Conclusions On May 11, 2007, the Division of Administrative Hearings (‘DOAH’) submitted a _ Recommended Order (“RO”) to the Department of Environmental Protection (‘DEP’) i in . these consolidated proceedings. Copies of the RO were served upon the Petitioners, Mellita A. Lane, Jacqueline M. Lane, Peter A. Lane, (“Lane Petitioners”); Friends of Perdido Bay,.Inc., and James A. Lane (“FOPB”); and the Co-Respondent, International Paper Company (“IP” ). On May 29, 2007, all Petitioners and Respondent IP filed Exceptions to the RO. Respondent DEP filed Exceptions to the RO and Motion for Remand. ; On June 8, 2007, the FOPB filed a Reply to IP’s Exceptions and a Response to DEP’s Motion for Remand and Exceptions. The Lane Petitioners filed their Response to iP’s and DEP’s Exceptions. Respondent DEP filed Responses to the Exceptions filed . by the FOPB, the Lane Petitioners and IP. Respondent IP filed Responses to the Exceptions of FOPB, the Lane Petitioners and DEP. This matter is now before me for. final agency action. . _ BACKGROUND » Florida Pulp and Paper Company first began operating the Cantonment paper mill in. 1941. St. Regis Paper Company (St. Regis” ) acquired the mill in 1946. In 4984, Champion International Corporation (“Champion”) acquired the mill. Champion changed the product mix in 1986 from unbleached packaging paper to bleached products such a as printing and writing grades c of paper. In 2001, Champion merged with IP, and IP took over operation of the mill. The primary product of the mill continues to | be printing and writing paper. ' The mill s wastewater effluent i is discharged into Elevenmile Creek, which is a tributary of Perdido Bay. The creek flows southwest into the northeastern portion of Perdido Bay. Elevenmile Creek is a freshwater stream for most of its length but is . sometimes tidally affected one to two miles from its mouth. Elevenmile Creek is designated as a Class I water. Perdido Bay is approximately 28 square miles in area and is bordered by Escambia County on the east and Baldwin County, Alabama, on the west. The dividing line between ‘the states runs north and south in the approximate middle of Perdido Bay. U.S. Highway 98 crosses the Bay, going east and west, and forms the boundary between what is-often referred to as the “Upper Bay” and “Lower Bay.” The Bay is relatively shallow, especially | in the Upper Bay, ranging in depth between five and ten feet. Perdido Bay i is designated asa Class ill water. Sometime around 1900, a manmade navigation channel was cut through the narrow strip of land separating Perdido Bay from the Gulf of Mexico. The channel, called Perdido Pass, allowed the salt waters of the Gulf to move with the tides up into Perdido Bay. Depending on tides and freshwater inflows, the tidal waters can move into the most northern portions of Perdido Bay and even further, into its tributaries and wetlands. The Perdido River flows into the northwest portion of Perdido Bay. Itis primarily a freshwater river but itis sometimes tidally influenced at and near its mouth. The Perdido River was designated an Outstanding Florida Water (“OFW’) in 11979. At the north end of Perdido Bay, between Elevenmile Creek and the Perdido River, isa large tract of land owned by IP called the Rainwater Tract, The northern part of the tract is primarily freshwater wetlands. The southern partis a tidal marsh. Tee and Wicker Lakes are small (approximately 50 acres in total surface area) tidal ponds within the tidal marsh. Depending on the tides, the lakes can be as shallow as one foot, or several feet deep. A channel through the marsh allows boaters to gain access to Tee and Wicker Lakes from Perdido Bay. | ' Before 1995, the mill had to have both state and federal permits. The former Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (‘DER’) issued St. Regis an industrial wastewater operating permit in 1982 pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") issued St. Regis a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“ NPDES") permit i in 1983 pursuant to the Clean Water Act. When it acquired the facility in 1984, Champion continued to operate the mill under these two permits. In 1986, Champion obtained a construction permit from DER to install the oxygen delignification technology and other improvements to its wastewater treatment plant (‘WWTP’) in conjunction with the conversion of the production process from an unbleached to a modified bleached kraft production - process. In 1987, Champion applied to DER for an operating permit-for its modified WWITP and also petitioned for a variance from the Class iI water quality standards in Elevenmile Creek for iron, specific conductance, zinc, and transparency. DER's . subsequent proposal to issue the operating permit and variance was formally challenged. In 1988, while the challenges to the DER permit and variance were still pending, Champion dropped its application for the operating permit and requested a . temporary operating permit ("TOP"), instead. In December 1989, DER and Champion entered into Consent Order No. 87-1398 (‘the 1989 Consent Order’). The 1989 Consent Order included an allegation by DER that the mill's wastewater discharge was causing violations of state water quality standards in Elevenmile Creek for dissolved oxygen (“DO”), un-ionized ammonia, and biological integrity. The 1989 Consent Order authorized the continued operation of the mill, but established a process for addressing the water quality problems in Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay and bringing the mill into compliance in the future. Champion was required to install equipment to increase the DO in its effluent within a year. Champion was also required to submit a plan of study and, 30 months after DER's approval of the plan of study, to submit a study report on the impacts of the mill's effluent on DO in Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay and recommend measures for reducing or eliminating adverse impacts. The study report was also supposed to address the other water quality violations caused by Champion. A comprehensive study of the Perdido Bay system was undertaken by a team of 24 scientists lead by Dr. Robert Livingston, an aquatic ecologist and professor at Florida State University. The initial three-year study by Dr. Livingston's team of scientists was followed bya series of related scientific studies, which are referred to collectively in the RO as “the Livingston studies.” The 1989 Consent Order had no expiration date, but it was tied to the TOP, , which had an expiration date of December 1, 1994. Champion was to be in compliance with all applicable water quality standards by that date. The mill was not in compliance with all water quality standards in December 1 994. No enforcement action was taken by the Department and no modification of the 1989 Consent Order or TOP was formally proposed that would have provided a point of entry to any members of the public who might have objected. instead, the Department agreed through correspondence with . Champion to allow Champion to pursue additional water quality studies and to investigate alternatives to its discharge to Elevenmile Creek. - In 1994 and 1995, Champion applied to renew its state and federal wastewater permits, which were about to expire. The Department and EPA notified Champion that its existing permits were administratively extended during the review of the new permit applications. Today, the Cantonment mill is still operating under the 1989 TOP which, due to the administrative extension, did not terminate in December 1994, as stated on its face. In November 1 995, following EPA's delegation of NPDES permitting authority to the Department, the Department issued an order combining the state and federal ‘operating permits into a single permit identified as Wastewater Permit Number FLO002526-002-IWF/MT. During the period from 1992 to 2001, more water quality studies were conducted and Champion investigated alternatives to discharging into upper Elevenmile Creek, including land application of the effluent and relocation of the discharge to lower Elevenmiie Creek or the Escambia River. . In September 2002, while Champion's 1994 permit renewal application was still pending at DEP, IP submitted a revised permit renewal application to upgrade the WWTP and relocate its discharge. The WwTP upgrades consist of converting toa. modified activated sludge treatment process, incteasing aeration, constructing storm surge ponds, and adding a process for pH adjustment. The new WWTP would have an average daily effluent discharge of 23.8 million gallons per day (‘MGD’). IP proposes to convey the treated effluent by-pipeline 10.7 miles to the 1,464-acre wetland tract owned by IP (contained within-the larger Rainwater Tract), where the effluent would be distributed over the wetlands as it flows to lower Elevenmile Creek and Upper Perdido Bay. IP revised its permit application again in October 2005, to obtain authorization to: reconfigure the mill to produce unbleached brown paper for various grades of boxes. If the mill is reconfigured, only softwood (pine) would be used in the new process. On April 12, 2005, the Department published notice of its intent fo issue a proposed permit, consent order, experimental wetland exemption, and waiver. The — Department authorizations would allow IP to change its industrial wastewater treatment system at the mill, construct an effluent distribution system within the wetland tract, construct the 10.7-mile pipeline to transport its treated wastewater to the wetlands, and discharge the treated wastewater into the wetlands. In April 2005, Mellita A. Lane, Jacqueline M. Lane, Zachary P. Lane, Peter A. Lane, and Sarah M. Lane (“Lane Petitioners”) filed identical petitions challenging the Department authorizations on numerous grounds. The Department forwarded the petitions to DOAH for assignment of an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The Lane Petitioners subsequently amended their petitions. In May 2005, Friends of Perdido Bay, Inc., and James Lane filed a petition for | hearing to challenge the Department authorizations. The FOPB petition was forwarded to DOAH and the pending cases were consolidated for the fi nal hearing. The FOPB petition was subsequently amended. In October 2005, while the cases were pending, IP applied for a revision to its NPDES permit renewal application. The cases were abated so that the DEP could review and act on the permit revision. In January 2006, DEP issued a proposed revised | NPDES permit and a corresponding First Amendment to Consent Order. On July 26, 2006, the Department filed without objection a revision to the Consent Order. On July 31, 2006, the Department filed Joint Trial Exhibit 18 that integrated the Consent Order dated April 12, 2005, the First Amendment to Consent Order dated January 11, 2006, and the Department’s Notice of Minor Revision {o Consent Order filed on July 26, 2006. The DOAH Administrative Law Judge CALL") held a lengthy final hearing in these consolidated cases on May 31, June 1, 2, and.26 through 30, and July 17, 27, and 28, 2006. Prior to the hearing, the parties filed their Joint Pre-Hearing sit on May 24, 2006. The ALJ subsequenty submitted his RO on May 11, 2007. -
Findings Of Fact Harold Click and Harold Peterson, Petitioners, are sole owners of property which borders Dunn's Creek, one of the largest tributaries to the St. John's River in Putnam County, and which is described as Lots 80, 88, and 89, Section 38, Township 11 South, Range 27 East. Dunn's Creek is a Class III water body of the state. Petitioners applied for a dredge and fill permit initially in 1980 but Respondent issued an Intent to Deny in January, 1981. A second permit application was submitted in 1982 on behalf of Petitioners following a site visit by representatives of Respondent in June, 1981, but again an Intent to Deny was issued in September, 1982. A third application was submitted on or about May 3, 1984, following another site visit by Respondent's representatives, but the Intent to Deny which resulted in this hearing was issued on December 5, 1984. During these site visits, Respondent's representatives offered suggestions about what might be an acceptable project but gave no assurances that the application, as submitted on May 3, 1984, would be permitted. The project which Petitioners now propose would include the placement of pilings and other fill materials within the waters and landward extent of the waters of the state which would result in the alteration of at least 10,000 square feet of the swamp floodplain community of Dunn's Creek. This proposed filling will degrade the water quality of the areas affected by replacing periodically inundated wetlands with uplands. Although the project also includes construction of a fill road with a bridge over a natural slough on Click's lot, Respondent's expert witness Tyler testified that this portion of the project alone would not have resulted in the Intent to Deny. According to Tyler, the key area of objection was the .23 acres Petitioners proposed to fill which was within Respondent's jurisdiction and which would have widened an already existing berm. This widening would have allowed the placement of two septic tanks and two, dwellings on pilings on the property and an access driveway through Click's portion of the property to Peterson's. As proposed, fill was to be placed over a total of .35 acres, with .23 acres being in the waters of the state or to the landward extent of waters of the state. Bald cypress trees or other species listed in Rule 17-4.02(17), Florida Administrative Code, are present in part of the wetland area occupied by the project site in greater numbers, biomass, and aerial extent than competing plant species or communities. Without appropriate pollution control measures, the proposed project could reasonably be expected to result in an adverse change in the biological integrity, bacteriological quality, biochemical oxygen demand and the concentration of dissolved oxygen, turbidity and nutrients in some of the waters on the project site, in Dunn's Creek, and in discharge areas elsewhere. The filling associated with the project can be expected to have a long- term detrimental impact on water quality and biological resources, according to Respondent's expert witness Deuerling. Natural habitats and rainwater storage areas would be destroyed or detrimentally altered, as would the natural filtration function performed by the swamp areas to be filled. In the immediate vicinity of Petitioners' lots, Respondent has denied two dredge and fill permits and there are an additional two permit applications which are pending. Deuerling has also performed site visits at three other locations along Dunn's Creek in the immediate vicinity of Petitioners' lots, and it can be expected that other permit applications for similar projects will be submitted if Petitioners are granted a permit.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioners' application for a permit. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of September, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, 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 5th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter B. Heebner, Esquire 523 North Halifax Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32018 Ross S. Burnaman Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondents, Kelly Endres and Ifrain Lima (Endres/Lima), are entitled to an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) that would allow use of 0.535 acres of previously impacted wetlands for the construction of a single-family residence and associated structures, a 30' x 30' private dock with a 4' access walkway, and a 12' wide boat ramp (Project) at 160 Long Acres Lane, Oviedo, Florida (Property).
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. The Parties The Department is the administrative agency of the state statutorily charged with, among other things, protecting Florida's air and water resources. The Department administers and enforces certain provisions of chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated, thereunder, in the Florida Administrative Code. Under that authority, the Department determines whether to issue or deny applications for ERPs. Respondents Endres/Lima own the Property and are the applicants for the ERP at issue in this consolidated proceeding. Petitioner Meier is a neighboring property owner to the south of the Property. Petitioner Meier's property includes a single-family residence with accessory structures and is located on Long Lake. Petitioner Meier is concerned that the NOI provides inadequate environmental protections and that there will be flooding on adjacent properties from the Project. Petitioner Hacker is the neighboring property owner adjacent to the south of the Property. Petitioner Hacker's property includes a single-family residence with accessory structures and is located on Long Lake. He is concerned with the completeness of the application for the Project, the calculation of wetland impacts, that reasonable assurances were provided, and that the Department's NOI ignores willful negligence and allows disparate treatment of Respondents Endres/Lima. Petitioner Kochmann is a property owner with a single-family residence and accessory structures located on Long Lake. She is concerned that the NOI is based on a misleading application and provides no evidence that the Respondents Endres/Lima made reasonable efforts to eliminate and reduce impacts detrimental to the environment. History of the Project and Application On April 12, 2018, Respondents Endres/Lima applied for an ERP for proposed wetland impacts associated with a planned single-family home on the Property. This was the first ERP application for the Property. The Department sent a Request for Additional Information (RAI) on April 24, 2018, and a second RAI on November 2, 2018. Respondents Endres/Lima provided a Mitigation Service Area Rule Analysis for "As If In-Basin" for the Lake X Mitigation Bank for the St. Johns River Water Management District Basins to the Department via email on May 10, 2018. Respondents Endres/Lima submitted revised plans to the Department on September 19, and October 30, 2018. On January 7, 2019, the Department denied the ERP application. The Department and Respondents Endres/Lima, on July 18, 2019, entered into a Consent Order (CO). The Department found, and Respondents Endres/Lima admitted, that approximately 0.80 acres of jurisdictional wetlands were dredged and filled without a valid ERP from the Department; and was done with improperly installed erosion and sedimentation controls. On August 22, 2019, Respondents Endres/Lima submitted a second ERP application. The Department sent an RAI on September 20, 2019, to which Respondents Endres/Lima responded on December 19, 2019. In addition, Respondents Endres/Lima reserved 0.60 of forested Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) wetland credits from the Lake X Mitigation Bank and provided the Department with an updated site plan and Lake X Mitigation Bank credit reservation letter. The Department issued an NOI on February 7, 2020, which was timely published in the Sanford Herald on February 9, 2020. Respondents Endres/Lima provided timely proof of publication to the Department on February 13, 2020. Consent Order and Compliance A warning letter was issued to Respondents Endres/Lima on January 30, 2019, for the dredging and filling of approximately 0.80 acres of forested wetlands and improper installation of erosion and sedimentation control. The CO, executed on July 18, 2019, required Respondents Endres/Lima to cease any dredging, filling, or construction activities on the Property, submit an application for an Individual ERP within 30 days, and pay $5,599.00 in penalties and the Department's costs and expenses. After the issuance of an ERP, Respondents Endres/Lima were also required to implement the restoration actions outlined in the CO. Respondents’ Endres/Lima’s application, dated August 19, 2020, was submitted to the Department on August 22, 2020. Respondents Endres/Lima paid the CO's penalties and costs, and had multiple meetings with the Department to complete the requirements of the CO. Respondents Endres/Lima’s expert, Mr. Exner, testified that he began working on a restoration plan for the Property, which will be provided to the Department once an ERP is issued. Permitting Criteria The Department reviewed the complete application and determined that it satisfied the conditions for issuance under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-330.301, and the applicable sections of the ERP Applicant's Handbook Volume I (AH Vol. I). The Department also considered the seven criteria in rule 62-330.302 and section 373.414(1)(a), and determined that implementing the Project would not be contrary to the public interest. Water Quantity, Flooding, Surface Water Storage and Conveyance Respondents’ Endres/Lima's civil engineering expert, Mr. Herbert, testified that according to the drainage design, the Property would have swales on either side of the proposed residence to slope water away from the residence. There would also be a conveyance swale on the north property boundary to convey water from the street area and front yard toward the restoration and wetland areas with ultimate discharge to Long Lake. He stated that the elevation of the road at the front of the Property would be at 47.4 feet, and the elevation at the terminus of the swale would be at 45 feet. This would allow a 2.4-foot vertical fall for the swales to convey water to the lake. The design would preserve pre-development surface water flow over the Property to Long Lake, which is the lowest elevation in the area, and will ensure that storm water does not flood adjacent properties. Mr. Herbert also testified that the Project design would maintain pre-development water storage capacity. The imported fill that is currently on the Property in the flood plain would be removed and reshaped so that the lake elevation would be maintained and water can flow correctly. Elimination or Reduction of Impacts and Mitigation Respondents Endres/Lima provided the Department with design modifications to reduce impacts associated with the Project. These included a 15-foot restoration buffer along the lake front's northern shoreline, an elevated access walkway five feet above the wetland restoration area to the proposed dock, limiting the width of the access walk to four feet, and limiting the boat ramp width to a single-lane. In June 2015, an informal wetlands determination was conducted for the Property. The informal determination concluded that the entirety of the Property were wetlands. However, this was an informal determination and was not binding. In October 2016, before the first permit application was submitted, Mr. Exner did a wetlands delineation flagging prior to the Property being cleared or disturbed. Mr. Exner testified that, in his opinion, the Property was not all wetlands because large pines near the road had no high water marks, adventitious growth around the bases, or evidence of pine borer beetles along with other indicators of upland habitat. This wetland delineation was part of the permit submittal, was shown on the plans, was accepted by the Department, and was used for the preparation of the UMAM scoring. Mr. Exner's wetland delineation line was used by the Department to help determine and map the wetland impacts identified in the CO. The direct impact area was assessed at 0.54 acres with a secondary impact area of 0.02 acres for a total impact of 0.56 acres, and a functional loss score of 0.364. Respondents Endres/Lima reserved 0.6 forested UMAM mitigation credits, almost double the amount of functional loss under the UMAM assessment, agreed to purchase 0.46 credits. The excess mitigation bank credits implement part of a plan that provides regional ecological value and greater long-term ecological value than the area of wetland adversely affected. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts The Project's UMAM analysis assessed 0.02 acres, or 870 square feet, of secondary impacts. These impacts would be fully offset by the mitigation proposed for the Project. Petitioners' expert, Mr. Mahnken, noted three areas where he thought the application was incomplete. The first was that the site plan did not call out the location of the secondary impacts. However, Part III: Plans of Section B of the application, does not require that the site plan show the location of the secondary impacts. The application requirements for "plans" requires only the boundaries and size of the wetlands on the Property and provide the acreages of the upland areas, wetland impact areas, and the remaining untouched area. Second, Mr. Mahnken questioned the calculation performed to determine the secondary impact acreage. However, Mr. Mahnken read the information incorrectly and stated that the secondary impact area was 0.002 acres, or 87 square feet, when the UMAM score sheet clearly showed that the secondary impact area is 0.02 acres, or 870 square feet. In addition, the Department's witness, Ms. Warr, testified that even if the Department were to use Mr. Mahnken's analysis, the result would have been the same, i.e., the requirement to purchase 0.46 mitigation credits. Thus, Petitioners failed to support their claim that the Project would have adverse secondary impacts. Third, Mr. Mahnken asserted that cumulative impacts were not adequately addressed. He testified that the assessment for the Property using spill over benefits, in his opinion, was not enough to fully offset the impacts of the Project. Mr. Mahnken acknowledged, however, that his opinion was open to debate, and that he had not conducted any rigorous hydrologic evaluation in reaching his opinion. Respondents Endres/Lima had submitted a report prepared by Breedlove, Dennis & Associates (BDA Report) with their application in order to demonstrate compliance with section 10.2.8, ERP AH Vol. I, regarding cumulative impacts. The BDA Report utilized peer-reviewed hydrologic data that was reviewed and approved by the South Florida Water Management District, and was accepted by the Department pursuant to section 373.4136(6)(c). This was consistent with the Property's location within the mitigation service area for the Lake X Mitigation Bank. The Project is located within the Econlockhatchee River drainage basin, which is a nested basin within the larger St. Johns River [Canaveral Marshes to Wekiva] drainage basin. The Lake X Mitigation Bank is located outside of the Econlockhatchee River drainage basin, but the Project is located within the Lake X Mitigation Bank service area. The BDA report determined that: In summary, the Lake X Mitigation Bank is a regionally significant mitigation bank site that has direct hydrological and ecological connections to the SJRWMD basins, to include the cumulative impacts basin in which the subject property is located (i.e., SJRWMD Basin 19). The size, biodiversity, and proximity of the mitigation bank site to the SJRWMD basins, and the regionally significant hydrological connection between the mitigation bank site and the contiguous SJRWMD mitigation basins, supports the use of this mitigation bank site “as if in basin” mitigation for the Lima/Endres Wetland Fill Project. Additionally, the evaluation of factors, to include connectivity of waters, hydrology, habitat range of affected species, and water quality, demonstrates the spillover benefits that the Lake X Mitigation Bank has on the St. Johns River (Canaveral Marshes to Wekiva) mitigation basin, which includes the Econlockhatchee River Nested basin, and demonstrated that the proposed mitigation will fully offset the impacts proposed as part of the Lima/Endres Wetland Fill Project “as if in-basin” mitigation. The Lake X Mitigation Bank will protect and maintain the headwaters of two regionally significant drainage basins [i.e., the Northern Everglades Kissimmee River Watershed and the Upper St. Johns River Watershed (to include the nested Econlockhatchee River basin)], and will provide resource protection to both river systems (SFWMD Technical Staff Report, November 29, 2016). Furthermore, the permanent protection and management of the Lake X Mitigation Bank will provide spillover benefits to the SJRWMD basins located within the permitted MSA. Mr. Mahnken stated that his review of the Project did not include a hydrologic study and only looked at basic flow patterns for Long Lake. By contrast, the BDA Report included an extensive hydrologic study, looked at all required factors in section 10.2.8(b), ERP AH, Vol. I, and determined that the Project would be fully offset with the proposed mitigation. Thus, Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts. Water Quality Rule 62-330.302(1)(e) requires that Respondents Endres/Lima provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the state water quality standards will be violated. The conditions of the ERP would require the use of best management practices including a floating turbidity curtain/barrier, soil stabilization with grass seed or sod, and a silt fence. Respondent Endres/Lima's experts, Mr. Herbert and Mr. Exner, testified that there is an existing turbidity barrier in the lake around the property and a silt fence around the east half of the Property. While these items are not required by the Department until construction of the Project, part of the silt fence and the turbidity barrier are already installed on the Property and will be required to be repaired and properly maintained in accordance with the conditions of the ERP and Site Plan SP-2. Mr. Herbert testified that the Property will be graded in a manner that will result in a gentle sloping of the lake bank in the littoral zone, which would allow revegetation of the lake bank. Outside of the restoration area and the undisturbed wetlands, the backyard would be covered with grass to prevent migration of sand and soil discharging into the lake. Mr. Exner testified that the grass swales proposed for the Project would provide a considerable amount of nutrient uptake and filtration of surface water on the Property. Also, in the restoration area next to the lake, the restoration plan includes a dense planting plan with native species that have good nutrient uptake capability. Impacts to Fish and Wildlife Rule 62-330.301(1)(d) requires that Respondents Endres/Lima provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Mr. Exner testified that, in his review of the Property, he did not identify any critical wildlife habitat. He visited the Property multiple times and he did not see any osprey nests, deer tracks, animal scat, gopher tortoises, or sand hill cranes. The Department's Ms. Warr testified that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission database was reviewed, and did not show any listed species in the area. Publication of Notice Petitioners argued that the notice published in the Sanford Herald on February 9, 2020, did not meet the requirements of section 373.413(4). Despite the notice having no effect on their ability to timely challenge the proposed ERP, Petitioners argued that the published notice was insufficient because the notice itself did not provide the name of the applicants or the address of the Project, only a link to the Department's permit file. Unlike the notice required in section 373.413(3), where a person has filed a written request for notification of any pending application affecting a particular designated area, section 373.413(4) does not specify the contents of the published notice. Section 373.413(4) does not require the published notice to include the name and address of the applicant; a brief description of the proposed activity, including any mitigation; the location of the proposed activity, including whether it is located within an Outstanding Florida Water or aquatic preserve; a map identifying the location of the proposed activity subject to the application; a depiction of the proposed activity subject to the application; or a name or number identifying the application and the office where the application can be inspected. In response to the published notice, the Department received approximately ten petitions challenging the NOI, including the petitions timely filed by Petitioners. Therefore, Petitioners were not harmed by any information alleged to have been left out of the published notice. Ultimate Findings Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; and will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project complied with elimination and reduction of impacts, and proposed more than adequate mitigation. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water resources; and unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters within the same drainage basin. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse water quality impacts to receiving water bodies. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife, and listed species by wetlands, or other surface waters. Petitioners failed to prove lack of reasonable assurance by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order granting Respondents’ Endres/Lima's ERP application. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 2020. Jay Patrick Reynolds, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Neysa Borkert, Esquire Garganese, Weiss, D'Agresta and Salzman 111 North Orange Avenue Post Office Box 398 Orlando, Florida 32802 (eServed) Tracy L. Kochmann 249 Carolyn Drive Oviedo, Florida 32765 (eServed) Shelley M. Meier 208 Long Acres Lane Oviedo, Florida 32765 (eServed) Brian Hacker 170 Long Acres Lane Oviedo, Florida 32765 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD, or District) should issue a Modification to Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 11- 02055-P, Application No. 060713-9, to G.L. Homes of Naples Associates II, Ltd. (G.L. Homes, or Applicant), which authorizes modifications to the surface water management system (SWMS) for a residential development known as Saturnia Falls (the Project).
Findings Of Fact PARTIES The District is a water management district with the power and duty to exercise regulatory jurisdiction over the administration and enforcement of ERP criteria, pursuant to the provisions of Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, and Sections 373.413, 373.414, and 373.416, Florida Statutes. G.L. Homes is an entity with the administrative, legal, and financial capabilities of undertaking the activity in accordance with the terms and conditions of the 2006 ERP, meeting the criteria in Rule 40E-4.301(1)(j). The Conservancy was duly incorporated in 1966 under the laws of the State of Florida as a not for-profit corporation and has it headquarters in Collier County, Florida. G.L. Homes contests the Conservancy's assertion of "associational standing." But there is no question as to the Conservancy's "citizen standing" under Section 403.412(6), Florida Statutes. The Conservancy has approximately 6,200 members, with approximately 4,200 residing in Collier County. Twenty-five current members in good standing who reside in Collier County were identified during the hearing. The Conservancy's purpose is to "protect and sustain the natural environment of southwest Florida through advocacy, education, research, land acquisition and other lawful means." Specific purposes relevant to the subject matter of this case include: "to acquire and protect sanctuaries, greenbelts, parks, and beaches"; "to assist governing bodies to remedy present pollution and to prevent future pollution of water, air, and our waterfronts and beaches"; and "to encourage and stimulate the interests of residents and visitors to the area, to increase their knowledge of, and to promote the preservation of the southwest Florida natural environment." The Conservancy also asserts standing under Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. In furtherance of its corporate purpose, the Conservancy owns approximately 300 acres of land for preservation in Collier County, including a 46-acre parcel located on the Cocohatchee River downstream from the proposed Saturnia Falls development. The Conservancy also conducts scientific research in the waters of the Wiggins Pass Estuary downstream from the proposed Saturnia Falls development, including water quality monitoring and research on seagrass restoration. Further impacts to the water quality in the Cocohatchee River would affect the value of the Conservancy's property for conservation and would affect its interests in research in the area. These interests of the Conservancy would be adversely affected if the 2006 ERP were issued improperly. The Conservancy's assertion of "associational standing" is based on the testimony of eight of its members who engage in various recreational activities, including boating, fishing, bird-watching, nature study, and observation of wildlife. Some visit Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary and the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) to view endangered wood storks and other wildlife. Some also visit and recreate in downstream waters, such as the Wiggins Pass Estuary, for fishing, boating, or wildlife observation. These interests would be adversely affected if the 2006 ERP were issued improperly. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PERMITTING HISTORY The Project site is located one mile north of Immokalee Road, approximately 2 miles east of 1-75 and lies near the CREW lands in Collier County. The entire Project site consists of approximately 646 acres, of which 533.1 acres are wetlands. The Project has a permitting history dating back to 1997, when the previous owner, Robert Vocisano, applied to construct a development called Wildewood Lakes. The Wildewood Lakes application was denied in 1998, at least in part because wetland impacts were not reduced and eliminated to the extent practicable, and was mediated pursuant to Section 120.573, Florida Statutes. After three years of responding to additional requests for information, the application was submitted to the Governing Board for approval in May 2002. This ERP, referred to as “the 2002 ERP,” authorized the construction and operation of a SWMS to serve a residential and golf course development, discharging to the Cocohatchee Canal via a conveyance channel/Flow-way known as the Mirasol Flow-way (Flow-way). The Flow-way feature was to be built on lands owned by three different property owners, one of whom was the owner of the Terafina Project, and was intended to address flooding and storage criteria in the BOR and alleviate flooding problems in the region that resulted from previous drainage and development projects that altered the natural sheet-flow through the region to the Cocohatchee and Imperial Rivers, and on to the Gulf Coast. As reported in the Staff Report for the 2004 ERP, studies current at the time indicated that, during the initial part of the rainy season, the wetland systems in the vicinity of the proposed Flow- way carried the flow between the Corkscrew Swamp and the Cocohatchee Canal with the peak stages contained with the limits of the wetland areas. However, as the wet season progressed, the wetland vegetation impeded the conveyance of flow and resulted in elevated water stages that inundated properties adjacent to those wetlands, including portions of the eastern half of the Project. There were approximately 288 acres of direct impacts to wetlands under the 2002 ERP. There was a total of 291.20 acres of onsite preserve, including 259.97 acres of wetlands and 31.23 acres of uplands. Part of the Flow-way was to be located within the eastern third of the property (225.74 acres, including 217.80 acres of wetlands and 7.94 acres of uplands), which would be preserved after construction of part of the Flow- way in 23 of those acres. There also would be off-site mitigation in the form of a payment of $1,232,000 "specifically for the purchase of 154 acres . . . of land within CREW, a project within the District's Save Our Rivers Program." Of that total, $712,404 was to be deposited in an account for the land purchase, $437,206 in an account to pay for restoration work within the CREW project, and $82,390 in an escrow account for general operations and maintenance costs incurred by the District within the CREW project. On March 10, 2004, the Governing Board approved a modification to the 2002 ERP authorizing the construction and operation of the Project, at the time known as the Terafina PUD. This ERP is referred to as “the 2004 ERP.” The 2004 ERP removed the golf course and proposed a residential development within the same 646-acre parcel. It also discharged to the Cocohatchee Canal via the Flow-way. The 2004 ERP modified the Project to consist of: single-family residential areas; a recreation area; internal roadway; onsite wetland preserve areas within the development of approximately 73.99 acres; and 210 acres of wetland preserve east of the development, which included the Flow-way, and is referred to as the Eastern Preserve. The 2004 ERP proposed to impact approximately 280 acres of wetlands, slightly less than in the 2002 ERP. To mitigate for the impacts, the 2004 ERP authorized onsite mitigation consisting of the preservation and enhancement of 253.04 acres of wetlands, preservation of 31.27 acres of uplands, creation of 0.1 acres of wetlands, and offsite mitigation by a payment to the District for the purchase, restoration, and management of lands in CREW. Apparently by mistake, the amount of the CREW payment was reduced to $1,001,000, with $418,404 to go into the purchase account, $437,206 to go into the restoration account, and $82,390 to go into the escrow account for general operations and maintenance. In addition, the time for deposit of the funds was extended to June 30, 2004. The District included Special Condition No. 18 in the 2004 ERP, delaying any construction under the 2004 ERP until the Flow-way was completed. However, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) refused to permit construction of the Flow-way. On July 13, 2006, G.L. Homes submitted an application to modify the 2004 ERP (the 2006 Application), which is the subject of this proceeding. (A letter modification was issued on October 5, 2006, authorizing installation of a 48" outfall pipe within the Logan Boulevard right-of-way to convey the discharge from the Project to the Cocohatchee Canal. This letter modification was not challenged by the Conservancy and is not at issue in this proceeding.) On November 9, 2006, SFWMD proposed issuance of the 2006 ERP authorizing the construction and operation of the residential development now known as Saturnia Falls (the 2006 ERP). The 2006 Staff Report proposes elimination of the Flow- way, and enhancement and preservation of the 23.5 acres that would have been located in the eastern third of the Project area, similar to the rest of the Eastern Preserve. The SWMS also was altered, and the Staff Report noted that the CREW payment was made in June 2004 in the amount of $1,260,000 "as funding for the off-site mitigation in CREW," which was said to have "provided a substantial amount of up-front mitigation in CREW." The Conservancy did not challenge the 2002 ERP or the 2004 ERP but did challenge the 2006 ERP. THE MODIFIED SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM In addition to removal of the 23.5-acre segment of the Flow-way from the Eastern Preserve, the current proposal would modify the SWMS under the 2004 ERP by replacing the 80-foot weir at Lake 9, which was the sole final outfall under the 2004 ERP, with two operable Water Control Structures (WCS), located at the eastern (WCS-2) and western (WCS-1) boundaries of the Project, as the final outfall structures. The 80-foot weir in the 2004 ERP consisted of a rectangular notch in the 17.7 foot NGVD berm between Lake 9 and the Eastern Preserve, with a crest elevation of 13.8 foot NGVD and a 5 foot wide, .4 foot deep rectangular notch (that is, with an invert elevation of 13.4 foot NGVD) within the 80-foot weir, which served as a bleeder for water quality. The structure was fixed, and water was to pass freely through the bleeder and over the weir depending on the water levels on either side of the structure. In contrast, the structures proposed in the 2006 ERP are operable based on water levels in the Eastern Preserve. WCS- 1 is located in Lake 4 and discharges to the Cocohatchee Canal via a 48" reinforced concrete pipe located in the Logan Boulevard right-of-way. WCS-2 is located to the east of the development and discharges to the Eastern Preserve and then ultimately to the Cocohatchee Canal. As modified under the 2006 ERP, the SWMS continues to consist of eleven controlled sub-basins with a total area of 397.46 acres. The remainder of the proposed Project also is the same as under the 2004 ERP, including road alignments, type and number of houses, lots, lakes and grading information, and wetland impacts. It is the position of the Applicant and the District that the mitigation proposal also is identical; but Petitioner takes the position that proposed onsite mitigation will be adversely affected by the proposed modifications and that offsite mitigation no longer has the same benefit, so that mitigation no longer fully offsets the wetland impacts. The SWMS is set at the control elevation of 13.4 feet NGVD, which represents the wet season water table (WSWT) for the currently existing wetlands. The seasonal high water level for the wetlands was determined to be approximately 14.0 feet NGVD. When water levels in the Eastern Preserve are below 14.00 feet NGVD (typically in the dry season), the SWMS discharges to the Eastern Preserve through WCS-2, which is located in the perimeter berm to be constructed with sloping banks and a crest elevation of 17.7 feet NGVD between the Eastern Preserve and one of the western wetland preserves, called preserve P-5. WCS-2 consists of a 23-foot weir fitted with an operable bleeder at the control elevation of 13.40 feet NGVD, and a fixed discharge V-Notch weir with an invert elevation of 14.20 feet NGVD, and a crest elevation of 15.40 feet NGVD. This discharge will flow southerly through the Eastern Preserve to the receiving waterbody, the Cocohatchee Canal. WCS-1 will be closed during these periods. The maximum discharge rate under these conditions will be 15.28 cubic feet per second (cfs) to the Eastern Preserve. Based on the hydraulic modeling results, the Eastern Preserve experiences levels below 14 feet NGVD approximately 70% of the time on an annual basis. When water levels in the Eastern Preserve are above 14.00 feet NGVD (typically in the wet season), the SWMS will discharge predominately to the west via WCS-1 to the Cocohatchee Canal. When the water level in the Eastern Preserve reaches 14.00 ft NGVD, the operable bleeder on WCS-2 will close and the operable bleeder/discharge structure on WCS-1 will open. During the 25- year 3-day storm, the maximum discharge rate through WCS-1 is 13.50 cfs. During these conditions, discharge will also occur through the fixed 60-degree V-notch in WCS-2, with a maximum discharge of 2.10 cfs, ensuring bidirectional flow of water so long as the water level in the SWMS stays above 14.20 feet NGVD. The total discharge rate from both structures under this condition is 15.61 cfs. During the 25-year 3-day storm event, water levels in the Eastern Preserve fluctuate from 13.40 feet NGVD to 15.31 feet NGVD. When the water levels in the Eastern Preserve are higher than 14.20 feet NGVD, and the water level in the SWMS is lower than 14.20 feet NGVD, water from the Eastern Preserve will enter into the SWMS through the 60-degree V-Notch in WCS-2. The SWMS is designed to receive water from the Eastern Preserve to provide flood storage and hydrology to the onsite wetlands within the development. THE ERP PERMITTING CRITERIA In order to obtain an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions for issuance set forth in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. In this case, the evidence must be viewed under Rule 40E-4.331(2)(a), pertaining to modification of permits, which requires the District to review permit modification applications “using the same criteria as new applications for those portions of the project proposed for, or affected by, the modification.” The test in this case is not whether the District properly evaluated the 2004 ERP, but whether the areas proposed to be modified or affected by the modification meet the applicable conditions for issuance. Rule 40E-4.301(1) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a SWMS: Will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; Will not cause adverse flooding to on- site or off-site property; Will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; Will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters; Will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the water quality standards set forth in Chapters 62- 4, 62-302, 62-520, 62-522, 62-550, F.A.C., including any antidegradation provisions of paragraphs 62-4.242(1)(a) and (b), subsections 62-4.242(2) and (3), and Rule 62-302.300, F.A.C., and any special standards for Outstanding Florida Waters and Outstanding National Resource Waters set forth in subsections 62-4.242(2) and (3), F.A.C., will be violated; Will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources; Will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows established pursuant to Chapter 373.042, F.S.; Will not cause adverse impacts to a work of the District established pursuant to Section 373.086, F.S.; Will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed; Will be conducted by an entity with the sufficient financial, legal and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, if issued; and Will comply with any applicable special basin or geographic area criteria established in Chapter 40E-41, F.A.C. The parties stipulated that the Project either complies with Rules 40E-4.301(1)(g),(h),(j), and (k), and Sections 4.3.8, 7.5, and 9.0 of the BOR, or that those rules are not applicable. THE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT CRITERIA Water Quantity (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a)) As indicated, the 2006 modifications eliminate the Flow-way and change the manner in which water flows in and out of the proposed SWMS. Otherwise, there are no changes to the engineered features of the SWMS. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a) requires that G.L. Homes demonstrate that the Project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands, and not exceed the capacity of the downstream receiving water bodies. Section 6.2 of the BOR requires that a project be designed so it is consistent with the downstream carrying capacity of the receiving waters. The receiving waterbody for this Project is the Cocohatchee Canal. The allowable discharge rate for the Cocohatchee Canal is 15.9 cfs. The Project’s calculated rate of discharge is 15.6 cfs, so the Project does not exceed the allowable discharge rate. The Project's discharge rate is lower in 2006 (15.6 cfs) than it was in the 2004 ERP (291 cfs). Petitioner argued that the significant difference in discharge rates between the 2006 and the 2004 ERPs violated the District’s water quantity criteria. But the discharge rate calculated in 2004 was associated with the Flow-way and entailed a different overall analysis for the entire area served by the Flow-way. G.L. Homes provided reasonable assurances that the discharge rate allowed for its Project would not be exceeded, as required in Section 6.2 of the BOR. G.L. Homes complied with Section 6.3 of the BOR which requires the 25-year, 3-day storm event to be used when computing the discharge rate for the Project. Section 6.8 of the BOR is entitled “Offsite Lands.” Compliance with this Section requires that a project allow the passage of drainage from offsite areas to downstream areas, which is necessary to demonstrate that off-site receiving waterbodies are not being adversely affected. G.L. Homes complied with Section 6.8 by conducting a hydrologic analysis, using the 25-year, 3-day storm event, which demonstrated that discharge would be directed to WCS-1 and WCS-2, allowing for the passage of drainage from offsite areas to the downstream areas. Section 6.10 of the BOR requires that the design of the Project conserve water and not over-drain wetlands. There is nothing about the modifications that violate Section 6.10. In this case, the control elevations have been set at 13.4 feet NGVD, which is the average WSWT. The WSWT was established using biological indicators to determine the average elevation in the Project’s wetlands during the wet season. Setting the control elevation at the WSWT does not violate Section 6.10. To the contrary, when water levels are at or above the control elevation, the design helps prevent the wetlands from being drawn down below 13.4 feet NGVD, and not over-drain them. The WSWT of 13.4 was permitted in the 2004 ERP. The structures also allow for the interchange of water from the Eastern Preserve into the preserve wetlands within the SWMS. This exchange of water helps preserve the Project’s environmental values. Setting the control elevation at 13.4 also reduces unnecessary runoff from the Project, retaining the water for recharge. In addition, the ability of the SWMS to accept flows from the Eastern Preserve also conserves freshwater by preventing that water from being discharged downstream. As indicated, when water levels in the Eastern Preserve are below the control elevation, no water will enter the SWMS from the Eastern Preserve. During those times, it is possible that wetlands within the SWMS will be drained into the deep lakes dug as part of the project. However, that would not be the result of 2006 modifications but would be inherent in the previously-approved SWMS. The 2006 modifications do not re-open the soundness of that previously-approved part of the design. Section 6.10 also requires that a project not lower water tables so that the existing rights of others would be adversely affected. Again, by setting the control elevations at the WSWT, the water table is not expected to be lowered so as to affect the existing rights of others. The Project also must demonstrate that the site’s groundwater recharge characteristics will be preserved through the design of the SWMS. G.L. Homes complied by setting the control elevations at the WSWT, allowing standing water in the wetland preserves to recharge the groundwater. Section 6.11 addresses Detention and Control Elevations which are intended to assist in complying with the provisions of Section 6.10. By designing WCS-1 and WCS-2 at control elevation 13.4, the Project maintains the detention component and the control (wetland protection) elevations under the previously-approved SWMS. The Required Design Information and Assumptions are contained in Section 8.0 of the BOR. This Section includes various assumptions and information regarding the design of the SWMS. By incorporating these assumptions into the Project, G.L. Homes complied with Section 8.0. Flooding (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(b)) This Rule requires G.L. Homes to demonstrate that the Project will not cause adverse flooding to onsite or offsite property. Section 6.4 requires that building floors be designed to be protected from a 100-year, 3-day storm event. G.L. Homes complied with this provision by providing construction plans demonstrating that the building floors are being built higher than the 100-year, 3-day storm event. Likewise, Section 6.5 pertains to providing flood protection for the Project’s roads and parking lots. G.L. Homes complied with this provision by exceeding the District’s 5-year design criteria, and instead designing the roads and parking lots using the 25-year, 3-day storm event. G.L. Homes was required to comply with the Historic Basin Storage provision in Section 6.7, which requires the Project to replace or otherwise mitigate the loss of historic basin storage provided by the site. In this case, the amount and extent of historic storage that is being displaced by the 2006 ERP is the same as that in the 2004 ERP. However, the replacement or mitigation for loss of historic basin storage is reduced due to elimination of the Flow-way. Instead of relying on the Flow-way to address this criterion, G.L. Homes relied on the “Saturnia Falls Slough Hydraulic Study” prepared by Taylor Engineering, the “Taylor Report” (RJ Ex. 32), which demonstrates the current flood levels in the Eastern Preserve and other adjacent properties and wetlands, and that the Project’s configuration would not affect the basin’s historic storage. Lastly, to demonstrate that the Project will not cause adverse flooding to offsite properties, G.L. Homes was required to comply with Section 6.9, Minimum Drainage. This provision requires that the SWMS recover, consistent with the environmental criteria in 6.10 of the BOR, within 12 days or less. The Taylor Report also demonstrated that the Project will recover from the design storm event in time to provide the required attenuation for the next storm event, while preserving environmental or wetland features. There may be times when the recovery may exceed 12 days, but the need to protect the hydrology of the wetlands required the control elevations to be set at 13.4 ft NGVD. Balanced against Section 6.10, G.L. Homes still complies with Section 6.9. Accordingly, G.L. Homes provided reasonable assurances demonstrating that the 2006 ERP will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, satisfying Rule 40E- 4.301(1)(b). Storage and Conveyance (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c) requires that an applicant demonstrate that the proposed development will not adversely impact existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. In order to accomplish this demonstration, applicants are to consider the capability of the adjacent properties to both store and convey stormwater runoff from their developments. Section 6.6 of the BOR, entitled Floodplain Encroachment, specifies the parameters by prohibiting a net encroachment into the floodplain, between the average WSWT and the 100-year event, which will adversely affect the existing rights of others. G.L. Homes addressed this criterion through the analysis submitted and contained in the Taylor Report. The Taylor Report used the hydrologic model, HEC-HMS, and hydraulic model, HEC-RAS, to provide a simulation of flood stages propagating through the Eastern Preserve and the adjacent wetland system. This analysis assessed the existing flood stages within the offsite areas, starting at the Cocohatchee Canal and ending approximately 2-3 miles northeast of the eastern boundary of the Project. The analysis captured the expected flood levels during both the 25-year, 3-day and the 100-year, 3-day storm events in the area's current condition, and then compared the analysis of the two storm events considering the Project in its development condition. The analysis relied on the Project’s proposal to remove the current melaleuca infestation from the Eastern Preserve as part of the Project’s post-development condition. The Taylor Report concluded that the removal of such exotics would remove a flow impediment and allow the water to flow through the Eastern Preserve at a higher rate, and therefore at lower flood stages. The Taylor Report made these conclusions while accounting for the development as well as the mitigation-required plantings. The Taylor Report, along with Mr. Hull’s testimony, demonstrated that even with the mitigation reaching full maturity, the removal of melaleuca results in lower flood stages than the study area is currently experiencing. The evidence was that the model used by Taylor Engineering, the HEC-RAS model, is an appropriate model to determine flood stages and to calculate the floodplain conveyance. Furthermore, although Petitioner attacked the choice of inputs, mainly the “Manning’s n coefficients” used to determine the roughness or the friction provided by current and post-development vegetation, the balance of the evidence supports the coefficients contained in the Taylor Report as reasonable and within the ranges of the cited data and models. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Van Lent, who conducted no analysis of his own, admitted that HEC-RAS was an accepted tool to use for floodplain conveyance and that the other models he suggested are either inappropriate or rarely used by ERP applicants. The Applicant provided reasonable assurances demonstrating that the 2006 ERP will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, satisfying Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c). However, that is not to say that the 2006 ERP replaces the storage and conveyance capabilities that would have been provided under the 2004 ERP with the proposed Flow-way, which also required removal of melaleuca and required the same mitigation plantings except within the Flow-way itself. To the contrary, storage and conveyance capability under the 2004 ERP clearly would have been greater. Wetland Impacts (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d)) This Rule provision, while typically associated with the wetland ERP criteria review, also applies to the SWMS through Section 6.12 of the BOR, which requires that a lake system be designed so that an adverse gradient is not created between the lakes and wetland areas. G.L. Homes complied with this criterion by setting the control elevation at 13.4 feet NGVD, the WSWT, for the lake system, the SWMS wetland preserves and the Eastern Preserve, ensuring no gradient (or difference in elevation) between the wetland elevation and the lake elevation. Petitioner argued that additional analysis regarding the timing and levels of inundation in the wetland preserves is necessary to fully determine the impacts to the wetlands. Contrary testimony indicated that setting the control elevations within the development area at the WSWT protects the onsite wetlands and ensures that those wetlands will function as expected. Mr. Waterhouse testified that additional analysis, such as groundwater or evapotranspiration, is not necessary because the Project was designed so that the control elevation that affects the lake levels and the wetlands are the same. The testimony was that, since the control elevation was set using the WSWT, the timing and levels within the wetlands will not be affected by the revised SWMS, and that no additional modeling, as recommended by Dr. Van Lent, is necessary because the SWMS complies with Section 6.12. As indicated, it is questionable on this record whether wetlands within the SWMS will be drained during dry conditions by adjacent deep lakes. No such analysis was presented in evidence in this case. However, such an impact on the wetlands within the SWMS would not be the result of 2006 modifications but would be inherent in the previously-approved SWMS. The 2006 modifications do not re-open the soundness of that previously-approved part of the design. As for the 2006 modifications, the evidence was persuasive that no additional analysis regarding the timing and levels of inundation in the wetland preserves is necessary to determine that the elimination of the 80-foot weir and its replacement with WCS-1 and WCS-2 will not impact the wetlands. Water Quality (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the Project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that water quality standards will be violated. Section 5.2 describes the District’s standard water quality criteria. This provision, requiring a minimum of one inch detention of stormwater, is referred to as a “presumptive criterion” because it is presumed that if an applicant provides the required one inch of detention, Class III water quality standards and rule requirements will be met. In this case, G.L. Homes provides one inch of detention in its lake system in the exact manner it did in the 2004 ERP. A difference from the 2004 to the 2006 ERP is the classification of the Cocohatchee Canal, the Project’s receiving waterbody, as impaired for iron and dissolved oxygen (DO). Therefore, G.L. Homes was also required to comply with Section 4.2.4.5 of the BOR to demonstrate that it is not contributing to the impairment. See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.301(2). Section 4.2.4.5, entitled "Where Ambient Water Quality Does Not Meet State Water Quality Standards," states as follows: If the site of the proposed activity currently does not meet state water quality standards, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the water quality standards by meeting the provisions in 4.2.4.1, 4.2.4.2, and 4.2.4.3, as applicable, and for the parameters which do not meet water quality standards, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed activity will not contribute to the existing violation. If the proposed activity will contribute to the existing violation, mitigation may be proposed as described in subsection 4.3.1.4. To comply, G.L. Homes must show that neither short- term (4.2.4.1) nor long-term (4.2.4.2) water quality impacts will occur. G.L. Homes complied with the short-term requirements by submitting the Construction Pollution Prevention Plan (CPPP), detailing how water quality will be protected during the construction process. In addition to the inch of treatment, the long-term water quality requirement was addressed, in part, by the Urban Stormwater Management Plan (USMP), which details various source controls or best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented once the Project is built and operating. These BMPs help keep pollutants out of the lake system. In addition to the BMPs, the USMP requires G.L. Homes to institute a water quality monitoring plan and submit results to the District for review after the Project is developed. Dr. Harper concurred with Petitioner that the USMP as proposed (in R.J. 28, § 6.0) was deficient in certain respects and recommended that it be clarified or supplemented to specify testing for oxygen, iron, nitrogen, phosphorus, hardness, and a few heavy metals, namely copper, lead, and zinc. Dr. Harper also concurred and recommended that that samples should be collected at both WCS-1 or WCS-2, not just at one of them, depending on which structure is discharging water at the time of sampling. (Dr. Harper confirmed the propriety of testing three times per year, which is a common frequency for monitoring in situations like this.) Mr. Waterhouse agreed with Dr. Harper's additions/clarifications and testified that the USMP, as supplemented and clarified, would comply with District’s criteria. G.L. Homes accepted Dr. Harper's additions/clarifications to the USMP. Another component of Section 4.2.4.5 requires additional assurance for parameters that do not meet water quality standards. The District prepared the “Terrie Bates Water Quality Memo dated June 11, 2004,” referred to as “the Bates Memo,” to provide guidance on the implementation of Section 4.2.4.5 for projects which discharge into an impaired waterbody. The Bates Memo suggests that an additional 50 percent of treatment, among other BMPs, be incorporated into a SWMS. G.L. Homes complied with the Bates Memo because runoff from the lakes, after meeting the one inch detention treatment requirement, spills into the wetland preserves within the SWMS for an additional 50 percent of treatment. In terms of operation of the SWMS, this is no different from the 2004 ERP, but the 2006 ERP simply calculates and takes credit for the additional treatment that was also provided by the onsite wetlands in the 2004 ERP. It is uncontested that the wetland preserves within the development are not impaired and are only required to meet Class III water quality standards. When the stormwater spills into the SWMS wetland preserves, it is presumed to meet Class III water quality standards due to the one inch of detention treatment. Accordingly, the SWMS wetland preserves can be used to provide the additional 50 percent of treatment. The Bates Memo also lists seven BMPs as potential options to consider, in addition to the extra 50 percent treatment volume. G.L. Homes is implementing 6 of the 7 items as follows: (1) the CPPP, which is a stormwater pollution prevention plan; (2) an operation plan or long-term plan addressing routine maintenance is included in the USMP; (3) planting littoral zones; (4) some utilization of onsite wetlands for additional treatment downstream of the SWMS by discharging into the Eastern Preserve wetland system through WCS-2 at times; (5) a site-specific water quality evaluation for the Project’s pre- and post-development conditions is addressed by the Harper Report (RJ Ex. 25); and (6) a Water Quality Monitoring Plan, which is required under the USMP. Petitioner erroneously argued that the Bates Memo does not allow the 50 percent treatment to occur in the preserve wetlands within the development. The argument stems from the phrase “in addition to the extra 50% treatment volume” at the bottom of page 3 of the memo, and bullet No. 5 on page 4, which recommends “treatment in wetlands downstream of the SWMS.” Absent any analysis of her own or any experience in the application of the Bates Memo, Ms. Hecker contended that the Bates Memo precludes the use of onsite wetlands. The argument is contradictory and confusing because Hecker admits that the preserve wetlands within the development are not downstream of the SWMS, and acknowledges that the Eastern Preserve is the wetland downstream of the SWMS. Ms. Hecker, along with Mr. Boler, ultimately admitted that criteria exist allowing the use of wetlands as part of the SWMS. Mr. Waterhouse, who has vastly more experience with the District’s water quality criteria than Ms. Hecker, and participated in the drafting of the Bates Memo, refuted Ms. Hecker’s position about the intent of the Bates Memo, citing to Section 5.3.1 of the BOR as additional support for the use of onsite wetlands for water quality treatment. In addition to these water quality submittals, G.L. Homes also provided a water quality analysis specific to the Project prepared by Dr. Harvey Harper. The analysis, entitled “Evaluation of Water Quality Issues Related to the Saturnia Falls Project” (RJ Ex. 25), referred to as the “Harper Report,” analyzed the Project’s pre- and post-development pollutant loads to help demonstrate that the Project would not contribute to the impairment of the Cocohatchee Canal. The Harper Report estimated the removal efficiency of the SWMS lakes to determine how much pollutant removal would be achieved by the lakes on the Project. Dr. Harper relied solely on the lakes without accounting for any of the additional treatment expected to occur in the wetlands or from the source control BMPs contained in the USMP, which means his report errs on the conservative side in those respects. Although the Canal is impaired for dissolved oxygen (DO), it is uncontested that a nutrient analysis is the appropriate method to assess DO conditions. The Harper Report, as summarized in the table below, concluded that the Project would result in lower post-development loading rates than the pre-development loading rates for nutrients. Nitrogen (N) Pre-Development Total N Load 390.6 kg Post-Development Removal (Dry4) Total N Load 204.99 kg Post-Development Removal (Wet5) Total N Load 194.69 kg Phosphorus (P) Pre-development Total P Load 15.12 kg Post-Development Removal (Dry) Total P Load 5.29 kg Post-Development Removal (Wet) Total P Load 4.49 kg The Harper Report compared the Post-Development Total Basin Loading numbers for P (136.43 kg) and for N (922.57 kg), on an average annual basis, coming from the residential areas (roads and lots) to the Post-Development Removal Loads for P [5.29 kg (dry) and 4.49 kg (wet)] and for N [204.99 kg (dry) and 194.69 kg (wet)] discharging from the lakes after treatment. The calculations demonstrated that approximately 77 percent of N would be removed by the lakes in the dry season conditions and approximately 78 percent would be removed in the wet season conditions. Approximately 95 percent of P would be removed by the lakes in both the dry and wet season conditions. Additional removal and treatment above these percentages is expected due to a number of other source control measures not accounted for in the Harper Report. The Harper Report also concluded that iron discharges from the SWMS would be extremely low and substantially less than the Class III standard of 1 mg/l. Petitioner presented no evidence to counter this conclusion. Petitioner questioned the validity of Harper Report’s use of wetlands as part of the loading calculations, and attacked his underlying methodology. Petitioner's witnesses called it "bad science" to attribute pollutant loading to wetlands because wetlands remove nutrients from the water column and because attributing nutrient loading to wetlands would make it easier to obtain a permit to destroy wetlands. However, none of Petitioner's witnesses were able to credibly defend the position that wetlands cannot contribute to the loading calculations and at times conceded to this fact. Generally, wetlands can in fact contribute some nutrients that pass through without being taken up by wetland vegetation, either because the water is moving through the wetlands too fast or because the nutrient load in the wetland overtaxes the wetland's ability to take up nutrients. That does not necessarily mean that the nutrient load attributable to a wetland will be greater than the load attributable to other post-development land uses. Indeed, the only post-development land use characterized by Dr. Harper as having a lower pollutant load than a wetland was low- intensity commercial, and that was only for total nitrogen. (Dr. Harper's use of data from some distance away in Corkscrew Swamp as the basis for characterizing the pollutant loadings for the onsite wetlands, instead of data from a closer monitoring station in the Cocohatchee Canal weir, was justified; his use of that data instead of collecting data onsite was a valid criticism, but there was not enough evidence in support of that criticism to undermine the additional assurance derived from Dr. Harper's work.) As for the argument that the "Harper method" makes it easier to obtain a permit to destroy wetlands, there are many regulatory criteria other than just water quality that are supposed to be considered before a permit is issued to impact wetlands. Another component of Petitioner’s attack on the Project’s water quality compliance included vague references to an 80 percent removal efficiency. In actuality, the 80 percent removal efficiency is not adopted or incorporated into any District rule criteria. In any event, the Harper Report and other evidence give reasonable assurance that, along with other source controls, the proposed SWMS probably will remove 80 percent of pollutants on an average annual basis. Lastly, the District clarified why Section 4.2.8 of the BOR, regarding cumulative impacts for water quality, was not applicable in this case. Since no contribution or impacts to water quality are expected, a cumulative impacts analysis is not necessary to assess the extent of the impacts. The combination of all these water quality measures, when taken together, give reasonable assurance that the 2006 ERP will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that State water quality standards will be violated, and that Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) will be satisfied. Engineering Principles (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the SWMS will be capable, based on generally-accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed. Section 7.0 of the BOR specifies implementation of the Rule. Since WCS-1 and WCS-2 are proposed as operable structures, the District is requiring that G.L. Homes enter into an operable Control Structure Agreement with the Big Cypress Basin Board. The agreement provides for the Big Cypress Basin Board to operate and maintain the two operable structures, instead of the Saturnia Falls Homeowners Association. As Mr. Waterhouse explained, this is a reasonable and logical requirement. WETLAND ERP CRITERIA As with the SWMS criteria, the wetland criteria review of this modification compares the Project to 2004 ERP. Functions To Fish & Wildlife And Listed Species (Subsection 40E- 4.301(1)(d)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances to demonstrate that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, or abandonment of a SWMS will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Section 4.2.2 of the BOR provides further specificity to ensure that a project will not impact the abundance and diversity of fish, wildlife and listed species. The 2006 ERP makes no changes or modification to the 280 acres of wetland impacts allowed in the 2004 ERP. Since the impacts remain the same, the 2006 ERP does not modify or affect the values the wetlands provide to either the abundance or diversity of fish and wildlife, compared to the 2004 ERP. Review of this criterion was determined in the 2004 ERP and should not be re- opened. Section 4.2.2.3 of the BOR addresses the functional assessment of the values provided by the Project’s wetlands. The wetland values were not reassessed in the 2006 ERP because the wetland impacts remain the same as in the 2004 ERP. The evidence was that the current value of the wetlands remains low due to heavy melaleuca infestation, with 75 percent coverage in most locations. While Petitioner may disagree with how the current wetlands were evaluated, nothing in this modification request requires a reassessment of their value. Accordingly, the value of the wetlands currently onsite has not changed, and this criteria should not be re-opened. Section 4.2.2.4 of the BOR requires that a regulated activity not adversely impact the hydroperiod of wetlands or other surface waters. Specifically, the criterion states as follows: [An] applicant must provide reasonable assurances that the regulated activity will not change the hydroperiod of a wetland or other surface water, so as to adversely affect wetland functions or other surface water functions as follows: Whenever portions of a system, such as constructed basins, structures, stormwater ponds, canals, and ditches, are reasonably expected to have the effect of reducing the depth, duration or frequency of inundation or saturation in a wetland or other surface water, the applicant must perform an analysis of the drawdown in water levels or diversion of water flows resulting from such activities and provide reasonable assurance that these drawdowns or diversions will not adversely impact the functions that wetlands and other surface waters provide to fish and wildlife and listed species. Increasing the depth, duration, or frequency of inundation through changing the rate or method of discharge of water to wetlands or other surface waters or by impounding water in wetlands or other surface waters must also be addressed to prevent adverse effects to functions that wetlands and other surface waters provide to fish and wildlife and listed species. Different types of wetlands respond differently to increased depth, duration, or frequency of inundation. Therefore, the applicant must provide reasonable assurance that activities that have the potential to increase discharge or water levels will not adversely affect the functioning of the specific wetland or other surface water subject to the increased discharge or water level. Whenever portions of a system could have the effect of altering water levels in wetlands or other surface waters, applicants shall be required to: monitor the wetland or other surface waters to demonstrate that such alteration has not resulted in adverse impacts; or calibrate the system to prevent adverse impacts. Monitoring parameters, methods, schedules, and reporting requirements shall be specified in permit conditions. Subsection (a) applies if the Project was expected to reduce the depth, duration, or frequency of inundation or saturation in any of the Project’s wetlands. Subsection (b) applies if the Project is expected to increase the depth, duration, or frequency of inundation through changing the rate or method of discharge of water to wetlands or other surface waters. Subsection (c) requires monitoring of the wetlands to determine the effects of the hydrological changes. Persuasive engineering and biological testimony demonstrated that no change (neither a reduction nor an increase) in the hydrology on the preserved wetlands or the Eastern Preserve will occur from what was permitted in the 2004 ERP. By analyzing the various biological indicators onsite, control elevations within the SWMS and the wetlands (both the Eastern Preserve and onsite preserve wetlands) were set at 13.4 feet NGVD, which is the WSWT. This matched the control elevation under the 2004 ERP. Ms. Bain and Mr. Passarella both testified that the hydroperiods in the wetlands would remain the same as in the 2004 ERP during normal conditions, the most important indicator of wetland success, and that the wetlands would be unaffected by the modifications. The WSWT is a common indicator of average wet season water levels in a wetland, which generally is the best indicator of maintaining appropriate hydrology and thereby maintaining the expected level of wetland function. However, as indicated, the deep lakes next to preserved wetlands within the SWMS could draw down those wetlands during dry conditions; but the potential lake effect was present in the 2004 ERP. Both Dr. Van Lent and Jason Lauritsen conceded that, with the elimination of the Flow-way, the hydrology in the Eastern Preserve would be better in the 2006 ERP than in the 2004 ERP. But, as indicated, there was no detailed analysis of wetland impacts from the 2006 modifications because G.L. Homes and the District took the position that no detailed analysis was necessary since the control elevation remained unchanged. Petitioner attempts to cast doubt as to the level of data reviewed by the District to conclude that no changes will occur in the hydrology of the wetlands. But the additional modeling recommended by Petitioner is unnecessary and unwarranted in the face of the biological indicators collected from the Project site over several years. These biological indicators are reliable and customary information to use when ensuring compliance with Section 4.2.2.4. They also resulted in the same control elevation that was set in the 2004 ERP. Petitioner never disputed the credibility of the biological indicators, nor did they present any contrary evidence (either a model or otherwise) that purported to show the wetlands would not function as permitted in the 2004 ERP based on these indicators. Instead, they simply asserted that additional analysis should be done. Although not precipitated by this criterion, G.L. Homes will conduct monitoring of the wetlands by implementing the Monitoring Plan as additional reasonable assurances that the wetlands will not be affected. Secondary Impacts To Water Resources (Subsection 40E- 4.301(1)(f)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f) and Section 4.2.7 of the BOR require a demonstration that the proposed activities will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. No secondary impact analysis was done because the site plan and wetland impacts remained unchanged from the 2004 ERP. Additional Wetland Provisions (Subsection 40E-4.301(3) and 40E- 4.302 Subsection 40E-4.301(3) addresses the remaining wetland criteria in the BOR, including mitigation and elimination or reduction of impacts. Rule 40E-4.302(1)(b) addresses the cumulative impacts analysis contained in Section 4.2.8 of the BOR. No assessment of elimination and reduction of wetland impacts was done because the wetland impacts remain unchanged from the 2004 ERP. The 2006 modifications do not warrant another elimination and reduction analysis. No cumulative impacts analysis is necessary because, as in the 2004 ERP, all proposed mitigation for wetland impacts are within the same drainage basin (West Collier) as the impacts. Logically, if the mitigation proposed for the 2006 modifications fully offsets the wetland impacts, there will be no impacts to cumulate with others impacts of other development activities. On the other hand, if the mitigation does not fully offset the impacts, the application will be denied for that reason, without the need for a cumulative impacts analysis. Section 4.3 of the BOR specifies criteria for mitigation proposed as part of an ERP application. Both G.L. Homes and the District took the position that, similar to the wetland impacts, the proposal for both onsite and offsite mitigation did not change from the 2004 ERP, and that no detailed analysis of the mitigation proposal, or comparison to wetland impacts, was required. Indeed, the onsite mitigation proposal--which includes preservation, restoration of wetlands by removing melaleuca, and the creation of four shallow depressional areas for wood stork habitat--remains unchanged from the 2004 ERP, including the Grading and Planting Plan, the Monitoring Plan, and Mitigation, Monitoring and Maintenance Plan. It was proven that the Flow- way footprint never was considered to be either a wetland impact or a part of the mitigation proposal, and that its removal from the Eastern Preserve does not decrease the amount or the value of the mitigation. (Actually, its removal probably increases the value of the mitigation, but the amount of any such increase was not analyzed or quantified.) It also was proven that the onsite wetlands will not be adversely affected as a result of the 2006 modifications so as to decrease their mitigation value, as Petitioner contended. Petitioner also raised the concern that the wetland mitigation within the SWMS would not function as permitted in the 2004 ERP due to the storage of the additional 50 percent within those wetlands, thereby affecting the mitigation assessment. However, as already indicated, when the water reaches those internal wetland preserves, it will have been treated to Class III water quality standards. In addition, operationally, the water also would have been stored in those wetlands under the 2004 ERP; the only difference is that the 2006 modifications calculate and claim credit for the storage, which was not necessary or done for the 2004 ERP. In addition to the onsite mitigation, G.L. Homes previously had been permitted to provide offsite mitigation in the form of a $1.26 million cash payment to the District. The payment was for the purchase, restoration, and enhancement of 154 acres of lands within the boundaries of the District’s environmental restoration project called CREW. Payment of cash for use by the District is addressed in Section 4.3.1.8 of the BOR. These types of offsite mitigation opportunities are referred to as a regional offsite mitigation areas or “ROMAs.” Unlike most mitigation banks, ROMAs, such as CREW, involve a land acquisition component and are owned and operated by the District. G.L. Homes and the District take the position that, under Section 4.3.1.8 of the BOR, and the previous 2004 ERP, G.L. Homes’ responsibilities ended when it paid the cash donation to the District. They take the position that the mitigation is unaffected by the modification, and that re- opening of the offsite mitigation requirement is unwarranted. However, while the Staff Report characterizes the $1.26 million payment as "a substantial amount of up-front mitigation for the proposed wetland impacts," no land in CREW has been purchased as of yet. In addition, the evidence was that, as a result of the passage of time and market forces, it unlikely that 154 acres of land within CREW can be purchased, enhanced, and maintained with the funds paid to the District under the 2004 ERP. Indeed, for a number of reasons, including the lack of willing sellers to participate in the CREW ROMA, in 2004 the District stopped accepting payment of funds to purchase land in CREW as an acceptable form of mitigation for wetland impacts. As a result, it no longer can be said that the proposed mitigation package, which includes and relies on the use of the funds to purchase, enhance, and maintain 154 acres in CREW, fully offsets the proposed wetland impacts. (In addition, under Rule 40E- 4.331(2)(a), any new mitigation proposal would have to analyzed using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology, Rule 62- 345.100.) Finally, if the offsite mitigation outside the drainage basin is used, a cumulative impact analysis will be necessary. Public Interest Test (Rule 40E-4.302(1) In addition to complying with Rule 40E-4.301, since the Project is located in, on, or over wetlands, G.L. Homes must also address the criteria contained in the Public Interest Test, Rule 40E-4.302 and Section 4.2.3 of the BOR, by demonstrating that the Project is not contrary to the public interest. (Since the Project is not within an OFW or does not significantly degrade an OFW, the higher standard of “clearly in the public interest” does not apply.) The District considers and balances the following seven factors in determining compliance with the test: Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others (40E-4.302(1)(a)1.); 93. G.L. Homes provided reasonable assurances that the Project will not cause any onsite or offsite flooding, nor will the Project cause any adverse impacts to adjacent lands because the SWMS is designed in accordance with District criteria and the post-development peak rate of discharge does not exceed the allowable discharge rate. The Project is considered neutral as to this factor. However, it appears from the evidence that the 2002 ERP and the 2004 ERP viewed those proposals as positive as to this factor due to the inclusion of the Flow-way in an effort to alleviate regional flooding. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats (40E-4.302(1)(a)2.); 94. As indicated, the Project proposes onsite mitigation which has not changed from the 2004 ERP, but passage of time and market conditions have changed the offsite mitigation proposal. As a result, it no longer can be said based on the evidence in this case that the overall mitigation proposal offsets potential impacts to fish and wildlife, including wood stork habitat, even though the mitigation plan for the Eastern Preserve would improve wood stork habitat from its current melaleuca-infested condition. For these reasons, the Project cannot be considered positive as to this factor. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling (40E-4.302(1)(a)3.); 95. The Project will not adversely affect navigation. In addition, no evidence was introduced to suggest that the Project’s construction would result in harmful erosion or shoaling. The balance of the testimony pertaining to the flow of water in the Project indicated that it will not be adversely affected. Although there will be reduced discharge to the Eastern Preserve as a result of the 2006 modifications, the Project is considered neutral as to this factor. In contrast, it appears from the evidence that the 2002 ERP and the 2004 ERP would have viewed those proposals as positive as to this factor due to the inclusion of the Flow-way in an effort to alleviate regional flooding. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity (40E-4.302(1)(a)4.); 96. The Project does not provide any fishing, recreational values, or marine productivity. Therefore, the Project is neutral as to this factor. Whether the regulated activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature (40E-4.302(1)(a)5.); 97. The Project is permanent in nature and is considered neutral as to this factor because reasonable assurances have not been given that mitigation will fully offset the permanent wetland impacts. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, F.S. (40E- 4.302(1)(a)6.); 98. There are no significant archeological or historical resources that will be adversely affected by the Project. In addition, no new information was received by the District indicating that historical resources would be impacted. Therefore, the Project is considered neutral as to this factor. The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed regulated activity (40E-4.302(1)(a)7.); As found, reasonable assurance has not been given that the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by the areas affected by the Project will be fully offset by mitigation. Therefore, the Project should be considered negative as to this factor. On balance, the Project, overall, is negative when measured against these criteria. Accordingly, it must be determined that reasonable assurance has not been given that the Project, as a whole, is not contrary to the public interest.
Conclusions DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. Under Section 403.412(6), Florida Statutes: Any Florida corporation not for profit which has at least 25 current members residing within the county where the activity is proposed, and which was formed for the purpose of the protection of the environment, fish and wildlife resources, and protection of air and water quality, may initiate a hearing pursuant to s. 120.569 or s. 120.57, provided that the Florida corporation not for profit was formed at least 1 year prior to the date of the filing of the application for a permit, license, or authorization that is the subject of the notice of proposed agency action. It is concluded that use of virtually the identical statutory language is not mandatory for standing under this statute and that the Conservancy meets the requirements for standing under this statute. Party status under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, also can be based on proof that "substantial interests will be affected by proposed agency action." § 120.52(12)(b), Fla. Stat. This requires proof of "an injury in fact which is of sufficient immediacy and is of the type and nature intended to be protected" by the substantive law. § 403.412(5), Fla. Stat. See also Agrico Chemical Co. v. Dept. of Environmental Reg., 406 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). An organization like the Conservancy may allege and prove either that its own substantial interests or those of a substantial number of its members will be affected. See Florida Home Builders Ass'n v. Dept. of Labor and Employment Security, 412 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1982); Farmworker Rights Organization, Inc. v. Dept. of Health, etc., 417 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). In addition, Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes, provides: No demonstration of special injury different in kind from the general public at large is required. A sufficient demonstration of a substantial interest may be made by a petitioner who establishes that the proposed activity, conduct, or product to be licensed or permitted affects the petitioner's use or enjoyment of air, water, or natural resources protected by this chapter. The Conservancy made a sufficient demonstration under this statute that the proposed 2006 ERP will affect its use or enjoyment of water and natural resources protected by Chapter 403. As a result, the Conservancy also proved standing under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. Because the Conservancy has "citizen standing" under Section 403.412(6), Florida Statutes, as well as standing under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, it is not necessary to decide G.L. Homes' challenge to the Conservancy's "associational standing." It also is unnecessary and premature to determine whether any party would be entitled under Section 120.68(1), Florida Statutes, to judicial review of the final order entered in this case as "a party who is adversely affected." It is believed that such a determination, if it becomes necessary, can be made upon the evidence in the record. BURDENS OF PROOF AND PERSUASION This is a de novo proceeding designed to formulate final agency action. See Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So. 2d 778, 786-787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); and § 120.57(1)(k), Fla. Stat. As an ERP applicant, G.L. Homes has the ultimate burden of proof and burden of persuasion. See J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So. 2d at 786-789. In light of the evidence presented in this case, the option suggested in the J.W.C. case to shift the burden of presenting evidence was not useful. ERP CRITERIA The permitting criteria for G.L. Homes' proposed Project are found in Parts I and IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-345, Florida Administrative Code Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302, and the BOR, which is adopted by reference in Rule 40E-4.091(1)(a). For its proposed Project to be permitted, G.L. Homes must give reasonable assurance of compliance with those criteria. Issuance of an ERP must be based solely on compliance with applicable permit criteria. See Council of the Lower Keys v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 429 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Reasonable assurance contemplates a substantial likelihood that the project will be successfully implemented. See Metropolitan Dade County v. Coscan Florida Inc., 609 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Absolute guarantees are not necessary, and a permit applicant is not required to eliminate all contrary possibilities or address impacts that are only theoretical and cannot be measured in real life. See City of Sunrise v. Indian Trace Community Development District, et al., DOAH Case No. 91- 6036, 1991 Fla. ENV LEXIS 6997, 92 ER FALR 21 (DOAH 1991, SFWMD 1992); Manasota-88, Inc. v. Agrico Chemical Co. and Department of Environmental Regulation, DOAH Case No. 87-2433, 1990 Fla. ENV LEXIS 38 (DOAH Jan. 5, 1990; DER Feb. 19, 1990). The test in this case is not whether the District properly evaluated the 2004 ERP, but whether the areas proposed to be modified or affected by the modification met the applicable conditions for issuance. When a permittee seeks to modify an existing permit, the District’s review includes only that portion of the existing permit that is proposed to be modified or is affected by the modification. Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.331(2). See also Friends of the Everglades, Inc., v. Dep't. of Envt'l. Reg., 496 So. 2d 181, 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Behrens v. Boran, ORDER NO. SWF 02-052, ER FALR 257 (SWFWMD Aug. 27, 2002), DOAH Case No. 02-0282, 2002 Fla. ENV LEXIS 192 (DOAH July 29, 2002); Kunnen v. Southwest Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., ORDER NO.: SWF 02-003, DOAH Case No. 01-2571, 2002 Fla. ENV LEXIS 4 (DOAH Dec. 17, 2001; SWFWMD Jan. 29, 2002). The "reasonable assurance" requirement applies to the activities for which permitting is presently sought and, except to the extent affected by the proposed modification, does not burden the applicant with "providing 'reasonable assurances' anew with respect to the original permit." Friends of the Everglades, supra at 183. Accordingly, Petitioner’s arguments that certain criteria must be revisited because they were not properly addressed in previous permits is irrelevant to this proceeding; but previously-decided criteria must be reviewed again to the extent that proposed modifications affect those criteria. CONSIDERATION OF THE ERP CRITERIA In order to provide reasonable assurances that a Project will not be harmful to the water resources of the District, the applicant must satisfy the conditions for issuance set forth in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. In this case, the evidence must be viewed under the rule pertaining to modification of permits. Rule 40E-4.331(2)(a) requires the District to review permit modification applications “using the same criteria as new applications for those portions of the project proposed for, or affected by, the modification.” Surface Water Management Criteria Water Quantity and Flooding Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a) and (b) address adverse water quantity to receiving water bodies and flooding either onsite and offsite. As found, G.L. Homes complied with the applicable criteria to satisfy both of these rules. Storage and Conveyance Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c) requires G.L. Homes to provide reasonable assurances that the Project will not adversely impact storage and conveyance capabilities. As found, the submittal of the Taylor Report provides reasonable assurances that the Project will not adversely affect the conveyance of water. Moreover, although some criticism was aimed at the choice of the friction coefficients used in the Taylor Report, the evidence as a whole proves that the coefficients in the Taylor Report are reasonable and scientifically defensible. Water Quality Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) requires G.L. Homes to provide reasonable assurances that the Project will not result in adverse water quality impacts. As found, coupled with the clarifications/additions to the USMP suggested by Dr. Harper and accepted by G.L. Homes, the numerous water quality submittals demonstrated compliance with this Rule, including assurances regarding the impairment status of the Cocohatchee Canal. While Petitioner leveled numerous criticisms against the Project’s ability to comply with water quality, none of the criticisms rose to the level of “contrary evidence of equivalent quality.” Taken as whole, and balanced against Petitioner’s lack of equivalent evidence and credible witnesses, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that, with the Monitoring Plan additions/clarifications, G.L. Homes meets the District’s water quality criteria. Engineering Principles As required by Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i), G.L. Homes has provided reasonable assurances to demonstrate that the SWMS will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and functioning as proposed. Wetlands Criteria Elimination and Reduction, Secondary and Cumulative Impacts 115. Rules 40E-4.301(1)(f) and (2) and 40E-4.302(1)(b) require G.L. Homes to demonstrate compliance with the following District criteria pertaining to wetland impacts: (1) elimination and reduction; (2) secondary impacts; and (3) cumulative impacts. As found, the 2006 ERP proposes no changes or modifications to the wetlands impacts approved in the 2004 ERP. Therefore, Petitioner’s arguments that these assessments were either not done or done improperly in the previous permit are not valid bases to relitigate those issues. Accordingly, elimination and reduction, secondary impacts, and cumulative impacts addressed in the 2004 ERP are not properly litigated in this modification proceeding, except to the extent that they are affected by the proposed modifications. While the proposed modifications do not affect either elimination and reduction or secondary impacts, they could affect cumulative impacts, depending on whether offset mitigation needed to fully offset wetland impacts is accomplished in the West Collier drainage basin. Wetland Values and Functions to Fish and Wildlife Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d) requires G.L. Homes to provide reasonable assurances that the Project will not adversely impact the value and functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands. Rule 40E-4.301(3) requires an applicant to comply with the District’s mitigation provisions in the BOR. As found, Petitioner’s contention that the revised SWMS affected the values and functions provided to fish and wildlife, particularly the wood stork, was not supported by the weight of the evidence as to onsite mitigation. However, the passage of time and market conditions affected the offsite mitigation proposed and presumably evaluated for the 2004 ERP, and the impacts and mitigation were not re-evaluated for the 2006 ERP. Under Rule 40E-4.331(2), they must be re-evaluated using UMAM, as required by Rule 62-345.100. Public Interest Test The public interest test is limited in scope to only the seven factors set forth in Rule 40E-4.302(2). As found above, after a balancing of the factors, reasonable assurance was not provided that the Project is not contrary to the Public Interest.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the proposed 2006 ERP be denied. If it is granted, it should include the additions/clarifications to the USMP suggested by Dr. Harper and accepted by G.L. Homes. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 2007.
The Issue Whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District should issue the Individual Environmental Resource Permit (the "Individual ERP," the "ERP" or the "Permit") applied for by Entryway Developers, LLC ("Entryway")? The ERP was preliminarily issued by the District as Draft Permit No. 43024788.000 (the "Draft Permit"). If it becomes final, it will allow Entryway's successor in interest, Westfield Homes of Florida ("Westfield") both to construct a new surface water management system in service of a proposed subdivision, known as Ashley Glen, in southern Pasco County, and to conduct dredge and fill activities on site.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Petitioner in this proceeding is Dr. Octavio Blanco. A veterinarian, citizen of Florida and a resident of Pasco County, he holds a property interest (described below) in property immediately adjacent to Ashley Glen. One of the three Co-Respondents, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (the "District" or "SWFWMD") is a public entity created by Chapter 61-691, Laws of Florida. It exists and operates under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (the "Florida Water Resources Act of 1972" or the "Act"). The District is the administrative agency charged with the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage and control the water resources within its geographic boundaries. It does so through administration and enforcement of the Act and the rules promulgated to implement the Act in Chapter 40D, Florida Administrative Code. Entryway, the second of the three Co-Respondents, is a limited liability company and the original applicant for the Permit. Westfield, the third of the Co-Respondents, is a Florida general partnership and the current owner of the Ashley Glen Project. If the Permit is issued by way of a final order, Westfield will be the permit-holder. An application for an Individual ERP must be signed by the owner of the property or the owner's authorized agent. If signed by an agent, a letter of authority must be submitted by the owner. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D-4.101(2). Westfield was not the owner of the property on the site of the Project at the time of the filing of the application. Entryway was the owner. Westfield filed with DOAH a letter of authority received from Entryway.2 The letter authorized Westfield to sign the Individual ERP application. Ashley Glen and the Blanco Property "Ashley Glen-Villages 2-5" ("Ashley Glen" or as it is referred to in the Draft Permit, the "Project") is a 266.36-acre residential subdivision planned to be divided into more than 400 lots. Located in southern Pasco County, the subdivision is on the north side of State Road 54, approximately three miles west of US 41 and less than 1000 feet east of the Suncoast Parkway. To the north, Ashley Glen is bounded along an abandoned railroad right-of-way. The right-of-way extends beyond the northwest and northeast corners of the property in both easterly and westerly directions. There are 72.69 acres of surface waters and wetlands on the Ashley Glen site. Among the 19 isolated and contiguous wetlands on the property is a portion of a Cypress-forested wetland system (the "Cypress-forested Wetland"). The Cypress-forested Wetland was described at hearing by one of Westfield's experts as "a large wetland" (tr. 41) that is typical of the area. As with similar wetland systems throughout the state, the Cypress-forested Wetland undergoes "seasonal drawdowns and dry-outs, and in the wet season . . . flood[s] out to the edges and even beyond in certain storm events." (Tr. 43). The portion of the Cypress-forested Wetland that is on the Ashley Glen site is identified by the Permit as "Wetland A3." Wetland A3 is 29.94 acres. The entire Cypress-forested Wetland system south of the railroad bed of which Wetland A3 is a part is at least twice as large. Most of the remainder of the Cypress Wetland south of the railroad right-of-way is on the Blanco Property. It appears from exhibits used during the hearing that the Cypress Wetland originally extended north of where the railroad right-of-way now lies in its abandoned state. The connection was indicated also in the testimony of Mr. Courtney (Westfield's "wetlands" and "ERP" expert3) when he stated that there was potential for contiguity with systems to the north. Aerial photographs used at hearing indicated that the Cypress- forested wetland system was, indeed, part of the contiguous wetland system to the north of the railroad bed. The contiguity between the Cypress-forested Wetland and the system to the north was confirmed by Dr. Baca, Petitioner's wetland ecologist, on the basis of on-site examinations. Dr. Baca believes the Cypress-forested Wetland to be part of a much larger system that extends northward and to the west and that is contiguous with the Gulf of Mexico. He determined that despite the establishment of the railroad bed, the Cypress-forested Wetland remains connected to the contiguous wetland system to the north by way of pipes under and through the bed. Drainage on the Ashley Glen site is primarily from south to north with significant contribution from a drainage basin to the east. Drainage from the south is channelized by a ditch that runs nearly the length of the property from Wetland C12 at the southeastern tip to Wetland A3 near the site's northern boundary. Drainage from the eastern basin toward Wetland A3 is intercepted by the ditch. The result is that the drainage from the east is captured before it reaches Wetland A3 and drainage from the south bypasses Wetland A3 to be discharged northward at the railroad bed so that all of the drainage is "short-circuited by [the] ditch to the actual discharge location of [Wetland] A3." (Tr. 41). The discharge location from Wetland A3 was more precisely described at hearing by Mr. Courtney as "the confluence of [Wetland] A3 and the railroad bed where [the ditch] discharges off-site flows and [the] easterly to westerly flows into pipes that go under [the] old railroad bed " (Tr. 40-41). This testimony supports Dr. Baca's confirmation of the connection between the Cypress-forested Wetland and the contiguous wetland system north of the railroad bed. To the west of the ditch and the Ashley Glen site is the Blanco property. It has been held by Dr. Blanco's family for a period spanning six decades. Its boundaries roughly form an elongated narrow rectangle. From the eastern and western ends of 400 feet of frontage on State Road 54 (the southern boundary of the Blanco Property) the eastern and western boundaries run parallel of each other approximately 8000 feet to the north where the northernmost boundary of the Blanco Property meets the abandoned railroad right-of-way. The majority of the northern half of the Blanco Property is in the Cypress-forested Wetland. In addition to the drainage from the south and the east received prior to the digging of the ditch, the wetland receives drainage from the west which traverses the property between the Blanco Property and the Suncoast Parkway. With the exception of one acre on which sits the house in which Dr. Blanco's mother lives, the Blanco Property is presently the subject of a Land Trust Agreement. Through this unrecorded instrument, dated December 19, 1996, Dr. Blanco has an ownership interest in the property. Dr. Blanco's concern for the property pre-dates his ownership interest conferred by the trust agreement. He lived on the property from the age of three until he left for college. During that time, he "constantly" (tr. 374) observed many species of wildlife in the Cypress-forested Wetland, as he explained at hearing: Starting with mammals, I observed many deer, foxes, coons, coyotes, squirrels, ground squirrels, fox squirrels. And then numerous bird species . . . from the sandhill cranes to various storks and herons and egrets and . . . [m]ostly aquatic birds . . . many hawks [and] an occasional eagle [as well]. A lot of animals, such as frogs and snails. The apple snails particularly I've noticed. I've always admired them and the way they lay their eggs up on the water line. So, I've noticed them for years out there [along with] [m]any snakes [and], alligators. Id. Over the years, Dr. Blanco has observed changes, especially among the wading birds and the aquatic species: You see less and less of them. The periods where there's consistent water to support their life has grown shorter as time goes by. And this time of year where there's water, the life is pretty abundant. But then, in recent years, I've noticed that the time period seems to be getting shorter and shorter. And then . . . when I go out there, I use all my senses, not just my eyes, and the place just sounds different when it's full of life versus when it's, essentially, dried up. (Tr. 374-375). Just as in any typical cypress-forested wetland, during wet periods, the cypress trees in the Cypress-forested Wetland "will be inundated and the ground will be saturated to the edge of the uplands." (Tr. 45). During these times, the majority of the storms that deliver rain are considered small, that is, rainstorms of below half an inch. Much bigger storms, of course, also contribute to the water that stands in the wetland from time to time. "By the same token, in droughts or dry seasons, the water levels . . . typically drop to at or below the ground level." (Tr. 46). The dry periods, if part of the natural cycles between hydro-periods, contribute to the health of the system. For example, during dry periods nutrients are oxidized, one of the functions of a wetland. In 2002, the Cypress-forested Wetland was dried out from mid-March at the end of the dry season until the end of July, a period of drought. The dry season and the occasional drought contribute, of course, to a lowering of the water table below the surface of the wetland. But the water table may also be lowered by the pumping of water from wellfields in the area, one to the northwest of the site, another to the southeast. That pumping is monitored by the District. The District takes action to minimize damage from any lowering of the water table caused by pumping water from the wellfields. Apple snails have been recently observed in the Cypress-forested Wetland. "Apple snails are unique in that they're the sole food of the snail kite, an endangered species." (Vol. III, p. 61). There are snags and dead trees in the Cypress-forested Wetland as well. Used by many birds and mammals, they provide particularly good habitat for woodpeckers. The Cypress-forested Wetland is not a pristine wetland. The establishment of the railroad bed had an impact. In its abandoned state, the railroad bed continues to have an influence on its discharge to the north. The Suncoast Parkway "might have had some impact." (Tr. 53). Cattle grazing on both the Blanco Property and the Ashley Glen site has had an impact on the herbaceous ground cover layer and on the wetland's water quality although it is unlikely that the cows grazed in the Cypress-forested Wetland. ("Generally, [cows] don't graze on . . . wetland plants, because they're either bitter tasting or [have] poor textures . . . .") (Vol. III, p. 58). The well- fields in the area have had historic impacts mitigated, as mentioned, through implementation of an area-wide hydrology restoration plan by SWFWMD. The most significant impact to the Cypress-forested Wetland resulted from the combination of the construction of State Road 54 and the ditch's channelization of stormwater runoff migrating through the center of the Ashley Glen site. Had the property not been ditched, the stormwater runoff and any other migrating water would have been conveyed by sheet flow into the Cypress-forested Wetland. Despite the varied impacts over the years, the Cypress-forested wetland remains ratable today "as a mid to higher level quality wetland for the area." (Tr. 43). The Draft Permit Application for the permit was submitted on February 7, 2003. After eight formal submittals of information in response to questions by the District, a Draft Permit was issued on December 16, 2003. The Draft Permit lists the "Project Name as Ashley Glen - Villages 2-5" and otherwise refers to Ashley Glen as the "Project." The Permit allows the Project to fill 43.75 acre-feet of the 100-year flood plain on the Ashley Glen site. At the same time, the Permit allows 51.98 acre-feet of excavation on- site. Project construction will result in the filling of 1.61 acres of forested and non-forested wetlands and secondary impacts to at least one of the isolated wetlands. The permit speaks to secondary impacts to another of the wetlands and surface waters on-site and finds that there are none: "[O]ne isolated wetland, 0.37 acre in size, and 2.81 acres of surface waters will be impacted, however, since these areas provide no significant habitat functions, no habitat mitigation will be required." District Ex. 5, pgs. 3-4. The mitigation for the impacts that require mitigation, in the District's view, includes creation of 2.89 acres of wetlands and preservation of 65.32 acres of wetlands. The Permit also authorizes the construction of a new surface water management system (the "SWM System") to serve Ashley Glen. The Surface Water Management System The SWM System consists of six wet detention ponds, four isolated wetland treatment systems, an attenuation pond, and an associated conveyance and discharge structure. The wet detention ponds and the isolated wetland treatment systems were designed in accordance with Section 5.2 of the District's Basis of Review. Westfield Ex. 6 depicts the "generalities of the [SWS] [S]ystem in [Ashley Glen's] built environment." (Tr. 56). Key pipe areas are shown in white on the exhibit. For example, the existing ditch is re-located slightly to the east; the exhibit shows in white where water is piped from the northern terminus of the new, re-located ditch into Pond P11. This piped water will consist of drainage from the south that is now conveyed by the existing ditch and drainage from the east that passes through Wetland W2 and Wetland W1. In keeping with the historical drainage pattern that preceded the existence of the ditch, drainage from the basin on the eastern part of the property that passes through Wetland F4, Wetland E4, and Wetland D5 will also be discharged westward into P11 to be discharged at a point toward the southernmost part of Wetland A3, the wetland's headwaters. The discharge from P11 was described by Mr. Courtney at hearing: The discharge of P11 was placed up in the headwaters of A3 [where] . . . the [existing] ditch short-circuited the discharge of . . . waters to the discharge point of A3. [An SWM System] . . . control structure is placed at the headwaters of A3, a much better situation for A3, given that the quantities and quality of water is going to be the same or better, because water is now going to be reintroduced to the headwaters of A3 as opposed to short- circuiting it. (Tr. 57). Mr. Courtney estimated that one-fourth to one-half of the surface water flows on the property coming from the south and the east were routed unnaturally by the ditch to Wetland A3's discharge point at the railroad right-of-way at the northernmost point of the wetland. The project re-routes these waters to a point near the headwaters of Wetland A3 (in its southernmost part). Surficial flow, therefore, that had by- passed Wetland A3 because of ditching will be routed by the SWM System to the headwaters of Wetland A3 after treatment and attenuation provided that the attenuation pond reaches a high enough elevation. Any water discharged to Wetland A3 from the attenuation pond will flow in a northerly direction (the historical flow pattern) through the wetland to the point of discharge at the railroad bed. Provided that the restored flow is of good quality, restoration of the hydrology is a benefit to the system. On this point, Dr. Baca agreed with Mr. Courtney. The Cypress-forested Wetland on the Blanco Property and the wetland system that extends north of the railroad bed "are dependent upon the treatment, the care and the protection afforded the wetland on the Ashley Glen property." (Vol. III, pg. 60). Wetlands B8 and D3, surrounded by developed lots, are served by detention ponds. Internal drainage from the lots is collected from street systems. Pop-off from the systems goes either directly to a detention pond and then a wetland or to a sump and then to a wetland. After treatment, the drainage is conveyed to Pond P11. Pond P10, a relatively small detention pond, is situated at the headwaters of Wetland A3. The pond treats runoff and flows into Wetland A3. Pond P11, although not a stormwater detention pond and for which the applicant receives no treatment credit, is nonetheless "a good backup treatment mechanism for stormwater that is meeting state water quality standards as discharged from all of the drainage systems in the uplands." (Tr. 59). Through the attenuation process, moreover, it will perform some treatment that meets or exceeds the minimal requirements of ERP permitting. After attenuation and whenever the pond reaches a certain elevation, waters are discharged into Wetland A3. A major point of focus of Dr. Blanco's case is the excavation of the attenuation pond and its interaction with Wetland A3. The attenuation pond is designated in the Draft Permit as Pond P11 ("P11"). P11 If excavated according to present plans, P11 will be 25 feet deep at its deepest point (less than one percent of the pond). "[T]he deepest areas run along the corridor that goes between [Wetlands] B6 and D5." (Tr. 166). The shallowest areas of P11 are along the western edge of the pond where a shelf will be constructed. The surface area of the pond will take up approximately 40 acres. (See endnote 4). The Respondents refers to P11 as a "100 year flood plain compensation area." (Tr. 116). The Permit's "Water Quantity/Quality list of ponds denominates P11's "treatment type" as "[a]ttenuation" which would make it an attenuation pond. Dr. Blanco prefers to call P11 a borrow pit asserting that one reason for its excavation is to obtain fill for the development. Dr. Blanco's labeling of P11 as a borrow pit appears to be correct since the District referred to it as a borrow pit and since significant dredging on site is allowed by the Draft Permit. Whether Dr. Blanco's and the District's nomenclature for P11 is accurate or not, there is no dispute that P11 is part of the stormwater management system. The Draft Permit ascribes to it the function of attenuation: the process by which flow is slowed that allows compounds to be reduced in concentration over time. It is a significant component of the SWM System. Conveyance of water of sufficient quality that has undergone attenuation from the pond into a point near the headwaters of Wetland A3, moreover, poses the potential to improve the wetland's hydrology. Dr. Blanco asserts that fill needed by the Project could be obtained off-site. In other words, P11 does not need to be excavated to obtain the fill. But obtaining fill material is not the only purpose of P11 since it also provides retention and attenuation functions. Dr. Blanco's main concern with P11, however, is not its status as a borrow pit. His concern is based on three of its characteristics, the latter two of which relate to its nature as a borrow pit: 1) its placement, excavated directly adjacent to Wetland A-3; 2) its depth, at its deepest point, 25 feet; and 3) its size; close to 40 acres in open surface area.4 Due to sheer size of P11's open surface area, significant volumes of water in P11 will be lost routinely to evapo-transpiration. When the water level in P11 is below the water level in Wetland A3, moreover, the pond will draw water out of the Cypress-forested Wetland. Whenever the water is below its control elevation, it will take a considerable volume of water to raise it to the elevation appropriate to protect Wetland A3 and the rest of the Cypress-forested Wetland. Reaching the control elevation will occur only when all available storage has been filled and contributions of water (from rainfall, stormwater run-off, or by way of conveyance through the SWM System or otherwise) exceed loss through evaporation and seepage, downward and lateral. The parties disagree as to whether the applicant has provided the assurances necessary to justify issuance of the Permit. The most contentious point is about the effect P11 will have on Wetland A3 and the extended Cypress-forested Wetland. Westfield (with the support and concurrence of the District) bases its case for assurances, in the main, on a type of computer modeling. Dr. Blanco, on the other hand, presented testimony that criticized the computer modeling that was done in this case in support of the application. That computer modeling is known as "Interconnected Pond Routing" or "ICPR." ICPR Interconnected Pond Routing ("ICPR") is a type of hydrological computer model that takes into account surface water flows. It does not take into account groundwater flows, downward or lateral seepage or the lowering of the water table by well-field pumping. It models the surface water hydrology of a site as it might be affected, for example, by detention basins and channel pipes. It models pre-design of a site to be developed and then post-design of a site prior to actual development to provide comparative analysis. It is also a predictive tool. As with any predictive tool, its accuracy can only be definitively determined by observation and collection of data after-the-fact, in this case, after development. ICPR modeling is used in particular for stormwater and surface water management systems. For that reason, it was used by Westfield to support the ERP application in this case. Before ICPR modeling of the Ashley Glen site and the surrounding area was conducted, topographic information was collected by survey. The results of the survey and the modeling that followed resulted in several of the exhibits used by Westfield at hearing. For example, the topographic information and ICPR were used to produce a post-development map (Westfield Exhibit 12). In addition to sub-basins reflected in Westfield Exhibit 11 that relate to the hydrology of the site the map shows two pods (a "Southern Pod" and a "Northern Pod") of development. Approximately 400 feet of the Southern Pod will abut Wetland A3 on the pod's western edge. The location of the Southern Pod will necessitate re-location of the existing ditch. The Northern Pod, in contrast, will be separated from Wetland A3 by both P11 and the proposed road. The Northern Pod, the larger of the two proposed pods of development, is farther from Wetland A3 although it is separated from Wetland C2 solely by the proposed road. The sub-basins on Westfield Ex. 12 are reflected in Westfield Ex. 11, the result of pre-design modeling that revealed three off-site basins composed of 218, 544 and 908 acres. Each sub-basin corresponds to a detention pond designed to assist in enhancing the site's post-development hydrology. The modeling was also used to introduce P11, Westfield's proposed 100-year flood compensation area that would act as a detention pond for attenuation. Each sub-basin used in the modeling exercises covers an area for which there is information relative to size, curve number and time of concentration, all of which was entered into the modeling. Kyle Cyr, a registered P.E. in the State of Florida, and an expert in ICPR and stormwater modeling, described at hearing what happened next: The input is then directed towards a node, which we call the wetlands of the node or detention ponds. And then each node is interlinked by either channels, pipes or weirs, swells, drop structures. * * * [W]e check the models for pre and post to make sure there's no adverse impacts to off- site properties. No additional flows are allowed to leave the site. * * * We end up with flows, staging elevations for each node. . . . [The result is] [a] drainage report. [The] drainage report has a pre- and post- analysis in it. * * * [The] drainage report [is used] to design the site, to design the elevations and grading of the roads and [then] the lot and culvert sizes. (Tr. 147, 148). The drainage report and the information with regard to the design was then submitted by Westfield to the District together with a "pond wetland hydrology interaction report" and modeling with regard to "several minor storm events, a one-inch, a two-inch and a mean-annual event run . . . like a normal rainfall in the area." (Tr. 150). Various hydrographs for storm events were prepared by Westfield. In general, storm events should assist the hydrology of Wetland A3. The SWM System poses the potential that in storm events, P11 will discharge water to Wetland A3. The discharge pre-supposes that P11 will be at an appropriate elevation to allow the discharge with the addition of the surface water conveyed by the system into the pond. Hydrographs of the time versus inflow into Wetland A3 for pre-development and post-development conditions for the storm events were prepared by Westfield. For the one-inch storm and the mean-annual events, provided the pond is at an appropriate elevation prior to the storm (a proviso applicable to all of the hydrograph information), it is reasonably expected that there will be slight increases in peak flow after the development than before. For the two-inch storm, it is reasonably expected that there will be a slight drop in peak flow. None of the changes should have a negative effect on Wetland A3 so long as P11 maintains appropriate water elevations so that water has not been drawn out of the wetland that would have sustained the wetland had P11 not been excavated.5 Hydrographs that depict expected volume over a 72-hour time frame were also prepared based on the same storm events. During the applicable time frame for two-inch and mean-annual events, it is reasonably expected that there will be a slight increase in the volume of water entering Wetland A3 after development. As the result of a one-inch storm event, it is reasonable to expect there to be a slight decrease in volume over the 72 hours. None of the changes are expected to have a negative effect on Wetland A3, again, provided that appropriate water elevations are maintained in P11. Finally, hydrographs were prepared for time-versus- inflow for 25-year and 100-year storm events both pre- development and post-development. The modeling showed that, after development, "[a]djacent properties will not experience the higher flood level [that] they have in the past." (Tr. 156). The decrease is due to the holding back of water in detention ponds after development that will flow off at a slower rate than under pre-development conditions. The hydrographs show the difference in water flowing onto the site and Wetland A3 after the development under typical conditions in comparison to before development is slight. Water levels in Wetland A3 at times of typical storm events, after development, therefore will not be affected in any meaningful way by the SWM System so long as P11's water level is maintained at an appropriate elevation. In accordance with Section 4.2 of the District's Basis of Review, the SWM System is designed so that "[o]ff-site discharge is limited to amounts that will not cause adverse off- site impacts." Section 4.2 of the Basis of Review. See District Ex. 4, CHAPTER FOUR, pg. 1. The allowable discharges from the Project were established as a pre-development peak discharge rate from a 25-year, 24-hour storm. The modeling showed that the post-development discharge rates do not exceed the pre-development peak discharge rate. The ICPR modeling did not consider the outfall from Wetland A3 that occurs at the abandoned railroad right-of-way on the northern end of Wetland A3. As explained by Mr. Cyr, "Wetland A3 is . . . [a] boundary condition. That's where our model stops." (Tr. 198). The structure at the outfall at the northern end of Wetland A3 consists of three 42-inch pipes. Had the outfall been considered, Mr. Cyr testified, it would have had no effect on the results of the modeling. The understanding of the effect on the hydrology of the site provided by ICPR modeling conducted by Mr. Cyr, the drainage report and the other aspects of the information (such as the hydrographs and the design and information related to water quality) gathered and produced by Westfield support the District in its decision to issue the Permit. But there is a criticism of the modeling. It was presented by Dr. Blanco's witness: Mr. Vecchioli, an expert in hydrology as it relates to groundwater. The Site's Hydrogeology The area in which Ashley Glen, the Blanco Property and the Cypress-forested Wetland sit was described by John Vecchioli, a licensed geologist in Florida and an expert in hydrogeology, as: a low-lying plain of limited altitude . . . underlain by some 20 to 50 feet of . . . fine to very fine sand, sometimes silty, sometimes containing a clay layer or two. And then beneath that blanket of sand is . . . the upper Floridan [A]quifer, . . . a thick deposit of limestone, which also constitutes the primary source of drinking water for the area. (Tr. 93). Connected with the surface waters of the area so that the aquifer and the surface waters function as a single system, the Floridan Aquifer in Pasco County is known as a "leaky- confined aquifer." Id. Its "leaky-confined" nature means that: [The Floridan is] not firmly capped by thick layers of clay, but rather by sand deposits that although . . . more pervious than the layers of clay, still impede the exchange of water between the two systems. Id. The source of the water in the upper Florida Aquifer is mainly rainfall because the Aquifer "intercept[s] waters from the surface." (Vol. III, Tr. 95). Much of the water in the upper Floridan is recharged, "very young water . . . indicating that it has a good connection with the surface." Id. The interaction between the surface water and ground water was shown by a study that "showed . . . 93% of the water derived from . . . public supply wells [was] primarily from capture of water from the surface environment." (Vol. III, Tr. 94). Furthermore, "[t]here's some 133 million gallons per day pumped from a combination of wellfields in [the] area [of Ashley Glen and the Blanco Property]." Id. The documented adverse impacts of the pumping in the area has been limited to "drying up the surface, capturing water from streams, pulling down . . . wetlands." Id. The interaction between the surface waters and groundwater in and around Ashley Glen leads to Mr. Vecchioli's opinion that the effects of the SWM System on groundwater, and in particular the effect of Pond P11, "is a very important aspect . . . almost totally ignored [by Westfield and the District.]" Id. In other words, ICPR, because it does not account for effects on groundwater, is a flawed model for determining the impact on all water resources in the area. It did not consider "downward leakage as a means for water to escape from the pond [P11]." (Vol. III, p. 96). The omission is critical because the Floridan aquifer system has a potentiometric surface that's some 10 to 20 feet lower than the water table or surface environment most times during the year. The meaning of this was explained at hearing by Mr. Vecchioli: [T]here's a downward gradient where water will flow from the land surface in the vicinity of Pond 11 [Pll] down into the Floridan. When [Westfield's consultants] did the evaluation of the wetland-pond interaction, they ignored this. They essentially said that because we don't intend to penetrate the confining layer, which SWFWMD does not want done, that there won't be any leakage out of the pond vertically. This is not correct . . . . [I]n creating the pond . . . 25 feet or roughly half of the confining bed, or a greater amount, [will be removed], so this makes it much easier for water to move from the water table at land surface down into the Floridan . . . . Id. The failure to account for downward leakage or "vertical seepage" is significant. "[I]t . . . creates the uncertainty as to whether P11 is going to receive enough water to stay saturated to the top for much of the year." (Vol. III, Tr. 96- 97). If the water level in P11 does not stay at the control elevation, "there will be a downward gradient that prevails from the adjacent wetland [Wetland A3] into the pond and part of this will leak out into the Floridan aquifer, in addition to additional water lost by evaporation from the open surface of the pond. [This] . . . will create a deficiency in storage for the pond." (Vol. III, Tr. 97). Furthermore, with the removal of the sand during excavation and the replacement of it with water, "the material the water [that is contributing to seepage] has to move through is less, so you have much less energy lost to frictional forces." (Vol. III, Tr. 115). The result is that vertical seepage will be more likely to occur after the pond is excavated than before. In other words, it will be much easier for water to move from the surface into the Floridan. The seepage, moreover poses difficulties in maintaining elevation in P11. Evaporation from the pond will be greater than evaporation from the wetland. If water in the pond is not at the appropriate elevation, water will be drawn from Wetland A3. The wetland will be drier than under natural conditions. Mr. Vecchioli stopped short of predicting that downward leakage would damage the wetland; he stated only that damage would occur if P11 functions as he thought it "might." (Vol. III, Tr. 106). In essence, Mr. Vecchioli's opinion does not stand as a projection of certainty that the wetland will be damaged. Instead, it presents a factor that was not considered by Westfield in its analysis and by the District in its review. The District counters Mr. Vecchioli's opinion with the fact that the depth of the excavation is in compliance with the District's Basis of Review and that it will not remove what SWFWMD considers to be a "primary retarding material or section," that is, a layer of clay. But it will remove much of the sand. Sand, while it inhibits downward seepage from the surface into the aquifer, is nonetheless not impermeable; it is not an aquitard. Seepage, therefore, will occur despite compliance with the Basis of Review (as explained, below) with regard to depth of excavation and aquitards. Depths of Excavation and Aquitards Subsection 6.4.1.b of the Basis of Review addresses depths of excavation: 6.4.1 Dimensional Criteria (as measured at or from the control elevation). * * * b. Depth - The detention or retention area shall not be excavated to a depth that breaches an aquitard such that it would allow for lesser quality water to pass, either way, between the two systems. In those geographical areas of the District where there is not an aquitard present, the depth of the pond shall not be excavated to within two (2) feet of the underlying limestone which is part of a drinking water aquifer. District Ex. 4, CHAPTER SIX, Pg. 2 The term "aquitard" is not a term that appears in the "Explanation of Terms" section of the Basis of Review. See District Ex. 4, Section 1.7, CHAPTER ONE, pgs. 2-6. The District does not consider sand to be an aquitard. Clay, on the other hand, is an aquitard. As explained by Mr. Ritter at hearing, the term aquitard is "defined as a somewhat impermeable layer that if you were to cut through that, that would be considered a breach." (Vol. III, Tr. 128). If the District were to consider sand an aquitard, there is nowhere in the District that a pond could be excavated in compliance with subsection 6.4.1.b of the Basis of Review. The Ashley Glen proposal for the excavation of Pond P11 to a depth of 25 feet complies with the Basis of Review. The depth of excavation of the pond does not come within two feet of the underlying limestone. Nor does it breach a clay layer or any other aquitard. Compliance with the "depth of excavation" and "aquitard" provisions of the Basis of Review does not cure the problem with the placement of Pond P11: adjacent to Wetland A3. The problem was addressed (although not resolved) by a post- Draft Permit correction that showed more water reaching Wetland A3 by way of the SWM System than had been shown in the original modeling. Post-Draft Permit Correction The modeling described at hearing included a correction after the issuance of the Draft Permit. The correction was made because of "an additional off-site contributing area east of the project that was not considered in the original flood study prepared by the [applicant's] consultant . . . ." (Tr. 222). The model was updated to incorporate the additional contributions that had not been considered prior to the issuance of the Draft Permit. After the additional data was introduced, the modeling suggested changes that Westfield made to its proposal. On the north end of the Project, a conveyance channel had to be enlarged. Additional culverts were proposed beneath the proposed roadway to reduce flood impacts from the additional flows entering from the east that had been overlooked. Further evaluation by the District ensued in the wake of the additional modeling. Ultimately, in the process that preceded the final administrative hearing, the application was determined by the District to "still me[e]t the conditions for issuance and [staff, therefore] recommended approval." Id. In other words, this additional water would not cause too much water to flow into Wetland A3 and cause adverse impacts from flooding. The additional data demonstrates that there will be more water flowing through the SWM System and into Wetland A3 then originally projected but not too much so as to cause adverse flooding impacts. The additional water, however, does not cure the problem that Pond P11 poses for Wetland A3 as explained by Mr. Vecchioli due to the wetland's location, depth and open surface area. Location, Depth and Open Surface Area In the final analysis, while there may be nothing out of compliance technically with the depth of P11 and the size of its open surface area, when these factors are combined with the location of P11, adjacent to Wetland A3, there is a problem: the potential for adverse impact to Wetland A3 and the extended Cypress-forested Wetland of which it is a part. Seepage and evaporation will make it difficult to maintain the water levels in P11 necessary for the pond to discharge into the wetland. Furthermore, when the water table is down, whether due to drought, pumping activities in the region or for some other reason, and P11 is not at an appropriate elevation, it will draw water out of Wetland A3. Seepage and evaporation have the potential to exacerbate the drawdown. Seepage promoted by the presence of Pond P11 was not taken into account in the modeling done for the project. Without consideration of all the factors material to the site that should enter an appropriate calculation, there is not reasonable assurance that Wetland A3 and the Cypress-forested Wetland will not suffer adverse impacts from the SWM System. Monitoring Water Quantity Section 3.2.2.4(c) of the Basis of Review states: Whenever portions of a system could have the effect of altering water levels in wetlands or other surface waters, applicants shall be required to monitor the wetlands or other surface waters to demonstrate that such alteration has not resulted in adverse impacts, or to calibrate the system to prevent adverse impacts. Monitoring parameters, methods, schedules, and reporting requirements shall be specified in permit conditions. District Ex. 4, Chapter Three, P. 6. The District determined that the routing analysis and volume calculations with regard to the hydrology on-site and the hydrology of the wetlands provided by Westfield show that there will not be significant or frequent negative changes in wetland hydrology on site. The District concluded, therefore, there is no necessity to require monitoring of wetland water levels in the Permit. The District's determination, based as it is on the ICPR modeling provided by Westfield, does not withstand the criticism by Mr. Vecchioli. If the District, in the face of the evidence of record and Mr. Vecchioli's criticism, nonetheless decides that reasonable assurances have been made by Westfield, the District should require monitoring pursuant to the subsection 3.2.2.4(c) of the Basin of Review; without doubt, the excavation of Pond P11 adjacent to Wetland A3 has at least the potential to affect water levels in the wetland system. Water Quality The depth of P11 poses some dangers to water quality. Generally, the deeper a Florida lake, the more anoxic and "the more likely you have . . . nutrients such as phosphorus, binding up in the [waterbody] and then being released later" (vol. III, p. 64) to affect the waterbodies negatively. Wetlands surrounding P11, acting like "sponges" would provide treatment that removes nutrients and locks up chemicals to reduce their toxicity would improve water quality. But the District's rules do not require biological treatment for nutrients as part of the design of a surface water system. Given its nature as an attenuation pond, P11 will act like a secondary sediment sump. This aspect of P11 contributes no treatment credit to the application, as mentioned earlier, but any water entering Wetland A3 from P11 will have been treated by an SWM System so as to meet the District's requirements. Other measures will improve water quality on- site. One of such measures, for example, is that cattle on-site will be removed. Other measures related to water quality were examined by District staff. As he testified on behalf of the District, Mr. Sauskojus "checked to see whether or not . . . erosion control was located between any construction in the wetlands and/or buffers provided." (Tr. 288). He also checked to see that structures through which stormwater flowed into wetlands were equipped with skimmers. The inquiries led him to conclude as an expert in environmental resource permitting that water quality would not be adversely affected by the SWM System. Monitoring of water quality by the District may be done after the Permit has been finally issued and the SWM System is constructed. The District so provides in the Basis of Review. Section 5.13 of the District's Basis of Review states: Staff reports and permits for projects not requiring monitoring at the time of permit issuance will include a statement that water quality monitoring will be required in the future if necessary to ensure that state water quality standards are being met. This should not be construed as an indication that the District is contemplating the implementation of a program of intensive water quality monitoring by all permittees. District Ex. 4, Chapter Five, P. 6. Assurances Other than ICPR P11's Shelf Westfield proposes creation of a shelf along the western boundary of P11. It is approximately 150 feet wide with a slope of "a hundred to one . . . a flat area . . . right around the seasonal high elevation of [the] pond." (Tr. 158). Just as it does not claim treatment credit for P11, Westfield does not claim treatment credit for the shelf. There will not be any planting on the shelf; nor is it designed to serve as a littoral zone. A "shelf is . . . in some cases the final location for . . . the filtration [and] the protection for the wetland[;] . . . it acts as a wetland buffer for the mature forested wetland." (Vol. III, p. 59). But the shelf to be provided by Westfield is "just . . . a secondary shelf to help the interaction between the wetland and the pond." (Tr. 159). Without vegetation, the shelf provided will be of insignificant benefit. Dewatering During Construction To prevent dewatering of Wetland A3 during construction, a dewatering plan must be provided the District before excavation of P11 begins. The Permit contains a general condition that if the contractor "decides to use dewatering" (tr. 223) of a wetland, the District must be notified so that an assessment of adverse effects on the wetland can be made.6 Wetland Impacts: Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation Direct impacts to wetlands include excavation or filling: events that entail physical construction in the wetland. The Project proposes direct wetland impacts to 1.61 acres of wetlands and 2.81 acres of surface waters or wet ditches. With regard to impacts, an applicant must first attempt to avoid them. If that fails, the applicant must minimize the impact. Finally, the applicant must propose mitigation for impacts. Direct Impacts to Wetlands In addition to the secondary impacts caused by the Project's upland activities to the many wetlands on-site that are buffered or that were not buffered and that have to be offset by mitigation, Wetland B12, a wetland little more than one-half acre in size, will receive both direct and secondary impacts. The direct impact is caused by the proposed road. The direct impact is unavoidable because of road alignment required by the Department of Transportation, "a human health and safety issue [that relates] to State Road 54." (Tr. 64). The direct impact to Wetland B12 takes up .15 acres, leaving .43 acres of the wetland without direct impact. (At the same time, Wetland B9 is avoided by the curve in the proposed road and the road is aligned to avoid direct impact to Wetlands B6 and D5.) Wetland B12 is exempt from fish and wildlife review because it "is not connected by a ditch or overland flow to a larger than half-acre wetland at seasonal high " (Tr. 283). The value of Wetland B12, as an isolated wetland, is not as high as the value of Wetland A3. It has also suffered de-watering and encroachment by exotic species. Wetland C12, just down the proposed road from Wetland B12, will incur direct impact to 0.05 acres. The remainder of the wetland on site, 1.80 acres will be preserved under a conservation easement. Wetland B4 is a small, herbaceous wetland. In the middle of what is now cow pasture slated for excavation if the Project is approved, Wetland B4 will suffer permanent destruction by the creation of Pond P11. The direct impact will cover 0.75 of an acre, the size of the wetland as it now exits. Wetland C4, 0.60 acres in size, will also be permanently destroyed by the establishment of several lots in the Northern Pod of development and excavation of P4, a wet detention pond. The justification offered by Westfield for the permanent destruction of these two relatively small isolated wetlands is economic. Saving them would cost $215,000. Mitigation of the Direct Impacts The project preserves wetlands on site with conservation easements. If the wetland is a good candidate for wetland stormwater treatment, the project attempts to augment its hydrology. The direct impacts of Westfield's planned activities are proposed to be mitigated by the construction of 2.89 acres of non-forested wetlands and by the preservation of 65.32 acres of wetlands on site. Section 3.3.2 in the Basis of Review provides: Subsections 3.3.2[.1] through 3.3.2.2 [of the Basis of Review] establish ratios for the acreage of mitigation required compared to the acreage which is adversely impacted by regulated activity. District Ex. 4, CHAPTER THREE, P. 21. When preservation of wetland and other surface waters is the vehicle of mitigation, it also provides: The ratio guideline for wetland and other surface water preservation will be 10:1 to 60:1 (acreage wetlands and other surface waters preserved to acreage impacted). District Ex. 4, CHAPTER THREE, P. 24. The ratio of wetlands and other surface waters proposed for preservation (65.32 acres) to wetlands proposed to be permanently destroyed (1.61 acres) by Westfield is more than 40 to 1, well within the guideline. The wetland area to be created is designated as Wetland B2. Adjacent to two wetland systems, Wetland A3 and Wetland C2, and lying between them, Wetland B2 will also serve as a wetland habitat wildlife corridor. The 2.89 acres of created non-forested wetlands that will constitute Wetland B2 offset 1.36 of non-forested impact, a ratio of 2.13 to 1. The ratio is within the guidelines for created wetlands in Section 3.3.2.1.1. of the Basis of Review. In the District's view, the applicant's wetland mitigation proposal provides the District with reasonable assurances that impacts to wetland functions will be offset. Put slightly differently by Mr.Sauskojus, in the view of District staff, "weighing the proposed direct impacts, the secondary impacts and the mitigation provided, . . . there will not be adverse impacts on site or offsite . . . ." (Tr. 293). Since downward and lateral seepage from Pond P11 was not taken into account, however, the mitigation plan offered by Westfield is not designed to offset any impacts from the seepage to Wetland A3 and the Cypress-forested Wetland. These impacts are secondary impacts. Secondary Impacts A secondary impact is an impact that follows a direct impact to a water resource. An example of a secondary impact is boat traffic increase because of the installation of a boat ramp or a marina that poses an increased threat of collision with manatees. The construction of the boat ramp or the marina would entail direct impacts to the water resource. The increased boat traffic would constitute impacts secondary to the construction of the ramp or marina. A way to minimize secondary impacts is through buffers. Just as the Cypress-forested Wetland should be buffered from development, so should the isolated wetlands on-site. Isolated wetlands are important for several reasons. They accept the brunt of the discharges from the developed uplands and so are responsible for filtering nutrients, pesticides and chemicals from stormwater and other run off. They also are spots where wildlife congregate. Birds, in particular, will be under siege from the cats that inevitably accompany development. Buffers, particularly vegetated buffers, assist in protection of wetlands whether contiguous or isolated. Section 3.3.7 of the Basis of Review provides: Secondary impacts to habitat functions of wetlands associated with upland activities will not be considered adverse if buffers, with a minimum width of 15' and an average width of 25' are provided abutting those wetlands that will remain under the permitted design, unless additional measures are needed for protection of wetlands used by listed species for nesting, denning, or critically important feeding habitat. District Ex. 4, CHAPTER THREE, Pg. 16. The upland activities of the Project have an average 25-foot buffer. For the bulk of the Project, the buffer is at least 15 feet, a minimum buffer that is normally required. Close to the headwaters of Wetland A3, however, the Southern Pod of development does not have a buffer that is equal to or more than 15 feet. In this area and other areas where there are less than 15 feet of buffer (such as around isolated Wetlands B8 and D3), the Project calls for a double silt fence, that is, a two- rowed fence to hold back silt. The silt fence will protect the wetland from damage during grading of the lots and construction of the residences. But it will not protect the wetland from secondary impacts caused by upland activities after the Project is developed. The buffers are made up of bahaia grass primarily. The import of the buffer's composition was explained at hearing by David Sauskojus, a District employee: If a buffer is made up of pasture grass, it is definitely much less effective relative to protecting habitat functions than . . . an undisturbed upland. . . . [I]n this case, . . . in the past before they made it pasture, [the undisturbed upland would have] consisted of palmettos, bryonia, bushes, [and] shrubs, that would have provided some kind of habitat value to the wetland itself. (Tr. 282). Despite the low quality of the composition of the buffers, the additional width of buffers in other areas that allow the average of the buffers to exceed 25 feet was reasonable assurance in the view of District personnel that the encroachment of development closer than 15 feet in certain areas would not have secondary habitat impacts to Wetland A3. Because of this "offset," the District did not request the applicant to mitigate for the encroachments into the minimum 15 feet of buffer normally required. Cumulative Impacts Section 3.2.8.1 of the Basis of Review provides: Cumulative impacts are considered unacceptable when the proposed system, considered in conjunction with the past, present, and future activities as described in 3.2.8 would then result in a violation of state water quality standards as set forth in subsection 3.1.1(c) or significant adverse impacts to functions of wetlands or other surface waters identified in subsection 3.2.2 within the same drainage basin when considering the basin as a whole. District Ex. 4, CHAPTER THREE, P. 19. The Project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts on the wetlands and other surface waters on site. Fish, Wildlife and Listed Species Under the Basin of Review, when a party applies for an ERP, "[g]enerally, wildlife surveys will not be required." District Ex. 4, Basin of Review, Section 3.2.2, CHAPTER THREE, page 4. The Basin of Review details when a wildlife survey is required: The need for a wildlife survey will depend upon the likelihood that the site is used by listed species, considering site characteristics and the range and habitat needs of such species, and whether the proposed system will impact that use such that criteria in subsection 3.2.2 through 3.2.2.3 and subsection 3.2.7 will not be met. Survey methodologies employed to inventory the site must provide reasonable assurance regarding the presence or absence of the subject listed species. Id. It is apparent from the record that District staff initially believed that a wildlife survey was needed. The file of record contains a document prepared by District staff entitled "Project Information Review List," (the "First Request for Additional Information" or "1st RAI"). Dated March 7, 2003, it refers to the Application's receipt one month earlier. Under the heading "SITE INFORMATION," the following appears: Has any current wildlife survey been performed on site? In particular, what recent observations have been made of wildlife usage within Wetlands B4, C4 and B12? The submitted wildlife survey not only is almost three years old, but it represents a preliminary effort. (emphasis supplied), Westfield Ex. 19, File of Record,(1st Volume), p. 104. The staff request for additional information continues with recommendations not only to cure the outdated nature of the survey but also for the methodology that should be used: Id. Staff would recommend, for the above three wetlands, that a survey be performed which is consistent with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's methodology, documented within; Standardized State Listed Animal Species Survey Procedures for FDOT Projects by Jim Beaver, revised in 1996, and Wildlife Methodology Guidelines by Mike Alan, 1988. Reference Rules 40D-4.101(1)(c) and (e) and 40D-4.301, F.A.C. and Section 3.2.2, Basis of Review (B.O.R.). The file of record reflects a response to the 1st RAI. With regard to the question as to whether a current wildlife survey has been performed, the criticism of the submitted survey and the recommended methodology to be used in a subsequent survey, Westfield's ERP consultant, King Engineering Associates, Inc., ("King") responds: Site conditions have not changed since King conducted the original preliminary listed species survey. During more recent site visits, King staff have not observed any additional listed species, or evidence of their breeding/nesting activity on the subject property. Onsite wetlands B4 and C4 are essentially shallow, wet depressional areas in the pasture. While these herbaceous wetlands could potentially provide occasional foraging habitat for wading birds, they do not represent suitable habitat for breeding/nesting of any listed species. Wetland B12, a forested wetland, likewise does not represent suitable habitat for breeding/nesting of listed species, and no listed species have been documented in this wetland. As a follow-up effort to King's preliminary listed species survey, and following recommendations made in that report, King has performed additional wildlife surveys. Specifically, a Southeastern Kestrel Survey and Gopher Tortoise Burrow Survey were conducted by King. The results of these follow-up surveys, which were included with Attachment 7 of the original submittal, revealed that neither of these two listed species is currently present on, or breeding/denning on, the subject property. Westfield Ex. 19, File of Record, (1st Volume), p. 123. On May 7, 2003, the District responded by letter to the additional information provided by King with a second Request for Additional Information (the "2nd RAI"). The letter states, "[y]our permit application still lacks some of the components necessary for us to complete our review; the enclosed checklist describes the missing information." District Ex. 19, File of Record, (1st Volume), p. 184). The checklist attached, under the heading "SITE INFORMATION" states: The response to Request for Additional Information (RAI) Comment No. 3, regarding wildlife surveys, does not give the District reasonable assurance that threatened or endangered species do not use the wetlands proposed to be impacted. Many changes have taken place in the vicinity of the project since King performed the preliminary survey three years ago. The construction of the Suncoast Parkway and several nearby residential developments have re-shaped habitat availability within this area. The District strongly recommends performing a wildlife survey to evaluate the usage by threatened or endangered species of Wetlands B4, C4 and B12. The survey should be performed using the previously noted Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) methodology. Additionally, when/if the survey is performed, please provide details regarding the actual survey, including but not limited to, dates, times of day, location and methods used. Westfield Ex. 19, File of Record (1st Volume), p. 185. On June 20, 2003, King responded in writing to the 2nd RAI. With regard to the strong recommendation of a wildlife survey that uses the FFWCC methodology, King wrote: The applicant is confident based on the results of the existing Preliminary Listed Species survey and the extended amount of property contact time by field scientists and District staff in the intervening months when hydro-period, wetlands delineation, and permit application work were on-going, that no wetland dependent species are present. Westfield Ex. 19, File of Record, (1st Volume), p. 198. In addition to the time spent on the preliminary survey, the response lists 64 hours of time when the site was visited for purposes of "[w]etland delineation, wetland delineation & [h]ydro-periods," "h]ydro-periods," "[h]ydro-period [r]eview with SWFWMD," "[f]ollow-up Gopher Tortoise/Kestrel [s]urvey" and "[f]ield [v]isit with ACOE staff." Id. On July 18, 2003, a third RAI ("3rd RAI") was issued by staff. Satisfied with the June 20, 2003, response with regard to the earlier inquiries about a wildlife survey, the 3rd RAI makes no reference to the earlier requests with regard to site information or the need for wildlife survey. Dr. Baca, Dr. Blanco's wetlands ecologist, criticized the wetland information provided by Westfield along the same lines as did District staff in the documents in the file of record. For example, Dr. Baca testified with regard to endangered species that a survey should be conducted over several seasons. A great deal of time must be spent studying the particular habitat and looking for particular organisms. "It cannot be an aside to other work . . . with wetlands or soil studies . . . [i]t has to be a focus of [a wildlife survey]." (Vol. III, tr. 33). A survey for endangered or threatened species requires time and focus precisely because of the nature of listed species; in Dr. Baca's words, "they're not around very much and sometimes they're not around very long." (Vol. III, tr. 32). Time of day that a survey is conducted, moreover, has an impact on the likelihood that wildlife will be found on site. As Dr. Baca testified, Most of the time, you'll find more wildlife on-site around the hours of dusk and dawn . . . Other times, especially during cold weather, wildlife will come out during the hottest part of the day, which is around noon . . . [a]ll of these add to the amount of time that would be required to do a proper study. (Vol. III, Tr. 33). There is no evidence of record as to time of day of the visits used by Westfield for credit toward wildlife observation. Finally, it is apparent that the on-site visits following the preliminary species survey three years prior to the submission of the application did not employ the methodology recommended by the District: the FWWCC methodology. Perhaps an equivalent methodology could be employed, but there is no evidence of an attempt to conduct a survey with an acceptable methodology, either that of FWWCC or an equivalent. The District's acceptance of the Kestrel Survey may have been appropriate.7 But the hours spent visiting the site for wetland delineation and purposes other than to survey wildlife were not shown to have employed the FWWCC methodology or its equivalent and do not supplant the need for a wildlife survey that employs an appropriate methodology. The Mitigation Plan When the impacts of a project that requires an ERP permit are such that an applicant is unable to meet the criteria for approval (the "public interest test"), the applicant may propose or accept measures that mitigate the adverse impacts of the regulated activity so that the Project in its entirety can be demonstrated to be "not contrary to the public interest." In other words, "[t]he mitigation must offset the adverse effects caused by the regulated activity." § 373.414(1)(b), Fla. Stat. It is "the responsibility of the applicant to choose the form of mitigation." Id. As explained by the testimony, all of the mitigation proposed by Westfield is on-site.8 The Respondents' Joint Proposed Recommended Order addresses mitigation for the adverse impacts caused by the Project. The proposed findings that relate to mitigation are summed up in paragraph 16 of the proposed order: 16. The mitigation for the project is appropriate and adequately compens[]ates for the unavoidable direct and secondary wetland impacts from the Project. Respondents' Joint Proposed Recommended Order, p. 6. In support of this finding, the proposed order cites to the File of Record, Westfield Ex. 19, testimony from Mr. Courtney at Tr. 66-76 and 120-121 and testimony from Mr. Sauskojus at Tr. 284-286. Mr. Sauskojus' testimony explains how the mitigation plan adequately mitigates for the direct impacts to wetlands on site. But that explanation does not demonstrate mitigation for all of the potential impacts. No effort was offered for how the plan was designed to mitigate for the impact of draw-down from Wetland A3 caused by low elevation of Pond P11 due to seepage, for example, because seepage was not accounted for in the ICPR modeling. Mr. Courtney's testimony is no different with regard to the same critical omission. Westfield, quite simply, did not take into account, as Mr. Vecchioli testified, the effect of seepage in the information it provided the District. Nor was the mitigation plan designed to mitigate for secondary impacts that might have been indicated by a wildlife survey since an appropriate wildlife survey was not conducted. At bottom, Westfield did not provide reasonable assurances as required by the statutes and rules; it omitted an adequate wildlife survey from the submission of information to the District and it failed to account for seepage from Pond P11 and its effect on Wetland A3 and the Cypress-forested Wetland. Its mitigation plan does not make up for Westfield's failure to demonstrate that the Project is otherwise "not contrary to the public interest."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Individual Environmental Resource Permit sought by Entryway and Westfield be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 2004.
The Issue The issue is whether an Environmental Resource Permit should be issued to KGB Lake Howell, LLC, authorizing the construction of a surface water management system to serve an apartment complex known as the Estates at Lake Howell in the City of Casselberry, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this proceeding, Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District (District), proposes to issue an Environmental Resource Permit to Respondent, KGB Lake Howell, LLC (Applicant), authorizing the construction of a stormwater management system to serve a 240-unit apartment complex known as the Estates of Lake Howell. The project will be located on an undeveloped tract of land in the City of Casselberry (City), Seminole County, Florida, just north of the Orange County line. It will include ten three-story buildings, parking, clubhouse/ administration building, amenity complex, and wet detention pond. The project also incorporates a 3.62-acre stormwater pond, now owned and used by Seminole County (County), lying east of Lake Ann Lane across from the project site, which was included in the overall acreage calculations for the purpose of increasing apartment density on the site. The Applicant has authorization from the County to apply for the permit incorporating that tract of land. The pond will continue to function as a stormwater facility for the County and will not accommodate stormwater from the project site. The project site consists of 38.9 acres located on the north side of Howell Branch Road, east of State Road 436 (also known as Semoran Boulevard), and west of Lake Ann Lane in the City. The site is currently undeveloped and includes an abandoned orange grove and upland pine flatwoods community, which make up approximately 14.6 acres, while the remaining 24.3 acres is a mixed forested wetland system. The property is now owned by the Harold Kasik Living Trust (Kasik property), which has a contract for purchase with the Applicant. The Kasik property is in the shape of a rectangle, 648 feet by 2,530 feet, with its long sides running north- south. It is bordered on the north and east by single-family residential and vacant land, to the south by commercial development, and to the west by high-density residential and commercial development. The property has a high elevation of approximately 83 feet on its southeastern corner and falls to the north/northeast, where the edge of the wetland system is at an elevation of 63 or 64 feet. The major development constraint on the site is the large wetland tract on the northern portion of the property. In order to minimize proposed impacts to the wetlands, the Applicant proposed the transfer of the development entitlements from the County land to benefit the Applicant's property. More specifically, the Applicant will acquire the County property, the Applicant will simultaneously grant a perpetual drainage easement over the property to the County, the Applicant will maintain the landscaping of the property in perpetuity, the Applicant will convey around five acres of wetlands on the northern end of the Kasik property to the County in fee simple, and the City will allow the transfer of development rights from the property. The project will adversely impact 0.99 acres of low- quality wetlands, of which 0.72 acres are to be dredged and 0.27 acres are to be filled to provide the fencing around the wet detention facility. To offset this impact, the Applicant proposes to preserve 17.8 acres of forested wetlands, plus 1.2 acres of forested uplands, or a mitigation ratio of 18:1. The District's guidelines for preservation mitigation applicable to this project are 10:1 to 60:1 for wetland impacts and 3:1 to 20:1 for upland impacts; thus, the mitigation plan falls within these guidelines. Under current conditions, stormwater runoff from the project site sheet flows into the on-site wetland and ultimately Lake Howell (the Lake), a Class III water body which meets all applicable water quality standards and is not an Outstanding Florida Water. After development occurs, stormwater from the developed portions of the property will be conveyed to a wet detention pond for required water quality treatment and peak discharge rate attenuation. After treatment in the detention pond, the water will discharge to the on-site wetland, as it does now, and eventually will be conveyed into the Lake. Off-site flows will continue to be conveyed into the on-site wetland. The wet detention pond, which has a minimum depth of twelve feet and a permanent pool of water with a mean depth of two to eight feet, has been designed to accommodate a 25-year, 24-hour storm. Post-development discharge will be less than pre-development, and the outfall structure has been designed to avoid channelization in the wetlands after the point of discharge. Since at least the late 1940's, Petitioner, Shirley Haynes, or her relatives, have owned, or resided on, a multi-acre tract of land just north of the project site at 2764 Lake Howell Lane. She has substantial frontage on the south side of the Lake. The southern portion of her property, which are wetlands, adjoins the northern boundary of the project site. For the past three years, Petitioner, Egerton van den Berg, has resided on a ten-acre tract of land at 1245 Howell Point, which is northeast of the project site. He has approximately 235 feet of frontage on the south side of the Lake. As argued in their Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioners generally contend that the application is "materially deficient" in several respects in violation of Rule 40C-4.101; that the Applicant has failed to satisfy Rule 40C-4.301(1)(c) and (d), which in turn constitutes a failure to meet the requirements of Rule 40C-4.302(1)(a)-(c); that the Applicant failed to satisfy the criteria in Sections 12.2.3(a)-(f), 12.2.1, 12.2.1.1, 12.2.1.3, 12.2.2.3(a)-(e), 12.2.2.4(a) and (b), 12.3.2.2(c), and 12.3.8(a) of the Applicant's Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters (Applicant's Handbook); that the District did not adequately consider the cumulative impacts of the project as required by Section 373.414(8)(a), Florida Statutes; that a low flow analysis of the Lake was not performed, as required by Rule 40C-8.011(5); that the Applicant did not submit detailed mitigation plans as required by Section 12.3.3.2 of the Applicant's Handbook; that the 18:1 ratio for mitigation proposed by the Applicant is inappropriate; and that the District should not approve the density of the apartments established by the City. These concerns, to the extent they have been identified as issues in the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, are addressed in the findings below. Where contentions have been raised by Petitioners, such as the placement of the detention pond over a depressional area, and they have not been argued in the Proposed Recommended Order, they have been deemed to be abandoned. Conditions for issuance of permits Rule 40C-4.301(1)(a)-(k), Florida Administrative Code, specifies eleven substantive requirements for which reasonable assurance must be given in order for a standard permit to be issued. Subsection (3) of the same Rule provides that the standards and criteria contained in the Applicant's Handbook shall determine whether the foregoing reasonable assurances have been given. Additional conditions for the issuance of a permit are found in Rule 40C-4.302(1) when the project, or any part of it, is located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters. Therefore, because a part of the Applicant's system will be located in wetlands, the Applicant must also give reasonable assurance that the project will not be contrary to the public interest, and that it will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon the wetlands or surface waters. a. Rule 40C-4.301 Paragraphs (a)-(c) of the Rule require that an applicant provide reasonable assurance that the project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands, adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, or adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. If a system meets the requirements of Section 10.2.1(a) through (d) of the Applicant's Handbook, there is a presumption that the system complies with the requirements of Paragraphs (a) through (c). This presumption has been met since the evidence supports a finding that the post- development peak rate of discharge will be lower than the pre- development peak rate of discharge for a 24-hour, 25-year storm event. Therefore, the Applicant's system meets the requirements of these Paragraphs. Paragraph (d) of the Rule requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the project "will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters." To satisfy this requirement, an applicant must also demonstrate compliance with the two-prong test in Sections 12.2.2 and 12.2.2.4 of the Applicant's Handbook. Section 12.2.2 requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurance that a regulated activity will not impact the values of wetlands and other surface water functions so as to cause adverse impacts to the abundance, diversity, and habitat of fish, wildlife, and listed species. In its proposal, the Applicant proposes to fill a total of 0.99 acres of wetlands. Since these impacts will eliminate the ability of the filled part of the on-site wetland to provide functions to fish and wildlife, the filling will cause adverse impacts. Under these circumstances, Section 12.2.1.1 requires that the Applicant either implement practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate these adverse impacts or meet one of the exceptions under Section 12.2.1.2. Under Section 12.2.1.1, a proposed modification which is not technically capable of being done, is not economically viable, or which adversely affects public safety through the endangerment of lives or property is not considered practicable. The Applicant’s design for the proposed project went through a number of iterations prior to submittal to the District to reduce adverse impacts to the wetlands. During the permitting process, the District requested that the Applicant consider a number of other suggestions to reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts to wetlands such as adding a fourth floor to the apartment buildings to eliminate the need for one apartment building, building a parking garage for the tenants, and eliminating the tennis and volleyball courts. Because the Applicant provided detailed reasons why none of those suggestions were practicable, it was not required to implement any of those design modifications. In addition, the Applicant’s decision not to include a littoral zone around the stormwater pond did not increase the amount of wetland impacts as that engineering decision resulted in a stormwater pond that was simply deeper and not wider. Therefore, the Applicant has met the requirement to reduce or eliminate adverse wetland impacts. Section 12.2.1.1 only requires an elimination and reduction analysis when: (1) a proposed system will result in adverse impacts to wetland functions and other surface water functions so that it does not meet the requirements of Sections 12.2.2 through 12.2.3.7, or (2) neither one of the two exceptions within Section 12.2.1.2 applies. In determining whether one of the two exceptions in Section 12.2.1.2 applies, the District must evaluate the long- term ecological value of the mitigation proposed by the Applicant. If the mitigation is not adequate to offset the adverse impacts of the proposed system, then it is unlikely either exception in Section 12.2.1.2 will apply. As noted above, the Applicant’s proposed dredging and filling of the southern edge of the wetlands on the project site will eliminate the ability of that wetland area to provide functions to fish and wildlife. However, the Applicant’s mitigation plan of placing 17.8 acres of wetlands and 1.2 acres of uplands under a conservation easement to preserve that property in its natural state in perpetuity will fully replace the types of functions that the part of the wetlands proposed to be impacted provides to fish and wildlife. The mitigation plan will also offset the adverse impacts that this project will have on the value and functions provided to fish and wildlife by the impacted part of the wetlands. In this case, the first exception under Section 12.2.1.2(a) applies as it meets that Section's two requirements: the ecological value of the functions provided by the area of wetland to be adversely affected is low, and the proposed mitigation will provide greater long-term ecological value than the area or wetland to be adversely affected. Also, the quality of the wetland to be impacted is low. All of the proposed impacts will occur in the area of the wetland that was historically disturbed and in which nuisance and exotic species are prevalent. Due to nuisance and exotic vegetation, the ecological value provided by that area to wildlife is low. The mitigation for the proposed project will provide greater long-term ecological value to fish and wildlife than the part of the wetland proposed to be impacted because the proposed mitigation will preserve eighteen times more wetlands that are of higher quality and provide greater value than the wetland area to be impacted. The type of wetland to be preserved, a mixed forested wetland containing hardwoods, is rare for the area. Although the mitigation plan will provide greater long-term ecological value to fish and wildlife than the part of the wetland proposed to be impacted, the Applicant did not meet the second exception in the elimination and reduction rule under Section 12.2.1.2(b) because the wetlands to be preserved are not regionally significant. In addition to meeting the elimination and reduction rule through implementation of practicable design modifications, the Applicant also satisfied the same rule by meeting the first exception found in Section 12.2.1.2(a). Thus, the Applicant has satisfied Section 12.2.2, which is the first prong of the test to determine compliance with Paragraph (d). The second prong of the test to determine whether Paragraph (d) of the Rule has been satisfied is found in Section 12.2.2.4. That Section requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the activity will not change the hydroperiod of a wetland so as to affect wetland functions. For the following reasons, that prong of the test has been satisfied. Since the wetlands are primarily groundwater-influenced, the construction of the stormwater pond between the project and the wetlands will not adversely affect the wetlands. As the soils surrounding the pond are very porous with a high infiltration and percolation rate, water from the stormwater pond will still reach the wetlands through lateral seepage. Further, the Applicant will install an energy dissipating device on the outfall spout at the point of discharge so that water will be spread out from the stormwater pond as it discharges into the receiving wetlands. As noted earlier, this will prevent an adverse channelization effect. Finally, stormwater runoff from the surrounding basins that currently discharge into the wetlands will not be affected by the construction of the stormwater system. That runoff will continue to flow into the wetlands on the project site. Because the Applicant has satisfied Sections 12.2.2 and 12.2.2.4, Paragraph (d) of the Rule has been met. Paragraph (e) of the Rule generally requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurance that a project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. Here, the Applicant has provided such assurance. This is because the system has been designed in accordance with all relevant District criteria. Also, the Applicant has proposed to revise Permit Condition 26 as follows: Condition 26. This permit authorizes construction and operation of a surface water management system as shown on the plans received by the District on June 14, 2001, and as amended by plan sheet C4 (Sheet 07 of 207) received by the District on January 23, 2002. In view of this revision, the Applicant's wet detention system complies with all of the design criteria contained in Rule 40C-42.026(4). Under Rule 40C-42.023(2)(a), compliance with the design criteria contained in Rule 40C-42.026 creates a presumption that state water quality standards, including those for Outstanding Florida Waters, will be met. This presumption has not been rebutted; therefore, the requirements of Paragraph (e) of the Rule have been satisfied. Further, Sections 12.2.4.1 and 12.2.4.2 state, in part, that reasonable assurance regarding water quality must be provided both for the short term and the long term, addressing the proposed construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, and abandonment of the system. The Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that this requirement is met through the design of its surface water management system, its long-term maintenance plan for the system, and the long and short-term erosion and turbidity control measures it proposes. If issued, the permit will require that the surface water management system be constructed and operated in accordance with the plans approved by the District. The permit will also require that the proposed erosion and turbidity control measures be implemented. Section 12.2.4.5 does not apply because there are no exceedances of any water quality standards at the proposed receiving water. Also, Sections 12.2.4.3 and 12.2.4.4 do not apply because the Applicant has not proposed any docking facilities or temporary mixing zones. Paragraph (f) of the Rule requires that an applicant not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. Compliance with this requirement is determined by applying the four-part test in Section 12.2.7(a) through (d). As to Section 12.2.7(a), there are no secondary impacts from construction, alteration, and intended or reasonably expected uses of the proposed system that will cause water quality violations or adverse impacts to the wetland functions. The Applicant chose not to provide buffers abutting the wetlands but rather chose measures other than buffers to meet this requirement. The Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that secondary impacts will not occur by placing the stormwater pond between the planned project and the wetlands, so that the pond itself will serve as a buffer by shielding the wetland from the lighting and noise of the project, and by acting as a barrier to keep domestic animals out of the wetlands. In addition, the Applicant increased the amount of property to be preserved as mitigation by adding 2.97 acres of wetlands and 1.2 acres of uplands to the mitigation plan to mitigate for any remaining secondary impacts. Accordingly, the first part of the secondary impacts test in Section 12.2.7(a) is satisfied. As to Section 12.2.7(b), because there is no evidence that any aquatic or wetland-dependent listed animal species use uplands for existing nesting or denning adjacent to the project, the second part of the test has been met. No adverse secondary impacts will occur under the third part of the test in Section 12.2.7(c) because the proposed project will not cause impacts to significant historical or archaeological resources. Finally, adverse secondary impacts as proscribed by Section 12.2.7(d) will not occur because no evidence was presented that there would be additional phases or expansion of the proposed system or that there are any onsite or offsite activities that are closely or causally linked to the proposed system. Therefore, the proposed project satisfies Paragraph (f) of the Rule. Paragraph (g) of the Rule requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurance that a project will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows established in Chapter 40C-8. Minimum (but not maximum) surface water levels have been established for the Lake pursuant to Chapter 40C-8 for the basin in which the project is located. The project will not cause a decrease of water to, or cause a new withdrawal of water from, the Lake. Therefore, the project satisfies this requirement. Finally, Petitioners have acknowledged in their Proposed Recommended Order that the Applicant has given reasonable assurance that the requirements of Paragraphs (h), (i), (j), and (k) have been met. The parties have also stipulated that the receiving water (Lake Howell) meets all Class III water quality standards. Therefore, the project satisfies the requirements of Subsection 40C-4.301(2). Rule 40C-4.302 - Public Interest Test Under Rule 40C-4.302(1)(a)1.-7., an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the parts of its surface water management system located in, on, or over wetlands are not contrary to the public interest. Similar requirements are found in Section 12.2.3. The Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the parts of the project that are located in, on, or over wetlands (mainly the detention pond and fill) are not contrary to the public interest, because the evidence showed that all seven of the public interest factors to be balanced are neutral. Because the proposed permanent mitigation will offset the project’s adverse impacts to wetlands, no adverse effects to the conservation of fish and wildlife due to the project’s permanent nature will occur. The evidence also showed that best management practices and erosion control measures will ensure that the project will not result in harmful erosion or shoaling. Further, it was demonstrated that the project will not adversely affect the flow of water, navigation, significant historical or archaeological resources, recreational or fishing values, marine productivity, or the public health, safety, welfare or property of others. Finally, the evidence showed that the project’s design, including permanent mitigation, will maintain the current condition and relative value of functions performed by parts of the wetland proposed to be impacted. Therefore, the project meets the public interest criteria found in Rule 40C-4.302(1)(a). Rule 40C-4.302(1)(b) - Cumulative Impacts Rule 40C-4.302(1)(b) and Section 12.2.8 require that an applicant demonstrate that its project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters within the same drainage basin as the regulated activity for which the permit is being sought. Under this requirement, if an applicant proposes to mitigate the adverse impacts to wetlands within the same drainage basin as the impacts, and if the mitigation fully offsets these impacts, the District will consider the regulated activity to have no unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters. The Applicant has chosen to mitigate for the impacts to 0.99 acres of wetlands by preserving 17.8 acres of wetlands and 1.2 acres of uplands on-site. Since this mitigation will occur in the same drainage basin as the impacts and the mitigation fully offsets those impacts, the Applicant satisfies the requirements of the Rule. Rule 40C-4.302 - Other Requirements The parties have stipulated that the requirements of Paragraphs (c) and (d) of Rule 40C-4.302(1) do not apply. There is no evidence that the Applicant has violated any District rules or that it has been the subject of prior disciplinary action. Therefore, the requirements of Subsection (2) of the Rule have been met. Miscellaneous Matters County Pond Site The Seminole County pond site located on the east side of Lake Ann Lane and across the street from the project is not a jurisdictional wetland and does not have any wetland indicators. It is classified as an upland cut surface water. The Applicant is not proposing to impact any wetlands at the pond site, and the site is not part of the proposed mitigation plan for the project. The permit in issue here is not dependent on the pond site, and nothing in the application ties the project with that site. Indeed, the transfer of density rights from the County property is not relevant to the District permitting criteria. Review of Application When the decision to issue the permit was made, the District had received all necessary information from the Applicant to make a determination that the project met the District's permitting criteria. While certain information may have been omitted from the original application, these items were either immaterial or were not essential to the permitting decision. The application complies with all District permitting criteria. Contrary to Petitioners' contention, the Applicant does not have to be the contract purchaser for property in order to submit an application for that property. Rather, the District may review a permit application upon receipt of information that the applicant has received authorization from the current owners of the property to apply for a permit. In this case, the Applicant has the permission of the current owners (the Harold Kasik Living Trust).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order granting the requested permit as described above. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Kirby B. Green, III, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Shirley B. Haynes 2764 Lake Howell Road Winter Park, Florida 32792-5725 Egerton K. van den Berg 1245 Howell Point Winter Park, Florida 32792-5706 Charles A. Lobdell, III, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Meredith A. Harper, Esquire Shutts & Bowen Post Office Box 4956 Orlando, Florida 32802-4956
The Issue This case involves a challenge to St. Johns River Water Management District’s (District or SJRWMD) intended issuance of an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) granting the City's Application No. 4-127-97380-1, for the construction and operation of a surface water management system for a retrofit flood-relief project known as Drysdale Drive/Chapel Drive Drainage Improvements consisting of: excavation of the Drysdale Drive pond (Pond 1); improvement to the outfall at Sterling Lake; and the interconnection of Pond 1 and four existing drainage retention areas through a combination of pump stations and gravity outfalls (project or system). The issue is whether the applicant, the City of Deltona (City or Deltona), has provided reasonable assurance the system complies with the water quantity, environmental, and water quality criteria of the District’s ERP regulations set forth in Chapter 40C-4, Florida Administrative Code,1 and the Applicant’s Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters (2005) (A.H.).2
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order issuing to the City of Deltona an ERP granting the City's Application No. 4-127-97380-1, subject to the conditions set forth in the Technical Staff Report. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner owns Lot 5 on Saddlebunch Key in Monroe County, Florida. The lot is approximately 24 acres in size. It is located in a pristine area devoid of any exotic species. From west to east, Petitioner's property consists of: an approximately one acre low hammock, uplands area inhabited by buttonwood trees; a transition area slightly lower in elevation than the uplands area; a salt marsh area with key grass; a narrow mangrove area with mangroves between four and six feet tall; and an open water area. The first two hundred feet or so of the open water area has small coral sponges, sea grasses and algae on the bottom. Further out, the bottom is sandy with a minimal amount of vegetation. Among the species of birds that inhabit Petitioner's property and the surrounding area are the Little Blue Heron, White Ibis and Reddish Egret. The area is also the home of two endangered species, the Silver Rice Rat (which requires large expanses of undisturbed habitat such as that presently found in Saddlebunch Key) and the Lower Key Marsh Rabbit (which inhabits areas such as the transitional and marsh areas found on Petitioner's property). 1/ On April 20, 1992, Petitioner submitted to the Department an application for a permit to build a 1200 feet long/12 feet wide dock (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed Dock") extending east from the uplands area of his property on Saddlebunch Key out into the open waters where the water depth is approximately four feet. The Proposed Dock will enable Petitioner (and his family, as well as visitors, both invited and uninvited) to more easily access the uplands area of his property, on which he plans to build a vacation home for his and his family's use. 2/ As a result of the closure and barricading of Sugarloaf Boulevard, there is no longer a route over dry land that Petitioner can take to get to the uplands. To reach the uplands, he must either walk through wetlands or navigate a boat through the shallow waters adjoining the uplands. Regardless of which means of access he chooses, the bottom (the mud and muck in which he steps when he travels by foot and the coral sponges, sea grasses and algae against which his boat scrapes when he travels by boat) is disturbed. 3/ The Proposed Dock will be located in a Class III, Outstanding Florida Water. On May 6, 1992, the Department, by letter, advised Petitioner that it had received his application and determined that it was incomplete. The letter specified the additional information and materials Petitioner needed to supply to make his application complete. On July 8, 1992, Petitioner provided the Department with additional information and materials in response to the request made by the Department in its May 6, 1992, letter. By letters dated July 20 and 21, 1992, the Department advised Petitioner that it had received his July 8, 1992, submission, but that, notwithstanding this submission, his application remained incomplete. The letters specified the additional information and materials Petitioner still needed to supply to make his application complete. On August 10, 1992, Petitioner provided the Department with additional information and materials in response to the request made by the Department in its July 20 and 21, 1992, letters. By letter dated August 18, 1992, the Department advised Petitioner that it had received his August 10, 1992, submission, but that, notwithstanding this submission, his application remained incomplete. The letter specified the additional information and materials Petitioner still needed to supply to make his application complete. On September 9, 1992, Petitioner provided the Department with additional information and materials in response to the request made by the Department in its August 18, 1992, letter. In his letter Petitioner requested that the Department "process [his] application." Less than 90 days later, on December 7, 1992, the Department issued a Notice of Permit Denial. Petitioner has not provided reasonable assurance that the Proposed Dock will not degrade the quality of the water in and around the project site, nor has he provided reasonable assurance that the Proposed Dock is clearly in the public interest. Turbidity will occur during the construction of the Proposed Dock. When the holes into which the dock pilings will be placed are bored, the excavated material will become suspended and, if not contained, will flow with the current. The containment required will be substantial. The use of turbidity curtains is an accepted means of limiting turbidity. Although Petitioner has indicated that he will use turbidity curtains during the construction of the Proposed Dock, he has not indicated where they will be placed, how long they will remain in place and how they will be used. Turbidity has an adverse impact on the transparency of water (that is, the degree to which sunlight is able to penetrate the water). In and around the project site there is submerged vegetation that requires sunlight. If turbidity is not properly contained during construction, there will be a decrease in the transparency of the water in and around the project site and a resultant adverse impact on the biological function of the submerged vegetation in that area. Moreover, the Proposed Dock, when completed, will block sunlight and prevent this sunlight from reaching the submerged vegetation beneath the dock. Such shading will occur even though Petitioner has agreed to have one inch separations between the boards that will comprise the Proposed Dock's walkway. These separations will allow only a limited amount of sunlight to come through the dock. The amount of shading produced by the Proposed Dock will be substantial because the Proposed Dock will have an east/west alignment and therefore the sun will always be directly above it. 4/ Because the Proposed Dock will deprive the submerged vegetation beneath it of needed sunlight, the dock will have an adverse effect on such vegetation, as well as on the organisms that feed on such vegetation, and it will therefore reduce the diversity of life in the area. The reduction of the area's diversity of life will, in turn, adversely affect the biological integrity of the area. The activity associated with the construction and presence of the Proposed Dock and the vacation home that Petitioner will build if he is permitted to construct the Proposed Dock 5/ will flush birds that now inhabit Petitioner's property and the surrounding area, including the Little Blue Herons, White Ibises and Reddish Egrets, from their present habitat. This activity will also adversely affect other wildlife in the area, including, most significantly, the Silver Rice Rat and the Lower Key Marsh Rabbit, both of which are endangered species that will suffer from the invasion of the exotic species that will accompany the development of the area. In addition, the construction of the Proposed Dock will result in a loss of habitat for the Lower Key Marsh Rabbit. 6/ The Proposed Dock is intended to be a permanent structure and therefore its post-construction impacts will be of a long-lasting nature. It is reasonable to expect that other property owners in the vicinity of the Proposed Dock will seek a permit to construct a dock like Petitioner's if Petitioner is permitted to construct the Proposed Dock. These other projects, if they too are permitted, will have environmental consequences similar to those produced by the Proposed Dock. Although the Proposed Dock will enable Petitioner and his family to reach the uplands area of Petitioner's property without creating a disturbance on the bottom of the adjoining shallow waters, on balance, the Proposed Dock will have an adverse environmental impact on the uplands and surrounding area. The Proposed Dock's environmental disadvantages outweigh its environmental benefits. Petitioner has expressed a general willingness to make those modifications to his proposed project that will make the project permittable, but he has yet to make the modifications that will minimize the project's adverse environmental consequences. Mitigation of these consequences is a possibility. In the past, the Department has accepted both on-site and off-site mitigative measures. 7/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for a dredge and fill permit to construct the Proposed Dock. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of December, 1995. STUART M. LERNER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of December, 1995.
The Issue The issue is to whether to approve the application of Respondent, Lake County Water Authority (Authority), for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and consent to use sovereign submerged lands authorizing a restoration project in Lake Beauclair (Lake).
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: History of the Proceeding The Authority, an independent special taxing district, was created by the Legislature in 1953 by special act as the Ocklawaha Basin Recreation and Water Conservation and Control Authority. See Ch. 29222, Laws of Fla. (1953). In 2000, it was renamed the Lake County Water Authority. Ch. 2000-492, § 2, at 745, Laws of Fla. Among its duties is to make "improvements to the streams, lakes, and canals in [Lake] [C]ounty." Id. The Department is the state agency with the authority under Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (2009),1 to issue ERPs, as well as to act as the staff for the Board to authorize activities on sovereign submerged lands pursuant to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 18-21.2 The Lake is an approximate 1,118-acre water body located south and west of U.S. Highway 441, east of State Road 19, and north of County Road 448. It is a part of the Harris Chain of Lakes and is the first lake downstream (north) of Lake Apopka, connected by the Apopka-Beauclair Canal. The Lake discharges to Lake Dora by a connection at the northeast corner of the Lake, which connects with Lake Eustis via the Dora Canal. Lake Eustis then connects with Lake Griffin by Haines Creek. See County Exhibit 3; Petitioner's Exhibit 3. The waters from the Harris Chain of Lakes eventually discharge into the Ocklawaha River and then into the St. Johns River. Beginning around World War II, intense agricultural activity, more commonly known as muck farms, took place around the shores of Lake Apopka, which resulted in significant amounts of pesticides, nutrients, and sediment being deposited in that water body. Because the Lake was at the downstream end of the Apopka-Beauclair Canal, it also received significant amounts of these contaminants. This led to a degradation of the aquatic plant community and the balance of fish and wildlife species that use the Lake. It is now characterized as a "eutrophic water body." Since the mid-1980s, steps have been taken to restore the water quality in Lake Apopka. As a part of the restoration of Lake Apopka, the District acquired ownership of former muck farms located just northwest of Lake Apopka in an area known as the Lake Apopka North Shore Restoration Project, West Marsh. The Marsh in turn is divided into a number of field units, also known as cells. In cooperation with the District and the FFWCC, over the last eight years the Authority has developed a plan to improve water quality and habitat in the Lake and four residential canals along the Apopka-Beauclair Canal. In general, the plan entails removing by hydraulic dredge sediments from an estimated 260 acres in the western portion of the Lake and from an additional 21 acres of combined residential canal segments. At least some of the dredging site is in state-owned sovereign submerged lands and requires the consent of the Board. The dredged sediment will be transported by pipeline 8.3 miles south of the Lake to Cells F and G of the West Marsh. Water from the sediment will be routed a short distance north to the Authority's Nutrient Reduction Facility (NuRF), treated to remove phosphorus and other contaminants, and then discharged downstream through the Apopka-Beauclair Canal. Due to permit conditions relating to dissolved oxygen levels, dredging activities can only take place between September 15 through June 15 of any year. Therefore, resolution of this dispute has been made on an expedited basis. On September 22, 2009, the Authority filed an application with the Department to implement its plan. See Authority Exhibit 10. Two requests for additional information were made by the Department, and responses were filed by the Authority. See Authority Exhibits 11 and 12. On June 18, 2010, the Department, through its Orlando District Office, issued its Notice of Intent to issue an ERP and consent to use sovereignty submerged lands. See Department Exhibit 10. The ERP contains a number of specific and general conditions applicable to this project, all designed to ensure that the relevant permit requirements are satisfied. On June 25, 2010, Petitioner, a former member of the Authority and a long-time advocate of restoring the Harris Chain of Lakes, filed a Petition challenging the proposed agency action on numerous grounds. Her primary objection is that the sediment will be deposited at West Marsh on top of already- contaminated soils containing pesticides from prior farming activities, which may cause "environmental harm" to humans, fish, and aquatic wildlife. She also contends that no state permit should be issued until the United States Army Corps of Engineers issues a permit for the project; that diesel fumes from the dredging equipment used on the project may pollute the air and water; that the project may violate federal, state, and local rules; and that sediment from the dredging activities in the Lake may drift downstream resulting in environmental harm to Lake Griffin, where she resides. No specific objection was raised regarding the consent to use sovereign submerged lands for dredging purposes. For the last 26 years, Petitioner has resided on Lake Griffin, which lies within the Harris Chain of Lakes. Uncontroverted evidence establishes that her property is at least 21 miles downstream from the site of the dredging activities and around 27 miles from the deposition site. The path of the restoration site to Petitioner's property involves travel north through the Lake, then across Lake Dora to Lake Eustis, northwesterly through Haines Creek, and across Lake Griffin to the southwestern area of the lake where she resides. The path from the disposal site to her property requires further travel from Cells F and G within the West Marsh, down the Apopka-Beauclair Canal to the restoration site on the Lake, and then along the described path across Lakes Beauclair and Dora, Dora Canal, Lake Eustis, Haines Creek, and Lake Griffin. According to expert testimony at hearing, the likelihood of sediment transfer from the dredging site to Lake Griffin is "scientifically inconceivable." It can be inferred that the likelihood of the treated, discharged water from the disposal site at West Marsh reaching her property is even more remote. This was not credibly contradicted. The Project The project involves the removal of 1.32 million cubic yards of human-induced sediment from an approximate 255-acre area in the southwestern part of the Lake and approximately 30,700 cubic yards from a 6.3-acre area within portions of four adjacent residential canals. Floating turbidity barriers and other measures around the dredge site in the Lake and canals will ensure that other areas of the lake system will not be impacted. The dredged material will be pumped through 8.3 miles of high density polyethylene pipe along the Apopka-Beauclair Canal to a disposal site known as Cells F and G, which are located on the west side of that Canal on property owned and operated by the District. Together, the two cells comprise around 980 acres. The sediment will be treated with polymers (a chemical process) to aid in the settling of organic solids. The supernatant water (i.e., the water overlying the deposited sediment) will then be pumped to the nearby NuRF, owned and operated by the Authority, treated with alum to remove nutrients and phosphorus, and discharged from the NuRF into the Apopka- Beauclair Canal, which ultimately discharges into the Lake. A number of problems currently exist in the Lake, including loose sediments, high nutrient concentrations, and navigational impairments. The project is designed to improve water quality by removing accumulated sediments at the mouth of the Lake that are re-suspended by wind and wave action and the propellers of motorboats, and which allow nutrients to enter the water. Also, the project is designed to improve habitat by allowing a more desirable substrate for aquatic plants to become established, and to improve navigation by removing accumulated sediment that currently impedes navigation. Therefore, the project will clearly restore that portion of the Lake to something much closer to its pre-disturbance bed conditions in a manner likely to benefit fish and wildlife, improve navigability, and eliminate re-suspension of materials from boating activities. The Authority conducted a battery of chemical and physical testing to determine whether the sediments were useful as soil amendments for agriculture or for use in wetland restoration at the inactive muck farms north of Lake Apopka. Arsenic in the sediments was present at a mean concentration within the range of natural histosols (organic wetland soils) in the State, but not at levels suitable for transfer to residential or commercial properties. All metals were within allowable concentration levels established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency for land application of biosolids at farms. Organochlorine pesticides were present at low levels. Residual pesticide concentrations, and all other metal concentrations in the sediments, would be suitable for residential, commercial, and farming properties. Based on these characteristics and analyses, Cells F and G within the West Marsh were selected as the best practicable and safe alternative for the beneficial use of the sediments. The sediments will be used to cap much higher pesticide-contaminated soils in those Cells. This will create more shallow water depths in the Cells, facilitate greater cover of the former muck farms by wetland vegetation, and partially restore historic wetland conditions that existed prior to farming and soil subsidence. The FFWCC concedes the possibility of impacts to fish and wildlife as a result of depositing spoil material into Cells F and G. While there is some potential for fish mortality in those Cells, the FFWCC believes the overall, long-term benefit to fish and wildlife in both the Lake and Cells F and G far outweigh any temporary, negative impacts that may result from the project. Further, the evidence establishes that Cells F and G currently have sediment with appreciable levels of pesticides, as well as fish that contain sufficient levels of pesticides to be hazardous to fish-eating birds. Therefore, the contaminated fish are not an environmental asset. Because of this, the District maintains deep water and thick vegetation in those Cells to discourage foraging by fish-eating birds. The deposition of the sediment will cover the existing contaminated soils with sediments having a much lower concentration of pesticides thus reducing the exposure to fish and wildlife. The evidence supports a finding that the deposition of the dredge sediments will increase the surface soil elevation in Cells F and G, which will aid the District in future restoration of emergent marsh communities on this site. Petitioner's contention that the possibility of harm to even a single contaminated fish outweighs the benefits of using that site as a depository has been rejected. Petitioner also suggested that the sediment should be transported by truck to another location, such as a hazardous waste site, or that the project should be postponed for another year until testing is completed by a prospective vendor (Clean to Green) who claims its proposed methodology (yet to be tested and scientifically validated) can treat the sediment off-site in a safer manner. Given the overwhelming and uncontroverted scientific evidence offered at hearing in support of the project and the manner in which it will be undertaken, these alternatives are not deemed to be practical, reasonable, or supported by scientific evidence. The proposed deposition site is clearly the best and safest alternative. Rule Requirements Rules 40C-4.301 and 40C-4.302 prescribe the conditions for issuance of an ERP. Generally, the first rule focuses on water quantity, environmental impacts, and water quality. The second rule generally requires that a public interest balancing test be made, and that cumulative impacts, if any, be considered. Further standards implementing the rules are found in the District's Basis of Review. The evidence supports a finding that the Authority has given reasonable assurance that the project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts, adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, or adverse impacts on the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows. The evidence supports a finding that the Authority has given reasonable assurance that the project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters or violate water quality standards. Reasonable assurance has also been given that the project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. The project will have no adverse secondary impacts. The project will not adversely affect works of the District and special basin or geographic area criteria. The Authority has given reasonable assurance that the project is capable of being performed and functioning as proposed. Further, the Authority has sufficient financial, legal, and administrative capabilities to ensure that the project will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit. The evidence supports a finding that the project will not be contrary to the public interest, as defined in Rule 40C- 4.302 and Section 373.414(1)(a), Florida Statutes. All other contentions regarding the issuance of the ERP have been carefully considered and found to be without merit. Therefore, it is found that the requirements of the two rules have been met. No dispute was raised regarding the consent to use sovereign submerged lands to conduct the dredging activities. Chapter 18-21 requires that the activity must not be contrary to the public interest. As to this issue, the evidence supports a finding in favor of the Authority.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting the application of the Authority for an ERP and consent to use sovereign submerged lands. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August, 2010.
The Issue The issues to be decided in this case are whether Respondents are liable for the violations charged in the NOV, whether Respondents should pay the penalties assessed in the NOV, and whether Respondents should be required to take the corrective actions demanded in the NOV.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency with powers and duties related to the regulation of construction activities in wetlands and surface waters, including filling in wetlands. Respondents are individuals who own real property on Bayshore Road in North Fort Myers, Florida. Some confusion exists in the record about the street number for the property. It is alternately described as 11590, 11620, 11650, and 11850. This is partly due to the fact that the property consists of at least two recorded parcels. The actual location of the filled area is not disputed, nor is it disputed that Respondents own the property where the fill was placed. The property is adjacent to the Caloosahatchee River. It contains freshwater marsh wetlands dominated by Leather Fern. The Department conducted a site inspection of Respondents’ property and determined that Respondents had filled 0.96 acres of wetlands. The Department produced evidence that it incurred costs of $1,824.50 in this case. The corrective actions ordered in the NOV, which are designed to restore the wetlands that were filled, are reasonable.
