The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Koreshan Unity Foundation, Inc., is entitled to a environmental resource permit for the construction of a wooden footbridge over the Estero River east of U.S. Route 41 and authorization to obtain by easement a right to use sovereign submerged lands.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Koreshan Unity Foundation, Inc. (Koreshan) is a not-for-profit corporation dedicated to the preservation of the Koreshan heritage. Koreshan derives its heritage from a largely self-sufficient community that occupied land in south Lee County. For several years, Koreshan has owned a parcel of 14.56 acres at the southeast corner of U.S. Route 41 and the Estero River. This parcel is bounded on the south by Corkscrew Road and contains an amphitheater and historical house, midway between the river and Corkscrew Road. The south end of this parcel contains a museum and parking area with access to Corkscrew Road. The approximate dimensions of the 14.56-acre parcel are 544 feet along the river, 496 feet along Corkscrew Road, and about 1273 feet along the west and the east property lines. The west property line is U.S. Route 41. The right-of-way for U.S. Route 41 is wider at the southern two-thirds of the parcel than the northern one-third of the parcel. A sidewalk runs on the east side of U.S. Route 41 from north of the river, across the U.S. Route 41 bridge, along the west boundary of Koreshan's property, at least to an entrance near the middle of the 14.56-acre parcel. In October 1996, Koreshan acquired 8.5 acres of land at the northeast corner of the U.S. Route 41 and the river. The purpose of the acquisition was to provide parking for persons coming to Koreshan-sponsored events, such as music performances, at the 14.56-acre site. Koreshan rents a small portion of this northerly parcel to a canoe-rental business, which operates where the bridge and river meet. To assist their visitors-some of whom are elderly and disabled--in gaining access to the 14.56-acre site, on November 26, 1996, Koreshan filed an application for a permit and authorization to construct a wooden footbridge across the Estero River about 315 feet east of the U.S. Route 41 bridge. The source of the Estero River is to the east of the U.S. Route 41 bridge and the location of the proposed bridge. After passing under the U.S. Route 41 bridge, the river runs along the Koreshan state park, which is a short distance east of U.S. Route 41, before it empties into the Gulf of Mexico at Estero Bay, which is a state aquatic preserve. The portion of the river at the site of the proposed bridge is an Outstanding Florida Waterway (OFW) and a Class III water. The river is popular with canoeists and kayakers. Persons may rent canoes and kayaks at the canoe rental business operating on the 8.5-acre parcel or the Koreshan state park. Although most canoeists and kayakers proceed downstream toward the bay, a significant number go upstream past the U.S. Route 41 bridge. Upstream of the bridge, the river narrows considerably. Tidal currents reach upstream of the U.S. Route 41 bridge. At certain tides or in strong winds, navigating a canoe or kayak in this area of the river can be moderately difficult. Even experienced canoeists or kayakers may have trouble maintaining a steady course in this part of the river. Less experienced canoeists or kayakers more often have trouble staying on course and avoiding other boats, the shore, vegetation extending from the water or shoreline, or even the relatively widely spaced supports of the U.S. Route 41 bridge pilings, which are about 30 feet apart. Mean high water is at 1.11 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum. The deck of the proposed footbridge would be 9 feet, 6 inches wide from rail to rail and 16 feet wide in total. The proposed footbridge would extend about 180 feet, spanning 84 feet of water from shore to shore. The bridge- ends would each be about 50 feet and would each slope at a rate of 1:12. The proposed footbridge would rest on nine pilings: four in the uplands and five in the submerged bottom. The elevation of the bottom of the footbridge from the water surface, at mean high water, would be 8 feet, 8 inches. The distance between the centers of the pilings would be 14 feet, and each piling would be of a minimum diameter of 8 inches. According to a special permit condition, the pilings would be treated with chromated copper arsenate, as a preservative, but they would be wrapped in impermeable plastic or PVC sleeves so as, in the words of the proposed permit, "to reduce the leaching of deleterious substances from the pilings." The proposed permit requires that the sleeves shall be installed from at least 6 inches below the level of the substrate to at least 1 foot above the seasonal highwater line and shall be maintained over the life of the facility. The proposed permit also requires that the footbridge be limited to pedestrian traffic only, except for wheelchairs. The permit requires the applicant to install concrete-filled steel posts adjacent to the bridge to prevent vehicles from using the bridge. The proposed permit requires that Koreshan grant a conservation easement for the entire riverbank running along both shorelines of Koreshan's two parcels, except for the dock and boat ramp used by the canoe-rental business. The proposed permit also requires Koreshan to plant leather fern or other wetland species on three-foot centers along the river banks along both banks for a distance of 30 feet. The proposed permit states that the project shall comply with all applicable water quality standards, including the antidegradation permitting requirements of Rule 62-4.242, Florida Administrative Code. Respondents did not raise standing as an affirmative defense. It appears that Petitioners or, in the case of corporate Petitioners, members and officers all live in the area of the Estero River and use the river regularly. For instance, Petitioner Dorothy McNeill resides one mile south of the proposed bridge on a canal leading to the Estero River, which she uses frequently. She is the president and treasurer of Petitioner Estero Conservancy, whose mission is to preserve the Estero River in its natural state. Petitioner Ellen W. Peterson resides on Corkscrew Road, 300-400 feet from the proposed footbridge. For 26 years, she has paddled the river several times weekly, usually upstream because it is prettier. She formerly canoed, but now kayaks. The record is devoid of evidence of the water- quality criteria for the Estero River at the time of its designation as an OFW or 1995, which is the year prior to the subject application. Koreshan has not provided reasonable assurance that the proposed footbridge would not adversely affect the water quality of the Estero River. Although the site of the proposed footbridge is devoid of bottom vegetation and there is no suggestion that this is anything but a natural condition for this part of the riverbottom, there is evidence that the proposed footbridge would adversely affect the water quality in two respects: turbidity caused by the pilings and leaching from the chromated copper arsenate applied to the pilings. The turbidity is probably the greater threat to water quality because it would be a permanent factor commencing with the completion of the installation of the pilings. The leaching of the heavy metals forming the toxic preservative impregnated into the pilings is probable due to two factors: damage to the PVC liner from collisions with inexperienced boaters and high-water conditions that exceed 1 foot over mean high water and, thus, the top of the liner. Both of these factors are exacerbated by flooding, which is addressed below. Koreshan also has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed footbridge is clearly in the public interest under the seven criteria. The proposed footbridge would adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare and the property of others through exacerbated flooding. South Lee County experienced serious flooding in 1995. In response, Lee County and the South Florida Water Management District have attempted to improve the capacity of natural flowways, in part by clearing rivers of snags and other impediments to flow, including, in the case of the Imperial River, a bridge. One important experience learned from the 1995 floods was to eliminate, where possible, structures in the river, such as snags and pilings, that collect debris in floodwaters and thereby decrease the drainage capacity of the waterway when drainage capacity is most needed. Longer term, the South Florida Water Management District is considering means by which to redirect stormwater from the Imperial River drainage to the Estero River drainage. The addition of five pilings (more as the river rose) would exacerbate flooding. On this basis alone, Koreshan has failed to provide reasonable assurance. Additionally, though, the HEC II model output offered by Koreshan does not consider flooding based on out-of-banks flows, but only on the basis of roadway flows. In other words, any assurances as to flooding in the design storm are assurances only that U.S. Route 41 will not be flooded, not that the lower surrounding land will not be flooded. Koreshan failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activity would not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, for the reasons already stated with respect to water quality. Koreshan failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activity would not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water. The flow of water is addressed above. Navigation is best addressed together with the next criterion: whether the proposed activity would adversely affect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity. Despite the presence of only two public launch sites, boating is popular on the Estero River. Reflective of the population growth of Collier County to the south and the area of Lee County to the north, the number of boaters on the Estero River has grown steadily over the years. The canoe- rental business located on the 8.5-acre parcel rented canoes or kayaks to over 10,000 persons in 1996. Many other persons launched their canoes or kayaks for free from this site and the nearby state park. Lee County businesses derive $800,000,000 annually from tourism with ecotourism a growing component of this industry. The Estero River is an important feature of this industry, and the aquatic preserve at the mouth of the river and the state park just downstream from the proposed footbridge provide substantial protection to the scenic and environmental values that drive recreational interest in the river. It is unnecessary to consider the aesthetic effect of a footbridge spanning one of the more attractive segments of the Estero River. The proposed footbridge and its five pilings effectively divide the river into six segments of no more than 14 feet each. This fact alone diminishes the recreational value of the river for the many canoeists and kayakers who cannot reliably navigate the U.S. Route 41 bridge pilings, which are more than twice as far apart. As to the remaining criteria, the proposed footbridge would be permanent and the condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity is high. There is conflicting evidence as to whether the proposed footbridge would adversely affect the remnants of an historic dock, but it is unnecessary to resolve this conflict. The mitigation proposed by Koreshan does not address the deficiencies inherent in the proposed activity.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order dismissing the petition of Petitioner Council of Civic Associations, Inc., and denying the application of Respondent Koreshan Unity Foundation, Inc., for an environmental resource permit and authorization to obtain an easement for the use of sovereign land. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Malone Vice President and Treasurer Council of Civic Associations, Inc. Post Office Box 919 Estero, Florida 33919-0919 Reginald McNeill Dorothy McNeill, President Estero Conservancy, Inc. 26000 Park Place Estero, Florida 33928 Mark E. Ebelini Humphrey & Knott, P.A. 1625 Hendry Street, Suite 301 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Phyllis Stanley, President 12713-3 McGregor Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33919 Cathy S. Reiman Cummings & Lockwood Post Office Box 413032 Naples, Florida 34101-3032 Francine M. Ffolkes Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
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 issues to be determined in these consolidated cases are whether All Aboard Florida – Operations, LLC (“the Applicant”), and Florida East Coast Railway, LLC (“FECR”), are entitled to an Environmental Resource Permit Modification authorizing the construction of a stormwater management system and related activities to serve railway facilities, and a verification of exemption for work to be done at 23 roadway crossings (collectively referred to as “the project”).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners Martin County and St. Lucie County are political subdivisions of the State of Florida. Petitioners have substantial interests that could be affected by the District’s proposed authorizations. Intervenor Town of St. Lucie Village is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Intervenor has substantial interests that could be affected by the District’s proposed authorizations. The Applicant, All Aboard Florida – Operations, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company based in Miami. All Aboard Florida is part of a group of corporate entities formed for the principal purpose of developing and operating express passenger train service in Florida. Co-applicant Florida East Coast Railway, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company based in Jacksonville. FECR owns the existing railway corridor the passenger train service will use between Miami and Cocoa. South Florida Water Management District is a regional agency granted powers and assigned duties under chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes, including powers and duties related to the regulation of construction activities in wetlands. The proposed activities are within the boundaries of the District. Background The objective of the All Aboard Florida Project is to establish express passenger train service connecting four large urban areas: Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, and Orlando. Most of the passenger service route, including the portion which will pass through Martin County and St. Lucie County, will use an existing railroad right-of-way used since the late 1800s. The FECR rail corridor runs along Florida’s east coast from Miami to Jacksonville. It supported passenger and freight operations on shared double mainline tracks from 1895 to 1968. The passenger service was terminated in 1968 and portions of the double track and certain bridge structures were removed. The freight service continued and remains in operation today. The passenger service will use the FECR right-of-way from Miami to Cocoa and then turn west on a new segment to be constructed from Cocoa to Orlando. The railway corridor will be operated as a joint facility, with passenger and freight trains sharing the double mainline tracks. The Applicant is upgrading the portion of the corridor between Miami and Cocoa by, among other things, replacing existing railroad ties and tracks, reinstalling double mainline tracks, and improving grade crossings. The Applicant is also installing Positive Train Control systems which provide integrated command and control of passenger and freight train movements and allow the trains to be directed and stopped remotely or automatically in the event of operator error or disability, or an obstruction on the track. The All Aboard Florida Project is being developed in two phases, Phase I extends from Miami to West Palm Beach, and Phase II from West Palm Beach to Orlando. This proceeding involves a segment within Phase II, known as Segment D09, which runs from just north of West Palm Beach to the northern boundary of St. Lucie County. The railway corridor in Segment D09 passes through Jonathan Dickinson State Park in Martin County and the Savannas Preserve State Park, parts of which are in both Martin County and St. Lucie County. Surface waters within these state parks are Outstanding Florida Waters (“OFWs”). The railway in Segment D09 also passes over the St. Lucie River using a bridge that can be opened to allow boats to pass. The Applicant plans to run 16 round trips per day between Miami and Orlando, which is about one train an hour in each direction, starting early in the morning and continuing to mid-evening. In 2013, the District issued the Applicant an exemption under section 373.406(6), which exempts activities having only minimal or insignificant adverse impacts on water resources. The 2013 exemption covers proposed work in approximately 48 of the 65 miles which make up Segment D09, and includes replacement of existing tracks and re-establishment of a second set of mainline tracks where they were historically located. The 2013 exemption covers all but 24 of the roadway crossings within Segment D09 where work is to be done in connection with the All Aboard Florida Project. In 2015, the District issued the Applicant a general permit under rule 62-330.401, which authorizes activities that are expected to cause minimal adverse impacts to water resources, for the installation of fiber optic cable along the rail bed within Segment D09. The 2013 exemption and 2015 general permit were not challenged and became final agency action. The Proposed Agency Actions The ERP Modification covers work to be done in approximately 17 of the 65 miles which make up Segment D09. The work will consist primarily of replacing existing tracks, installing new tracks, making curve modifications in some locations to accommodate faster trains, culvert modifications, and work on some fixed bridge crossings over non-navigable waters. The 2017 Exemption at issue in this proceeding covers improvements to 23 of the 24 roadway crossings that were not covered by the 2013 exemption. Proposed improvements at Southeast Florida Street in Stuart will be permitted separately. The improvements covered by the 2017 Exemption include upgrading existing safety gates and signals; installing curbs, guardrails, and sidewalks; resurfacing some existing paved surfaces; and adding some new paving. Petitioners argue that, because the District’s staff report for the ERP Modification states that the ERP does not cover work at roadway crossings, track work at roadway crossings has not been authorized. However, the staff report was referring to the roadway improvements that are described in the 2017 Exemption. The proposed track work at the roadway crossings was described in the ERP application and was reviewed and authorized by the District in the ERP Modification. “Segmentation” Petitioners claim it was improper for the District to separately review and authorize the proposed activities covered by the 2013 exemption, the 2015 general permit, the ERP Modification, and the 2017 Exemption. Petitioners contend that, as a consequence of this “segmentation” of the project, the District approved “roads to nowhere,” by which Petitioners mean that these activities do not have independent functionality. Petitioners’ argument is based on section 1.5.2 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume 1,1/ which states that applications to construct phases of a project can only be considered when each phase can be constructed, operated, and maintained totally independent of future phases. However, the activities authorized by the four agency actions are not phases of a project. They are all parts of Phase II of the All Aboard Florida Project, which is the passenger railway from West Palm Beach to Orlando. Section 1.5.2 is not interpreted or applied by the District as a prohibition against separate review and approval of related activities when they qualify under the District’s rules for exemptions, general permits, and ERPs. Much of Phase II is outside the District’s geographic boundaries and, therefore, beyond its regulatory jurisdiction. The District can only review and regulate a portion of Phase II. The District is unable to review this portion as a stand-alone railway project that can function independently from other project parts. The Proposed Stormwater Management System Where the Applicant is replacing existing tracks or re- establishing a second set of tracks, it will be laying new ties, ballast, and rail on previously-compacted earth. In those areas, no stormwater management modifications were required by the District. The Applicant’s new proposed stormwater management system will be located in a five-mile area of the corridor where an existing siding will be shifted outward and used as a third track. In this area, swales with hardened weir discharge structures and skimmers will be installed to provide stormwater treatment beyond what currently exists. The weir discharge structures will serve to prevent erosion at discharge points. The skimmers will serve to capture any floating oils or refuse. Because the FECR right-of-way is not wide enough in some three-track areas to also accommodate swales, the proposed stormwater management system was oversized in other locations to provide compensating volume. The District determined that this solution was an accepted engineering practice for linear systems such as railroads. Petitioners argue that the Applicant’s proposed stormwater management system is deficient because some of the proposed swales do not meet the definition of “swale” in section 403.803(14) as having side slopes equal to or greater than three feet horizontal to one foot vertical (3:1). The statute first defines a swale to include a manmade trench which has “a top width-to-depth ratio of the cross-section equal to or greater than 6:1.” The swales used in the proposed stormwater management system meet this description. Petitioners showed that the plans for one of the 46 proposed swales included some construction outside the FECR right-of-way. In response, the Applicant submitted revised plan sheets to remove the swale at issue. The Emergency Access Way The ERP application includes proposed modifications to portions of an existing unpaved emergency access way which runs along the tracks in some areas. The access way is a private dirt road for railroad-related vehicles and is sometimes used for maintenance activities. At the final hearing, Petitioners identified an inconsistency between an application document which summarizes the extent of proposed new access way construction and the individual plan sheets that depict the construction. The Applicant resolved the inconsistency by correcting the construction summary document. Petitioners also identified an individual plan sheet showing proposed access way modifications to occur outside of the FECR right-of-way. This second issue was resolved by eliminating any proposed work outside the right-of-way. Petitioners believe the proposed work on the access way was not fully described and reviewed because Petitioners believe the access way will be made continuous. However, the access way is not continuous currently and the Applicant is not proposing to make it continuous. No District rule requires the access way segments to be connected as a condition for approval of the ERP. Water Quantity Impacts An applicant for an ERP must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, operation, and maintenance of a proposed project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands, adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, or adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. The District’s design criterion to meet this requirement for water quantity management is a demonstration that the proposed stormwater system will capture the additional runoff caused during a 25-year/3-day storm event. The Applicant’s proposed stormwater system meets or exceeds this requirement. Petitioners argue that the Applicant failed to provide reasonable assurance because the ERP application materials did not include a calculation of the discharge rates and velocities for water discharging from the swales during the design storm. The ERP application contains the information required to calculate the discharge rates and velocities and the Applicant’s stormwater expert, Bruce McArthur, performed the calculations and testified at the final hearing that in the areas where there will be discharges, the discharge rates and velocities would be “minor” and would not cause adverse impacts. The District’s stormwater expert, Jesse Markle, shared this opinion. Petitioners argue that this information should have been provided to the District in the permit application, but this is a de novo proceeding where new evidence to establish reasonable assurances can be presented. Petitioners did not show that Mr. McArthur is wrong. Petitioners failed to prove that the proposed project will cause adverse water quantity impacts, flooding, or adverse impacts to surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Water Quality Impacts To obtain an ERP, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, operation, and maintenance of a regulated project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters, such that state water quality standards would be violated. The District’s design criteria for water quality required the Applicant to show that its proposed stormwater system will capture at least 0.5 inches of runoff over the developed area. To be conservative, the Applicant designed its proposed system to capture 1.0 inch of runoff in most areas. Under District rules, if a stormwater system will directly discharge to impaired waters or OFWs, an additional 50 percent of water quality treatment volume is required. The proposed stormwater system will not directly discharge to either impaired waters or OFWs. In some locations, there is the potential for stormwater discharged from the proposed stormwater system to reach OFWs by overland flow, after the stormwater has been treated for water quality purposes. The Applicant designed its proposed stormwater system to provide at least an additional 50 percent of water quality treatment volume in areas where this potential exists. To ensure that the proposed construction activities do not degrade adjacent wetlands, other surface waters, or off-site areas due to erosion and sedimentation, the Applicant prepared an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Temporary silt fences and turbidity barriers will be installed and maintained around the limits of the construction. The District’s design criteria for water quality do not require an analysis of individual contaminants that can be contained in stormwater, except in circumstances that do not apply to this project. Compliance with the design criteria creates a presumption that water quality standards for all potential contaminants are met. See Applicant’s Handbook, V. II, § 4.1.1. Although not required, the Applicant provided a loading analysis for the proposed swales which could potentially discharge overland to impaired waters or OFWs. The analysis compared pre- and post-development conditions and showed there would be a net reduction in pollutant loading. Petitioners believe the pollutant loading analysis was inadequate because it did not specifically test for arsenic and petroleum hydrocarbons. However, the analysis was not required and adequate treatment is presumed. Petitioners did not conduct their own analysis to show that water quality standards would be violated. Petitioners’ expert, Patrick Dayan, believes the compaction of previously undisturbed soils in the emergency access way would increase stormwater runoff. However, he did not calculate the difference between pre- and post-construction infiltration rates at any particular location. His opinion on this point was not persuasive. Petitioners failed to prove that the proposed project will generate stormwater that will adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that state water quality standards would be violated. The preponderance of the evidence shows the project complies with District design criteria and will not cause water quality violations. Soil and Sediment Contamination Petitioners argue that the ERP Modification does not account for the disturbance of existing contaminants in soils and sediments that could be carried outside of the right-of-way and into OFWs. Petitioners’ argument is based on investigations by their geologist, Janet Peterson, who collected soil, sediment, and surface water samples at 13 sites along the FECR rail corridor in the vicinity of OFWs, or surface waters that eventually flow into OFWs. During her sampling visits, Ms. Peterson saw no visual evidence of an oil spill, fluid leak, or other release of hazardous materials. Ms. Peterson compared her soil sample results to the Residential Direct Exposure Soil Cleanup Target Levels (“SCTLs”) established in rule 62-777. The SCTLs are the levels at which toxicity becomes a human health concern and the residential SCTLs assume soil ingestion of 200 mg/day for children, and 100 mg/day for adults, 350 days a year, for 30 years. Some of the soil sampling results showed exceedances of SCTLs, but the SCTLs are not applicable here because none of the sample sites are locations where children or adults would be expected to ingest soil at such levels for such lengths of time. Petitioners did not show that the contaminants are likely to migrate to locations where such exposure would occur. Ms. Peterson compared her soil sample results to the Marine Surface Water Leachability SCTLs, but she did not develop site-specific leachability-based SCTLs using DEP’s approved methodology. Nor did she show that the proposed project will cause the soils to leach the contaminants. Ms. Peterson collected sediment samples from shorelines, but not where construction activities are proposed. She compared her sediment sample results to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (“DEP”) Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines (“SQAGs”). These guidelines are not water quality standards. Any exceedance of these guidelines requires further analysis to determine potential water quality impacts. Ms. Peterson did not conduct the analysis. Ms. Peterson acknowledged that there are numerous sources for these pollutants at or near her sample sites, such as high-traffic roads, vehicular bridges, commercial and industrial facilities, boatyards, and golf courses. She did not establish baselines or controls. Ms. Peterson collected surface water samples at seven sites, some of which were located outside the FECR right-of-way. The results showed levels of phosphorous and nitrogen above the criteria for nutrients at some locations. Phosphorous, nitrogen, and the other nutrients are prevalent in the waters of Martin County and St. Lucie County and come from many sources. Petitioners’ evidence focused on existing conditions and not expected impacts of the proposed project. The evidence was insufficient to prove the proposed project will cause or contribute to water quality violations. Functions Provided by Wetlands and Other Surface Waters An applicant for an ERP must provide reasonable assurance that a proposed project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Petitioners claim the Applicant and District should not have relied on Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (“FLUCCS”) maps to identify and characterize wetlands and other habitat areas because the maps are too general and inaccurate. However, the FLUCCS maps were not used by the Applicant or District to evaluate impacts to wetlands or other habitats. The Applicant began its evaluation of impacts to wetlands and other habitat areas by field-flagging and surveying the wetland and surface water boundaries in the project area using a GPS device with sub-meter accuracy. It then digitized the GPS delineations and overlaid them with the limits of construction to evaluate anticipated direct impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. The District then verified the delineations and assessments in the field. The Applicant and District determined that there are a total of 4.71 acres of wetlands within the FECR right-of-way, including tidal mangroves, freshwater marsh, and wet prairie. They also determined the proposed project will directly impact 0.35 acres of wetlands, consisting of 0.09 acres of freshwater marsh and 0.26 acres of mangroves. Petitioners contend that the Applicant failed to account for all of the project’s wetland impacts, based on the wetland delineations made by their wetland expert, Andrew Woodruff. Most of the impacts that Mr. Woodruff believes were not accounted for are small, between 0.01 and 0.05 acres. The largest one is acres. The Applicant’s delineations are more reliable than Mr. Woodruff’s because the methodology employed by the Applicant had greater precision. It is more likely to be accurate. Petitioners argue that the 2013 exemption and the 2015 general permit did not authorize work in wetlands and, therefore, the impacts they cause must be evaluated in this ERP Modification. However, Petitioners did not prove that there are unaccounted-for wetland impacts associated with those authorizations. Any impacts associated with best management practices for erosion control, such as the installation of silt fences, would be temporary. The District does not include such temporary minor impacts in its direct, secondary, or cumulative impacts analyses. Most of the wetlands that would be directly impacted by the ERP Modification are degraded due to past hydrologic alterations and soil disturbances from the original construction and historical use of the FECR railway corridor, and infestation by exotic plant species. Most of these wetlands are also adjacent to disturbed uplands within or near the rail corridor. The functional values of most of the wetlands that would be affected have been reduced by these disturbances. The Applicant provided reasonable assurance that the project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Secondary Impacts Section 10.2.7 of the Applicant’s Handbook requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts from construction, alteration, and intended or reasonably expected uses of a proposed activity (a) will not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards or adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or other surface waters; (b) will not adversely impact the ecological value of uplands for bald eagles, and aquatic or wetland-dependent listed animal species for nesting or denning by these species; (c) will not cause impacts to significant historical or archaeological resources; and (d) additional phases for which plans have been submitted, and closely linked projects regulated under chapter 373, part IV, will not cause water quality violations or adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or other surface waters. The proposed work will be entirely within the limits of the existing railway corridor where secondary impacts to wetlands and other surface waters caused by noise, vibration, fragmentation of habitats, and barriers to wildlife have existed for decades. The preponderance of the evidence shows that any increase in these kinds of impacts would be insignificant and would not reduce the current functions being provided. Because the affected wetlands are not preferred habitat for wetland-dependent, endangered, or threatened wildlife species, or species of special concern, and no such species were observed in the area, no adverse impacts to these species are expected to occur. Petitioners contend that adverse impacts will occur to the gopher tortoise, scrub jay, and prickly apple cactus. These are not aquatic or wetland-dependent species. However, the preponderance of the evidence shows any increase in impacts to these species would be insignificant. When the train bridges are closed, boats with masts or other components that make them too tall to pass under the train bridges must wait for the bridge to open before continuing. Petitioners contend that the current “stacking” of boats waiting for the bridges to open would worsen and would adversely impact seagrass beds and the West Indian Manatee. However, it was not shown that seagrass beds are in the areas where the boats are stacking. The available manatee mortality data does not show a link between boat stacking and boat collisions with manatees. Mr. Woodruff’s opinion about increased injuries to manatees caused by increased boat stacking was speculative and unpersuasive. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the adverse effects on both listed and non-listed wildlife species, caused by faster and more numerous trains would be insignificant. The activities associated with the 2013 exemption and the 2015 general permit for fiber optic cable were based on determinations that the activities would have minimal or insignificant adverse impacts on water resources. These determinations are not subject to challenge in this proceeding. The Applicant provided reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts of the project will not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards, adversely impact the functions of wetlands or other surface waters, adversely impact the ecological value of uplands for use by listed animal species, or cause impacts to significant historical or archaeological resources. Elimination and Reduction of Impacts Under section 10.2.1.1 of the Applicant’s Handbook, if a proposed activity will result in adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters, the applicant for an ERP must implement practicable design modifications to eliminate or reduce the impacts, subject to certain exceptions that will be discussed below. Petitioners argue that this rule requires the Applicant and District to evaluate the practicability of alternative routes through the region, routes other than the existing railway corridor in Segment D09. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, that argument is rejected. The evaluation of project modifications to avoid impacts was appropriately confined to the railway corridor in Segment D09. The Applicant implemented practicable design modifications in the project area to reduce or eliminate impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. Those modifications included the shifting of track alignments, the elimination of certain third-track segments, and the elimination of some proposed access way modifications. However, the project qualified under both “opt out” criteria in section 10.2.1.2 of the Applicant’s Handbook so that design modifications to reduce or eliminate impacts were not required: (1) The ecological value of the functions provided by the area of wetland or surface water to be adversely affected is low, and the proposed mitigation will provide greater long-term ecological value; and (2) the applicant proposes mitigation that implements all or part of a plan that provides regional ecological value and provides greater long-term ecological value. Mitigation The Applicant proposes to mitigate for impacts to wetlands by purchasing mitigation credits from four District- approved mitigation banks: the Bluefield Ranch, Bear Point, Loxahatchee, and F.P.L. Everglades Mitigation Banks. Each is a regional off-site mitigation area which implements a detailed management plan and provides regional long-term ecological value. The number of mitigation credits needed to offset loss of function from impacts to wetlands was calculated using the Modified Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (“MWRAP”) or Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Review (“WATER”), as prescribed in the state permit for each mitigation bank. Applying these methods, the Applicant is required to purchase mitigation credits. The Applicant proposed to mitigate the adverse impacts to freshwater marsh wetlands by purchasing 0.01 freshwater herbaceous credits from the Bluefield Ranch Mitigation Bank, and 0.06 freshwater herbaceous credits from the Loxahatchee Mitigation Bank. The adverse impacts to tidal mangrove wetlands would be mitigated by purchasing 0.12 saltwater credits from the Bear Point Mitigation Bank, and 0.02 saltwater credits from the F.P.L. Everglades Mitigation Bank. The Applicant committed to purchase an additional 0.29 freshwater herbaceous credits from the Bluefield Ranch Mitigation Bank, for a total of 0.50 mitigation credits. The proposed mitigation implements a plan that will provide greater long-term ecological value than is provided by the wetlands that will be impacted. The Applicant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the project complies with the District’s mitigation requirements. Cumulative Impacts To obtain an ERP, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that a regulated activity will not result in unacceptable cumulative impacts to water resources. This assurance can be provided by proposing to fully mitigate the impacts within the same basin. However, when an applicant proposes mitigation in another drainage basin, the applicant must demonstrate that the regulated activity will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts. The proposed project will adversely impact 0.02 acres of freshwater marsh wetlands and 0.21 acres of tidal mangrove wetlands in the St. Lucie River basin. The impacts to the freshwater marshes must be mitigated out-of-basin because there are no mitigation banks in the basin which offer freshwater herbaceous mitigation credits. The proposed project will adversely impact 0.07 acres of the freshwater marshes and 0.05 acres of the mangrove wetlands in the Loxahatchee River basin. Those impacts must also be mitigated out-of-basin because there are no mitigation banks in the Loxahatchee River basin. Because some of the Applicant’s proposed mitigation must be provided out-of-basin, the ERP application included a cumulative impact analysis. The analysis evaluated whether the proposed project, when considered in conjunction with other possible development within the St. Lucie River and Loxahatchee River drainage basins, would result in unacceptable cumulative impacts considering each basin as a whole. There are approximately 10,068 acres of freshwater marshes within the St. Lucie basin, of which an estimated 4,929 acres are not preserved and would be at risk of potential future development. The proposed project will adversely impact 0.02 of those acres, which is only 0.0004 percent of the total at-risk acreage. There are about 34,000 acres of freshwater marshes within the Loxahatchee River basin, of which an estimated 7,463 acres are at risk of future development, and approximately 564 acres of tidal mangrove wetlands, of which an estimated 75 acres are at risk of future development. The project will adversely impact 0.07 acres of the freshwater marshes (0.0009 percent), and 0.05 acres of the tidal mangrove wetlands (0.0667 percent). Petitioners contend the Applicant’s analysis did not account for impacts from proposed activities authorized in the 2013 and 2015 general permit. However, Petitioners failed to prove there are unaccounted-for wetland impacts. The preponderance of the evidence supports the District’s determination that the proposed project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. Public Interest When an applicant seeks authorization for a regulated activity in, on, or over wetlands or surface waters, it must provide reasonable assurance that the activity will not be contrary to the public interest, or if the activity is within or significantly degrades an OFW, is clearly in the public interest, as determined by balancing the following criteria set forth in section 373.414(1)(a): 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; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activities. The proposed work is not within an OFW, but entirely within the FECR corridor. The potential for overland flow and indirect impacts to OFWs is addressed by additional treatment of the stormwater prior to discharge. The proposed project would not significantly degrade an OFW. Therefore, the applicable inquiry is whether the project is contrary to the public interest. Factor 1: Public Safety, Safety, and Welfare Petitioners contend that the proposed project will adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare by impacting water quantity, water quality, and certain non-environmental matters such as emergency response times, traffic congestion, and potential train collisions with pedestrians and vehicles. Potential environmental impacts have been addressed above and, by a preponderance of the evidence, the District and the Applicant showed that such impacts would be insignificant or would be mitigated. As to the potential for non-environmental impacts associated with train operations, it is explained in the Conclusions of Law that the public interest test does not include consideration of non-environmental factors other than those expressly articulated in the statute, such as navigation and preservation of historical or archaeological resources. However, because evidence of non-environmental impacts was admitted at the final hearing, the issues raised by Petitioners will be briefly addressed below. The regulatory agency with specific responsibility for railroad safety is the Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”). The FRA reviewed the safety features associated with the proposed passenger train operations, and approved them. Public safety will be enhanced at roadway crossings because of the proposed improvements and the use of modern technology in monitoring and managing the movement of trains. Petitioners contend that the addition of the passenger rail service will impede emergency response times in Martin County and St. Lucie County due to more frequent roadway closures. However, freight trains currently impede emergency response times due to their length and slow speed. The passenger trains will be much shorter in length and faster so that roadway crossing closures for passing passenger trains will be much shorter than for freight trains. The ERP Modification and 2017 Exemption do not affect freight train operations. The preponderance of the evidence shows that passenger rail service is unlikely to cause a material increase in the occurrence of circumstances where an emergency responder is impeded by a train. The current problem must be addressed through changes in freight train operations. Petitioners also contend that the passenger rail service will interfere with hurricane evacuation. The persuasive evidence does not support that contention. Train service would cease when a hurricane is approaching. Petitioners contend the trains will have to be “staged” on either side of the two moveable bridges while other trains cross, thereby blocking road intersections. However, this was a matter of speculation. The Applicant does not propose or want to stage trains at the bridges. Petitioners contend that the project will cause hazards to boaters on the St. Lucie River because there will be more times when the train bridge will be closed to allow the passage of passenger trains. Although there were many statistics presented about the number of boats affected, the evidence was largely anecdotal with respect to the current hazard associated with boaters waiting for the passage of freight trains and speculative as to the expected increase in the hazard if shorter and faster passenger trains are added. Factor 2: Conservation of Fish and Wildlife As previously found, the proposed activities will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including threatened or endangered species. The preponderance of the evidence shows the project will have only insignificant adverse impacts on water resources and wildlife. Factor 3: Navigation of the Flow of Water Petitioners claim the project will hinder navigation on the St. Lucie and Loxahatchee Rivers because of the increase in bridge closures if passenger trains are added. The U.S. Coast Guard is the agency with clear authority to regulate the opening and closing of moveable train bridges over navigable waters in the interests of navigation. Petitioners’ insistence that the District address the bridge openings is novel. No instance was identified by the parties where this District, any other water management district, or DEP has attempted through an ERP to dictate how frequently a railroad bridge must open to accommodate boat traffic. The Coast Guard is currently reviewing the project’s potential impacts on navigation and will make a determination about the operation of the moveable bridges. It has already made such a determination for the moveable bridge which crosses the New River in Ft. Lauderdale. Petitioners point to section 10.2.3.3 of the Applicant’s Handbook, which states that the District can consider an applicant’s Coast Guard permit, and suggest that this shows the District is not limited to what the Coast Guard has required. However, Section 10.2.3.3 explains the navigation criterion in terms of preventing encroachments into channels and improving channel markings, neither of which encompasses the regulation of train bridges. The preponderance of the evidence shows the project would not cause harmful erosion or shoaling or adversely affect the flow of water. Factor 4: Fishing, Recreational Values, and Marine Productivity The preponderance of the evidence shows that there would be no adverse impacts or only insignificant impacts to fishing or recreational values and marine productivity. Factor 5: Permanent Impact The proposed project will have both temporary and permanent impacts. The temporary impacts include the installation of silt fences and turbidity barriers designed to reduce water quality impacts and impacts to functions provided by wetlands and surface waters. The impacts due to track installation, construction and rehabilitation of the non-moveable bridges, at-grade crossing improvements, and stormwater system improvements are permanent in nature. The permanent impacts have been minimized and mitigated. Factor 6: Historical or Archaeological Resources Petitioners do not contend that the project will adversely affect significant historical or archaeological resources. Factor 7: Wetland Functions in Areas Affected Because the proposed work is within the limits of an existing railway corridor where impacts have been occurring for decades, and the majority of the wetlands to be affected are of a low to moderate quality, there would be only a small loss of functional values and that loss would be fully mitigated. Public Interest Summary When the seven public interest factors are considered and balanced, the proposed project is not contrary to the public interest. Even if Petitioners’ non-environmental issues are included, the project is not contrary to the public interest. Compliance With Other Permit Conditions The project is capable, based on accepted engineering and scientific principles, of performing and functioning as proposed. The Applicant demonstrated sufficient real property interests over the lands upon which project activities will be conducted. It obtained the required consent for proposed activities relating to bridge crossings over state-owned submerged lands. The Applicant provided reasonable assurance of compliance with all other applicable permit criteria. Exemption Verification for Roadway Crossings The Applicant’s ERP application included a mixture of activities which required an individual permit, as well as activities in roadway crossings which the Applicant claimed were exempt from permitting. Pursuant to section 5.5.3.4 of the Applicant’s Handbook, the Applicant requested a verification of exemption as to certain work to be done within 23 of those 24 roadway crossings. The District determined that the improvements for which an exemption was sought were exempt from permitting under rule 62-330.051(4)(c) for minor roadway safety construction, rule 62-330.051(4)(d) resurfacing of paved roads, and rule 62-330.051(10) for “construction, alteration, maintenance, removal or abandonment of recreational paths for pedestrians, bicycles, and golf carts.” The preponderance of the evidence shows the proposed work qualifies for exemption under these rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order that: approves Environmental Resource Permit Modification No. 13-05321-P on the terms and conditions set forth in the District’s Corrected Proposed Amended Staff Report of May 11, 2017; and approves the Verification of Exemption dated March 31, 2017. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 2017.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), should grant the application of Respondent, Leland Egland, for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP), Number 44-01700257-001-ES, to fill an illegally-dredged trench or channel in mangrove wetlands between Florida Bay and what was a land-locked lake, to restore preexisting conditions.
Findings Of Fact Since 1988, Applicant, Leland Egland, has resided in a home built on property he purchased in Buccaneer Point Estates in Key Largo, Florida, in 1986--namely, Lots 14 and 15, Block 2, plus the "southerly contiguous 50 feet." A 1975 plat of Buccaneer Point shows this "southerly contiguous 50 feet" as a channel between Florida Bay to the west and a lake or pond to the east; it also shows a 800-foot linear canal extending from the lake or pond to the north. Egland's Lot 14 borders Florida Bay to the west; his lot 15 borders the lake or pond to the east; the "southerly contiguous 50 feet" is between Egland's lots 14 and 15 and property farther south owned by another developer. See Finding 10, infra. Buccaneer Point lots in Blocks 1 (to the east) and 2 (to the west) surround the lake or pond and canal. The developer of Buccaneer Point applied to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in 1977 for a permit to dredge a channel, characterized as a flushing channel for the lake or pond, which was characterized as a tidal pond with replanted red mangroves. (There was no evidence as to the character of this pond before the 1977 permit application or if it even existed.) DER denied the permit application because the: proposal . . . to open a pond to Florida Bay . . . will connect an 800 linear foot dead-end canal. The pond and canal will act as a sink for marl and organic debris which will increase Biological Oxygen Demand and lower Dissolved Oxygen. The project is expected to result in substances which settle to form putrescent or otherwise objectionable sludge deposits and floating debris, oil scum, and other materials, in amounts sufficient to be deleterious. Based on the above, degradation of local water quality is expected. * * * Furthermore, your project will result in the following effects to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interest and the provisions of Chapter 253, Florida Statutes: Interference with the conservation of fish, marine life and wildlife, and other natural resources. Destruction of natural marine habitats, grass flats suitable as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life, including established marine soils suitable for producing plant growth of a type useful as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life. Reduction in the capability of habitat to support a well-balanced fish and wildlife population. Impairment of the management or feasibility of management of fish and wildlife resources. As a result, the proposed channel to Florida Bay was not dredged (although some of the lake side of the proposed channel apparently was dredged before the project was abandoned); the building lots surrounding the lake or pond (now known as South Lake) and canal were sold as waterfront lots on a land-locked lake without access to Florida Bay; and the "southerly contiguous 50 feet" was included with the conveyance to Egland, along with the Lots 14 and 15 of Block 2. The evidence was not clear as to the characteristics of the "southerly contiguous 50 feet" in 1977, or earlier. When Egland purchased his property in 1986, it was a mature mangrove slough with some tidal exchange between the lake and Florida Bay, especially during high tides and stormy weather. Some witnesses characterized the area of mangroves as a shallow creek in that general time frame (from about 1984 through 1988). According to Vince Easevoli, at least under certain conditions, a rowboat could be maneuvered between the lake and Florida Bay using a pole "like a gondola effect." But Egland testified to seeing Easevoli drag a shallow-draft boat through this area in this general time frame, and the greater weight of the evidence was that the mangrove slough was not regularly navigable channel at the time. During this general time frame (the mid-to-late 1980's) several Petitioners (namely, Stanley Dominick, John and Katherine Easevoli, and their son, Vince Easevoli) purchased property on South Lake. All but Vince built homes and resided there; Vince did not reside there until after Hurricane Andrew in 1992, but he sometimes stayed at the residence on his parents' property during this general time frame. In the early 1990's, the slough or creek became somewhat deeper, making it increasingly more easily passable by boat. Large storms such as Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and the "storm of the century" in 1993 may have contributed to these changes, but human intervention seems to have been primarily responsible. In 1994, Egland added a swimming pool south of the residence on his lots. During construction, some illegal filling took place. Several witnesses testified that the illegal fill occurred to the north of the creek, which was not affected. Vince Easevoli's lay interpretation of several surveys in evidence led him to maintain that illegal fill was placed in the mangrove slough and that the creek became narrower by approximately four feet and, eventually, deeper. But no surveyor testified to explain the surveys in evidence, which do not seem to clearly support Easevoli's position, and the greater weight of the evidence was that illegal fill was not added to the creek in Egland's "southerly contiguous 50 feet." At some point in time, hand tools were used to deepen the slough or creek and trim mangroves without a permit to enable a small boat to get through more easily. As boats were maneuvered through, the creek got deeper. Eventually, propeller-driven boats of increasing size were used to "prop- dredge" the creek even deeper. According to Petitioner, Tom Hodges, when he and his wife purchased their lot on the lake in 1994, it was possible to navigate the creek in a 22-foot Mako boat (at least under certain conditions), and their lot was sold to them as having limited access to Florida Bay. (There was evidence that access to Florida Bay could increase the price of these lots by a factor of three.) Petitioners Martha Scott and Marianne Delfino also purchased their property on the lake in 1994. Tom Hodges claimed to have seen manatees in the lake as early as 1994, but no other witnesses claimed sightings earlier than 1997, and the accuracy of this estimate is questionable. Even if manatees were in the lake during this time frame or earlier, it is possible that they used an access point other than the creek. At the southeast corner of South Lake in Buccaneer Point, there is a possible connection to a body of water farther south, which is part of a condominium development called Landings of Largo and leads still farther south to access to Florida Bay near a dock owned by Landings of Largo. While this connection is shallow, it may have been deep enough under certain conditions to allow manatees to pass through. Apparently not with manatees but rather with boaters from the lake in Buccaneer Point in mind, Landings of Largo has attempted to close this access point by placement of rebar; Landings of Largo also has placed rip-rap under its dock farther south to prevent boats from passing under the dock. However, there are gaps in the rip-rap, some possibly large enough for manatees to pass. In approximately 1995 or 1996, Egland observed Vince Easevoli and his father, John Easevoli, digging a trench through the mangrove slough with a shovel and cutting mangrove trees with a saw in Egland's "southerly contiguous 50 feet." Others were standing by, watching. Egland told them to stop and leave.6 These actions made the creek even deeper and more easily navigable by boat, which continued to further excavate the trench by such methods as "prop dredging." In 1997 Hany Haroun purchased property adjacent to South Lake where he lives with his wife, Christine. By this time, Florida Bay was easily accessible by boat from the lake, and Haroun paid $260,000 for the property. He estimated that his property would be worth about $150,000 less without boat access to Florida Bay. In approximately 1997, manatees began to appear in South Lake year round from time to time, especially in the winter months. In 1997, the Hodgeses saw one they thought may have been in distress and telephoned the Save Our Manatee Club and Dolphin Research for advice. Following the advice given, they used lettuce to coax the manatee over to their dock to check its condition and videotape the event. The manatee appeared healthy and eventually departed the lake. On subsequent visits, manatees have been seen and videotaped resting and cavorting with and without calves and possibly mating in the lake. Groups of as many as seven to eight manatees have been seen at one time in the lake. Tom Hodges, Vince Easevoli, and Hany Haroun testified that they have enjoyed watching manatees in the lake since 1997. It can be inferred from the evidence that Elaine Hodges also has enjoyed watching manatees in the lake. There was no evidence as to the extent to which other Petitioners enjoy watching manatees in the lake. In 1997, the ACOE began an investigation of the illegal dredging of Egland's "southerly contiguous 50 feet." According to Egland, he was in communication with ACOE; presumably, he told ACOE what he knew about the illegal dredging on his property. According to Egland, ACOE advised him to place posts in the dredged channel to keep boats out. When he did so, Tom Hodges removed the posts. Egland replaced the posts, and Hodges removed them again. When Egland told ACOE what was happening, ACOE asked him to try reinstalling the posts and screwing plywood to the posts to achieve a stronger, fence-like barrier. Hodges also removed these barriers, and Egland did not replace the posts or plywood barrier again. In 1998, ACOE mailed Egland a Cease and Desist Order accusing him of illegal dredging in his "southerly contiguous 50 feet" and demanding that he restore the mangrove slough to its previous conditions. Egland was angry at being blamed for the dredging and initially disputed ACOE's charges and demands. But ACOE and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which accepted the role of lead federal enforcement agency on December 18, 1998, was seeking monetary civil penalties. In addition, Egland received legal advice that, if restoration were delayed, he could be sued for damages by someone purchasing property on the lake or canal in the meantime upon the mistaken belief that there was boat access to Florida Bay. For these reasons, Egland agreed to comply with the Cease and Desist Order. However, ACOE and EPA informed Egland that he might have to obtain a permit from DEP to fill the dredged channel in compliance with the Cease and Desist Order. On May 22, 2000, Egland applied to DEP for an ERP to restore a trench about 100 feet long varying from seven to ten feet in width that was illegally dredged on his property. He estimated that a total of 160 cubic yards of fill would be required, to be spread over approximately 900 square feet. He assured DEP that rip-rap would be used to contain the fill and that turbidity screens would be used during construction. During processing of Egland's application, DEP requested additional information, which Egland provided, and DEP's Environmental Manager, Edward Barham, visited the project site in October 2000. Based on all the evidence available to him at that point in time, Barham viewed Egland's proposed fill project as a simple restoration project to correct illegal dredging and return the mangrove slough to its preexisting condition. For that reason, Barham recommended that DEP process the application as a de minimis exemption and not charge a permit application fee. Subsequently, some Petitioners brought it to DEP's attention that manatees were accessing South Lake through the channel Egland wanted to fill. DEP saw no need to verify the accuracy of Petitioners' information or obtain additional information about the manatees use of the lake because DEP still viewed it as a restoration project. However, DEP decided that it would be necessary to include specific conditions in any ERP issued to Egland to ensure that no manatees would be trapped in the lake or otherwise injured as a result of filling the channel. Primarily due to the need for these conditions, and also because of anticipated opposition from Petitioners, DEP decided to charge Egland a permit application fee and not process the application as a de minimis exemption. DEP staff visited the mangrove slough on numerous occasions between October 2000, and final hearing and observed that the trench continued to get deeper over time as a result of continued prop-dredging and digging. In early August 2001, Tom Hodges observed a man walking back and forth with a wheel barrow between a storage shed on Egland's property and the channel. (Hodges was on his property across South Lake but use of binoculars enabled him to see this.) The next day, Hany Haroun discovered a poured- concrete slab forming a plug or dam in the channel on the lake side. Haroun reported his discovery to Tom Hodges, who investigated with his wife, who took photographs of the structure. At some point, the Hodgeses realized that a manatee was trapped in the lake. The manatee did not, and appeared unable to, use the other possible access point towards Landings of Largo to escape. See Finding 10, supra. The Hodgeses telephoned Barham at DEP to report the situation and complain. Tom Hodges then proceeded to break up the concrete, remove the resulting rubble, and place it on the path to the storage shed, freeing the manatee. The incident was reported in the newspaper the next day and prompted Petitioners to file their Motion to Dismiss and for Other Relief on August 9, 2001. See Preliminary Statement. The evidence was inconclusive as to who poured the concrete, or had it poured, and why. Egland testified that he was in Egypt on an extended trip at the time and denied any knowledge of the concrete plug until he saw the rubble on his property upon his return from Egypt. Egland testified that he saw no "aggregate" in the concrete, which would make it relatively easy to break up, and he suspected that Petitioners were responsible for pouring the concrete in order to publicly make false accusations against Egland. Petitioners denied Egland's accusation. Vince testified that the concrete contained rebar for strength. The evidence was inconclusive as to who was responsible for this incident. As pointed out by Petitioners, DEP did not investigate and does not know whether there is any freshwater upwelling in the lake, whether manatees have mated in the lake, or whether calves have been birthed in the lake. DEP also did not investigate and does not know whether South Lake is unlike other manatee habitat in the area. DEP did not investigate or obtain any information as to how many manatees use the lake, or what manatees use the lake for, in addition to the information provided by Petitioners. Carol Knox, an Environmental Specialist III with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, testified as a manatee expert based on her knowledge of manatees and manatee habitat in the area, as well as the information known to DEP. It was her opinion that, regardless what South Lake might offer manatees in the way of habitat, closing the channel (with the specific conditions required by DEP to protect manatees during the filling itself) would have no adverse impact on manatees because it did not appear that manatees made use of the lake before the channel was dug in 1996 or 1997, and ample other manatee habitat of various kinds continued to be available in the area.7 Based on the testimony of Knox and Barham, and the totality of the evidence in this case, it is found that Egland provided reasonable assurance that his proposed restoration project will not harm or adversely affect manatees or their habitats. Petitioners also questioned Egland's assurances as to water quality. Vince Easevoli, Stanley Dominick, and Hany Haroun testified to their concerns that water quality in the lake will decline if the channel is closed. As Petitioners point out, DEP did not require Egland to provide any water quality measurements. This was because the proposal is reasonably expected to reverse the effects of the illegal dredging on water quality and to return both the water in the lake and canal and the water in Florida Bay to the quality that existed prior to the illegal dredging. Without requiring any water quality measurements, it is reasonably expected that the water quality in Florida Bay would not decline in any respect; to the contrary, if anything, Florida Bay's water quality would be expected to improve by reduction of contributions from the lake and canal. Conversely, water quality in the lake and canal would be expected to decline but not below what it was before the illegal dredging. Petitioners also question DEP's failure to require Egland to provide a survey or stake the area to be filled, so as to ensure against filling too much of the mangrove slough. But the proposed ERP contains a specific condition: "The final fill elevation of the fill shall be at the elevation of the substrate within the adjacent mangrove wetlands." Barham testified persuasively that this specific condition is adequate to provide reasonable assurance. Compliance can be ascertained by simply viewing the site after completion of the restoration project, and compliance can be enforced by requiring removal of excess fill as necessary. The proposed ERP also contains a general condition that the permit does not convey or create any property right, or any interest in real property, or authorize any entrances upon or activities on property which is not owned or controlled by Egland.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, the Department of Environmental Protection, enter a final order granting the application of Leland Egland and issuing ERP Number 44- 01700257-001-ES. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 2002.
The Issue The issue is whether reasonable assurance has been provided by Sarasota County (County) for the issuance of Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 44040881.000 authorizing the proposed alteration of a drainage ditch in the City of Sarasota (City), and whether Petitioner, SRQUS, LLC, was entitled to receive notice of the application pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-1.603(9)(a) and (b).
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner is a Florida limited liability corporation established in 2010 whose only members are Erika and Achim Ginsberg-Klemmt. In 2010, Petitioner purchased parcel 2009-16- 0015 in a tax deed sale. The parcel consists primarily of the submerged lands within the marina basin adjacent to the project area. Petitioner contends that the tax deed accords it ownership of the western most 130 feet of the existing ditch and that the County is not authorized to do work on that property. The City and County dispute this claim and it is now being litigated in circuit court. The City claims ownership or control of all of the project area to be addressed under the permit. The City authorized the County to apply for and construct the improvements authorized by the permit pursuant to an interlocal agreement with the County for consolidation of stormwater management responsibilities. The District is the agency charged with the responsibility of controlling water resources within its geographic boundaries and to administer and enforce chapter 373 and the rules promulgated in rule division 40D. The County submitted the application pursuant to an interlocal agreement with the City and will construct, operate, and maintain the project if the permit is issued. The Project U.S. Highway 41, also known as Tamiami Trail, travels through downtown Sarasota. During rainy months, between Fruitville Road and Second Street, U.S. Highway 41 experiences frequent roadway flooding. At the area where U.S. Highway 41 floods and between the Quay development to the north and the Ritz-Carlton Hotel to the south, is a stormwater ditch that drains west into a marina basin or bayou adjoining Sarasota Bay. However, it does not directly discharge into Sarasota Bay. The ditch is an upland cut drainage ditch approximately 650 feet in length and has been in existence for decades. The ditch is covered under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permit issued to the County for the surrounding communities. Contaminants in the stormwater system are addressed under this permit. The ditch provides the only outfall for an approximately 46-acre heavily urbanized drainage basin for which stormwater is collected through the stormwater system. The stormwater is discharged into the drainage ditch through a double concrete box culvert under U.S. Highway 41 and is ultimately conveyed to a marina basin adjoining Sarasota Bay. The ditch is located in what was originally platted as the right-of-way for Eighth Street (now known as Second Street) on the Central Broadway subdivision plat within the City. Pursuant to an earlier exemption determination by the District, in 2004 the County conducted maintenance dredging on the easterly portion of the drainage ditch in an effort to remove the sediments and vegetation that had built up in the ditch over the years and reduced its flow. Since that time, the ditch has again filled in as a result of the significant amounts of sedimentation from stormwater flows entering and settling in the ditch and significant amounts of vegetation. Also, flooding on U.S. Highway 41 has become more frequent. In its current condition, the ditch is approximately eight to 12 feet wide and eight to 12 inches deep, is poorly drained due to the sedimentation and heavily overgrown mangroves and nuisance vegetation, and is tidally influenced. Accumulated sediments in the ditch are approximately four feet thick at the eastern end and become thinner at the western end of the ditch. In August 2009, staff from the City, County, District, and Florida Department of Transportation met at the site of the ditch to conduct a pre-application meeting and discuss possible ways of addressing flooding problems at this location. Aside from the ditch improvements being proposed by the County, the only other remedy is to pipe the ditch, which is cost-prohibitive and would defeat the County's goal of keeping as much desirable vegetation in place as possible. To address flooding and maintenance concerns, on September 8, 2011, the County submitted an ERP application to the District to seek authorization to dredge and undertake ditch improvements. The application identifies the ditch as being within City right-of-way. Included with the application was a letter from the City authorizing the County to apply for the ERP on behalf of the City pursuant to their interlocal stormwater agreement. At the time the application was filed, the County Property Appraiser's Office Geographic Information Systems tax parcel map showed the ditch and dredge area as being within the City right-of-way. The proposed project consists of reconstruction of the ditch with a defined channel to be lined with rip rap and geotextile fabric and the addition of two sediment sump boxes. Some of the mangroves and nuisance vegetation will be removed as necessary to construct the ditch improvements. Mangroves will be preserved where not impacted by construction. The Property Dispute Petitioner claims ownership of the western 130 feet of the right-of-way in which the ditch is located. As noted above, at the time the permit application was submitted, official property records showed the existing ditch as located within City right-of-way. Therefore, the County and District had no reason to doubt City ownership or control of the ditch area. A recently filed circuit court action seeks to determine ownership of a portion of the right-of-way in which the ditch is located. The circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction over all actions involving the titles and boundaries or right of possession of real property. District rules permit applicants to demonstrate sufficient ownership or legal control of the proposed project area in order to conduct the activities to be permitted. An applicant with eminent domain authority that does not have ownership or control for all property necessary for the proposed project may rely on its eminent domain authority to demonstrate sufficient ownership or legal control of the property necessary to construct the project. The permit will be conditioned to prohibit construction until all ownership or legal control of the property necessary to construct the project is acquired by the permittee. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D-4.301(1)(j); BOR § 2.0. The proposed permit contains Specific Condition No. 8 which enforces this requirement. Reasonable assurance of sufficient ownership or legal control of the project area is provided by virtue of the City's and County's eminent domain authority and the fact that the proposed permit prohibits construction until the permittee acquires all necessary ownership or other legal control of the property necessary to construct the project. Notice Requirements Petitioner contends the permit should be denied because it did not receive notice of the application pursuant to rule 40D-1.603(9). That rule provides that when the applicant is an entity with the power of eminent domain that does not have current ownership or control of the entire project area as described in the application, the applicant shall provide the property owner(s) identified in the application with so-called eminent domain noticing, which consists of (a) written notice of District receipt of the application, and (b) written notice of agency action on the application. Persons entitled to eminent domain noticing are owners of property located within the proposed project area as identified in the county property appraiser's records within 30 days prior to the filing of the application. The purpose of the District's eminent domain noticing provision is to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to owners of property subject to being condemned or otherwise acquired by the applicant for part of the project area. As originally submitted, the application proposed some activities extending approximately ten feet into the marina basin and beyond the claimed City right-of-way. The permit application did not indicate City ownership or control of submerged lands within the marina basin. Consequently, in its request for additional information (RAI), the District advised that pursuant to rule 40D-1.603(9)(a) and (b), eminent domain notices to affected landowners would be required for any proposed easements over offsite property. As part of the application process, a seagrass study was prepared which showed seagrasses and oyster beds growing in the marina basin just beyond the end of the ditch, where some construction activity was proposed. Because seagrasses were observed growing at the end of the ditch, the County responded to the RAI by scaling back the project to confine activities to the City's right-of-way. With the change in project area, offsite easements were no longer necessary for the project. Thus, the project no longer required eminent domain noticing pursuant to rule 40D-1.603(9). The County and District acknowledge that Petitioner did not receive eminent domain notices. Although not provided notice, Petitioner nevertheless became aware of the permit application during the course of its own application process with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for an ERP to construct a 4,760-square foot, ten-slip docking facility on its adjacent submerged lands in the marina basin. The lack of notice has not prevented Petitioner from challenging the project or has otherwise prejudiced it. Having received actual notice of the permit, Petitioner filed a timely objection and request for hearing in this matter. Petitioner contends that while it does not oppose the ditch dredging, it would have wanted an opportunity to suggest a re-design of the ditch to include a dingy dock and kayak launching facility. Although it has known of the project since at least May 21, 2012, when it filed its first petition, and probably several months earlier, Petitioner has not provided the County or District with any alternative designs to maximize the potential for recreational use of the drainage canal. There is no requirement for ERP applicants to provide alternative designs to maximize potential public recreational uses. Requiring the County to do so would impose requirements that go beyond the conditions for permit issuance. ERP Permitting Criteria To obtain an ERP, a permit applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activities will not cause adverse impacts to water quality, water quantity, and other environmental resources. For activities proposed in, on, or over wetlands and other surface waters, reasonable assurance must also be provided that such activities are not contrary to the public interest and do not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters. The conditions for issuance of an ERP are set forth in rules 40D-4.301 and 40D-4.302. The standards and criteria in the BOR are used to determine whether an applicant has met the conditions for issuance in those two rules. The parties have stipulated that the project either complies with the following conditions for issuance or that they are not applicable: 40D-4.301(1)(b), (c), (g), (h), (j), and (k) and 40D-4.302(1)(a)6. Also, rule 40D-4.302(1)(c) and (d), which concerns projects located in, adjacent to, or in close proximity to certain shellfish harvesting waters or which involve vertical seawalls, is not applicable to this matter. Based on the parties' Stipulation, at issue is whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the proposed activities will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands (40D-4.301(1)(a)); will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife by wetlands and other surface waters (40D-4.301(1)(d)); will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that applicable state water quality standards will be violated (40D-4.301(1)(e)); and will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources (40D-4.301(1)(f)). Petitioner also contends that the County has failed to give reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest and that it will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts, as required by rule 40D-4.302(1)(a) and (b). Water Quantity Impacts Rule 40D-4.301(1)(a) requires reasonable assurance be provided that the project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands. Existing and post-construction flows were modeled by the County using the accepted Inter-Connected Pond Routing model. Drainage calculations demonstrate that for the 25-year storm, the flood stage will be reduced by 1.94 feet, and for the 100-year storm event, by 1.75 feet, which will provide flood relief. Modeling results demonstrate a reduction in flood stages not just for U.S. Highway 41 but for other adjoining properties. The evidence establishes that while the project is not designed to eliminate all potential flooding, flooding during normal events will be reduced. Specifically, no adverse water quantity impacts were demonstrated with respect to Petitioner's adjacent submerged lands. Improvements proposed to the ditch will increase its storage capacity and allow water to flow more efficiently. By increasing the storage and hydraulic efficiency of the ditch without generating any additional runoff volume, the proposed activities will not cause adverse water quantity impacts and will have no adverse water quantity impacts on the receiving waters. Reasonable assurance has been demonstrated that the project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters or adjacent lands and will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, including adjacent submerged lands owned by Petitioner. Impact on Value of Functions Rule 40D-4.301(1)(d) requires that reasonable assurance be provided that project activities "will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife, and listed species including aquatic and wetland dependent species, by wetlands, other surface waters and other water related resources of the District." The existing ditch provides limited ecological functions for fish and wildlife, as it contains significant levels of exotics and nuisance vegetation that provide little in the way of habitat. The removal of the nuisance vegetation, improved water circulation, and decreased sediments will be an improvement. The proposed ditch reconstruction and replanting with other vegetation will provide a more suitable habitat for younger life stages of fish such as sea trout, red fish, and hog chokers, which are species typically found in tidally influenced drainage systems. Overall, the proposed project will result in an improved habitat available for fish and wildlife. The project will retain as many of the existing mangroves as possible, thereby retaining the ecology of the mangrove wetlands. Reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not adversely impact the value of functions being provided to fish and wildlife and will actually improve the ecological functions provided by the ditch. Quality of Receiving Waters Rule 40D-4.301(1)(e) requires that reasonable assurance be provided that the proposed ditch alterations will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that water quality standards will be violated. The parties have stipulated that the project will not violate water quality standards set forth in rule chapters 62-522 and 62-550. Petitioner contends, however, that reasonable assurance has not been provided concerning possible impacts relating to surface water quality standards in rule chapter 62-302, the anti- degradation provisions of rule chapter 62-4, or the groundwater permitting and monitoring requirements of rule chapter 62-522. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the activities will adversely affect the groundwater protection provisions of rule chapter 62-522. The proposed ditch alterations do not involve activities relating to these state water quality standards. Under BOR section 3.2.4, reasonable assurance must be provided for the short term and the long term that water quality standards are not violated. As to potential construction or short-term impacts, the proposed construction work involves the removal of sediments accumulated in the ditch, reconstruction of the ditch to be wider and deeper and within a more defined course, the addition of rip rap and geotextile fabric on the ditch bottom, and replanting of the ditch banks with salt- tolerant grasses and other vegetation to provide soil stabilization and erosion control. The proposed permit addresses the potential for turbidity during construction activities to cause short-term water quality violations by authorizing a temporary mixing zone and by requiring the installation of turbidity barriers and ongoing turbidity monitoring during construction. To further minimize the potential for any water quality violation during construction activities, construction methods will include the use of cofferdams or similar techniques to provide a barrier between the open water of the marina basin and the work being constructed within the ditch, which will be undertaken in segments starting at the eastern outfall at U.S. Highway 41. These provisions adequately address the potential for any short- term water quality impacts and are consistent with BOR provisions relating to short-term water quality. As to possible long-term water quality impacts, the evidence establishes that the proposed activities will not add any additional pollutants or new pollutant source to the receiving waters and will not cause or contribute to any violation of water quality standards. To the contrary, by removing existing stormwater sediments, which are known to contain pollutants, controlling sedimentation through collection of sediments in sediment sumps, and armoring the ditch channel to prevent erosion, water quality is expected to improve. The proposed sediment sumps to be added as a best management practice are appropriately sized to handle the approximately 5,600 pounds of sediments that accumulate annually in the ditch, as determined by annual pollutant load calculations provided by the County. The sumps will be located most efficiently at the outfall where the ditch begins. Preventing sediments from entering the receiving waters is one of the best things that can be done to improve water quality in nearby Sarasota Bay. Improvements in water quality are also expected to occur as a result of the addition of rip rap that will dissipate the flow energy, thereby allowing any remaining sediments to settle down, and the geotextile fabric that will keep soil in place and not allow it to float up. The sodding and replanting of the ditch embankments will also prevent side erosion from occurring, which erosion could add sediments in the ditch. Once constructed, the ditch will be regularly maintained by the County, with sediments to be cleaned out of the sump on a quarterly schedule. Any sediments settling on the rip rap and on plant vegetation would be cleaned out as needed, as determined by regular inspections. Petitioner contends that reasonable assurance has not been provided to show that water quality standards in rule chapter 62-302, and the anti-degradation provisions of rule chapter 62-4, will not be violated by the proposed activities. Its expert opined that the impact of the proposed activity on state water quality standards cannot be determined because no sampling of the receiving water was conducted, the permit does not require compliance monitoring, and the existing ditch sediments were not sufficiently analyzed. The evidence establishes that it can be reasonably presumed, without compliance monitoring or sampling, that the water flowing from the 46-acre urbanized watershed served by the ditch contains sediments and other pollutants typically associated with urban runoff. Most of the expected pollutants are contained within, or settle into the sediments that are deposited into, the ditch. By removing sediments through the use of adequately sized sediment sumps, slowing the water down to allow suspended solids to settle out within the ditch, adding geotextile fabric and rip rap covering the ditch bottom, establishing vegetation on the ditch sidebanks to prevent erosion, and implementing periodic maintenance through vacuum removal of collected sediments, the proposed activities will remove pollutants from the water flowing into the ditch and discharging into the marina basin and ultimately entering Sarasota Bay. Thus, it is reasonable to expect without sampling or monitoring that the proposed activities will improve water quality. In addition to identifying the positive benefits of the proposed activities, the evidence established that the proposed activities will not add a pollutant source to the receiving waters. This was not credibly disputed by Petitioner. Because the project does not generate pollutants, the proposed activities will not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards. There is no reason to require pre-construction or baseline sampling to compare with post- construction sampling, as no pollutants will be generated. The removal of sediments and ongoing ditch maintenance will result in an improvement in water quality. Therefore, it can be reasonably assured without requiring sampling or monitoring that the activities will not result in any violations of state water quality standards. Secondary Impacts Rule 40D-4.301(1)(f) and BOR section 3.2.7 require that an applicant provide reasonable assurance that a regulated activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resource. As originally proposed, the project included activities extending beyond the end of the ditch and into the marina basin, where seagrasses and oyster beds are present. By avoiding impacts to these resources, the project also avoids any secondary impacts to manatees that may frequent Sarasota Bay. Turbidity control measures to be used during construction will also avoid secondary impacts to these resources. Petitioner provided no evidence that secondary impacts would occur as a result of the project. Reasonable assurance has been provided that the proposed activities will not result in any secondary impacts to the water resources. Public Interest Test Rule 40D-4.302(1)(a) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that activities to be located in, on, or over wetlands and other surface waters will not be contrary to the public interest, as determined by balancing certain criteria, or if such activity significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW), that the activity will be clearly in the public interest. The proposed activities are not located within Sarasota Bay, a designated OFW. Petitioner provided no evidence that the proposed activities would significantly degrade that body of water. Therefore, the County need only demonstrate that the proposed activities are not contrary to the public interest. The parties have stipulated that rule 40D- 4.302(1)(a)6., which governs historical and archaeological resources, is not applicable to this matter. The remaining criteria at issue are whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values of marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; and the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The evidence establishes that the project will reduce flooding during normal stages and remove sediments. By reducing the potential for roadway flooding and improving water quality through sediment reduction, the project will have a beneficial impact on public health, safety, and welfare, and will not adversely affect the property of others. Efforts were made to reduce or eliminate impacts to wetlands and other surface waters in the design of the project. Proposed activities will involve the removal of some of the existing mangroves. Based upon an analysis conducted pursuant to the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Manual, the unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other surface waters will result in a functional loss score of 0.08. Unavoidable wetland and other surface water impacts anticipated from the project will be appropriately mitigated through the use of a 0.08 credit from the Curry Creek Regional Offsite Mitigation Area (ROMA). The evidence demonstrates that the project will not adversely affect the value of functions provided by wetlands and other surface waters to conservation of fish and wildlife, including any endangered or threatened species, or their habitats and will actually result in an improvement in wetland and other surface water functions and habitat. The evidence establishes that the proposed activities will not adversely impact navigation or the flow of water and will not cause erosion or shoaling. The ditch reconstruction will prevent the possibility of shoaling at the downstream end of the ditch adjoining Petitioner's submerged lands by increasing the width of the ditch, slowing the water down, removing sedimentation along the ditch bottom, and reducing erosion through the planting of salt-tolerant sod and other vegetation along the ditch side banks. Petitioner presented no contrary evidence. No adverse impacts are expected to occur with respect to fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed activity. By removing sediments, the project will provide an improvement to fishing and recreational activities in the marina basin and Sarasota Bay. Petitioner raised concerns regarding the amount of floatable material that will be discharged from the ditch as a result of removal of mangroves. As provided in the permit plans, significant portions of the mangroves will remain undisturbed. Under current conditions, the ditch and mangroves do not prevent or trap all trash and floatables entering the ditch. On-site observations of existing conditions confirmed there is not a large amount of trash and floatables currently being retained by existing mangroves. Any temporarily retained floatables within the ditch area ultimately float out to Sarasota Bay with the tide. The evidence establishes that even with the removal of some mangroves, the project is not expected to result in an easier flow or increased amount of floatables entering the marina basin. Finally, because the project activities do not add floatable materials to the ditch, requiring the County to implement design changes to remove floatables would exceed what is necessary to meet the conditions for permit issuance. Petitioner also raised concerns regarding the levels of fecal coliform and the possibility of illicit connections to the stormwater collection outfalls to the ditch. The ditch is part of a MS4 permit that is regulated pursuant to NPDES Permit No. FLS000004 issued to the County. The NPDES permit governs stormwater discharges within the unincorporated portions of the County, the municipalities within the County, and that part of Longboat Key that is in Manatee County. The primary function of the MS4 permit is to address issues of water quality as they relate to stormwater discharges. The MS4 permit requirements would be the appropriate regulatory framework to address elevated fecal coliform, illicit connections, or other water quality concerns in the stormwater emanating from the drainage basin served by the ditch, and not the ERP regulatory program. Having weighed and balanced the six applicable criteria, and based upon the evidence presented, the County has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed activities will not be contrary to the public interest. Cumulative Impacts Rule 40D-4.302(1)(b) requires an applicant to demonstrate that the proposed activities will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts on wetlands and other surface waters, as further described in BOR sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.8.2. BOR section 3.2.8 provides that if an applicant proposes to mitigate any adverse impacts within the same drainage basin as the impacts, and if the mitigation fully offsets those impacts, then the regulated activity is considered to have no unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters. Mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts upon wetlands will be provided through the use of the 0.08 credit from the Curry Creek ROMA. The evidence establishes that the proposed mitigation fully offsets the impacts and is within the same drainage basin as the proposed impacts. No adverse cumulative impacts will occur with the project. Petitioner presented no contrary evidence of adverse cumulative impacts. Impaired Receiving Waters Petitioner contends that the project does not comply with the requirements of rule 40D-4.301(2) and related BOR section 3.2.4.5, which are applicable when existing ambient water quality does not meet state water quality standards. Rule 40D-4.301(2) provides that if an applicant is unable to meet water quality standards because existing ambient water quality does not meet standards, the applicant shall meet the requirements of BOR section 3.2.4.5 and related sections cited in that provision. Together, these provisions require that where existing ambient water quality does not meet standards, the applicant must demonstrate that for the parameters that do not meet water quality standards, the proposed activity will not contribute to the existing violation. If it does contribute to the existing violation, mitigation measures will be required that result in a net improvement of the water quality in the receiving waters for the parameter that does not meet standards. The marina basin that is the receiving waters for the ditch has been identified by DEP as impaired due to levels of mercury in fish tissue. The evidence demonstrates that the project will not contribute to this water quality violation. Although not required to implement mitigation measures that will cause a net improvement of the levels of mercury in fish tissue, the evidence establishes that to the extent existing sediments contain mercury deposits, removal of the sediments reduce a source of mercury that can be ingested by fish in the receiving waters. Water Quality Certification Petitioner contends that Specific Condition No. 9 of the proposed permit, which expressly waives certification of compliance with state water quality standards, is contrary to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1341, and inconsistent with the legislative declaration of policy set forth in section 373.016(3)(f) and (j). As explained by unrefuted testimony of the District, the water quality certification provisions of Section 401 allow states an opportunity to address the water resource impacts of federally issued permits and licenses. Under Section 401, a federal agency cannot issue a permit or license for an activity that may result in a discharge to waters of the United States unless the affected state has granted or waived Section 401 certification. A state may grant, deny, or waive certification. Granting certification allows the federal permit or license to be issued. Denying certification prohibits the federal permit or license from being issued. Waiving certification allows the permit or license to be issued without state comment. Pursuant to rule 40D-4.101(4), an application for an ERP shall also constitute an application for certification of compliance with state water quality standards where necessary pursuant to Section 401. Issuance of the permit constitutes certification of compliance with water quality standards unless the permit is issued pursuant to the net improvement provision of section 373.414(1), or the permit specifically states otherwise. By letter dated February 2, 1998, to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, DEP has delegated to the state's five water management districts the authority to issue, deny, or waive water quality certifications under Section 401. DEP has also established categories of activities for which water quality certification will be considered waived. Under the DEP delegation, water management districts may waive water quality certification for four situations, one of which is when the permit or authorization expressly so provides. This is still current DEP direction. The types of permitting decisions which constitute the granting of water quality certification and the types of activities for which water quality certification could be considered waived are also addressed in the current Operating Agreement between the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), DEP, and the five water management districts. According to both DEP guidance and the water management district agreement with the USACE, water quality certification will be considered waived when the permit or authorization expressly so states. The District most often expressly waives water quality certification for permits issued pursuant to the net improvement provisions and for projects that discharge into impaired waters. Proposed Specific Condition No. 9 of the permit expressly waives water quality certification due to the fact that the receiving waters are listed by DEP as impaired. Conditioning of the permit in this manner is consistent with DEP guidance and District practice under these circumstances. Although water quality certification for federal permitting review purposes is waived, the project must still comply with water quality requirements by demonstrating that the proposed activities do not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards or if the activities contribute to an existing violation, that a net benefit is provided. The evidence establishes that the project will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards and is not expected to contribute to the receiving water impairment of elevated mercury levels in fish tissue. While not required, the project is nevertheless expected to have a positive benefit on overall water quality and likely will reduce mercury levels in fish tissue by removing the sediments that contain metals such as mercury. The District's waiver of water quality certification is consistent with Section 401, the legislative declaration of policy set forth in section 373.016(3)(f) and (j), and applicable regulatory practices for Clean Water Act water quality certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order approving the issuance of ERP No. 44040881.000 to the City and County, as joint permittees. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Blake C. Guillery, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 Erika Ginsberg-Klemmt SRQUS, LLC 3364 Tanglewood Drive Sarasota, Florida 34239-6515 Achim Ginsberg-Klemmt SRQUS, LLC 3364 Tanglewood Drive Sarasota, Florida 34239-6515 Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 7601 Highway 301 North Tampa, Florida 33637-6758 Alan W. Roddy, Esquire Office of the County Attorney 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Second Floor Sarasota, Florida 34236-6808 Michael A. Connolly, Esquire Fournier, Connolly, Warren & Shamsey, P.A. One South School Avenue, Suite 700 Sarasota, Florida 34237-6014
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent Centex Homes is entitled to the issuance of an environmental resource permit to construct a 2665 square-foot boat dock and authorization of a lease of 7807 square feet of sovereign submerged land in the portion of the Intracoastal Waterway known as Lake Worth Lagoon in Palm Beach County.
Findings Of Fact In this case, Respondent South Florida Water Management District (District) has proposed to issue to Respondent Centex Homes (Centex) an environmental resource permit (ERP) and authorization to lease sovereign submerged land. The purpose of the ERP and lease authorization is for Centex to construct a dock to serve a multifamily development known as Ocean Cay. Ocean Cay is a 56-unit townhouse development located on a five-acre parcel in Hypoluxo, Florida, bordered on the west by U.S. Highway 1, on the east by the Lake Worth Lagoon, and on the north and south by developed residential areas. At the time of the hearing, Centex had closed on the sale of 50 of the residential units, was finishing construction of the final six units, and had entered into contracts to sell three of these six units. The Lake Worth Lagoon is a Class III water and is not an aquatic preserve. The Intracoastal Waterway channel is in the middle of the lagoon. The proposed dock would be about 1.5 miles north of the South Lake Worth Inlet (a/k/a Boynton Inlet) and 13 miles south of the Lake Worth Inlet (a/k/a Palm Beach Inlet). As measured from the project location to the opposite shoreline, the length of the dock is more than 25 percent of the width of the waterbody. Petitioner Michael C. Brown resides at 131 Las Brisas Circle, Hypoluxo, Florida. Intervenor O'Brien resides at 124 Park Lane East, Hypoluxo, Florida. Intervenors Evlyn and Vern Hakes reside at 140 Park Lane East, Hypoluxo, Florida. As stipulated by Respondents, Petitioner and Intervenors have standing, so this Recommended Order will not restate the substantial evidence in the record of the standing of Petitioner and Intervenors. Three of the objections raised by Petitioner and Intervenors involve procedural issues that are easily dismissed on factual grounds. The first objection is that Centex lacks the requisite equitable interest in the upland to obtain a lease of sovereign submerged land. The second objection is that the Ocean Cay Homeowners' Association lacks the financial, legal, and administrative resources to ensure the performance of all permitting obligations, as they may arise in the future. The third objection is that District staff, not the Governing Board of District, issued the proposed agency action on the ERP. As for the first procedural objection, Centex acquired the parcel by special warranty deed, which vests fee simple interest in Centex and contains all the customary warranties of title. The title insurance policy obtained by Centex for the parcel insures fee simple interest in Centex, subject to undescribed reservations contained in the deed from the Board Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Trustees), any part of the parcel lying below the mean high water line, and public rights "to use the waters over the submerged land lying adjacent to or within the Intercoastal [sic] Waterway for boating, fishing, swimming and other public purposes, together with the rights of the State of Florida and United States to regulate the use of the navigable waters." Not only does Centex enjoy full beneficial ownership of the upland, subject to the rights of its grantees who have purchased townhouse units, but Centex's title extends approximately 250 feet waterward of the mean high water line by operation of a deed from the Trustees to a predecessor in interest of Centex. If the ownership of submerged land between the submerged land for which an applicant seeks a lease and adjacent uplands also owned by an applicant has any effect at all, it only emphasizes the legitimate, nonspeculative interest of such an applicant in obtaining the sought-after lease. As for the second procedural objection, Centex is a sophisticated land-development entity with ample financial, legal, and administrative resources to ensure the satisfaction of any permitting obligations imposed upon it in connection with this case. At present, Centex controls the Ocean Cay Homeowners' Association. So, at present, the concerns of Petitioner and Intervenors about the ability of the homeowners' association to satisfy its obligations are unfounded. It is true that, upon the closing of the sale of sufficient units, Centex will transfer control of the homeowners' association to the homeowners. The record does not describe the financial, legal, and administrative resources of the homeowners' association following the withdrawal of Centex, but they will presumably not approach the substantial resources of Centex. District claims that Centex may not transfer the ERP without District's approval; however, ERP Special Condition 2 identifies the operating entity responsible for the docking facility as Ocean Cay Homeowners' Association, even though the ERP identifies the applicant as Centex. Fatal to the argument of Petitioner and Intervenors, though, are the facts that the proposed lease of sovereign submerged land is for only five years, a failure to discharge permit obligations that should be incorporated verbatim into the lease militates against any lease renewals, and the removal of the dock would substantially cure any deficiencies in its maintenance. As for the third procedural objection, District staff, on November 21, 2003, proposed to issue a standard general ERP for the construction and operation of a 2665 square-foot docking facility with nine boat slips for use by the residents of Ocean Cay and to approve the lease of 7807 square feet of sovereign submerged land under and surrounding the docking facility. Staff issues a proposed standard general ERP when a permit does not conflict with existing law or policy or a work of the District. District's Governing Board issues a proposed standard individual ERP in the relatively rare case in which a permit conflicts with existing law or policy or a work of the District. Again, the objections of Petitioner and Intervenors lack factual support. Here, the Governing Board, not staff, will receive the Recommended Order and issue the Final Order. So, as Petitioner and Intervenors wish, the Governing Board, not staff, will take the final agency action in this case. Under these circumstances, the record reveals no harm in the fact that District staff issued the proposed agency action. The remainder of the ERP provisions bears on the substantive objections raised by Petitioner and Intervenors. As amended at the final hearing by District and accepted by Centex, ERP Special Condition 9 provides: A permanent sign shall be installed at the docking facility entrance to notify boat owners that mooring at the docking facility shall be limited to no more than a total of nine vessels. Vessels moored in slips 1-2 and 7-9 shall be limited to outboard powered vessels, not more than 27 feet in length as reported by the manufacturer exclusive of engines and any bow pulpit. Vessels moored in slips 3 and 6 shall be limited to not more than 27 feet in length as reported by the manufacturer exclusive of engines and any bow pulpit. Vessels moored in slips 3 and 6 are not limited to outboard power. Vessels moored in slips 4 and 5 shall be limited to 36 feet in length, as reported by the manufacturer exclusive of engines and any bow pulpit. Vessels in slips 4 and 5 are not limited to outboard power. Slips are identified by number in the discussion below. As amended at the final hearing by District and accepted by Centex, ERP Special Condition 10 provides: "Dock, walkway, and seagrass sign pilings shall be constructed of plastic, concrete or greenheart, non-CCA treated wood or wood wrapped in 30 to 60 mil pvc." ERP Special Condition 11 provides that construction of the dock shall be in accordance with the locations and dimensions shown on the enclosed exhibits. The referenced drawings depict the adjacent upland, submerged bottom, and proposed dock. The drawings describe sufficient detail of the adjacent upland. The north and south property lines of the 190- foot wide parcel run due east and west. At mean high water, the parcel's shoreline runs about 210 feet in a south-southwesterly direction from the north property line. Waterward of the mean high water line is a thin band of sand, varying portions of which are exposed between mean high water and mean low water. The drawings describe the submerged bottom in great detail as to seagrass and reasonable detail as to water depths. Waterward of the beach is a band of Halodule wrightii (shoal grass). The drawings describe the shoal grass in this area as "sparse." The drawings depict mean low water depths along three transects at 25-foot intervals, starting roughly at the landward commencement of the shoal grass. (All water depths are based on mean low water.) If the property lines were extended into the water, the north transect is 25 feet south of the north property line, and the south transect is 25 feet north of the south property line. The middle transect is an equal distance between the north and south transects. Along the north transect, the band of shoal grass is about 25 feet wide. Along the south transect, the band narrows to about six feet wide. Along the middle transect, the band is about 50 feet wide. Waterward of the band of sparse shoal grass, according to the drawings, is a band of "mixed Halodule and sparse Johnson's." The reference to "Johnson's" is to Halophila johnsonii (Johnson's grass), which is a rare species of seagrass that is listed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as threatened. 50 C.F.R. § 17.12(h). Johnson's grass is found only on the east coast of Florida from the Indian River Lagoon to Biscayne Bay and is a fragile species of seagrass. The band of mixed shoal grass and sparse Johnson's grass reflects the same pattern as the shoal grass closer to shore: thinner at the north and south ends and wider in the middle. Along the north transect, the band of the two species is about 162 feet wide. Along the south transect, the band is about 212 feet wide. Along the middle transect, the band is about 240 feet wide. Waterward of the middle band of mixed shoal grass and sparse Johnson's grass, according to the drawings, is "scattered isolated blades of H. Decipiens and [Johnson's grass]." "H. Decipiens" is Halophila decipiens (paddle grass). Waterward of the north and south ends of the mixed shoal grass and sparse Johnson's grass are triangular-shaped areas of "sparse Johnson's." Along the north transect, this band of sparse Johnson's grass is about 75 feet wide. Along the south transect, this band of sparse Johnson's grass is about 50 feet wide. Waterward of these bands of sparse Johnson's grass is "scattered, isolated blades of H. Decipiens and [Johnson's grass]." Measured from the mean high water line, the band of mixed shoal grass and sparse Johnson's grass extends about 275 feet along the north transect, 312 feet along the middle transect, and 300 feet along the south transect. Water depths are shallow throughout almost the entire project area. Starting from shore, water depths are almost entirely less than 1.0 feet within the area of sparse shoal grass, although depths reach 1.2 feet along the middle transect. Proceeding waterward along the north transect, the depths within the area of mixed shoal grass and sparse Johnson's grass range from 0.7 feet at the landward end to 2.2 feet at the waterward end. Proceeding waterward along the middle transect, the depths within the area of mixed shoal grass and sparse Johnson's grass range from 1.2 feet to 4.2 feet. Proceeding waterward along the south transect, the depths within the area of mixed shoal grass and sparse Johnson's grass range from 1.0 feet to 2.7 feet. The water continues to deepen in the triangular-shaped areas of sparse Johnson's grass, through which the north and south transects run. Along the north transect, the water depths range from 2.2 feet to 3.1 feet. Along the south transect, the water depths range from 2.7 feet to 3.6 feet. The drawings depict depths waterward of the start of scattered, isolated blades of paddle grass and Johnson's grass. These reported depths extend to a point roughly parallel to the end of the proposed dock along the north transect, about 12 feet waterward of the end of the proposed dock along the middle transect, and about 37 feet waterward of the end of the proposed dock along the south transect. Along the north transect, the depths remain constant, at about 3.5 feet, until the most waterward 25 feet, along which the water deepens 0.5 feet to 4.1 feet. Along the middle transect, the depths deepen about 0.5 feet to around 5.0 feet for about 75 feet, then deepen to 5.4 feet a few feet landward of the most waterward portion of the dock. About 10 feet waterward of the end of the dock, the depth reaches 5.7 feet, which is the deepest reported depth in the project area. Along the south transect, the depths deepen about one foot over the first 100 feet waterward from the start of the scattered, isolated blades of paddle grass and Johnson's grass. From a point parallel to the end of the dock, the water along the south transect deepens another 0.5 feet to about 5.2 feet. The drawings also describe the proposed dock in great detail. The dock, oriented due east and west, runs a distance of 420 feet from its landing, at the mean high water line, to its waterward terminus. The dock is four feet wide, except for a 10-foot long section, at about midpoint, that is six feet wide to facilitate wheelchair access. At the urging of District, to reduce seagrass impacts, Centex moved the dock ten feet south and extended it ten additional feet into deeper water. Because of the former of these modifications, the dock runs ten feet south of the middle transect. The main deck of the dock is grated, so as to allow at least 46 percent of the light to pass through it, from the waterward extent of the sparse shoal grass to the waterward extent of the mixed shoal grass and sparse Johnson's grass, which is a distance of about 250 feet. Although the drawings specify only a value of 46 percent light transmissibility, testimony established that this criterion would require the use of fiberglass decking material. Perhaps the most prominent feature of the dock, in addition to its length, is its height. The deck is five feet above mean high water. Mean high water is 1.7 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). Mean low water is -0.8 feet NGVD. Five decks run perpendicular to the main deck--three on the south side and two on the north side--to form the slips at the waterward terminus of the dock. The most landward of these decks is four feet wide and 30-feet long and runs south of the main deck, at a point about 330 feet waterward of the landing. Two more decks, both of the same dimensions as the first deck, join the main deck at a point about 375 feet waterward of the landing. Thirty-eight feet separate the two southern decks, so that the two slips created between them (Slips 9 and 8, from landward to waterward) each is 18-19 feet wide. The most landward slip formed north of the main deck (Slip 1) is also 18-19 feet wide. Two pilings north of the main deck and two pilings south of the main deck define these first three slips. The remaining perpendicular decks form the terminus of the entire dock. These decks are eight-feet wide and run 38 feet north and 38 feet south of the edges of the main deck. The four slips immediately landward of these decks are 18-19 feet wide. Moving clockwise from the northwest corner, these slips are Slips 2, 3, 6, and 7. The remaining two slips are waterward of the eight-foot wide deck. The northern slip is Slip 4, and the southern slip is Slip 5. According to the drawings, the waterward extent of the proposed lease is 18 feet waterward of the waterward end of the dock. The waterward extent of the proposed lease is 425 feet from the landward end of the Intracoastal Waterway channel (the 415 feet shown in the drawings is wrong), which, as established by testimony, is 125 feet wide at this location. The drawings also depict a 42-inch high handrail running from the landing to the most landward perpendicular deck. The purpose of the handrail, whose vertical slats are eight inches apart, is to discourage mooring of vessels to the main dock landward of the slips. Every 50 feet, at the base of the handrails on either side of the dock, is a sign prohibiting docking, mooring, loading, or unloading of vessels. At the terminus of the dock, the drawings show a rock crib structure that rises about one foot from the submerged bottom along the entire 80-foot length of the eight-foot wide perpendicular deck. Apparently, the rock crib is eight-feet wide, so that it extends, beneath the surface of the water, under the entire area of the eight-foot wide perpendicular deck. Extending above the rock crib, along this 80-foot long deck, is a wave attenuator. The drawings also depict a couple of seagrass warning signs north and south of the dock, about 20-30 feet waterward of the waterward extent of the sparse Johnson's grass, at the north and south portions of the project area, and the mixed shoal grass and sparse Johnson's grass, in the middle of the project area, just a few feet north of the dock. The drawings also show pilings at a minimum of 10-foot intervals along the entire length of the main deck, as well as pilings for the perpendicular decks at the dock's terminus. Special Condition 12 prohibits fueling facilities or hull-painting or -cleaning at the dock. Special Condition 13 prohibits liveaboards. Special Condition prohibits subleasing of the docking facilities and limits their use to residents of Ocean Cay. Special Conditions 14 and 15 detail various manatee- protection provisions. Special Condition 19 requires the implementation of a turbidity-control plan during construction. Special Condition 18 prohibits construction under the ERP until the Department of Environmental Protection has issued a submerged land lease. As amended at the final hearing by District and accepted by Centex, Special Condition 20 requires Centex to maintain at least one trash receptacle at the terminus of the dock. The District staff report states that Centex has minimized the impacts of the project by reducing the length of the dock from 550 feet and its capacity from 22 slips. The staff report notes, as mentioned above, the relocation of the dock ten feet to the south and ten feet waterward, both changes to reduce impacts on seagrasses. The District staff report states that manatees probably use the area of the project for travel and foraging nearshore seagrass beds. Concerning the lease of sovereign submerged land, the District staff report acknowledges the waterward extent of Centex's ownership of submerged lands. As for the sovereign submerged land, the District staff report states, without explanation, that the docking facility is not more than 25 percent of the width of the "navigable portion of the waterbody," pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.004(4)(a)3, and is more than 100 feet from the federal navigation channel, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.004(4)(a)4. The District staff report attaches "Recommended Special Lease Conditions for Ocean Cay." These include a restriction that vessels moored at the dock clear the submerged bottom by at least one foot at all times while moored. Other provisions correspond to the special conditions attaching to the ERP, as described above. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, analysis of the proposed activity requires three determinations: first, does the proposed activity, unmitigated, adversely impact surface waters; second, if so, has Centex reduced or eliminated all such impacts through design modifications to the extent practicable; and third, if so, but if net impacts remain, has Centex adequately mitigated these net impacts? Absent mitigation, the construction of a 420-foot dock covering 2665 square-feet of water adversely impacts the water resources, most obviously by the immediate destruction of the seagrasses occupying the area in which at least 80 pilings will be installed and by the gradual destruction of the seagrasses that will be shaded by the dock and lose the light necessary for survival. Centex has incorporated into the proposed dock design all practicable modifications that could eliminate or reduce these adverse impacts to the surface waters. Centex has proposed a dock that is narrow, high, translucent, and nontoxic. To minimize the risk of prop dredging of the seagrass and bottom sediments, the dock's length and railings would limit mooring to relatively deeper water, and the boat-length restriction would effectively limit the reach of prop dredging. Even after these design modifications, however, adverse impacts to the surface waters remain that Centex must mitigate. The ultimate issue, then, is whether Centex has adequately mitigated the remaining impacts of the proposed activity by proposing sufficient affirmative acts to offset the remaining adverse impacts. Strictly speaking, mitigation consists of activities that are unnecessary for the desired activity--here, the construction of a dock--but are performed to offset the adverse impacts of the desired activity. In this case, Centex proposes three mitigation activities: the construction of a rock crib, the installation of a wave attenuator, and the erection of two seagrass warning signs. The adequacy of this proposed mitigation requires identification of the specific impacts to the surface waters and the efficacy of the mitigation in offsetting these impacts. As cited in the Conclusions of Law, the public-interest criteria set forth the elements requiring consideration. Except to the extent discussed in navigation, the dock will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or property of others. The narrow, long dock, which restricts mooring activity to its terminus over 400 feet from the shoreline, has no impact on the riparian rights of adjacent or nearby upland owners. Thus, no mitigation is necessary for this criterion. Even after mitigation, the dock will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including listed species, and their habitats. The most immediate impact of the dock is upon the seagrasses that presently grow on the bottom. Seagrasses, which are among the most productive communities known to nature, are vital to the health of the Lake Worth Lagoon. Seagrasses perform numerous functions important to the surface waters and, specifically, the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats: shelter for small fish and shellfish; food for a variety of small and larger organisms, including manatee and sea turtles; stabilization of bottom sediments, which improves water clarity; recycling of nutrients, including nitrogen--an important function for the water quality of the nitrogen-limited Lake Worth Lagoon; and formation of a substrate on which epiphytes may attach and provide food for a variety of organisms, including manatee and sea turtles. The mitigation activities offset some, but not all, of the functions provided by the seagrass that are lost by the construction of the dock. The rock crib probably will replace the function of the seagrass in stabilizing sediments. The rock crib probably will replicate some of the shelter function of the seagrass, although nothing in the record would support a finding that the crevices of the rock crib provide exactly the same shelter as the seagrass patches that will be destroyed by the dock. Thus, there is no basis to assume that the shelter functions of the seagrass are replaced by the shelter functions of the rock crib. Undoubtedly, the rock crib will not replace the food function of the seagrass. Some predators may find the same juvenile fish in the rock crib as they have found in the seagrass, and some organisms may find the same epiphytes attaching to the rock crib as they have found attaching to the seagrass. However, the organisms, such as manatee and sea turtles, that eat the seagrass itself will find the rock crib a poor food substitute. Additionally, the rock crib will perform none of the nutrient-fixing that seagrasses perform. The rock crib thus fails to perform the vital functions of seagrass in providing food for important species, such as the manatee, and fixing nutrients, which is important to improving or maintaining water quality. The wave attenuator is a potentially useful form of mitigation. Although a slight over-generalization, the seagrass thins to the point of near disappearance at a point in which the slope of the submerged bottom breaks--very roughly at about three feet deep. Centex's witnesses offered the better explanation of this phenomenon by linking it to the strong wakes produced by vessels motoring in the Intracoastal Waterway. Although the area of the proposed project is permanently slow speed, no wake, the Intracoastal Waterway channel has no speed limit, and the wakes from vessels in the channel pound the shallows, focusing considerable energy upon the rising bottom at the point at which the water depth reduces to three feet. The main problem with the wave attenuator as mitigation is one of scale. Nothing in the record suggests that the attenuator, even in conjunction with the rock crib beneath it, will attenuate the incoming waves along the entire length of the dock. The attenuator will absorb the energy of the waves, whether from passing vessels or storms, but the interrupted waves will rejoin a short distance landward of the attenuator, possibly waterward of the first appearance of significant seagrass. The wave attenuator is thus inadequate in preserving or enhancing the remaining seagrass following the construction of the dock. The signs suffer two shortcomings. First, they are as likely to attract fishers as they are to deter recreational boaters, so the record permits no finding as to their efficacy in preserving or enhancing the remaining seagrass following the construction of the dock. Second, the record discloses little prop dredging of the seagrasses in the proposed vicinity of the dock, so the effect of the signs is not to ameliorate the damage historically done in this area by boats. To the contrary, at best, the signs may reduce some of the prop dredging that would occur in the future by boats drawn close to shore by the presence of the dock, which will attract fish and, thus, fishers. For these reasons, the signs are inadequate mitigation. Considered in conjunction with each other, the three mitigation activities fail to address the important food and nutrient-fixing functions of the seagrass that would be destroyed by the dock. Ignoring the failure of the proposed mitigation to address two of the most important functions of the seagrass, District and Centex contend that the mitigation is adequate for other reasons. District and Centex contend that the loss of seagrass is de minimis, consisting of not more than .03 acres of destroyed seagrass, or about 2.2 percent of the seagrass in the project area. Although the east-west orientation of the dock results in more shading than an identical dock oriented north- south, the shading loss could be less due to commendable design modifications involving the width, height, and translucent materials of the dock. Adding to the loss of seagrass from shading is the loss from the "halo effect," which is the wider area of seagrass loss probably resulting from the effect of the dock in artificially attracting and retaining seagrass consumers, like parrot fish. The record thus affords no basis for a finding of a loss of less than .03 acres. Nor does the record afford any basis for determining that the seagrass loss is de minimis. If Lake Worth Lagoon has seagrass to spare, the record does not support such a finding. If the lost functions of the seagrass--primarily, providing food and fixing nutrients--are not de minimis, the question remains whether practicable mitigation for these functions exists. Although transplantation of seagrass may be impracticable due to poor water clarity, even one of Centex's experts noted the importance of filling holes for seagrass recruitment, given the inability of seagrass to extend roots laterally up or down slopes. District's expert identified backfilling submerged holes and scraping spoil islands as two means of encouraging natural seagrass recruitment. District's expert noted a practical consideration favoring rock cribs versus more elaborate, higher-maintenance mitigation. Rock cribs are low- or no-maintenance projects that require no monitoring, enforcement, or enhancement. However, these same considerations underscore the complexity of the functions provided by seagrass lost to the proposed activity. Mitigating the loss of these functions may be difficult and high-maintenance, if the mitigation is to offset the loss. On this record, a finding of impracticability of such mitigation activities would be speculative, given the absence of evidence of impracticability, such as in the form of the absence of nearby depressions with suitable recruitment conditions or seagrass restoration projects in which Centex could participate. An unusual factor militating against a finding of adequate mitigation is that one of the seagrasses is itself a protected species. Johnson's grass is rare and fragile. The dock would displace Johnson's grass in a location less than one mile north of one of ten federally designated Critical Habitats for Johnson's Seagrass and one of two such habitats in Lake Worth Lagoon. 50 C.F.R. § 226.213(h). In contrast to the permit conditions directly protecting the manatee, the record is silent as to any effort by District to coordinate this permit with the work of the federal government and possibly the state and local governments to preserve Lake Worth Lagoon's seagrass, including the threatened Johnson's grass. On balance, even after mitigation, the dock will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including listed species, and their habitats. The dock will not adversely affect navigation, the flow of water, and erosion or shoaling. Located only 1.5 miles from the inlet, tidal flows are good in the project area. The rock crib and wave attenuator, which tend to restrict east-west flows and waves, will have little impact on the tidal flows, which are predominantly in a north-south direction. The dock will not cause any erosion or shoaling. The dock will be lighted and should not present a navigation hazard. Larger vessels will remain a safe distance from the dock as they travel in the Intracoastal Waterway channel. Under normal boating conditions, small boats, such as kayaks, canoes, and small motorboats, can safety navigate under the five-foot deck and between the pilings spaced at a minimum distance of ten feet apart. The dock will not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values in the vicinity. To the contrary, the structure provided by the dock will probably attract and concentrate fish, making them easier to catch. In the longer term, even after mitigation, the dock will adversely affect marine productivity for the reasons discussed in connection with the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitat. The dock will not adversely affect any historical or archaeological resources. Even after mitigation, the dock will adversely affect the current conditions and relative value of functions for the reasons discussed in connection with the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitat. For the reasons set forth above, Centex has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activity, even after mitigation, is not harmful to the District's water resources, is not inconsistent with District's overall objectives, is not contrary to the public interest, will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by surface waters, and will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order denying Centex Homes' request for an environmental resource permit and approval to lease sovereign submerged lands for the purpose of constructing the above- described dock at Ocean Cay in the Lake Worth Lagoon. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida Marcy I. LaHart 33416-4680 Marcy I. LaHart, P.A. 711 Talladega Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33405 Ashley D. Foster South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road Mail Stop Code 1410 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 J. Kendrick Tucker Huey, Guilday, Tucker, Schwartz & Williams, P.A. Post Office Box 12500 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2500
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent HBJ Investments, Inc. is entitled to an environmental resource permit to facilitate the construction of the Betty Jones Spa on property adjacent to property owned by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact On November 17, 1998, Respondent HBJ Investments, Inc. (Applicant) filed an application (Application) with the South Florida Water Management District (District) for an environmental resource permit (ERP). The Application is for a Standard General (minor systems) ERP. The Application states that the proposed surface water management system is to serve a 11,564 square foot health spa with associated infrastructure improvements, such as parking, utilities, landscaping, and a stormwater detention facility. Section H of the Application responds to form questions that are intended to determine whether an application meets the requirements of a standard general ERP for a minor surface water system. Among the threshold requirements is that the proposed discharges from the site "will meet State water quality standards, and the surface water management system will meet the applicable technical criteria for stormwater management in the Basis of Review." Another threshold requirement is that the proposed activities will not cause significant adverse impacts individually or cumulatively. The Application states that the water quality treatment system will be on-line detention with effluent filtration. The Application and related documents describe the system in greater detail. The system consists of drains, inlets, a swale, an underground vault to provide effluent filtration through a sand filter and perforated pipe, an internal oil and grease skimmer, a control box, and a 15-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe providing outfall from the vault. By Notice of Final Agency Action for Approval dated February 4, 1999, the District proposed the issuance of a "Standard General for Minor Surface Water Management Systems" ERP for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed system (Permit). Permit Specific Condition 2 requires: "The discharges from this system shall meet state water quality standards as set forth in Chapter 62-302 and Rule 62-4.242, F.A.C., for class waters equivalent to the receiving waters." Permit Specific Condition 8 requires, for vault systems, that the system become dry within 72 hours after a rainfall event. Permit Specific Condition 9 requires the operation and maintenance entity to submit inspection reports for inspections to be performed every 18 months. Permit Specific Condition 10 requires a water quality monitoring program for systems, such as the proposed system, using an internal oil and grease skimmer. This condition obligates HBJ to take three samples during each of the first two annual rainy seasons following the commencement of operation of the system. The monitoring must take place immediately after rainfall events of sufficient magnitude to cause a discharge from the outfall structure. If the discharged water does not meet water quality standards for oil and grease, as established by Rule 62.302.510(3)(k), Florida Administrative Code, then the permittee must alter the system to attain compliance for this water quality parameter. The subject parcel is bounded by Fourth Avenue South on the north, First Street South on the east, Second Street South on the west, and an unnamed alley on the south. This site is just south of Al Lang Field. In its present state, the parcel is nearly entirely pervious surface. Some of the stormwater flowing onto the parcel percolates into the soils, and the remainder flows into City of Saint Petersburg stormwater sewers, from which it is carried about two city blocks to Tampa Bay, where it is discharged. The parcel was formerly used for single-family residential housing, but is now mostly cleared. The runoff from the site presently carries mostly sediments. After the proposed construction, 79 percent of the parcel would consist of impervious surface. Although small areas of the developed parcel might remain vegetated, and thus add nutrients into the runoff, the primary change in the runoff will consist of the addition of automobile-related contaminants, including, but not limited to, oil and grease. HBJ's engineer designed the proposed surface water management system to treat the first one-half inch of stormwater runoff. The engineer's report notes, in a letter dated November 13, 1998, that siltation in the vault reduces storage volume, so it is "required that cleaning be done every six (6) months." The report suggests the removal of grass clippings from the parking area, so that they are not transported to the retention vault. The report suggests that the underdrain system should be backflushed periodically, and the control structure should be checked monthly and all debris cleared. In general, the system would collect runoff from the roof downspouts and parking area. The system would provide treatment of the first 1/2 inch of runoff by capturing it in the vault, where it would filter through a layer of several cubic feet of sand before entering a perforated pipe leading to the City stormwater sewer. Runoff from rainfall in excess of the first 1/2 inch would receive little, if any, treatment. It is implicit that the first 1/2 inch of rainfall contains the first flush of contaminants from impervious surfaces. Nothing in the record specifies the efficacy of treatment provided by this standard, although it obviously is less than 100 percent efficient because of the higher standard imposed upon systems discharging into Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). However, a pre- and post-development analysis of the runoff from the subject parcel would reveal an unknown additional volume of runoff from the developed site, due to the replacement of pervious surface with impervious surface. It is unclear whether the developed site would generate a reduced volume of sediments in this increased volume of runoff. Although little vegetated surface would exist post-development, the record does not reveal the extent to which the pre-development pervious area fails to capture the sediments prior to their entering the City stormwater system. More problematic are the automobile-related contaminants, such as oil and grease, that will be introduced into the runoff by the developed site. Presumably, the runoff from the undeveloped site contains few, if any, such contaminants. Thus, any automobile-related contaminants discharged from the surface water management system would likely be an increase from the amount of such contaminants presently discharged from the site. The runoff from the developed site would enter the City of Saint Petersburg stormwater sewer system and would be released in the nearby Tampa Bay. The record does not disclose the stormwater sewer line transporting the discharge, nor the outfall of the line into Tampa Bay. By stipulation, the parties agreed that Tampa Bay is an OFW and that discharge from the developed site would enter the City of Saint Petersburg stormwater sewer system. Tampa Bay is classified as Class II waters, which are approved for shellfish harvesting. The record does not disclose the point of discharge of the City stormwater line that would receive discharge from the developed site. However, the proximity of the site to Tampa Bay strongly suggests that the outfall would be in Tampa Bay, and it is only slightly less probable that the outfall would be at a point in the bay in the immediate vicinity of the site. The record suggests that the waters of Tampa Bay likely to receive the discharge from the site are impaired. For example, water quality conditions mandated the closing of "Lower Tampa Bay" to shellfish harvesting, for an unstated period of time, effective at sunset on July 5, 1999. Also, the Department of Environmental Protection listed two bayous in the immediate vicinity of the site as noncompliant with federal water quality standards due to excessive coliform bacteria counts and nutrients and insufficient levels of dissolved oxygen. The Basis of Review (BOR) is a document adopted by the District. It contains specific "criteria" for permitting. However, as BOR Section 1.3 explains, the goal of these criteria is to meet District water resource objectives, and the criteria are "flexible." Alternative methods of meeting "overall objectives" may be acceptable, depending upon the "magnitude of specific or cumulative impacts." The criteria, which are flexible, are the means by which the District assures that it meets its objectives, which are not flexible. BOR Section 3.1.0 recognizes that "a wide array of biological, physical and chemical factors affect the functioning of any wetland or other surface water community. Maintenance of water quality standards in applicable wetlands and other surface waters is critical to their ability to provide many of these functions." BOR Section 3.1.0 elaborates: "It is the intent of the Governing Board [of the District] that the criteria in subsections 3.2 through 3.2.8 be implemented in a manner which achieves a programmatic goal and a project permitting goal of no net loss of wetlands or other surface water functions." BOR Section 3.1.1 requires that an applicant provide "reasonable assurance" of several things. BOR Section 3.1.1(a) requires that "a regulated activity will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish, wildlife and listed species, including aquatic and wetland dependent species, by wetlands and other surface waters and other water related resources of the District. (paragraph 40D-4.301(1)(d), F.A.C.) (see subsection 3.2.2)." BOR Section 3.1.1(c) provides that: a regulated activity will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the water quality standards set forth in Chapters 62-3, 62-4, 62-302, 62-520, 62-522 and 62-550, F.A.C., including any antidegradation provisions of Sections 62-4.242(1)(a) and (b), 62-4.242(2) and (3), and 62-302.300 and any special standards for Outstanding Florida Waters . . . set forth in sections 62-4.242(2) and (3), F.A.C., will be violated (paragraph 40D-4.301(1)(e), F.A.C.). BOR Section 3.1.1(d) provides that "a regulated activity . . . located in close proximity to Class II waters . . . will comply with the additional criteria in subsection 3.2.5 (paragraph 40D-4.302(1)(c), F.A.C.)." BOR Section 3.1.l(f) provides that "a regulated activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources (paragraph 40D-4.301(1)(f), F.A.C.) (see subsection 3.2.7)." BOR Section 3.1.1(g) provides that "a regulated activity will not cause adverse cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters . . . (paragraph 40D-4.302(1)(b), F.A.C.) (see subsection 3.2.8)." BOR Section 3.2.4 provides that an applicant must provide "reasonable assurance that the regulated activity will not violate water quality standards in areas where water quality standards apply. . . . The following requirements are in addition to the water quality requirements found in Chapter 5." BOR Section 3.2.4.2(c) provides that the applicant must address the long-term water quality impacts of a proposed system, including "prevention of any discharge or release of pollutants from the system that will cause water quality standards to be violated." BOR Section 3.2.5 provides: The special value and importance of shellfish harvesting waters to Florida's economy as existing or potential sites of commercial and recreational shellfish harvesting and as a nursery area for fish and shell fish is recognized by the District. In accordance with section 3.1.1.(d), the District shall: (b) deny a permit for a regulated activity in any class of waters where the location of the system is adjacent or in close proximity to Class II waters, unless the applicant submits a plan or proposes a procedure which demonstrates that the regulated activity will not have a negative effect on the Class II waters and will not result in violations of water quality standards in the Class II waters. BOR Section 3.2.7 provides that an applicant must provide "reasonable assurance" that "a regulated activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resource" as described in this section. However, this section explicitly disregards negligible or remotely related secondary impacts. BOR Section 3.2.8 provides that an applicant must provide "reasonable assurance" that "a regulated activity will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters " BOR Section 4.2 limits off-site discharge "to amounts which will not cause adverse off-site impacts." For a proposed activity within an open drainage basin, as is the subject proposed activity, the allowable discharge is (presumably the greatest of) any amount determined in previous District permits, the legally allowable discharge at the time of the permit application, or historic discharge. Historic discharge is the peak rate at which runoff leaves a parcel of land by gravity under existing site conditions. BOR Section 5.1 requires that proposed discharges meet applicable state water quality standards. This chapter of the BOR requires that proposed systems satisfy certain quantitative criteria, depending on the type of water treatment system. However, BOR Section 5.1 warns: in certain instances a design meeting those standards may not result in compliance with the state water quality standards referenced above. Unless an applicant has provided reasonable assurance that a design will not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards, the District may apply more stringent design and performance standards than are otherwise required by this chapter. Projects designed to the criteria found in this section shall be presumed to provide reasonable assurance of compliance with the state water quality standards referenced above. . . . BOR Section 5.2 sets quantitative criteria for various types of surface water management systems. The subject system is a detention, on-line treatment system. BOR Section 1.7.5 defines "detention" as the "delay of storm runoff prior to discharge into receiving waters." BOR Section 1.7.28 defines "on-line treatment system" as a "dual purpose system that collects project runoff for both water quality and water quantity requirements. Water quality volumes are recovered through percolation and evaporation while water quantity volumes are recovered through a combination of percolation, evaporation, and surface discharge." BOR Section 5.2.b applies to "[d]etention with effluent filtration system (manmade underdrains)." BOR Section 5.2.b.1 provides that proposed activities draining less than 100 acres "shall treat the runoff from . . . the first one-half inch runoff." BOR Section 5.2.b.6 adds: "Maintenance of filter includes proper disposal of spent filter material." BOR Section 5.2.c applies to "on-line treatment system[s]." This section also requires the treatment of the first one-half inch of runoff. However, BOR Section 5.2.e provides: Projects discharging directly into Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) shall be required to provide treatment for a volume 50 percent more than required for the selected treatment system . . .. Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed surface water management system would not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands and would not cause flooding. In terms of water quantity, the proposed system is designed to meet the requirements of the ten-year storm. The subject site is a short distance from Tampa Bay, and, as already noted, it is very likely that the runoff discharges into Tampa Bay at a location not far from the subject site. Thus, water quantity and flooding are irrelevant to this case. However, Applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the proposed surface water management system would not cause adverse impacts to the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife by nonwetland surface waters and would not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. The receiving waters of the discharge from the subject site are Class II waters that are OFW. However, these waters are also impaired sufficiently as to be in violation of certain federal water quality standards and to require the closure, at least at times, of shellfish harvesting. There are three deficiencies in the proposed permit. First, it does not specify, in clear and enforceable language, an inspection and maintenance program, which includes the undertaking by the Applicant to backwash the system at specified intervals, to replace the sand filtration medium at specified intervals, to dispose of the sand filtration medium so that the captured contaminants do not reenter waters of the state, to monitor the water discharged from the oil and grease skimmer at specified intervals following the first two years' monitoring, and generally to take any necessary action to correct deficiencies uncovered from inspections. Second, the treatment of the first 1/2 inch of runoff is insufficient for the system, which is discharging directly into an OFW. BOR Section 5.2.e raises this standard to 3/4 inch. Direct discharges requires the identification of the first receiving waters. Receiving waters are waters of the state that are classifiable as Class I-V waters. Receiving waters thus do not include waters in a stormwater sewer pipe, which are not waters of the state nor are they classifiable. Water quality determinations often require comparison of the quality of the discharged water with quality of the receiving waters. The off-site piping of the discharged water does not preclude such comparison. In such case, the analysis extends to the first receiving waters into which the pipe empties. The District's argument to the contrary invites circumvention of those provisions enacted and promulgated for the protection of OFWs. For example, several owners of land abutting an OFW could establish a jointly owned stormwater sewer line so that the point of comparison for their discharge would be the waters in the pipe rather than the OFW. Third, Applicant failed to submit a plan or propose a procedure demonstrating that the proposed activity would not have a negative effect on the Class II waters of Tampa Bay and would not result in violations of water quality standards in these Class II waters. The District failed to determine the outfall of the discharge from the subject site, so it failed to enforce the requirement of the plan required by BOR 3.2.5 for the protection of the special value of Class II waters. Although required to account for cumulative impacts, the plan will necessarily reflect the characteristics of the site--e.g., 1.6 acres contributing largely automobile-based contaminants and not nutrients--and the characteristics of the receiving waters--e.g., Tampa Bay is vast and relatively impaired, though, in the vicinity of the subject site, more likely due to excessive nutrients.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order denying the ERP application of HBJ Investments, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: E. D. "Sonny" Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 John R. Thomas Wyckoff & Thomas, P.A. 233 Third Street North, Suite 102 Saint Petersburg, Florida 33701 Michael Jacobs Director, Legal Affairs 25 Second Street North, Suite 160 Saint Petersburg, Florida 33701 Anthony J. Mutchler Assistant General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
Findings Of Fact The Applicant/Respondents, Melvin and Mary Thayer have applied to the Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) for a "dredge and fill permit" seeking authorization to remove an existing 32-foot wooden fence and install in its place a chain-link fence, which as originally applied for would not extend more than 32 feet waterward from the 64-foot mean sea level elevation of Alligator Lake as marked by the waterward end of the existing wooden fence. The fence proposed would be five feet high and would possess a gate at its landward end which would permit pedestrian passage in both directions around the near-shore area of the lake. The project site is located approximately 400 feet south of U.S. 441-192 and adjacent to Alligator Lake, lying one mile west from Bay Lake within Section 10, Township 26 South, Range 31 East in Osceola County, Florida. As clarified and amended prior to hearing, the application now requests the permit to authorize, instead, a 26-foot fence extending that distance waterward from the 64-foot mean sea level elevation. The Department has permitting jurisdiction under Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes as well as Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. There is no dispute that the Department has jurisdiction of the permitting of the subject fence inasmuch as the fence would be constructed waterward of the 64-foot mean sea level elevation or the "high pool" level of Alligator Lake in Class III waters of the state. Additionally, the area of the project waterward of the 64- foot mean sea level elevation lies on sovereign lands of the State of Florida under the jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources. That Department, as yet, has not issued a permit for use of sovereign land for the intended purpose as envisioned by Section 253.77, Florida Statutes. Ed Edmunson was tendered by both Respondents as an expert witness and was accepted as to his expertise in biological assessment of dredge and fill construction projects. It was thus established that the construction and installation of the fence and removal of the existing fence would cause no Class III water quality violations. Additionally, it was established that no navigational impediment would result from the fence as presently proposed which only involves a 26-foot fence extending from the 64-foot mean sea level elevation waterward in a perpendicular direction from the shore and near-shore of Alligator Lake. Parenthetically it should be noted that the original proposal involved extending the fence 32-feet waterward and then installing a right angle section parallel to the shoreline for an indeterminate distance. The right angle portion of the fence has been deleted from the permit application and the portion perpendicular to the shoreline has been amended from 32 feet down to 26 feet from the 64-foot mean sea level elevation. In that connection, it was established by witness Walter, accepted as an expert in the field of engineering, that on January 7, 1985, the water line of Alligator Lake was at 62.4 feet mean sea level elevation and the end of the existing 32-foot wooden fence was 16 feet from the then existing waterline of the lake. If the water in the lake was at the 64 feet mean sea level elevation or "high pool" stage, which has occurred on the average of once every three years, the water at the end of the fence would still be only .9 feet in depth at the waterward extreme end of the proposed 26-foot fence. Indeed, it was established with- out contradiction by the Applicant, Melvin Thayer, that in the 17 or 18 years he has observed the project site, that only "seven or eight inches of water is the most depth he has seen at the end of the fence." Thus, the fence as proposed to be installed, will pose no impediment or hazard to the navigation of fishing boats, skiing boats or other craft, and, in that regard, a dock in close proximity to the site of the proposed fence extends approximately 90 feet waterward at the present time. In view of the Petitioner's other objection to the fence concerning their feared loss of access to walk around the near-shore area of the lake to visit friends and the like, the permit applicants have agreed to install a gate for public access anywhere specified by the Department along the extent of the proposed fence. The testimony of Petitioner's witnesses, including a representative of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, consists largely of objections to the precedent of permitting a private fence to be constructed in the waters of the state and on state water bodies, but no impediment to navigation has been established especially since the neighboring dock and numerous other docks around the shoreline of the lake extend waterward much farther than will the proposed fence. No degradation to water quality has been established to result from the proposed project. The fence has not been shown to be contrary to the public interest since it will not interfere with wildlife habitat or natural resources, nor impede navigation in any way, and was shown not to impede any public use of the lake or the near-shore area of the lake, in view of the access gate to be provided in the fence. In short, reasonable assurances have been provided that all permitting criteria within the Department's jurisdiction at issue in this proceeding will be complied with, although a permit from the Department of Natural Resources authorizing use of the state lands involved has not been issued as yet.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the application of Melvin and Mary Thayer for authority to remove an existing fence and to install a fence extending 26 feet waterward of the 64-foot mean sea level elevation of Alligator Lake with an attendant public access gate installed therein be GRANTED upon satisfaction of the above-stated condition. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of January, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia M. Hoover, MSM Consultant 5366 East Space Coast Parkway St. Cloud, Florida 32769 Norman J. Smith, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1549 Kissimmee, Florida 32741 B. J. Owens, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether to approve an application by Respondent, I.M. Collier, J.V. (Collier), to modify its Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 11-02031P (2002 Permit) by changing the surface water management system (SWMS) for a proposed residential and golf course development in Collier County (County), Florida, known as Mirasol.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties National Audubon Society, Inc. is a not-for-profit corporation (incorporated outside the State of Florida) while Collier County Audubon Society, Inc., Florida Wildlife Federation, and Conservancy of Southwest Florida are Florida not-for-profit corporations. All are environmental organizations. Franklin Adams is a resident of the County and a member of each of the above organizations. Respondents have not contested Petitioners' standing based upon the stipulated facts set forth in the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation. The District is a water management district with the power and duty to exercise regulatory jurisdiction over the administration and enforcement of ERP criteria pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Title 40E. Collier is the holder of the 2002 Permit authorizing the construction of a SWMS to serve the Mirasol project, a large development located in the County. The parties have stipulated that Collier has the administrative, legal, and financial capabilities to undertake the proposed activity. Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.301(1)(j). The Project Site The Mirasol project consists of approximately 1,713.45 acres located on the north side of Immokalee Road and the Cocohatchee Canal (Canal) in the northern half of the County, approximately three miles east of the intersection with Interstate 75. The property spans three sections of land, the northern third of the property encompassing Section 10, the middle third encompassing Section 15, and the southern third encompassing most of Section 22. The site also includes a peninsula of land extending east of Section 10, encompassing the northernmost quarter of Section 11. The site is bounded on the south by the Canal and Immokalee Road and on the east by an existing residential development known as Heritage Bay, which was previously a rock- mining quarry. To the west of the site, running north to south, are two other proposed residential developments known as Parklands Collier and Terafina/Saturnia Falls and an existing residential and golf course community known as Olde Cypress. There are other existing and proposed residential developments and farm fields to the north of the site. The site is located southwest of the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary (Corkscrew Swamp), which is owned by the National Audubon Society, Inc., and appears to stretch from Immokalee (in the northeastern part of the County) south and southwestward through parts of the County. Corkscrew Swamp sits roughly at the center of a 315-mile watershed, much of which is comprised of short hydroperiod wetlands which dry down completely during the late winter and spring and become inundated again in the late summer and fall during the wet season. This water gradually sheet flows down a very slight downhill gradient toward the south and west. A portion of the sheet flow travels southwest in the vicinity of the site. The region has experienced occasional floods, the most severe of which occurred in 1995. At the direction of the District, the cause of the flooding was investigated in the South Lee County Watershed Study (Study), which concluded that the watershed discharges through a variety of outfalls, but that historic connections to downstream conveyances like the Canal were severed by the construction. While downstream conveyances exist, the Study concluded that connections between upstream flows and downstream conveyances should be enhanced or restored. In the late 1990s, the Canal was improved to increase its conveyance capacity. A berm was constructed by the Big Cypress Basin Board (Basin Board), a legislatively-created entity which manages water resources in the County, on the northern bank in the vicinity of, and across from, the Mirasol site. This berm prevented historic wet season sheet flow from reaching the Canal through the project site, except for a few culverts located along that water body. The Basin Board also built a 1,000-foot-long hardened concrete weir on the north side of the Canal a few thousand yards west of the project site. This weir provides the primary outlet for sheet flow in and around the Mirasol site. Currently, upstream drainage flows in a southwesterly direction across Section 10. As the water moves south to the Canal, the flow becomes constricted down to a 580-foot wide gap between the Olde Cypress residential development and commercial developments along Immokalee Road to the east. This constricted area further narrows to a 270-foot wide opening before the sheet flow reaches the 1,000-foot weir and discharges into the Canal. During a 3-day, 25-year storm event, a combined peak flow of 553 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water is discharged into the Canal through the 1,000-foot weir, but the Mirasol property only conveys a small portion of this water (around 20 cfs) through culverts in the Canal berm. Most of the water flows to the west of Mirasol where it passes through the narrow gap and over the 1,000-foot weir. Around 1,431 acres of the 1,714-acre site are jurisdictional wetlands. However, these wetlands are in poor condition due to existing impediments to sheet flow, artificially high water levels during the wet season, and heavy infestation of exotic species, principally melaleuca. Permit History In February 2002, the District issued the 2002 Permit approving the construction of a SWMS to serve two 18-hole golf courses, a single-family residential community, a golf course clubhouse and parking area, golf course maintenance facilities, sales facility, and parking area. The issuance of the 2002 Permit was not challenged. The SWMS included a 36.5-acre flow-way (Flow-Way) that encircled the northern boundary of the development in Section 15 and extended off-site and across adjacent properties to the west. (If constructed, the Flow-Way would be a 200-foot wide, 4-foot deep, 89-acre channel, more than half of which would have been located on the Saturnia Falls/Terafina and Olde Cypress properties.) Besides providing a conveyance function for the Mirasol site, the Flow-Way also enhanced flood protection for other properties by accelerating conveyance of floodwaters to the Canal and reducing peak flood stages by 0.4 feet during a three-day, 25-year storm event. The District included Special Condition 26 in the 2002 Permit, which required construction of the Flow-Way before the remainder of the project could be constructed. The 2002 Permit authorized Collier to directly impact (fill or excavate) 568.66 acres of wetlands within the footprint of the development. Additionally, 39.5 acres of wetlands, which were isolated remnant strips along the golf courses within the development, were considered secondarily impacted and assessed a thirty-three percent reduction in functional value. Mitigation for the project consisted of preservation and enhancement of wetlands and uplands on site. Enhancement of the preserve areas was primarily credited to the eradication of malaleuca and other exotic species and replanting with appropriate native vegetation. Permit conditions required management of the preserve areas to prevent a recurrence of exotic species. The preserve areas included an 846.95-acre external preserve area to the north and northeast of the area to be developed. It was anticipated that this northern preserve area would ultimately be donated to an existing mitigation area known as the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed, along with an interest-bearing fund to ensure perpetual management. In December 2005, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) denied Collier's federal wetlands permit application for the project and the Flow-Way. Because of this denial, in May 2006 Collier submitted an ERP application with the District seeking to modify the 2002 Permit by revising the SWMS and removing the Flow-Way. On October 12, 2006, the District Governing Board approved a modification to the 2002 Permit, which authorized an alternate SWMS to serve the golf course and residential development (2006 Permit). Petitioners' challenge to the proposed modification followed. The 2006 Modification Because of the Corps' denial of its application, Collier was required to remove the Flow-Way and redesign the project's SWMS. The most substantial change in the project was the removal of the Flow-Way and associated control structures and its replacement with a series of interconnected lakes running from north to south through the property allowing for the pass-through of surface waters from the area north of the development site into the Canal. The modification does not alter the boundaries and location of the development. However, the revised SWMS includes: five controlled basins with a total area of 718.43 acres, each of which provides treatment of stormwater prior to discharging into the pass-through system; 45.16 acres of interconnected lakes serving as a pass-through for surface waters from the north; 2.12 acres of perimeter berm backslope/ buffers/spreader swales; and 7.27 acres along the Canal for the existing 100-foot wide canal easement and proposed canal contouring. These changes also required elimination of the 39.5 acres of remnant wetlands inside the development that had previously been assessed as secondarily impacted. Also, there were 0.68 acres of additional impacts resulting from slight changes in the internal site design due to the SWMS. To partially offset these impacts, the internal wetland preserves were enlarged by 13.32 acres. The remaining impacts were mitigated with mitigation credits from the Panther Island Mitigation Bank (PIMB). (The PIMB holds a mitigation bank permit issued by the District for a wetland restoration project in Southwest Florida.) The main preserve was left unchanged, except that 36.5 acres previously dedicated to construction of the Flow-Way will be added to the main preserve and similarly enhanced and preserved. In summary, as modified under the 2006 Permit, the total onsite mitigation consists of the preservation and enhancement of 830.89 acres of wetlands, preservation of 109.58 acres of uplands, and the purchase of a total of 5.68 credits from the PIMB. At hearing, Collier also agreed to purchase from the PIMB an additional 5.68 credits within the Basin for a total of 11.36 credits. The ERP Permitting Criteria To obtain an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions in Florida Administrative Code Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. The first rule focuses primarily on water quantity, environmental impacts, and water quality, while the second rule generally requires that a public interest balancing test be made, that cumulative impacts, if any, be considered, and that the District consider past violations, if any, by the applicant of District or Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) rules. (The parties have cited no prior violations by the applicant that should be considered.) Besides these two rules, a number of BOR provisions which implement the rule criteria must also be taken into account. If an applicant proposes to modify an existing ERP, as it does here, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.331(2)(a) comes into play and requires that the District review the application to modify the ERP "using the same criteria as new applications for those portions of the project proposed for, or affected by, the modification." Under this rule, those portions of the project altered or affected by the modification are reviewed under the current ERP criteria, but otherwise the 2002 Permit is not the subject of review in this case. Therefore, the District's review includes only that portion of the existing permit that is proposed to be modified or affected by the modification. In this case, the 2006 design is very similar to the 2002 design, and the project's footprint, control elevations, roadway network, southern outfall, and main preserve are unchanged. However, as pointed out below, since most of the engineering-related components of the SWMS were affected by the Flow-Way's removal, the District reassessed the hydrologic components of the internal water management system and the pass- through lake system for levels of flood protection and water quality treatment. Because most of the engineering-related components of the SWMS for the project were modified as a result of the removal of the Flow-Way, the District staff reassessed the project's hydrologic calculations associated with levels of flood protection and reassessed the project's water quality treatment volumes applying the currently existing ERP criteria. As to wetland impacts and mitigation, review of the wetland impacts for the 2006 Permit was limited to an analysis of additional wetlands impacts associated with the modification. This was primarily the elimination of the previously permitted, secondarily impacted wetlands. Thus, only the additional wetlands impacts due to the revised SWMS are considered under the currently existing ERP criteria. The 2006 Permit made only slight changes to the project's wetland impacts and mitigation components authorized under the 2002 Permit. The project's footprint was not changed and the main mitigation area (the Northern Preserve) was unaffected by the changes except that 36.50 acres were actually added to that preserve as a result of the removal of the Flow- Way. Collier did not receive any credit in its mitigation analysis for the additional acreage that will become part of the preserve due to the removal of the Flow-Way. Surface Water Management Criteria As noted above, the ERP criteria in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301 focus primarily on three areas of concern: water quantity, environmental impacts, and water quality. Related BOR provisions must also be considered. These areas of concern are discussed below. Water Quantity Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a) requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurance that the construction of a SWMS "[w]ill not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands." BOR Section 6.2 implements that provision and requires that a project be designed so that it is consistent with the downstream carrying capacity of the receiving waters. In other words, it must not exceed the capacity of downstream receiving waters, which in this case is the Canal. In making this determination, Section 6.3 of the BOR requires that the 25-year, 3-day design storm event be used. Collier complied with this requirement through an extensive hydrologic study conducted by its expert, Richard S. Tomasello, a former District employee. Applying a hydrologic model simulation known as S2DMM, the witness determined the appropriate amount of upstream sheet flow that would need to be routed through the project to avoid adverse water quantity and flooding impacts and calculated the correct dimensions of the intake weir to admit that flow into the project's pass-through system. The S2DMM model is a combination of other accepted models including the Sheet 2d, Massmod, and MBR models, which were developed by Mr. Tomasello, and they have been evaluated and used by the District on numerous occasions. In addition, the S2DMM model has been used for other flood studies in Collier and Lee Counties, and it will be used on a restoration project in Martin County. Based upon Mr. Tomasello's analysis, Collier incorporated a 100-foot-long intake weir with a crest elevation of 14.95 NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum) along the northern boundary of the project to maintain existing upstream water elevations. Collier also complied with BOR Section 6.3, which requires the use of a 25-year, 3-day storm event to be used when computing the discharge rate for the project. The modified intake weir on the northern boundary includes two 3.5-foot wide rectangular notches set at an elevation of 14.00 NGVD, which will provide a "base flow" of up to 20 cfs into the pass-through lakes to mimic the current flow through the property. The determination of this base flow was made through an analysis of the existing culverts at the southern end of the property. While not required by the ERP criteria, Collier also performed a long-term analysis (using a four-year period of record) of the SWMS's effect upon water levels. This analysis demonstrated that the modified system would leave water levels in the wetland areas upstream of the project unchanged during normal rainfall and low-flow periods. This analysis provides additional assurances that the modifications to the SWMS will not affect the Northern Preserve. While Petitioners questioned the accuracy and reliability of the hydrologic study, and its specific application to this project, the criticisms are considered to be vague and unsubstantiated. As noted above, the model has been previously accepted for use in South Florida, and Petitioners' expert conceded he did not have enough information to determine the model's accuracy. The more persuasive evidence established that the hydrologic study submitted by Collier included the relevant available data and was prepared by competent professionals knowledgeable in the field. The claim of Petitioners' experts that they lacked sufficient information to form an opinion on the accuracy of the modeling is not a sufficient basis to overcome the evidence submitted by Collier to meet this criterion. The project's discharge rate in 2006 will not exceed what was permitted in the 2002 Permit. During the 25-year, 3-day storm event, the existing discharge from the project site and the natural area west of the project site into the Canal is 553 cfs. Based on modeling of the modified SWMS, the total discharge from the pass-through system will be 529 cfs, or 24 cfs less than the project's existing pre-development discharge. The discharges resulting from the project as modified in 2006 will not exceed the capacity of the Canal as required by Section 6.3 of the BOR. Accordingly, Collier has provided reasonable assurance that the discharge rate allowed for its project would not be exceeded, as required in Section 6.2 of the BOR. Section 6.8 of the BOR requires that a project allow the passage of drainage from offsite areas to downstream areas, which is necessary to demonstrate that off-site receiving water bodies are not being adversely affected. Collier complied with this provision by conducting the hydrologic analysis using the 25-year, 3-day design storm event, which demonstrated that the discharge rate would be directed to the southern discharge point allowing for the passage of drainage from offsite areas to the downstream areas. The evidence also shows that the current predominant sheetflow from areas outside the project passes through a narrowly constricted area west of the project and discharges into the Canal over an existing concrete weir. See Finding of Fact 9, supra. Only a small portion of the upstream waters currently discharge through the Mirasol site. Petitioners' allegation that the construction of the project will further constrict the sheetflow area is rejected, as the constriction of sheetflow will continue to exist whether the project is built or not. The evidence also shows that the project will not further constrict the flow because it will allow for the pass-through of water from outside the project area. Under the 2002 Permit, the Flow-Way was designed to aid in the diversion of upstream flows around the project. Under the 2006 modifications, the pass-through lake system will convey up to forty percent of the upstream flow through the development which complies with the provisions of Section 6.8 of the BOR. As indicated above, during periods of lower water levels, the notches in the weir along the northern boundary will allow for the flow to pass onto the project site consistent with existing conditions. During major storm events, water will pass over the weir into the pass-through lake system to be conveyed to the Canal. Therefore, Collier has provided reasonable assurance that the criteria in Section 6.8 have been met. Section 6.10 of the BOR requires that the project be designed to conserve water and site environmental values and not lower the water table or groundwater or over-drain wetlands. Section 6.11 of the BOR provides that the control and detention elevations for the project must be established at elevations to accomplish the objectives of Section 6.10. The latter section is adhered to when the control elevations proposed for a project are established consistent with the onsite wetland conditions. In this case, the control elevations for the wetlands and surface water management lakes are essentially the same as the design in the 2002 Permit. Collier has set the control elevations above the average wet season water table (WSWT) for the area, thereby ensuring that the SWMS will not over-drain and will conserve fresh water. Section 6.11 of the BOR addresses Detention and Control Elevations which are intended to assist in complying with the provisions of Section 6.10. The SWMS design control elevation maintains the detention component and the control (wetland protection) elevations in the previously approved SWMS. The control elevations were set by the design engineers in consultation with Collier's wetland ecologist taking into account the ground elevations and biological indicators. The control elevation for the pass-through system and internal drainage basins work in conjunction with the control elevation along the northern boundary of the project and the control elevation for the discharge point along the southern boundary to ensure that the project does not overdrain the wetlands and to preserve the project site's environmental values. By setting the control elevation above the WSWT, the design ensures that the wetlands will not be drawn down below the average WSWT and the SWMS will not over-drain them. Section 6.10 also requires that a project not lower water tables so that the existing rights of others would be adversely affected. Again, based on the control elevations, the water table is not expected to be lowered so there should be no effect on the existing rights of others. Collier must further demonstrate that the site's groundwater recharge characteristics will be preserved through the design of the SWMS. Collier complied with this requirement by setting the control elevations above the average WSWT, allowing standing water in the wetland preserves to recharge the groundwater. The ability of the SWMS to accept flows from the Northern Preserve conserves freshwater by preventing that water from being discharged downstream. The SWMS leaves water elevations in the Northern Preserve unchanged. Consequently, water will remain in the wetlands for the same duration and elevations as in the existing conditions, thereby preserving groundwater recharge characteristics. Section 6.12 of the BOR prohibits lake designs that create an adverse gradient between the control elevations of the lakes and the adjacent wetlands. To satisfy this requirement, Collier set all control elevations at 13.4 - 13.5 NGVD while controlling the internal wetland preserves at a slightly higher elevation. Consequently, there is no adverse gradient and no potential for an adverse effect upon the internal preserves from adjacent lakes. Petitioners argued that the pass-through system would quickly lower water levels in the internal wetland preserves. However, the internal wetlands are still protected from drawdown because there are control structures set at or above the wet season elevation between the pass-through lakes and internal wetlands. They also argued that the internal wetlands would be overdrained during the dry season by the deep lakes. However, no witness presented any real analysis to back up this contention. Indeed, the pass-through lakes are only twelve feet deep, and the wetlands are separated from all the lakes by protective berms to avoid any drawdown. In summary, Collier has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed modification in the 2006 Permit will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters or adjacent lands and will not exceed the capacity of the downstream receiving waters (the Canal). Flooding Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(b) requires Collier to demonstrate that the project "[w]ill not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property." BOR Section 6.4 sets forth criteria and standards for implementing this requirement and provides that building floors be designed to be protected from a 100-year, 3-day storm event. BOR Section 6.5 provides criteria and standards for flood protection for the project's roads and parking lots. Collier complied with these provisions by providing construction plans demonstrating that the building floors and roads will be built higher than the 100-year, 3-day storm event. BOR Section 6.6 provides that a project may not result in any net encroachment into the 100-year floodplain. Collier was also required to comply with the historic basin provision in Section 6.7 of the BOR, which requires the project to replace or otherwise mitigate the loss of historic basin storage provided by the site. The level of encroachment into the 100-year flood plain and loss of historic basin storage attributed to the project are essentially unchanged from the 2002 design. The only difference between the 2002 Permit and the 2006 Permit is how the conveyance of flood water is provided. In 2002, the Flow-Way served this function, while the pass-through system provides it in the 2006 Permit. Collier's flood simulations demonstrated that the project will not alter flood stages during the 25-year and 100- year design storms, while the testimony of witnesses Tomasello and Waterhouse established that the project will not have adverse flooding impacts on adjacent properties, either alone or in conjunction with neighboring developments. Storage and Conveyance Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c) requires that an applicant demonstrate that the proposed development "[w]ill not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities." This criterion is closely related to paragraph (1)(b) of the same rule, which prohibits adverse flooding to onsite or offsite property. Section 6.6 of the BOR implements this provision and specifies the parameters for applying this criterion and prohibits a net encroachment between the WSWT and the 100-year event which will adversely affect the existing rights of others. Collier addressed this criterion through the hydrologic analysis submitted. As previously found, that model is the appropriate model to determine flood stages and to calculate the floodplain. Engineering Design Principles Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the SWMS "[w]ill be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed." Section 7.0 of the BOR contains the specific standards and criteria to implement this rule. The evidence demonstrates that the SWMS is based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles and is capable of performing and functioning as proposed. Section 8.0 of the BOR includes various assumptions and information regarding the design of the SWMS. By incorporating these assumptions into the design, Collier complied with Section 8.0. Water Quality Impacts Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) requires that the proposed modification "[w]ill not adversely affect the quality of the receiving waters such that the water quality standards set forth in Chapters 62-4, 62-302, 62-520, 62-522 and 62-550, F.A.C., including any antidegradation provisions of paragraphs 62-4.242(1)(a) and (b), subsections 62- 4.242(2) and (3), and Rule 62-302.300, F.A.C., and any special standards for Outstanding Florida Waters and Outstanding National Resource Waters set forth in subsections 62-4.242(2) and (3), F.A.C., will be violated." Stated more plainly, the proposed modifications must not adversely affect the quality of the Canal's waters such that State water quality standards will be violated. Section 5.2 of the BOR describes the District's standard water quality criteria. This provision, which requires a minimum of one-inch detention of stormwater, is referred to as a "presumptive criteria" because it is presumed that if an applicant provides the required one inch of detention, it meets Class III water quality standards, thereby satisfying the rule. As it did under the 2002 Permit, Collier satisfies the presumptive criteria with the 2006 design by providing the one- inch wet detention in its lake system. In fact, the system is designed to provide one and a half inches of treatment in the lake system thereby providing additional treatment. The receiving body of water for the project is the Canal. When the 2002 Permit was issued, the Canal was classified as a Class III water body. It is now classified by DEP as impaired for iron and dissolved oxygen. Because of this new classification, Collier must now comply with Section 4.2.4.5 of the BOR, which reads as follows: If the site of the proposed activity currently does not meet water quality standards, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the water quality standards by meeting the provisions in 4.2.4.1, 4.2.4.2, and 4.2.4.3, as applicable, and for the parameters which do not meet water quality standards, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed activity will not contribute to the existing violation. If the proposed activity will contribute to the existing violation, mitigation may be proposed as described in subsection 4.3.1.4. Collier demonstrated that neither short-term (during construction) nor long-term (during operation) water quality impacts will occur. It complied with the short-term requirements by submitting a Construction Pollution Prevention Plan detailing how water quality will be protected during the construction process. As to long-term impacts, the Terrie Bates Water Quality Memorandum (Bates Memo) prepared by District staff on June 11, 2004, provides guidance on the implementation of Section 4.2.4.5 for projects which discharge into an impaired water body. The document sets forth a number of design and operational criteria for the types of additional measures that can be incorporated into a project design to provide the necessary reasonable assurance. The Bates Memo suggests that an additional fifty percent of treatment be incorporated into a SWMS. Collier complied with this suggestion by designing the treatment lakes to provide an additional one-half inch of treatment for the additional fifty percent treatment. In addition to the one and one-half inch treatment, Collier is implementing six of the seven items the Bates Memo lists as potential options to consider. The long-term water quality requirement is addressed by Collier, in part, through an Urban Stormwater Management Plan, which details various source controls or best management practices to be implemented once the project is built and operating. Best management practices assist in ensuring that pollutants will not enter into the lake system. Collier is also implementing a stormwater pollution prevention plan and will utilize the lake system for additional treatment downstream. Collier has further agreed to planting the littoral zones as part of its design of the treatment lakes to provide additional pollutant removal. The design calls for an amount of littoral zones equal to twenty percent of the surface area of the treatment lakes. Collier has agreed to make a Water Quality Monitoring Plan a permit condition, even though such a condition was not included in the staff report. See Collier Exhibit 25. The Bates Memo includes as an option for meeting the long-term requirement a site-specific water quality evaluation of pre vs. post-development pollutant loadings. Collier has presented several such analyses, all of which indicate the post- development pollutant discharges from the site will be less than the pre-development. Mr. Barber prepared a pre vs. post- analysis using a 2003 methodology developed by Dr. Harper. The 2003 version of the Harper methodology is currently accepted by the Corps. (Although Petitioners' witness, a former Corps employee, suggested that the Corps' acceptance of the study was a "political" rather than a scientific decision, there is insufficient evidence to support this contention.) Besides his first analysis, at the direction of the District staff, Mr. Barber prepared a second analysis using the 2003 methodology with certain conservative assumptions that limited the pollutant residents time to fifty days and utilized lower starting concentrations for phosphorous and nitrogen than were recorded in the nearby monitoring stations. Based upon those reports, the District's staff concluded that Collier had provided reasonable assurances that the project met the criteria in BOR Sections 5.2 and 4.2.4.5. At the hearing, Mr. Barber presented a third analysis utilizing an updated methodology developed by Dr. Harper in February 2006. The 2006 methodology was developed after Dr. Harper conducted a study of water management district criteria throughout the state for DEP. All three of the analyses prepared by Mr. Barber concluded that the project would discharge less nitrogen and phosphorous into the receiving body in the post-development condition than is currently being discharged in the pre-development condition. In addition to the three water quality submittals from Mr. Barber, Collier provided an additional water quality analysis specific to the project prepared by Dr. Harper. See Collier Exhibit 26, which is commonly referred to as the Harper Report. The analysis evaluated the project's pre vs. post- development water quality loads and also concluded the project would not contribute to the impairment of the Canal. In preparing his analysis, Dr. Harper relied solely on the lakes for estimating removal of pollutants without accounting for any of the additional treatment expected to occur from the source control best management practices contained in the Urban Stormwater Management Plan, which means his report errs on the conservative side. The Harper Report concluded that iron discharges from the SWMS would be extremely low and substantially less than the Class III standard of 1 mg/L. Petitioners presented no specific evidence to counter these conclusions. Petitioners questioned the Harper Report's use of wetlands as part of the loading calculations and attacked his underlying methodology. However, the evidence is clear that wetlands contribute to the water quality constituents in the pre-development condition. This finding is based on data from monitoring stations located in the middle of Corkscrew Swamp, a statewide study on stormwater treatment and wetlands, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) assignment of nutrient loading rates to wetlands in its regional pollutant loading model. Ignoring the actual water quality in pre-development conditions would not be a true pre vs. post-development analysis. Finally, Petitioners' contention that the Harper methodology should not be considered as admissible evidence because it constitutes "novel" (and therefore unreliable) scientific evidence under the rationale of Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), has been rejected. To begin with, the Frye test has not been accepted in Florida administrative proceedings. Moreover, the methodology is the basis for a new statewide rulemaking effort, has been accepted by the EPA, the Corps, and by the Division of Administrative Hearings in at least two proceedings, and has been subjected to two peer reviews. Petitioners also alleged that Collier failed to show that it complied with Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 40.432(2)(a)1., a rule administered by DEP which requires that a new SWMS "[a]chieve at least 80 percent reduction of the average annual load of pollutants that would cause or contribute to violations of state water quality standards." However, this is a broad overstatement of DEP's rule. Also, there is no eighty percent removal efficiency requirement adopted or incorporated into any District rule or BOR criteria. See, e.g., Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Inc. v. G.L. Homes of Naples Associates II, LTD et al., DOAH Case No. 06-4922 (DOAH May 15, 2007, SFWMD July 11, 2007). Instead, the District's "presumptive criteria" is that one inch of volumetric treatment required in Section 5.2 of the BOR meets the Class III standards. If, as in this case, additional assurances are required, those assurances are met through implementation of the BOR Section 4.2.4.5. Finally, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-40.110(2) provides that Rule Chapter 62-40 is "intended to provide water resource implementation goals, objectives, and guidance for the development and review of programs, rules, and plans relating to water resources." Also, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 40.110(4) states that "[t]his chapter, in and of itself, shall not constitute standards or criteria for decisions on individual permits. This chapter also does not constitute legislative authority to the Districts for the adoption of rules if such rules are not otherwise authorized by statute." Even if an eighty percent reduction standard applied, Collier has demonstrated that the project very likely will remove eighty percent or more of pollutants when additional low-impact development techniques, pollutant source reduction practices, and additional uncredited wet and dry detention capacity are considered. Based upon the evidence presented, Section 4.2.8 of the BOR regarding cumulative impacts for water quality is not applicable in this case. Collier's submittals provide reasonable assurances that the project will not be contributing to the water quality impairment of the Canal or contribute to any other water quality violation. Indeed, the information submitted indicates there will be an incremental improvement in the post-development condition as compared to existing. Since no contribution or impacts to water quality are expected, a cumulative impact analysis is not necessary to assess the extent of the impacts. The combination of all these water quality measures, when taken together, demonstrates that the 2006 Permit will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that state water quality standards will be violated. Therefore, reasonable assurance has been given that Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) will be satisfied. Wetland Impacts Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d) requires Collier to provide reasonable assurance that the modification of the SWMS "[w]ill not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters." In determining whether this criterion has been satisfied, it is also necessary to determine whether any 2002 permitted impacts should be subject to a second review in this case. Mitigation is a method by which an applicant can propose to impact certain wetlands on the project site in exchange for providing compensation in the form of preserving, enhancing, restoring, or creating wetlands or uplands to offset those impacts. As noted earlier, there has been no change to the wetland impacts or mitigation proposal as it relates to the Northern Preserve. See Findings of Fact 27 and 28, supra. As a result of the modified SWMS, there has been some additional impact to wetlands within the development area of the project. An additional 40.18 acres will be impacted under the 2006 Permit mostly due to the modified SWMS system. However, 39.5 acres of those wetlands were already considered secondarily impacted under the 2002 Permit. In addition, the preserve areas were expanded by 13.32 acres in the 2006 design. Thus, a portion of the impacts to those wetlands was already factored into the mitigation plan that was developed and approved for the 2002 Permit. As a result, there are 26 acres for which mitigation is necessary under the 2006 Permit. Section 4.3 of the BOR specifies criteria for mitigation proposed as part of an ERP application. Collier has proposed an acceptable mitigation plan for the new wetland impacts that will result from the project due to the proposed modifications incorporated in the 2006 Permit. Except for the mitigation for the additional wetland impacts, the mitigation plan for the 2006 Permit remains essentially unchanged from the 2002 Permit, including the Grading and Planting Plan, Monitoring Plan, and Mitigation, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plan. The onsite mitigation proposal includes preservation and restoration of wetlands through the removal of melaleuca and other exotic plants and replanting in areas of dense exotic species coverage. Significantly, Collier has not proposed any modifications that would change the effectiveness of the Northern Preserve in providing mitigation for the wetland impacts proposed and approved in the 2002 Permit. While Petitioners claim that the wetlands in the Northern Preserve may be subject to some changes in the level and seasonality of inundation as a result of the SWMS modifications, the evidence does not support those assertions. The revised SWMS will continue to allow water to flow through the Northern Preserve in a manner consistent with existing conditions while providing some flood control protection for extreme rainfall events. Petitioners also suggest that additional analysis regarding the timing and levels of inundation in the wetland preserves is necessary to fully determine the impacts of the modified SWMS on the wetlands. However, the more persuasive testimony indicates that the timing and levels within the wetlands will not be affected by the revised SWMS. The control elevations within the development area have not changed from the 2002 Permit, and these protect the onsite wetlands and ensure that those wetlands will function as expected. With respect to the internal wetlands within the development area, the control elevations have not changed from the 2002 Permit and the evidence establishes that the internal wetlands will continue to function and operate as contemplated in the 2002 Permit. There has been some relocation and reconfiguration of the internal wetland preserve areas that will actually enhance the value of the mitigation by connecting those wetland areas to other preserve areas. Petitioners further suggested that the wetland mitigation within the development area would not function as permitted in the 2002 Permit due to the spill over from the lakes to the wetlands. However, when the water reaches those internal wetland preserves, it has been treated to Class III water quality standards. Therefore, the mitigation values of those wetlands preserves will not be changed or affected due to water quality. Petitioners' objections to the wetland impacts and mitigation were primarily directed at the overall impacts rather than to the 2006 modifications. However, their witness was unaware of the values provided by the additional acres that will be impacted through the 2006 Permit. Therefore, a challenge to 2002 permitted wetlands impacts and mitigation is inappropriate in this proceeding. Functions To Fish and Wildlife and Listed Species Section 4.2.2 of the BOR implements Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d) and provides that an applicant must provide reasonable assurances that a project will not cause adverse impact to the abundance and diversity of fish, wildlife, and listed species or their habitat. With respect to the 586.66 acres of wetland impacts permitted in the 2002 Permit, the 2006 Permit does not modify or affect the values that the wetlands provide to either the abundance or diversity of fish and wildlife. Review of the wetlands criteria as to those acres was finally determined in the 2002 Permit and should not be reopened. By relocating thirteen of the previously impacted acres so they are most closely connected to other wetlands, their value to fish and wildlife will increase. As explained by the District's witness Bain, if Collier had moved the preserve area and changed its functional value, the District would have been required to reevaluate the mitigation that had been accepted for the wetland impacts in the 2002 permit. In this case, however, because the Northern Preserve area did not change, the District's review is limited to the newly impacted wetlands internal to the development for which mitigation was not provided in the 2002 Permit. Section 4.2.2.3 of the BOR addresses the functional assessment of the values provided by the project's wetlands. The only wetland values assessed in the 2006 Permit were the additional wetland impacts that were not mitigated in the 2002 Permit. The evidence establishes that the current value of the wetlands is low due to the heavy melaleuca infestation, which is greater than fifty percent coverage in most locations and seventy-five percent or more in much of the area. Melaleuca has the effect of draining short hydroperiod wetlands. While Petitioners may disagree with how the wetlands were previously evaluated, nothing in the 2006 modification allows or requires a reassessment of their value. Section 4.2.2.4 of the BOR requires that a regulated activity not adversely impact the hydroperiod (the depth, duration, or frequency of inundation) of wetlands or other surface waters. Subsection (a) of this standard applies if the project is expected to reduce the hydroperiod in any of the project's wetlands. Conversely, subsection (b) applies if the project is expected to increase the hydroperiod through changing the rate or method of discharge of water to wetlands or other surface waters. Subsection (c) requires monitoring of the wetlands to determine the effects of the hydrological changes. Again, there is no basis for the District to reopen and reevaluate the wetlands for which mitigation has already been permitted. No evidence was presented to indicate that there would be any obstacles or problems to accomplishing the mitigation that was proposed and accepted in 2002. In any event, the engineering and biological testimony demonstrated that no change (neither a reduction nor an increase) in the hydrology on the preserved wetlands or the Northern Preserve will occur from what was permitted in the 2002 Permit. By analyzing the various biological indicators onsite and setting the control elevations within the SWMS and the wetlands (both the Northern Preserve and onsite preserve wetlands) above the WSWT, the project ensures that the appropriate hydrology will be maintained. Though the fish and wildlife are not expected to be adversely affected by the 2006 Permit, Collier will be conducting monitoring of plants and animals on the site as an extra measure of assurance as contemplated under BOR Section 4.2.3.4(c). Focusing on just the changes from 2002 to 2006, Petitioners' two experts conceded that the hydrology in the Northern Preserve and its value to wildlife and listed species (including the wood stork) would be benefited in the 2006 Permit over that contemplated in the 2002 Permit due to the removal of the Flow-Way. Secondary Impacts to Water Resources Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f) requires a demonstration that the proposed activities "[w]ill not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources." A similar demonstration is required by Sections 4.1.1(f) and 4.2.7 of the BOR. In this case, the secondary impacts considered by the District were potential impacts due to the relocation and expansion of the buffer preserve areas to the perimeter of the project site. In conducting a secondary impact analysis, BOR Section 4.2.7 requires that the District consider only those future projects or activities which would not occur "but for" the proposed system. Here, the evidence demonstrated that no wetlands or other surface waters will be secondarily impacted by the modifications to the SWMS as part of the 2006 Permit. The undersigned has rejected Petitioners' contention that a proposed extension of County Road 951 through the development site should be considered a secondary impact in evaluating this project. This extension has been proposed for at least fifteen years and its precise configuration is unclear. It is not required to be built as a result of the project and there are no firm plans or contracts in place to construct the road. Although the road is listed on the County's transportation plan, it remains speculative as to if and when it will be built. Additionally, there is no evidence the County has any ownership interest in property for a road in the area identified by Petitioners. Witness Bain testified that the District examined the Collier County Public Records and an easement had not been granted to the County to build the road. i. Elimination and Reduction Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301((3) provides in part that "the provisions for elimination or reduction of impacts contained in the [BOR] shall determine whether the reasonable assurances required by subsection 40E- 4.301(1) and Rule 40E-4.302, F.A.C., have been provided." Section 4.2.1.1 of the BOR implements that provision and provides that elimination and reduction of impacts is not required when: The ecological value of the function provided by the area of wetland or other surface water to be adversely affected is low based on site specific analysis using the factors in subsection 4.2.2.3 and the proposed mitigation will provide greater long term ecological value than the area of wetland or other surface water to be adversely affected; . . . In accordance with that section, Collier was not required to implement practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate impacts. The District did a site-specific analysis of the quality of the 39.5 acres of adversely affected wetlands, taking into consideration the condition of the wetlands, hydrologic connection, uniqueness, location, and fish and wildlife utilization. The unrebutted testimony is that the quality of the 39.5 acres of wetlands to be impacted by the 2006 Permit is low and these wetlands were already previously authorized to be secondarily impacted. The low quality wetlands are melaleuca dominated making them not unique. The mitigation will provide greater long-term ecological value than the impacted wetlands. As noted on page 10 of the Staff Report, there will be a larger, contiguous mitigation area to offset direct impacts to previously preserved, but secondarily impacted wetlands and the preservation/enhancement of the external preserve area. The 2006 Permit provides that 5.68 credits are required to be purchased in the PIMB. Collier has advised the District that 27.68 credits are being purchased pursuant to its Corps permit. Thus, Collier will be purchasing more credits than required by the District. Witness Bain took this additional mitigation into account in determining whether the proposed mitigation will provide greater long term ecological value than the area impacted. While the Corps permit is an entirely separate permit action, Collier has agreed to include an additional 5.68 credits within the Basin beyond what is required in the Staff Report as a condition to this 2006 Permit. Therefore, the mitigation is clearly of greater long-term ecological value than the area impacted. Additional Requirements Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302 imposes additional requirements on an ERP applicant, including a cumulative impact assessment, if appropriate, and satisfaction of a public interest test. Cumulative Impacts Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302(1)(b) requires that an applicant demonstrate the project "[w]ill not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters as set forth in subsections 4.2.8 through 4.2.8.2 of the [BOR]." Cumulative impacts are the summation of unmitigated wetland impacts within a drainage basin, and a cumulative impact analysis is geographically based upon the drainage basins described in Figure 4.2.8-1 of the BOR. See Florida Wildlife Federation et al. v. South Florida Water Management District et al., 2006 Fla. ENV LEXIS 49 at *49, DOAH Case Nos. 04-3064 and 04-3084 (DOAH Dec. 3, 2006, SFWMD Dec. 8, 2006). Also, Section 373.414(8)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the District to consider the cumulative impacts upon surface water and wetlands within the same drainage basin. Thus, the cumulative impact analysis applies only when mitigation is proposed outside of the drainage basin within which the impacts are to occur. Broward County v. Weiss et al., 2002 Fla. ENV LEXIS 298 at *29, DOAH Case No. 01-3373 (DOAH Aug. 27, 2002, SFWMD Nov. 14, 2002). In this case, all of the proposed mitigation associated with the 2006 Permit modifications is located within the West Collier Basin. The evidence shows that the mitigation will offset the impacts to wetlands proposed in the 2006 Permit. Therefore, since the mitigation will be performed in the same Basin as the impacts and will offset the adverse impacts, the District must "consider the regulated activity to meet the cumulative impact requirements" of Section 373.414(8)(a), Florida Statutes. A new cumulative impacts analysis based on removal of the Flow-Way is not necessary because the modification does not change the cumulative impacts analysis conducted in the 2002 Permit. Since the Flow-Way was not considered a wetland impact or contributing to the mitigation in the 2002 Permit, its removal does not affect the adequacy of the previously conducted cumulative impacts analysis or the mitigation. Accordingly, there is no need for a new cumulative impact analysis with regards to the Northern Preserve. Finally, contrary to Petitioners' assertion, there is no rule or BOR provision which requires Collier to mitigate for the alleged prior impacts of other projects. Public Interest Test In addition to complying with the above criteria, because the project is located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters, Collier must also address the criteria contained in the Public Interest Test in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302(1) and Section 4.2.3 of the BOR by demonstrating that the project is not contrary to the public interest. See also § 373.414(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Since the project does not discharge into an OFW or significantly degrade an OFW, the higher standard of "clearly in the public interest" does not apply. In determining compliance with the test, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302(1)(a) requires that the District do so by "balancing the [seven] criteria [in the rule]." Findings with respect to each of the seven criteria are set out below. (Except for pointing out that the District does not have an adopted rule which provides more specific detail on how to perform the balancing test than is now found in paragraph (1)(a), and a contention that witness Bain's testimony was insufficient to explain how the staff balanced those factors, Petitioners did not present any evidence at hearing or argument in their Proposed Recommended Order in support of their contention that the above rule, BOR section, or the associated statute have been applied by the District in an unconstitutional manner.) Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others (40E-4.302(1)(a)1.) Collier provided reasonable assurances that the project will not cause any onsite or offsite flooding nor cause any adverse impacts to adjacent lands because the SWMS is designed in accordance with District criteria. Also, the post- development peak rate of discharge does not exceed the allowable discharge rate. Further, the project will not cause any environmental hazards affecting public health, safety, or welfare. The project is considered neutral as to this factor. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats (40E-4.302(1)(a)2.) For the direct wetland impacts under the 2006 Permit, Collier proposes mitigation which has not changed from the 2002 Permit. The mitigation proposed was previously determined to offset potential impacts to fish and wildlife and particularly wood stork habitats. The evidence indicates that the mitigation plan for the Northern Preserve will improve wood stork habitat from its current melaleuca infested condition. For the additional 40.18 acres of wetland impacts authorized in 2006, the mitigation is of greater long-term value. Thus, the project should be considered positive as to this factor. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling (40E-4.302(1)(a)3.) The parties have stipulated that the project will not adversely affect navigation. In addition, no evidence was introduced to suggest that the project's construction would result in harmful erosion or shoaling. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity (40E-4.302(1)(a)4.) The project does not provide any fishing, recreational values, or marine productivity. Therefore, the project is neutral as to this factor. Whether the regulated activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature (40E-4.302(1)(a)5.) It is undisputed that the project is permanent in nature. Even though the project is permanent, it is considered neutral as to this factor because mitigation will offset the permanent wetland impacts. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, F.S. (40E- 4.302(1)(a)6.) The parties have stipulated that no significant archeological or historical resources have been identified on this site. Therefore, the project is considered neutral as to this factor. The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed regulated activity (40E-4.302(1)(a)7.) The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by the areas affected by the project is low due to the melaleuca infestation. Project mitigation will restore 940 acres of poor quality wetlands and uplands, greatly enhancing their function and value. Therefore, the project should be considered positive as to this factor because the implementation of the mitigation offsets the wetland impacts and improves the current value. Summary of Public Interest Factors Overall, the project is no worse than neutral measured against any one of the criteria individually. Therefore, the project is not contrary to the public interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order granting the application of I. M. Collier, J.V. for a modification to Environmental Resource Permit No. 11-02031P. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 2007.
Findings Of Fact This hearing was occasioned by the Respondent's denial of (an) environmental permit(s) requested by the Petitioner, Baker Cut Point Company, a corporation owned by James C. Dougherty. The Respondent has asserted permit jurisdiction pursuant to Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and attending regulatory provisions of Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner requested a formal hearing to consider the matters in dispute, and that hearing was conducted on the dates indicated before and in keeping with Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner owns land in Monroe County, Florida, identified as Buccaneer Point. This parcel of land is a peninsula which extends from the west side of Key Largo, Florida, and has as its essential features two interior lakes and well-defined mangrove stands to include red mangroves (Rhizophora mangle) and black mangroves (Avicennia germinans). This parcel of land is bordered on the north by Buttonwood Sound and on the south by Florida Bay, navigable water bodies. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence, depicts the present condition of the parcel of land, with the exception of proposals involved in the permit review process, which are the subject of this Recommended Order and the companion case of James C. Dougherty v. State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, DOAH Case No. 80-1055. At present, the two lakes do not offer normal access to Buttonwood Sound and Florida Bay, nor do they offer an interior water connection between the two lakes. The southernmost lake does have intermittent water exchange with Florida Bay. Those lakes are identified as North Lake and South Lake. The Petitioner had initially applied for permission to place 75,000 cubic yards of clean limerock fill at the project site and indicated that the fill would be placed landward of the mean high water line. That fill would have covered approximately 17.56 acres in the residential subdivision. The application was made on October 27, 1978. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 20, admitted into evidence. The Respondent issued an Intent to Deny the permit connected with that request, and that Intent to Deny was issued on April 3, 1980, asserting permit jurisdiction by the Respondent under the provisions of Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5, admitted into evidence. The Petitioner modified the permit application effective April 24, 1981. Under the terms of the revised permit application, the Petitioner would place limerock fill over 5.7 acres, including mangroves, constituting approximately 30,000 cubic yards of fill. Additionally, the applicant modified the permit request to include filling the exterior rim of the interior lakes to create a littoral zone and the placement of a berm at that exterior. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, admitted into evidence. The project, as contemplated, allows for a preserve area of mangroves along the northern end of the peninsula and also employs a "pad" concept to preserve the mangrove acreage where fill is to be placed. Those "pads" for houses would be bordered by six- inch dikes to divert upland runoff which might find its way into the interior lakes on the property. The fill material to be placed in those areas, other than the lakes, would be placed above or landward of the line of mean high water, as determined by the mean high water line survey found in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence, dating from December, 1975, and whose methodology was approved on January 15, 1980, for purposes of Chapter 177, Florida Statutes, through the offices of the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources. This factual determination is also borne out by a review of the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, in pari materia with Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 and Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. As the lakes are now constituted, the placement of the limerock fill at the fringe of the lakes would not be waterward of the line of mean high water; however, when the placement of this fill material is considered in view of the permit request made in Division of Administrative Hearings' Case No. 80-1055, which permit request attempts to open up the lakes by direct water connection to the aforementioned navigable water bodies, then the placement of the fill would be below the line of mean high water. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6. Therefore, treatment of the placement of fill for purposes of this case will be considered on a basis that the lakes remain landlocked and the matter of the placement of this fill will be a matter assumed in the Division of Administrative Hearings' Case No. 80-1055, dealing with an attempt to open those lakes by direct water connection to navigable waters of the State. Although the mangrove areas to be filled by the project are landward of the mean high water line, those mangroves are inundated by water at times and considered to be "submerged lands" adjacent to the State water bodies, Buttonwood Sound and Florida Bay. If the mangroves are removed, part of the ecosystem's ability to filter sediments and nutrients contained in stormwater runoff of adjacent upland areas and from tidal flows will be destroyed and will affect water quality considerations for adjacent open bay estuarine or marine systems. The extensive root system of the mangroves and associated vegetation assist in stabilization of estuarine shoreline sediments and attenuation of storm generated tides. Even though some of the mangroves in the proposed area for fill are in a stressed condition, i.e., a condition in which their growth is stunted, if left alone, those mangroves would flourish and provide the same water quality functions as healthy mangroves. A biologist presented by the Petitioner identified the number of mangrove species, the number of mangroves, the diameter of those mangroves and the height of canopies of the mangroves in areas of the project site. These items were summarized through the use of the Holdridge Complexity Index, which measures structural complexity of mangroves within the sites. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 17, admitted into evidence. In particular, four such station pairs were studied and the pairs were constituted of a station within the basin of the mangrove stand and a station at the fringe of the mangroves. There was a site at each proposed waterway and a site at the northeastern and western points of the peninsula, the area of the proposed mangrove preserve. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, admitted into evidence. This study indicated that fringe mangroves are more developed than the ones in the heart of the basins. This study also revealed that the upland fill would remove primarily black mangroves. The removal of the mangroves and placement of fill would be in furtherance of the creation of twelve to fourteen residential lots, the majority of which would be located on Florida Bay. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6. In furtherance of the intention to offer these lots for sale, the Petitioner has sold one of the lots on Florida Bay for $95,000 on or about June 2, 1981. If the proposed utilization of the property in question was not allowed, the Petitioner stands to lose money in his investment in the face of preliminary developmental expenses which, at present, exceed monetary returns from the sale of lots. The area in which the upland fill would be placed is porous limerock, which allows water to seep through and be transported underground to adjoining water bodies, both on site and off site, in addition to the runoff from the upland areas. To address these concerns, the Petitioner has planned for the installation of dikes in the various upland areas which are to be built to prohibit drainage into the remaining mangrove areas and ambient waters. The littoral zones around the edge of the inland lakes would promote marine and wetland vegetation which assists in the function of filtration of sediments and nutrients. On the subject of water quality considerations, the use of the clean limerock fill, which is calcium carbonate, would tend to stabilize seawater at its natural PH level, thereby allowing the specific conductance (measurement of salinity) of the lakes and surrounding ambient waters to remain in a natural state in terms of direct effects of the fill material. On the subject of contamination of water by copper, normally, seawater contains 3 micrograms per liter of copper. In a project such as this one, it is not expected that higher amounts of copper would be found, and the limerock contains only trace amounts of copper, if any. Specific testing done at the project site reveals less than 1 microgram per liter of copper in the North Lake and 4 micrograms per liter in the South Lake. Therefore, the activity is not expected to increase the levels of copper to the extent that measurements exceed 500 micrograms per liter in either the lakes or surrounding waters. In dealing with the substance of zinc, seawater contains as much as 30 micrograms per liter of zinc. Sampling by the Petitioner indicated 2 micrograms per liter in the North Lake and 8 micrograms per liter in the South Lake of that substance. The activity and the development is not expected to increase the levels of zinc to the extent that measurements exceed 1,000 micrograms per liter in either the lakes or surrounding waters. In sampling for lead content, the samples revealed less than 50 micrograms per liter of lead and the placement of limerock fill will not cause the amounts of lead in the lakes and surrounding waters to exceed 50 micrograms per liter. Testing for phenolic compounds at the site revealed that these materials were below established standards of the Respondent, and it is not expected that those standards will be exceeded through activities proposed in this permit process. The testing for oils and greases indicated less than 1 milligram per liter of oils and greases, which is below the State's standard of 15 milligrams per liter, and the activities proposed at the project site are not anticipated to exceed 15 milligrams per liter of oils and greases. Normal PH for coastal waters is 6 to 8.5, and the PH levels of the lakes and ambient waters in the area were in the range of 8, except for measurements done in the winter at the North Lake, where they were shown to be 7.5. The placement of limerock fill will not cause an imbalance in the pH readings. The activity as proposed will not add substances which are created by industrial or agricultural means or cause other discharges, colors or odors, or otherwise promote a nuisance condition in the ambient waters or the lakes. Measurement was made to toxic materials in the way of synthetics, organics or heavy metals. Those tests in the lakes and ambient waters showed heavy metals to be at low levels. There were no sources revealed of synthetics or organics. (The calcium carbonate found in the limerock fill would assist in breaking down lawn pesticides into phosphate.) In summary, the filling, as proposed, is not expected to promote the introduction of toxic substances into the lakes or surrounding waters. The placement of the clean limerock fill in the upland area is not expected to cause problems with turbidity in the lakes or ambient waters, which turbidity would exceed 50 Jackson Units above background. The filling will not affect dissolved, oxygen levels of the surrounding waters. Biochemical oxygen demand, the measurement of demand for oxygen of organic and chemical materials in the water, will not be influenced by the placement of the clean limerock fill related to surrounding waters. The limerock fill is not expected to introduce other oxygen demanding materials into the subject waters, such that dissolved oxygen levels would be lowered by BOD loading. There will be no problem with dissolved solids, in this instance, salts, due to the fact that calcium carbonate fill would not affect the dissolved solids in the ambient waters or in the lakes. Coastal water PH normally measures 6 to 8.5 and PH for open waters in the range of 1. Placement of calcium carbonate fill on the uplands would not cause the PH in the Class II waters in Everglades National Park, which is 300 feet east of Baker Cut Point, to vary above or below normal levels for either coastal or open waters. In addition, there would be no discharge of toxic substances from the calcium carbonate fill into the Class II waters herein described. Tests conducted in the vicinity of homesites utilizing septic tanks, and specifically as sampled in waters adjacent to Buccaneer Point and the subject lakes in a development known as Private Park and Buttonwood Sound , indicated less than one fecal coliform bacterium per 100 milliliters. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 14, admitted into evidence. Anticipated setbacks for additional septic tanks to be associated with the buildup at the project site would be in keeping with the requirements of Monroe County, Florida, and harmful septic tank leachate is not expected to be a problem.
