The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether four agency memoranda describing policy on mitigation for dredge and fill projects are unpromulgated rules and were relied on by the agency in violation of Section 120.535(1), F.S. During the hearing, and afterwards in writing, Petitioner sought leave to amend its pleadings to incorporate other policies allegedly relied on by the agency in the process of the dredge and fill application review. That request was denied in an order entered on August 23, 1993. Those policies are addressed in the recommended order in DOAH #93-3367.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, SIP Properties Limited Partnership (SIP) is the record owner of the parcel at issue, approximately thirty-five (35) acres located in the southwest area of Orlando, Orange County, Florida. SIP proposes to prepare the site for commercial and office use by developing the site into separate parcels or lots with proposed uses such as restaurant or fast food establishments, offices and retail stores. Development of the site requires the construction of compensating storage ponds that will act as retention/detention ponds and filling the site. The proposed improvements will result in the filling of 7.47 acres and dredging of 0.42 acres of wetlands claimed to be jurisdictional by DEP. Based on statements made to SIP by staff regarding department "mitigation policies" applicable to SIP's dredge and fill permit application, SIP believed that department policy memoranda were applied during permit review. SIP attached these various memoranda regarding mitigation to its Petition for Administrative Determination of Violation of Rulemaking Requirement dated May 27, 1993, and identified these memoranda as nonrule policies utilized by the department. The department retains on file and makes available for use by its staff the identified memoranda. However, in this case the department did not rely on or apply the mitigation guidelines contained in the memoranda in SIP's Petition. Instead, it applied Part III of Chapter 17-3120, F.A.C. In Part III of Chapter 17-312, F.A.C., the agency has adopted rules addressing the mitigation issues contained in the memoranda in SIP's Petition. For example, the agency has adopted guidelines in rule 17-312.340(2), F.A.C., for applying ratios when mitigation involves creation of state waters, as in this case. The department presently relies on these rules when reviewing mitigation plans, and does not rely on the policy memos referenced in the petition. Determining the mitigation needed to successfully offset impacts from a project is difficult and depends on many factors, including hydrology, soils, planting methods, and monitoring plans. Determining what is needed to reasonably assure successful mitigation must be done on a case by case basis. Not enough is known about the subject to apply any particular set of directions and expect success. DEP is presently in the process of developing rules to further address most aspects of mitigation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Protection issue its Final Order granting SIP's dredge and fill permit #48-2086169, with the mitigation proposed by the applicant, and establishing an expiration date and monitoring and evaluation plan for determining success of the mitigation as provided in rules 17-312.320 and 17-312.350, F.A.C. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 11th day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 11th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-3. Adopted in paragraph 2. 4.-6. Adopted in paragraph 7. 7.-8. Rejected as unnecessary. 9. Adopted in paragraph 8. 10.-11. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9. 12. Adopted in substance in paragraph 10. 13.-16. Rejected as unnecessary Adopted in paragraphs 11 and 12. Rejected as unnecessary. 19.-21. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. 22.-23. Adopted in substance in paragraph 14. 24.-25. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 16. Substantially rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Adopted in part in paragraph 17, otherwise rejected as immaterial. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 18. Rejected as immaterial. The agency witnesses established that the vegetation along the canal evidences the physical connection and there is evidence that water flows from the site into the canal. Rejected as unsubstantiated by reliable competent evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph 22. 36.-40. Rejected as unsupported by reliable competent evidence. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary, and as to characterization of merely "relic" wetlands, unsupported by the weight of evidence. Rejected (the conclusion of jurisdictional limit) as unsupported by the greater weight of evidence. 45.-53. Rejected as immaterial or unnecessary. 54.-56. Adopted in paragraphs 33 and 34. 57. Adopted, as to the limited function, in paragraphs 22 and 23. 58. Adopted in paragraph 26. 59.-60. Adopted in paragraph 23. 61. Rejected, as to the absolute conclusion of "no function", as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 62. Adopted in paragraph 25. 63.-64. Adopted in paragraph 26. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 30. Adopted in paragraph 34. Adopted in substance in paragraph 31. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 30 and 34. Adopted in paragraph 31. 71.-73. Adopted in paragraph 33. 74.-77. Rejected as unnecessary. 78.-79. Adopted in paragraph 31. 80.-81. Adopted in paragraph 35. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 33. 84.-90. Rejected as unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraph 15. 2.-3. Adopted in paragraph 16. 4.-5. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 16. Rejected as unnecessary and as to "binding" effect, unsupported by the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 19. 11.-15. Adopted in substance in paragraph 21. 16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and inconsistent with proposed findings #18 with regard to the constant level in the canal. 17.-18. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 21 and 23. 19.-21. Adopted in paragraphs 19 and 20. 22.-26. Adopted in summary in paragraph 21. Adopted in paragraph 27. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 1 and 2. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in part in paragraph 16. That the forests are "healthy and viable" is rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph 17. Adopted in part in paragraph 25; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 33.-34. Adopted in part in paragraph 27; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 35.-37. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 38.-43. Rejected as unnecessary. 44. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. The stormwater management plan and mitigation will restore the stormwater treatment functions. 45.-47. Adopted in substance in paragraph 30. Rejected as substantially contrary to the greater weight of evidence (as to the negative impact). Adopted in part, as to water quality problems generally, but rejected as to the ultimate conclusion, as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. 51.-52. Adopted in summary in paragraph 31. 53.-54. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 55. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Ronald M. Schirtzer, Esquire Martha H. Formella, Esquire R. Duke Woodson, Esquire FOLEY & LARDNER 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1800 Orlando, Florida 32801 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire John L. Chaves, Esquire Rosanne G. Capeless, Certified Legal Intern Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
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. -
The Issue The issue in this case is whether, and under what conditions, the Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District (District), should grant Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 40-109-81153-1 authorizing Respondents, Jay and Linda Ginn (Ginns or Applicants), to construct a 136-unit single-family residential development with associated surface water management system.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Proposed Project Respondent, the District, is a special taxing district created by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, charged with the duty to prevent harm to the water resources of the District, and to administer and enforce the cited statutes and Florida Administrative Code Rules promulgated by the District under the authority of those statutes. (Unless otherwise stated, all Florida Statutes refer to the 2003 codification, and all Florida Administrative Code Rules refer to the current codification.) Respondents, Jay and Linda Ginn, are the owners of 47 acres of land located just west of the City of St. Augustine in St. Johns County, Florida. They are seeking ERP Permit No. 40- 109-81153-1 from the District to construct a 136-acre residential community and associated surface water management facilities on the property, to be known as Ravenswood Forest. The 47-acre project site is predominantly uplands, with a large (10.98-acre) wetland (Wetland 1) located on the eastern boundary and completely separating the uplands on the project site from adjacent properties to the east. While the central portion of the site is mostly a sand pine vegetated community, and the western portion is largely a pine flatwood community, there are six other smaller wetlands scattered within the upland areas lying west of Wetland 1, each numbered separately, 2 through 7. The site is currently undeveloped except for some cleared areas that are used as dirt road trails and a borrow pit or pond excavated in the central part of the site. This clearing and excavation was accomplished in the 1980’s for a project that was never completed. The project site is bordered on the north by Ravenswood Drive. On the east lies an existing residential development probably constructed in the 1970’s; to the west of the project site is a power-line easement; and to the south is a Time Warner cable facility. The land elevations at the project site are generally higher on the west and slope off to Wetland 1 on the east. Under current conditions, water generally drains from west to east into Wetland 1. Some water from the site, as well as some water entering the site from off-site properties to the west, flows into the existing pond or borrow pit located in the central portion of the site. Under extreme rainfall conditions, the borrow pit/pond can reach a stage that allows it to overflow and discharge into Wetland 1. Some off-site water also enters Wetland 1 at its north end. Water that originates from properties to the west of the Ravenswood site is conveyed through ditches to the roadside ditch that runs along the south side of Ravenswood Drive. Water in this roadside ditch ultimately enters Wetland 1 at its north end and flows south. Once in Wetland 1, water moves north to south. Water leaves the part of Wetland 1 that is located on the Ravenswood site and continues to flow south through ditches and culverts ultimately to the San Sebastian River. The Wetland 1 system is contiguous with wetlands located on property owned by Petitioner, Marilyn McMulkin. Mrs. McMulkin lives on Hibiscus Street to the east of the project. Mrs. McMulkin is disabled and enjoys observing wildlife from her home. Mrs. McMulkin has observed woodstorks, kites, deer, cardinals, birds, otter, indigo snake, flying squirrels, gopher tortoises, and (more recently) bald eagles on her property or around the neighborhood. Mrs. McMulkin informed the District of the presence of the bald eagle in 2002, but it was not discovered until November of 2003 that there was an eagle nest on the Ginns property in Wetland 1. Petitioner, Diane Mills, owns a house and property on Hibiscus Street to the east of the Project. The proposed stormwater discharge for the Project is to a wetland system that is contiguous with a wetland system that is in close proximity to Mrs. Mills' property. Petitioners' property is not located in a flood plain identified by FEMA. Nevertheless, Petitioners' property experiences flooding. At times, the flooding has come through Mrs. McMulkin's house and exited out the front door. The flood water, which can be 18-24 inches high in some places on Mrs. McMulkin's property, comes across her backyard, goes through or around her house, enters Hibiscus Street and turns north. The flooding started in the late 1980's and comes from the north and west, from the Ginns' property. The flooding started after Mr. Clyatt Powell, a previous co-owner of the Ravenswood property, started clearing and creating fill roads on the property using dirt excavated from the property. The flooding now occurs every year and has increased in duration and frequency; the flooding gets worse after the rain stops and hours pass. The evidence, including Petitioners' Exhibit 1, indicated that there are numerous other possible reasons, besides activities on the Ginns' property in the late 1980's, for the onset and exacerbation of Petitioners' flooding problems, including: failure to properly maintain existing drainage facilities; other development in the area; and failure to improve drainage facilities as development proceeds. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners have standing to object to ERP Permit No. 40-109-81153-1. Project Description As indicated, water that originates west of the project site currently enters the project site in two ways: (1) it moves across the western project boundary; and (2) it travels north to a ditch located on the south side of Ravenswood Drive and is conveyed to Wetland 1. The offsite water that moves across the western project boundary comes from a 16-acre area identified as Basin C (called Basin 4 post-development). The offsite water that moves north to the ditch and enters Wetland 1 comes from a 106.87-acre area identified as Basin D (called Basin 5 post-development). The project’s stormwater conveyance and treatment facilities include two connected wet detention ponds with an outfall to a wetland on the eastern portion of the project site. Stormwater from most of the project site will be conveyed to a pond, or detention area (DA) DA-1, which will be located near (and partially coinciding with the location of) the existing pond or borrow pit. The water elevation in DA-1 will be controlled at a level of 26 feet. Water from DA-1 will spill over through a control structure into a pipe that will convey the spill-over to DA-2. In addition to the spill-over from DA-1, offsite water that currently enters the project site across the western boundary will be conveyed to a wetland area at the southwest corner of the project site. At that point, some of the water will be taken into DA-2 through an inlet structure. The water elevation in DA-2 will be controlled at level 21. Water from DA-2 will be released by a control structure to a spreader swale in Wetland 1. While some of the water conveyed to the wetland area at the southwest corner of the project site will enter DA-2, as described, some will discharge over an irregular weir (a low area that holds water until it stages up and flows out) and move around the southern boundary of the project site and flow east into Wetland 1. Wetland 1 is a 10.98-acre onsite portion of a larger offsite wetland area extending to the south and east (which includes the wetlands on Mrs. McMulkin's property). For purposes of an Overall Watershed Study performed by the Ginns' engineering consultant, the combined onsite and offsite wetlands was designated Node 98 (pre-development) and Node 99 (post- development). From those areas, water drains south to ditches and culverts and eventually to the San Sebastian River. Best management practices will be used during project construction to address erosion and sediment control. Such measures will include silt fences around the construction site, hay bales in ditches and inlets, and maintenance of construction equipment to prevent release of pollutants, and may include staked sod on banks and turbidity barriers, if needed. In addition, the District's TSR imposed permit conditions that require erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented. The District's TSR also imposed a permit condition that requires District approval of a dewatering plan within 30 days of permit issuance and prior to construction. The Ginns intend to retain the dewatering from construction on the project site. Wetland Impacts Onsite Wetlands Wetland 1 is a 10.98-acre mixed-forested wetland system. Its overall condition is good. It has a variety of vegetative strata, a mature canopy, dense understory and groundcover, open water areas, and permanent water of varying levels over the course of a year. These attributes allow for species diversity. Although surrounded by development, the wetland is a good source for a variety of species to forage, breed, nest, and roost. In terms of vegetation, the wetland is not unique to northeast Florida, but in November 2003 an eagle nest was discovered in it. A second wetland area onsite (Wetland 2) is a 0.29-acre coniferous depression located near the western boundary of the site. The overall value of the functions provided by Wetland 2 is minimal or low. It has a fairly sparse pine canopy and scattered ferns provide for little refuge and nesting. Water does stand in it, but not for extended periods of time, which does not allow for breeding of most amphibians. The vegetation and inundation do not foster lower trophic animals. For that reason, although the semi-open canopy would be conducive to use by woodstorks, birds and small mammals do not forage there. A third wetland area onsite (Wetland 3) is a 0.28-acre mixed-forested wetland on the northern portion of the site. The quality of Wetland 3 is low. A 24-inch culvert drains the area into a 600-foot long drainage ditch along the south side of Ravenswood Drive leading to Wetland 1. As a result, its hydroperiod is reduced and, although it has a healthy pine and cypress canopy, it also has invasive Chinese tallow and upland species, along with some maple. The mature canopy and its proximity to Ravenswood Drive would allow for nesting, but no use of the wetland by listed species has been observed. In order to return Wetland 3 to being productive, its hydroperiod would have to be restored by eliminating the connection to the Ravenswood Drive ditch. A fourth wetland area onsite (Wetland 4) is a 0.01- acre portion of a mixed-forested wetland on the western boundary of the site that extends offsite to the west. Its value is poor because: a power line easement runs through it; it has been used as a trail road, so it is void of vegetation; and it is such a small fringe of an offsite wetland that it does not provide much habitat value. A fifth wetland area onsite (Wetland 5) is a 0.01-acre portion of the same offsite mixed-forested wetland that Wetland 4 is part of. Wetland 5 has a cleared trail road through its upland fringe. Wetland 5 has moderate value. It is vegetated except on its upland side (although its vegetation is not unique to northeast Florida), has a nice canopy, and provides fish and wildlife value (although not as much as the interior of the offsite wetland). A sixth wetland area onsite (Wetland 6) is a 0.28-acre wetland located in the western portion of the site. It is a depression with a coniferous-dominated canopy with some bays and a sparse understory of ferns and cord grass that is of moderate value overall. It does not connect with any other wetlands by standing or flowing water and is not unique. It has water in it sufficient to allow breeding, so there would be foraging in it. Although not discovered by the Ginns' consultants initially, a great blue heron has been observed utilizing the wetland. No listed species have been observed using it. Wetland 6 could be good gopher frog habitat due to its isolation near uplands and its intermittent inundation, limiting predation by fish. In addition, four gopher tortoise burrows have been identified in uplands on the project site, and gopher frogs use gopher tortoise burrows. The gopher frog is not a listed species; the gopher tortoise is listed by the State of Florida as a species of special concern but is not aquatic or wetland-dependent. Woodstorks are listed as endangered. Although no woodstorks were observed using Wetland 6, they rely on isolated wetlands drying down to concentrate fish and prey in the isolated wetlands. With its semi-open canopy, Wetland 6 could be used by woodstorks, which have a wingspan similar to great blue herons, which were seen using Wetland 6. However, Wetland would not provide a significant food source for wading birds such as woodstorks. The other surface water area onsite (Wetland 7) is the existing 0.97-acre pond or borrow pit in the southwest portion of the project site. The pond is man-made with a narrow littoral shelf dominated by torpedo grass; levels appears to fluctuate as groundwater does; and it is not unique. It connects to Wetland 1 during seasonal high water. It has some fish, but the steep slope to its littoral shelf minimizes the shelf's value for fish, tadpoles, and larvae stage for amphibians because fish can forage easily on the shelf. The Ginns propose to fill Wetlands 2, 3, 4, and 6; to not impact Wetland 5; and to fill a 0.45-acre portion of Wetland and dredge the remaining part into DA-1. Also, 0.18 acre of Wetland 1 (0.03 acre is offsite) will be temporarily disturbed during installation of the utility lines to provide service to the project. Individually and cumulatively, the wetlands that are less than 0.5-acre--Wetlands 3, 6, 2, 4, and 5--are low quality and not more than minimal value to fish and wildlife except for Wetland 5, because it is a viable part of an offsite wetland with value. While the Ginns have sought a permit to fill Wetland 4, they actually do not intend to fill it. Instead, they will simply treat the wetland as filled for the purpose of avoiding a County requirement of providing a wetland buffer and setback, which would inhibit the development of three lots. Offsite Wetlands The proposed project would not be expected to have an impact on offsite wetlands. Neither DA-1 nor DA-2, especially with the special conditions imposed by the District, will draw down offsite wetlands. The seasonal high water (SHW) table in the area of DA- 1 is estimated at elevation 26 to 29. With a SHW table of 26, DA-1 will not influence groundwater. Even with a SHW table of 29, DA-1 will not influence the groundwater beyond the project's western boundary. DA-1 will not adversely affect offsite wetlands. A MODFLOW model was run to demonstrate the influence of DA-1 on nearby wetlands assuming that DA-1 would be controlled at elevation 21, that the groundwater elevation was 29, and that no cutoff wall or liner would be present. The model results demonstrated that the influence of DA-1 on groundwater would barely extend offsite. The current proposed elevation for DA-1 is 26, which is higher than the elevation used in the model and which would result in less influence on groundwater. The seasonal high water table in the area of DA-2 is 28.5 to 29.5. A cutoff wall is proposed to be installed around the western portion of DA-2 to prevent it from drawing down the water levels in the adjacent wetlands such that the wetlands would be adversely affected. The vertical cutoff wall will be constructed of clay and will extend from the land surface down to an existing horizontal layer of relatively impermeable soil called hardpan. The cutoff wall tied into the hardpan would act as a barrier to vertical and horizontal groundwater flow, essentially severing the flow. A MODFLOW model demonstrated that DA-2 with the cutoff wall will not draw down the adjacent wetlands. The blow counts shown on the boring logs and the permeability rates of soils at the proposed location of DA-2 indicate the presence of hardpan. The hardpan is present in the area of DA-2 at approximately 10 to 15 feet below the land surface. The thickness of the hardpan layer is at least 5 feet. The Ginns measured the permeability of hardpan in various locations on the project site. The cutoff wall design is based on tying into a hardpan layer with a permeability of 0.052 feet per day. Because permeability may vary across the project site, the District recommended a permit condition that would require a professional engineer to test for the presence and permeability of the hardpan along the length of the cutoff wall. If the hardpan is not continuous, or if its permeability is higher than 0.052 feet per day, then a liner will be required to be installed instead of a cutoff wall. The liner would be installed under the western third of DA-2, west of a north-south line connecting the easterly ends of the cutoff wall. (The location of the liner is indicated in yellow on Applicants' Exhibit 5B, sheet 8, and is described in District Exhibit 10.) The liner would be 2 feet thick and constructed of clay with a permeability of no more than 1 x 10-6 centimeters per second. A liner on a portion of the bottom of pond DA-2 will horizontally sever a portion of the pond bottom from the groundwater to negate the influence of DA-2 on groundwater in the area. A clay liner would function to prevent adverse drawdown impacts to adjacent wetlands. The project, with either a cutoff wall or a clay liner, will not result in a drawdown of the groundwater table such that adjacent wetlands would be adversely affected. Reduction and Elimination of Impacts The Ginns evaluated practicable design alternatives for eliminating the temporary impact to 0.18-acre of Wetland 1. The analysis indicated that routing the proposed utility services around the project site was possible but would require a lift station that would cost approximately $80,000 to $100,000. The impact avoided is a temporary impact; it is likely that the area to be impacted can be successfully reestablished and restored; and preservation of Wetland 1 is proposed to address lag-time for reestablishment. It was determined by the Ginns and District staff that the costs of avoidance outweigh the environmental benefits of avoidance. Petitioners put on evidence to question the validity of the Wetland 1 reduction/elimination analysis. First, Mr. Mills, who has experience installing sewer/water pipes, testified to his belief that a lift station would cost only approximately $50,000 to $60,000. He also pointed out that using a lift station and forced main method would make it approximately a third less expensive per linear foot to install the pipe line itself. This is because a gravity sewer, which would be required if a lift station and forced main is not used, must be laid at precise grades, making it is more difficult and costly to lay. However, Mr. Mills acknowledged that, due to the relatively narrow width of the right-of-way along Ravenswood Drive, it would be necessary to obtain a waiver of the usual requirement to separate the sewer and water lines by at least 10 feet. He thought that a five-foot separation waiver would be possible for his proposed alternative route if the "horizontal" separation was at least 18 inches. (It is not clear what Mr. Mills meant by "horizontal.") In addition, he did not analyze how the per-linear-foot cost savings from use of the lift station and forced main sewer would compare to the additional cost of the lift station, even if it is just $50,000 to $60,000, as he thinks. However, it would appear that his proposed alternative route is approximately three times as long as the route proposed by the Ginns, so that the total cost of laying the sewer pipeline itself would be approximately equal under either proposal. Mr. Mills's testimony also suggested that the Ginns did not account for the possible disturbance to the Ravenswood eagles if an emergency repair to the water/sewer is necessary during nesting season. While this is a possibility, it is speculative. There is no reason to think such emergency repairs will be necessary, at least during the approximately 20-year life expectancy of the water/sewer line. Practicable design modifications to avoid filling Wetland 4 also were evaluated. Not filling Wetland 4 would trigger St. Johns County wetland setback requirements that would eliminate three building lots, at a cost of $4,684 per lot. Meanwhile, the impacted wetland is small and of poor quality, and the filling of Wetland 4 can be offset by proposed mitigation. As a result, the costs of avoidance outweigh the environmental benefits of avoidance. Relying on ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1 the Ginns did not perform reduction/elimination analyses for Wetlands 2 and 6, and the District did not require them. As explained in testimony, the District interprets ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.1 to require a reduction/elimination analysis only when a project will result in adverse impacts such that it does not meet the requirements of ERP-A.H. 12.2.2 through 12.2.3.7 and 12.2.5 through 12.3.8. But ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1 does not require compliance with those sections for regulated activities in isolated wetlands less than one-half acre in size except in circumstances not applicable to this case: if they are used by threatened or endangered species; if they are located in an area of critical state concern; if they are connected at seasonal high water level to other wetlands; and if they are "more than minimal value," singularly or cumulatively, to fish and wildlife. See ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1(a) through (d). Under the District's interpretation of ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.1, since ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1 does not require compliance with the very sections that determine whether a reduction/elimination analysis is necessary under ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.1, such an analysis is not required for Wetlands 2 and 6. Relying on ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.2, a., the Ginns did not perform reduction/elimination analyses for Wetlands 3 and 7, and the District did not require them, because the functions provided by Wetlands 3 and 7 are "low" and the proposed mitigation to offset the impacts to these wetlands provides greater long-term value. Petitioners' environmental expert opined that an reduction/elimination analysis should have been performed for all of the wetlands on the project site, even if isolated and less than half an acre size, because all of the wetlands on the project site have ecological value. For example, small and isolated wetlands can be have value for amphibians, including the gopher frog. But his position does not square with the ERP- A.H., as reasonably interpreted by the District. Specifically, the tests are "more than minimal value" under ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1(d) and "low value" under ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.2, a. Secondary Impacts The impacts to the wetlands and other surface waters are not expected to result in adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, including endangered or threatened listed species or their habitats. In accordance with ERP-A.H. 12.2.7(a), the design incorporates upland preserved buffers with minimum widths of 15 feet and an average width of 25 feet around the wetlands that will not be impacted. Sediment and erosion control measures will assure that the construction will not have an adverse secondary impact on water quality. The proposed development will be served by central water and sewer provided by the City of St. Augustine, eliminating a potential for secondary impacts to water quality from residential septic tanks or septic drainfields. In order to provide additional measures to avoid secondary impacts to Wetland 1, which is the location of the bald eagles’ nest, the Applicants proposed additional protections in a Bald Eagle Management Plan (BEMP) (App. Ex. 14). Under the terms of the BEMP, all land clearing, infrastructure installation, and exterior construction on homes located within in the primary zone (a distance within 750 feet of the nest tree) is restricted to the non-nesting season (generally May 15 through September 30). In the secondary zone (area between 750 feet and 1500 feet from the nest tree), exterior construction, infrastructure installation, and land clearing may take place during the nesting season with appropriate monitoring as described in the BEMP. Proposed Mitigation The Ginns have proposed mitigation for the purpose of offsetting adverse impacts to wetland functions. They have proposed to provide mitigation for: the 0.18-acre temporary impact to Wetland 1 during installation of a water/sewer line extending from existing City of St. Augustine service to the east (at Theodore Street); the impacts to Wetlands 3, 4 and 7; and the secondary impacts to the offsite portion of Wetland 4. The Ginns propose to grade the 0.18-acre temporary impact area in Wetland 1 to pre-construction elevations, plant 72 trees, and monitor annually for 5 years to document success. Although the easement is 30 feet in width, work will be confined to 20 feet where vegetation will be cleared, the top 1 foot of soil removed and stored for replacing, the trench excavated, the utility lines installed, the trench refilled, the top foot replaced, the area replanted with native vegetation, and re- vegetation monitored. To facilitate success, the historic water regime and historic seed source will give the re-vegetation effort a jump-start. The Ginns propose to restore and enhance a 0.12-acre portion of Wetland 1 that has been degraded by a trail road. They will grade the area to match the elevations of adjacent wetland, plant 48 trees, and monitor annually for 5 years to document success. This is proposed to offset the impacts to Wetland 4. The proposed grading, replanting, and monitoring will allow the area to be enhanced causing an environmental benefit. The Ginns propose to preserve 10.58 acres of wetlands and 3.99 acres of uplands in Wetland 1, 1 acre of upland buffers adjacent to Wetlands 1 and 5, and the 0.01 acre wetland in Wetland 5. The upland buffer will be a minimum of 15 feet wide with an average of 25 feet wide for Wetland 1 and 25 feet wide for Wetland 5. A conservation easement will be conveyed to the District to preserve Wetlands 1 and 5, the upland buffers, and the wetland restoration and enhancement areas. The preservation of wetlands provides mitigation value because it provides perpetual protection by ensuring that development will not occur in those areas, as well as preventing activities that are unregulated from occurring there. This will allow the conserved lands to mature and provide more forage and habitat for the wildlife that would utilize those areas. Mitigation for Wetlands 2 and 6 was not provided because they are isolated wetlands less than 0.5-acre in size that are not used by threatened or endangered species; are not located in an area of critical state concern; are not connected at seasonal high water level to other wetlands; and are not more than minimal value, singularly or cumulatively, to fish and wildlife. As previously referenced in the explanation of why no reduction/elimination analysis was required for these wetlands, ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1(d) does not require compliance with under ERP- A.H. 12.3 through 12.3.8 (mitigation requirements) for regulated activities in isolated wetlands less than one-half acre in size except in circumstances found not to be present in this case. See Finding 44, supra. The cost of the proposed mitigation will be approximately $15,000. Operation and Maintenance A non-profit corporation that is a homeowners association (HOA) will be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the surface water management system. An HOA is a typical operation and maintenance entity for a subdivision and is an acceptable entity under District rules. See ERP-A.H. 7.1.1(e) and 7.1.2; Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C- 42.027(3) and (4). The Articles of Incorporation for the HOA and the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions contain the language required by District rules. Water Quantity To address water quantity criteria, the Applicants' engineers ran a model (AdICPR, Version 1.4) to compare the peak rate discharge from the project in the pre-project state versus the peak rate discharge after the project is put in place. The pre-project data input into the model were defined by those conditions that existed in 1985 or 1986, prior to the partial work that was conducted, but not completed, on the site in the late 1980's. The project’s 1985/1986 site condition included a feature called Depression A that attenuated some onsite as well as offsite stormwater. Because of work that was done on the project site after 1985/1986 (i.e., the excavation of the borrow pit and road-clearing activities in the late 1980's), the peak rate of discharge for the 1985/1986 project site condition was lower than the peak rate of discharge for today’s project site condition. (Flooding at Mrs. McMulkin's house began after the work was performed on the project site in the late 1980's.) Because this partial work conducted in the late 1980's increased peak rate discharge from the site, by taking the pre-project conditions back to the time prior to that work, the peak rate of discharge in the 1985-86 pre-project condition was lower than it would be under today's conditions. The model results indicated that for the 25-year, 24- hour storm event, the pre-project peak rate discharge is 61.44 cubic feet per second (cfs). The post-project peak rate discharge is 28.16 cfs. Because the completed project reduces the pre-project peak rate discharges, the project will not cause any adverse flooding impacts off the property downstream. A similar analysis of the peak rate discharges under pre-project conditions that exist today (rather than in 1986) was compared to peak rate discharges for the post-project conditions. This analysis also showed post-project peak rate discharges to be less than the peak rate discharges from the site using today’s conditions as pre-project conditions. As further support to demonstrate that the project would not cause additional flooding downstream, a second modeling analysis was conducted, which is referred to as the Ravenswood Overall Watershed Model (OWM). The Applicants' engineer identified water flowing into the system from the entire watershed basin, including the project site under both the pre- and post-project conditions. The water regime was evaluated to determine what effect the proposed project will have on the overall peak rate discharges, the overall staging, and the duration of the staging within the basin that ultimately receives the water from the overall watershed. This receiving basin area was defined as the "wetland node" (Node 98 pre- project, and Node 99 post-project). As previously stated, the area within this "wetland node" includes more than just the portion of Wetland 1 that is located on the Ravenswood site. It also includes the areas to the south and east of the on-site Wetland 1 (including properties owned by the Petitioners) and extends down to an east-west ditch located just north of Josiah Street. The project’s surface water management system will not discharge to a landlocked basin. The project is not located in a floodway or floodplain. The project is not located downstream of a point on a watercourse where the drainage is five square miles or more. The project is impounding water only for temporary storage purposes. Based on testimony from their experts, Petitioners contend that reasonable assurances have not been given as to water quantity criteria due to various alleged problems regarding the modeling performed by the Ginns' engineer. Tailwater Elevations First, they raise what they call "the tailwater problem." According to Petitioners, the Ginns' modeling was flawed because it did not use a 19.27-foot SHW elevation in Wetland 1 as the tailwater elevation. The 19.27-foot SHW was identified by the Ginns' biologist in the Wetland 1 near the location of the proposed utility line crossing the wetland and was used as the pre-development tailwater in the analysis of the project site. The post-development tailwater condition was different because constructing the project would change the discharge point, and "tailwater" refers to the water elevation at the final discharge of the stormwater management system. (SW- A.H., Section 9.7) The post-development tailwater was 21 feet, which reflects the elevation of the top of the spreader swale that will be constructed, and it rose to 21.3 feet at peak flow over that berm. For the OWM, the final discharge point of the system being modeled was the east-west ditch located just north of Josiah Street, where the tailwater elevation was approximately 18.1 feet, not the 19.27 feet SHW mark to the north in Wetland 1. The tailwater condition used in the modeling was correct. Petitioners also mention in their PRO that "the Applicants' analysis shows that, at certain times after the 25 year, 24 hour storm event, in the post development state, Wetland 1 will have higher staging than in the predevelopment state." But those stages are after peak flows have occurred and are below flood stages. This is not an expected result of post- development peak-flow attenuation. Watershed Criticism The second major criticism Petitioners level at the Applicants' modeling is that parts of the applicable watershed basins were omitted. These include basins to the west of the project site, as well as basins to the north of the site, which Petitioners lumped into the so-called "tailwater problem." Petitioners sought to show that the basins identified by the Ginns as draining onto the project site from the west were undersized, thus underestimating the amount of offsite water flowing onto the project site. With respect to Basin C, Petitioners' witness testified that the basin should be 60 acres instead of 30 acres in size, and that consequently more water would flow into pond DA-2 and thus reduce the residence time of the permanent pool volume. In fact, Basin C is 16 acres in size, not 30 acres. The water from Basin C moves onto the project site over the western project boundary. A portion of the water from Basin C will be directed to pond DA-2 through an inlet structure, and the rest will move over an irregular weir and around the project site. With respect to Basin D, Petitioners' witness testified that the basin should encompass an additional 20 acres to the west and north. West of Basin D, there are ditches routing water flow away from the watershed, so it is unclear how water from an additional 20 acres would enter the watershed. The western boundary of the OWM is consistent with the western boundaries delineated in two studies performed for St. Johns County. Petitioners' witness testified that all of the water from the western offsite basins currently travels across the project site's western boundary, and that in post-development all of that water will enter pond DA-2 through the inlet structure. In fact, currently only the water from Basin C flows across the project site's western boundary. Post-development, only a portion of water from Basin C will enter pond DA-2. Currently and post-development, the water in Basin D travels north to a ditch south of Ravenswood Drive and discharges into Wetland 1. Petitioners also sought to show that a 50-acre area north of the project site should have been included in the OWM. Petitioners' witness testified that there is a "strong possibility" that the northern area drains into the project site by means of overtopping Ravenswood Drive. The witness' estimate of 50 acres was based on review of topographical maps; the witness has not seen water flowing over Ravenswood Drive. The Ginns' engineer testified that the area north of Ravenswood Drive does not enter the project site, based on his review of two reports prepared by different engineering firms for St. Johns County, conversations with one of those engineering firms, conversations with the St. Johns County engineer, reviews of aerials and contour maps, and site observations. Based on site observations, the area north of the project site drains north and then east. One report prepared for St. Johns County did not include the northern area in the watershed, and the other report included an area to the north consisting of 12 acres. The Ginns' engineer added the 12-acre area to the OWM and assumed the existence of an unobstructed culvert through which this additional water could enter Wetland 1, but the model results showed no effect of the project on stages or duration in the wetland. Even if a 50-acre area were included in the OWM, the result would be an increase in both pre-development and post- development peak rates of discharge. So long as the post- development peak rate of discharge is lower than the pre- development peak rate of discharge, then the conveyance system downstream will experience a rate of water flow that is the same or lower than before the project, and the project will not cause adverse flooding impacts offsite. Petitioners' witness did not have any documents to support his version of the delineations of Basins C and D and the area north of Ravenswood Drive. Time of Concentration Time of concentration (TC) is the time that it takes a drop of water to travel from the hydraulically most distant point in a watershed. Petitioners sought to show that the TC used for Basin C was incorrect. Part of Petitioners' rationale is related to their criticism of the watersheds used in the Ginns' modeling. Petitioners' witness testified that the TC was too low because the distance traveled in Basin C should be longer because Basin C should be larger. The appropriateness of the Basin C delineation already has been addressed. See Finding 71, supra. Petitioners' witness also testified that the TC used for the post-development analysis was too high because water will travel faster after development. However, the project will not develop Basins C and D, and thus using the same TC in pre- development and post-development is appropriate. The project will develop Basins A and B (called Basins 1, 2, and 3 post- development), and the post-development TC for those basins were, in fact, lower than those used in the pre-development analysis. Groundwater Infiltration in DA-2 One witness for Petitioners opined that groundwater would move up through the bottom of DA-2 as a result of upwelling (also referred to as infiltration or seepage), such that 1,941 gallons per day (gpd) would enter DA-2. That witness agreed that if a liner were installed in a portion of DA-2, the liner would reduce upwelling in a portion of the pond. Another witness for Petitioners opined that 200 gpd of groundwater would enter the eastern part and 20,000 gpd would enter the western part of DA-2. Although that witness stated that upwelling of 200 gpd is not a significant input and that upwelling of 20,000 gpd is a significant input, he had not performed calculations to determine the significance. Even if more than 20,000 gpd of groundwater entered DA-2, DA-2 will provide sufficient permanent pool residence time without any change to the currently designed permanent pool size or the orifice size. Although part of one system, even if DA-2 is considered separate from DA-1, DA-2 is designed to provide an additional permanent pool volume of 6.57 acre-feet (in addition to the 20.5 acre/feet provided by DA-1). This 6.57 acre-feet provided by DA-2, is more than the 4.889 acre-feet of permanent pool volume that would be necessary to achieve a 21-day residence time for the 24+ acres that discharge directly into DA-2, as well as background seepage into DA-2 at a rate of 0.0403 cfs, which is more upwelling than estimated by Petitioners' two witnesses. There is adequate permanent pool volume in DA-2 to accommodate the entire flow from Basin C and for water entering through the pond bottom and pond sides and provide at least 21 days of residence time. Water Quality Criteria Presumptive Water Quality The stormwater system proposed by the Ginns is designed in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rules 40C-42.024, 40C-42.025, and 40C-42.026(4). Wet detention ponds must be designed for a permanent pool residence time of 14 days with a littoral zone, or for a residence time of 21 days without a littoral zone, which is the case for this project. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C-42.026(4)(c) and (d). DA-1 and DA-2 contain sufficient permanent pool volume to provide a residence time of 31.5 days, which is the amount of time required for projects that discharge to Class II Outstanding Florida Waters, even though the receiving waterbody for this project is classified as Class III Waters. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C-42.026(4)(k)1. Best management practices will be used during project construction to address erosion and sediment control. Such measures will include silt fences around the construction site, hay bales in ditches and inlets, and maintenance of construction equipment to prevent release of pollutants, and may include staked sod on banks and turbidity barriers if needed. In addition, the District proposed permit conditions that require erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented. (Dist. Ex. 1, pp. 8-9, #4; Dist. Ex. 2, p. 1, ##3, 4, and 5, and p. 6, #10). ERP/MSSW/Stormwater Special Conditions incorporated into the proposed permit require that all wetland areas or water bodies outside the specific limits of construction must be protected from erosion, siltation, scouring or excess turbidity, and dewatering. (Dist. Ex. 2). The District also proposed a permit condition that requires District approval of a dewatering plan for construction, including DA-1 and DA-2, within 30 days of permit issuance and prior to construction. The Ginns intend to retain the dewatering from construction on the project site. As previously described, Petitioners' engineering witness sought to show that DA-2 will not provide the required permanent pool residence time because Basin C should be 60 acres in size. Petitioners' environmental witness also expressed concern about the capacity of the ponds to provide the water quality treatment required to meet the presumptive water quality criteria in the rules, but those concerns were based on information he obtained from Petitioners' engineering witness. Those issues already have been addressed. See Findings 77-78, supra. Groundwater Contamination Besides those issues, Petitioners raised the issue that groundwater contamination from a former landfill nearby and from some onsite sludge and trash disposal could be drawn into the proposed stormwater management system and cause water quality violations in the receiving waters. If groundwater is contaminated, the surface water management system could allow groundwater to become surface water in proposed DA-1. St. Johns County operated a landfill from the mid-1950s to 1977 in an area northwest of the project site. The landfill accepted household and industrial waste, which was buried in groundwater, which in turn could greatly enhance the creation of leachate and impacted water. Groundwater flows from west to east in the vicinity of the landfill and the project site but there was conflicting evidence as to a minor portion of the property. The Ginns' witness testified that if the landfill extended far enough south, a small part of the project site could be downgradient from the landfill. But there was no evidence that the landfill extended that far south. Petitioners' witness testified that the groundwater flow varies on the south side of the landfill so that groundwater might flow southeast toward the site. Even if Petitioners' witness is correct, the surface water management system was designed, as Petitioners' other witness agreed, so that DA-1 would have minimal influence on groundwater near the pond. In 1989, sewage sludge and garbage were placed in a pit in the central part of the project site, north of the existing pond, which also is the area for proposed DA-1; and at various times refuse--including a couple of batteries, a few sealed buckets, and concrete--has been placed on the surface of the site. In 1989, to determine the amount of sewage and garbage on the project site, the St. Johns County Health Department chose several locations evidencing recent excavation south of Ravenswood Drive, had the areas re-excavated, and found one bag of garbage and debris such as tree stumps and palmettos. In 2001, an empty 55-gallon drum was on the site; there was no evidence what it once contained or what it contained when deposited onsite, if anything. In addition, trespassers dumped solid waste on the property from time to time. Petitioners' witness searched the site with a magnetometer and found nothing significant. On the same day, another of Petitioners’ witnesses sampled with an auger but the auger did not bore for core or any other type sample; it merely measured groundwater level. In 1985, 1999, and 2000, groundwater offsite of the project near the landfill was sampled at various times and places by various consultants to determine whether groundwater was being contaminated by the landfill. The groundwater sampling did not detect any violations of water quality standards. Consultants for the Ginns twice sampled groundwater beneath the project site and also modeled contaminant migration. The first time, in 2001, they used three wells to sample the site in the northwest for potential impacts to the property from the landfill. The second time, they sampled the site through cluster wells in the northwest, middle, and south. (Each cluster well samples in a shallow and in a deeper location.) The well locations were closest to the offsite landfill and within an area where refuse may have been buried in the north- central part of the site. Due to natural processes since 1989, no sewage sludge deposited onsite then would be expected to remain on the surface or be found in the groundwater. The evidence was that the sewage sludge and garbage were excavated. Although samples taken near the center of the property contained substances that are water quality parameters, they were not found in sufficient concentration to be water quality violations. There is an iron stain in the sand north of the existing pond in the area where pond DA-1 is to be located. Based on dissolved oxygen levels in the groundwater, Petitioners' witness suggested that the stain is due to buried sewage, but the oxygen levels are not in violation of water quality standards and, while toward the low end of not being a violation, the levels could be due to natural causes. No evidence was presented establishing that the presence of the iron stain will lead to a violation of water quality standards. Petitioners' witness, Mr. Boyes, testified that iron was a health concern. But iron itself is a secondary drinking water standard, which is not a health-based standard but pertains to odor and appearance of drinking water. See § 403.852(12) and (13), Fla. Stat. Petitioners argued that the Phase I study was defective because historical activity on the project site was not adequately addressed. But the Phase I study was only part of the evidence considered during this de novo hearing. Following up on the Phase I study, the 2001 sampling analyzed for 68 volatile organics and 72 semi-volatile organics, which would have picked up solvents, some pesticides, petroleum hydrocarbons, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons--the full range of semi-volatile and volatile organics. The sampling in August 2003 occurred because some of the semi-volatile parameters sampled earlier needed to be more precisely measured, and it was a much broader analysis that included 63 semi-volatiles, 73 volatile organic compounds, 23 polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, 25 organic phosphate pesticides, 13 chlorinated herbicides, 13 metals, and ammonia and phosphorus. The parameters for which sampling and analyses were done included parameters that were representative of contaminants in landfills that would have now spread to the project site. They also would have detected any contamination due to historical activity on the project site. Yet groundwater testing demonstrated that existing groundwater at the project site meets state water quality standards. Based on the lack of contaminants found in these samples taken from groundwater at the project site 50 years after the landfill began operation, the logical conclusion is that either groundwater does not flow from the landfill toward the project site or that the groundwater moving away from the landfill is not contaminated. Groundwater that may enter the stormwater ponds will not contain contaminants that will exceed surface water quality standards or groundwater quality standards. Taken together, the evidence was adequate to give reasonable assurances that groundwater entering the stormwater ponds will not contain contaminants that exceed surface water quality standards or groundwater quality standards and that water quality violations would not occur from contaminated water groundwater drawn into the proposed stormwater management system, whether from the old landfill or from onsite waste disposal. The greater weight of the evidence was that there are no violations of water quality standards in groundwater beneath the project site and that nothing has happened on the site that would cause violations to occur in the future. Contrary to Petitioners' suggestion, a permit condition requiring continued monitoring for onsite contamination is not warranted. J. Fish and Wildlife Except for the bald eagle nest, all issues regarding fish and wildlife, listed species, and their habitat as they relate to ERP-A.H. 12.2.2 through 12.2.2.4 already have been addressed. When the Ginns were made aware in November 2003 that there was an eagle nest in Wetland 1, they retained the services of Tony Steffer, an eagle expert with over 25 years of experience working specifically with eagles and eagle management issues, including extensive hands-on experience with eagles and the conduct of field studies, aerial surveys, and behavioral observations as well as numerous research projects on the bald eagle. Mr. Steffer visited the Ravenswood site on numerous occasions since the discovery of the nest, made observations, and was integral in the drafting of the Ravenswood BEMP. It is Mr. Steffer’s opinion that the proposed project, with the implementation of the BEMP, will not adversely affect the eagles. This opinion was based on Mr. Steffer's extensive knowledge and experience with eagle behavior and human interactions. In addition, Mr. Steffer considered the physical characteristics of the Ravenswood site and the nest tree, the dense vegetation in Wetland 1 surrounding the nest site, and the existing surrounding land uses, including the existing residential community that lies a distance of about 310 feet from the nest site, the existing roadways and associated traffic, and the school (with attendant playground noise) that is to north of the site. In Mr. Steffer's opinion, the eagles are deriving their security from the buffering effects provided by the surrounding wetland. He observed that the nesting and incubating eagles were not disturbed when he set up his scope at about 300-320 feet from the tree. The BEMP requires that Wetland 1, and the upland islands located within it, be preserved and limits the work associated with the water/sewer line to the non-nesting season. With the BEMP implemented, Mr. Steffer expressed confidence that the Ravenswood eagles would be able to tolerate the proposed activities allowed under the BEMP. The Ravenswood project plans and the BEMP were reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The USFWS analyzed information in their files relating to projects which proposed activities within the primary zone of an eagle nest and reported abandoned nests. None of the reported abandoned nests could be attributed to human activities in and around the nest tree. Based on the project plans, the terms of the BEMP, and this analysis, the USFWS concluded that the Ravenswood project "is not likely to adversely affect" the bald eagles at the Ravenswood site. According to the coordination procedures agreed to and employed by the USFWS and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), the USFWS takes the lead in reviewing bald eagle issues associated with development projects. In accordance with these procedures, for the Ravenswood project, the USFWS coordinated their review and their draft comments with the FFWCC. The FFWCC concurred with the USFWS’s position that the project, with the implementation of the BEMP, will not adversely affect the Ravenswood eagles or their nest. This position by both agencies is consistent with the expert testimony of Mr. Don Palmer, which was based on his 29 years of experience with the USFWS in bald eagle and human interactions. Petitioners and their witnesses raised several valid concerns regarding the continued viability of the Ravenswood eagle nest during and after implementation of the proposed project. One concern expressed was that parts of the Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region (Eagle Management Guidelines) seem inconsistent with the proposed project. For example, the Eagle Management Guidelines state: "The emphasis [of the guidelines] is to avoid or minimize detrimental human-related impacts on bald eagles, particularly during the nesting season." They also state that the primary zone, which in this case is the area within a 750 foot radius of the nest tree, is "the most critical area and must be maintained to promote acceptable conditions for eagles." They recommend no residential development within the primary zone "at any time." (Emphasis in original.) They also recommend no major activities such as land clearing and construction in the secondary zone during the nesting season because "[e]ven intermittent use or activities [of that kind] of short duration during nesting are likely to constitute disturbance." But the eagle experts explained that the Eagle Management Guidelines have not been updated since 1987, and it has been learned since then that eagles can tolerate more disturbance than was thought at that time. Another concern was that the Ravenswood eagles may have chosen the nest site in Wetland 1 not only for its insulation from existing development to the north and east but also for the relatively sparse development to the west. Along those lines, it was not clear from the evidence that the eagles are used to flying over developed land to forage on the San Sebastian River and its estuaries to the east, as the eagle experts seemed to believe. Mr. Mills testified that eagles have been seen foraging around stocked fish ponds to the west, which also could be the source of catfish bones found beneath the Ravenswood nest. But it is believed that the confident testimony of the eagle experts must be accepted and credited notwithstanding Petitioners' unspecific concerns along these lines. Finally, Petitioners expressed concern about the effectiveness of the monitoring during the nesting required under the BEMP. Some of Petitioners' witnesses related less-than-perfect experiences with eagle monitoring, including malfeasance (monitors sleeping instead of monitoring), unresponsive developers (ignoring monitors' requests to stop work because of signs of eagle disturbance, or delaying work stoppage), and indications that some eagle monitors may lack independence from the hiring developer (giving rise, in a worst case, to the question whether an illegal conspiracy exists between them to ignore signs of disturbance when no independent observer is around). Notwithstanding these concerns, Petitioners' witnesses conceded that eagle monitoring can be and is sometimes effective. If Mr. Steffer is retained as the eagle monitor for this project, or to recruit and train eagle monitors to work under his supervision, there is no reason to think that eagle monitoring in this case will not be conducted in good faith and effectively. Even if the Ginns do not retain Mr. Steffer for those purposes, the evidence did not suggest a valid reason to assume that the Ginns' proposed eagle monitoring will not be conducted in good faith and effectively. K. Other 40C-4.301 Criteria – 40C-4.301(1)(g)-(k) 40C-4.301.301(1)(g) - No minimum surface or groundwater levels or surface water flows have been established pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rules Chapter 40C-8 in the area of the project. 40C-4.301.301(1)(h) - There are no works of the District in the area of the project. 40C-4.301.301(1)(i) - The proposed wet detention system is typical and is based on accepted engineering practices. Wet detention systems are one of the most easily maintained stormwater management systems and require very little maintenance, just periodically checking the outfall structure for clogging. 40C-4.301.301(1)(j) - The Ginns own the property where the project is located free from mortgages and liens. As previously indicated, they will establish an operation and maintenance entity. The cost of mitigation is less than $25,000 so that financial responsibility for mitigation was not required to be established. (Costs associated with the proposed BEMP are not included as part of the Ginns' mitigation proposal.) 40C-4.301.301(1)(k) - The project is not located in a basin subject to special criteria. Public Interest Test in 40C-4.302 The seven-factor public interest test is a balancing test. The test applies to the parts of the project that are in, on, or over wetlands, and those parts must not be contrary to the public interest unless they are located in, on, or over an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) or significantly degrade an OFW, in which case the project must be clearly in the public interest. No part of the project is located within an OFW. Balancing the public interest test factors, the project will not be contrary to the public interest. 40C-4.302(1)(a)1. - The project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others because the surface water management system is designed in accordance with District criteria, the post-development peak rate of discharge is less than the pre-development peak rate of discharge, and the project will not cause flooding to offsite properties. 40C-4.302(1)(a)2. - Mitigation will offset any adverse impacts of the project to the conservation of fish and wildlife or their habitats, and the BEMP is designed to prevent adverse effects on the Ravenswood eagles. Although active gopher tortoise burrows were observed on the site, the impacts to these burrows are addressed by the FFWCC’s incidental take permit. The mitigation that is required as part of that permit will adequately offset the impacts to this species. 40C-4.302(1)(a)3. - The project will not adversely affect navigation or cause harmful shoaling. The project will not adversely affect the flow of water or cause harmful erosion. The project's design includes erosion and sediment control measures. The project's design minimizes flow velocities by including flat slopes for pipes. The stormwater will be discharged through an upsized pipe, which will reduce the velocity of the water. The stormwater will discharge into a spreader swale (also called a velocity attenuation pond), which will further reduce the velocity and will prevent erosion in Wetland 1. The other findings of fact relevant to this criterion are in the section entitled "Water Quantity." See Findings 61-67, supra. 40C-4.302(1)(a)4. – Development of the project will not adversely affect the legal recreational use of the project site. (Illegal use by trespassers should not be considered under this criterion.) There also will not be any adverse impact on recreational use in the vicinity of the project site. Wetlands 1 and 5 may provide benefit to marine productivity by supplying detritus to the marine habitat, and these wetlands will remain. 40C-4.302(1)(a)5. - The project will be of a permanent nature except for the temporary impacts to Wetland 1. Mitigation will offset the temporary adverse impacts. 40C-4.302(1)(a)6. - The District found no archeological or historical resources on the site, and the District received information from the Division of Historical Resources indicating there would be no adverse impacts from this project to significant historical or archeological resources. 40C-4.302(1)(a)7. - Considering the mitigation proposal, and the proposed BEMP, there will be no adverse effects on the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed project. The proposed project is no worse than neutral measured against any one of these criteria, individually. For that reason, it must be determined that, on balance, consideration these factors indicates that the project is not contrary to the public interest. Other 40C-4.302 Criteria The proposed mitigation is located within the same drainage basin as the project and offsets the adverse impacts so the project would not cause an unacceptable cumulative impact. The project is not located in or near Class II waters. The project does not contain seawalls and is not located in an estuary or lagoon. The District reviewed a dredge and fill violation that occurred on the project site and was handled by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in 1989. The Ginns owned the property with others in 1989. Although they did not conduct the activity that caused the violation, they took responsibility for resolving the matter in a timely manner through entry of a Consent Order. The evidence was that they complied with the terms of the Consent Order. Applicants' Exhibit 30K was a letter from DER dated February 13, 1991, verifying compliance based on a site inspection. Inexplicably, the file reference number did not match the number on the Consent Order. But Mr. Ginn testified that he has heard nothing since concerning the matter either from DER, or its successor agency (the Department of Environmental Protection), or from the District. The evidence was that the Ginns have not violated any rules described in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40C- 4.302(2). There also was no evidence of any other DER or DEP violations after 1989.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order issuing to Jay and Linda Ginn ERP number 40-109-81153-1, subject to the conditions set forth in District Exhibits 1, 2, and 10. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 2004.
The Issue This is a challenge to certain administrative rules adopted by the St. Johns River Water Management District relating to permitting criteria for isolated wetlands. Section 373.414, F.S. mandates that permitting criteria for isolated wetlands be adopted by water management districts, by rule, by March 31, 1987. The statute also includes four more specific requirements for those rules. Petitioners contend that St. Johns River Water Management District Rule Chapter 40C-4, F.A.C. and the Applicant's Handbook, Management and Storage of Surface Waters, adopted as a rule by reference, fail to comply with the statutory mandate and are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority by the District. Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District, contends that its rules comply with Section 373.414, F.S.. St. Johns River Water Management District contests the standing of Petitioner, the Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. Intervenors, E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, Inc. and Associated Minerals (USA), Inc., support the District's position and contest the standing of both Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Sierra Club, Inc., (Sierra) is a non-profit corporation registered to do business within the state of Florida. It is an international organization, with regional committees, state chapters, and local regional groups. The Florida chapter has 15 regional groups, several of which are located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). About 6,000 members live within the boundaries of the SJRWMD. The overall purpose of Sierra is to explore, enjoy and protect the natural resources of the earth. Sierra commonly offers outings for the enjoyment and education of its members and the general public. These involve traveling, hiking, birdwatching and other wildlife observation. Part of the outings program includes hiking and viewing of isolated wetlands and wildlife dependent on those wetlands. These outings take place within the SJRWMD. Some Sierra members are actively involved in work related to isolated wetlands, including studies, consulting, and managing of wetlands, some of which are located within the SJRWMD. The Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. (FWF) is a non-profit corporation registered to do business in the state of Florida. It is comprised of organizations and individual members who support the wise use and management of Florida's natural resources. Sportsmen and naturalists who belong to the club are involved in hunting, fishing, hiking, birdwatching, nature photography and other activities loosely called "naturalizing". These activities take place within SJRWMD boundaries and rely on wildlife species which live in, or are dependent upon, isolated wetlands. FWF attracts membership by publicity of its existence and purpose directed to sportsmen and naturalists. Respondent, SJRWMD, is a political subdivision of the state of Florida, with the authority to regulate, through its permitting process, the management and storage of surface waters (MSSW) within its designated geographical boundaries, pursuant to Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S. Prior to adoption of the administrative rules in issue in this proceeding, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) delegated to Respondent the responsibility for administration of its stormwater rule. Intervenors conduct heavy metal mining operations within the District. These mining operations are regulated pursuant to Chapter 40C-4, F.A.C. and the Applicant's Handbook. Virtually all mining activities exceed existing permitting thresholds and all District wetland criteria apply to the activities. Since 1983, SJRWMD has been regulating wetlands and wetland MSSW impacts, including isolated wetlands, throughout its 19-county area. The rules adopted in 1983 included all wetlands, both isolated and non-isolated. In 1986, the legislature created Section 373.414, F.S., which provided as follows: 373.414 Wetlands.-- By March 31, 1987, for those water management districts to which the department has delegated the responsibility for administration of its stormwater rule, each district shall adopt a rule which establishes specific permitting criteria for certain small isolated wetlands which are not within the jurisdiction of the department for purposes of regulation of dredging and filling. The rule shall include: One or more size thresholds of isolated wetlands below which impacts on fish and wildlife and their habitats will not be considered. These thresholds shall be based on biological and hydrological evidence that shows the fish and wildlife values of such areas to be minimal; Criteria for review of fish and wildlife and their habitats for isolated wetlands larger than the minimum size; Criteria for the protection of threatened and endangered species in isolated wetlands regardless of size and land use; and Provisions for consideration of the cumulative and offsite impacts of a project or projects. This section does not affect the authority of the water management districts to regulate impacts on water quality and water quantity. Until a water management district has adopted a rule to implement the provisions of subsection (1), review of fish and wildlife impacts in small isolated wetlands shall be limited to: Wetlands that are 5 acres in size or larger; or Wetlands that are used by a federal or state designated threatened or endangered species; or Wetlands located within an area of critical state concern designated pursuant to chapter 380; or Wetlands that are less than 5 acres in size having a cumulative total acreage greater than 30 percent of the total acreage proposed for development, within a development project greater than 40 acres in size. Section 373.414(3), F.S. (1986) was repealed effective March 31, 1987, the deadline by which the districts were to have their own isolated wetlands rules in place. Sections 373.414(1) and (2), F.S. remain in effect. "Wetlands" is defined in SJRWMD's MSSW rule as: ...hydrologically sensitive areas which are identified by being inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater with a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. Rule 40C-4.021(11), F.A.C. This definition is repeated in Section 10.7.3 of the Applicant's Handbook. Section 10.7.3 also provides: Wetlands are important components of the water resource because they serve as spawning, nursery and feeding habitats for many species of fish and wildlife, and because they provide important flood storage and water quality benefits. Not all wetlands provide these benefits, nor do they provide them to the same extent. A wide array of physical and chemical factors affect the functioning of any wetland community. * * * Small isolated wetlands are totally unique biological systems. They are not small versions of large wetlands. They play two major roles in animal ecology: to harbor diverse species that use the habitat for their entire life cycle, and to provide a productive resource for transient species. If a wetland is truly isolated, its fish population is generally limited to the smaller-bodied, smaller-mouthed varieties which are limited in their predatory abilities. This permits the abundance of amphibians and invertebrates not found in larger, more permanent wetlands where the fish would rapidly decimate the population. Amphibians are a cornerstone of the vertebrate food chain. They are food for a variety of snakes, which in turn, are food for hawks. Wading birds find easy prey as the isolated wetlands begin drying up and contracting. The entire cycle of the pond, from fully wet to dry, is significant. Ambystoma tigrinum (tiger salamanders) are hatched and raised in isolated wetlands; they leave, and must return to breed in the same pond. They have a strong homing instinct. Ignorant of intervening events, they are often found spending their honeymoon dodging cars on an apartment complex pavement, seeking in vain the pond of their birth. The SJRWMD adopted Chapter 40C-4, F.A.C. and its Applicant's Handbook to regulate the construction, operation, alteration, removal or abandonment of surface water management systems, to insure that those activities will not harm the water resources of the District and insure that they are consistent with the objectives of the District. Activities which do not meet certain thresholds established in Rule 40C-4.041, F.A.C. do not require a District MSSW permit, including those activities impacting an isolated wetland. The threshold provisions pre-date Section 373.414, F.S. and still apply. The threshold provisions of Rule 40C-4.041(2)(b), F.A.C., challenged by Petitioners, state as follows: 40C-4.041 Permit Required. * * * (b) An individual or general permit is required prior to the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, abandonment or removal of a surface water management system which: Is capable of impounding a volume of water of forty or more acre feet; or Serves a project with a total land area equal to or exceeding forty acres; or Serves a project with a total land area equal to or exceeding ten acres, when any part of the project is located within the Wekiva River Hydrologic Basin north of State Road 436; or Provides for the placement of twelve or more acres of impervious surface which constitutes 40 or more percent of the total land area; or Provides for the placement of one half acre or more of impervious surface, when any of the impervious surface is located within the Wekiva river Hydrologic Basin north of State Road 436; or Contains a traversing work which traverses: A stream or other watercourse with a drainage area of five or more square miles upstream from the traversing work; or An impoundment with more than ten acres of surface area; or Contains a surface water management system which serves an area of five or more contiguous acres of a hydrologically sensitive area with a direct hydrologic connection to: A stream or other watercourse with a drainage area of five or more square miles; or An impoundment with no outfall, which is not wholly owned by the applicant and which is ten acres or greater in size; or A hydrologically sensitive area not wholly owned by the applicant. Is wholly or partially located within the Wekiva River Hydrologic Basin's Riparian Habitat Protection Zone as described in paragraph 40C-41.063(3)(e). The same threshold provisions are contained in Section 3.3.1, Applicant's Handbook, also challenged by Petitioners. In 1987, after passage of Section 373.414, F.S. the District amended its wetland regulations to provide that all wetlands would be evaluated, regardless of size, within the already-established permit thresholds: A wide variety of wetland habitats exist within the St. Johns River Water Management District. The functions which these habitats serve are dependent on many factors. Biological and hydrological evidence demonstrate that size is not the single determinant of wetland value. Since the District bases its evaluation on wetland functions, the District will review impacts to all wetlands (a zero acre threshold will be employed) in reviewing impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitats for systems requiring a permit from the District. * * * 10.7.5 Wetland Evaluation Applicant's Handbook As the result of an objection by the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC) stating that the District had failed to comply with Section 373.414(1)(a), F.S., the District amended the zero acre review threshold for isolated wetlands and adopted a 0.5 acre review threshold, based upon biological investigations indicating that wetlands below this size have minimal fish and wildlife value. In all applications for MSSW permits under Chapter 40C-4, the District reviews impacts to isolated wetlands unless those wetlands are less than 0.5 acre in size and are not used by threatened or endangered species. No permit application, however, is required for projects under the thresholds described in paragraph 13, above, even though those projects might include wetlands larger than 0.5 acres. Staff of the SJRWMD concedes that the non-regulated isolated wetlands might have significant value and agrees with Petitioner's experts that isolated wetlands found in projects below the Rule 40C-4.041(2)(b), F.A.C. thresholds (called "get-in-the-door" thresholds) could have more than minimal fish and wildlife value. Petitioners challenge the entire Chapter 40C-4, F.A.C. and Applicant's Handbook for non-compliance with Section 373.414(1)(d), F.S. The SJRWMD does not consider, and nothing in its rules require consideration of, cumulative impacts of a series of isolated wetlands included in below-threshold projects even though there could be a negative cumulative impact from the loss of those wetlands. Petitioners challenge section 10.7.4 Wetland Review Criteria, Applicants Handbook, to the extent that it may limit consideration of impacts to isolated wetlands to off-site aquatic and wetland dependent species, unless threatened or endangered species are involved. This section provides in pertinent part: 10.7.4 Wetland Review Criteria In determining whether a system will meet the objective contained in Paragraph 9.1.1(j) and that part of the criterion contained in Paragraph 10.2.1(e) regarding hydrologically related environmental functions, the District will, except when threatened or endangered species are involved, consider only the impacts to off-site aquatic and wetland dependent species relative to the functions currently being provided by the wetland to these types of fish and wildlife. This assessment of off-site impacts is based upon a review of pertinent scientific literature, soils and hydrologic information, and a general understanding of the ecological resources of the site. Generally, site specific biological data collection is not required. An applicant must provide reasonable assurance that a proposed system will not cause adverse off-site changes in: the habitat of an aquatic and wetland dependent species, the abundance and diversity of aquatic and wetland dependent species, and the food sources of aquatic and wetland dependent species. The only exception to limiting review of a system under this Subsection to off-site impacts is where wetlands are used or reasonable scientific judgement would indicate use by threatened or endangered species listed in Sections 39-27.003 and 39-27.004, F.A.C., which are aquatic or wetland dependent. In this instance, both off-site and on-site impacts will be assessed. Petitioners also challenge section 16.1.3(a), Applicant's Handbook, to the extent that it may limit mitigation requirements to off-site impacts. If a project as initially proposed is subject to Respondent's surface water permitting requirements, and as initially proposed fails to meet wetland review criteria, mitigation may be considered as a means of bringing the proposed project within permitting requirements. The challenged portion provides: 16.1.3 Mitigation (a) Mitigation is defined here as action or actions taken to offset the adverse effects of a system on off-site functions and in the care of threatened or endangered species, to offset the adverse effects of a system on on-site and off-site functions. Although there may be a difference in degree of functions performed by isolated wetlands on site, as compared to the degree of functions performed by isolated wetlands off-site, the difference in negligible. Adverse ecological effects on-site will also be felt off-site. In developing its criteria SJRWMD staff could not conceive of a situation where a functioning wetland or isolated wetland would be eliminated and not have an off-site impact. Finally, Petitioners challenge the last paragraph of Section 16.1.4, Applicant's Handbook, related to mitigation for mining projects that fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) pursuant to section 378.601, F.S. (heavy mineral extraction). Section 16.1.4, Wetland Creation, Applicant's Handbook, provides guidelines to be used to estimate the extent of wetland creation which may mitigate for the destruction of a unit of wetland. The challenged portion of the section provides: For lands and mining activities that fall under the jurisdiction of the Florida Department of Natural Resources pursuant to section 378.601, F.S. mitigation or compensation plans that are consistent with the land reclamation policies and criteria approved by that agency will be considered by the District as satisfactory mitigation. (emphasis added). The District is not required to allow mitigation if impacts are so substantial that they cannot be offset. If the District does not consider a DNR reclamation plan as sufficient, the District applies its wetland review criteria in section 10.7.4, Applicant's Handbook. For heavy mineral mining, DNR requires one-to-one mitigation for every wetland, regardless of type, that is disturbed by the zoning activity, and the restoration of wildlife habitat, including threatened or endangered species. Heavy mineral mining, in contrast to other mining such as phosphate, has far less impact on the environment. This is reflected in the success which has been experienced in restoring wetlands disturbed by heavy mineral mining.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulated facts of the parties, as filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 14, 1987, the following relevant facts are found: 1/ On October 31, 1985, the DER received from Agrico dredge and fill Application No. 531120329. On May 8, 1986, the DER sent to Agrico a Notice of Completeness indicating that Application No. 531120329 was complete as of April 24, 1986. On July 22, 1986, J. W. Landers, Jr. executed on behalf of Agrico a Waiver of 90 Day Time Limit, indicating that the waiver expired on August 1, 1986. On or about July 28, 1986, DER personnel discussed with Agrico representatives the possible withdrawal of Application No. 531120329 as one of the conditions for the issuance of a permit for Application No. 531093999. The DER failed to take action to approve or deny Application No. 531120329 on or before August 2, 1986. On August 12, 1986, the DER issued Permit No. 531093999. On August 23, 1986, Booker Creek Preservation, Inc. and Manasota-88, Inc. filed a Motion to Intervene Into Ongoing Environmental Licensing Proceeding and Petition For Formal Administrative Proceeding challenging the Department's issuance of Permit No. 531093999 and rendering that Permit to the status of intended agency action. This proceeding was assigned DOAH Case No. 86-3618. DOAH Case No. 86-3618 was scheduled for hearing on April 28-30, 1987. By letter date March 2, 1987, Agrico withdrew Permit Application No. 531093999. On May 8, 1987, the DER sent to Agrico a letter directing Agrico to publish public notice of the DER's intent to issue Permit No. 531120329 pursuant to Section 120.60(2), Florida Statutes. On May 26, 1987, the DER received from Agrico a letter indicating that the public notice was published as required. Manasota-88, Inc. timely requested an administrative hearing challenging the proposed issuance of Permit Number 531120329.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Permit Number 531120329 be issued to Agrico Chemical Company as of August 2, 1986, and that the petition filed by Manasota-88, Inc. challenging this permit be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 18th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 1988.
Findings Of Fact The City currently operates a wastewater treatment plant providing "secondary treatment," and the effluent from that plant is discharged into Whitaker Bayou, an arm of Sarasota Bay. The Federal NPDES Permit and State Temporary Operating Permit for the wastewater treatment plant require the City to cease this discharge by July, 1988 due to pollution problems in the Bay, but the specific means through which this must be accomplished is not specified in the NPDES or Temporary Operating Permit. Any emergency discharge into Whitaker Bayou after July, 1988 would be violative of both state and federal- permits. On August 14, 1984, the City applied to the Department for a permit (File No. 58-0912689) for the following activities in the waters of the state in connection with the development of a 2,462 acre site as a wastewater spray irrigation facility; (1) the construction of a 36" diameter pipeline approximately 16 miles long from the existing wastewater treatment plant to the proposed sprayfield site with a total of 13 wetland crossings; (2) the construction of a wastewater retention pond; (3) the construction of a center pivot spray irrigation and underdrain system based on 15 center pivot points; (4) the creation of mitigation wetland areas of 20 acres; 33 acres, 72 acres, 27 acres and 46 acres: (5) the construction of a weir across East Ditch with an invert elevation to the top of the weir crest set at 34.5 feet to retain water in the existing on-site marsh system; (6) the construction of three other weir structures to control the run-off from the mitigation wetlands to East Ditch with crest elevations of 38.0 feet in the Northernmost area and two at 34.0 feet in the Southeast corner of the site, and one at 26.0 feet in the Southwest corner of the site with a crest elevation of 26.0 feet to control the run off to Howard Creek; (7) rerouting East Ditch 500 feet to the East; (8) rerouting Howard Creek and East Ditch into Vanderipe Slough through a new ditch with a berm; (9) closing the connection from Vanderipe Slough to the Myakka River; (10) replacing the existing double 30" culverts with a triple 60" culvert for the drainage crossing of the Florida Power and Light right-of-way through Vanderipe Slough; (11) the construction of a system of two-lane, shell-bed service roads on the project site with culverted wetland crossings; (12) dredging approximately 3,363,775 cubic yards of material and; (13) filling with approximately 1,578,850 cubic yards of material. This application, as well as plans and specifications, was prepared by a professional engineer, registered in Florida, and was deemed complete on May 1, 1985. On November 1, 1984, the City applied to the Department for a permit (File No. DC58-095055) to construct improvements to the wastewater treatment plant, a wastewater transmission line and a wastewater spray irrigation facility. This application was certified by a professional engineer, registered in Florida, as were plans and specifications. These facilities will permit the City to spray-irrigate 13 million gallons a day of chlorinated effluent and to discharge the effluent from sprayfield underdrains to on-site wetlands for further treatment. Surface run-off from these wetlands will flow into Howard Creek and East Ditch. This application was deemed complete on May 28, 1985. On January 24, 1985, the City filed with the Department a Petition for an Exemption to Provide for the Experimental Use of Wetlands for Low Energy Water and Wastewater Recycling (File No. VE-58-206). The Petition requests alternative criteria for Class III dissolved oxygen and nutrient standards in the on-site wetlands, which would receive a wastewater discharge from the sprayfield underdrains. Bishop and Kehn filed petitions with the Department challenging the application for a permit for activities in the waters of the state (File No. 58-0912689) and the Petition for An Exemption to Provide for the Experimental Use of Wetlands for Low Energy Water and Wastewater Recycling (File No. VE-58-206). Sefton and Peters filed petitions with the Department challenging the application for a permit for activities in the waters of the state (File No. 58-0912689). Myakka filed petitions with the Department challenging the application for a permit to construct wastewater treatment plant improvements, the wastewater transmission line and the wastewater spray irrigation facility (File No. DC58-095055) and the application for a permit for activities in the waters of the state (File No. 58-0912689). Myakka also filed a petition to intervene in the challenges filed by Bishop and Kehn to the Petition for an Exemption to Provide for the Experimental Use of Wetlands for Low Energy Water and Wastewater Recycling (File No. VE-58-206). In its prehearing stipulation filed on May 23, 1986, the Department noticed its change of position and intent to deny the City's applications. By separate stipulation executed May 12, 1986, following a status conference, the City and Myakka acknowledged that the Department would change its position in these proceedings, and would do so in the context of its prehearing stipulation. A formal administrative hearing to consider these matters was conducted from May 27 to June 5, 1986, at which evidence from the parties as well as public testimony was received. The City of Sarasota has proposed to expand and improve its sewage treatment plant from its present approved capacity of 9.1 million gallons per day (MOD) to an average daily flow of 13 MGD, with a peak capacity of 25 MGD. The City estimated it will not reach an average daily flow of 13 MGD until after the year 2000, although currently peak flow does reach 13 MGD. A transmission line is proposed for construction from the expanded sewage treatment plant, using city easements, to a city-owned parcel located in the eastern portion of Sarasota County. The parcel was acquired in 1981. The transmission line will be constructed underground using thirty-six inch force main, will cover a distance of approximately sixteen miles. and is designed to carry an average daily flow of 13 MGD. Effluent will be pumped through the transmission line from the treatment plant to the city-owned parcel. The line will not intersect water or storm mains, will not cross any canals or waterways subject to maintenance dredging, and will not allow for the introduction of stormwater or other sources of wastewater. The city-owned parcel which will be at the end of the transmission line was formerly known as the Hi-Hat Ranch. It is an area consisting of 2,462 acres which is currently comprised of wetlands, wooded hammocks and uplands used for cattle grazing, and is located fourteen miles east of the City of Sarasota and two miles south of Highway 780. The parcel has been fertilized to some extent in the past, although the amount and frequency of application has not been established. The City proposes to construct a spray irrigation project on the site to dispose of effluent from its sewage treatment plant. Myakka River State Park is located to the east of the proposed spray site a residential area known as Myakka Valley Ranches Subdivision is located to the south: and Vpper and Lower Lake Myakka, the Myakka River, and Vanderipe Slough are located south-east of the proposed spray irrigation site. East Ditch runs through the east side of the parcel and Howard Creek parallels the western boundary. Surface and ground water presently flows from the proposed spray site to the south-southwest into Howard Creek, a class III water body, and to the south-southeast into East Ditch, a class III water body, which then converge and flow into Vpper Lake Myakka, a class I water body and a designated Outstanding Florida Water. From Upper Lake Myakka, water flows into Vanderipe Slough, a class III water body, and Lower Lake Myakka; a class I water body and Outstanding Florida Water, via the Myakka River. The geologic materials presently found at the Hi-Hat Ranch Site are sedimentary in origin and consist of sands, silts, sandy phosphatic clays and limestone. There are 343 acres of natural herbaceous wetlands on the site, but only 140 acres have been determined by the Department to be "jurisdictional." Herbaceous wetlands are more sensitive to changes in water and nutrient levels than hardwood wetlands. The natural wetlands serve as fish and wildlife habitat, recharge areas, and as assimilation areas for nutrients. The proposed project will preserve 96 acres of natural wetlands on the East Ditch and create a total of 196 acres of artificial or mitigation wetlands. In order to provide the necessary degree of wetland treatment for the applied effluent, 150 acres of these mitigation wetlands, along with the 96 acres of preserved natural wetlands, for a total of 246 acres of mitigation and natural wetlands, will be utilized for treatment as part of the spray irrigation project. Plant communities on-site will be substantially and adversely altered in creating the mitigation wetlands, and this will alter wildlife habitat presently associated with the natural wetlands on-site. It was not established that wildlife presently on-site will be able to survive the project's affects and remain on- site. The City proposes to construct a spray irrigation project on the Hi-Hat Ranch property to dispose of sewage effluent. The project will consist of a holding pond into which effluent will initially flow from the transmission line, a pump station to transmit the effluent from the holding pond to the sprayfield where it will be sprayed on fifteen spray sites, an underdrain system under the spray sites to carry water that has filtered through the soils to drainage ditches which will then carry the water to four of five artificial or mitigation wetland areas on the site. As indicated above, a total of 246 acres of mitigation and natural wetlands will be utilized to provide the necessary degree of wetlands treatment for the applied effluent. From the wetlands areas, the flow will be discharged into Howard Creek and East Ditch. After intersecting East Ditch, a diversion of Howard Creek is proposed so that it will flow directly into Vanderipe Slough, instead of its current course into the Myakka River State Park and Upper Lake Myakka. (a) The proposed holding pond will encompass 120 acres and consist of three cells. Its design is based on the City's review of 72 years of climatological data to determine the greatest number of consecutive days that rainfall will prevent spraying. Its purpose will be to store wastewater initially entering the site from the transmission line prior to being pumped to the spray fields, and to even out surges in this in- flow. Additionally, some nutrient removal will take place through volatilization and settling. Test soil borings of the holding pond site, excluding its eastern side, indicate that a natural clay layer, along with additional clay to be placed on site, will form a barrier layer under the holding pond and thereby result in a minimal average permeability rate of .03 inches per day. Insufficient borings were done in the northeastern part of the holding pond to make a determination of permeability. There will be one large cell to allow a longer detention time of 8 1/2 days at 13 MGD, and two smaller cells with a detention time of 4 1/3 days each at 13 MGD. In-flow of effluent from the transmission line will be alternated among the cells depending on the rate of flow and the water level in the cells. Each cell is designed to retain two feet of water at all times to discourage mosquitos and aquatic weeds, with a designed maximum depth when in use of eight feet. The maximum operating capacity of the holding pond is approximately 220 million gallons, which represents approximately 17 days of flow from the treatment plant at 13 MGD assuming no rainfall into the pond during this time. In the event that the holding pond is at maximum capacity and can accept no more effluent, the City proposes to either divert the effluent for discharge into Whitaker Bayou, or to spray directly onto the spray fields, by passing the holding pond. The holding pond is designed with walls that will have an additional three feet elevation over the designed maximum water depth of eight feet. but there is a potential for overflow if water depth exceeds eight feet. If the holding pond were to be filled to the top of the side walls, it would then, hold four hundred million gallons of effluent. No emergency discharge device has been provided in the design of the holding pond, although it is required by the Department's Land Application Design Manual. A potable water well will be placed onsite within 500 feet of the holding pond, although such placement is prohibited by the Land Application Design Manual. (a) Effluent will be pumped to the fifteen spray sites from the holding pond using a pumping station located next to the holding pond and a distribution system connected to fifteen center pivot irrigation systems. The pump station has a design capacity to pump 13 MGD of effluent in 16 hours. Effluent will alternately be sprayed on the fifteen sites by means of a rotating, center pivot spray. The system is designed to average 2.6 inches of spray per week on each spray site. The Department's Land Application Design Manual requires that no more than 2 inches be sprayed per week. A crop of Coastal Bermuda grass, supplemented with winter rye, will be grown on each spray site. An underdrain system will be installed under each spray site to receive sprayed effluent that has filtered through the soils, and to maintain the water table at three feet, which will be below the root system of the Bermuda and rye grasses and thereby provide proper soil conditions and aeration for root growth. The fifteen spray sites will encompass a total area of 1,296 acres. The City has not provided the Department with an operational plan for the sprayfield to address loading and resting periods, harvesting periods and the spray rotation schedule. It has not been established by competent substantial evidence that the City can operate the sprayfield to allow in the same operation harvesting of the grass crop, drying of the mitigated wetlands, prevention of soil saturation and sheet flow of effluent during rainfall events and maintenance of the hydrologic balance of the system. An underdrain system will be constructed using perforated polyester piping enveloped in a fabric and surrounded by course sand. The piping will be spaced between 75 and 150 feet apart. It is designed to receive 13 MGD while maintaining the three foot water table. The underdrains will empty into a series of ditches located throughout the project site which will then carry the effluent, along with rain water runoff to four of the five mitigation wetlands. The fifth mitigation wetland and natural wetlands remaining on-site will receive stormwater runoff only. Additionally, sheet flow will occur in an area composed of wetlands and upland vegetation along East Ditch. A five year storm was considered in the design of culverts in the ditches receiving underdrain discharge. (a) The City proposes to construct the mitigated wetland areas to replace natural wetlands that will be destroyed in the preparation and construction of the spray irrigation project. All of the mitigation wetlands will be marsh habitats, but a non-marsh, woody wetland will be destroyed in the area of the holding pond which will therefore not be mitigated. Some effluent treatment will take place in the mitigated wetlands which will also serve to control the flow of effluent and runoff leaving the project to the southwest, south and southeast. The mitigated wetlands have been designated for a 24 hour storm event that would be expected to occur once in 25 years. A system of ten foot wide wooden weirs with inch notches will be used to control the flow of water through the mitigated wetlands. Wooden boards will be placed in the notches to regulate the flow, but it has not been shown that the hydroperiods or detention times of the pre-construction natural wetlands will be duplicated in the mitigated wetlands. It appears that the detention time necessary for effluent treatment is inconsistent with the natural wetland hydroperiods. Currently the natural wetlands on site are dry for periods throughout the year: however, the mitigated wetlands are designed to have a constant two foot minimum depth and there are no plans to periodically and regularly draw-down the mitigated wetlands. Construction of the mitigated wetland areas will take several weeks, during which time vegetation presently on site will be removed by excavation, the land dried and contoured, berms constructed, and a mulching technique will then be used in an attempt to replace vegetative species found in the natural wetlands. However, testimony shows that a mulching technique is only successful if it is completed in two to three weeks, including establishment of a correct seasonal hydroperiod, and also only if a weed control program is carried out for two years. In this case it is unlikely that construction and mulching could be completed in three weeks, and the City has note proposed an effective weed control program. Berms to be constructed along the southern and western end of the project site around the mitigated wetlands will be ten feet in width at their top and approximateIy three feet above existing grade, or approximately eight feet above the bottom of the mitigated wetland: they will be constructed of clay and sand materials found on site. Reasonable assurance has not been given that the berms as designed will prevent uncontrolled runoff of water to neighboring land to the south and west of the project site. It has also not been shown with reasonable assurance that the mitigation wetlands will replicate plant zonation or community, or the type, function or form of all existing natural wetlands to be destroyed. Finally, reasonable assurance has not been given that the project will preserve a large hardwood swamp, primarily pop ash, on the eastern half of the site, or that an oak hammock in the northeast corner of the site will be saved from flooding as a result of the project. Flows leaving the mitigated wetlands will empty into Howard Creek and East Ditch. Culverts at the outfalls into Howard Creek and East Ditch were designed using a 25 year, 24 hour storm event. These water bodies are currently clear flowing with no algae. The rate of flow through Howard Creek and East Ditch varies currently from a slight trickle to flood conditions due to seasonal rainfall variations. The spray irrigation project will increase the flow into Howard Creek and East Ditch in low flow conditions. The City contends the project should reduce storm discharges and nutrient loading into these water bodies when it is operating under design conditions, but this has not been established by competent substantial evidence. The areas of Howard Creek, East Ditch and Vanderipe Slough which the City seeks to use in the project are privately owned or state property. The City currently has no legal interest in, or authority to use: the privately owned areas of Howard Creek in Myakka Valley Ranches Subdivision (MVRS) for transmission of its discharge from the spraysite to the Howard Creek diversion inside Myakka River State Park: the privately owned areas and drainage way of East Ditch in MVRS for effluent transmission from the spraysite to the Howard Creek diversion inside Myakka River State Park: any portion of Myakka River State Park as part of its wastewater disposal program: or the privately owned areas of Vanderipe Slough for which it seeks permits for the transmission and treatment of sewage effluent. The City proposes to remove a dike, constructed almost fifty years ago, which currently prevents Howard Creek from flowing directly into Vanderipe Slough, and divert the Creek from its present course which is into Upper Lake Myakka. This would restore the natural course of the Creek into the Slough, and eliminate any flow from the Creek into Upper Lake, by constructing a berm between the Creek and Upper Lake within the state park. However, this diversion would destroy a pop ash swamp, some of which is inside the state park, and no mitigation is proposed for this loss. The City has not established that the flow lost by this diversion will not adversely affect water quality of Upper Lake Myakka, or wetlands in the state park. Vanderipe Slough encompasses an area of approximately 500 acres, a portion of which is within the Myakka River State Park, and is therefore an Outstanding Florida Water. At various times of the year, depending upon seasonal rainfall, it is dry to a significant extent, or else is completely flooded such that it overflows Shep's Island and joins with the Myakka River as they flow into Lower Lake Myakka. It is a nutrient limited system with substantial vegetative matting in normal flows. Large areas of the Slough are herbaceous wetlands. The project will cause more water to flow into the Slough in low and medium flow conditions, and under high flow conditions there will be at least as much flow into the Slough as at the present. Water carrying the entire nutrient load of Howard Creek and East Ditch will enter the Slough through a channel that will be cut in its northern end, and will then flow southward at a relatively slow velocity, with a detention time in the Slough of approximately 2.8 days. Channelization or scouring in the Slough will not occur under design conditions due to this relatively slow flow velocity. Flow velocities will be greater through the artificial channel and rip-rap will be used to avoid scouring at this point of entry into the Slough. Approximately 280 acres of Vanderipe Slough will be regularly, and almost continuously, inundated after the project. Under high flow conditions from 400 to 500 acres will be inundated. Nitrogen levels will increase and be converted to usable forms, with a resulting increase in plant growth and decrease in dissolved oxygen content of the water. This is reasonably expected to cause and contribute to existing water quality violations in the Slough, and alter its use as a wildlife habitat to a more aquatic habitat due to increased water levels. Several obstructions or hindrances to the flow of water through the Slough currently exist. These include culverts thirty and forty-two inches wide, which the City proposes to replace with three sixty inch culverts, and berms two to three feet above the Slough floor which are six to ten feet in width. The City has not proposed removal or modification of all obstructions to flow through the Slough. Elevations in the area range from approximately twenty feet above sea level at the sewage treatment plant, with a twenty foot rise along the transmission line to an average elevation of approximately forty feet at the project site, to an elevation of approximately thirteen feet at the present dike which diverts Howard Creek directly into Upper Lake Myakka. Elevations along the eastern edge of Myakka Valley Ranches average twenty feet. Howard Creek falls sixty Eeet in elevation from a point ten miles upstream to the point at which it presently enters Upper Lake Myakka. There is no set back along the southern edge of the property to protect property owners from excessive groundwater flows from the project site which could occur in flood conditions. Sheet flow from the site to other property is likely to occur if watertables in the sprayfield are raised above three feet due to spraying, rainfall or increased groundwater levels. Several Petitioners and members of the public who testified expressed concern about increased flooding and stormwater runoff as a result of the project. The addition of the City's discharge from the sprayfield will impair and adversely affect drainage of property in Myakka Valley Ranches Subdivision through East Ditch, Howard Creek and Vanderipe Slough, and will reasonably be expected to cause flooding. Wetland areas on the eastern boundary of the site may also overflow and discharge into the state park. There is no competent substantial evidence that the City will control increased mosquito populations which will result from flooding and which may cause a health problem and adversely affect the use of these water bodies for recreational and conservation purposes. Security around the spray field site will be provided by three strands of barbed wire on the east, west and north sides of the parcel. On the south side next to Myakka Valley Ranches Subdivision, a six foot high hog wire fence with three strands of barbed wire above it will provided. Gates at all entrance points will allow for locking. The property will also be posted with "no trespassing" signs. This does represent adequate restriction of public access to the site. There was extensive testimony concerning the current water quality and nutrient levels existing on the project site and surrounding water bodies, and the affect of this spray irrigation project on existing wetlands and surrounding waters. In its initial application, the City predicted effluent leaving the treatment plant would contain 12.4 mg/1 nitrogen. In fact, the current average concentration of nitrogen in effluent leaving the plant is 20 mg/1. The stronger concentrations in the City's effluent will continue after completion of the project. Effluent leaving the plant will have achieved basic disinfection, with 90 per cent or more of the Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) having been removed prior to discharge into the holding pond. Basic disinfection produces effluent containing up to 200 colonies of fecal coliform per 100 ml. Chlorine contact in the transmission line will reduce bacteria and viruses in the effluent entering the holding pond, but fecal coliforms will still be present in the effluent on- site. Total nitrogen in the holding pond effluent will be volatized, assimilated and absorbed to a degree in the sprayfields. However, the City has incorrectly concluded that the total nitrogen in the underdrain discharge will be in trace amounts, since its analysis began with incorrect assumptions about nitrogen loading from the plant, and also assumed excessive nitrogen uptake from sprayfield grass crops. Nitrogen concentration from the underdrains will be as high as three mg/l. At this level, the underdrain discharge will cause or contribute to new violations of water quality standards for nutrients and dissolved oxygen in the natural and mitigated wetlands. In order to determine if a particular wetland can assimilate nutrient loading, a water budget for that wetland must be prepared. The City has failed to provide adequate wetland water budgets from which it could be determined if the wetlands will assimilate nutrients since none of the water budgets proposed or relied upon by the City accounted for the addition of stormwater or groundwater flow onto the site from offsite. The discharge from the wetlands will introduce nutrients into waters of the state in Howard Creek, East Ditch, Vanderipe Slough and Lower Lake Myakka causing further nutrient enrichment of waters presently high in nutrient concentrations and sensitive to further concentrations and loadings. Sewage effluent will be the only water pollution source affecting these water bodies, for which the City has not sought site specific alternative criteria. The addition of discharge from the spraysite will result in a lowering of dissolved oxygen levels in Howard Creek and East Ditch causing new, or contributing to continuing, violations. These impacts on water quality will be measurable. Howard Creek, East Ditch, and Vanderipe Slough have existing dissolved oxygen violations, and the diversion of Howard Creek and East Ditch into the Slough will cause or contribute to existing DO violations in the Slough. The QUAL/2E Model, as used by the City in this case to predict post-project levels of dissolved oxygen, is not reliable because it is only appropriate for use in determining dissolved oxygen levels in a flowing riverine system, which this is not, and also because there was an insufficient data base. Separating the holding pond from the existing groundwater is a natural clay layer which will be pierced at some points by the excavation of the holding pond. This will allow seepage from the holding pond into the groundwater and the City has not shown that this seepage will meet primary and secondary drinking water standards. Various endangered species are now found in Vanderipe Slough, and the project will adversely impact the habitat of these species which include woodstorks, bald eagles and Florida panthers. Residents of Myakka Valley Ranches, including the Petitioners and several members of the public who testified, currently use portions of Howard Creek, Upper LaXe Myakka and Vanderipe Slough for canoeing, fishing, birdwatching, camping, hunting, boating and picnicking, and the project will adversely impact on such use due to the introduction of effluent and nutrient loading into these areas, as well as the potential for flooding. Upper and Lower Lake Myakka and the Myakka River connecting these two lakes are all located in the Myakka River State Park, and are in state ownership. The City has not affirmatively demonstrated a net improvement to Upper Lake Myakka as a result of the Howard Creek diversion and the project. To the contrary, the City's use of the state park will adversely affect the conservation related uses of the state park, and recreational use of Upper Lake Myakka as it presently exists due to the elimination of boating access from Howard Creek. The City published notice of the Department's Intent to Issue the construction permit in the February 14, 1986 edition of the Sarasota Herald Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in Sarasota County. The notice of Intent to Issue the application for a wetlands exemption was published in the June 21, 1985 edition of the Sarasota Herald Tribune. The notice of Intent to Issue the dredge and fill permit application was published in the January 16, 1986 edition of the Sarasota Herald Tribune. The only hearing provided for was the opportunity for this formal administrative hearing, but public testimony was received in this hearing. Myakka timely filed petitions under Sections 120.57(1) and 403.412(5), Florida Statutes, concerning the dredge and fill, and construction permit applications. The individual Petitioners timely filed petitions under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, challenging the application for wetlands exemption since their petitions were filed on July 8, 1985, the first available business day after July 5, 1985, on which the Department's offices were closed; and which would otherwise have been the last day for filing such petitions. Myakka subsequently timely intervened in the individual Petitioners' proceeding under Sections 120.57(1) and 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. Myakka is a not-for-profit Florida corporation consisting of approximately 300 families who own property to the south of the project site. In addition, Myakka owns portions of Howard Creek which the City proposes to use to transmit effluent discharged from the project site, and also owns a conservation area immediately adjoining Myakka River State Park through which Howard Creek flows. This is used by residents and members, including the individual Petitioners, for recreational and conservation purposes. Myakka also has exclusive drainage rights for portions of East Ditch which the City proposes to use to transmit effluent from the spray site. The individual Petitioners are residents of Myakka Valley Ranches Subdivision whose homes and property abut the southern border of the project site, Howard Creek, East Ditch, Vanderipe Slough and the conservation area referred to above and who will therefore be substantially affected by the City's project due to its adverse affects on these water bodies and conservation area. Myakka has established that one of its main purposes and interests is to protect water quality, wildlife and other natural resources in Howard Creek, East Ditch, Vanderipe Slough, and Upper and Lower Lake Myakka. Sarasota County's local pollution control ordinance requires advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) which is: five milligrams per liter (mg/l) or less of Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD): five mg/1 or less of suspended solids: three mg/1 of total nitrogen as nitrogen: and one mg/1 of total phosphorous as phosphorous. The City's spray irrigation project is intended to achieve AWT prior to discharge into state waters but it has not been established by competent substantial evidence that it will meet this goal. Secondary treatment currently provided reduces the BOD and suspended solids concentrations in the effluent discharged into Whitaker Bayou to 20 mg/1. As applied for, the City's project places portions of several sprayfields and some of the mitigated wetlands within the 500 foot vegetated buffer zone which has been required for the spraysite by Sarasota County. (a) The findings of fact set forth above are made after considering the evidence introduced, as well as the qualifications, credibility and demeanor of all witnesses who testified. Specifically, the expert testimony of the following witnesses was deemed particularly persuasive and credible: George T. Baragona, expert in hydrology William M. Kutash, expert in biology with special expertise in wetland biology, mitigation of natural wetlands, wetland hydroperiods and water quality impacts in state waters Larry Schwartz, expert in wetland ecology and wetland modeling David Bickner, expert in wetland ecology; and Jan Mandrup-Poulsen, expert in water quality modeling and analysis. The testimony of Donald Deemer, who was recognized as an expert in sanitary engineering with special expertise is waste water treatment and land treatment of wastewater, was outweighed, rebutted and discredited through the testimony of Jan Mandrup-Poulsen and Paul Larsen, who was accepted as an expert in environmental engineering. The testimony of Andrew Huggins, who was recognized as an expert in water quality modeling with special expertise in water chemistry, hydrology and ecology necessary to discuss modeling, was outweighed, rebutted and discredited through the testimony of Larry Schwartz. Geroge Milton, who was accepted as an expert in civil and sanitary engineering with special expertise in wastewater treatment facility design and operation, as well as Douglas Taylor; Superintendent of the City's Treatment Plants, presented credible testimony concerning the City's sewage treatment plant, the proposed transmission line and design of the spray irrigation system. John E. Garlanger, who was accepted as an expert in civil engineering and geology with special expertise in experimental and applied soil mechanics, soil exploration and testing, and land application of water and wastewater, testified regarding his recommendations about the holding pond and underdrains, as well as site soil characteristics: however, the weight given his testimony was lessened since he testified he was not familiar with the City's applications at issue in this case and also did not know if the project was designed consistent with his recommendation. Donald Mauer, who was accepted as an expert in sanitary and civil engineering, testified about his design of the sprayfield, as well as his opinions regarding the treatment plant, transmission line and other off-site project activities: however, his rebuttal testimony lessened the weight given to his testimony generally. The testimony of the following expert witnesses was considered but given less weight due to the witnesses' lack of site specific data, personal knowledge or experience on the site and conflicting testimony of other witnesses; Lloyd Horvath, who was accepted as an expert in hydrology and civil engineering with expertise in water resource modeling; Andre Clewell, expert in botany with special expertise in restoration of wetland habitats and aerial photo interpretation of vegetation; Eduardo Aguilar, expert in geology and groundwater hydrology: and Forrest Dierberg, expert in environmental chemistry with special expertise in wetland biology and chemical processes. All additional testimony and evidence presented by the parties and through public testimony was considered and weighed in the preparation of these findings of fact.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order denying the City of Sarasota's Application for Wetlands Exemption (VE-58-206), Application for Construction Permit (DC-58-095055) and Application for Dredge and Fill Permit (File No. 58-092689). DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of July, 1986, 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 31 day of July, 1986. APPENDIX Rulings on Individual Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact. 1,2 Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Rejected since it is not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Rejected since it is not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. 8,9 Rejected as irrelevant and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Findings of Fact 18, 24, 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Rejected in Finding of Fact 14. 14-17 Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 18,19 Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. 20 Rejected since it is not based on competent substantial evidence. Rulings on Myakka's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1,2 Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 3, 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 10-13 Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. 14-15 Rejected since they are not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 18,19 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 20-22 Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 23,24 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 25 Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 26-28 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 29-31 Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. 32-33 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 34-36 Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 37,38 Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. 41,42 Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 43-45 Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. 46-48 Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 51-56 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Rejected in Finding of Fact 2r 3. Rejected since it is not based on competent substantial evidence. 62,63 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 64 Adopted in part and rejected in part in Finding of Fact 17. 65,66 Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as cumulative. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 74,75 Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 78-80 Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. 81 Adopted in Findings of Fact 11, 12. 82,83 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 84 Adopted in Finding of Fact-21. 85-87 Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 88-91 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 18, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 92-95 Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 96-97 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 17, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 98-99 Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 103-106 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 109,110 Rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. 111 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 17. 112-120 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 121-126 Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 127 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 128-130 Rejected as unnecessary. 131-168 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. 172-174 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 176-179 Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary, and cumulative. 180 Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. 181-184 Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary, and cumulative. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected in Finding of Fact 20. 187,188 Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. 192,193 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 194 Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. 195-198 Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. 199,200 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 201 Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 202,203 Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 204-206 Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. 207 Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 208-211 Adopted in Findings of Fact 21, 22, 27. 212,213 Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. 214 Rejected as irrelevant and cumulative. 215-218 Adopted in Findings of Fact 21. 22, 27. 219-223 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 27, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary, cumulative and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. 224,225 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 226,227 Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. 228 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 229,230 Rejected as cumulative. 231-233 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 234,235 Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. 236 Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 237-243 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 28-30, but otherwise rejected as cumulative and not based on competent substantial evidence. 244-246 Rejected as cumulative and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. 247,248 Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. 249-259 Adopted in Findings of Fact 2-5, 32. 260-262 Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 263 Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. 264 Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 265-267 Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. 268,269 Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Findings of Fact 25. 29, 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. 276,277 Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. 281-283 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 284 Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. 285 Adopted in Findings of Fact 29, 32. 286 Adopted in Findings of Fact 19. 32. 287,288 Rejected as unnecessary and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. 289-296 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rulings on City's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. 5 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 6-11 Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 12-14 Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 15 Rejected as irrelevant. 16 Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 17 Rejected as irrelevant. 18 Adopted in Findings of Fact 27, 33. 19-21 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 22-30 Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and otherwise contrary to Finding of Fact 27. 31 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 32,33 Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 3, 7. 34,35 Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 36-44 Rejected as unnecessary and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. 45-52 Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 53-55 Rejected as unnecessary. 56-58 Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 59 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 60-62 Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 63,64 Rejected as unnecessary. 65 Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 66-69 Rejected as irrelevant and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. 70-84 Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected as irrelevant and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 87-92 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Rejected as unclear. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 95-100 Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. 101 Rejected in Finding of Fact 14. 102-104 Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact-16. Adopted in part and rejected in part in Finding of Fact 27. 110,111 Rejected in Finding of Fact 27. 112 Rejected as irrelevant. 113-118 Rejected in Finding of Fact 27. 119,120 Adopted substantially in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 124,125 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence and otherwise irrelevant. 126-130 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 2. 16, but otherwise rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 131-135 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 17 but otherwise rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 136-140 Rejected in Finding of Fact 17. Rejected in Findings of Fact 11, 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 143-148 Rejected in Finding of Fact 27 and otherwise unnecessary. 149 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 150,151 Rejected in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in part and rejected in part in Finding of Fact 18. 155,156 Rejected in Finding of Fact 17. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected in Findings of Fact 13, 14. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 163-165 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 166-169 Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. 170-173 Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in part and rejected in part in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected in Finding of Fact 27. 178-188 Rejected in Finding of Fact 27, and otherwise irrelevant, unnecessary and not based on competent substantial evidence. 189,190 Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. 193-195 Rejected as unnecessary and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. 196 Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 197-199 Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. 200,201 Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and not based on competent substantial evidence. 202-206 Rejected in Finding of Fact 27, and otherwise irrelevant and unnecessary. 207,208 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 21. 209-217 Rejected in Findings of Fact 21, 22, 27, and otherwise irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 222-224 Rejected in Finding of Fact 27. and otherwise irrelevant and unnecessary. 225 Rejected as unnecessary and not based on competent substantial evidence. 226 evidence. Rejected as not based on competent substantial 227,228 Rejected as irrelevant. 229-232 Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 233 Rejected as irrelevant. 234,235 evidence. Rejected as not based on competent substantial 236 Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 237,238 Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 239 Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 240-243 Rejected as irrelevant. 244-246 Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. 247-250 Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 251 evidence. Rejected as not based on competent substantial 252,253 Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 254,255 Rejected as irrelevant and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. 256,257 Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. 258-260 Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 261 Rejected as irrelevant. 262 Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 263 Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 264 Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 11. 265-267 Rejected as irrelevant. 268 Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 269-272 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 273,274 Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. 275-278 Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and not based on competent substantial evidence. 279-284 Rejected in Finding of Fact 32. Rulings on the Department's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1 Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 2,3 Adopted in Findings of Fact 2. 3, 4. 4 Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 5-8 Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 9 Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. 10-12 Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 13 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 14,15 Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. 16-23 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected since this is a conclusion of law rather than a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as unclear. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. 27-30 Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Rejected as speculative and not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. 35,36 Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 37,38 Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 17, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11, 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 47,48 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 51,52 Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 53-55 Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 56-59 Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 63,64 Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. 65-73 Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Rejected in Finding of Fact 20. 76,77 Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. 78-82 Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21._ Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 87,88 Rejected as a conclusion of law rather than a proposed finding of fact. 89,90 Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 91-93 Rejected as unnecessary. 94 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 21. 95,96 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 22. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 21, 22. 99-103 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Rejected as unclear. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 107,108 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 109 Adopted in Finding of Fact 22.. 110,111 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 112-114 Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 115-117 Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 118 Rejected as cumulative. 119-121 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 122 Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 123-136 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. COPIES FURNISHED: Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Greg D. Sefton 5781 Old Ranch Road Sarasota, Florida 34241 Edward P. de la Parte, Jr. Attorney at Law 705 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Ralph A. Kehn Route 1, Box 74-170 Rockinghorse Lane Sarasota, Florida 34241 Wyatt S. Bishop Route 1, Box 74-203 Sarasota, Florida 34241 C. Anthony Cleveland, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Judith Kavanaugh, Esquire 2831 Ringling Boulevard Suite C209 Sarasota, Florida 33577 Dorisanna L. Peters 5793 Old Ranch Road Sarasota, Florida 34241
The Issue Whether Respondent Neal Colley should be issued a permit to fill certain wetlands located within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Department of Environmental Regulation.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Environmental Regulation is the agency with regulatory jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case, pursuant to Chapter 403, Part VIII, Florida Statutes, and related administrative rules. On or about October 19, 1989, Neal Colley (hereinafter "Colley") filed his Permit Application No. 571717171 with the Department of Environmental Regulation (hereinafter "DER") seeking a permit to fill wetlands located within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Department. Colley's application was related to a residential development identified as the Deer Point subdivision located in Gulf Breeze, Florida. As proposed in the application, the subdivision would contain 0.91 acres of fill in jurisdictional wetlands, 31 buildable lots and a 31 slip marina. The site of the development is adjacent to Pensacola Bay and Santa Rosa Sound, Class III waters. In February, 1990, Colley modified the application by deleting the proposed marina. Colley also proposed to fill on an additional 14 lots, bringing the total of jurisdictional wetlands fill to 2.8 acres. On July 6, 1990, subsequent to review of the application, the DER published notice of it's intent to deny Colley's application. The DER based the action on Colley's failure to provide reasonable assurances that the project would not result in significant wetlands habitat loss and water quality degradation. Colley filed a request for administrative hearing challenging the intent to deny the application. 1/ Thereafter, Colley and the DER discussed several amendments to the application directed at meeting the DER's objections to the original application. On or about August 20, 1990, Colley modified the proposed development by reducing the total number of lots to 31 and reducing the fill required. Colley further agreed to other conditions designed to otherwise mitigate the apparent adverse impacts of the project. In determining the acceptability of a mitigation proposal, the DER weighs the proposal and assigns "credit" for the mitigation proposal which provides a quantifiable method of evaluating a mitigation proposal. For example assignment of a 1 to 1 ratio indicates that there must be one acre of "mitigation" for every one acre of fill. In this case, the combined mitigation credit would allow the filling of 2.16 acres of fill. In his mitigation proposal, Colley reduced the amount of fill for which permission is sought to 2.14 acres in jurisdictional wetlands. This is the minimum which will provide Colley with an economically acceptable number of buildable lots. As onsite mitigation, Colley agreed to convey 29.2 acres of high quality wetlands adjacent to the existing public "Shoreline Park" to the City of Gulf Breeze for preservation as an additional public park. Of the 29 acres, 9 are jurisdictional wetlands which the DER assigned a mitigation ratio of 70 to The remaining 20 wetlands acres were assigned a mitigation ratio of 50 to 1. The application of the mitigation ratios to the 29 acres results in credit of .50 acres of fill. Colley also agreed to offsite mitigation in the form of preservation of 46 acres of high quality jurisdictional wetlands at Innerarity Island, to be conveyed by Colley to the University of West Florida. The DER assigned a mitigation ratio of 100 to 1, resulting in a credit of .46 acres of fill. Colley further agreed to onsite creation of 1.47 acres of marsh. The marsh creation plan provides for scraping down the land surface between two existing wetlands areas and planting the scraped surface with wetlands vegetation consistent with the vegetation found in the existing wetlands. Based upon the location of the wetlands creation and the availability of suitable vegetation for transplantation, there is a substantial likelihood that the created wetlands will function successfully. The DER assigned a mitigation ratio of 1.25 to 1, resulting in a credit of 1.2 acres of fill. The DER staff, both locally and in Tallahassee, reviewed the amended project and determined that the proposal, as amended, was acceptable under the DER's standards. The DER gave notice of it's intent to issue the permit for the amended project proposal. The greater weight of evidence establishes that the amended project will not violate water quality standards. In the short term construction phase, the permit requires sequencing of construction and use of hay bales and other turbidity screens to prevent discharge of runoff into the adjacent wetlands. In the longer term, post-construction phase, the project utilizes a system of retaining walls and buffer swales which are designed to prevent direct discharge of stormwater into the wetlands areas. The project permit requires utilization of best management practices and design standards which should operate to prevent violation of water quality standards. The greater weight of evidence establishes that the amended Colley project is not contrary to public interest. The preservation of a total of 75 acres of high quality wetlands by conveyances to the City of Gulf Breeze and the University of West Florida eliminates further development pressure in the parcels, and is clearly in the public interest. The evidence fails to establish that the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. There is no evidence that the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitat or that the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. The biological impacts of the amended project are minimal. There is no evidence that endangered or threatened species habitat in the area. There was anecdotal testimony related to adverse impacts on fishing allegedly resulting from other development. However, the evidence is insufficient to establish that this project will adversely affect fishing. There is sporadic water exchange between the surrounding bays and the interior wetlands, likely caused by periods of high rainfall which result in outflows of water from the wetlands into the bays. Water flowing from the bays to the wetlands may occur on occasion, however, water salinity samples taken immediately prior to the hearing showed, at most, minimal salinity in the wetlands. The types of vegetation and marine organisms within the wetlands are more common to fresh water areas than to salt water marsh. There is no evidence that the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The permanent nature of the project and the wetlands preservation conveyances provide a public benefit and are in accordance with the mitigation criteria. The existing wetlands to be preserved are acknowledged to be of high quality. Considering the site and existing vegetation adjacent to the location of the proposed 1.47 acres of created wetlands, the probability for success of the created wetlands area is substantial. It is highly likely that the created wetlands will provide the same conditions and functional values as the impacted wetlands. There is no evidence that the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources. The evidence establishes that the adverse impacts which led to the DER's original determination not to permit the project, are either eliminated by the modification of the project or are offset by the mitigation plan which is part of the modified project. As to the cumulative impacts of the project, the onsite preservation proposal results in providing permanent protection for a 29 acre wetlands parcel which could otherwise be permitted for development. Outside this project, including the 29 acre wetlands mitigation area, there are few undeveloped lots remaining in the Deer Point area which contain jurisdictional wetlands. Prior to development on these lots, permits would be required. The lots would be required, on a case-by-case basis, to meet dredge and fill standards, and could be required to mitigate adverse impacts if such exist. The evidence establishes that the Colley project adequately mitigates any cumulative impact directly or indirectly related to this project. At hearing, the Petitioner failed to testify or otherwise offer evidence that would support a finding that Petitioner is substantially affected by the DER's proposed issuance of the permit for Colley's Deer Point Subdivision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order dismissing the petition of Linda L. Young and granting permit number 571717171 to Neal Colley. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 1991.
The Issue The issue is whether the District should approve Environmental Resource Permit No. 43024788.002 for the construction of a surface water management system to serve the proposed residential subdivision on Westfield’s property in southern Pasco County, and based upon the prior litigation between the parties in DOAH Case No. 04-0003 and the pre-hearing rulings in this case, the issue turns on whether Westfield has provided “reasonable assurances” in relation to the proposed development's potential impacts on Wetland A3 and fish and wildlife.
Findings Of Fact Parties Dr. Blanco is a veterinarian. He grew up on, and has some sort of ownership interest in the property (hereafter “the Blanco property”) immediately to the west of the property on which the proposed development at issue in this case will occur. Dr. Blanco is particularly concerned about the impacts of the proposed development on the ecological health of Wetland A3, a significant portion of which is on the Blanco property. He has spent considerable time over the years observing and enjoying that wetland. Westfield is the applicant for the ERP at issue in this case, and it owns the property (hereafter “the Westfield property”) on which the development authorized by the ERP will occur. The District is the administrative agency responsible for the conservation, protection, management, and control of the water resources within its geographic boundaries pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40D. Among other things, the District is responsible for reviewing and taking final agency action on ERP applications for projects within its boundaries. The District includes all or part of 16 counties in southwest Florida, including Pasco County. The Proposed Development (1) Generally The Westfield property consists of 266.36 acres.3 It is located in southern Pasco County on the north side of State Road 54, approximately three miles west of U.S. Highway 41 and less than one-half mile east of the intersection of State Road 54 and the Suncoast Parkway. The Westfield property is bordered on the south by State Road 54,4 on the north by an abandoned railroad right-of- way and undeveloped woodland property, on the east by pastureland and property that has been cleared for development, and on the west by the Blanco property. The development proposed for the Westfield property is a residential subdivision with 437 single-family lots and related infrastructure (hereafter “the Project” or “the proposed development”). The ERP at issue in this proceeding is for the surface water management system necessary to serve the Project. There are 19 isolated and contiguous wetlands on the Westfield property, including Wetland A3, which is partially on the Westfield property and partially on the Blanco property. Wetlands cover 72.69 acres (or 27.3 percent) of the Westfield property. The proposed development will result in 1.61 acres of the existing wetlands -- Wetlands B4 and C4, and a portion of Wetland B12 -- being permanently destroyed. The remaining 71.08 acres of existing wetlands will be preserved. Wetlands B4 and C4 are small (each less than 0.75 acres), shallow, wet depressions in a pasture that have been significantly impacted by livestock grazing and periodic mowing. Wetland B12 is a low-quality, small (0.58 acres), isolated, forested wetland that has been impacted by livestock grazing and the intrusion of exotic species. The proposed development will create 2.89 acres of new wetlands, which means that the Project will result in a net gain of 1.28 acres of wetlands. The created wetlands, referred to as Wetland B2 or the “mitigation area,” are in the northern portion of the property along the abandoned railroad right-of-way and to the east of Wetland A3. The proposed ERP includes a number of special conditions, Nos. 6 through 11, related to the mitigation area. Among other things, the conditions require monitoring of the mitigation area to ensure that it develops into the type of forested wetland proposed in the ERP application. (2) Prior ERP Application The ERP at issue in this case is the second ERP sought by Westfield for the Project. The first ERP, No. 43024788.000, was ultimately denied by the District through the Final Order in Blanco-I. Blanco-I, like this case, was initiated by Dr. Blanco in response to the District’s preliminary approval of Westfield’s ERP application. Administrative Law Judge David Maloney held a three- day final hearing in Blanco-I at which the parties, through counsel, fully litigated the issue of whether Westfield satisfied the regulatory criteria for the issuance of an ERP for the proposed development. On December 17, 2004, Judge Maloney issued a comprehensive, 64-page Recommended Order in which he recommended that Westfield’s ERP application be denied. Judge Maloney determined in his Recommended Order that Westfield failed to provide reasonable assurances as required by the applicable statutes and rules because “[1] it omitted an adequate wildlife survey from the submission of information to the District and [2] it failed to account for seepage from Pond P11 and its effect on Wetland A3 and the Cypress-forested Wetland.”5 In all other respects, Judge Maloney determined that the applicable permit requirements had been satisfied. Dr. Blanco did not file any exceptions to the Recommended Order in Blanco-I. Westfield’s exceptions to the Recommended Order in Blanco-I were rejected by the District, and the Recommended Order was adopted “in its entirety” in the District’s Final Order. The Final Order in Blanco-I was rendered on January 27, 2005, and was not appealed. (3) Current ERP Application On April 29, 2005, approximately three months after the Final Order in Blanco-I, Westfield submitted a new ERP application for the Project. The current ERP application, No. 43024788.002, is identical to the application at issue in Blanco-I, except that the depth of Pond P11 was reduced in certain areas from a maximum of approximately 25 feet to a maximum of approximately 12 feet, an analysis of the potential impact of Pond P11 on Wetland A3 resulting from “seepage” was included with the application, and additional wildlife surveys were included with the application. On July 29, 2005, the District gave notice of its preliminarily approval of the current ERP application. The notice was accompanied by a proposed ERP, which contained a description of the Project as well as the general and special conditions imposed by the District. On August 24, 2005, Dr. Blanco timely challenged the District’s preliminary approval of the current ERP application. The Request for Administrative Hearing filed by Dr. Blanco in this case is identical to the request that he filed in Blanco-I. Disputed Issues Related to the Current ERP Application Impact of Pond P11 on Wetland A3 Dr. Blanco’s primary objection to the Project is the excavation of Pond P11 adjacent to Wetland A3. Wetland A3 is on the western border of the Westfield property and, as noted above, the wetland extends onto the Blanco property. The portion of Wetland A3 that is on the Westfield property is approximately 30 acres, and the portion of the wetland on the Blanco property appears to be slightly larger. Wetland A3 is a large, mature, Cypress-forested wetland. It has been impacted by nearby development and is not a pristine wetland, but it is still a mid to high quality wetland for the area.6 Wetland A3 is part of a larger wetland system that extends northward and westward beyond the abandoned railroad right-of-way that serves as the northern boundary of the Westfield and Blanco properties. Cypress-forested wetlands, such as Wetland A3, are very tolerant of prolonged periods of drought and inundation. The seasonal high groundwater level in Wetland A3 is approximately one foot below the surface in most areas of the wetland. There are, however, areas in Wetland A3 in which water is frequently a foot or two above the surface. The groundwater levels in Wetland A3 have, in the past, been significantly impacted by drawdowns in the aquifer caused by pumping in nearby wellfields. The impact has been less significant in recent years as a result of the reductions in pumping mandated by the Tampa Bay Consolidated Water Use Permit. The planned interconnection of several nearby wellfields is also expected to minimize the drawdowns in the aquifer and should further stabilize the groundwater levels in Wetland A3. Pond P11 will be located adjacent to Wetland A3. There will be a 25-foot buffer between the pond and the wetland. The location of Pond P11 is unchanged from the first ERP application. Pond P11 will have a surface area of approximately 37 acres. The surface area of Pond P11 is unchanged from the first ERP application. Pond P11 is a necessary component of the surface water management system for the Project. It also serves as a “borrow pit” because the soil excavated from the pond will be used on- site as fill for the proposed development. The excavation of Pond P11 to the depth proposed in the current ERP application is not necessary for water storage. The pond could be excavated to the seasonal high water level -- approximately 2.5 feet deep -- and still function as intended as part of the proposed surface water management system. Pond P11 will be used for attenuation, but the pond is also expected to provide at least some amount of water quality treatment, which is an added benefit to Wetland A3 into which the proposed surface water management system will ultimately discharge through Pond P11. The only change made to Pond P11 between the first and current ERP applications was a reduction in the pond’s maximum depth. The pond, which had a maximum depth of approximately 25 feet in the first ERP application, was “shallowed up” in the current ERP application. Pond P11 will now be approximately 12-feet deep at its deepest point, unless the District authorizes excavation to a greater depth in accordance with special condition No. 28. The shallowest area of Pond P11 will be along the western edge of the pond adjacent to Wetland A3 where there will be an expansive “littoral shelf” that will have almost no slope and that will be excavated only to the seasonal high water level.7 There was no change in the design of the surface water management system between the first ERP application and the current ERP application. The reduction in the depth of Pond P11 will have no impact on the operation of the system, which was described in detail in Blanco-I.8 Pond P11 will have a control structure to allow water to be discharged into Wetland A3 near its southern end, which is a more upstream location than water is currently discharged as a result of the ditches that intercept surface water flowing across the Westfield property. This design feature of the surface water management system is intended to mimic historic hydrologic conditions and is expected to increase the hydration of Wetland A3. The ERP includes a special condition, No. 28, relating to the excavation of Pond P11. The condition provides: Maximum depth of excavation will be +38 feet NGVD[9] unless additional field observations and data are provided that support excavation to greater depth, subject to review and approval by District staff. Proposed maximum depths of excavation . . . may be exceeded based upon field observations and approval as specified. Due to the potentially irregular depths to limestone, excavation will be stopped at a shallower depth if confining soils are encountered before reaching the maximum depth specified in Subcondition A, above. A geotechnical field technician will be present on site during the entire excavation process in order to monitor excavated soils. The field technician will be under the supervision of a Professional Geologist or Professional Engineer. For the purposes of the specific project, confining soils are defined as soils with more then 20 percent fines passing a No. 200 sieve. The field technician will be authorized to halt depth of excavation when confining soils are encountered. Excavation may proceed deeper than soils containing 20 percent or more fines if the soils are shown to be an isolated lens of material significantly above underlying confining soils or limestone, as determined by field observations and data subject to approval by District staff. Confining soils do not uniformly overlie the limestone; therefore it is possible that the underlying limestone could be encountered in spite of precautions in Subconditions A and B above. If the underlying limestone is encountered, excavation will be halted in the area of exposed underlying limestone. The area of exposed limestone will be backfilled to a minimum depth of two feet with compacted material meeting the specification of confining soils, having more than 20 percent fines passing a No. 200 sieve. The geotechnical field technician must certify that the backfill material meets this specification. One of the reasons that the ERP application was denied in Blanco-I was that Westfield failed to take into account the potential hydrologic impacts on Wetland A3 caused by “seepage” of water from Pond P11 due to the depth to which the pond was to be excavated and the corresponding removal of the confining layer of soils between the bottom of the pond and the aquifer. After Blanco-I, Westfield retained Marty Sullivan, a professional engineer and an expert in geotechnical engineering and groundwater and surface water modeling, to evaluate the seepage issue and the potential hydrologic impacts of Pond P11 on Wetland A3. Mr. Sullivan developed an integrated or “coupled” groundwater/surface water model to assess these issues. The model was designed to project the change in groundwater levels caused by the proposed development more so than absolute groundwater levels. The model utilized a widely-accepted computer program and incorporated data from topographic and soil survey information maintained by the U.S. Geologic Service; data from soil borings performed on the Westfield property in the vicinity of Wetland A3 in the area where Pond P11 will be located; data from groundwater monitoring wells and piezometers installed around the Westfield property; data from soil permeability tests performed on-site and in the laboratory; data from a rain gauge installed on the Westfield property; and data from the District’s groundwater monitoring wells in the vicinity of the Westfield property. Mr. Sullivan “calibrated” the model based upon known pre-development conditions. He then “ran” the model with the data from the Interconnected Pond Routing (ICPR) model10 used to design of the surface water management system in order to project the post-development groundwater conditions over a simulated ten-year period. Mr. Sullivan’s coupled groundwater/surface water model addresses the shortcoming of the ICPR model set forth in Blanco- I.11 The model projects that the post-development groundwater levels at the western boundary of the Westfield property in Wetland A3 adjacent to Pond P11 will be the same as the pre-development levels during the “wet season” of June to September, and that, on average and during the “dry season” of October to May, the post-development groundwater levels will be 0.3 feet higher than the pre-development levels. Mr. Sullivan summarized his conclusions based upon these projections in a report provided to the District with the current ERP application. The report states that: no adverse hydrologic effects will result from the excavation of Pond P11 and the development of the surrounding area. Particularly, Wetland A3 will be essentially unaffected and will be slightly enhanced by this development. Some additional hydration of wetland A3 will occur due to eliminating the north-south drainage ditch and instead routing runoff to Pond P11, which is adjacent to Wetland A3. The relative differences in the pre- and post- development levels are more important than the absolute levels projected by the model and, in this case, there is almost no difference in the levels. The minimal change in the water levels expected in Wetland A3 will not affect the wetland’s ecological functioning or its viability. A 0.3-foot change in the water level is well within the normal range of hydroperiod fluctuation for Wetland A3. The rate at which water increases and decreases in a wetland can impact wetland ecology and wetland-dependent species. The proposed surface water management system will not increase the surface water discharges from the Westfield property, and in compliance with Section 4.2 of the Basis of Review (BOR),12 the post-development discharge rates will not exceed the pre-development peak discharge rates. There is no credible evidence that there will be an adverse impact on Wetland A3 caused by changes in the discharge rate from the Westfield property through Pond P11 into Wetland A3. The range of error, if any, in Mr. Sullivan’s model is unknown. He has never performed a post-development review to determine how accurately the model predicts the post-development conditions that are actually observed. Nevertheless, the more persuasive evidence establishes that Mr. Sullivan’s model is reasonable, as are his ultimate conclusions based upon the model’s projections. Mr. Sullivan recommended in his report that Pond P11 be excavated no deeper than two feet above the limestone to avoid potential breaches of the confining soils above the aquifer. That recommendation led to the pond being “shallowed up,” and it was incorporated by the District into special condition No. 28. The provisions of special condition No. 28 are reasonable to ensure that excavation of Pond P11 will not breach the confining layer. The standards in special condition No. 28 pursuant to which a geotechnical field technician will monitor the excavation of Pond P11, and pursuant to which the District will determine whether to authorize deeper excavation of the pond, are generally accepted and can be adequately monitored by professionals in the field and the District. There is a potential for the loss of “significant volumes of water” from Pond P11 through evaporation “[d]ue to the sheer size of P11’s open surface area.”13 It is not entirely clear how the evaporation of water from Pond P11 was taken into account in Mr. Sullivan’s model, but it appears to have been considered.14 Dr. Mark Rains, Petitioner’s expert in hydrogeology, ecohydrology, and geomorphology, testified that evaporation from open water is generally about 12 inches more per year than evaporation from a wet meadow or Cypress forest, but he did not offer any specific criticism of the projections in Mr. Sullivan’s model related to the issue of evaporation. In sum, the more persuasive evidence establishes that Wetland A3 is not likely to suffer any adverse ecological or hydrological impacts from the proposed surface water management system and, more particularly, from Pond P11. Westfield has provided reasonable assurances in that regard. (2) Adequacy of the Wildlife Surveys The other reason why the first ERP application for the Project was denied in Blanco-I was that the wildlife surveys submitted with that application were found to be inadequate. Wildlife surveys are not required with every ERP application and, in that regard, Section 3.2.2 of the BOR provides that: [t]he need for a wildlife survey will depend on the likelihood that the site is used by listed species, considering site characteristics and the range and habitat needs of such species, and whether the proposed system will impact that use such that the criteria in subsection 3.2.2 through 3.2.2.3 and subsection 3.2.7 will not be met. Westfield conducted a “preliminary” wildlife assessment in 2001. No listed species were observed, nor was any evidence of their presence on the Westfield property. Nevertheless, as detailed in Blanco-I,15 the District requested that Westfield perform a wildlife survey of Wetlands B4, C4, and B12, because all or part of those wetlands will be permanently destroyed by the proposed development. In an effort to comply with the District’s requests, Westfield conducted additional field visits in 2003 and also performed specific surveys for Southeastern Kestrels and Gopher Tortoises. The field visits “confirmed” the findings from the preliminary wildlife assessment, and no evidence of Southeastern Kestrels and Gopher Tortoises was observed during the surveys for those species. Judge Maloney found in Blanco-I that the wildlife surveys conducted by Westfield were inadequate because they “did not employ the methodology recommended by the District: the FWCC methodology.”16 However, the wildlife surveys were not found to be inadequate in Blanco-I because they focused on Wetlands B4, C4, and B12, instead of evaluating the entire Westfield property and/or all of the potentially impacted wetlands, including Wetland A3. After Blanco-I, a team of qualified professionals led by Brian Skidmore, an expert in wetlands, Florida wetlands ecology, and listed species assessment, conducted additional wildlife surveys of the Westfield property. Mr. Skidmore and his team had performed the preliminary wildlife assessment and the supplemental surveys submitted with Westfield’s first ERP application. The “FWCC methodology” referenced in Blanco-I is a methodology developed by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) to evaluate potential impacts to listed species from large-scale projects, such as developments-of- regional impact and new highways. It is not specifically designed for use in the ERP process, which focuses only on wetland-dependent species. Mr. Skidmore adapted the FWCC methodology for use in the ERP process. The methodology used by Mr. Skidmore was reviewed and accepted by the District’s environmental regulation manager, Leonard Bartos, who is an expert in wetland ecology and ERP rules. The surveys performed by Mr. Skidmore and his team of professionals occurred over a five-day period in February 2005. The surveys focused on Wetlands B4, C4, and B12, and were performed at dawn and dusk when wildlife is typically most active. Additional wildlife surveys of the entire site were performed on five separate days between October 2005 and January 2006. Those surveys were also performed at dawn and dusk, and they included observations along the perimeter of Wetland A3 and into portions of the interior of that wetland on the Westfield property. Mr. Skidmore reviewed databases maintained by FWCC to determine whether there are any documented waterbird colonies or Bald Eagle nests in the vicinity of the Project. There are none. Mr. Skidmore contacted the Florida Natural Area Inventory to determine whether there are any documented rare plant or animal species on the Westfield property or in the vicinity of the Project. There are none. The post-Blanco-I wildlife surveys did not evaluate the usage of the Westfield property by listed species during the wetter spring and summer months of March through October even though, as Mr. Skidmore acknowledged in his testimony, it is possible that different species may use the property during the wet season. The post-Blanco-I wildlife surveys, like the original wildlife surveys, focused primarily on the species contained in Appendix 5 to the BOR -- i.e., wetland-dependent species that use uplands for nesting, foraging, or denning -- but Mr. Skidmore testified that he and his surveyors “were observant for any species,” including wetland-dependent species that do not utilize uplands. No listed wetland-dependent species were observed nesting or denning on the Westfield property. Several listed wetland-dependent birds -- i.e., snowy egret, sandhill crane, wood stork, and white ibis -- were observed foraging and/or resting on the property. Those birds were not observed in Wetlands B4, C4, or B12. The parties stipulated at the final hearing that the determination as to whether Westfield provided reasonable assurances with respect to the statutory and rule criteria related to fish and wildlife turns on whether the wildlife surveys submitted by Westfield are adequate.17 BOR Section 3.2.2 provides that “[s]urvey methodologies employed to inventory the site must provide reasonable assurance regarding the presence or absence of the subject listed species.” The wildlife surveys conducted by Westfield subsequent to Blanco-I in accordance with the FWCC methodology meet this standard. Although the surveys could have been more extensive in terms of the species assessed and the period of time over which they were conducted, the more persuasive evidence establishes that the wildlife surveys are adequate to document the presence or, more accurately the absence of listed wetland- dependent species on the Westfield property. The wetlands that will be directly impacted by the proposed development -- Wetlands B4, C4, and B12 -- do not provide suitable habitat for listed species. Those wetlands are small, low-quality wetlands, and Wetland B12 is technically exempt from the District’s fish and wildlife review because it is a small isolated wetland. There is no credible evidence that there will be any other adverse impacts to fish and wildlife from the proposed surface water management system. For example, even if there are undocumented listed species -- e.g., frogs, snakes, snails, etc. -- in Wetland A3, Mr. Skidmore credibly testified that the expected 0.3-foot increase in groundwater levels in that wetland during the dry season is not likely to adversely affect those species or their habitat because the water will still be below the surface. In sum, Westfield has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed development will not adversely affect fish and wildlife.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District issue a final order approving Environmental Resource Permit No. 43024788.002, subject to the general and special conditions set forth in the proposed ERP dated July 29, 2005. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 2006.
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.
