vicinity of PDL's property, including boating, fishing, bird-watching, wildlife observation, and nature study that would be adversely affected by significant water quality and wetland impacts from the proposed ERP. CSWF has 5,600 family memberships, approximately 400 in Lee County, and 14 on Sanibel. No members live on Captiva Island. There was no evidence as to how many of CSWF's members use the natural resources in the vicinity of the proposed ERP for recreational purposes or otherwise would be affected if there are water quality and wetland impacts from the proposed ERP.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the proposed ERP be denied; however, if wetland and surface water impacts are reduced and eliminated to the extent practicable, the proposed ERP should be issued with the additional conditions, as represented by PDL's witnesses: that the proposed drawbridge be left drawn except when in use for road access; that construction access be via the proposed drawbridge only; and that there be no construction dewatering. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th of November, 2006.
The Issue The issue at this stage of the proceeding is whether jurisdiction should be relinquished to the Southwest Florida Water Management District based upon the withdrawal of Petitions filed herein on behalf of the Petitioners, and the filing of a stipulation and settlement agreement executed on behalf of the Petitioners and Respondents.
Findings Of Fact By Notices of Referral dated June 7, 1989, and filed June 1 6, 1989, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) certain Petitions filed on behalf of Petitioners which opposed the issuance of a consumptive use permit numbered 208426 by the District to the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (Authority). These Petitions were assigned Case Numbers 89-3187 through 89-3189 by DOAH, and were consolidated for all further proceedings. On August 18, 1989, Chilpub, Inc. (Chilpub), filed a Petition to Intervene, which was granted by Order entered on September 6, 1989. On October 20, 1989, Wiregrass Ranch, Inc. (Wiregrass), filed a Petition to Intervene, which was granted by Order entered on October 31, 1989. The Petitions filed on behalf of Chilpub and Wiregrass were filed at DOAH, and specifically sought leave to intervene in Cases Numbered 89-3187 through 89-3189 in order to oppose the issuance of permit number 208426 to the Authority. Following the granting of these Petitions, Chilpub and Wiregrass have participated in this proceeding as Intervenors On or about November 8, 1989, the Authority provided Wiregrass with a copy of the Notice of Proposed Agency Action which is the subject of this proceeding, pursuant to Rule 40D-2.101, Florida Administrative Code. However, subsequent to receiving this Notice of Proposed Agency Action, Wiregrass failed to file with the District any Petition in its own right seeking to initiate a proceeding under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to challenge the issuance of permit number 208426 to the Authority. Notices of Withdrawal of Petitions for Formal Hearing were filed on behalf of the Petitioners in Cases Numbered 89-3187 through 89-3189 on April 4, 1990, and on that same date, the Petitioners and Respondents filed their Joint Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction. A copy of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement executed by the Petitioners and Respondents was filed on April 9, 1990.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the District enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitions filed herein, and issuing permit number 208426 to the Authority. DONE AND ENTERED this 19 day of April, 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 120 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19 day of April, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Smith, Esquire Jeffrey A. Aman, Esquire 712 South Oregon Avenue Tampa, FL 33606 Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire Barbara B. Levin, Esquire 705 East Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, FL 33602 Bram Canter, Esquire 306 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32302 Enola T. Brown, Esquire P. O. Box 3350 Tampa, FL 33601-3350 James S. Moody, Jr., Esquire P. O. Box TT Plant City, FL 33564-9040 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34609-6899
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 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.
