Findings Of Fact On November 13, 1990, the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) Governing Board voted to issue to the University of North Florida (UNF), a Management and Storage of Surface Waters (MSSW) permit #4-031-0359GM for the construction and operation of a surface water management system associated with road and parking lot construction on the UNF campus in Jacksonville. On the same day, the board also voted to issue water resource management permit #12-031-0007G authorizing dredging and filling in waters of the state related to said road and parking lot construction. Petitioners timely petitioned for hearing, challenging the SJRWMD decision to award the permits. Neither the standing of the Petitioners nor the Intervenor is at issue in this proceeding. The UNF campus contains approximately 1000 acres in Duval County, Florida, and lies completely within the jurisdiction of the SJRWMD. The UNF is an agency of the State of Florida, and has the apparent authority to make application for the referenced permits. The UNF campus is designated as a wildlife sanctuary. Of the 1,000 acres, wetlands constitute approximately 450 acres. Prior to development of the UNF campus, the property was utilized for silviculture, with pine trees farmed and harvested on the land. The property was and continues to be crossed by numerous logging roads and trails. During the 1970's extensive alterations occurred in the property related to local development activity. Swamps and stream flows were disrupted. Wetlands headwaters were altered by the construction of lakes. Adjacent highways and office developments were constructed, borrow pits were utilized, and wetlands were filled. There is some planted pine forest, generally no more than 40 years old, remaining on the UNF campus. Much of the UNF property remains undeveloped and consists of a variety of common habitat, including pine flatwoods, oak hammocks, and various wetlands. The existing UNF campus is crossed by a series of wetlands located generally north to south through the property. The wetlands include Sawmill Slough, Buckhead Branch, Boggy Branch, and Ryals Swamp. The water in the area flows to the southeast. Previous construction of UNF Drive required the crossing of Buckhead Branch and the filling of portions of Boggy Branch. The UNF now proposes to construct approximately .66 miles of three lane roadway across the southern portion of the campus to connect the existing UNF access drive into a loop (the "loop" road), approximately .34 miles of two lane roadway from a point on the loop into an upland area in the southeastern part of the campus (the "eastern connector"), pave an existing parking lot near UNF nature trails, and construct related surface and stormwater management facilities. The purpose of the loop road project is to enhance access around the UNF campus. The eastern connector will provide access to an undeveloped upland area of the campus. The expansion is related to and required by the anticipated continued growth of the University. The on-campus silviculture logging roads and trails, which remain from the pre-development period, have long been utilized by the UNF community as nature trails. The trails bisect a substantial part of the remaining undeveloped campus. In 1978, approximately 12 miles of trails were listed by the UNF with the United States Department of the Interior as National Recreational Trails, a national collected listing of recreational trails. These named trails, (the "maintained trails" as identified below, and the White Violet, Switchcane, and Turkey Trace trails) were marked by means of paint blazing and signs. In some locations, such markings, and at least one sign remain visible, even though the paint markings have not been repainted since the original blazing occurred. The UNF is fiscally unable to maintain all twelve miles of trail for general public use. The UNF concentrates maintenance and education efforts on three of the trails, the Blueberry, the Red Maple and the Goldenrod (hereinafter referred to as the "maintained trails"). The maintained trails, approximately 6 miles in total length, are signed and marked to provide clear and safe direction through the area. For public use, the UNF provides educational materials related to the maintained trails. Approximately 17,000 persons use the maintained trails annually. Two rangers are employed to supervise the maintained trails. In the most recent two year fiscal period, about $21,000 has been spent rebuilding and upgrading parts of the maintained trails. The UNF provides no security for the logging trails (hereinafter the "unmaintained trails") which are not part of the maintained trail system, and does not encourage the use of the old logging roads as trails. The proposed road construction project will adversely affect the use of the unmaintained trails because the road projects will intersect and overlap several of the trails. The evidence fails to establish that the UNF is without authority to amend, alter, relocate or abandon trails listed with the United States Department of the Interior as National Recreational Trails, or that notice need be provided to the Department prior to such action. There are additional recreational facilities available on the UNF campus, including two jogging trails, as well as a multi-sport facility in the north part of the campus. Approximately 10 total miles of trails exist (including the maintained trails and excluding the unmaintained logging trails). Persons who travel to the maintained trails by automobile currently park in an unpaved lot. The proposed roadway construction for which permits are being sought includes expansion and paving of the nature trail parking lot. This improvement will provide for better access to, and increased utilization of, the maintained trails and eliminate maintenance problems experienced in relation to the unpaved parking area. Notwithstanding the adverse impact on current use of the unmaintained logging trails, the project will enhance recreational development. Operation of the stormwater system, which will result in improved water quality discharged into the receiving waters, will not adversely affect recreational development. Although the recreational values of the impacted unmaintained trails will be adversely affected, on balance the additional access to the maintained trails and the recreational opportunities presented elsewhere on the UNF campus negate the impact on the unmaintained trails. Construction of the roadway will adversely impact portions of the Boggy and Buckhead Branches, which contains wetlands (as defined by, and under the jurisdiction of, the SJRWMD) and waters of the State of Florida (as defined by, and under the jurisdiction of, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, which has authorized the SJRWMD to review projects on the DER's behalf). The extent of the wetland impact was determined by the UNF and corroborated by the SJRWMD in an reliable manner. The wetlands impact areas are identified as follows: Area 1, at the upper margin of Boggy Branch, includes slash pine canopy and mixed bay trees; Area 2 is primarily second growth loblolly bay canopy, dense undergrowth, swamp. The loblolly is approximately 20 years old; Area 3 is a west flowing connection between Boggy and Buckhead Branches; Area 4, (the Buckhead Branch crossing), is bay canopy and bottomland hardwood. Areas 1, 2 and 4 will require filling for the construction of the loop road. Area 3 requires filling for the construction of the eastern connector. A total of approximately 2.3 total acres of forested wetlands are included within the impacted area. Of the 2.3 acres identified as wetlands for MSSW permitting purposes, 1.5 acres are classed as waters of the state for purposes of dredge and fill permitting. The wetlands are generally classified as fair to poor quality, although there is a limited wetland area classified as fair to good quality. The wetlands impact of the project on wetland dependent and off-site aquatic species would, without mitigation, be unpermittable. The loop road project includes three drainage areas. Accordingly to plans, drainage area #1 is served by curbs and gutters into storm sewers and discharging into wet detention pond E, drainage area #2 is served by curbs and gutters into storm sewers and discharging into wet detention pond F, and drainage area #3 is served by curbs and gutters discharging into a dry retention swale located adjacent to the road. Stormwater management and treatment for the eastern connector will be provided by a swale system located adjacent to the eastern connector. The western portion of the loop road and the newly paved nature trail parking lot will be separately served by a dry swale system and two retention ponds at the newly paved nature trail parking lot. Wet detention ponds retain the "first flush" stormwater runoff and discharge the water at a reduced rate through a "bleed down" structure. Pollutant removal occurs when first flush runoff is retained and mixed with additional water. Pond and soil organisms and littoral plants provide additional treatment. Such ponds are effective and require minimal maintenance, generally involving removal of nuisance species and cleaning of the "bleed down" structure. Oil skimmers will prevent the discharge of oils and greases from the site. The wet detention ponds have side slopes no steeper than a 4 to 1 horizontal to vertical angle and will be mulched or vegetated to prevent erosion. Dry retention facilities retain the "first flush" runoff and attenuate peak stormwater discharge. The water within the dry swale is filtered as it percolates down through the soil. Maintenance of dry swale systems requires mowing and removal of silt buildup. The design of the system provides that the post development peak rate of discharge will not exceed the pre-development peak rate of discharge for a 24 hour duration storm with a 25 year return frequency. The project will not cause a reduction in the flood conveyance capabilities provided by a floodway. The project will not result in flows and levels of adjacent streams, impoundments or other water courses being decreased so as to cause adverse impacts. The projects detention basins will provide the capacity for the specified treatment volume of stormwater within 72 hours following a storm event. The project is not located in and does not discharge directly to Class I or Class II waters, to Class III waters approved for shellfish harvesting, or to Outstanding Florida Waters. The receiving waters for the system are Boggy and Buckhead Branches, both Class III surface waters. Operation of the system will not cause or result in violation of state water quality standards for the receiving waters. The discharge from the system will meet Class III water standards. There is no evidence that operation of the system will induce pollution intrusion. The design and sequence of construction includes appropriate Best Management Practice provisions for erosion and sediment control, including silt barriers and hay bales. Such provisions are required by the SJRWMD permit conditions. Silt barriers will completely enclose the dredging locations. The bottoms of silt curtains will be buried and will extend 3.5 to 4 feet above the land surface. Slopes will be stabilized by sodding or seeding. The locations of the wet ponds and dry swales, nearby the roadways, will facilitate maintenance activities. Maintenance requirements are included within the SJRWMD permit conditions and are sufficient to ensure the proper operation of the facilities. Although the Petitioners asserted that prior violations of SJRWMD rules related to water quality discharge by the UNF indicate that the UNF is not capable of effectively and adequately operating and maintaining the system, the evidence establishes that the permit conditions are sufficient to provide for such operation and maintenance. The project also includes replacement of an existing culvert at a connection between Boggy and Buckhead Branches. The existing culvert is impounding water during the wet season. The replacement culvert will be installed at the connection floor elevation and will serve to restore the natural hydrology. The new culvert will also be substantially larger than the existing pipe, and can allow fish and wildlife passage under the road. In order to mitigate the impact of the project on wetland dependent and off-site aquatic species, the UNF has proposed to create a 6.3 acre freshwater forested wetland at a site contiguous to Buckhead Branch. The wetlands creation project includes 2.9 acres of submerged wetlands and 3.4 acres of transitional wetlands. Of the 6.3 acres, 4.1 acres of the created wetlands are designated to mitigate the adverse impacts related to the dredge and fill activities. The mitigation proposal constitutes a ratio of 2.7 acres of wetlands creation for every acre of wetland impact. The mitigation site is a low upland pine flatwood and mesic flatwood area surrounded on three sides by wetlands related to Buckhead Branch. The mitigation area will be scraped down to a suitable level and over-excavated by six inches. The elevation of the proposed wetland creation area is based upon water table data and surveying of the Buckhead Branch, located adjacent to the proposed mitigation area, which serves as the wetlands reference area. The UNF monitors surface and ground water elevation in the proposed mitigation area and in Buckhead Branch, and records rainfall amounts. The hydrology of the proposed wetland creation area is based upon the connections of the created wetlands with Buckhead Branch and is sufficient to assure an appropriate hydroperiod. The six inch over-excavation will receive muck soils removed from the impacted wetland areas. The subsurface soils in the wetland creation area are, because of the existing water table level, compatible with the wetland creation. The muck soil will naturally contain seeds and tubers of appropriate vegetation. Additionally, wetland trees, based upon trees in adjacent wetland areas, will be planted in the wetland creation. Prior to planting, the UNF will be required to submit an as-built survey demonstrating that the hydrology and elevation newly- created wetland is proper. The UNF proposal to monitor and maintain the created wetland includes physical and aerial examination of the site, which will be protected by a deeded conservation easement. The monitoring and maintenance plan will continue for three years. The mitigation effort must achieve a ground cover of not less than 80% to be considered successful. Nuisance species will comprise less than 10% of the site's vegetation, and excessive nuisance species will be removed. The UNF is required to periodically report the status of the site to the SJRWMD. The mitigation proposal is adequately detailed and sufficient to offset adverse impacts to wetlands resulting from construction and operation of the system and the dredge and fill project. The wetland creation permit conditions indicate that the wetlands will function as designed and approved by the SJRWMD. The wetland creation is greater in size than the impacted wetlands, will replace the habitat and function of the impacted wetlands and will offset the adverse impacts of the loss of existing wetlands. There will be no impact on any threatened or endangered animal species. The evidence that such species utilize impacted sites is limited. Existing utilization of the impacted site will be accommodated by the remaining wetlands and the created wetland mitigation area. There is no evidence that fish will be adversely affected by the project. Construction and operation of the system will not cause adverse changes in the habitat, abundance, diversity or food sources of threatened and endangered species or off-site aquatic and wetland dependent species. More than five years ago, a bald eagle, listed as endangered by the State of Florida, was observed perched on an upland tree in an area where a retention pond will be constructed. The eagle was not nesting or feeding at the time of observation. The closest known eagle's nest is more than four miles away from the site. None of the impacted area provides appropriate feeding ground for a bald eagle. Colonies of red-cockaded woodpeckers exist between one and one half to ten miles away from the UNF campus. Red- cockaded woodpeckers have been observed on the UNF campus but not in the vicinity of the areas to be impacted by the project. Red- cockaded woodpeckers habitat pine trees at least 50 years old. While the existing pine may provide red-cockaded woodpecker habitat in the future, the pine trees to be impacted by this project are not suitable habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers at this time. There are no pines on the UNF campus which would currently provide suitable red-cockaded woodpecker habitat. Woodstorks have been sighted on the UNF campus, but not in the impacted area or the mitigation area. Woodstorks feed in areas dissimilar to the impacted areas, therefore there should be no impact on the species. Gopher tortoises have been observed on the UNF campus, but not in the impacted wetland areas or in the mitigation areas. There is no evidence that gopher tortoises would be impacted by this project. A number of animal species identified as wetland dependent have been observed on the campus. However, the evidence of actual utilization of impacted areas by such species is unclear as to frequency and manner of utilization. Such wetland-dependent species are capable of utilizing proximal habitat and will be absorbed by the unimpacted wetland acreage on the UNF campus. Further, the impact on potential habitat caused by the project will be effectively mitigated through the created wetland area. Five hooded pitcher plants are located within the wetland impact area and will be destroyed by construction activities. The hooded pitcher plant is listed by the State of Florida as a threatened species, however, the plant is common in wet areas throughout Duval, Clay, St. Johns and Nassau Counties. Because the muck soils removed from the area will contain seeds, roots and rhizomes from existing vegetation, the plants will likely reproduce in the created wetland area which will contain the muck soil removed during the permitted construction activity. There is no evidence that the dredge and fill project will adversely affect public health, safety and welfare. There are no significant secondary impacts resulting from the proposed project. The SJRWMD considered the environmental impacts expected to occur related to the construction of the roadways for which the permits are sought. In this case, the anticipated secondary impact of the project relates to the effect of automobiles on existing wildlife. The evidence does not establish that there will be such an impact. The road poses no obstacle to wildlife migration. The replacement of the existing culvert with a new culvert at the proper ground elevation may provide enhanced access for some wildlife. The cumulative impacts of the project include the potential expansion of the eastern connector which would require the crossing of Boggy Branch, and future building construction in the southeast portion of the UNF campus. There is no evidence that such impacts, which would require additional permitting, could not be offset with additional mitigation at such time as the permitting is sought.
Recommendation Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, William F. Quattlebaum, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on June 11-12, 1991, in Jacksonville, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Intervenors filed an Application for Dredge and Fill Permit with the Department of Environmental Regulation. The Department entered a notice of its intent to issue a permit. Petitioner requested a formal administrative hearing. The Department forwarded the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings, where it was given Case No. 82-3155. A Recommended Order which includes Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law has been entered in Case No. 82-3155. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set out in the Recommended Order are hereby incorporated into this Final Order and constitute a part of this Final Order. The Petitioner is an association of home owners within a residential development known as "Caloosa." Intervenors are seeking to develop an industrial park on land adjacent to the Caloosa development. Surface and ground waters from the proposed industrial park would drain toward Caloosa. Prior to the Department's entry of the notice of intent to issue a permit to Intervenors, the Department's personnel evaluated the application in free-form proceedings. An environmental specialist who works with the Department as a permit processor proposed to deny the application on account of the fact that Intervenors proposed to fill approximately 70 acres of wetlands, 24 of which were within the Department's permitting authority under Rule 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code. The administrator of the Department's Dredge and Fill Permitting Section came to the conclusion that denial of the application could not be justified. He felt that the wetlands to be filled served only marginally to preserve water quality in the area. The Intervenors had proposed to artificially create wetland areas in order to compensate for the loss of filled wetland areas. The program administrator suggested to the permit processor that they negotiate to get the Intervenors to create additional artificial wetlands in order to mitigate against any possible adverse effect from the loss of natural wetland areas. These negotiations occurred, and the Intervenors agreed to increase artificially created wetland areas. The Department of Environmental Regulation does not have a rule which provides that its personnel can engage in negotiations respecting a permit application. Negotiations are, however, an inherent part of a permitting process. The Department does not have any written or unwritten policy whereby it accepts such mitigating factors as artificially created wetlands as justifying the filling of natural wetlands. It does not appear that the Department has any rule or nonrule policy concerning mitigation or trade-offs, and it does not appear that the Department has ever had such a rule or policy. The Department does not have a policy of accepting concessions, trade-offs, or mitigating factors so as to allow an applicant to violate the Department's water quality standards. Since there has been a permitting process, such factors as artificially created wetlands have been considered by the Department in determining whether an application meets the Department's criteria for issuance of a permit. The Department's policy is to consider whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the short-term and long-term effects of proposed activities will not result in violations of water quality standards, as required under Rule 17- 4.28(3), Florida Administrative Code. If an applicant has proposed to construct artificial wetlands, the Department would logically consider it in making determinations about granting the permit. There is no evidence in the record of this proceeding from which it could be concluded that the Department has any unpromulgated "mitigation" policy which has the effect of a rule.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Petitioner has standing to initiate this proceeding and whether Respondents Osceola County and Habitat Restoration, Inc., demonstrated their entitlement to the permit modification they are requesting.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner resides in Orlando and is a recreational hunter. The District is a multi-purpose water management district, operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40E. Its principal office is in West Palm Beach, Florida. The County has been an applicant/permittee at all times material to this proceeding. HRI is co-permittee and operates a regional mitigation area near the town of Holopaw. On October 13, 2004, the District issued Environmental Resource Permit No. 49-00121-S-02 ("the Original ERP") to the County, authorizing construction and operation of a surface water management system in conjunction with the widening of Poinciana Boulevard ("the Road Project"). The Road Project is expected to adversely impact 6.61 acres of wetlands. In the Original ERP, mitigation for the wetland impacts was to be provided through the purchase of mitigation credits in the 1600-acre Florida Mitigation Bank (FMB). The Road Project and the wetlands that it would impact are located within the Shingle Creek Drainage Basin. As shown in Petitioner's Exhibit P-6, only a very small portion of the FMB is located within the Shingle Creek Drainage Basin. Almost all of the FMB is within the Reedy Creek Drainage Basin, which is west of the Shingle Creek Drainage Basin. The County applied for a modification of the original permit, and the District issued the ERP Modification to the County and HRI. The ERP Modification changes only the mitigation plan for offsetting the wetland impacts of the Road Project. The ERP Modification calls for mitigation of the wetland impacts of the Road Project through the restoration of wetlands within the regional mitigation area operated by HRI. The proposed HRI mitigation site is within Osceola County, but outside the Shingle Creek Drainage Basin. Standing For the past six or seven years, Petitioner has been hunting within a small area of the FMB, along its eastern boundary, as shown on Petitioner's Exhibit 15. Petitioner hunts there approximately 20 times each year. He hunts for deer, turkey, and hogs. He also enjoys observing nature while he is hunting. The FMB is not open to the general public for hunting. Petitioner hunts in the FMB with the verbal permission of the owner. Petitioner expects the permission he has been given to hunt in the FMB will continue into the future. A fence surrounds the FMB, but deer and turkey can get over a fence and hogs can get under a fence. At the hearing, there was some dispute about the exact location of the boundary that divides the Shingle Creek Drainage Basin from the Reedy Creek Drainage Basin, and in which of the two basins Petitioner hunts. The dispute was caused by the fact that the area where Petitioner hunts is close to the boundary and the official maps of the basins are at such a small scale that the line which depicts the boundary covers a large area. No evidence was presented about the precise location of the topography that divides the basins. The more persuasive evidence in the record is that a small area of the FMB (the acreage was never established) is within the Shingle Creek Drainage Basin and includes the area where Petitioner hunts. Petitioner's primary objection to the ERP Modification is the proposal to mitigate for the loss of 6.61 acres of wetlands by restoring wetlands that are outside the Shingle Creek Drainage Basin. He contends that the ERP Modification will serve as a precedent for future mitigation outside the Shingle Creek Drainage Basin.3 Petitioner's standing argument is that the future mitigation outside the Basin will reduce populations of the wildlife within the FMB where he hunts. Undermining this premise for Petitioner's standing is the fact that drainage basin boundaries are hydrologic boundaries based on patterns of water movement; they are not boundaries associated with wildlife movement. The animals that Petitioner hunts move freely across drainage basin boundaries. Therefore, drainage basin boundaries are not the proper focus for determining whether Petitioner is substantially affected by the proposed ERP Modification. Whether Petitioner is substantially affected depends on the effect the ERP Modification would have on environmental factors (including the quality and extent of wetlands) that determine the populations of wildlife Petitioner enjoys hunting and observing, no matter where those environmental factors are located. Petitioner assumes that all future mitigation outside the Shingle Creek Drainage Basin will be detrimental to his interests. However, Stuart Bradow explained that whether future wetlands impacts and future mitigation would affect Petitioner's interests depends on the proximity of the future impacted wetlands and associated mitigation to the area where Petitioner hunts, without regard to which drainage basin the wetlands and mitigation are located within. Some wetland impacts in the Shingle Creek Drainage Basin would be too distant to adversely affect Petitioner's interests. Some out-of-basin mitigation could be close enough to positively affect Petitioner's interests. Because much of the Shingle Creek Drainage Basin is more distant from Petitioner's hunting area than areas of the Reedy Creek Drainage Basin, it can be reasonably inferred that there could be future mitigation in the Reedy Creek Drainage Basin to offset wetland impacts in the Shingle Creek Drainage Basin that would benefit Petitioner's interests. Petitioner's precedent argument, that all future out- of-basin mitigation will per se be adverse to his interests, is contradicted by the more credible and persuasive evidence in the record. The ERP Modification does not call for any construction or other activities within the area where Petitioner hunts or in any other part of the FMB. The ERP Modification will not physically impact the area within the FMB where Petitioner hunts. The ERP Modification does not reduce the number of acres within the FMB. The ERP Modification will not affect Petitioner's access to the FMB for hunting. The direct and indirect impacts associated with the loss off 6.61 acres of wetlands caused by the Road Project would not adversely affect Petitioner's hunting or nature observation within the FMB. Petitioner's evidence regarding the biological processes that link the alleged future wetland losses within the Shingle Creek Drainage Basin to populations of deer, turkey, and hogs in the FMB was inadequate. There was no evidence presented, for example, about the variability in such game populations, the causes of the variability, and how wetland acreage affects population variability. Petitioner's expert, Tom Odom, acknowledged that drainage basin boundaries do not limit wildlife movement, yet offered an opinion that seemed to assume the opposite. For example, his opinion that Petitioner's enjoyment of deer hunting in the FMB might diminish as a result of the ERP Modification was based on his belief that deer populations would be restricted to "a certain area" and prevented from intermixing. Mr. Odom's opinion was also based on the assumption that HRI's mitigation proposal at its site near Holopaw would not be successful. That opinion contradicts Petitioner's basic contention that the HRI mitigation site is too far away to offset the wetland impacts caused by the Road Project. According to Petitioner, the HRI site is too far away to offset those wetland impacts but close enough to adversely affect Petitioner's hunting in the FMB if the mitigation site fails to function as proposed. Mr. Odom also opined that the elimination of small wetland areas can be detrimental to wildlife and are not mitigated by increasing the size of a large wetland area. However, in this regard there is no difference between the Original ERP and the ERP Modification. Both permits would allow the loss of the small wetlands caused by the Road Project and would mitigate the losses by adding to or enhancing larger, regionally significant wetland areas. Petitioner did not challenge the Original ERP. He cannot collaterally attack in this proceeding the District's previous determination to allow the loss of the small wetlands caused by the Road Project. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the ERP Modification would reduce populations of deer, turkey, and hogs in the FMB to the extent that Petitioner's enjoyment of hunting would be diminished. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he will be substantially affected by the District's approval of the ERP Modification. At the hearing, the parties presented evidence on all factual disputes related to the ERP Modification. Therefore, despite the foregoing finding that Petitioner did not demonstrate his standing, findings related to the other factual disputes are set forth below. Cumulative Impact Analysis Pursuant to Subsection 373.414(8)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), the District is required to consider the cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters within the same drainage basin as the proposed activity. The cumulative impact analysis is supposed to consider existing projects, projects under construction, projects for which permits have been sought, developments of regional impact, and other activities regulated under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, or which may reasonably be expected based upon local government comprehensive plans. Although Petitioner claimed otherwise, the record shows the District considered these projects and activities in the cumulative impact analysis it conducted for the ERP Modification. Section 4.2.8 of the Basis of Review provides that, when adverse impacts to wetlands are not fully offset within the same drainage basin as the impacts, the applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will not result in unacceptable cumulative impacts to the functions of wetlands within the drainage basin where the impacts would occur. In conducting its cumulative impacts analysis, the District considered future projects within the Shingle Creek Drainage Basin which the District determined would likely have similar impacts. It determined that similar impacts would be caused by future road-widening projects. Petitioner complained that the County did not perform a cumulative impact assessment of the Orange County portion of the Shingle Creek Drainage Basin, but the testimony revealed that was because the District already had this data. The District reviewer who conducted the cumulative impact analysis, Susan Elfers, is also the reviewer for all road projects in the Orlando area. The Florida Department of Transportation routinely provides the District projections of future road projects. Because Ms. Elfers had considerable information regarding Orange County transportation projects, the District did not require the County to provide that information. In performing the cumulative impact analysis, the District is directed by Section 4.2.8 of the Basis of Review to consider the functions of wetlands and other surface waters in the basin "as a whole." Approximately 20,000 acres of the Shingle Creek Drainage Basin lies within Osceola County. Of this total, 4,631 acres are wetlands. More than a quarter of the wetlands are in some form of conservation status. According to the County, there are 3,113 more acres of wetlands proposed for conservation in the Shingle Creek Drainage Basin. Altogether, 94 percent of the wetlands in the Shingle Creek Drainage Basin in Osceola County are either in conservation or proposed for conservation. More than half of the Shingle Creek Drainage Basin lies in Orange County, north of Osceola County. Tom Odom determined that the entire Shingle Creek Drainage Basin was comprised of over 22,000 acres of wetlands, of which 88 percent are protected. Considering the wetland functions of the Shingle Creek Drainage Basin "as a whole," the projected cumulative loss of wetlands associated with road projects represents a very minor impact on the total wetland functions in the Shingle Creek Drainage Basin and a very small fraction of the wetland functions already under protection. As discussed in detail below, the proposed HRI mitigation site will provide substantial environmental benefits to the region. The County and HRI proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the ERP Modification will not result in unacceptable cumulative impacts within the Shingle Creek Drainage Basin. Secondary Impacts In addition to addressing the direct impacts of a project, the District’s Basis of Review requires that a project’s secondary impacts be offset. Petitioner contends that the secondary impacts associated with the ERP Modification were not addressed. However, the record evidence indicates a qualitative analysis of secondary impacts was made by the District to determine whether the HRI mitigation site would offset the secondary impacts of the Road Project. The District determined that the excess value of the proposed HRI mitigation over the lost value of the impacted wetlands was sufficient to offset the relatively minor secondary impacts expected from the Road Project. That determination was reasonable. The Proposed Mitigation Site HRI owns a regional mitigation area of over 2,000 acres. This area includes extensive wetland areas that were significantly degraded by the cattle and agricultural operations of previous owners. Portions of the 2,000-acre tract continue to suffer from over-drainage and widespread exotic nuisance species, including the area which HRI proposes to restore as mitigation for the wetland impacts of the Road Project. The 2,000-acre mitigation area already contains 23 previously approved wetland mitigation projects. Wildlife use of the area has been steadily increasing as each mitigation project has been implemented. The area now supports a high diversity of wildlife, including an impressive array of endangered and threatened animal species. The HRI mitigation site for the ERP Modification consists of 26.1 acres in four separate areas with separate mitigation activities proposed for each area. There would be high level enhancement of 6.8 acres of a forested wetland area, moderate level enhancement of 13.9 acres of mixed forested wetland, four acres of upland buffer enhancement and preservation, and 1.4 acres of herbaceous wetland enhancement. The proposed mitigation will include filling in part of a drainage canal, removing exotic plant species, and planting cypress trees. The mitigation site will be managed for wildlife and protected by a conservation easement. The mitigation proposal for the ERP Modification involves activities that are similar to those that HRI has successfully completed as part of several other mitigation projects in HRI's regional mitigation area. HRI's success with similar mitigation projects provides part of the reasonable assurances that the mitigation authorized by the ERP Modification will also succeed in creating wetlands of high functional value. The proposed offsite mitigation area represents substantially greater wildlife habitat benefits than were provided by the 6.61 acres of wetlands impacted by the Road Project. Petitioner claims that the County and HRI failed to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation site was engineered to allow water movement as needed to create and maintain appropriate hydrologic conditions for the restored wetlands. Petitioner did not claim that the proposed mitigation project was not properly engineered, but only that the District was not provided the kind of engineering analysis usually required for such projects. At the hearing, the District witness, Ms. Elfers, explained that the District's determination that the proposed mitigation project was properly engineered was based in part on information exchanged during meetings with the applicant. Moreover, the County presented an expert engineering witness, John Atkins, who testified about the engineering aspects of the project site related to hydrology and offered his opinion that the project is properly engineered.4 The more persuasive evidence in the record is that the proposed mitigation project is engineered so that the hydrologic aspects of the project will allow for the successful restoration and maintenance of the wetlands involved. Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method The Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM), codified in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-345, is used to determine the amount of wetland mitigation required. The UMAM methodology provides a standardized procedure for assessing the function provided by wetlands. By examining a number of environmental factors, such as its community structure and its water environment, the UMAM can assess the value of the function being provided by a wetland. UMAM allows for the functional value of a wetland to be quantified and compared to the functional value of other wetlands. A UMAM analysis was performed on both the wetlands that would be impacted by the Road Project and the wetlands that HRI proposes to restore. Under UMAM, the functional gain score for the restored wetlands must at least equal to the functional loss score for the impacted wetlands. The UMAM score determined for the wetlands impacted by the Road Project was 4.47 functional units. The UMAM score determined for the HRI mitigation site was 5.47 functional units. These scores mean that the wetland functional value gain for the proposed HRI mitigation site was determined to more than offset the functional loss that would be caused by the wetland impacts of the Road Project. The four restoration areas within the HRI mitigation site were separately scored using the UMAM methodology. Among the factors considered were time lag and risk. Time lag means “the period of time between when the functions are lost at an impact site and when those functions are replaced by the mitigation.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-345.600(1)(a). Mitigation risk refers to the degree of uncertainty in achieving the mitigation objectives. Fla. Admin. Cod R. 62-345.600(2). Petitioner disagreed with the risk factor used to score the HRI mitigation site because, according to Petitioner, no engineering modeling or information was provided for the hydrologic changes that would be required to achieve success. The adequacy of the engineering analysis for the HRI mitigation site was addressed above. The risk factor used in scoring this particular area was reasonable. Petitioner also objected to the time lag values used to obtain the score for the HRI mitigation site areas designated Eastern Forested WL Enhancement (High Level) and the Western Forested WL Enhancement (Moderate). The time values used for these areas equate to an expectation that the functions lost because of the wetland impacts of the Road Project will be replaced within five years. Petitioner contends that expectation is unreasonable because the impacted wetlands contain mature wetland trees which cannot be replaced in five years. The time lag value used, however, does not reflect an assumption that in five years all the trees planted in the mitigation site will be as mature as a particular tree or trees found in the impacted wetlands. The time lag value reflects the time needed for the mitigation site to gain functional values equivalent to the functional values lost. Furthermore, there are already trees in the mitigation site. The more persuasive evidence of record indicates that the time lag value used was reasonable. Petitioner argues that the use of the same time lag factor for the different types of wetland systems in the HRI mitigation site contradicts the "express direction" of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-345.600(1)(a). That rule, however, merely contains a qualitative statement of the general comparison of time lags for different wetland systems. It does not require that time lags used for different systems must be different. Wetlands are classified into different community types by the Florida Land Use Cover and Classification System (FLUCCS). Petitioner complains that none of the FLUCCS codes for the ecological communities at the HRI mitigation site match the FLUCCS codes of the wetlands proposed to be impacted by Road Project. Petitioner admits, however, that two of the HRI mitigation areas have similar FLUCCS codes. The two areas with dissimilar wetland types are the upland buffer and existing canal that will be restored to a deep water marsh. However, it was never suggested that these two areas were similar to the impacted wetlands. They are simply areas within the HRI mitigation site that are being restored in conjunction with adjacent forested wetlands to enhance the overall diversity and quality of the resulting ecosystem. The more persuasive and competent evidence in the record indicates that the UMAM scores for the impacted wetlands and the mitigation site were reasonable and that they fairly characterized the proposed HRI mitigation as exceeding in functional value what would be lost as a result of the wetland impacts caused by the Road Project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order issuing Modification to Environmental Resource Permit No. 49-00121-S-02 to Osceola County and Habitat Restoration, Inc., subject to the general and special conditions set forth in the District's Staff Review Summary. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 2006, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 2006.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether, and under what conditions, the Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District (District), should grant Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 40-109-81153-1 authorizing Respondents, Jay and Linda Ginn (Ginns or Applicants), to construct a 136-unit single-family residential development with associated surface water management system.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Proposed Project Respondent, the District, is a special taxing district created by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, charged with the duty to prevent harm to the water resources of the District, and to administer and enforce the cited statutes and Florida Administrative Code Rules promulgated by the District under the authority of those statutes. (Unless otherwise stated, all Florida Statutes refer to the 2003 codification, and all Florida Administrative Code Rules refer to the current codification.) Respondents, Jay and Linda Ginn, are the owners of 47 acres of land located just west of the City of St. Augustine in St. Johns County, Florida. They are seeking ERP Permit No. 40- 109-81153-1 from the District to construct a 136-acre residential community and associated surface water management facilities on the property, to be known as Ravenswood Forest. The 47-acre project site is predominantly uplands, with a large (10.98-acre) wetland (Wetland 1) located on the eastern boundary and completely separating the uplands on the project site from adjacent properties to the east. While the central portion of the site is mostly a sand pine vegetated community, and the western portion is largely a pine flatwood community, there are six other smaller wetlands scattered within the upland areas lying west of Wetland 1, each numbered separately, 2 through 7. The site is currently undeveloped except for some cleared areas that are used as dirt road trails and a borrow pit or pond excavated in the central part of the site. This clearing and excavation was accomplished in the 1980’s for a project that was never completed. The project site is bordered on the north by Ravenswood Drive. On the east lies an existing residential development probably constructed in the 1970’s; to the west of the project site is a power-line easement; and to the south is a Time Warner cable facility. The land elevations at the project site are generally higher on the west and slope off to Wetland 1 on the east. Under current conditions, water generally drains from west to east into Wetland 1. Some water from the site, as well as some water entering the site from off-site properties to the west, flows into the existing pond or borrow pit located in the central portion of the site. Under extreme rainfall conditions, the borrow pit/pond can reach a stage that allows it to overflow and discharge into Wetland 1. Some off-site water also enters Wetland 1 at its north end. Water that originates from properties to the west of the Ravenswood site is conveyed through ditches to the roadside ditch that runs along the south side of Ravenswood Drive. Water in this roadside ditch ultimately enters Wetland 1 at its north end and flows south. Once in Wetland 1, water moves north to south. Water leaves the part of Wetland 1 that is located on the Ravenswood site and continues to flow south through ditches and culverts ultimately to the San Sebastian River. The Wetland 1 system is contiguous with wetlands located on property owned by Petitioner, Marilyn McMulkin. Mrs. McMulkin lives on Hibiscus Street to the east of the project. Mrs. McMulkin is disabled and enjoys observing wildlife from her home. Mrs. McMulkin has observed woodstorks, kites, deer, cardinals, birds, otter, indigo snake, flying squirrels, gopher tortoises, and (more recently) bald eagles on her property or around the neighborhood. Mrs. McMulkin informed the District of the presence of the bald eagle in 2002, but it was not discovered until November of 2003 that there was an eagle nest on the Ginns property in Wetland 1. Petitioner, Diane Mills, owns a house and property on Hibiscus Street to the east of the Project. The proposed stormwater discharge for the Project is to a wetland system that is contiguous with a wetland system that is in close proximity to Mrs. Mills' property. Petitioners' property is not located in a flood plain identified by FEMA. Nevertheless, Petitioners' property experiences flooding. At times, the flooding has come through Mrs. McMulkin's house and exited out the front door. The flood water, which can be 18-24 inches high in some places on Mrs. McMulkin's property, comes across her backyard, goes through or around her house, enters Hibiscus Street and turns north. The flooding started in the late 1980's and comes from the north and west, from the Ginns' property. The flooding started after Mr. Clyatt Powell, a previous co-owner of the Ravenswood property, started clearing and creating fill roads on the property using dirt excavated from the property. The flooding now occurs every year and has increased in duration and frequency; the flooding gets worse after the rain stops and hours pass. The evidence, including Petitioners' Exhibit 1, indicated that there are numerous other possible reasons, besides activities on the Ginns' property in the late 1980's, for the onset and exacerbation of Petitioners' flooding problems, including: failure to properly maintain existing drainage facilities; other development in the area; and failure to improve drainage facilities as development proceeds. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners have standing to object to ERP Permit No. 40-109-81153-1. Project Description As indicated, water that originates west of the project site currently enters the project site in two ways: (1) it moves across the western project boundary; and (2) it travels north to a ditch located on the south side of Ravenswood Drive and is conveyed to Wetland 1. The offsite water that moves across the western project boundary comes from a 16-acre area identified as Basin C (called Basin 4 post-development). The offsite water that moves north to the ditch and enters Wetland 1 comes from a 106.87-acre area identified as Basin D (called Basin 5 post-development). The project’s stormwater conveyance and treatment facilities include two connected wet detention ponds with an outfall to a wetland on the eastern portion of the project site. Stormwater from most of the project site will be conveyed to a pond, or detention area (DA) DA-1, which will be located near (and partially coinciding with the location of) the existing pond or borrow pit. The water elevation in DA-1 will be controlled at a level of 26 feet. Water from DA-1 will spill over through a control structure into a pipe that will convey the spill-over to DA-2. In addition to the spill-over from DA-1, offsite water that currently enters the project site across the western boundary will be conveyed to a wetland area at the southwest corner of the project site. At that point, some of the water will be taken into DA-2 through an inlet structure. The water elevation in DA-2 will be controlled at level 21. Water from DA-2 will be released by a control structure to a spreader swale in Wetland 1. While some of the water conveyed to the wetland area at the southwest corner of the project site will enter DA-2, as described, some will discharge over an irregular weir (a low area that holds water until it stages up and flows out) and move around the southern boundary of the project site and flow east into Wetland 1. Wetland 1 is a 10.98-acre onsite portion of a larger offsite wetland area extending to the south and east (which includes the wetlands on Mrs. McMulkin's property). For purposes of an Overall Watershed Study performed by the Ginns' engineering consultant, the combined onsite and offsite wetlands was designated Node 98 (pre-development) and Node 99 (post- development). From those areas, water drains south to ditches and culverts and eventually to the San Sebastian River. Best management practices will be used during project construction to address erosion and sediment control. Such measures will include silt fences around the construction site, hay bales in ditches and inlets, and maintenance of construction equipment to prevent release of pollutants, and may include staked sod on banks and turbidity barriers, if needed. In addition, the District's TSR imposed permit conditions that require erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented. The District's TSR also imposed a permit condition that requires District approval of a dewatering plan within 30 days of permit issuance and prior to construction. The Ginns intend to retain the dewatering from construction on the project site. Wetland Impacts Onsite Wetlands Wetland 1 is a 10.98-acre mixed-forested wetland system. Its overall condition is good. It has a variety of vegetative strata, a mature canopy, dense understory and groundcover, open water areas, and permanent water of varying levels over the course of a year. These attributes allow for species diversity. Although surrounded by development, the wetland is a good source for a variety of species to forage, breed, nest, and roost. In terms of vegetation, the wetland is not unique to northeast Florida, but in November 2003 an eagle nest was discovered in it. A second wetland area onsite (Wetland 2) is a 0.29-acre coniferous depression located near the western boundary of the site. The overall value of the functions provided by Wetland 2 is minimal or low. It has a fairly sparse pine canopy and scattered ferns provide for little refuge and nesting. Water does stand in it, but not for extended periods of time, which does not allow for breeding of most amphibians. The vegetation and inundation do not foster lower trophic animals. For that reason, although the semi-open canopy would be conducive to use by woodstorks, birds and small mammals do not forage there. A third wetland area onsite (Wetland 3) is a 0.28-acre mixed-forested wetland on the northern portion of the site. The quality of Wetland 3 is low. A 24-inch culvert drains the area into a 600-foot long drainage ditch along the south side of Ravenswood Drive leading to Wetland 1. As a result, its hydroperiod is reduced and, although it has a healthy pine and cypress canopy, it also has invasive Chinese tallow and upland species, along with some maple. The mature canopy and its proximity to Ravenswood Drive would allow for nesting, but no use of the wetland by listed species has been observed. In order to return Wetland 3 to being productive, its hydroperiod would have to be restored by eliminating the connection to the Ravenswood Drive ditch. A fourth wetland area onsite (Wetland 4) is a 0.01- acre portion of a mixed-forested wetland on the western boundary of the site that extends offsite to the west. Its value is poor because: a power line easement runs through it; it has been used as a trail road, so it is void of vegetation; and it is such a small fringe of an offsite wetland that it does not provide much habitat value. A fifth wetland area onsite (Wetland 5) is a 0.01-acre portion of the same offsite mixed-forested wetland that Wetland 4 is part of. Wetland 5 has a cleared trail road through its upland fringe. Wetland 5 has moderate value. It is vegetated except on its upland side (although its vegetation is not unique to northeast Florida), has a nice canopy, and provides fish and wildlife value (although not as much as the interior of the offsite wetland). A sixth wetland area onsite (Wetland 6) is a 0.28-acre wetland located in the western portion of the site. It is a depression with a coniferous-dominated canopy with some bays and a sparse understory of ferns and cord grass that is of moderate value overall. It does not connect with any other wetlands by standing or flowing water and is not unique. It has water in it sufficient to allow breeding, so there would be foraging in it. Although not discovered by the Ginns' consultants initially, a great blue heron has been observed utilizing the wetland. No listed species have been observed using it. Wetland 6 could be good gopher frog habitat due to its isolation near uplands and its intermittent inundation, limiting predation by fish. In addition, four gopher tortoise burrows have been identified in uplands on the project site, and gopher frogs use gopher tortoise burrows. The gopher frog is not a listed species; the gopher tortoise is listed by the State of Florida as a species of special concern but is not aquatic or wetland-dependent. Woodstorks are listed as endangered. Although no woodstorks were observed using Wetland 6, they rely on isolated wetlands drying down to concentrate fish and prey in the isolated wetlands. With its semi-open canopy, Wetland 6 could be used by woodstorks, which have a wingspan similar to great blue herons, which were seen using Wetland 6. However, Wetland would not provide a significant food source for wading birds such as woodstorks. The other surface water area onsite (Wetland 7) is the existing 0.97-acre pond or borrow pit in the southwest portion of the project site. The pond is man-made with a narrow littoral shelf dominated by torpedo grass; levels appears to fluctuate as groundwater does; and it is not unique. It connects to Wetland 1 during seasonal high water. It has some fish, but the steep slope to its littoral shelf minimizes the shelf's value for fish, tadpoles, and larvae stage for amphibians because fish can forage easily on the shelf. The Ginns propose to fill Wetlands 2, 3, 4, and 6; to not impact Wetland 5; and to fill a 0.45-acre portion of Wetland and dredge the remaining part into DA-1. Also, 0.18 acre of Wetland 1 (0.03 acre is offsite) will be temporarily disturbed during installation of the utility lines to provide service to the project. Individually and cumulatively, the wetlands that are less than 0.5-acre--Wetlands 3, 6, 2, 4, and 5--are low quality and not more than minimal value to fish and wildlife except for Wetland 5, because it is a viable part of an offsite wetland with value. While the Ginns have sought a permit to fill Wetland 4, they actually do not intend to fill it. Instead, they will simply treat the wetland as filled for the purpose of avoiding a County requirement of providing a wetland buffer and setback, which would inhibit the development of three lots. Offsite Wetlands The proposed project would not be expected to have an impact on offsite wetlands. Neither DA-1 nor DA-2, especially with the special conditions imposed by the District, will draw down offsite wetlands. The seasonal high water (SHW) table in the area of DA- 1 is estimated at elevation 26 to 29. With a SHW table of 26, DA-1 will not influence groundwater. Even with a SHW table of 29, DA-1 will not influence the groundwater beyond the project's western boundary. DA-1 will not adversely affect offsite wetlands. A MODFLOW model was run to demonstrate the influence of DA-1 on nearby wetlands assuming that DA-1 would be controlled at elevation 21, that the groundwater elevation was 29, and that no cutoff wall or liner would be present. The model results demonstrated that the influence of DA-1 on groundwater would barely extend offsite. The current proposed elevation for DA-1 is 26, which is higher than the elevation used in the model and which would result in less influence on groundwater. The seasonal high water table in the area of DA-2 is 28.5 to 29.5. A cutoff wall is proposed to be installed around the western portion of DA-2 to prevent it from drawing down the water levels in the adjacent wetlands such that the wetlands would be adversely affected. The vertical cutoff wall will be constructed of clay and will extend from the land surface down to an existing horizontal layer of relatively impermeable soil called hardpan. The cutoff wall tied into the hardpan would act as a barrier to vertical and horizontal groundwater flow, essentially severing the flow. A MODFLOW model demonstrated that DA-2 with the cutoff wall will not draw down the adjacent wetlands. The blow counts shown on the boring logs and the permeability rates of soils at the proposed location of DA-2 indicate the presence of hardpan. The hardpan is present in the area of DA-2 at approximately 10 to 15 feet below the land surface. The thickness of the hardpan layer is at least 5 feet. The Ginns measured the permeability of hardpan in various locations on the project site. The cutoff wall design is based on tying into a hardpan layer with a permeability of 0.052 feet per day. Because permeability may vary across the project site, the District recommended a permit condition that would require a professional engineer to test for the presence and permeability of the hardpan along the length of the cutoff wall. If the hardpan is not continuous, or if its permeability is higher than 0.052 feet per day, then a liner will be required to be installed instead of a cutoff wall. The liner would be installed under the western third of DA-2, west of a north-south line connecting the easterly ends of the cutoff wall. (The location of the liner is indicated in yellow on Applicants' Exhibit 5B, sheet 8, and is described in District Exhibit 10.) The liner would be 2 feet thick and constructed of clay with a permeability of no more than 1 x 10-6 centimeters per second. A liner on a portion of the bottom of pond DA-2 will horizontally sever a portion of the pond bottom from the groundwater to negate the influence of DA-2 on groundwater in the area. A clay liner would function to prevent adverse drawdown impacts to adjacent wetlands. The project, with either a cutoff wall or a clay liner, will not result in a drawdown of the groundwater table such that adjacent wetlands would be adversely affected. Reduction and Elimination of Impacts The Ginns evaluated practicable design alternatives for eliminating the temporary impact to 0.18-acre of Wetland 1. The analysis indicated that routing the proposed utility services around the project site was possible but would require a lift station that would cost approximately $80,000 to $100,000. The impact avoided is a temporary impact; it is likely that the area to be impacted can be successfully reestablished and restored; and preservation of Wetland 1 is proposed to address lag-time for reestablishment. It was determined by the Ginns and District staff that the costs of avoidance outweigh the environmental benefits of avoidance. Petitioners put on evidence to question the validity of the Wetland 1 reduction/elimination analysis. First, Mr. Mills, who has experience installing sewer/water pipes, testified to his belief that a lift station would cost only approximately $50,000 to $60,000. He also pointed out that using a lift station and forced main method would make it approximately a third less expensive per linear foot to install the pipe line itself. This is because a gravity sewer, which would be required if a lift station and forced main is not used, must be laid at precise grades, making it is more difficult and costly to lay. However, Mr. Mills acknowledged that, due to the relatively narrow width of the right-of-way along Ravenswood Drive, it would be necessary to obtain a waiver of the usual requirement to separate the sewer and water lines by at least 10 feet. He thought that a five-foot separation waiver would be possible for his proposed alternative route if the "horizontal" separation was at least 18 inches. (It is not clear what Mr. Mills meant by "horizontal.") In addition, he did not analyze how the per-linear-foot cost savings from use of the lift station and forced main sewer would compare to the additional cost of the lift station, even if it is just $50,000 to $60,000, as he thinks. However, it would appear that his proposed alternative route is approximately three times as long as the route proposed by the Ginns, so that the total cost of laying the sewer pipeline itself would be approximately equal under either proposal. Mr. Mills's testimony also suggested that the Ginns did not account for the possible disturbance to the Ravenswood eagles if an emergency repair to the water/sewer is necessary during nesting season. While this is a possibility, it is speculative. There is no reason to think such emergency repairs will be necessary, at least during the approximately 20-year life expectancy of the water/sewer line. Practicable design modifications to avoid filling Wetland 4 also were evaluated. Not filling Wetland 4 would trigger St. Johns County wetland setback requirements that would eliminate three building lots, at a cost of $4,684 per lot. Meanwhile, the impacted wetland is small and of poor quality, and the filling of Wetland 4 can be offset by proposed mitigation. As a result, the costs of avoidance outweigh the environmental benefits of avoidance. Relying on ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1 the Ginns did not perform reduction/elimination analyses for Wetlands 2 and 6, and the District did not require them. As explained in testimony, the District interprets ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.1 to require a reduction/elimination analysis only when a project will result in adverse impacts such that it does not meet the requirements of ERP-A.H. 12.2.2 through 12.2.3.7 and 12.2.5 through 12.3.8. But ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1 does not require compliance with those sections for regulated activities in isolated wetlands less than one-half acre in size except in circumstances not applicable to this case: if they are used by threatened or endangered species; if they are located in an area of critical state concern; if they are connected at seasonal high water level to other wetlands; and if they are "more than minimal value," singularly or cumulatively, to fish and wildlife. See ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1(a) through (d). Under the District's interpretation of ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.1, since ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1 does not require compliance with the very sections that determine whether a reduction/elimination analysis is necessary under ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.1, such an analysis is not required for Wetlands 2 and 6. Relying on ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.2, a., the Ginns did not perform reduction/elimination analyses for Wetlands 3 and 7, and the District did not require them, because the functions provided by Wetlands 3 and 7 are "low" and the proposed mitigation to offset the impacts to these wetlands provides greater long-term value. Petitioners' environmental expert opined that an reduction/elimination analysis should have been performed for all of the wetlands on the project site, even if isolated and less than half an acre size, because all of the wetlands on the project site have ecological value. For example, small and isolated wetlands can be have value for amphibians, including the gopher frog. But his position does not square with the ERP- A.H., as reasonably interpreted by the District. Specifically, the tests are "more than minimal value" under ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1(d) and "low value" under ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.2, a. Secondary Impacts The impacts to the wetlands and other surface waters are not expected to result in adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, including endangered or threatened listed species or their habitats. In accordance with ERP-A.H. 12.2.7(a), the design incorporates upland preserved buffers with minimum widths of 15 feet and an average width of 25 feet around the wetlands that will not be impacted. Sediment and erosion control measures will assure that the construction will not have an adverse secondary impact on water quality. The proposed development will be served by central water and sewer provided by the City of St. Augustine, eliminating a potential for secondary impacts to water quality from residential septic tanks or septic drainfields. In order to provide additional measures to avoid secondary impacts to Wetland 1, which is the location of the bald eagles’ nest, the Applicants proposed additional protections in a Bald Eagle Management Plan (BEMP) (App. Ex. 14). Under the terms of the BEMP, all land clearing, infrastructure installation, and exterior construction on homes located within in the primary zone (a distance within 750 feet of the nest tree) is restricted to the non-nesting season (generally May 15 through September 30). In the secondary zone (area between 750 feet and 1500 feet from the nest tree), exterior construction, infrastructure installation, and land clearing may take place during the nesting season with appropriate monitoring as described in the BEMP. Proposed Mitigation The Ginns have proposed mitigation for the purpose of offsetting adverse impacts to wetland functions. They have proposed to provide mitigation for: the 0.18-acre temporary impact to Wetland 1 during installation of a water/sewer line extending from existing City of St. Augustine service to the east (at Theodore Street); the impacts to Wetlands 3, 4 and 7; and the secondary impacts to the offsite portion of Wetland 4. The Ginns propose to grade the 0.18-acre temporary impact area in Wetland 1 to pre-construction elevations, plant 72 trees, and monitor annually for 5 years to document success. Although the easement is 30 feet in width, work will be confined to 20 feet where vegetation will be cleared, the top 1 foot of soil removed and stored for replacing, the trench excavated, the utility lines installed, the trench refilled, the top foot replaced, the area replanted with native vegetation, and re- vegetation monitored. To facilitate success, the historic water regime and historic seed source will give the re-vegetation effort a jump-start. The Ginns propose to restore and enhance a 0.12-acre portion of Wetland 1 that has been degraded by a trail road. They will grade the area to match the elevations of adjacent wetland, plant 48 trees, and monitor annually for 5 years to document success. This is proposed to offset the impacts to Wetland 4. The proposed grading, replanting, and monitoring will allow the area to be enhanced causing an environmental benefit. The Ginns propose to preserve 10.58 acres of wetlands and 3.99 acres of uplands in Wetland 1, 1 acre of upland buffers adjacent to Wetlands 1 and 5, and the 0.01 acre wetland in Wetland 5. The upland buffer will be a minimum of 15 feet wide with an average of 25 feet wide for Wetland 1 and 25 feet wide for Wetland 5. A conservation easement will be conveyed to the District to preserve Wetlands 1 and 5, the upland buffers, and the wetland restoration and enhancement areas. The preservation of wetlands provides mitigation value because it provides perpetual protection by ensuring that development will not occur in those areas, as well as preventing activities that are unregulated from occurring there. This will allow the conserved lands to mature and provide more forage and habitat for the wildlife that would utilize those areas. Mitigation for Wetlands 2 and 6 was not provided because they are isolated wetlands less than 0.5-acre in size that are not used by threatened or endangered species; are not located in an area of critical state concern; are not connected at seasonal high water level to other wetlands; and are not more than minimal value, singularly or cumulatively, to fish and wildlife. As previously referenced in the explanation of why no reduction/elimination analysis was required for these wetlands, ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1(d) does not require compliance with under ERP- A.H. 12.3 through 12.3.8 (mitigation requirements) for regulated activities in isolated wetlands less than one-half acre in size except in circumstances found not to be present in this case. See Finding 44, supra. The cost of the proposed mitigation will be approximately $15,000. Operation and Maintenance A non-profit corporation that is a homeowners association (HOA) will be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the surface water management system. An HOA is a typical operation and maintenance entity for a subdivision and is an acceptable entity under District rules. See ERP-A.H. 7.1.1(e) and 7.1.2; Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C- 42.027(3) and (4). The Articles of Incorporation for the HOA and the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions contain the language required by District rules. Water Quantity To address water quantity criteria, the Applicants' engineers ran a model (AdICPR, Version 1.4) to compare the peak rate discharge from the project in the pre-project state versus the peak rate discharge after the project is put in place. The pre-project data input into the model were defined by those conditions that existed in 1985 or 1986, prior to the partial work that was conducted, but not completed, on the site in the late 1980's. The project’s 1985/1986 site condition included a feature called Depression A that attenuated some onsite as well as offsite stormwater. Because of work that was done on the project site after 1985/1986 (i.e., the excavation of the borrow pit and road-clearing activities in the late 1980's), the peak rate of discharge for the 1985/1986 project site condition was lower than the peak rate of discharge for today’s project site condition. (Flooding at Mrs. McMulkin's house began after the work was performed on the project site in the late 1980's.) Because this partial work conducted in the late 1980's increased peak rate discharge from the site, by taking the pre-project conditions back to the time prior to that work, the peak rate of discharge in the 1985-86 pre-project condition was lower than it would be under today's conditions. The model results indicated that for the 25-year, 24- hour storm event, the pre-project peak rate discharge is 61.44 cubic feet per second (cfs). The post-project peak rate discharge is 28.16 cfs. Because the completed project reduces the pre-project peak rate discharges, the project will not cause any adverse flooding impacts off the property downstream. A similar analysis of the peak rate discharges under pre-project conditions that exist today (rather than in 1986) was compared to peak rate discharges for the post-project conditions. This analysis also showed post-project peak rate discharges to be less than the peak rate discharges from the site using today’s conditions as pre-project conditions. As further support to demonstrate that the project would not cause additional flooding downstream, a second modeling analysis was conducted, which is referred to as the Ravenswood Overall Watershed Model (OWM). The Applicants' engineer identified water flowing into the system from the entire watershed basin, including the project site under both the pre- and post-project conditions. The water regime was evaluated to determine what effect the proposed project will have on the overall peak rate discharges, the overall staging, and the duration of the staging within the basin that ultimately receives the water from the overall watershed. This receiving basin area was defined as the "wetland node" (Node 98 pre- project, and Node 99 post-project). As previously stated, the area within this "wetland node" includes more than just the portion of Wetland 1 that is located on the Ravenswood site. It also includes the areas to the south and east of the on-site Wetland 1 (including properties owned by the Petitioners) and extends down to an east-west ditch located just north of Josiah Street. The project’s surface water management system will not discharge to a landlocked basin. The project is not located in a floodway or floodplain. The project is not located downstream of a point on a watercourse where the drainage is five square miles or more. The project is impounding water only for temporary storage purposes. Based on testimony from their experts, Petitioners contend that reasonable assurances have not been given as to water quantity criteria due to various alleged problems regarding the modeling performed by the Ginns' engineer. Tailwater Elevations First, they raise what they call "the tailwater problem." According to Petitioners, the Ginns' modeling was flawed because it did not use a 19.27-foot SHW elevation in Wetland 1 as the tailwater elevation. The 19.27-foot SHW was identified by the Ginns' biologist in the Wetland 1 near the location of the proposed utility line crossing the wetland and was used as the pre-development tailwater in the analysis of the project site. The post-development tailwater condition was different because constructing the project would change the discharge point, and "tailwater" refers to the water elevation at the final discharge of the stormwater management system. (SW- A.H., Section 9.7) The post-development tailwater was 21 feet, which reflects the elevation of the top of the spreader swale that will be constructed, and it rose to 21.3 feet at peak flow over that berm. For the OWM, the final discharge point of the system being modeled was the east-west ditch located just north of Josiah Street, where the tailwater elevation was approximately 18.1 feet, not the 19.27 feet SHW mark to the north in Wetland 1. The tailwater condition used in the modeling was correct. Petitioners also mention in their PRO that "the Applicants' analysis shows that, at certain times after the 25 year, 24 hour storm event, in the post development state, Wetland 1 will have higher staging than in the predevelopment state." But those stages are after peak flows have occurred and are below flood stages. This is not an expected result of post- development peak-flow attenuation. Watershed Criticism The second major criticism Petitioners level at the Applicants' modeling is that parts of the applicable watershed basins were omitted. These include basins to the west of the project site, as well as basins to the north of the site, which Petitioners lumped into the so-called "tailwater problem." Petitioners sought to show that the basins identified by the Ginns as draining onto the project site from the west were undersized, thus underestimating the amount of offsite water flowing onto the project site. With respect to Basin C, Petitioners' witness testified that the basin should be 60 acres instead of 30 acres in size, and that consequently more water would flow into pond DA-2 and thus reduce the residence time of the permanent pool volume. In fact, Basin C is 16 acres in size, not 30 acres. The water from Basin C moves onto the project site over the western project boundary. A portion of the water from Basin C will be directed to pond DA-2 through an inlet structure, and the rest will move over an irregular weir and around the project site. With respect to Basin D, Petitioners' witness testified that the basin should encompass an additional 20 acres to the west and north. West of Basin D, there are ditches routing water flow away from the watershed, so it is unclear how water from an additional 20 acres would enter the watershed. The western boundary of the OWM is consistent with the western boundaries delineated in two studies performed for St. Johns County. Petitioners' witness testified that all of the water from the western offsite basins currently travels across the project site's western boundary, and that in post-development all of that water will enter pond DA-2 through the inlet structure. In fact, currently only the water from Basin C flows across the project site's western boundary. Post-development, only a portion of water from Basin C will enter pond DA-2. Currently and post-development, the water in Basin D travels north to a ditch south of Ravenswood Drive and discharges into Wetland 1. Petitioners also sought to show that a 50-acre area north of the project site should have been included in the OWM. Petitioners' witness testified that there is a "strong possibility" that the northern area drains into the project site by means of overtopping Ravenswood Drive. The witness' estimate of 50 acres was based on review of topographical maps; the witness has not seen water flowing over Ravenswood Drive. The Ginns' engineer testified that the area north of Ravenswood Drive does not enter the project site, based on his review of two reports prepared by different engineering firms for St. Johns County, conversations with one of those engineering firms, conversations with the St. Johns County engineer, reviews of aerials and contour maps, and site observations. Based on site observations, the area north of the project site drains north and then east. One report prepared for St. Johns County did not include the northern area in the watershed, and the other report included an area to the north consisting of 12 acres. The Ginns' engineer added the 12-acre area to the OWM and assumed the existence of an unobstructed culvert through which this additional water could enter Wetland 1, but the model results showed no effect of the project on stages or duration in the wetland. Even if a 50-acre area were included in the OWM, the result would be an increase in both pre-development and post- development peak rates of discharge. So long as the post- development peak rate of discharge is lower than the pre- development peak rate of discharge, then the conveyance system downstream will experience a rate of water flow that is the same or lower than before the project, and the project will not cause adverse flooding impacts offsite. Petitioners' witness did not have any documents to support his version of the delineations of Basins C and D and the area north of Ravenswood Drive. Time of Concentration Time of concentration (TC) is the time that it takes a drop of water to travel from the hydraulically most distant point in a watershed. Petitioners sought to show that the TC used for Basin C was incorrect. Part of Petitioners' rationale is related to their criticism of the watersheds used in the Ginns' modeling. Petitioners' witness testified that the TC was too low because the distance traveled in Basin C should be longer because Basin C should be larger. The appropriateness of the Basin C delineation already has been addressed. See Finding 71, supra. Petitioners' witness also testified that the TC used for the post-development analysis was too high because water will travel faster after development. However, the project will not develop Basins C and D, and thus using the same TC in pre- development and post-development is appropriate. The project will develop Basins A and B (called Basins 1, 2, and 3 post- development), and the post-development TC for those basins were, in fact, lower than those used in the pre-development analysis. Groundwater Infiltration in DA-2 One witness for Petitioners opined that groundwater would move up through the bottom of DA-2 as a result of upwelling (also referred to as infiltration or seepage), such that 1,941 gallons per day (gpd) would enter DA-2. That witness agreed that if a liner were installed in a portion of DA-2, the liner would reduce upwelling in a portion of the pond. Another witness for Petitioners opined that 200 gpd of groundwater would enter the eastern part and 20,000 gpd would enter the western part of DA-2. Although that witness stated that upwelling of 200 gpd is not a significant input and that upwelling of 20,000 gpd is a significant input, he had not performed calculations to determine the significance. Even if more than 20,000 gpd of groundwater entered DA-2, DA-2 will provide sufficient permanent pool residence time without any change to the currently designed permanent pool size or the orifice size. Although part of one system, even if DA-2 is considered separate from DA-1, DA-2 is designed to provide an additional permanent pool volume of 6.57 acre-feet (in addition to the 20.5 acre/feet provided by DA-1). This 6.57 acre-feet provided by DA-2, is more than the 4.889 acre-feet of permanent pool volume that would be necessary to achieve a 21-day residence time for the 24+ acres that discharge directly into DA-2, as well as background seepage into DA-2 at a rate of 0.0403 cfs, which is more upwelling than estimated by Petitioners' two witnesses. There is adequate permanent pool volume in DA-2 to accommodate the entire flow from Basin C and for water entering through the pond bottom and pond sides and provide at least 21 days of residence time. Water Quality Criteria Presumptive Water Quality The stormwater system proposed by the Ginns is designed in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rules 40C-42.024, 40C-42.025, and 40C-42.026(4). Wet detention ponds must be designed for a permanent pool residence time of 14 days with a littoral zone, or for a residence time of 21 days without a littoral zone, which is the case for this project. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C-42.026(4)(c) and (d). DA-1 and DA-2 contain sufficient permanent pool volume to provide a residence time of 31.5 days, which is the amount of time required for projects that discharge to Class II Outstanding Florida Waters, even though the receiving waterbody for this project is classified as Class III Waters. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C-42.026(4)(k)1. Best management practices will be used during project construction to address erosion and sediment control. Such measures will include silt fences around the construction site, hay bales in ditches and inlets, and maintenance of construction equipment to prevent release of pollutants, and may include staked sod on banks and turbidity barriers if needed. In addition, the District proposed permit conditions that require erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented. (Dist. Ex. 1, pp. 8-9, #4; Dist. Ex. 2, p. 1, ##3, 4, and 5, and p. 6, #10). ERP/MSSW/Stormwater Special Conditions incorporated into the proposed permit require that all wetland areas or water bodies outside the specific limits of construction must be protected from erosion, siltation, scouring or excess turbidity, and dewatering. (Dist. Ex. 2). The District also proposed a permit condition that requires District approval of a dewatering plan for construction, including DA-1 and DA-2, within 30 days of permit issuance and prior to construction. The Ginns intend to retain the dewatering from construction on the project site. As previously described, Petitioners' engineering witness sought to show that DA-2 will not provide the required permanent pool residence time because Basin C should be 60 acres in size. Petitioners' environmental witness also expressed concern about the capacity of the ponds to provide the water quality treatment required to meet the presumptive water quality criteria in the rules, but those concerns were based on information he obtained from Petitioners' engineering witness. Those issues already have been addressed. See Findings 77-78, supra. Groundwater Contamination Besides those issues, Petitioners raised the issue that groundwater contamination from a former landfill nearby and from some onsite sludge and trash disposal could be drawn into the proposed stormwater management system and cause water quality violations in the receiving waters. If groundwater is contaminated, the surface water management system could allow groundwater to become surface water in proposed DA-1. St. Johns County operated a landfill from the mid-1950s to 1977 in an area northwest of the project site. The landfill accepted household and industrial waste, which was buried in groundwater, which in turn could greatly enhance the creation of leachate and impacted water. Groundwater flows from west to east in the vicinity of the landfill and the project site but there was conflicting evidence as to a minor portion of the property. The Ginns' witness testified that if the landfill extended far enough south, a small part of the project site could be downgradient from the landfill. But there was no evidence that the landfill extended that far south. Petitioners' witness testified that the groundwater flow varies on the south side of the landfill so that groundwater might flow southeast toward the site. Even if Petitioners' witness is correct, the surface water management system was designed, as Petitioners' other witness agreed, so that DA-1 would have minimal influence on groundwater near the pond. In 1989, sewage sludge and garbage were placed in a pit in the central part of the project site, north of the existing pond, which also is the area for proposed DA-1; and at various times refuse--including a couple of batteries, a few sealed buckets, and concrete--has been placed on the surface of the site. In 1989, to determine the amount of sewage and garbage on the project site, the St. Johns County Health Department chose several locations evidencing recent excavation south of Ravenswood Drive, had the areas re-excavated, and found one bag of garbage and debris such as tree stumps and palmettos. In 2001, an empty 55-gallon drum was on the site; there was no evidence what it once contained or what it contained when deposited onsite, if anything. In addition, trespassers dumped solid waste on the property from time to time. Petitioners' witness searched the site with a magnetometer and found nothing significant. On the same day, another of Petitioners’ witnesses sampled with an auger but the auger did not bore for core or any other type sample; it merely measured groundwater level. In 1985, 1999, and 2000, groundwater offsite of the project near the landfill was sampled at various times and places by various consultants to determine whether groundwater was being contaminated by the landfill. The groundwater sampling did not detect any violations of water quality standards. Consultants for the Ginns twice sampled groundwater beneath the project site and also modeled contaminant migration. The first time, in 2001, they used three wells to sample the site in the northwest for potential impacts to the property from the landfill. The second time, they sampled the site through cluster wells in the northwest, middle, and south. (Each cluster well samples in a shallow and in a deeper location.) The well locations were closest to the offsite landfill and within an area where refuse may have been buried in the north- central part of the site. Due to natural processes since 1989, no sewage sludge deposited onsite then would be expected to remain on the surface or be found in the groundwater. The evidence was that the sewage sludge and garbage were excavated. Although samples taken near the center of the property contained substances that are water quality parameters, they were not found in sufficient concentration to be water quality violations. There is an iron stain in the sand north of the existing pond in the area where pond DA-1 is to be located. Based on dissolved oxygen levels in the groundwater, Petitioners' witness suggested that the stain is due to buried sewage, but the oxygen levels are not in violation of water quality standards and, while toward the low end of not being a violation, the levels could be due to natural causes. No evidence was presented establishing that the presence of the iron stain will lead to a violation of water quality standards. Petitioners' witness, Mr. Boyes, testified that iron was a health concern. But iron itself is a secondary drinking water standard, which is not a health-based standard but pertains to odor and appearance of drinking water. See § 403.852(12) and (13), Fla. Stat. Petitioners argued that the Phase I study was defective because historical activity on the project site was not adequately addressed. But the Phase I study was only part of the evidence considered during this de novo hearing. Following up on the Phase I study, the 2001 sampling analyzed for 68 volatile organics and 72 semi-volatile organics, which would have picked up solvents, some pesticides, petroleum hydrocarbons, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons--the full range of semi-volatile and volatile organics. The sampling in August 2003 occurred because some of the semi-volatile parameters sampled earlier needed to be more precisely measured, and it was a much broader analysis that included 63 semi-volatiles, 73 volatile organic compounds, 23 polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, 25 organic phosphate pesticides, 13 chlorinated herbicides, 13 metals, and ammonia and phosphorus. The parameters for which sampling and analyses were done included parameters that were representative of contaminants in landfills that would have now spread to the project site. They also would have detected any contamination due to historical activity on the project site. Yet groundwater testing demonstrated that existing groundwater at the project site meets state water quality standards. Based on the lack of contaminants found in these samples taken from groundwater at the project site 50 years after the landfill began operation, the logical conclusion is that either groundwater does not flow from the landfill toward the project site or that the groundwater moving away from the landfill is not contaminated. Groundwater that may enter the stormwater ponds will not contain contaminants that will exceed surface water quality standards or groundwater quality standards. Taken together, the evidence was adequate to give reasonable assurances that groundwater entering the stormwater ponds will not contain contaminants that exceed surface water quality standards or groundwater quality standards and that water quality violations would not occur from contaminated water groundwater drawn into the proposed stormwater management system, whether from the old landfill or from onsite waste disposal. The greater weight of the evidence was that there are no violations of water quality standards in groundwater beneath the project site and that nothing has happened on the site that would cause violations to occur in the future. Contrary to Petitioners' suggestion, a permit condition requiring continued monitoring for onsite contamination is not warranted. J. Fish and Wildlife Except for the bald eagle nest, all issues regarding fish and wildlife, listed species, and their habitat as they relate to ERP-A.H. 12.2.2 through 12.2.2.4 already have been addressed. When the Ginns were made aware in November 2003 that there was an eagle nest in Wetland 1, they retained the services of Tony Steffer, an eagle expert with over 25 years of experience working specifically with eagles and eagle management issues, including extensive hands-on experience with eagles and the conduct of field studies, aerial surveys, and behavioral observations as well as numerous research projects on the bald eagle. Mr. Steffer visited the Ravenswood site on numerous occasions since the discovery of the nest, made observations, and was integral in the drafting of the Ravenswood BEMP. It is Mr. Steffer’s opinion that the proposed project, with the implementation of the BEMP, will not adversely affect the eagles. This opinion was based on Mr. Steffer's extensive knowledge and experience with eagle behavior and human interactions. In addition, Mr. Steffer considered the physical characteristics of the Ravenswood site and the nest tree, the dense vegetation in Wetland 1 surrounding the nest site, and the existing surrounding land uses, including the existing residential community that lies a distance of about 310 feet from the nest site, the existing roadways and associated traffic, and the school (with attendant playground noise) that is to north of the site. In Mr. Steffer's opinion, the eagles are deriving their security from the buffering effects provided by the surrounding wetland. He observed that the nesting and incubating eagles were not disturbed when he set up his scope at about 300-320 feet from the tree. The BEMP requires that Wetland 1, and the upland islands located within it, be preserved and limits the work associated with the water/sewer line to the non-nesting season. With the BEMP implemented, Mr. Steffer expressed confidence that the Ravenswood eagles would be able to tolerate the proposed activities allowed under the BEMP. The Ravenswood project plans and the BEMP were reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The USFWS analyzed information in their files relating to projects which proposed activities within the primary zone of an eagle nest and reported abandoned nests. None of the reported abandoned nests could be attributed to human activities in and around the nest tree. Based on the project plans, the terms of the BEMP, and this analysis, the USFWS concluded that the Ravenswood project "is not likely to adversely affect" the bald eagles at the Ravenswood site. According to the coordination procedures agreed to and employed by the USFWS and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), the USFWS takes the lead in reviewing bald eagle issues associated with development projects. In accordance with these procedures, for the Ravenswood project, the USFWS coordinated their review and their draft comments with the FFWCC. The FFWCC concurred with the USFWS’s position that the project, with the implementation of the BEMP, will not adversely affect the Ravenswood eagles or their nest. This position by both agencies is consistent with the expert testimony of Mr. Don Palmer, which was based on his 29 years of experience with the USFWS in bald eagle and human interactions. Petitioners and their witnesses raised several valid concerns regarding the continued viability of the Ravenswood eagle nest during and after implementation of the proposed project. One concern expressed was that parts of the Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region (Eagle Management Guidelines) seem inconsistent with the proposed project. For example, the Eagle Management Guidelines state: "The emphasis [of the guidelines] is to avoid or minimize detrimental human-related impacts on bald eagles, particularly during the nesting season." They also state that the primary zone, which in this case is the area within a 750 foot radius of the nest tree, is "the most critical area and must be maintained to promote acceptable conditions for eagles." They recommend no residential development within the primary zone "at any time." (Emphasis in original.) They also recommend no major activities such as land clearing and construction in the secondary zone during the nesting season because "[e]ven intermittent use or activities [of that kind] of short duration during nesting are likely to constitute disturbance." But the eagle experts explained that the Eagle Management Guidelines have not been updated since 1987, and it has been learned since then that eagles can tolerate more disturbance than was thought at that time. Another concern was that the Ravenswood eagles may have chosen the nest site in Wetland 1 not only for its insulation from existing development to the north and east but also for the relatively sparse development to the west. Along those lines, it was not clear from the evidence that the eagles are used to flying over developed land to forage on the San Sebastian River and its estuaries to the east, as the eagle experts seemed to believe. Mr. Mills testified that eagles have been seen foraging around stocked fish ponds to the west, which also could be the source of catfish bones found beneath the Ravenswood nest. But it is believed that the confident testimony of the eagle experts must be accepted and credited notwithstanding Petitioners' unspecific concerns along these lines. Finally, Petitioners expressed concern about the effectiveness of the monitoring during the nesting required under the BEMP. Some of Petitioners' witnesses related less-than-perfect experiences with eagle monitoring, including malfeasance (monitors sleeping instead of monitoring), unresponsive developers (ignoring monitors' requests to stop work because of signs of eagle disturbance, or delaying work stoppage), and indications that some eagle monitors may lack independence from the hiring developer (giving rise, in a worst case, to the question whether an illegal conspiracy exists between them to ignore signs of disturbance when no independent observer is around). Notwithstanding these concerns, Petitioners' witnesses conceded that eagle monitoring can be and is sometimes effective. If Mr. Steffer is retained as the eagle monitor for this project, or to recruit and train eagle monitors to work under his supervision, there is no reason to think that eagle monitoring in this case will not be conducted in good faith and effectively. Even if the Ginns do not retain Mr. Steffer for those purposes, the evidence did not suggest a valid reason to assume that the Ginns' proposed eagle monitoring will not be conducted in good faith and effectively. K. Other 40C-4.301 Criteria – 40C-4.301(1)(g)-(k) 40C-4.301.301(1)(g) - No minimum surface or groundwater levels or surface water flows have been established pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rules Chapter 40C-8 in the area of the project. 40C-4.301.301(1)(h) - There are no works of the District in the area of the project. 40C-4.301.301(1)(i) - The proposed wet detention system is typical and is based on accepted engineering practices. Wet detention systems are one of the most easily maintained stormwater management systems and require very little maintenance, just periodically checking the outfall structure for clogging. 40C-4.301.301(1)(j) - The Ginns own the property where the project is located free from mortgages and liens. As previously indicated, they will establish an operation and maintenance entity. The cost of mitigation is less than $25,000 so that financial responsibility for mitigation was not required to be established. (Costs associated with the proposed BEMP are not included as part of the Ginns' mitigation proposal.) 40C-4.301.301(1)(k) - The project is not located in a basin subject to special criteria. Public Interest Test in 40C-4.302 The seven-factor public interest test is a balancing test. The test applies to the parts of the project that are in, on, or over wetlands, and those parts must not be contrary to the public interest unless they are located in, on, or over an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) or significantly degrade an OFW, in which case the project must be clearly in the public interest. No part of the project is located within an OFW. Balancing the public interest test factors, the project will not be contrary to the public interest. 40C-4.302(1)(a)1. - The project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others because the surface water management system is designed in accordance with District criteria, the post-development peak rate of discharge is less than the pre-development peak rate of discharge, and the project will not cause flooding to offsite properties. 40C-4.302(1)(a)2. - Mitigation will offset any adverse impacts of the project to the conservation of fish and wildlife or their habitats, and the BEMP is designed to prevent adverse effects on the Ravenswood eagles. Although active gopher tortoise burrows were observed on the site, the impacts to these burrows are addressed by the FFWCC’s incidental take permit. The mitigation that is required as part of that permit will adequately offset the impacts to this species. 40C-4.302(1)(a)3. - The project will not adversely affect navigation or cause harmful shoaling. The project will not adversely affect the flow of water or cause harmful erosion. The project's design includes erosion and sediment control measures. The project's design minimizes flow velocities by including flat slopes for pipes. The stormwater will be discharged through an upsized pipe, which will reduce the velocity of the water. The stormwater will discharge into a spreader swale (also called a velocity attenuation pond), which will further reduce the velocity and will prevent erosion in Wetland 1. The other findings of fact relevant to this criterion are in the section entitled "Water Quantity." See Findings 61-67, supra. 40C-4.302(1)(a)4. – Development of the project will not adversely affect the legal recreational use of the project site. (Illegal use by trespassers should not be considered under this criterion.) There also will not be any adverse impact on recreational use in the vicinity of the project site. Wetlands 1 and 5 may provide benefit to marine productivity by supplying detritus to the marine habitat, and these wetlands will remain. 40C-4.302(1)(a)5. - The project will be of a permanent nature except for the temporary impacts to Wetland 1. Mitigation will offset the temporary adverse impacts. 40C-4.302(1)(a)6. - The District found no archeological or historical resources on the site, and the District received information from the Division of Historical Resources indicating there would be no adverse impacts from this project to significant historical or archeological resources. 40C-4.302(1)(a)7. - Considering the mitigation proposal, and the proposed BEMP, there will be no adverse effects on the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed project. The proposed project is no worse than neutral measured against any one of these criteria, individually. For that reason, it must be determined that, on balance, consideration these factors indicates that the project is not contrary to the public interest. Other 40C-4.302 Criteria The proposed mitigation is located within the same drainage basin as the project and offsets the adverse impacts so the project would not cause an unacceptable cumulative impact. The project is not located in or near Class II waters. The project does not contain seawalls and is not located in an estuary or lagoon. The District reviewed a dredge and fill violation that occurred on the project site and was handled by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in 1989. The Ginns owned the property with others in 1989. Although they did not conduct the activity that caused the violation, they took responsibility for resolving the matter in a timely manner through entry of a Consent Order. The evidence was that they complied with the terms of the Consent Order. Applicants' Exhibit 30K was a letter from DER dated February 13, 1991, verifying compliance based on a site inspection. Inexplicably, the file reference number did not match the number on the Consent Order. But Mr. Ginn testified that he has heard nothing since concerning the matter either from DER, or its successor agency (the Department of Environmental Protection), or from the District. The evidence was that the Ginns have not violated any rules described in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40C- 4.302(2). There also was no evidence of any other DER or DEP violations after 1989.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order issuing to Jay and Linda Ginn ERP number 40-109-81153-1, subject to the conditions set forth in District Exhibits 1, 2, and 10. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 2004.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether an environmental resource permit (number 4-109-0216-ERP) (the ERP) should be modified to allow construction and operation of a surface water management system (the project) for a residential development known as EV-1, in a manner consistent with the standards for issuance of ERPs in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rules 40C-4.301 and 40C-4.302.
Findings Of Fact The applicant MCCDD is a unit of special purpose government established in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 190, Florida Statutes for purposes enunciated by that statute. MCCDD has applied for the permit modification at issue in this proceeding. The District is a special taxing district created by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. It is charged with preventing harm to the water resources of the district and to administer and enforce Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and related rules promulgated thereunder. Petitioner Larsen was born in Daytona Beach, Florida. Sometime early in 2002 she apparently moved to the Crescent Beach area and lived for 5-6 months. Crescent Beach is approximately 30 minutes from the EV-1 site. Since October 2002, Petitioner Larsen has been a resident of Live Oak, Florida. She resided for most of her life in Daytona Beach, approximately one hour and 20 minutes from the site. She has been involved with the approval process of the entire Palencia Development (DRI) since 1998, of which the subject parcel and project is a part. The Petitioner likes to observe wildlife in natural areas and to fish, swim, and camp. Ms. Larsen has visited the Guana River State Park (Park) which borders the Tolomato River. Her first visit to the Park was approximately one to two years before the DRI approval of the Palencia project. Ms. Larsen has used the Park to observe birds and other wildlife and to fish. She has fished the Tolomato River shoreline in the Park, and also at the Park dam located across the river and south about two and one-half miles from the EV-1 site. Ms. Larsen has seen the Tolomato River some 30 to 40 times and intends to continue using the Tolomato River and the Guana River State Park in the future. On several occasions she and Petitioner Billie have visited "out-parcel" residents of the Palencia development and viewed wildlife and birds and walked the Marshall Creek area and the marsh edge viewing various bird species. In June 2003, after this litigation ensued, she, her niece and out-parcel resident Glenda Thomas walked a great deal of the subject site taking photographs of wildlife. In July 2003, Larsen and Billie participated in a fishing boat trip in the Marshall Creek area. In September 2003, she and Petitioner Billie kayaked on two consecutive days in the Tolomato River and in Marshall Creek, observing various wildlife such as endangered Wood Storks. Petitioner Larsen has been actively involved for the past 12 years as an advocate for the protection of indigenous or native American burial, village and midden sites on private and government property. Petitioner Billie is a spiritual leader or elder of the Independent Seminole Nation of Florida. In that capacity he sees it as his responsibility to protect animals, rivers, trees, water, air, rains, fish, and "all those things." The Independent Traditional Seminole Nation consists of approximately 200 persons, most of whom reside in Southern Florida. Mr. Billie lives in Okeechobee, Florida, several hours distant by automobile from the project site. About 10 to 30 years ago Billie visited the Eastside of Tolomato River, to visit the beach, the river and other areas in what is now Guana State Park. He visited the dike or dam area and walked along the river front in what is now the Park. He checked on burial sites along the Tolomato River in what is now Guana State Park. Billie first visited the Palencia property about five years ago and has been back a number of times. He has observed various forms of wildlife there and has visited out-parcel owners in the development area to ensure that they do not destroy any burial sites. Billie considers himself an environmental and indigenous rights advocate charged with maintaining the earth and resources for the next generation and preserving sacred and burial sites of indigenous people. He has in the past assisted governmental entities in preserving sacred indigenous sites and burial sites and has participated in the reburials of human remains and their belongings. Sometime ago Billie went on a boat ride on the Tolomato River. Since the filing of the Petition in this proceeding he has been in a kayak on the Tolomato River twice and once in a boat in the vicinity of Marshall Creek. He has also observed Marshall Creek from Shannon Road. He has been on the EV-1 site three times, all in conjunction with this litigation. His concerns with the EV-1 project in part stem from alleged impacts to an indigenous burial ground which he feels he identified, due to the presence of "a lot of shell." However, all of the shell was located in a previously constructed road bed off of the EV-1 project site. He testified that he has had no training with regard to identification of archeological sites, but that he can "feel" if a burial site is present. He believes that the EV-1 project will adversely affect everyone just like it adversely affects him. The Project The project is a 23.83-acre, single-family residential development and an associated stormwater system known as EV-1. It lies within the much larger Marshall Creek DRI in St. Johns County, Florida. The project is in and along wetlands associated with the Tolomato River to the east and wetlands associated with Marshall Creek, a tributary of the Tolomato River, to the north. The project consists of thirteen residential lots, two curb and gutter roadway segments with cul- de-sacs (Hickory Hill Court and North River Drive), paved driveways to individual lots, concrete and pvc stormwater pipes, two stormwater lift stations, perimeter berms, four stormwater run-off storage ponds, and an existing wet detention stormwater pond, which was previously permitted and located south and west of the EV-1 site. The project will also have on-site and off- site wetland mitigation areas. All portions of the EV-1 site are landward of the mean high waterline of the adjacent water bodies. The project plan calls for permanent impacts to 0.82 acres of wetlands. A total of 0.75 acres of that 0.82 acre wetlands is comprised of fill for four access crossings for roads and driveways and a total of 0.07 acres is for clearing in three areas for boardwalk construction. MCCDD proposes to preserve 6.47 acres of forested wetlands and 5.6 acres of saltmarsh wetlands, as well as to preserve 10.49 acres of upland buffers; to restore 0.05 acres of salt marsh and to create 0.09 acres of salt marsh wetlands as mitigation for any wetland impacts. The EV-1 mitigation plan is contiguous to and part of the overall Marshall Creek DRI mitigation plan. The Marshall Creek DRI is also known as "Palencia." The upland buffers are included to prevent human disturbance of the habitat value of off-site wetlands. The upland buffers on the EV-1 site range from 25 feet in areas that do not adjoin tidal marshes to 50 feet in areas which front the Tolomato River or Marshall Creek. Within the 25-foot buffers restrictions include (1) no trimming of vegetation and (2) no structures may be constructed. Within the 50-foot buffers the same restrictions apply, except that for 50 percent of the width of each lot, selected hand trimming may be done on branches 3 inches or less in diameter between 3 and 25 feet above the ground surface. The buffers and other preserved areas will be placed in conservation easements, ensuring that they will remain undisturbed. The Stormwater Management System The 23.83 acre drainage area of the EV-1 project is divided into two types: (1) "Developed Treated Area" consisting of the houses, a portion of each residential lot, all driveways, sidewalks and both cul-de-sac roadway sections, comprising 11.27 acres and (2) "Undeveloped Buffer Area" consisting of the undeveloped portion of the residential lots or 12.56 acres. The buffer areas are located between the developed treated area and the surrounding receiving water. The developed and undeveloped areas of each lot will be separated by earthen berms. The berms will be constructed within each lot and will be a minimum of one foot high above existing ground level at the landward ledge of the natural buffer area. When water falls on the house and the surrounding yard it will be directed through grading to the berm of the lot. Once it reaches the berm it will be collected in a series of inlets and pipes; and once collected within the pipe system it will be stored within the collection system and in several storage ponds. The developed areas storage systems consisting of the inlets, pipes and storage ponds are then connected to two stormwater lift stations that transfer the stored runoff to an existing wet detention pond, known as the EV-2 pond, which is located immediately adjacent to the EV-1 project area. There are two pumps and a wet well in each pump station. The combination of storage ponds, piping systems, the wet wells and the pump stations provide storage of the entire required treatment volume which is 61,000 cubic feet. Actually, the system has been designed to treat 65,000 cubic feet, somewhat in excess of the required treatment volume. Even when the pumps are not running these components of the system are able to completely contain the required treatment volume. The system has been designed to capture and treat in excess of 1.5 inches of runoff. This is the runoff that would be generated from a 5.3 inch rainfall event which is expected to occur less than once per year. This l.5 inches of runoff would generate the required 61,000 cubic feet of treatment volume. In order to ensure that the design volume is not exceeded, the applicant has limited the amount of impervious service on each lot to a maximum of 10,000 square feet. In order to ensure that the on-lot ponds in the collection system are hydrologically isolated, they have been designed to be either completely lined or constructed with "cut- off walls" placed in soils with either a hard pan layer or a layer of low permeability. This would prevent the ponds from de-watering nearby wetlands by removing any hydrologic communication between those wetlands and the ponds. Further, the liners and cut-off walls will isolate the pond from the effects of groundwater. This will ensure that the ponds can be maintained at the designed water level and that, therefore, the collection system will have the required storage volume. The EV-2 pond provides for wet detention treatment and was previously permitted and constructed as part of the EV-2 project. In order to accommodate the additional flow from the EV-1 site, the existing orifice will be plugged and an additional orifice will be installed. No changes will be made to the shape, depth, width, or normal water elevation of the EV- 2 pond. The EV-2 pond discharges into wetland systems that are directly connected to the intracoastal waterway. The EV-2 pond discharges into a wetland system and has a direct hydrologic connection to the intracoastal waterway north of the Matanzas inlet. The District rules do not contain a legal definition of the intracoastal waterway; however, for the purpose of determining whether a project discharge constitutes a direct discharge to the intracoastal waterway, the waterway includes more than the navigable channel of the intracoastal waterway. (Projects that have a direct discharge to the intracoastal waterway north of the Matanzas inlet are not required to demonstrate that the post-development peak rate of discharge does not exceed the pre-development peak rate of discharge, because this criterion was designed to evaluate the flooding impacts from rainfall events.) Flooding in water- bodies such as the intracoastal waterway is not governed by rainfall, but rather by tides and storm surges. The system design includes a clearing and erosion control plan and specific requirements to control erosion and sediment. The system design incorporates best management practices and other design features to prevent erosion and sedimentation, including (1) capturing turbidity; (2) sodding and grassing side slopes; (3) filtering water; (4) use of siltation fences during construction; (5) removing sediment; (6) early establishment of vegetative cover; and (7) keeping water velocities low, at less than 2 feet per second. The EV-2 pond is hydrologically isolated from groundwater influence because it was constructed with cut-off walls placed into a hard pan, impermeable layer. The EV-2 pond appears to be working properly, with no indication of adverse groundwater influence. The system has been designed to prevent adverse impacts to the hydro-period of remaining wetlands. The wetlands are hydrated through groundwater flow. The groundwater will still migrate to the wetlands as it did in the pre-development condition. The cut-off walls and liners in the ponds will prevent draw-down of groundwater from the wetlands. No septic tanks are planned for the project. The system is designed based on generally accepted engineering practices and should be able to function as designed. The pumps are three inch pumps that can handle solids up to two and one-half inches in diameter. Yard grates have one-inch slots that will prevent anything larger than one inch diameter from entering the system. Additionally, solids would accumulate in the sump areas. Finally, even if there were a power outage, the system can store the full treatment volume, without discharging, until power is restored. Flood Plain Consideration The 100-year flood elevation for the EV-1 site is 7.0 feet NGVD. The finish flood elevation of the houses will be 8.0 feet. The streets and roadways have been designed to be flood free in accordance with the St. Johns County criteria relating to flooding. The 10-year flood elevation for the EV-1 site is 4.1 feet NGVD. The project will result in filling 2,691 cubic feet of fill in areas below the 4.1-foot NGVD elevation which will include 2,456 cubic feet for "Hickory Hill" and 235 cubic feet for "North River." Thus, 2,691 feet of water will displaced in the 10-year floodplain of the Tolomato River as a result of the EV-1 project. This fill will result in a rise in water elevation in the Tolomato River of 0.0002 feet, which is less than the thickness of the single sheet of paper and is statistically insignificant. If other applicants were to impact the 10-year floodplain to the same extent, there would be no adverse cumulative impact in the flood storage capability of the floodplain. The Tolomato River/intracoastal waterway does not function as a floodway because it is more influenced by wind and tide than by stormwater runoff. Therefore, the project will not cause a net reduction in the flood conveyance capabilities of a floodway. Surface Water Each roadway and master driveway is provided with culverts to ensure redundant, multiple paths for water flow. For this reason, the wetland fill will not significantly impact the flow of water. These redundant connections also ensure that the water velocities are low, reducing the likelihood of erosion. In order to ensure that erosion will not occur, surface water velocities will be less than two feet per second and steep slopes (greater than two percent) will be sodded. The project does not impound water other than for temporary detention purposes. The project does not divert water to another hydrologic water basin or water course. Water Quality The Tolomato River and Marshall Creek, its tributary, are classified as Class II water bodies pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.400. The designated use for Class II water is for shellfish harvesting. The Tolomato River is the receiving water for the EV-1 project. The Marshall Creek and Tolomato River Class II waters do not meet the applicable Class II water quality standards for total fecal coliform bacteria and for dissolved oxygen (DO). Water sampling indicates that sometimes the regulatory parameters for fecal coliform and for DO are exceeded in the natural occurring waters of Marshall Creek and the Tolomato River. The EV-2 pond has a large surface area and the top of the water column will be the most well-oxygenated due to contact with the atmosphere. Any water discharging from the pond will come from the surface of the pond which is the water containing the highest oxygen content in the entire water column of the pond. Thus, discharges from the EV-2 pond will not violate water quality standards for DO and the construction and operation of the project will actually improve the water quality in the receiving waters with respect to the dissolved oxygen parameter. Bacteria such as fecal coliform, generally have a life span of a few hours to a few days. The EV-2 pond will have a detention time, for water deposited therein, of approximately 190 days. This lengthy residence time will provide an ample opportunity for die-off of any coliform bacteria in the water column before the water is discharged from the pond. Additionally, there will be substantial dilution in the pond caused by the large volume of the pond. No new sources of coliform bacteria such as septic tanks are proposed as part of the EV-1 project. The fecal coliform discharge from the pond will thus be very low in value and will lead to a net improvement in the water quality of the receiving water-body. In fact, since the commencement of construction on the Marshall Creek DRI phases, a substantial and statistically significant decrease in fecal coliform levels has been observed in the main channel of Marshall Creek. The applicant has provided a detailed erosion control plan for the construction phase of the EV-1 project. The plan requires the use of best erosion and sediment control practices. In any location that will have slopes exceeding a two percent gradient, sodding will be provided adjacent to roadways or embankments, thereby preventing erosion. The EV-1 project design is based on generally accepted engineering practices and it will be able to function and operate as designed. The liner and cut-off wall components of the pond portions of the project are proven technology and are typical on such project sites which are characterized by high groundwater table and proximity to wetlands. The pump stations component of the project design is proven technology and is not unusual in such a design situation. The pump stations have been designed according to the stringent specifications provided for wastewater lift station pumps in sewer systems which operate with more frequency and duration of running times and therefore, more stressful service, than will be required for this system. Once constructed, the surface water management system will be operated and maintained by the applicant, which is a community development district. An easement for access in, on, over and upon the property, necessary for the purpose of access and maintenance of the EV-1 surface water management system, has been reserved to the community development district and will be a permanent covenant running with the title to the lots in the project area. The portions of the river and Marshall Creek adjacent to the project have been classified by the Department of Environmental Protection as conditionally restrictive for shellfish harvesting because of fecal coliform bacterial levels, which often exceed state water quality standards for that parameter. The boundary of the conditional shellfish harvesting area is the mean high water elevation. The EV-1 project site is located above the mean high water elevation. None of the wetland areas within the project site are able to support shellfish due to the characteristics of the wetlands and the lack of daily inundation of the high marsh portion of the wetlands. No shellfish have been observed on the EV-1 site. The EV-1 project will not result in a change in the classification of the conditionally restricted shellfish harvesting area. The project will not negatively affect Class II waters and the design of the system and the proposed erosion controls will prevent significant water quality harm to the immediate project area and adjacent areas. The discharge from the project will not change the salinity regime or temperatures prevailing in the project area and adjacent areas. Wetland Impact The 23.83-acre site contains five vegetative communities that include pine, flatwood, uplands, temperate hardwood uplands, wetland coniferous forest, wetland mixed forest and salt marsh. Several trail roads that were used for site access and forestry activities traverse the site. The project contains 0.82 acres of wetlands. The wetland communities are typical and are not considered unique. Most of the uplands on the main portion of the site exhibit the typical characteristics of a pine flatwood community. Some of the road-crossing areas within the EV-1 boundary are wetland pine flatwoods; these areas are dominated by pines and a canopy, but are still considered wetlands. There is also a very small area of high marsh vegetative community within the EV-1 boundary. Most of the site, both wetlands and uplands, has been logged in the past. The wetlands are functional; however, the prior logging operations have reduced the overall wildlife value of the site, including that of the wetlands, due to the absence of mature trees. All of the wetlands on the EV-1 site are hydrologically connected to and drain to the Marshall Creek and Tolomato River systems. The wetlands on the site are adjacent to an ecologically, important watershed. To the east of the EV-1 site, the Tolomato River and Marshall Creek are part of the Guana Marsh Aquatic Preserve. The Guana River State Park and Wildlife Management Area is also to the east of the EV-1 site. All the wetlands and uplands on the EV-1 site are located above the elevation of the mean high water line and therefore are outside the limit of the referenced Aquatic Preserve and Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). Direct Wetland Impact Within the site boundary there will be a total of 0.82 acres of wetland impacts in seven areas. MCCDD proposes to fill 0.75 acres of the wetlands to construct roads to provide access to the developed uplands and selectively clear 0.07 acres of the mixed forested wetlands to construct three pile-supported pedestrian boardwalks. The fill impacts include 0.29 acres within the mixed forested wetlands, 0.32 acres within the coniferous wetlands, and 0.14 acres within the high salt marsh area. The direct impacts to wetlands and other surface waters from the proposed project are located above the mean high water line of Marshall Creek and the Tolomato River. The first impact area is a 0.25-acre impact for a road crossing from the EV-2 parcel on to the EV-1 site. 0.14 acres of the 0.25 acres of impact will be to an upper salt marsh community and 0.11 acres of impact is to a mixed forested wetland. This impact is positioned to the south of an existing trail road. The trail road has culverts beneath it so there has been no alteration to the hydrology of the wetland as a result of the trail road. This area contains black needle rush and spartina (smooth cord grass). The black needle rush portion of this area may provide some foraging for Marsh Wrens, Clapper Rails and mammals such as raccoons and marsh rabbits. The fresh-water forested portion of this area, which contains red maple and sweet gum, may provide foraging and roosting and may also be used by amphibians and song birds. Wading birds would not likely use this area because the needle rush is very sharp- pointed and high and will not provide an opportunity for these types of birds to forge and move down into the substrate to feed. The wading birds also would be able to flush very quickly in this area and their predators would likely hide in this area. The second impact area is a 0.25-acre impact to a pine flatwoods wetland community and will be used for a road crossing. It is in a saturated condition most of the time. The species that utilize this area are typically marsh rabbits, possums, and raccoons. The third impact area is a 0.18-acre impact to a mixed forested wetlands for a roadway crossing on the south end of the project. The impact is positioned within the area of an existing trail road. The trail road has culverts beneath it, so there will be no alteration to the hydrology of the wetland as a result of the road. This area is characterized by red maple, sweet gum and some cabbage palm. There will be marsh rabbits, raccoons, possums, some frogs, probably southern leopard frogs and green frogs in this area. Wading birds would not likely use this area due to the same reasons mentioned above. The fourth impact area is a 0.07-acre impact for a driveway for access to Lot two. This area is a mixed forested wetland area, having similar wildlife species as impact areas three and seven. The fifth impact area is a 0.02-acre clearing impact for a small residential boardwalk for the owner of Lot six to access the uplands in the back of the lot. The proposed boardwalk will be completely pile-supported and will be constructed five feet above the existing grade. This area is a mixed forested wetland area, having similar species as impact areas three and seven. Wading birds would also not likely use this area for the same reasons delineated above as to the other areas. The sixth impact area is also a 0.02-acre clearing impact similar to impact area five. The proposed board walk would be located on Lot five and be completely pile-supported five feet above the existing grade. This area is a mixed forested wetland area similar to impact area five. Deer will also use this area as well as the rest of the EV-1 site. Wading birds will probably not use this area due to the same reasons mentioned above. The seventh impact area is a 0.03-acre impact for two sections of a public boardwalk (previously permitted) for the Palencia Development. The proposed boardwalk will be completely pile-supported, five feet above the existing grade. This is a pine-dominated area with similar wildlife species to impact area two. All these wetlands are moderate quality wetlands. The peripheral edges of the wetlands will be saturated during most of the year. Some of the interior areas that extend outside the EV-1 site will be seasonally inundated. Secondary Impacts The applicant is addressing secondary impacts by proposing 8.13 acres of 25-foot wide (or greater) upland buffers and by replacing culverts at the roadway crossings to allow for wildlife crossing and to maintain a hydrologic connection. Mitigation by wetland preservation is proposed for those areas that cannot accommodate upland buffers (i.e., the proposed impact areas). Under the first part of the secondary impact test MCCDD must provide reasonably assurance that the secondary impact from construction, alteration and intended or reasonably expected uses of the project will not adversely affect the functions of adjacent wetlands or other surface waters. With the exception of wetland areas adjacent to the road crossings, MCCDD proposes to place upland buffers around the wetlands where those potential secondary impacts could occur. The buffers are primarily pine flatwoods (pine dominated with some hardwood). These buffers encompass more area than the lots on the EV-1 site. The upland buffers would extend around the perimeter of the project and would be a minimum of 25 feet and a maximum of 50 feet wide, with some areas actually exceeding 50 feet in width. The buffers along the Marshall Creek interface and the Tolomato River interface will be 50 feet and the buffers that do not front the tidal marshes (in effect along the interior) will be 25 feet. These upland buffers will be protected with a conservation easement. No activities, including trimming or placement of structures are allowed to occur within the 25-foot upland buffers. These restrictions ensure that an adequate buffer will remain between the wetlands and the developed portion of the property to address secondary impacts. The restriction placed on the 25-foot buffers is adequate to prevent adverse secondary impacts to the habitat value of the off-site wetlands. No types of structures are permitted within the 50- foot buffers. However, hand-trimming will be allowed within half of that length along the lot interface of the wetland. Within that 50 percent area, trimming below three-feet or above 25-feet is prohibited. Trimming of branches that are three inches or less in diameter is also prohibited. Lot owners will be permitted to remove dead material from the trimming area. The 50-foot buffers will prevent secondary impacts because there will still be a three-foot high scrub area and the 50 foot distance provides a good separation between the marsh which will prevent the wading birds, the species of primary concern here, from flushing (being frightened away). None of the wetland area adjacent to uplands are used by listed species for nesting, denning, or critically important feeding habitat. Species observed in the vicinity of Marshall Creek or the adjacent Tolomato River wetland aquatic system include eagle, least tern, brown pelican, and wading birds such as the woodstork, tri-color blue heron, and snowy egrets. Wading Birds will typically nest over open water or on a island surrounded by water. Given the buffers proposed by MCCDD, the ability of listed species to forage in the adjacent wetlands will not be affected by upland activities on the EV-1 site. The adjacent wetlands are not used for denning by listed species. Under the second part of the secondary impact test, MCCDD must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, and intended or reasonably expected uses of the system will not adversely affect the ecological value of the uplands to aquatic or wetland dependent species for enabling nesting or denning by these species. There are no areas on the EV-1 site that are suitable for nesting or denning by threatened or endangered species and no areas on the EV-1 site that are suitable for nesting or denning by aquatic and wetland dependent species. After conducting on-site reviews of the area, contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Wildlife Commission and reviewing literature and maps, Mr. Esser established that the aquatic and wetland listed species are not nesting or denning in the project area. There is a nest located on uplands on the first island east of the project site, which was observed on October 29, 2002. The nest has been monitored informally some ten times by the applicants, consultants and several times by personnel of the District. The nest was last inspected on October 14, 2003. No feathers were observed in the nest at that time. It is not currently being used and no activity in it has been observed. Based on the absence of fish bones and based upon the size of the sticks used in the nest (one-half inch) and the configuration of the tree (crotch of the tree steeply angled) it is very unlikely that the nest is that of an American Bald Eagle. It is more likely the nest of a red-tailed hawk. Historical and Archeological Resources Under the third part of the secondary impact test and as part of the public interest test, any other relevant activities that are very closely linked and causally related to any proposed dredging or filling which will cause impacts to significant historical or archeological resources must be considered. When making a determination with regard to this part of the secondary impact test the District is required by rule to consult the Division of Historical and Archeological Resources (the Division) within the Department of State. The District received information from the Division and from the applicant regarding the classification of significant historical and archeological resources. In response to the District's consultation with the Division, the Division indicated that there would be no adverse impacts from this project to significant historical or archeological resources. As part of the Marshall Creek DRI application, a Phase I archeological survey was conducted for the entire area of the DRI, including the EV-1 project area. The Phase I survey of the Marshall Creek DRI area revealed nine archeological sites. At the end of the Phase I survey, five of the nine sites were recommended to be potentially eligible for the National Register of Historical places and additional work was recommended to be done on those five sites, according to Dr. Ann Stokes, the archeologist who performed the Phase I survey and other archeological investigation relevant to this proceeding. One of the sites considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places was site 8SJ3146. Site 8SJ3146 was the only site found in the area near the EV-1 project site. The majority of the EV-1 project site lies to the east of this archeological site. The entry road leading into EV-1 crosses the very southeastern edge or corner of the 8SJ3146 archeological site. Shovel tests for archeological remains or artifacts were conducted across the remainder of the EV-1 property and were negative. Ceramic shards were found in one of the shovel tests (shovel test number 380), but it was determined by Dr. Stokes that that ceramic material (pottery) had been within some type of fill that was brought into the site and the ceramics were not artifacts native to that site. Therefore, it was not considered a site or an occurrence. There was no evidence of any human remains in any of the shovel test units and there was nothing to lead Dr. Stokes to believe that there were any individuals buried in that area. (EV-1) Because a determination was made that 8SJ3146 was a potentially significant site, a "Phase II assessment" was conducted for the site. During the Phase II assessment five tests units were established on the site to recover additional information about the site and assess its significance. The test unit locations (excavations) were chosen either to be next to an area where there were a lot of artifacts recovered or where an interesting type of artifact had been recovered. Test units one through four contained very few or no artifacts. Test unit five however, yielded faunal bones (animal remains), pottery and a post mold (post molds are evidence of support posts for ancient structures). After the Phase II assessment was conducted, site 8SJ3146 was considered to be significant, but the only part of the site that had any of the data classes (artifact related) that made it a significant site was in the area of the very southwest portion of 8SJ3146, surrounding test unit five. Dr. Stokes recommended that the area surrounding test unit five in the very southwestern portion of 8SJ3146 be preserved and that the remainder of the site would not require any preservation because the preservation of the southwestern portion of the site was the only preservation area which would be significant archeologically and its preservation would be adequate mitigation. That southwestern portion of the site, surrounding unit five, is not on the EV-1 site. Dr. Stokes recommended to the applicant and to the Division that a cultural resource management plan be adopted for the site and such a plan was implemented. A Phase I cultural resource survey was also conducted on the reminder of the EV-1 site, not lying within the boundaries of 8SJ3146. That survey involved shovel tests across the area of the EV-1 project area and in the course of which no evidence of archeological sites was found. Those investigations were also reported to the Division in accordance with law. The preservation plan for site 8SJ3146, as to preservation of the southwest corner, is now called an archeological park. That designation was shown to be adequate mitigation for this site. The preservation area is twice as large as the area originally recommended by Dr. Stokes to be preserved; test unit five is within that preservation area. Dr. Stokes's testimony and evidence are not refuted by any persuasive countervailing evidence and are accepted. They demonstrate that the construction and operation of the EV-1 project will not adversely affect any significant archeological or historical resources. This is because any effects to site 8SJ3146 are mitigated by the adoption of the preservation plan preserving the southwest portion of that archeological site. Under the fourth part of the secondary impact test, the applicant must demonstrate that certain additional activities and future phases of a project will not result in adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or result in water quality violations. MCCDD has demonstrated that any future phase or expansion of the project can be designed in accordance with the District's rule criteria. Mitigation of Adverse Impacts The permit applicant has proposed mitigation to offset adverse impacts to wetland functions as part of its ERP application. The proposed mitigation consists of 0.05 acres of wetlands restoration, 12.07 acres of wetland preservation (including 6.47 acres of mixed forested wetlands and 5.60 acres of salt marsh), 10.49 acres of upland preservation (which includes buffers and additional upland areas) and 0.09 acres of salt marsh creation. The mitigation for the EV-1 project will occur on-site and off-site; 10.49 acres of upland buffer are being committed to the project. The upland buffers are on-site; the rest of the mitigation is off-site and is adjacent to EV-1. There will be 5.6 acres of salt marsh preservation and 6.47 acres of forested wetland preservation. All of the mitigation is on land lying above the mean high water elevation and is outside the aquatic preserve and the OFW. The salt marsh restoration will occur by taking out an existing trail road that is in the northeast section of the site and the salt marsh creation site is proposed at the tip of lot number one. The preservation of wetlands provides mitigation value because it provides perpetual protection, ensuring that development will not occur in those areas, as well as preventing agricultural activities, logging and other relatively unregulated activities from occurring there. This will allow the conserved lands to mature and to provide more forage and habitat for wildlife that would use those areas. The functions that are currently being provided by the wetlands to be impacted will be replaced and exceeded in function by the proposed mitigation. Additionally, MCCDD did not propose any impacts on site that could not be offset by mitigation. The EV-1 project will not adversely affect the abundance and diversity and habitat of fish and wildlife. The mitigation for the proposed project is also located within the same drainage basin as the area of wetlands to be adversely impacted. MCCDD has proposed mitigation that implements all or part of a plan of regional ecological value and the proposed mitigation will provide greater long-term ecological value than the wetlands to be impacted. The plan of regional ecological value consists of the land identified in the DRI as well as the lands that have been permitted as mitigation up to date and the proposed EV-1 mitigation lands. The plan includes lands that have been added to the plan since the approval of the Marshall Creek DRI. The mitigation proposed for the impact to wetlands and other surface waters associated with the project is contiguous with the Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve, with previously preserved wetlands and upland islands and with Marshall Creek. When implemented the mitigation plan will create wetlands and preserve wetlands and uplands with functions similar to the impacted wetlands and those wetlands will be connected through wetland and upland preservation to the Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve. Corridors and preservation areas important for wildlife movement throughout the whole Palencia site have been set aside. As development progresses towards the eastern portion of the Marshall Creek site, it is important to add preservation areas to the whole larger plan. The lands proposed to be added as mitigation for the EV-1 project will add to the value of the previously preserved lands from other phases of the DRI and development by helping to maintain travel corridors and forage areas for wildlife, to maintain water quality in the adjacent marsh and to maintain fish and wildlife benefits of the aquatic preserve. MCCDD has provided more mitigation than is typically required by the District for such types of impact. The upland preservation ratios for example range from about three-to-one to twenty-to-one. MCCDD is providing upland preservation at a near twenty-to-one ratio. Salt marsh preservation ratios are typically required to be sixty to one and MCCDD is providing mitigation at twice that ratio. Concerning fresh-water forested preservation, the District usually requires mitigation at a twenty to twenty-five-to-one ratio and the applicant is proposing a thirty to one preservation ratio. Additional mitigation will be provided beyond what is required to mitigate the adverse impacts for each type of impact anticipated. Although proposing more mitigation may in some instances not provide greater long-term ecological value than the wetlands to be adversely affected, the mitigation proposed by MCCDD will provide greater long-term ecological value. The Petitioners contend that a chance in circumstances has occurred which would adversely affect the mitigation plan as a plan of regional ecological value. They claim its efficacy will be reduced because of a proposed development to a tract of land known as the Ball Tract which would, in the Petitioners' view, sever connection between the Marshall Creek site and the 22,000-acre Cummer Trust Tract also known as "Twelve mile swamp." Although a permit application has been submitted to the Florida Wildlife Commission for the Ball Tract property, located northwest of Marshall Creek and across U.S. Highway 1 from Marshall Creek and the EV-1 site, no permit has been issued by the District for that project. Even if there were impacts proposed to wetlands and other surface waters as part of any development on the Ball Tract, mitigation would still be required for those impacts, so any opinion about whether the connection would be severed between the project site, the Marshall Creek site and the Cummer Trust Tract is speculative. The Petitioners also sought to establish changed circumstances in terms of reduced effectiveness of the plan as a plan of regional ecological value because, in their opinion, Map H, the master plan, in the Marshall Creek development order plan, shows the EV-1 project area as being located in a preservation area. However, Map H of the Marshall Creek DRI actually shows the designation VP for "Village Parcel" on the EV-1 site and shows adjacent wetland preservation areas. Although Map H shows a preservation area adjacent to the EV-1 parcel, the Petitioners infer that EV-1 was not proposed for development. That is not the case. Map H contains a note that the preservation areas (as opposed to acreages) are shown as generalized areas and are subject to final design, road crossings and final wetland surveys before they were exactly delineated. Therefore, in the DRI plan, the EV-1 area was not actually designated a preservation area. Surface Water Diversion and Wetland Draw-Down Water will not be diverted to another basin or water course as a result of the EV-1 project. Water captured by the treatment system and discharged from the EV-2 pond, will flow back through wetlands that meander through the project site. The EV-1 project will not result in significant diversion of surface waters. The project will also not result in a draw-down of groundwater that will extend into adjacent wetlands. Each of the storage ponds on lots 1, 3, and 7 and between lots 9 and 10 has been designed to include cut-off walls around the perimeter of the ponds and the storage pond on lot 7 will be completely lined. The cut-off walls will be installed in a soil strata that has very low permeability. The cut-off walls and liner will restrict the movement of groundwater from the wetlands into the storage ponds. As a result, the zone of influence of each storage pond will not extend far enough to intercept with the adjacent wetlands. The Public Interest Test The public interest test has seven criteria, with each criteria having equal weight. The public interest test applies to the parts of the project that are in, on or over wetlands, and those parts must not be contrary to the public interest unless they are located in, on or over an OFW or may significantly degrade an OFW; then the project must be clearly in the public interest. It is a balancing test. The EV-1 project, however, is not located in an OFW. The Public Health Safety and Welfare Criteria The parts of the project located in, on and over wetlands will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare. These parts of the project will not cause any adverse impact on flood stages or flood plains and discharges from the system will not harm shell fishing waters. This factor is thus considered neutral. Conservation of Fish, Wildlife or Their Habitat The mitigation from this project will offset any adverse impacts to fish wildlife or their habitat. Therefore this factor is considered neutral as well. Fishing, Recreational Value and Marine Productivity There is no recreational activity or fish nursery areas within the project limits and the project will not change the temperature of the aquatic regime. None of the impacts associated with the EV-1 site are within the mean high water line of the marine aquatic regime. The activities are not going to interact with the tidal regime and they cause negligible impacts. Concerning marine productivity, the wetland impacts are landward of the marine system; therefore, impact on marine productivity is not applicable. Thus this factor is considered neutral. Temporary or Permanent Nature The project will be of a permanent nature. Even though the project is permanent, this factor is considered neutral because the mitigation proposed will offset any permanent adverse impact. Navigation and the Flow of Water The parts of the project located in, on and over wetlands will not adversely affect navigation. These parts will also not impound or divert water and therefore will not adversely affect the flow of water. The project has been designed to minimize and reduce erosion. Best management practices will be implemented, and therefore, the project will not cause harmful erosion. Thus this factor is also considered neutral. Current Condition and Relative Value of Functions Being Performed The current condition and relative value of the functions being performed by the areas affected by the proposed activity, wetlands areas, will not be harmed. This is because any adverse impacts to the wetlands involved will be more than offset by the mitigation proposed to be effected. Therefore, there may well be a net gain in the relative value and functions being performed by the natural areas and the mitigation areas combined. Thus this factor is neutral. Works of the District The proposed project will not cause any adverse impact to a work of the District established in accordance with Section 373.086, Florida Statutes. Shoaling The construction and operation of the proposed project to the extent it is located in, on or over wetlands or other surface waters will not cause any harmful shoaling.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the St. Johns River Water Management District granting MCCDD's application for an individual environmental resource permit with the conditions set forth in the technical staff report dated September 24, 2003, in evidence as St. John's River Water Management District's Exhibit 3. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Deborah J. Andrews, Esquire 11 North Roscoe Boulevard Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida 32082 Veronika Thiebach, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Marcia Parker Tjoflat, Esquire Pappas, Metcalf, Jenks & Miller, P.A. 245 Riverside Avenue, Suite 400 Jacksonville, Florida 32202-4327 Stephen D. Busey, Esquire Allan E. Wulbern, Esquire Smith, Hulsey & Busey 225 Water Street, Suite 1800 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kirby Green, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429
The Issue The issue is whether St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan Policies E.2.2.5, E.2.2.10, E.2.2.13, E.2.2.17, and D.2.3.4 adopted by Ordinance No. 2003-31 on March 25, 2003, are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The County's current Plan was adopted in 1990. At that time, the County adopted a minimum buffer between wetlands and "natural drainage courses" of 25 feet. During the preparation of its Evaluation Appraisal Report (an update to the Plan) in 1999, the County directed its staff to initiate a study of wetlands and upland buffers. After a Request for Proposals was issued, the County eventually contracted with Jones, Edmunds & Associates (JEA) to prepare a study of the available science concerning upland buffers and develop a wetland buffer plan which would protect environmentally sensitive lands from development activities. In conducting this study, JEA relied upon its own personnel, County staff, and outside consultants. In August 1999, JEA completed and submitted to the County a "Background Report in Support of Development of Wetland Buffer Zone Ordinance" (Background Report). In January 2000, JEA completed and submitted to the County a final report entitled "Calculating Buffer Zone Widths for Protection of Wetlands and Other Environmentally Sensitive Lands in St. Johns County" (Final Report). The Final Report generally provided a methodology for calculating buffer widths based on vegetation and groundwater drawdown and recommended that the County adopt a 300-foot buffer around all wetlands in the County. In response to the Final Report, on May 10, 2000, the County adopted various amendments to its wetland buffer provisions, including a new Policy E.2.2.5(a)(1)(c) which required that it adopt Land Development Regulations (LDRs) pertaining to wetlands within two years "after completion of the consultant's wetland buffer study," or by January 2002. In February 2000, the County also created a volunteer working group (Working Group) made up of County staff, biologists, environmental scientists, and representatives of environmental organizations and landowners, to review data and analysis related to wetland buffers, including the JEA Final Report. That group held at least nineteen meetings between February 2000 and May 2001, and it analyzed scientific and technical data and expert testimony from various federal and state agencies. On July 24, 2001, the County staff recommended that the County adopt new LDRs which identified upland buffer zones and required wetland buffers ranging from 50 to 150 feet, depending on the sensitivity of the area; however, this recommendation was rejected by a 3-2 vote. When the County failed to adopt new wetland buffer regulations within the two year period, as required by the Plan, on June 11, 2002, Petitioners filed a complaint with the Department under Section 163.3202, Florida Statutes (2001), seeking enforcement of Policy E.2.2.5(a)(1)(c). After the Department made a determination that the County had failed to amend its LDRs, as required by the Plan, on October 16, 2002, the County submitted to the Department for its compliance review a package of proposed amendments, including amendments to Policies E.2.2.5, E.2.2.10, E.2.2.13, and E.2.2.17. On December 20, 2002, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report (ORC), which raised objections to Policies E.2.2.5, E.2.2.10, and E.2.2.13. More specifically, the ORC raised the following two issues: The amendments establishing averaging of buffers do not provide a predictable standard for buffering. In particular there is no minimum buffer width [Issue 1]. Additionally, the amendment is not supported by data and analysis demonstrating the proposed minimum and averaging is adequate to protect the resources referenced in the County. Therefore, the amendment has not demonstrated consistency with requirements to protect natural resources including upland habitat and wetlands [Issue 2]. In response to the ORC, on March 25, 2003, the County adopted Ordinance No. 2003-31, which made changes to Policies E.2.2.5 and D.3.2.4. The Ordinance also readopted (without further change) Policies E.2.2.10, E.2.2.13, and E.2.2.17, which had been previously submitted to the Department on October 16, 2002. Policies E.2.2.5, E.2.2.10, E.2.2.13, and E.2.2.17 are found in the Conservation/Coastal Management Element of the Plan while Policy D.3.2.4 is found in the Stormwater Management Sub-Element of the Infrastructure Element of the Plan. As noted above, while the County made further amendments to Policy E.2.2.5(a)(1)(a) and (b), which addressed the minimum buffer issue raised in the ORC, it did not make any changes (e.g., altering the width of the buffers) which addressed the issue of whether the buffers were adequate in size to protect the natural resources. Finally, for the purpose of providing "clarification and consistency" with other provisions within the Plan, the County also made minor modifications to Policy D.3.2.4. In very broad terms, Ordinance No. 2003-31 added a requirement that the LDRs address "wetland buffer averaging" and establish a variance procedure. It also deleted the requirement that the wetland buffer regulations be amended within two years after the completion of the consultant's study. On May 21, 2003, the Department published its Notice of Intent to Find Amendment in Compliance in a local newspaper. In making this determination, the Department concluded that it was legally prohibited by Section 163.3184(6)(c), Florida Statutes, from compelling the County to adopt larger upland buffers. That statute provides that when a state agency, here the St. Johns River Water Management District (District), has implemented a permitting program, "the [Department] shall not require a local government to duplicate or exceed that permitting program in its comprehensive plan." On June 3, 2003, Petitioners filed their Petition contending that the amendments were not in compliance for numerous reasons. As set forth in the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Petitioners contend that there was insufficient data and analyses to support the amendments in violation of Sections 163.3177(8) and (10)(e), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 9J-5.005(1)(c), (2)(a) and (b), 9J-5.006(2)(b) and (c), 9J-5.012(2), and 9J-5.013(1); that the amendment is not in compliance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.013(2)(b)(4), (c)(5) and (6), and (3); that the amendment is not in compliance with Section 163.3177(6)(d), Florida Statutes; that the amendment to Policy E.2.2.10(b) is not in compliance because it is a self-amending policy; that the amendment to Policy E.2.2.5(a)(1) is not in compliance because it fails to provide a clear, predictable standard for variances; that the amendment is internally inconsistent with Future Land Use Element Goal A.1 and Objective A.1.1, Conservation Goal E.2, Objective E.2.2, and associated Policies E.2.2.4, E.2.2(c),3 E.2.2.8, E.2.2.9, E.2.2.10, E.2.2.17, and E.2.2.18; that the amendment is internally inconsistent with Conservation Objectives E.2.3 and E.2.8 and Policies E.2.3.7, E.2.8.7, and E.2.8.8; and that the amendment is inconsistent with the following portions of the State Comprehensive Plan: Section 187.201(8)(b)10. and 12., (10)(b)1., 3., and 7., and (26)(b)7., Florida Statutes. The Parties The County is the local government responsible for adopting a Plan and amendments thereto. FWF is a not-for-profit corporation whose purpose, according to its president, is "conservation and natural resources and education." FWF submitted objections to the County prior to the adoption of the challenged amendments. Although FWF's offices are located in Tallahassee, it currently has 173 members who reside within the County. FWF does not assert that it resides or owns property or a business within the County; however, FWF does contend that it has standing to participate in this proceeding on the theory that it operates a business within the County. Besides making comments, recommendations, and objections to local governments regarding growth management issues, the evidence shows that the organization (primarily if not wholly from its Tallahassee office) collects dues from its members; periodically sends members a newsletter providing information on conservation issues; organizes and takes field trips; issues press releases; occasionally makes presentations to the public; and provides information to the news media concerning conservation-related issues. The organization also has a web site with a "merchandise store," which sells merchandise (more than likely to members but also to the public) from its Tallahassee office. However, the sale of merchandise is only incidental to the primary purpose described above by its president. FWF does not maintain an office in the County; it does not have an occupational license to engage in a business; it has no employees in the County; it has no telephone listing in the County; it has not filed any tangible personal property tax returns or requested exemptions from the County Tax Collector; it holds no formal meetings within the County; and its president could not recall when or if merchandise was sold by the Tallahassee office (via the web site) to a County resident within the last 12 months. It is fair to find from the evidence that FWF does not operate a business within the County. FMI is a not-for-profit Florida corporation (created in 1997) whose principal address is 201 Owens Avenue, St. Augustine, Florida. (That address is also the address of a charter member, Patrick Hamilton.) FMI submitted objections to the County prior to the adoption of the challenged amendments. According to Mr. Hamilton, the purpose of the organization is to "preserve and protect the Matanzas River Basin [which runs north-south along the eastern part of the County] and the lands that affect it." The organization has members who reside within the County, although the exact number is not of record. Like FWF, FMI does not reside or own property or a business within the County; however, FMI contends that it is an affected person because it operates a business within the County. To substantiate this assertion, FMI presented evidence that it collects dues from its members; sends newsletters to its members; prepares and submits objections, recommendations, and comments to the County regarding growth management issues; hires attorneys and consultants to represent its interests in environmental and land use matters; provides educational information to local news media; has been involved in various projects over the years (such as seeking to have Highway A1A designated as a state scenic highway and providing input to the State on the purchase of lands for conservation purposes); takes occasional field trips; and conducts meetings within the County. FMI maintains a bank account but has no office. (When meetings are held, it generally uses the office or home of one of its members.) There is no evidence that FMI has a telephone listing, an occupational license to engage in any type of business, or any full or part-time employees. Even though FMI engages in a number of commendable activities, it is fair to infer from the evidence that FMI is not engaged in a "business" within the County, as that word is commonly understood. The parties have stipulated that DDI is a Florida corporation that owns property and operates a business in the County, and that it submitted oral and written comments to the County prior to the adoption of the plan amendments. These stipulated facts establish that DDI is an affected person within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The Amendments Although a local government is not required by statute or rule to adopt buffers in a comprehensive plan, in the 1990 Plan, the County established a 25-foot buffer between developed areas and natural drainage courses as a protective measure for wetlands and other environmentally sensitive lands. The primary purpose of implementing wetland buffers is, of course, to protect water quality. When the Plan was updated in 2000, the County adopted its current regulation to provide a 50-foot upland buffer adjacent to the contiguous wetlands associated with the Guana, Tolomato, Matanzas, and St. Johns Rivers. For all other contiguous wetlands in the County, the Plan required a 25-foot buffer. The update also required that both the Plan and the LDRs be amended within two years after completion of the JEA's study of wetland buffers. There are three accepted strategies in comprehensive planning used by local governments for protecting wetlands. The first approach is a mapping strategy, where the local government performs an assessment of wetlands and environmentally sensitive lands and reflects those areas on a map. Alternatively, a local government may choose to rely on policies incorporated into the text of its comprehensive plan. Or, the local government may choose a combination of the first two strategies that would involve both mapping and policies to guide land uses for the wetland areas. The County's choice appears to be a combination of the first two strategies. In broad terms, the 2003 text amendments to Policies E.2.2.5(a)(1)(a) and (b), E.2.2.13(b), and D.3.2.4 relate to a system of "wetland buffers" as one of the County's strategies for protection of wetlands and other environmentally sensitive lands, while the amendments to Policies E.2.2.10 and E.2.2.17 relate to another proposed strategy, the use of Environmentally Sensitive Overlay Zone (ESOZ) regulations. More specifically, Policy E.2.2.5(a)(1), as amended, reads as follows: E.2.2.5. The County shall protect Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESLs) through the establishment of Land Development Regulations (LDRs) which address the alternative types of protection for each type of Environmentally Sensitive Land. Adoption and implementation of the Land Development Regulations shall, at a minimum, address the following issues: For Wetlands, Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), and Estuaries: establish and maintain buffers between the wetlands/OFW/estuaries and upland development as stated in the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs), and as follows: A minimum natural vegetative upland buffer of 25 f[ee]t shall be required and maintained between the developed areas and the contiguous wetlands to protect the water quality of the wetlands, except where buffer averaging may allow less than the required minimum of 25 feet in certain locations while achieving a greater buffer width or where a variance is granted. Except where a variance is granted, no buffer shall be reduced to less than 10 feet except in circumstances where an unavoidable wetland impact occurs such as but not limited to a road crossing. Such wetland buffer shall be measured from the jurisdictional wetland line as determined by the SJRWMD and FDEP. [A] minimum of a 50 f[oo]t natural vegetative upland buffer shall be required and maintained between the development area and the St. Johns, Matanzas, Guana and Tolomato Rivers and their associated tributaries, streams, and other interconnecting water bodies, except where buffer averaging may allow less than the required minimum 50 feet in certain locations while achieving a greater buffer width or where a variance is granted. Except where a variance is granted, no buffer shall be reduced to less than 25 feet except in circumstances where an unavoidable wetland impact occurs such as but not limited to a road crossing. Such wetland buffer shall be measured from the jurisdictional wetland line as determined by the SJRWMD and FDEP. In addition, the County deleted subparagraph (a)(1)(c), which required that it adopt LDR wetland requirements within two years after completion of the consultant's wetland buffer study. As amended, Policy E.2.2.10(b) reads as follows: E.2.2.10. By December 2005 or sooner, the County shall develop and adopt guidelines and standards for the preservation and conservation of wetlands through various land development techniques including, but not limited to, the following: * * * (b) The County shall protect wetlands, uplands[,] and their associated wildlife habitats through the implementation of natural vegetative buffers, the preservation of Significant Natural Communities Habitat, and the protection of Listed Species within St. Johns County as provided in the County Land Development Regulations. The County also deleted reference in the Policy to an ESOZ ordinance and the requirement that it adopt ESOZ regulations within two years after the completion of the consultant's wetland buffer study. As amended, Policy E.2.2.13(a) reads as follows: By December 1999, the County shall develop and adopt guidelines and standards for the preservation and conservation of uplands through various land development techniques as follows: St. Johns County shall require a buffer zone adjacent to the wetlands and open water habitats on all new development sites as specified in the LDRs and [P]olicy E.2.2.5. In addition, the County deleted language which required that it adopt "new wetland buffer regulations" within two years after completion of the consultant's wetland buffer study. As amended, Policy E.2.2.17 reads in relevant part as follows E.2.2.17. By 2005 or sooner, the County shall consider adoption of an Environmentally Sensitive Overlay Zone (ESOZ) for areas designated on the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Map. The ESOZ shall establish standards and procedures to address the following: (list of criteria omitted) The amendment also deleted language requiring that the County adopt an ESOZ ordinance within two years after the completion of the consultant's wetland buffer study and by 2005 adopt LDRs for the ESOZ. Finally, as amended, Policy D.3.2.4 reads as follows: D.3.2.4. The County shall require a vegetative buffer between contiguous wetlands and developed areas to protect the water quality of the drainage course as established in the County Land Development Regulations and Policy E.2.2.5 of this Comprehensive Plan. This amendment merely eliminated reference to a "minimum 25- foot" vegetative buffer and added language that the buffer provisions in Policy E.2.2.5 would now apply. Prior to the 2003 amendments, the wetland buffer averaging and variance provisions were not included in the Plan, but instead were established in the County's LDRs. The amendments conform the Plan policies to the County's existing practices for averaging and variances. The changes to Policy E.2.2.5(a)(1)(a) and (b) require that the County's LDRs address wetland buffer averaging by only allowing buffers to fall below the established minimums if an overall greater buffer width is achieved. (In other words, the County must maintain 25 and 50-foot natural vegetative buffers around wetlands and wetlands associated with certain rivers, respectively; however, through an averaging process, the buffers may average 25 and 50 feet, rather than be a static 25 and 50 feet around the entire wetland.) Averaging allows the County to consider site-specific conditions, thereby providing better protection and conservation of wildlife and resource protection. Similarly, the change to the Policy requires that the LDRs address variances to the wetland buffer requirement. Variance procedures follow those previously set out in the County's LDRs. (The record shows that in the last four years, the County has never granted a variance to reduce or eliminate a buffer.) Before the amendments to Policies E.2.2.10(b) and E.2.2.17, those Policies required LDRs which would establish standards for certain identified environmental features, such as shellfish harvesting, water quality, flood plain capacity, and water dependent wildlife, through the use of a zoning overlay, that is, an ESOZ. The amendments changed the policy from mandatory establishment of an ESOZ in the LDRs to a discretionary act. (Policy E.2.2.17 now provides that "[b]y 2005 or sooner, the County shall consider adoption of an [ESOZ] ") The original ESOZ provision was placed in the Plan during the Plan update in 1999-2000 as a strategy to protect environmentally sensitive lands. Since that time, the County has determined that other types of protection strategies may protect environmentally sensitive lands as well as or better than an ESOZ. The County intends to conduct a study of the ESOZ to determine whether or not it is a preferred strategy for environmental protection. The amendments are designed to provide the County with flexibility to rely on other strategies if they provide a better way to achieve the same result. Since adoption of the ESOZ policy, the County has instituted new regulations, adopted further protective measures, established regulatory programs, and hired additional personnel for the purpose of protecting the natural resources in the County. If these (and other) measures address the issues that the ESOZ would address, there is no need to duplicate the other natural resource protection programs. If the Plan as a whole protects environmentally sensitive lands, then the change to the ESOZ Policies will not reduce protection of natural resources in the County. The ESOZ is designed to establish standards and procedures to address shellfish harvesting areas; surface water quality; flood storage and flood plain capacity; wetland dependent wildlife and other endangered species; environmental scenic views and vistas; provisions for development mitigation, revegetation, buffering, and setback measures within the ESOZ; and provisions for building and development practices and techniques which protect the integrity of the ESOZ. There are, however, numerous other Plan provisions which address these same areas of concern. The County will analyze these policies and other possible protection measures to determine whether an ESOZ is the preferred alternative. Accordingly, the more persuasive evidence establishes that the amendments to Policies E.2.2.10(b) and E.2.2.17 do not reduce the protection currently afforded environmentally sensitive lands by the Plan. Wetland Data and Analysis The JEA Background Report compiled a literature review of the basic principles of buffer zones, set forth the ecological benefits of buffer zones, and compiled a summary of various buffer ordinances adopted by counties throughout the State. The JEA Final Report provided a methodology for calculating buffer widths based on vegetation and groundwater drawdown and recommended that a 300-foot wetland buffer be preserved adjacent to all wetlands in order to provide protection to water quality, water quantity, and wildlife habitat. With regard to water quality, buffers are primarily beneficial for protecting against the effects of sedimentation and turbidity. However, methods other than buffers can be implemented which can be equally effective in reducing sediment transport. In other words, a 300-foot buffer is not always necessary to prevent sediment transport. Based upon information presented to the Working Group over an 18-month period after the Final Report was submitted, the County determined that, through its Environmental Resource Permit program, the District effectively regulates activities which can cause sedimentation and turbidity, and that additional buffer widths were not needed to protect against sedimentation and turbidity. The County is not required to duplicate or exceed the requirements of a state or regional agency's permitting program. With regard to water quantity, the Final Report and Working Group considered the extent to which wetland buffers may provide the benefit of protecting against adverse effects of groundwater drawdown. Based on evidence presented to the Working Group, the County determined that adequate measures were in place (through District oversight and permitting requirements) to prevent adverse groundwater effects, and that additional buffers were not needed to address this issue. As to the habitat protection issue, the Final Report recommended a 300-foot wetland buffer to protect those species "that require a wide surrounding upland area," but also stated that, based on unspecified "policy decisions," a wetland buffer of less than 300 feet can provide protection to wetlands. The Final Report's recommendation was based on the assumption that the spatial requirements for various wildlife species present in the County ranged from 20 to 6,336 feet. There was no evidence, however, of a direct correlation between spatial requirements and the upland habitat needs of the studied species. Also, the Final Report does not contain any data and analysis of the upland habitat needs of the species. The methodology used by JEA in reaching a wetland buffer recommendation was not professionally acceptable. First, although the Final Report contains several tables purportedly summarizing "recommended buffer widths," citing several scientific studies to support those conclusions, those studies do not support the JEA conclusions. That is to say, the studies cited in the Final Report as the basis for buffer width recommendations are neither consistent with, nor support, the buffer widths contained in the Final Report. Similarly, although the recommendations in the Final Report are based upon Appendix A attached thereto ("Species List of Wetland-Dependent Wildlife Habitat"), Appendix A does not relate to the upland habitat needs for a species. In other words, there is no direct correlation between the spatial requirements as shown in Appendix A and the upland habitat needs of the listed species. Based upon the spatial requirements JEA listed for each species, JEA then plotted an algebraic curve correlating the number of species with the spatial requirements. Without explaining the reasons, JEA then decided to protect 50 percent of the species in a given type of habitat and, referring to the curve, determined that a 300-foot buffer would be necessary to protect the 50 percent. However, this is not a professionally acceptable methodology for the following reasons: the underlying studies were not necessarily representative of the habitat needs of the species in the County; the spatial requirements did not necessarily correlate with actual upland habitat requirements; and JEA erroneously translated spatial requirements from water's edge or width of forest needed as being the upland habitat needs from wetlands edge. The evidence supports a finding that this is not a professionally acceptable methodology for determining buffer widths. In summary, the County and DDI established that the JEA Background and Final Reports are not based on the best available relevant data and analyses for determining appropriate buffer widths. Besides the questions raised about the acceptability of the methodology used in reaching the 300- foot buffer recommendation, the County determined that other types of regulations could and do provide the same or better resource protection. As a result of the Working Group process, the County received extensive additional scientific and technical information regarding buffers, including the water quality benefits of buffers; the effectiveness of current regulatory programs of the District in protecting water quality; the effectiveness of the District's programs for protecting against adverse groundwater drawdown; and the relative effectiveness of wetland buffers in protecting wildlife habitat. Petitioners' Objections Petitioners' objections are grouped into six broad categories: that the amendments are not supported by adequate data and analyses; that the amendments are not in compliance with Section 163.3177(6)(d), Florida Statutes, and numerous portions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.013 (which pertains to the Conservation Element); that the amendment to Policy E.2.2.10(b) is a self-amending policy; that Policy E.2.2.5(a)(1) fails to provide a clear, predictable standard for variances; that the amendments conflict with other Plan provisions; and that the amendments are inconsistent with six provisions within the State Comprehensive Plan, as established in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. These objections will be discussed separately below. Data and analyses While the JEA Final Report was original data collected by the County, there is no credible evidence that it is either the best available data or based on a professionally accepted methodology. (See Findings of Fact 32-40.) The County conducted an additional 18 months of extensive data gathering and analyses of the issues addressed in the Final Report. The amendments were consistent with, and an appropriate reaction to, the results of that data and analyses and are based upon the best available, appropriate scientific data gathered using a professionally acceptable methodology. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that Petitioners have failed to establish beyond fair debate that the amendments are not based upon relevant and appropriate data and analyses. Inconsistency with a statute and rule Petitioners next contend that the amendments are not in compliance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.013(3)(b), which addresses the protection and conservation of wetlands, and reads as follows: Future land uses which are incompatible with the protection and conservation of wetland functions shall be directed away from wetlands. The type, intensity or density, extent, distribution and location of allowable land uses and the types, values, functions, sizes, conditions and locations of wetlands are land use factors which shall be considered when directing incompatible land uses away from wetlands. Land uses shall be distributed in a manner that minimizes the effect and impact on wetlands. The protection and conservation of wetlands by the direction of incompatible land uses away from wetlands shall occur in combination with other goals, objectives and policies in the comprehensive plan. Where incompatible land uses are allowed to occur, mitigation shall be considered as one means to compensate for loss of wetland functions. The County has adopted a three-tiered approach to satisfy this rule. First, the Future Land Use Map directs intensities away from significant water bodies. Second, lower land use densities have been adopted in coastal areas. Third, numerous policies require site-specific review of, and protection for, environmentally sensitive lands. This approach has previously been found to be in compliance, and it is a land use planning type of approach recognized by the Department. Petitioners did not establish beyond fair debate that the amendments are not in compliance with this rule. Petitioners next contend that the amendments are not in compliance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.013(2)(b)4., which requires that a plan's Conservation Element contain one or more specific objectives which "[c]onserve, appropriately use and protect fisheries, wildlife, wildlife habitat[,] and marine habitat." As noted above, with the additional provisions for averaging and variances, the wetland buffer distance requirements remain the same, and they are desirable from a land planning perspective. In addition, the change to the ESOZ provision does not reduce any current provisions in the Plan. Petitioners did not establish beyond fair debate that the amendments are not in compliance with this rule. Petitioners further contend that the amendments are not in compliance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.013(2)(c)3., 5., and 6., which requires that a plan's Conservation Element contain at least one policy for each objective which addresses protection of native vegetative communities from destruction by development activities; restriction of activities known to adversely affect the survival of endangered and threatened wildlife; and protection and conservation of the natural functions of existing soils, fisheries, wildlife habitats, rivers, bays, lakes, floodplains, and wetlands. The evidence clearly demonstrates that such policies exist in the Plan, and that there is nothing in the amendments that is inconsistent with, or will override or prevent implementation of, these policies. Accordingly, Petitioners did not establish beyond fair debate that the amendments do not comply with this rule. Petitioners next contend that the amendments are not in compliance with Section 163.3177(6)(d), Florida Statutes, which requires that a plan must contain a Conservation Element for the "conservation, use, and protection of natural resources" in the area, including "air, water, water recharge areas, wetlands, waterwells, estuarine marshes, soils, beaches, shores, flood plains, rivers, bays, lakes, harbors, forests, fisheries and wildlife, marine habitat, minerals, and other natural and environmental resources." The parties have stipulated that prior to the adoption of the amendments, the County's Plan was in compliance. The more persuasive evidence is that the amendments will not reduce the conservation, use, and protection measures of the Plan. Therefore, Petitioners have not established beyond fair debate that the amendments are not in compliance with this statute. Self-amending policy Petitioners contend that the amendment to Policy E.2.2.10(b) is a self-amending policy. A self-amending policy is "one which changes as the result of an event that is unknown and unspecified at the time the policy is adopted." Palm Bch. County Bd. of County Comm. et al. v. Town of Jupiter and Dep't of Comm. Affrs., DOAH Case No. 95-5930GM (Div. Admin. Hrgs. Jan. 24, 1997; Admin. Comm. Oct. 21, 1997). However, a policy is not self-amending if it sets out a clear general policy and specific conditions for changing that policy. Id. Comprehensive plans need not include the implementing regulations, but rather should provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed LDRs. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(6)("It is not the intent of this chapter to require the inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan ") Policy E.2.2.10(b) establishes a clear general policy to preserve and conserve wetlands through specific programs. Specific conditions for each program are set forth elsewhere in the Plan, including Policy E.2.2.5(a)(1) (natural vegetative upland buffers); Policy E.2.2.13 (significant natural communities habitat); and Objective E.2.8 (threatened and endangered species) and related policies. All of these are implemented in the planning process, as required by Policy E.2.2.7. In combination, these policies establish clear policy direction and guidelines for developing future LDRs. Therefore, it is found that Policy E.2.2.10(b) is consistent with other policies, and Petitioners have not established beyond fair debate that the Policy is self-amending.4 Does Policy E.2.2.5 have a clear, predictable standard? Petitioners contend that Policy E.2.2.5(a)(1) is not in compliance because it fails to provide a clear, predictable standard for variances. They go on to assert that because there is no predictable standard in the Policy, it essentially equates to a form of a self-amending policy. Variances are special exceptions to regulations and allow a non-conforming use in order to alleviate undue burden or unnecessary hardship. See, e.g., Troup v. Bird, 53 So. 2d 717, 720-22 (Fla. 1951). They must be "consistent or in harmony with, or not subversive or in derogation of, the spirit, intent, purpose or general plan of such regulations." Id. at 721. Policy E.2.2.5 merely requires that variances must be established in the LDRs. While the more specific standards and procedures for granting variances will be incorporated into the LDRs, the testimony corroborates that variances can only be approved when "an unavoidable wetland impact occurs such as but not limited to a road crossing," and that in no circumstance can the buffer width be totally eliminated. Further, the variance must be unavoidable, and it cannot be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the Plan or LDRs. Therefore, Petitioners have failed to show beyond fair debate that the amendment does not establish a sufficiently clear general policy direction or that the policy is self-amending. Conflicts with other provisions in the Plan Petitioners next contend that the amendments as a whole, or amendments pertaining to a single policy, conflict with various Goals, Objectives, and Policies within the Plan, including Goal A.1, Objective A.1.1, Goal E.2, Objective E.2.2, Policies E.2.2.4, E.2.2.5(c), E.2.2.8, E.2.2.9, E.2.2.10, E.2.2.17, E.2.2.18, Objective E.2.3, Policy E.2.3.7, Objective E.2.8, Policy E.2.8.7, and Policy E.2.8.8. If goals, objectives, and policies do not conflict, then they are considered consistent. Goal A.1 in the Land Use Element is the County's overall guiding principle for managing growth and development in a responsible manner, and it requires the County to balance several interests, including encouraging/accommodating land uses which make the County a viable community; creating a sound economic base; offering diverse opportunities for a wide variety of living, working, shopping, and leisure activities; and minimizing adverse impacts on the natural environment. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that the amendments do not conflict with this guiding principle. Objective A.1.1 in the Land Use Element requires that the County designate future land uses based upon environmental conditions and constraints. Through testimony, the County established that its approach is to direct incompatible land uses away from environmentally sensitive lands, limit the types of land uses adjacent to significant water bodies, reduce land use densities in coastal areas, and require environmental analysis and protection on a site-by- site basis. The challenged amendments are consistent with that approach. In combination with other provisions of the Plan, they also address the issues required by Objective A.1.1: vegetation; wildlife; aquifer recharge; and the like. Petitioners have failed to establish beyond fair debate that the amendments are inconsistent with Objective A.1.1. Goal E.2 in the Conservation Sub-Element of the Conservation/Coastal Management Element of the Plan requires conservation, use, and protection of natural resources to ensure availability for existing and future generations. Objective E.2.2 requires protection of various natural resources to provide for maintenance of environmental quality and wildlife habitat. Policy E.2.2.4 requires identification of native vegetative communities and their associated wildlife species. The County has identified those resources and protected some of those resources through land acquisition. Policy E.2.2.5(c) requires that criteria be established in the LDRs for listed species protection. The County has implemented such criteria and measures for protection of listed species. Policy E.2.2.8. requires that various habitat measures be implemented; these measures have been implemented and continue to be implemented. Policy E.2.2.9 requires the adoption of guidelines and standards for wildlife corridors through such measures as Planned Unit Development regulations and optional density bonuses. The County has adopted such measures. Policy E.2.2.10 was amended in part and requires guidelines and standards for the preservation and conservation of wetlands through various land development techniques. This Policy serves as a summary of measures that have been implemented by the County. Policy E.2.2.17 is another amended policy related to the ESOZ. As previously discussed, the Policy was changed from requiring mandatory adoption of an ESOZ in the LDRs to requiring the County to consider adoption of an ESOZ. The County is re-evaluating its prior decision to use the ESOZ as a primary measure to provide protection of environmentally sensitive lands. The amendment allows the County the flexibility to adopt different measures if they are found to be preferable. Finally, Policy E.2.2.18 requires the County to investigate certain Outstanding Florida Water designations. This Policy is unrelated to the amendments and is therefore irrelevant to this proceeding. Petitioners have not established beyond fair debate that the amendments will impact or otherwise conflict with the cited Goal, Objective, or Policies. Objective E.2.3 pertains to surface water quality and requires maintenance of surface water quality. Underlying Policy E.2.3.7 requires restriction of land uses which adversely affect the quality and quantity of water resources. The amendments do not lessen the protections afforded by the Plan. Likewise, the County has implemented numerous other Policies to protect water quality, such as Policies D.3.2.1, D.3.1.8, and E.2.6.1, and the more persuasive evidence supports a finding that the amendments will not adversely affect those provisions. Again, Petitioners have not established beyond fair debate that the amendments are inconsistent with this Objective and Policy. Objective E.2.8, which relates to threatened and endangered species, protects habitat of populations of existing listed species. Policy E.2.8.7 thereunder relates to land use classifications adjacent to certain environmentally sensitive areas. The amendments do not change or reduce the protection afforded by that Policy. Policy E.2.8.8 requires the County to assist state agencies in preparing a wildlife corridor plan and to determine, after completion of the JEA study, whether changes to the wetland buffers are necessary and appropriate. The evidence shows that the County considered the JEA study and related data and analysis and determined that changes to the buffer dimensions were not needed or appropriate, but that clarification of the averaging and variance procedures were. The amendments do not change or reduce the protections established by that Policy. Petitioners have not established beyond fair debate that the amendments are inconsistent with this Objective and those two Policies. Finally, Petitioners have alleged in very general terms that the amendments are inconsistent with a number of provisions of the State Comprehensive Plan, as codified in Section 187.201, Florida Statutes. They include subparagraphs (8)(b)10. and 12.; (10)(b)1., 3., and 7.; and (26)(b)7. Section 187.201(8)(b)10., Florida Statutes, sets as state policy the protection of "surface and groundwater quality and quantity in the state." Because the evidence clearly establishes that the amendments do not adversely impact the Plan's provisions to protect water quality and quantity, Petitioners have failed to establish beyond fair debate that the amendments are inconsistent with this statute. Section 187.201(8)(b)12., Florida Statutes, sets as state policy the elimination of discharge of inadequately treated wastewater and stormwater runoff into waters of the state. For the reasons previously found, Petitioners have failed to establish beyond fair debate that the amendments are inconsistent with this statute. Section 187.201(10(b)1., Florida Statutes, sets as state policy conservation of certain natural resources, including wetlands and wildlife, to maintain listed functional values. For the reasons previously found, Petitioners have failed to establish beyond fair debate that the amendments are inconsistent with this statute. Section 187.201(10)(b)3., Florida Statutes, sets state policy prohibiting the destruction of endangered species and protection of their habitats. For the reasons previously found, Petitioners have failed to establish beyond fair debate that the amendments are inconsistent with this statute. Section 187.201(10(b)7., Florida Statutes, sets as state policy the protection and restoration of the "ecological functions of wetland systems to ensure their long term environmental, economic and recreational value." For reasons previously found, Petitioners have failed to show beyond fair debate that the amendments are inconsistent with the statute. Finally, Section 187.201(26)(b)7., Florida Statutes, sets as state policy the development of local plans that "implement and accurately reflect state goals and policies and address problems, issues and conditions that are of particular concern in a region." Petitioners have failed to show beyond fair debate that the amendments are inconsistent with the goals and policies of this statute.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the St. Johns County plan amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 2003-31 on March 25, 2003, are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2004, 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 30th day of March, 2004.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, John Jozsa, should have a $6,000.00 administrative penalty imposed, take corrective action, and pay investigative costs for allegedly dredging 0.91 acres of wetlands and filling 0.52 acres of wetlands without a permit on his property located in unincorporated Sumter County, Florida, as alleged in a Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Administrative Penalty Assessment (Notice) issued by Petitioner, Department of Environmental Protection (Department), on March 13, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The charges Respondent owns an approximate 4.5-acre parcel of land located at 1978 County Road 652A in unincorporated Sumter County, Florida. The parcel identification number is N29A003. The property is generally located east of Interstate 75, west of U.S. Highway 301, and just south of the City of Bushnell. According to aerial photographs, County Road 652A appears to begin at U.S Highway 301 and runs in a westerly direction where it forms the southern boundary of Respondent's parcel and terminates a short distance later. Southwest 80th Street also runs west from U.S. Highway 301 and forms the northern boundary of the property, while Southwest 20th Terrace runs in a north- south direction adjacent to its western boundary. Respondent purchased the parcel on September 27, 1993, and constructed a home on the site several years later. The property is contiguous to Mud Lake, a Class III waterbody lying to the southeast of Respondent's property. According to Respondent's Exhibit 2.b., at least a portion of the property is in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) 100-year flood zone. While conducting a site inspection near Respondent's property on September 27, 2006, Brian Brown, an Environmental Specialist III in the Department's Tampa District Office, heard "heavy equipment" operating nearby and drove to Respondent's home. There he observed a "tracked vehicle" resembling a bulldozer "knocking down trees" and grading an area that appeared to be wetlands. Mr. Brown took photographs of the cleared land and the tracked vehicle to confirm his observations. See Department's Exhibits 2a. through d. At hearing, Respondent acknowledged that he had borrowed the equipment from a friend, Leo, to "level and smooth" the "uplands" and "other areas." After returning to his office, Mr. Brown first confirmed through information from the Sumter County Appraiser's Office that Respondent owned the property in question. He then reviewed aerial photographs of Respondent's property taken in 1993, 1997, 2002, and 2006 to determine the condition of the property in earlier years. These photographs reflected that before 2006, the parcel had no large cleared area like the one that he had observed on the northern half of the property. Mr. Brown also studied a soil survey of the area to determine the type of soils on Respondent's property, and he reviewed the Florida Wetlands Delineation Manual which is used to determine if property is wetlands or uplands. Finally, information in the Department's database revealed that Respondent had not applied for a permit to conduct the observed activities. Based on this preliminary information, Mr. Brown generated a request for a formal inspection of Respondent's property by filling out a complaint form. (Respondent continues to believe that Mr. Brown was not conducting a "routine" inspection in the area but rather was in the area because a neighbor had filed a complaint; however, the complaint was triggered by Mr. Brown, who filed a complaint form himself based on the observations he made on September 27, 2006.) Mr. Brown then contacted Respondent by letter to set up a date on which the property could be formally inspected to verify "that Wetlands and or Surface Waters of the State are not being impacted." In response to Mr. Brown's letter, Respondent advised the Department that it could inspect his property. Around 1:30 p.m. on November 14, 2006, Mr. Brown and Lee W. Hughes, another Department employee, inspected Respondent's property to determine whether Respondent's activities were conducted within wetlands and to what extent wetlands were impacted. Respondent was present during the inspection. The employees' observations are memorialized in photographs received in evidence as Department's Exhibits 11A through 11N. The two observed a "large" area north of Respondent's home that had been totally cleared and deforested. The center of the cleared property had been dredged or scraped to create a pond-like area several feet lower than the adjoining land, while the soils removed from the pond-like area had been used to create sculptured white side-casting perhaps ten inches high on the edges of the pond, filling additional wetlands. However, the pond was empty because of drought conditions. The Department's inspection revealed that the cleared area was wetlands because of the presence of various plant species which are indicative of wetlands, including Swamp Tupelo, Red Maple, American Elm, Swamp Dogwood, Dahoon Holly, Buttonbush, Swamp Laurel Oak, Carolina Willow, Elderberry, Soft Rush, Smartweed, and Dayflower. Also, there were hydrologic indicators such as water stain lines, elevated lichen lines, and hypertrophied lenticels. Finally, there were hydric soils found on the property. This was confirmed by ground-truthing (an on- site evaluation of the wetlands and their parameters to verify the on-site conditions), which revealed dark top soil at least four inches thick and the presence of muck. Collectively, these indicators are sufficient to make a finding that the impacted area was wetlands. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-340.200 and Department's Exhibit 9. The fact that the "home-site ha[d] [not] been delineated [as wetlands] by any other governmental agency," as asserted by Respondent in his Proposed Recommended Order, is not dispositive of the issue. Respondent's assertion that no dredged materials were taken off-site, and no fill was brought onto the property, was not challenged. A second inspection was conducted by Mr. Brown and Lindsay L. Brock, then a Department employee, on December 19, 2006, for the purpose of mapping the actual size of the impacted area with Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) equipment.6 The second inspection was necessary since the Department's GPS equipment was inoperative during the first inspection. Based on Ms. Brock's GPS calculations, which have been received in evidence as Department's Exhibit 19, the Department determined that the total area dredged was 0.91 acres, while the filled area was 0.52 acres. The total impacted area was 1.4 acres of wetlands. This amount was calculated by measuring the size of the pond, 0.91 acres, with the side-casting accounting for the remaining 0.52 acres. During the inspection, the area was also photographed a second time, and these photographs have been received in evidence as Department's Exhibits 12A through 12K. An Enforcement Inspection Report (Report) was later prepared by Mr. Brown summarizing the findings of the two inspections. That Report has been received in evidence as Department's Exhibit 10 and Respondent's Exhibit 1.e. At hearing, Mr. Brown reaffirmed that the findings in the Report were correct. Specifically, the wetlands in the disturbed area were characterized as having a dominance of Obligate and Facultative Wet species and numerous hydrologic indicators, as well as soils typically found in wetlands. A jurisdictional determination established that the impacted property was wetlands; that there were adverse impacts caused by the violations, i.e., impacts described in Sections 3.2.3.2, 3.2.3.3, 3.2.3.4(a), and 3.2.3.7 of the Basis of Review of the Southwest Florida Water Management District; and that there were cumulative and secondary impacts associated with the violations, i.e., the actual loss of 1.4 acres of forested hardwood wetlands (Gum Swamp-613), habitat loss, the alteration in the normal flow of detrital material to Mud Lake, and the reduction in the system's ability to cycle and control nutrient and pollutant levels. Because the impacted lands were wetlands, a permit is required in order to perform any dredging and filling. See Fla. Admin. Code 62-343.050. The Report recommended that a Notice be issued. On February 13, 2007, the Department's Tampa District Office sent Respondent a Warning Letter advising him "of possible violations of law for which [he] may be responsible, and to seek [his] cooperation in resolving the matter." Department's Exhibit 22 and Respondent's Exhibit 1.h. The letter also requested that Respondent meet with Mr. Brown to discuss the alleged violations. A meeting was held at the District Office on March 12, 2007, but efforts to resolve the matter were unsuccessful. During the informal discussions between the parties, and prior to the issuance of a Notice, Respondent requested an exemption under Section 373.406(1) and (6), Florida Statutes.7 The first subsection provides that no Department rule, regulation, or order affects the right of any person to capture, discharge, and use water "for purposes permitted by law." The second subsection provides that the Department may exempt "those activities that the . . . department determines will have only minimal or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the water resources of the district." At hearing, Mr. Brown indicated that he did not respond to the exemption request because Respondent did not qualify. This is because dredging and filling of wetlands is not "permitted by law" without first obtaining a permit, and because, for the reasons cited in its Report, the Department construed the activities as having more than "minimal or insignificant" impacts. Given these circumstances, the statutory exemptions do not apply. The Notice was not issued until a year later on March 13, 2008. The reason for the delay is not of record. Besides contending that Mr. Brown's testimony was not credible, through examination of witnesses and the submission of various exhibits, Respondent raised numerous points to support his contentions that (a) the property is not wetlands, (b) no dredging or filling occurred, and (c) the activities are exempt from Department permitting requirements under several statutes.8 He also argued that the Department's decision to initiate an enforcement action against him was flawed or biased. The latter argument has been considered and rejected. Respondent first asserts that the wetlands on his property were already stressed and in bad condition, and that clearing the area and replanting vegetation in and around the pond area created a healthier environment for the vegetation and plants. While Mr. Brown conceded that the wetlands may have been stressed, that in itself does not cause the impacted property to lose its wetlands character, and a permit to dredge and fill the site is still required. Respondent also pointed out that the impacted area was dry before and after the activities occurred, and therefore the wetlands determination was incorrect. He further points out that the Department's representatives agreed that no water or moisture on the ground surface were observed during their two inspections. Given the number of wetland indicators found on the site even during drought conditions, the argument that the property is not wetlands has been rejected. See Finding of Fact 6, supra. Respondent also argued that an authoritative source (Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook) indicates that the soils in that area of the County are not the type typically found on wetlands. Specifically, the predominant soil on his property is identified as "Kanapaha sand, bouldery subsurface (25)," which is not considered a hydric soil. Mr. Brown explained, however, that notwithstanding what another source may state, it is necessary to verify the type of soil by performing field tests at the site. Ground-truthing performed during the first inspection confirmed the presence of soils typically found in wetlands. See Finding of Fact 7, supra. Respondent also questioned the accuracy of the Department's Exhibit 18, which is an aerial of Respondent's property created by Mr. Brown in February 2008 depicting a pond filled with water in the middle of the cleared area. Respondent contended that the map could not be accurate since the pond area was dry in February 2008 due to drought conditions. In response to this criticism, Mr. Brown noted that the map was not supposed to represent an actual aerial photograph taken in 2008. Rather, it was created for the purpose of superimposing on the property the pond-like area (with water added) observed during the 2006 inspections and was intended only to demonstrate the pond's size in relation to the size of the entire parcel. The exhibit was not tendered for the purpose of proving that the dredging and filling had occurred. Through examination of Mr. Brown, Respondent attempted to show that he qualified for a stormwater exemption under Section 403.813(2)(q), Florida Statutes, on the theory that his activities fell within the purview of that law. The statute exempts from permitting requirements the construction, operation, and maintenance of a stormwater management facility which is designed to "serve single-family residential projects, including duplexes, triplexes, and quadruplexes, if they are less than 10 acres total land and have less than 2 acres of impervious surface and if the facilities" satisfy three conditions. One condition is that the facility must "discharge into a stormwater discharge facility exempted or permitted by the department under this chapter which has sufficient capacity and treatment capability as specified in this chapter and is owned, maintained, or operated by a city, county, special district with drainage responsibility, or water management district . . . ." Id. Therefore, even if the pond-like area could be characterized as a stormwater facility, Respondent still does not meet the requirements of the statute since his "facility" does not discharge into another exempt or permitted facility as defined in the statute. In this case, the waters eventually discharge into Mud Lake, which was not shown to be an exempt or permitted stormwater facility. Respondent also questioned the manner in which the Department calculated the size of the impacted area for purposes of assessing an administrative penalty. See Department's Exhibit 21 and Respondent's Exhibit 1.j., in which penalties are assessed based on the dredged and filled areas each being "greater than one-half acre but less than or equal to one acre." Specifically, he argues that the combined dredged and filled areas exceed one acre in size, and under the terms of Section 403.121(3)(c), Florida Statutes, the administrative penalty schedule in the cited statute does not apply. To support this contention, Respondent noted that in responding to discovery, the Department acknowledged that the total impacted area was 1.4 acres. Section 403.121(3)(c), Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part that "the administrative penalty schedule shall not apply to a dredge and fill violation if the area dredged or filled exceeds one acre." In assessing penalties under the statute, the Department considers the dredging and filling as two separate violations. See Counts I and II, Notice. Therefore, it did not combine the two impacted areas for purposes of calculating a penalty under the administrative penalty schedule. While the statute is inartfully drawn and is arguably susceptible to more than one interpretation, the Department's interpretation is a reasonable and permissible one, and its computation is hereby accepted. (If Respondent's construction of the statute was approved, and the two impacted areas were combined, this would not mean that the Department could not assess a penalty. Rather, it appears the Department would then have the choice of (a) filing an action in circuit court seeking the imposition of civil (rather than administrative) penalties, or (b) assessing an administrative penalty under Section 403.121(9), Florida Statutes, which did not exceed $5,000.00 per violation or $10,000.00 for all violations.) Respondent also contended that he was simply performing landscaping and gardening activities with a tracked vehicle, and that no "excavation" within the meaning of Section 373.403(13), Florida Statutes, occurred. That statute defines dredging as "excavation, by any means, in surface waters or wetlands."9 On the other hand, "filling" is defined in Section 373.403(14), Florida Statutes, as "the deposition, by any means, of materials in surface waters or wetlands." On this issue, the evidence shows that Respondent used a tracked vehicle to remove, scrape, and/or push soils from the wetlands to create the pond-like area and then deposited those materials in other wetlands around the sides of the pond to create the side casting. This activity constituted dredging and filling, as defined above. The remaining arguments of Respondent have been carefully considered and rejected. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Respondent engaged in dredging and filling in wetlands without a permit, as alleged in the Notice, and that the charges have been sustained. Mitigation In its Proposed Final Order, the Department contends that Respondent presented no mitigation and therefore the administrative penalties should not be reduced. Mitigating circumstances include, among other things, "good faith efforts [by the violator] to comply prior to or after discovery of the violations by the department." § 403.121(10), Fla. Stat. After the area was dredged and filled, Respondent replanted some trees and plants while landscaping his back yard. Also, prior to hearing, he engaged the services of two experts to prepare an evaluation of the charges in the Notice, inspect the property, and submit suggested corrective actions for restoring the impacted area to its original condition. Although the two experts did not appear at hearing, they did render reports which contained proposed corrective actions, and their work should arguably be construed as a good faith effort by Respondent to comply with the Department's requirement that the property be restored to its original condition. Corrective Actions The Department has proposed extremely lengthy and detailed corrective actions which are contained in paragraphs 17 through 31 of the Notice and are designed to restore the property to its original condition. (Presumably, these are standard corrective actions imposed in cases such as this for restoring dredged and filled wetlands.) At hearing, Mr. Brown described the nature and purpose of these conditions, which can generally be summarized as (a) requiring that the entire 1.43-acre area be filled and/or regraded to its original contour elevation so that the replanting efforts will be successful, and (b) requiring a rigorous replanting and five-year monitoring schedule. Paragraphs 17 through 31 are set forth below: Respondents [sic] shall forthwith comply with all Department rules regarding dredging and filling within a surface water or wetland. Respondent shall correct and redress all violations in the time periods required below and shall comply with all applicable rules in Fla. Admin. Code Chapter 62-343 and 62-340. Within 30 days of the effective date of this Notice of Violation, the Respondent shall attend a pre-construction conference with a representative of the Department's Environmental Resources staff to review the work authorized by this Notice of Violation. Prior to the commencement of any earthmoving authorized in this Notice of Violation, the Respondent shall properly install and maintain Erosion and Sedimentation Control devices around the impacted area to prevent siltation and turbid discharge in to adjacent wetlands and surface waters (See Figure 2 attached hereto and incorporated herein). The Erosion and Sedimentation Control devices (i.e. staked silt screen) shall be installed no further than one-foot from the toe of the impacted area and shall remain in place until the restoration actions are completed to the Department's satisfaction. The Respondent shall re-grade the approximate 1.43 acres of impacted wetland to a grade consistent with the adjacent, unaltered wetlands, as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 attached hereto and incorporated herein. (a) Only fill material excavated from the impacted area shall be used in the restoration of the site. If it is determined that there is an insufficient amount of the fill to obtain the required grade, the Respondent shall cease all work and notify the Department so an alternative restoration plan can be developed, if necessary. During and after re-grading, Respondent shall stabilize all side slopes as soon as possible to prevent erosion, siltation, or turbid run-off into waters of the State, but, in any event, no later than 72 hours after attaining final grade. Any re-grading or filling of the restoration areas shall be conducted so as not to affect wetlands and surface waters outside the restoration area. Within 30 days of completing the requirements outlined in paragraph 20 above and prior to planting, the Respondent shall submit a certified topographic survey of the 1.43 acres of restored wetlands to the Department for review and approval. The Department shall notify the Respondent if the re-grading is acceptable and whether the re- grading is at the correct elevation to ensure that the restoration area will function as a wetland as defined in Chapter 62-340, Florida Administrative Codes (sic). If the re- grading is unacceptable to the Department, Respondent shall have 21 days in which to correct the problems identified by the Department and shall submit a new survey upon completion of the required work. The survey shall include the following information for the restoration area: The boundary lines of the Respondent's property. Restoration area on the Respondent's Property (in total square footage or acres of restored wetlands)[.] Topographic survey of the restoration area completed by a certified land surveyor. The survey shall illustrate one-foot interval on 25 foot transects throughout the restoration area. The transects shall commence and terminate 30 feet beyond the limits of the restoration area. Once grading has been approved by the Department, the Respondent shall plant 270 of the following species in any combination throughout the 1.43-acres of restored wetlands: Swamp Tupelo (Nyssa syvatica), Red Maples (Acer rubrum), American Elm (Ulmus Americana L.), Swamp Dogwood (Cornus amomum Mill.), [and] Dahoon Holly (Ilex cassine L.). The tree species shall be planted on 15 foot- centers throughout the restoration area and shall be 3-gallon, well-rooted, nursery grown stock. Within 30 days of completion of the planting outlined in paragraph 24 above, the Respondent shall submit a "Time Zero" Monitoring Report, which includes the following information: Respondent's name, address, and OGC Case number; Date the Corrective Actions were completed; Enough color photographs to accurately depict the completion of the wetland restoration actions outlined in paragraphs 20 through 24 above. The photographs shall be taken from fixed reference points shown on a plan-view drawing; Nursery receipts for all plants used in the Restoration Action; Number, size and spacing of each species planted; and Description of any exotic vegetation removal or control conducted to date including the acreage of exotic vegetation removal and how vegetation removal or control was conducted. Subsequent monitoring reports shall be submitted for a period of 5 years following completion of the Corrective Actions: semi- annually for the first year and annually for year two through five. The purpose of the monitoring shall be to determine the "success of the restoration." The monitoring reports shall include the following information: Respondent's name, address, and OGC Case number; Date the inspection was completed; Color photographs taken from the same fixed reference points previously established during the Time-Zero monitoring report so Department personnel can observe the current site conditions and evaluate the success of the restoration plan; The percentage of each planted tree species within the restoration area that has survived; The average height of the planted tree species; The percent canopy cover by planted tree species within the restoration area; a tree shall be defined as a woody species that has a diameter at breast height (DBH) of at least 1.5 inches and a vertical height of 10 feet as measured from the substrate; The percent cover within the restoration area by planted and naturally recruiting native, "non-nuisance," wetland species, as defined in Chapter 62-340, Florida Administrative Code; The percent cover of Brazilian Pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), Water Primrose (Ludwigia peruviana) and other nuisance species including those species listed or not listed in Chapter 62-340, Florida Administrative Code; and A written summary describing the success of the restoration area including steps needed and/or taken to promote future success such as replanting and/or nuisance or exotic species removal. Description should also include water levels observed within the restoration area. "Success of the Restoration" means at the end of the monitoring schedule the following success criteria are met in the restoration area: The total percent cover within the restoration area by native wetland vegetation exceeds 85 percent; Average height of the planted tree species exceeds 10-feet; The total percent canopy cover by planted and naturally recruited native wetland trees exceeds 30 percent; The total contribution to percent cover by nuisance, non-wetland or species not listed in Rule 62-340, Florida Administrative Code is less than 10 percent; and The Department has inspected the restoration area and the Department has informed the Respondent in writing that the restoration area meets the definition of a wetland as defined in Rule 62-340.200, Florida Administrative Code. If it is determined by the Department, based on visual inspection and/or review of the monitoring reports, that the restoration area is not meeting the above specified success criteria, an alternative Restoration Plan shall be submitted to the Southwest District Office and shall meet the following requirements: Shall submit the plan within 30 days of notification by the Department of failure to meet the success criteria. Shall implement the alternative plan no later than 90 days after receiving Department approval. Shall restart monitoring and maintenance program. Should the property be sold during the monitoring period, the Respondent shall remain responsible for the monitoring and notify the new owners of the Respondent's obligation to continue the monitoring and maintenance until the Department has determined that the success criteria has been met. The Respondent shall notify the new owner(s) of this in writing and shall provide the Department with a copy of the notification document within 15 days of the sale of the property. Prior to the submittal of each required monitoring report, the Respondent shall remove all exotic and nuisance vegetation from the restored wetland area. Nuisance and exotic vegetation removal shall include but not be limited to Brazilian Pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) and Water Primrose (Ludwigia peruviana). All exotic vegetation shall be removed from the restoration area using hand-held equipment in a manner that will minimize impacts to the existing wetland plants and will not cause ruts in the wetland soils, which will impede or divert the flow of surface waters. More than any other aspect of this case, Respondent questions the nature and extent of the corrective actions being proposed by the Department on the ground they are too extensive, complex, and unnecessary and will cost tens of thousands of dollars. When asked to quantify or estimate the cost of the corrective actions, Mr. Brown could not. It is fair to infer, however, that the cost of the restoration work will be expensive and probably far exceed the amount of the proposed penalties. The two experts' reports, which are hearsay and cannot be used as a basis for a finding of fact, essentially corroborate Respondent's argument that the corrective actions may be onerous and too far-reaching. The difficulty, however, in evaluating Respondent's claim is that the record is limited to Mr. Brown's testimony justifying the conditions, the hearsay reports of the two experts, and a few exhibits tendered by Respondent. A precise description of the impacted area before the work was undertaken is not a part of the record at hearing. Therefore, the original condition is not known. Through the submission of exhibits and the questioning of Mr. Brown, Respondent contended that a natural depression existed in the area where the pond now sits, that he was merely leveling off the depression while removing dead trees and plants, and that very little soil was actually removed from the pond area. Given these circumstances, he contends that there are insufficient fill materials on site to bring the pond to grade. In his Exhibit 3, Respondent estimates that just to fill the pond area and bring it to the grade of the surrounding land, he would be required to haul in approximately 4,200 cubic yards of sand or fill material. Also, Respondent's Exhibit 2.c. purports to be a copy of an elevation survey of the property containing elevations at different points on the property. The handwritten numbers on the exhibit, which Respondent represents were taken from a certified survey (which is not otherwise identified), reflect the property (presumably before the work was undertaken) gradually sloping from a higher elevation on the southern boundary (around 67 feet) to the road on the northern boundary (around 66 feet), with a lower elevation of around 64 feet in the middle of the parcel, indicating a slightly lower elevation in the middle of the property. Also, a part of the property lies within the FEMA 100- year flood zone. Thus, it is fair to infer that the pond area replaced an area with a slight depression and on which water would accumulate during heavy storm events. This circumstance would logically reduce the amount of fill necessary to restore the pond area to its original contour elevation. Therefore, in implementing the corrective actions, the Department should give consideration, in the manner it deems appropriate, to the fact that the area contained a natural depression before the illicit activities occurred. The evidence supports a finding that the proposed corrective actions, although extensive and costly, should be approved. To the extent Respondent has replanted the impacted area with trees and plants that fit within the Department's restoration scheme, he should also be credited for this work. Reasonable costs and expenses The Department established at hearing that its Tampa District Office employees incurred expenses of more than $500.00 while investigating this matter. This is based upon the number of hours devoted to the case times the hourly salary rate of the employees. Therefore, the Department is entitled to be reimbursed in the amount of $500.00 for reasonable investigative expenses and costs. Respondent has not disputed the amount of time expended by the employees or their hourly compensation but contends in his Proposed Recommended Order that the matter could have been cleared up by a "simple phone call and a few minutes of effort." Respondent's argument is hereby rejected.
The Issue This is a challenge to certain administrative rules adopted by the St. Johns River Water Management District relating to permitting criteria for isolated wetlands. Section 373.414, F.S. mandates that permitting criteria for isolated wetlands be adopted by water management districts, by rule, by March 31, 1987. The statute also includes four more specific requirements for those rules. Petitioners contend that St. Johns River Water Management District Rule Chapter 40C-4, F.A.C. and the Applicant's Handbook, Management and Storage of Surface Waters, adopted as a rule by reference, fail to comply with the statutory mandate and are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority by the District. Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District, contends that its rules comply with Section 373.414, F.S.. St. Johns River Water Management District contests the standing of Petitioner, the Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. Intervenors, E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, Inc. and Associated Minerals (USA), Inc., support the District's position and contest the standing of both Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Sierra Club, Inc., (Sierra) is a non-profit corporation registered to do business within the state of Florida. It is an international organization, with regional committees, state chapters, and local regional groups. The Florida chapter has 15 regional groups, several of which are located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). About 6,000 members live within the boundaries of the SJRWMD. The overall purpose of Sierra is to explore, enjoy and protect the natural resources of the earth. Sierra commonly offers outings for the enjoyment and education of its members and the general public. These involve traveling, hiking, birdwatching and other wildlife observation. Part of the outings program includes hiking and viewing of isolated wetlands and wildlife dependent on those wetlands. These outings take place within the SJRWMD. Some Sierra members are actively involved in work related to isolated wetlands, including studies, consulting, and managing of wetlands, some of which are located within the SJRWMD. The Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. (FWF) is a non-profit corporation registered to do business in the state of Florida. It is comprised of organizations and individual members who support the wise use and management of Florida's natural resources. Sportsmen and naturalists who belong to the club are involved in hunting, fishing, hiking, birdwatching, nature photography and other activities loosely called "naturalizing". These activities take place within SJRWMD boundaries and rely on wildlife species which live in, or are dependent upon, isolated wetlands. FWF attracts membership by publicity of its existence and purpose directed to sportsmen and naturalists. Respondent, SJRWMD, is a political subdivision of the state of Florida, with the authority to regulate, through its permitting process, the management and storage of surface waters (MSSW) within its designated geographical boundaries, pursuant to Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S. Prior to adoption of the administrative rules in issue in this proceeding, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) delegated to Respondent the responsibility for administration of its stormwater rule. Intervenors conduct heavy metal mining operations within the District. These mining operations are regulated pursuant to Chapter 40C-4, F.A.C. and the Applicant's Handbook. Virtually all mining activities exceed existing permitting thresholds and all District wetland criteria apply to the activities. Since 1983, SJRWMD has been regulating wetlands and wetland MSSW impacts, including isolated wetlands, throughout its 19-county area. The rules adopted in 1983 included all wetlands, both isolated and non-isolated. In 1986, the legislature created Section 373.414, F.S., which provided as follows: 373.414 Wetlands.-- By March 31, 1987, for those water management districts to which the department has delegated the responsibility for administration of its stormwater rule, each district shall adopt a rule which establishes specific permitting criteria for certain small isolated wetlands which are not within the jurisdiction of the department for purposes of regulation of dredging and filling. The rule shall include: One or more size thresholds of isolated wetlands below which impacts on fish and wildlife and their habitats will not be considered. These thresholds shall be based on biological and hydrological evidence that shows the fish and wildlife values of such areas to be minimal; Criteria for review of fish and wildlife and their habitats for isolated wetlands larger than the minimum size; Criteria for the protection of threatened and endangered species in isolated wetlands regardless of size and land use; and Provisions for consideration of the cumulative and offsite impacts of a project or projects. This section does not affect the authority of the water management districts to regulate impacts on water quality and water quantity. Until a water management district has adopted a rule to implement the provisions of subsection (1), review of fish and wildlife impacts in small isolated wetlands shall be limited to: Wetlands that are 5 acres in size or larger; or Wetlands that are used by a federal or state designated threatened or endangered species; or Wetlands located within an area of critical state concern designated pursuant to chapter 380; or Wetlands that are less than 5 acres in size having a cumulative total acreage greater than 30 percent of the total acreage proposed for development, within a development project greater than 40 acres in size. Section 373.414(3), F.S. (1986) was repealed effective March 31, 1987, the deadline by which the districts were to have their own isolated wetlands rules in place. Sections 373.414(1) and (2), F.S. remain in effect. "Wetlands" is defined in SJRWMD's MSSW rule as: ...hydrologically sensitive areas which are identified by being inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater with a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. Rule 40C-4.021(11), F.A.C. This definition is repeated in Section 10.7.3 of the Applicant's Handbook. Section 10.7.3 also provides: Wetlands are important components of the water resource because they serve as spawning, nursery and feeding habitats for many species of fish and wildlife, and because they provide important flood storage and water quality benefits. Not all wetlands provide these benefits, nor do they provide them to the same extent. A wide array of physical and chemical factors affect the functioning of any wetland community. * * * Small isolated wetlands are totally unique biological systems. They are not small versions of large wetlands. They play two major roles in animal ecology: to harbor diverse species that use the habitat for their entire life cycle, and to provide a productive resource for transient species. If a wetland is truly isolated, its fish population is generally limited to the smaller-bodied, smaller-mouthed varieties which are limited in their predatory abilities. This permits the abundance of amphibians and invertebrates not found in larger, more permanent wetlands where the fish would rapidly decimate the population. Amphibians are a cornerstone of the vertebrate food chain. They are food for a variety of snakes, which in turn, are food for hawks. Wading birds find easy prey as the isolated wetlands begin drying up and contracting. The entire cycle of the pond, from fully wet to dry, is significant. Ambystoma tigrinum (tiger salamanders) are hatched and raised in isolated wetlands; they leave, and must return to breed in the same pond. They have a strong homing instinct. Ignorant of intervening events, they are often found spending their honeymoon dodging cars on an apartment complex pavement, seeking in vain the pond of their birth. The SJRWMD adopted Chapter 40C-4, F.A.C. and its Applicant's Handbook to regulate the construction, operation, alteration, removal or abandonment of surface water management systems, to insure that those activities will not harm the water resources of the District and insure that they are consistent with the objectives of the District. Activities which do not meet certain thresholds established in Rule 40C-4.041, F.A.C. do not require a District MSSW permit, including those activities impacting an isolated wetland. The threshold provisions pre-date Section 373.414, F.S. and still apply. The threshold provisions of Rule 40C-4.041(2)(b), F.A.C., challenged by Petitioners, state as follows: 40C-4.041 Permit Required. * * * (b) An individual or general permit is required prior to the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, abandonment or removal of a surface water management system which: Is capable of impounding a volume of water of forty or more acre feet; or Serves a project with a total land area equal to or exceeding forty acres; or Serves a project with a total land area equal to or exceeding ten acres, when any part of the project is located within the Wekiva River Hydrologic Basin north of State Road 436; or Provides for the placement of twelve or more acres of impervious surface which constitutes 40 or more percent of the total land area; or Provides for the placement of one half acre or more of impervious surface, when any of the impervious surface is located within the Wekiva river Hydrologic Basin north of State Road 436; or Contains a traversing work which traverses: A stream or other watercourse with a drainage area of five or more square miles upstream from the traversing work; or An impoundment with more than ten acres of surface area; or Contains a surface water management system which serves an area of five or more contiguous acres of a hydrologically sensitive area with a direct hydrologic connection to: A stream or other watercourse with a drainage area of five or more square miles; or An impoundment with no outfall, which is not wholly owned by the applicant and which is ten acres or greater in size; or A hydrologically sensitive area not wholly owned by the applicant. Is wholly or partially located within the Wekiva River Hydrologic Basin's Riparian Habitat Protection Zone as described in paragraph 40C-41.063(3)(e). The same threshold provisions are contained in Section 3.3.1, Applicant's Handbook, also challenged by Petitioners. In 1987, after passage of Section 373.414, F.S. the District amended its wetland regulations to provide that all wetlands would be evaluated, regardless of size, within the already-established permit thresholds: A wide variety of wetland habitats exist within the St. Johns River Water Management District. The functions which these habitats serve are dependent on many factors. Biological and hydrological evidence demonstrate that size is not the single determinant of wetland value. Since the District bases its evaluation on wetland functions, the District will review impacts to all wetlands (a zero acre threshold will be employed) in reviewing impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitats for systems requiring a permit from the District. * * * 10.7.5 Wetland Evaluation Applicant's Handbook As the result of an objection by the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC) stating that the District had failed to comply with Section 373.414(1)(a), F.S., the District amended the zero acre review threshold for isolated wetlands and adopted a 0.5 acre review threshold, based upon biological investigations indicating that wetlands below this size have minimal fish and wildlife value. In all applications for MSSW permits under Chapter 40C-4, the District reviews impacts to isolated wetlands unless those wetlands are less than 0.5 acre in size and are not used by threatened or endangered species. No permit application, however, is required for projects under the thresholds described in paragraph 13, above, even though those projects might include wetlands larger than 0.5 acres. Staff of the SJRWMD concedes that the non-regulated isolated wetlands might have significant value and agrees with Petitioner's experts that isolated wetlands found in projects below the Rule 40C-4.041(2)(b), F.A.C. thresholds (called "get-in-the-door" thresholds) could have more than minimal fish and wildlife value. Petitioners challenge the entire Chapter 40C-4, F.A.C. and Applicant's Handbook for non-compliance with Section 373.414(1)(d), F.S. The SJRWMD does not consider, and nothing in its rules require consideration of, cumulative impacts of a series of isolated wetlands included in below-threshold projects even though there could be a negative cumulative impact from the loss of those wetlands. Petitioners challenge section 10.7.4 Wetland Review Criteria, Applicants Handbook, to the extent that it may limit consideration of impacts to isolated wetlands to off-site aquatic and wetland dependent species, unless threatened or endangered species are involved. This section provides in pertinent part: 10.7.4 Wetland Review Criteria In determining whether a system will meet the objective contained in Paragraph 9.1.1(j) and that part of the criterion contained in Paragraph 10.2.1(e) regarding hydrologically related environmental functions, the District will, except when threatened or endangered species are involved, consider only the impacts to off-site aquatic and wetland dependent species relative to the functions currently being provided by the wetland to these types of fish and wildlife. This assessment of off-site impacts is based upon a review of pertinent scientific literature, soils and hydrologic information, and a general understanding of the ecological resources of the site. Generally, site specific biological data collection is not required. An applicant must provide reasonable assurance that a proposed system will not cause adverse off-site changes in: the habitat of an aquatic and wetland dependent species, the abundance and diversity of aquatic and wetland dependent species, and the food sources of aquatic and wetland dependent species. The only exception to limiting review of a system under this Subsection to off-site impacts is where wetlands are used or reasonable scientific judgement would indicate use by threatened or endangered species listed in Sections 39-27.003 and 39-27.004, F.A.C., which are aquatic or wetland dependent. In this instance, both off-site and on-site impacts will be assessed. Petitioners also challenge section 16.1.3(a), Applicant's Handbook, to the extent that it may limit mitigation requirements to off-site impacts. If a project as initially proposed is subject to Respondent's surface water permitting requirements, and as initially proposed fails to meet wetland review criteria, mitigation may be considered as a means of bringing the proposed project within permitting requirements. The challenged portion provides: 16.1.3 Mitigation (a) Mitigation is defined here as action or actions taken to offset the adverse effects of a system on off-site functions and in the care of threatened or endangered species, to offset the adverse effects of a system on on-site and off-site functions. Although there may be a difference in degree of functions performed by isolated wetlands on site, as compared to the degree of functions performed by isolated wetlands off-site, the difference in negligible. Adverse ecological effects on-site will also be felt off-site. In developing its criteria SJRWMD staff could not conceive of a situation where a functioning wetland or isolated wetland would be eliminated and not have an off-site impact. Finally, Petitioners challenge the last paragraph of Section 16.1.4, Applicant's Handbook, related to mitigation for mining projects that fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) pursuant to section 378.601, F.S. (heavy mineral extraction). Section 16.1.4, Wetland Creation, Applicant's Handbook, provides guidelines to be used to estimate the extent of wetland creation which may mitigate for the destruction of a unit of wetland. The challenged portion of the section provides: For lands and mining activities that fall under the jurisdiction of the Florida Department of Natural Resources pursuant to section 378.601, F.S. mitigation or compensation plans that are consistent with the land reclamation policies and criteria approved by that agency will be considered by the District as satisfactory mitigation. (emphasis added). The District is not required to allow mitigation if impacts are so substantial that they cannot be offset. If the District does not consider a DNR reclamation plan as sufficient, the District applies its wetland review criteria in section 10.7.4, Applicant's Handbook. For heavy mineral mining, DNR requires one-to-one mitigation for every wetland, regardless of type, that is disturbed by the zoning activity, and the restoration of wildlife habitat, including threatened or endangered species. Heavy mineral mining, in contrast to other mining such as phosphate, has far less impact on the environment. This is reflected in the success which has been experienced in restoring wetlands disturbed by heavy mineral mining.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that a dredge and fill permit be issued to Fairfield to fill 2.1 acres of wetlands and to create 2.1 acres of wetlands as mitigation, including the planting of Spartina to be maintained at an 80% survival rate for a period of five years and the provision of erosion control measures in and adjacent to Lake Avoca and St. Joseph's Sound. Respectfully submitted and entered this 14th day of February, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 14th day of Feburary, 1986. APPENDIX The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner and the Respondent Fairfield have been accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended, except as noted below: Petitioner page 3, 3rd full paragraph, Rejected; not supported last sentence: by competent substantial evidence. page 4, 1st paragraph: Rejected; contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. page 5, 1st full sentence: Accepted, but irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of any issue. pages 5 and 6, starting with Rejected; contrary to the 1st full paragraph: greater weight of the evidence. Respondent Fairfield page 4, 2nd full paragraph: Rejected; mere recitation of testimony and conclusions of law as opposed to factual findings. page 13, 1st paragraph: Rejected: irrelevant and immaterial. NOTE: Many of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner and the Respondent Fairfield constitute either recitations of testimony or legal conclusions. While these have not technically been rejected by the undersigned, they are not appropriate for the findings of fact section and are discussed in the conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Victoria Techinkel Secretary Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 Mary f. Smallwood General Counsel Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 William W. Deane, Esquire Hanley and Deane, P.A. 465 Second Avenue North P. O. Box 7473 St. Petersburg, FL 33734 Julia D. Cobb Deborah Detzoff Richard Tucker 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 Terry E. Lewis Steve Lewis Messer, Vickers, Caparello, French & Madsen P. O. Box 1876 Tallahassee, FL 32302 =============================================================== AGENCY FINAL ORDER =============================================================== STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CLEARWATER-UPPER PINELLAS COUNTY, Petitioner, v. DOAH CASE NO. 85-2755 DDT OGC FILE NO. 85-0822 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION and FAIRFIELD COMMUNITIES, INC., Respondents. /
