Findings Of Fact Petitioner SFWMD is a public corporation of Florida. It is charged with the responsibility of issuing permits and enforcing orders relating to surface water management within its jurisdictional boundaries. Respondents Hubschman, as trustees, have full rights of ownership in 1,280 contiguous acres located in Sections 17 and 20, Township 47 South, Range 26 East, Lee County, Florida. These lands are known as Bonita Farms I and II. They are located within the jurisdictional boundaries of SFWMD. In their pre- developed state, these lands could generally be categorized as marsh and wetlands with cypress forest and some uplands in the northern half of the project area. After deciding to develop the acreage for use as pasture and farmland for small vegetable crops, Respondents Hubschman applied for a surface water management permit from SFWMD. The purpose of the permit was to allow the construction and operation of a water management system that would serve both farms. A system was designed to drain water off both parcels through a 62-acre retention area into a natural slough system which runs water into Kehl Canal. In order to create the system, the Respondents Hubschman had the following facilities designed for the site: internal ditches, dikes, pumps, a retention area and control structures. On April 15, 1982, SFWMD issued Surface Water Management Permit No. 36- 00315-S, and Respondents Hubschman were allowed to proceed with their proposed construction plan. A modification to the permit was issued on April 14, 1983. The retention area was enlarged from 62 acres to 88 acres by relocating the perimeter dike. The outfall structure was revised in that the two pumps and the weir were to be replaced by three 18" CMP culverts that would discharge the drained water by gravity flow from the retention area through the slough into Kehl Canal. The duration of the construction phase of its permit was a three-year period, unless the construction of the permitted project discharge structure or equivalent had been completed prior to that date. After the close of the three-year period, there was a dispute between the Respondents and SFWMD as to whether the permit had expired. The controversy was resolved through a compromise agreement. An application for the reissuance of Permit No. 36-00315-S was filed on October 13, 1986. Instead of reissuing Permit No. 36-00315-S, as requested by Respondents Hubschman, SFWMD decided to issue a new permit on May 14, 1987. As part of the processing procedures, SFWMD again reviewed and approved the entire surface water management system designed to serve the 1,280 acres of land proposed by Respondents. Because the additional work proposed for Section 17, the northern section was limited at this stage of development to the selective clearing of additional upland areas to create more improved pasture, the new permit directed attention to Section 20, the southern section of the land. The new permit advised the Respondents that if they wanted to propose additional development to Section 17, they were required to seek a modification of this new permit, Surface Water Management Permit No. 36-00764-S, to include those changes. The Respondents applied for a modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S on July 30, 1987. The proposed modification sought to change the status of the development of Section 17 from improved pasture to small vegetable farmland on 639 acres. The surface water management system plan was modified to drain water in Section 17 to the reservoir on Section 20. The water would be directed via a series of lateral ditches and swales. A six foot high dike and one 27,000 GPM pump were also required. Two additional 18" CMP culverts were required at the discharge facilities to accommodate the increased outflow. The Modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S was approved and issued on June 16, 1988. The original Permit NO. 36-00764-S and its modification are similar to a contract novation because the new permits substituted new obligations between the parties for the old ones under Permit No. 36-00315-S. Based upon this approach to the situation, SFWMD allowed the construction work completed under Permit No. 36-00315-S prior to the Stop Work Order of August 27, 1986, to vest. The completion of the berm around the reservoir in Section 20, as set forth in the letter from Elizabeth D. Ross, attorney for SFWMD, on September 19, 1986, was also allowed to vest. However, if the vested matters were changed in the subsequent permits, they became revisions. The revisions take precedence over the vested matters. Otherwise, completed construction under Permit No. 36- 00764-S as modified, and post Stop Work Order construction remains in effect perpetually for the operation portion of the permit. In order to determine with certainty what was permitted when the Notice of Violation was issued on December 20, 1988, the parties would have to look to the project work actually completed on August 27, 1986, the specific construction approved by SFWMD after that date, the subsequent Surface Water Management Permit No. 36-00764-S issued May 14, 1987, and its Modification issued June 16, 1988. The substantial compliance determination issued by Richard A. Rogers, P.E., Resource Control Department dated September 24, 1987, should also be considered as authorized activity. The Notice of Violation dated December 20, 1988, was issued to Respondent Samuel Hubschman, Trustee. He was advised that recent routine inspections indicate that current on-site activity was in violation of Special Conditions 2,3,4,7,14, 17 & 23 of Permit No. 36-00764-S (issued 5/14/87) and Special Conditions 5,16 & 22 of 36-00315-S (modified 6/16/88). A meeting to resolve these issued was suggested by SFWMD. Respondent Hubschman agreed to attend the meeting through his consultants. Both parties elected to attempt resolution of the Notice of Violation controversy through negotiations in a meeting scheduled for January 5, 1989. To demonstrate their sincerity, the parties agreed not to bring attorneys to the meeting. During the meeting, the parties resolved the controversy by agreeing to the following: SFWMD would no longer consider the project to be in violation of Florida law if the Respondents submitted certain items that would cause SFWMD to issue certain permits and modify others. The Respondents would promptly file an application for a dewatering permit so that the governing board could issue the permit at its March 9, 1989 meeting. The Respondent's contractor would make no field changes in the mitigation or excavation areas without first obtaining appropriate permit modification from SFWMD. Small jockey pumps were to be installed to pump water from the internal water management system into certain cypress and/or mitigation areas for the sole purpose of establishing wetland vegetation within the areas. Respondents were to apply for a modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S, as currently modified, to allow a single phase of mining for the entire affected area. The perimeter dike was to be made structurally adequate. Respondents were to submit an alternative proposal for the disposal of cap rock within ninety days. In the meantime, the contractor could continue to bury the cap rock within the mitigation areas. Both parties demonstrated their reliance on the settlement reached in the meeting by their subsequent actions towards completing and processing the applications for permit modifications and additional permits. Although the noted violations were not cured by these actions, the parties intended to reach a cure or to mitigate for present permit violations through new permit conditions. The preliminary staff review of the Respondents' application for modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S, as currently modified, was completed by March 31, 1989. The following information was requested by SFWMD staff: Revised engineering calculations which reflect that the permitted discharge structure is five 18" CMP culverts. An explanation as to why the 6.3 acre maidencane/juncus marsh designated as a preserve area and the adjacent western preserve area were excavated and otherwise disturbed by project activities. The scrapedown methodology for the replanting of mitigation areas. The Respondents' plans for the area delineated on the plans as pine, which is currently permitted as part of a cypress preservation area. Dike certification and reservoir certification. The above-listed information was required to be returned to the SFWMD within ninety days from the date of the written request. At the close of the ninety days, the information was not received. A second request for a response within thirty days was submitted by SFWMD on August 4, 1989. In September 1989, the Respondents attempted to comply with SFWMD's second request for information. Communications continued in regard to the filed application for modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S, as currently modified, into December 1989. After the thirty days expired for the response to the second request for information dated August 4, 1989, SFWMD filed the Administrative Complaint in these proceedings. After the second request for information, a partial response was received from Respondent Hubschman's consultants. The application continues to go through the review process. It has not yet been deemed complete by SFWMD. As part of the resolution of the Notice of Violation dated December 20, 1988, SFWMD issued permit No. 36-01023-W to Respondent Hubschman for construction dewatering, excavation of an irrigation pond, and water storage at the site. The permit was issued on March 9, 1989. Special condition No. 20 of this permit requires a 200-feet setback from the cypress mitigation area and the irrigation pond being dewatered. The setback is shown on Exhibit 10 of the Bonita Farms Dewatering Application which was made part of the permit. A copy of the permit was attached to the Administrative Complaint. No evidence was submitted by SFWMD regarding alleged violations of Special condition No. 20 which were allegedly observed and documented after the permit was issued, before the filing of the Administrative Complaint Respondent Bob Cadenhead is the contractor hired by Respondents Hubschman to construct the surface water management system. There was no evidence presented to show the connection of another party, Respondent, Cadenhead & Sons Construction, to the project.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Surface Water Management Permit No. 36-00315-S be deemed to have vested as to all construction activity completed under the permit which was not addressed in the subsequent permit issued by SFWMD. The completion of the berm, as set forth in Attorney Ross' September 19, 1986 letter, should also be allowed to vest. That Permit No. 36-00764-S and its later modification be ordered to supercede the prior permit in all matters specifically addressed. That the parties be held to their prior agreements to resolve pending permit violations through the permit modification process. That the alleged dewatering violation in paragraph 19 of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed for lack of evidence. That a specific deadline be set to reasonably complete pending application modifications. That all future enforcement action specifically comply with Rule 40E- 1.612, Florida Administrative Code, and remain separate from any permit or permit modification applications. That the parties create a new, active permit file with current drawings and a specific construction schedule. That the Administrative Complaint and Order filed in these proceedings be dismissed. That future agreements be reduced to writing and signed by the proper parties before they are relied upon by either party. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 9th day of November, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-5737 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO number 4. Accepted. See HO number 3. Accepted. Rejected. Improper summary. Accepted. See HO number 6. Rejected. Improper opinion testimony. Rejected. Irrelevant. Argumentative. Rejected. Legal argument. Accepted. See HO number 5. Rejected. Legal argument. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15. The argument presented in this paragraph is overly punctilious. It ignores the detrimental reliance of opposing parties to the agreement. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15 and number 16. Rejected. Legal argument and improper opinion. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15 and number 16. Rejected. Matters presented were either not ripe for these proceedings or not proved at hearing. See HO number 16-number 20 and HO number 23. Rejected. Contrary to fact and law. Rejected. Not set forth in pleadings. Irrelevant. Rejected. Not set forth in pleadings. Irrelevant. Rejected. Not set forth in pleadings as separate from the Notice of Violation. Irrelevant. Accepted as fact, resolved by agreement. Rejected. Improper opinion testimony. Rejected. Improper opinion testimony. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 15. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 15. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected. See HO number 15. Rejected. Cumulative. Rejected. See HO number 11-number 12. Contrary to fact. Accepted. See HO number 9. Accepted. Accepted. See HO number 16-number 20. Rejected. Matter is still pending. See HO number 16-number 20. Rejected. Resolved through agreement. See HO number 15. Rejected. Matter is still pending. See HO number 16- number 20. Rejected. Legal argument. Rejected. Not in pleadings. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO number 21. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Speculative. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO number 13. Rejected. See HO number 23. Contrary to fact and pleadings. Accepted. See HO number 14. Accepted. See HO number 15. Accepted. See HO number 15. Accepted. See HO number 20. Accepted. Rejected. Argumentative. See HO number 20. Accepted. See HO number 4-number 7. Rejected. Contrary to fact. The permit modifica- tion specifically required replacement of a pump with 3 culverts. See HO number 5. Accepted. See HO number 5. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 7. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 7. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 7 and number 11. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 11. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO number 15. Additional matters were agreed upon which were not reflected in the letter. This is an incomplete summary. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant to these proceedings. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 8 and number 9. Rejected. See HO number 8 and number 9. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. See HO number 23. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Fumero, Esquire Office of General Counsel South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire OERTEL HOFFMAN FERNANDEZ & COLE, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Russell Schropp, Esquire HENDERSON FRANKLIN STARNES & HOLT, P.A. 1715 Monroe Street Fort Myers, Florida 33902 John R. Wodraska, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
Findings Of Fact The petitioners Petitioners are special taxing districts and political subdivisions of the State of Florida, which were created pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes. The petitioners and their pertinent structures and operations were authorized by Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of providing irrigation, drainage and flood protection for the landowners within their respective boundaries. In order to effect this purpose, the petitioners designed and operate their water control structures to pump excess stormwater and surface water directly to Lake Okeechobee (the "Lake") in the case of East Beach Water Control District (East Beach) and directly to the Rim Canal at the southern end of the Lake in the case of South Shore Drainage District (South Shore), East Shore Water Control District (East Shore), and South Florida Conservancy District (South Florida). East Beach covers a total area of approximately 6,542 acres located along the southeast shore of the Lake. Approximately 75-80 percent of the lands contained within the District are used for agriculture, with most of those lands planted in sugarcane. The remaining 20-25 percent of the drainage area is urbanized. The urban area includes the City of Pahokee. South Shore covers a total area of approximately 4,230 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake. Approximately 80-85 percent of the lands contained within the District are used for agriculture, with most of those lands planted in sugarcane. The remaining 15-20 percent of the drainage area is urban and industrial. The urban area includes a portion of the cities in South Bay, Lake Harbor, Bean City, South Shore Village, and sparsely scattered home sites throughout the District. East Shore covers a total area of approximately 8,136 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake. With the exception of lands developed as canals, levees, roads, and other service-related systems, the entire district is used for agricultural purposes. South Florida covers a total area of approximately 32,754 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake with 28,649 acres located in Palm Beach County and 4,105 acres located in Hendry County. Approximately 85-90 percent of the land is used for agricultural purposes and the remaining 10-15 percent is used for urban or industrial purposes. The City of Belle Glade constitutes a major part of the urban land with the remainder situated around the cities of South Bay, Lake Harbor and other scattered home sites. Here, the parties have stipulated that petitioners have standing to maintain this challenge. Background Before 1986, petitioners' discharges into the Lake had not been regulated by the respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (Department). In 1985 the Governor of the State of Florida issued Executive Order Number 86-150. This executive order observed that the Lake Okeechobee Technical Committee, formed to study water quality and water supply conditions in the Lake, had found the Lake to be in danger of becoming hypereutrophic because of the excessive amounts of nutrients, especially phosphorus, it was receiving, and had recommended corrective actions to substantially reduce the nutrient load and provide for long-term monitoring, research and management needs for the Lake. To protect and preserve the Lake, the executive order directed, inter alia, that the Department "bring all private and publically controlled backpumping sources into the lake under permit review or under enforcement for operating without a permit." Pursuant to that executive order, the Department, in concert with petitioners, began the process of regulating petitioners' discharges into the Lake. The Department initially attempted to have the petitioners enter into consent orders; however, the petitioners objected to that concept. Ultimately, both the Department and petitioners agreed to the issuance of short-term operating permits (TOPs) containing specific conditions aimed at determining the composition of the discharges from petitioners' systems and at reducing the pollution loading into the Lake. The TOPs, issued December 30, 1986, and effective until September 23, 1988, were issued pursuant to the Department's regulatory authority over pollution sources contained in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. 2/ Pertinent to this case, Section 403.088, Florida Statutes, provided, and continues to provide, as follows: 403.088 Water pollution operation permits; temporary permits; conditions-- (1) No person, without written authorization of the department, shall discharge into waters within the state any waste which by itself or in combination with the wastes or other sources, reduces the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them . . . (2)(a) Any person intending to discharge wastes into the waters of the state shall make application to the department for an operation permit. Application shall be made on a form prescribed by the department and shall contain such information as the department requires. If the department finds that the proposed discharge will reduce the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them, it shall deny the application and refuse to issue a permit. . . (3)(a) A person who does not qualify for an operation permit or has been denied an operation permit under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) may apply to the department for a temporary operation permit . . . After consideration of the application, any additional information furnished, and all written objections submitted, the department shall grant or deny a temporary operation permit. No temporary permit shall be granted by the department unless it affirmatively finds: The proposed discharge does not qualify for an operation permit; The applicant is constructing, installing, or placing into operation, or has submitted plans and reasonable schedules of constructing, installing or placing into operation, an approved pollution abatement facility or alternate waste disposal system, or that the applicant has a waste for which no feasible and acceptable method of treatment or disposal is known or recognized but is making a bona fide effort through research and other means to discover and implement such a method; The applicant needs permission to pollute the waters within the state for a period of time necessary to complete research, planning, construction, installation, or operation of an approved and acceptable pollution abatement facility or alternate waste disposal system; There is no present, reasonable, alternative means of disposing of the waste other than by discharging it into the waters of the state; The denial of a temporary operation permit would work an extreme hardship upon the applicant; The granting of a temporary operation permit will be in the public interest; or The discharge will not be unreasonably destructive to the quality of the receiving waters. A temporary operation permit issued shall: Specify the manner, nature, volume, and frequency of the discharge permitted; Require the proper operation and maintenance of any interim or temporary pollution abatement facility or system required by the department as a condition of the permit; Require the permitholder to maintain such monitoring equipment and make and file such records and reports as the department deems necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of the permit and to evaluate the effect of the discharge upon the receiving waters; Be valid only for the period of time necessary for the permit holder to place into operation the facility, system, or method contemplated in his application as determined by the department; and Contain other requirements and restrictions which the department deems necessary and desirable to protect the quality of the receiving waters and promote the public interest. And, Section 403.927, Florida Statutes, provided, and continues to provide, as follows: 403.927 Use of water in farming and forestry activities.-- . . . it is the intent of the Legislature to provide for the construction and operation of agricultural water management systems under authority granted to water management districts and to control, by the department or by delegation of authority to water management districts, the ultimate discharge from agricultural water management systems. . . . The department may require a stormwater permit or appropriate discharge permit at the ultimate point of discharge from an agricultural water management system or a group of connected agricultural water management systems. . . (4) As used in this section, the term: * * * (b) "Agricultural water management systems" means farming and forestry water management or irrigation systems and farm ponds which are permitted pursuant to chapter 373 or which are exempt from the permitting provisions of that chapter. The agricultural water management systems owned and operated by petitioners fall within the definition of "agricultural water management systems" set forth in Section 403.927(4)(b), Florida Statutes. Consistent with the provisions of Section 403.088, Florida Statutes, Rule 17-4.070(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides: A permit shall be issued to the applicant upon such conditions as the Department may direct, only if the applicant affirmatively provides the Department with reasonable assurance based on plans, test results, installation of pollution control equipment, or other information, that the construction, expansion, modification, operation, or activity of the installation will not discharge, emit or cause pollution in contravention of Department standards or rules. However, for discharges of wastes to water, the Department may issue temporary operation permits under the criteria set forth in Section 403.088(3), F.S. Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, further delineates the specific procedures to obtain permits and the specific standards for issuing and denying permits. In July 1988, petitioners applied for an extension of their TOPs. The monthly water quality monitoring data petitioners had submitted to the Department reflected, however, that the discharges from petitioners' systems were in contravention of the Department's rules and standards. Accordingly, since petitioners had not met the obligations set forth in the TOPs, the Department advised petitioners that the TOPs would not be extended and that they were required to apply for new operating permits. The new permit applications Following the Department's refusal to extend the TOPs, petitioners filed applications for operating permits for their discharges, and the Department, consistent with its previous reviews, undertook its review pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Effective July 1, 1989, however, Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, was amended with regard to, inter alia, the definition of stormwater management systems so as to include pumped discharges such as petitioners. Further, pertinent to this case, Part IV of Chapter 373 provided: 373.416 Permits for maintenance or operation-- (1) . . . the governing board or department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the operation or maintenance of any stormwater management system, dam, impoundment, reservoir, appurtenant work, or works will comply with the provisions of this part and applicable rules promulgated thereto, will not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district, and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district. 373.418 Rulemaking; preservation of existing authority.-- It is the intent of the Legislature that stormwater management systems be regulated under this part incorporating all of existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403. Neither the department nor governing boards are limited or prohibited from amending any regulatory requirement applicable to stormwater management systems in accordance with the provisions of this part. It is further the intent of the Legislature that all current exemptions under chapters 373 and 403 shall remain in full force and effect and that this act shall not be construed to remove or alter these exemptions. In order to preserve existing requirements, all rules of the department or governing boards existing on July 1, 1989, . . . shall be applicable to stormwater management systems and continue in full force and effect unless amended or replaced by future rulemaking in accordance with this part. Upon the amendment of Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, petitioners amended their pending applications to reflect their desire that the applications be processed pursuant to the newly amended provisions of Part IV, Chapter 373, as they relate to stormwater management systems. The Department, acknowledging the amendments to chapter 373, processed the applications accordingly; however, in view of the provisions of section 373.418(1) which "incorporat[ed] all of the existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403," the Department did not in fact change the standards by which these applications were reviewed, to wit: Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. On March 14, 1991, the Department issued a notice of permit denial to each petitioner. In each of the denials, the Department noted the provisions of Section 373.416(1), Florida Statutes, ["the . . . department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the operation . . . of any stormwater system . . . will comply with the provisions of this part and applicable rules promulgated thereto . . . and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district"] and Section 373.418(1), Florida Statutes, ["incorporating all of existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403"], and concluded that the applications should be denied for the following reasons: The Department has completed its review of the subject application, supporting documents and the discharge monitoring reports submitted by the applicant as required by Department Permit NO. IT50- 125678. Based on this review the Department has made the determination that the applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the discharge from the agricultural stormwater management system proposed by the applicant will be in compliance with the aforementioned sections of Chapter 373, F.S. and the Class I Surface Water Quality Standards adopted by the Department pursuant to Chapter 403.061, F.S. and contained in Section 17-302.540, F.A.C. and the Antidegradation Policy for Surface Water Quality contained in Section 17-302.300(3), F.A.C. The Department's action is facially consistent with the provisions of chapter 373, and chapter 403 incorporated therein, as well as the existing rules adopted pursuant to such chapters which require, whether the system be exempt or not, that discharges comply with state water quality standards. See e.g., Sections 373.416, 373.418, 403.088 and 403.927, Florida Statutes, and Rules 17- 4.070(1), 17-25.060, 17-25.080, and Chapter 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code. Availing themselves of the point of entry accorded by the notice of permit denial, petitioners filed a request for administrative hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to contest the denial of their applications. Such proceedings are currently pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings, but distinct from this proceeding under Section 120.535, Florida Statutes. The Section 120.535 challenge The challenged policy, as alleged in paragraphs 19 of the petition, purports to be as follows: The Department has made a policy determination, which draws a distinction between "agricultural stormwater discharges" and other stormwater discharges regulated by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Department has identified the Petitioners' discharge as "agricultural stormwater discharges" and has subjected the petitioners to a set of rules and criteria that the Department has not adopted but which are apparently different from the general stormwater regulations adopted pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Such articulation of the challenged policy is substantially identical to petitioner's statement of the issue identified in their proposed final order, as follows: The issue for determination in this case is whether the Department's policy to apply criteria different from that contained in its "Regulation of Stormwater Discharge" Rule 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, and/or Rule 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code, of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), when seeking to regulate an agricultural stormwater management system, as defined in Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, constitutes a rule . . . . The premises for the petitioners' challenge are their contention that the Department has drawn a distinction between the agricultural stormwater discharges of petitioners and other stormwater discharges, which is not supported by statutory or duly promulgated rules, and that the Department has applied criteria, which are not supported by statutory or duly promulgated rules, to evaluate petitioners' applications. The credible proof fails, however, to support petitioners' premises. Contrary to the assertions raised by petitioners, the statutory and duly promulgated rules heretofore discussed provide ample authority for the Department's action, and there is no credible proof that the Department is applying any criteria that is not apparent from an application or reading of such statutes and existing rules. Indeed, Rule 17-25.060(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides: The permit requirements of Chapter 17-4 or other applicable rules, rather than those of this chapter, shall apply to discharges which are a combination of stormwater and industrial or domestic wastewater or which are otherwise contaminated by non-stormwater sources unless: (a) the stormwater discharge facility is capable of providing treatment of the non- stormwater component sufficient to meet state water quality standards . . . . Here, the proof is compelling that the Department's decision was predicated on existing statutory and rule authority, and that it did not apply any criteria not promulgated as a rule or not contained within existing statutory authority to evaluate petitioners' applications, or treat petitioners' discharges differently than any other stormwater discharge contaminated by non-stormwater sources.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent Land Trust #97-12 (“Land Trust”) is entitled to an Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) for its proposed project on Perico Island in Bradenton, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Joseph McClash is a resident of Bradenton, Florida, who uses the waters in the vicinity of the project for fishing, crabbing, boating, and wildlife observation. Petitioner Manasota-88, Inc., is an active Florida nonprofit corporation for more than 20 years. Manasota-88 has approximately 530 members, most of whom (approximately 300) reside in Manatee County. The mission and goal of Manasota-88 includes the protection of the natural resources of Manatee County, including Anna Maria Sound and Perico Island. Petitioner FISH is an active Florida nonprofit corporation in existence since 1991. FISH owns real property in unincorporated Cortez in Manatee County and maintains a Manatee County mailing address. FISH has more than 190 members and more than 150 of them own property or reside in Manatee County. The mission and goal of FISH includes protection of the natural resources of Manatee County, including Anna Maria Sound and Perico Island. Intervenor Suncoast Waterkeeper, Inc., is an active Florida nonprofit corporation in existence since 2012. The mission of Suncoast Waterkeeper is “to protect and restore the Suncoast’s waterways through enforcement, fieldwork, advocacy, and environmental education for the benefit of the communities that rely upon coastal resources.” Suncoast Waterkeeper provided the names and addresses of 25 members residing in Manatee County. A substantial number of the members of Suncoast Waterkeeper use the area and waters near the proposed activity for nature-based activities, including nature observation, fishing, kayaking, wading, and boating along the natural shorelines of Anna Maria Sound and Perico Island. Intervenor Sierra Club, Inc., is a national organization that is a California corporation registered as a foreign nonprofit corporation in Florida. Sierra Club has been permitted to conduct business in Florida since 1982. The mission of Sierra Club includes protection of the natural resources of Manatee County, which include Anna Maria Sound and Perico Island. Sierra Club provided the names and addresses of 26 members who live in Manatee County. A substantial number of the members of Sierra Club use the area and waters near the proposed project for nature-based activities, including observing native flora and fauna, fishing, kayaking, wading, and boating along the natural shorelines of Anna Maria Sound and Perico Island. Respondent Land Trust is the applicant for the challenged ERP and owns the property on which the proposed project would be constructed. Respondent District is an independent special district of the State of Florida created, granted powers, and assigned duties under chapter 373, Florida Statutes, including the regulation of activities in surface waters. The proposed project is within the boundaries of the District. The Project Site The project site is 3.46 acres of a 40.36-acre parcel owned by Land Trust. The parcel includes uplands, wetlands, and submerged lands, on or seaward of Perico Island, next to Anna Maria Sound, which is part of Lower Tampa Bay. Anna Maria Sound is an Outstanding Florida Water. The project site is adjacent to a large multi-family residential development called Harbour Isles, which is currently under construction. Access to the Land Trust property is gained through this development. The Land Trust parcel contains approximately seven acres of high quality mangroves along the shoreline of Anna Maria Sound. They are mostly black and red mangroves, with some white mangroves. The mangroves on the project site amount to a total of 1.9 acres. Mangroves have high biological productivity and are important to estuarine food webs. Mangroves provide nesting, roosting, foraging, and nursery functions for many species of wildlife. Mangroves also provide a buffer from storm surge and help to stabilize shorelines. Wildlife species found on the project site include ibises, pelicans, egrets, spoonbills, mangrove cuckoos, bay scallops, fiddler crabs, mangrove tree crabs, horseshoe crabs, marsh rabbits, raccoons, mangrove bees, and a variety of fish. No endangered species have been observed on the project site, but mangroves are used by a number of listed species. The Proposed Project The proposed project is to construct a retaining wall, place fill behind the wall to create buildable lots for four single-family homes, construct an access driveway, and install a stormwater management facility. The stormwater management facility is a “Stormtech” system, which is an underground system usually used in situations where there is insufficient area to accommodate a stormwater pond. Riprap would be placed on the waterward side of the retaining wall. The retaining wall would be more than 35 feet landward of the mean high water line in most areas. Petitioners contend the proposed retaining wall is a vertical seawall, which is not allowed in an estuary pursuant to section 373.414(5). “Vertical seawall” is defined in section 2.0(a)(111), Volume I, of the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook (“Applicants Handbook”) as a seawall which is steeper than 75 degrees to the horizontal. It further states, “A seawall with sloping riprap covering the waterward face to the mean high water line shall not be considered a vertical seawall.” The retaining wall is vertical, but it would have riprap covering its waterward face and installed at a slope of 70 degrees. The retaining wall is not a vertical seawall under the District’s definition. Stormwater Management Stormwater in excess of the Stormtech system’s design capacity would discharge into Anna Maria Sound. Because Anna Maria Sound is an Outstanding Florida Water, District design criteria require that an additional 50 percent of treatment volume be provided. The Stormtech system meets the District’s design criteria for managing water quality and water quantity. Projects which meet the District’s design criteria are presumed to provide reasonable assurance of compliance with state water quality standards. Petitioners’ evidence was not sufficient to rebut this presumption. Petitioners contend the District waiver of water quality certification for the proposed project means that Land Trust was not required to meet water quality standards. However, that was a misunderstanding of the certification process. All state water quality criteria are applicable. Petitioners contend water quality monitoring should be imposed for this project. However, section 4.7 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume II, provides that if the applicant meets the District’s design criteria, water quality monitoring is not required. Petitioners failed to prove the proposed stormwater management system cannot be constructed, operated, or maintained in compliance with applicable criteria. Wetland Impacts In order to create buildable lots, 1.05 acres of the 1.9 acres of mangroves on the project site would be removed and replaced with fill. A swath of mangroves approximately 40 feet wide would remain waterward of the retaining wall. The proposed direct and secondary impacts to the functions provided by wetlands were evaluated using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (“UMAM”) as required by Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-345. UMAM is used to quantify the loss of functions performed by wetlands considering: current condition, hydrologic connection, uniqueness, location, fish and wildlife utilization, time lag, and mitigation risk. The District determined the filling of 1.05 acres of wetlands would result in a functional loss of 0.81 units and the secondary impacts resulting from installation of the retaining wall would result in a loss of 0.09 units for a total functional loss of 0.9 units. Petitioners contend the functional loss would be greater. Petitioners contend the wetland delineation performed by Land Trust and confirmed by the District did not extend as far landward as the hydric soils and, therefore, the total acreage of affected wetlands would be greater. However, Petitioners did not produce a wetland delineation for the project site, and their evidence was not sufficient to rebut Land Trust's prima facie evidence on this issue. Petitioners’ experts believe the secondary impacts caused by the proposed project would be greater than calculated, including fragmentation of the shoreline mangrove system, damage to the roots of mangroves near the retaining wall, and scouring effects caused by wave action associated with the retaining wall. Respondents assert that the analysis by Petitioners’ expert Jacqueline Cook relied on federal methodology and that “the science used in her analysis is not contained in the state or district rule criteria.” Reliance on science is always appropriate. However, Ms. Cook’s use of a federal impact assessment methodology creates doubt about whether her scoring is consistent with UMAM. Despite the unreliability of Ms. Cook’s UMAM score, it is found that Respondents’ UMAM score under-calculated secondary impacts due to scour and other effects of changed water movement that would be caused by the retaining wall. It was not explained how the loss of storm buffering and erosion prevention functions of wetlands are accounted for in the UMAM score. Elimination or Reduction of Impacts Section 10.2.1 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume I, states that in reviewing a project the District is to consider practicable design modifications to eliminate or reduce impacts to wetland functions. Section 10.2.1.1 explains: The term “modification” shall not be construed as including the alternative of not implementing the activity in some form, nor shall it be construed as requiring a project that is significantly different in type or function. A proposed modification that is not technically capable of being completed, is not economically viable, or that adversely affects public safety through the endangerment of lives or property is not considered “practicable.” A proposed modification need not remove all economic value of the property in order to be considered not “practicable.” Conversely, a modification need not provide the highest and best use of the property to be “practicable.” In determining whether a proposed modification is practicable, consideration shall also be given to cost of the modification compared to the environmental benefit it achieves. Land Trust originally proposed constructing a surface water retention pond. The Stormtech stormwater management system would cause less wetland impact than a retention pond. Land Trust contends the use of a retaining wall reduces wetland impacts because, otherwise, more mangroves would have to be removed to account for the slope of the waterward side of the fill area. However, this proposition assumes the appropriateness of the size of the fill area. Land Trust also contends wetland impacts are reduced by using the adjacent development to access the proposed project site, rather than creating a new road. However, the evidence did not establish that Land Trust had a practicable and preferred alternative for access. Unlike the Stormtech system, the retaining wall and access driveway were not shown to be project modifications. The proposed project would cause fewer impacts to wetlands if the fill area was reduced in size, which was not shown to be impracticable. Reducing the size of the fill area would not cause the project to be significantly different in type or function. Land Trust did not demonstrate that it implemented reasonable design modifications to eliminate or reduce impacts to wetland functions. Mitigation Land Trust proposes to purchase credits from the Tampa Bay Mitigation Bank, which is 17 miles north of the proposed project site. The Tampa Bay Mitigation Bank is in the Tampa Bay Drainage Basin. The project site is in the South Coastal Drainage Basin. Pursuant to section 10.2.8 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume I, if an applicant mitigates adverse impacts within the same drainage basin, the agency will consider the regulated activity to have no unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters. However, if the applicant proposes to mitigate impacts in another drainage basin, factors such as “connectivity of waters, hydrology, habitat range of affected species, and water quality” will be considered to determine whether the impacts are fully offset. The parties disputed whether there was connectivity between the waters near the project site and the waters at the Tampa Bay Mitigation Bank. The more persuasive evidence shows there is connectivity. There was also a dispute about the habitat range of affected species. The evidence establishes that the species found in the mangroves at the project site are also found at the mitigation bank. However, local fish and wildlife, and local biological productivity would be diminished by the proposed project. This diminution affects Petitioners’ substantial interests. The loss or reduction of storm buffering and erosion prevention functions performed by the mangroves at Perico Island cannot be mitigated for at the Tampa Bay Mitigation Bank. Cumulative impacts are unacceptable when the proposed activity, considered in conjunction with past, present, and future activities would result in a violation of state water quality standards, or significant adverse impacts to functions of wetlands or other surface waters. See § 10.2.8.1, Applicant’s Handbook, Vol. I. Section 10.2.8(b) provides that, in considering the cumulative impacts associated with a project, the District is to consider other activities which reasonably may be expected to be located within wetlands or other surface waters in the same drainage basin, based upon the local government’s comprehensive plan. Land Trust did not make a prima facie showing on this point. Land Trust could propose a similar project on another part of its property on Perico Island. Anyone owning property in the area which is designated for residential use under the City of Bradenton’s comprehensive plan and bounded by wetlands could apply to enlarge the buildable portion of the property by removing the wetlands and filling behind a retaining wall. When considering future wetland impacts in the basin which are likely to result from similar future activities, the cumulative impacts of the proposed project would result in significant adverse impacts to wetland functions in the area. Public Interest For projects located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the project will not be contrary to the public interest, or if such activities significantly degrade or are within an Outstanding Florida Water, are clearly in the public interest, as determined by balancing the criteria set forth in rule 62- 330.302(1)(a), and as set forth in sections 10.2.3 through of the Applicant’s Handbook. Rule 62-330.302, which is identical to section 373.414, Florida Statutes, lists the following seven public interest balancing factors to be considered: Whether the activities will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activities will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activities will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activities will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activities will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activities will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, F.S.; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed regulated activity. The Parties stipulated that the proposed project would not have an adverse impact on public health, navigation, historical resources, archeological resources, or social costs. Land Trust proposes to give $5,000 to the City of Palmetto for an informational kiosk at the City of Palmetto’s public boat ramp. A District employee testified that this contribution made the project clearly in the public interest. Reasonable assurances were not provided that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest because of the adverse cumulative effects on the conservation of fish and wildlife, fishing and recreational values, and marine productivity of Anna Maria Sound, an Outstanding Florida Water.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District issue a final order that denies the Environmental Resource Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Christian Thomas Van Hise, Esquire Abel Band, Chartered Post Office Box 49948 Sarasota, Florida 34230-6948 (eServed) Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 7601 Highway 301 North Tampa, Florida 33637 (eServed) Douglas P. Manson, Esquire MansonBolves, P.A. 1101 West Swann Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 (eServed) Joseph McClash 711 89th Street Northwest Bradenton, Florida 34209 (eServed) Ralf G. Brookes, Esquire Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway, Suite 107 Cape Coral, Florida 33904 (eServed) Justin Bloom, Esquire Post Office Box 1028 Sarasota, Florida 34230 (eServed) Robert Beltram, P.E., Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent, Tom Mertens, committed a dredge and fill violation within the jurisdiction of the Department by conducting dredging and filling activities in the landward extent of waters of the State, without an appropriate permit, and whether the amount of the Department's costs and expenses associated with determining and abating the pollution involved are reasonable.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an agency of the State of Florida charged with administering and enforcing the dredge and fill provisions contained in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and attendant rules contained in Title 62, Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent, Tom Mertens, is a citizen of the State of Florida, who owned a parcel of real property located in Section 1, Township 1 South, Range 17 West, latitude 30 degrees, 25 minutes, 50 seconds, longitude 85 degrees, 54 minutes, 30 second, in Washington County, Florida, at times pertinent hereto. Linda Mertens is named as a Respondent in this action, but no evidence concerning her involvement in the subject matter has been presented. Based upon reports that it had received of certain construction or mechanical work taking place on the area in question, on the margin of the Choctawhatchee River, the Department identified the Respondent, Tom Mertens, as the owner of the property on which certain activities were allegedly occurring and arranged to meet with him to inspect the property. An inspection of the property revealed that dredging and filling activities had taken place. The inspection occurred on December 9, 1992. The inspection revealed that fill material had been placed covering .36 acres, an area of the property approximately 390 feet x 25 feet ("fill road") and another area approximately 70 feet x 25 feet at the lowland end of the fill road. The fill road appeared to be newly installed based upon the appearance of the clay material used, the instability of the road bed and the lack of vegetative growth in an on the sides and adjacent to the road bed, coupled with the appearance of adjacent felled trees. The clay material used for the fill road is not that normally found in a wetland area, such as the site in question. The property in question is in river-bottom land, bordering the Choctawhatchee River. The Department informed the Respondent that the activities done on the property appeared to violate Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and pertinent provisions of Title 17, Florida Administrative Code. It so informed the Respondent in a warning letter posted on December 29, 1992. Dredging and filling activities in the landward extent of waters of the State require permits from the Department prior to commencing the activity. The Respondent did not have any permit for the dredging and filling activities observed to have occurred on the property. The Respondent had never applied for a permit for such activities. No permission of any sort had been obtained from the Department authorizing conduct of the dredge and fill activities observed on the property by Department personnel. The Choctawhatchee River is a specifically-named water body of the State of Florida and is classed as an outstanding Florida water. Department employee, James Eric Buckelew, has been an environmental specialist with that agency for some 6-1/2 years. He works in the Division of Submerged Lands and Environmental Resource Permitting, formerly called the Division of Wetlands Management. That Division is in charge of dredge and fill permitting activities for the Northwest District of the Department. The jurisdiction of the Northwest District includes the property in question. Mr. Buckelew routinely makes wetland determinations, including delineating the landward extent of State waters, reviewing dredge and fill applications, and insuring that State water quality standards are maintained throughout the regulatory processes within the scope of his duties. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Resource Management and Planning and has completed all of the graduate course work for a Master's degree in Coastal Zone Management Biology. His academic courses included wetlands vegetation and ecology, plant taxonomy, botany, soil science, hydrology, geology, geography, hydrologic indicators, and training in the use of a dichotomous key. He has had additional training from the Department's Jurisdictional Evaluation Team, which provides Department employees with training on identification of vegetation, soil indicators, and hydrology, approximately every six months during his 6-1/2 years of tenure with the Department. The Department routinely relies upon his judgment in making determinations of wetland areas and delineations of the landward extent of State waters. Consequently, adequate proof being presented, Mr. Buckelew was accepted as an expert in making determinations of what areas lie within the landward extent of waters of the State and what areas are wetlands in terms of scientific application of the standards contained in the Department's organic rules, particularly the "vegetative index" to a particular site. During the inspection of the property on December 29, 1992, Mr. Buckelew made a determination concerning whether the property impacted by the dredging and filling activities was within the Department's jurisdiction. He determined that it was within the landward extent of waters of the State, using both hydrological and vegetational indicators. The portions of the property impacted by the dredge and fill activities were dominated by jurisdictional vegetation, including black gum (Nyssa biflora); overcup oak (Quercus lyrata); sweet bay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana); cypress (Taxodium); water oak (Quercus nigra); sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua); american holly (Ilex opaca); and ironwood (Capinus caroliniana). The portions of the property impacted by the Respondent's dredge and fill activities were in an area dominated by hydrologic indicators of Department jurisdiction, including staining of leaves, buttressing of tree trunk bases, the low elevation of the portion of the property involved, and its proximity to the Choctawhatchee River. The portions of the property impacted by the activities in question have been periodically inundated with water which covered the fill road. Consequently, Mr. Buckelew established that the portions of the property impacted by the dredge and fill activities, indeed, were within the landward extent of the waters of the State and thus within the Department's dredge and fill jurisdiction. Mr. Buckelew walked the entire length of the connection between the areas impacted by the dredge and fill activities and the waters of the State in making this determination, tracing the vegetational and hydrologic connections from the waters of the State to the impacted areas. He did not use soil sampling or analysis in his determination of the landward extent of waters of the State because it was unnecessary in the formation of his opinion. Under the circumstances, employment of the vegetative index and its application to the site would have been sufficient alone. The Department established that it incurred costs and expenses of $250.10 in tracing and abating this violation and pollution source. Mr. Buckelew, in establishing this expense and cost amount, also established that these were reasonable costs and expenses under the circumstances. Removal of the fill material and re-grading of the impacted areas to their natural grade, as well as allowing them to revegetate with natural species that exist on site, would essentially correct the dredge and fill violations and the pollution problem they engender. The Hearing Officer has considered the demeanor of the Respondent and the other witnesses, his prior sworn statement at deposition and his admissions made to Mr. Buckelew during the investigatory phase of this proceeding. Notwithstanding his testimony at hearing to the contrary, it is found that he placed the fill on the portions of the property at issue. It is, likewise, found that the Respondent or persons under his behest, direction, and control used various pieces of mechanical equipment to haul dirt to the fill sites and to perform the dredging and filling activities, including hauling of the fill to the site and its distribution on the property in the nature of that observed by the Department at the time of its inspection. It is found that the dredge site, or the portion of it referred to as the boat ramp, had straight, square-cut sides, which are inconsistent with that sloping area being caused by a flooding event, as maintained by the Respondent. The shape of the boat ramp was clearly consistent with dredging with mechanical equipment. In summary, based upon Mr. Buckelew's and Mr. Gilmore's testimony, which is accepted, regarding the fresh appearance of the fill road, the road's clay composition which is a soil type uncharacteristic of a river flood plain, as well as the demeanor of the Respondent, including consideration of his prior sworn statement at deposition, it is determined that the Respondent placed the fill material in question within the landward extent of waters of the State. The Respondent, in his opening statement, candidly admitted obtaining permits from the Department in the past for other activities. It is determined that he was reasonably aware that dredging and filling on this property might require a permit from the Department. Finally, based upon the totality of the credible evidence and the circumstances proven in this proceeding, the enforcement action and assessment of costs and expenses advanced by the Department are imminently reasonable. This is especially true in view of the fact that the Department has forborne attempting to fine the Respondent, within its authority, as much as $20,000.00.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent perform the following: Within thirty (30) days from the effective date of the Final Order, the Respondent shall make payment of $250.10 to the Department for the expenses incurred by the Department. Payment shall be in the form of a cashier's check or money order payable to the Department. Within sixty (60) days from the effective date of the Final Order, the Respondent must complete re-grading of the areas of the fill road and boat ramp identified in Exhibit 2 to the NOV and re-grade those areas so as to re- establish the original pre-existing contours and elevations existing before the filling, as indicated by the adjacent, undisturbed areas. The Respondent must also stabilize the restored areas as needed to retain sediment on site during the restoration activities. The Respondent shall utilize turbidity control devices throughout the restored areas, including the use of filter cloth in the vegetated wetlands and floating screens in the open waters. The Respondent shall provide written notification to the appropriate Department personnel within ten (10) days of the completion of the above-described restoration work. The Respondent shall immediately, upon the effective date of the Final Order, cease and desist from further dredging or filling within waters of the State prior to receiving the necessary permit from the Department or written notice from the Department that the proposed activity is exempt from the permitting requirements of the Department. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 1st day of December, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3897 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-41. Accepted. Rejected, as unnecessary and immaterial. Accepted. Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact 1-3. Accepted, but not materially dispositive. 4. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 5-6. Rejected, as immaterial and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as patently contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael C. Owens, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Mr. Tom Mertens Star Route Box 5B Ebro, Florida 32437 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Kenneth Plante, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact The property has been annexed into the Acme Improvement District (Intervenor) by Special Act of the Florida Legislature. Petitioner purchased 487.7 acres of this tract from private owners in 1954. Subsequently, Petitioner purchased 653.59 acres from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida on or about March 4, 1960. The balance of the land constituting the property is a 224 acre hiatus tract owned by Marshall Brown with whom Petitioner has an agricultural use agreement. A parcel of Petitioner's land within the property includes a commercial lease to Malrite Corporation for siting a television antenna, consisting of 111 acres in the southeast corner of the property. This area is within the permit application. The tract is otherwise undeveloped and is currently submerged or semi- submerged during much of the year. Petitioner's development plan envisions drainage of this tract and use of the property for cultivation. The property is bounded on the north by Acme Improvement District, on the east by a subdivision called Homeland, on the west by Water Conservation Area #1, also known as the Loxahatchee Refuge, and on the south by undeveloped lands. The boundaries of the Loxahatchee Refuge actually encroach by approximately 300 feet into the property. The property development plan, which is the basis of this application, was prepared by the engineering firm Gee and Jensen. This plan calls for the creation of a 240 acre reservoir of a proposed 3 foot maximum depth. This reservoir would hold the internal stormwater runoff for subsequent agricultural irrigation. Perimeter dikes are to be constructed to prevent surface water runoff from outside areas entering the project and perimeter ditches are to be developed for the deliverance of stormwater runoff from the internal agricultural system to proposed pump stations located at the southwest corner of the development area. On the northwest corner of the proposed reservoir, the existing Acme Improvement District pump station No. 2 would be increased in capacity by 27,000 gallons per minute. Under Acme's charter and its statutory annexation of the property, the proposed reservoir and water management works would become a unit of development controlled by Acme. Under Petitioner's agreement with the hiatus tract owner, Acme would be the exclusive manager and operator of the proposed system, and the property would become an integral part of Acme's water management system. The Acme Water Improvement District is not solely an agricultural support enterprise but serves the various uses which may evolve within its boundaries. The area is currently zoned for limited residential development as well as agricultural. The television antenna facility located on the property is an example of a non-agricultural use. Petitioner's surface water management system is proposed to discharge into the Acme system, which in turn discharges offsite. Discharge into the Acme system is of a limited nature, but the system is designed to discharge for successive days under wet conditions. The design discharge is not limited to an extreme rainfall event but would probably occur during the traditional hydrologic cycle of south Florida. Under conditions which reflect actual rainfall over the past 20 years, the proposed surface water management system would have discharged 19 out of 20 years into the Water Conservation Area (Loxahatchee Refuge). In some years this discharge would have continued for approximately three months. The unrebutted testimony of expert witnesses called by Respondent established that the entire 1,393 acre tract referred to herein as "the property" is a freshwater wetland habitat. The western half is emergent marsh land, while the eastern half is forested with woody species. The wetlands on the property form a valuable wildlife habitat. Environmentally, they are in excellent condition. This area has not been adversely affected by drainage, fire or exotic species. These marshes also have good habitat diversity. The populations of aquatic invertebrates and forage fishes that are produced in these Everglades marshes are utilized by the many species of wading birds that feed in these wetlands. The proposed project will adversely affect wildlife species, including a variety of wading birds which will likely be unable to relocate. While this is undesirable from an environmental standpoint, conversion of this land would provide benefits from an agricultural standpoint, and would create additional water recreational facilities.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order denying the application. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 30th day of November, 1983.
The Issue The issue is whether to approve an application by Respondent, I.M. Collier, J.V. (Collier), to modify its Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 11-02031P (2002 Permit) by changing the surface water management system (SWMS) for a proposed residential and golf course development in Collier County (County), Florida, known as Mirasol.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties National Audubon Society, Inc. is a not-for-profit corporation (incorporated outside the State of Florida) while Collier County Audubon Society, Inc., Florida Wildlife Federation, and Conservancy of Southwest Florida are Florida not-for-profit corporations. All are environmental organizations. Franklin Adams is a resident of the County and a member of each of the above organizations. Respondents have not contested Petitioners' standing based upon the stipulated facts set forth in the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation. The District is a water management district with the power and duty to exercise regulatory jurisdiction over the administration and enforcement of ERP criteria pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Title 40E. Collier is the holder of the 2002 Permit authorizing the construction of a SWMS to serve the Mirasol project, a large development located in the County. The parties have stipulated that Collier has the administrative, legal, and financial capabilities to undertake the proposed activity. Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.301(1)(j). The Project Site The Mirasol project consists of approximately 1,713.45 acres located on the north side of Immokalee Road and the Cocohatchee Canal (Canal) in the northern half of the County, approximately three miles east of the intersection with Interstate 75. The property spans three sections of land, the northern third of the property encompassing Section 10, the middle third encompassing Section 15, and the southern third encompassing most of Section 22. The site also includes a peninsula of land extending east of Section 10, encompassing the northernmost quarter of Section 11. The site is bounded on the south by the Canal and Immokalee Road and on the east by an existing residential development known as Heritage Bay, which was previously a rock- mining quarry. To the west of the site, running north to south, are two other proposed residential developments known as Parklands Collier and Terafina/Saturnia Falls and an existing residential and golf course community known as Olde Cypress. There are other existing and proposed residential developments and farm fields to the north of the site. The site is located southwest of the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary (Corkscrew Swamp), which is owned by the National Audubon Society, Inc., and appears to stretch from Immokalee (in the northeastern part of the County) south and southwestward through parts of the County. Corkscrew Swamp sits roughly at the center of a 315-mile watershed, much of which is comprised of short hydroperiod wetlands which dry down completely during the late winter and spring and become inundated again in the late summer and fall during the wet season. This water gradually sheet flows down a very slight downhill gradient toward the south and west. A portion of the sheet flow travels southwest in the vicinity of the site. The region has experienced occasional floods, the most severe of which occurred in 1995. At the direction of the District, the cause of the flooding was investigated in the South Lee County Watershed Study (Study), which concluded that the watershed discharges through a variety of outfalls, but that historic connections to downstream conveyances like the Canal were severed by the construction. While downstream conveyances exist, the Study concluded that connections between upstream flows and downstream conveyances should be enhanced or restored. In the late 1990s, the Canal was improved to increase its conveyance capacity. A berm was constructed by the Big Cypress Basin Board (Basin Board), a legislatively-created entity which manages water resources in the County, on the northern bank in the vicinity of, and across from, the Mirasol site. This berm prevented historic wet season sheet flow from reaching the Canal through the project site, except for a few culverts located along that water body. The Basin Board also built a 1,000-foot-long hardened concrete weir on the north side of the Canal a few thousand yards west of the project site. This weir provides the primary outlet for sheet flow in and around the Mirasol site. Currently, upstream drainage flows in a southwesterly direction across Section 10. As the water moves south to the Canal, the flow becomes constricted down to a 580-foot wide gap between the Olde Cypress residential development and commercial developments along Immokalee Road to the east. This constricted area further narrows to a 270-foot wide opening before the sheet flow reaches the 1,000-foot weir and discharges into the Canal. During a 3-day, 25-year storm event, a combined peak flow of 553 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water is discharged into the Canal through the 1,000-foot weir, but the Mirasol property only conveys a small portion of this water (around 20 cfs) through culverts in the Canal berm. Most of the water flows to the west of Mirasol where it passes through the narrow gap and over the 1,000-foot weir. Around 1,431 acres of the 1,714-acre site are jurisdictional wetlands. However, these wetlands are in poor condition due to existing impediments to sheet flow, artificially high water levels during the wet season, and heavy infestation of exotic species, principally melaleuca. Permit History In February 2002, the District issued the 2002 Permit approving the construction of a SWMS to serve two 18-hole golf courses, a single-family residential community, a golf course clubhouse and parking area, golf course maintenance facilities, sales facility, and parking area. The issuance of the 2002 Permit was not challenged. The SWMS included a 36.5-acre flow-way (Flow-Way) that encircled the northern boundary of the development in Section 15 and extended off-site and across adjacent properties to the west. (If constructed, the Flow-Way would be a 200-foot wide, 4-foot deep, 89-acre channel, more than half of which would have been located on the Saturnia Falls/Terafina and Olde Cypress properties.) Besides providing a conveyance function for the Mirasol site, the Flow-Way also enhanced flood protection for other properties by accelerating conveyance of floodwaters to the Canal and reducing peak flood stages by 0.4 feet during a three-day, 25-year storm event. The District included Special Condition 26 in the 2002 Permit, which required construction of the Flow-Way before the remainder of the project could be constructed. The 2002 Permit authorized Collier to directly impact (fill or excavate) 568.66 acres of wetlands within the footprint of the development. Additionally, 39.5 acres of wetlands, which were isolated remnant strips along the golf courses within the development, were considered secondarily impacted and assessed a thirty-three percent reduction in functional value. Mitigation for the project consisted of preservation and enhancement of wetlands and uplands on site. Enhancement of the preserve areas was primarily credited to the eradication of malaleuca and other exotic species and replanting with appropriate native vegetation. Permit conditions required management of the preserve areas to prevent a recurrence of exotic species. The preserve areas included an 846.95-acre external preserve area to the north and northeast of the area to be developed. It was anticipated that this northern preserve area would ultimately be donated to an existing mitigation area known as the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed, along with an interest-bearing fund to ensure perpetual management. In December 2005, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) denied Collier's federal wetlands permit application for the project and the Flow-Way. Because of this denial, in May 2006 Collier submitted an ERP application with the District seeking to modify the 2002 Permit by revising the SWMS and removing the Flow-Way. On October 12, 2006, the District Governing Board approved a modification to the 2002 Permit, which authorized an alternate SWMS to serve the golf course and residential development (2006 Permit). Petitioners' challenge to the proposed modification followed. The 2006 Modification Because of the Corps' denial of its application, Collier was required to remove the Flow-Way and redesign the project's SWMS. The most substantial change in the project was the removal of the Flow-Way and associated control structures and its replacement with a series of interconnected lakes running from north to south through the property allowing for the pass-through of surface waters from the area north of the development site into the Canal. The modification does not alter the boundaries and location of the development. However, the revised SWMS includes: five controlled basins with a total area of 718.43 acres, each of which provides treatment of stormwater prior to discharging into the pass-through system; 45.16 acres of interconnected lakes serving as a pass-through for surface waters from the north; 2.12 acres of perimeter berm backslope/ buffers/spreader swales; and 7.27 acres along the Canal for the existing 100-foot wide canal easement and proposed canal contouring. These changes also required elimination of the 39.5 acres of remnant wetlands inside the development that had previously been assessed as secondarily impacted. Also, there were 0.68 acres of additional impacts resulting from slight changes in the internal site design due to the SWMS. To partially offset these impacts, the internal wetland preserves were enlarged by 13.32 acres. The remaining impacts were mitigated with mitigation credits from the Panther Island Mitigation Bank (PIMB). (The PIMB holds a mitigation bank permit issued by the District for a wetland restoration project in Southwest Florida.) The main preserve was left unchanged, except that 36.5 acres previously dedicated to construction of the Flow-Way will be added to the main preserve and similarly enhanced and preserved. In summary, as modified under the 2006 Permit, the total onsite mitigation consists of the preservation and enhancement of 830.89 acres of wetlands, preservation of 109.58 acres of uplands, and the purchase of a total of 5.68 credits from the PIMB. At hearing, Collier also agreed to purchase from the PIMB an additional 5.68 credits within the Basin for a total of 11.36 credits. The ERP Permitting Criteria To obtain an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions in Florida Administrative Code Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. The first rule focuses primarily on water quantity, environmental impacts, and water quality, while the second rule generally requires that a public interest balancing test be made, that cumulative impacts, if any, be considered, and that the District consider past violations, if any, by the applicant of District or Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) rules. (The parties have cited no prior violations by the applicant that should be considered.) Besides these two rules, a number of BOR provisions which implement the rule criteria must also be taken into account. If an applicant proposes to modify an existing ERP, as it does here, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.331(2)(a) comes into play and requires that the District review the application to modify the ERP "using the same criteria as new applications for those portions of the project proposed for, or affected by, the modification." Under this rule, those portions of the project altered or affected by the modification are reviewed under the current ERP criteria, but otherwise the 2002 Permit is not the subject of review in this case. Therefore, the District's review includes only that portion of the existing permit that is proposed to be modified or affected by the modification. In this case, the 2006 design is very similar to the 2002 design, and the project's footprint, control elevations, roadway network, southern outfall, and main preserve are unchanged. However, as pointed out below, since most of the engineering-related components of the SWMS were affected by the Flow-Way's removal, the District reassessed the hydrologic components of the internal water management system and the pass- through lake system for levels of flood protection and water quality treatment. Because most of the engineering-related components of the SWMS for the project were modified as a result of the removal of the Flow-Way, the District staff reassessed the project's hydrologic calculations associated with levels of flood protection and reassessed the project's water quality treatment volumes applying the currently existing ERP criteria. As to wetland impacts and mitigation, review of the wetland impacts for the 2006 Permit was limited to an analysis of additional wetlands impacts associated with the modification. This was primarily the elimination of the previously permitted, secondarily impacted wetlands. Thus, only the additional wetlands impacts due to the revised SWMS are considered under the currently existing ERP criteria. The 2006 Permit made only slight changes to the project's wetland impacts and mitigation components authorized under the 2002 Permit. The project's footprint was not changed and the main mitigation area (the Northern Preserve) was unaffected by the changes except that 36.50 acres were actually added to that preserve as a result of the removal of the Flow- Way. Collier did not receive any credit in its mitigation analysis for the additional acreage that will become part of the preserve due to the removal of the Flow-Way. Surface Water Management Criteria As noted above, the ERP criteria in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301 focus primarily on three areas of concern: water quantity, environmental impacts, and water quality. Related BOR provisions must also be considered. These areas of concern are discussed below. Water Quantity Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a) requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurance that the construction of a SWMS "[w]ill not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands." BOR Section 6.2 implements that provision and requires that a project be designed so that it is consistent with the downstream carrying capacity of the receiving waters. In other words, it must not exceed the capacity of downstream receiving waters, which in this case is the Canal. In making this determination, Section 6.3 of the BOR requires that the 25-year, 3-day design storm event be used. Collier complied with this requirement through an extensive hydrologic study conducted by its expert, Richard S. Tomasello, a former District employee. Applying a hydrologic model simulation known as S2DMM, the witness determined the appropriate amount of upstream sheet flow that would need to be routed through the project to avoid adverse water quantity and flooding impacts and calculated the correct dimensions of the intake weir to admit that flow into the project's pass-through system. The S2DMM model is a combination of other accepted models including the Sheet 2d, Massmod, and MBR models, which were developed by Mr. Tomasello, and they have been evaluated and used by the District on numerous occasions. In addition, the S2DMM model has been used for other flood studies in Collier and Lee Counties, and it will be used on a restoration project in Martin County. Based upon Mr. Tomasello's analysis, Collier incorporated a 100-foot-long intake weir with a crest elevation of 14.95 NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum) along the northern boundary of the project to maintain existing upstream water elevations. Collier also complied with BOR Section 6.3, which requires the use of a 25-year, 3-day storm event to be used when computing the discharge rate for the project. The modified intake weir on the northern boundary includes two 3.5-foot wide rectangular notches set at an elevation of 14.00 NGVD, which will provide a "base flow" of up to 20 cfs into the pass-through lakes to mimic the current flow through the property. The determination of this base flow was made through an analysis of the existing culverts at the southern end of the property. While not required by the ERP criteria, Collier also performed a long-term analysis (using a four-year period of record) of the SWMS's effect upon water levels. This analysis demonstrated that the modified system would leave water levels in the wetland areas upstream of the project unchanged during normal rainfall and low-flow periods. This analysis provides additional assurances that the modifications to the SWMS will not affect the Northern Preserve. While Petitioners questioned the accuracy and reliability of the hydrologic study, and its specific application to this project, the criticisms are considered to be vague and unsubstantiated. As noted above, the model has been previously accepted for use in South Florida, and Petitioners' expert conceded he did not have enough information to determine the model's accuracy. The more persuasive evidence established that the hydrologic study submitted by Collier included the relevant available data and was prepared by competent professionals knowledgeable in the field. The claim of Petitioners' experts that they lacked sufficient information to form an opinion on the accuracy of the modeling is not a sufficient basis to overcome the evidence submitted by Collier to meet this criterion. The project's discharge rate in 2006 will not exceed what was permitted in the 2002 Permit. During the 25-year, 3-day storm event, the existing discharge from the project site and the natural area west of the project site into the Canal is 553 cfs. Based on modeling of the modified SWMS, the total discharge from the pass-through system will be 529 cfs, or 24 cfs less than the project's existing pre-development discharge. The discharges resulting from the project as modified in 2006 will not exceed the capacity of the Canal as required by Section 6.3 of the BOR. Accordingly, Collier has provided reasonable assurance that the discharge rate allowed for its project would not be exceeded, as required in Section 6.2 of the BOR. Section 6.8 of the BOR requires that a project allow the passage of drainage from offsite areas to downstream areas, which is necessary to demonstrate that off-site receiving water bodies are not being adversely affected. Collier complied with this provision by conducting the hydrologic analysis using the 25-year, 3-day design storm event, which demonstrated that the discharge rate would be directed to the southern discharge point allowing for the passage of drainage from offsite areas to the downstream areas. The evidence also shows that the current predominant sheetflow from areas outside the project passes through a narrowly constricted area west of the project and discharges into the Canal over an existing concrete weir. See Finding of Fact 9, supra. Only a small portion of the upstream waters currently discharge through the Mirasol site. Petitioners' allegation that the construction of the project will further constrict the sheetflow area is rejected, as the constriction of sheetflow will continue to exist whether the project is built or not. The evidence also shows that the project will not further constrict the flow because it will allow for the pass-through of water from outside the project area. Under the 2002 Permit, the Flow-Way was designed to aid in the diversion of upstream flows around the project. Under the 2006 modifications, the pass-through lake system will convey up to forty percent of the upstream flow through the development which complies with the provisions of Section 6.8 of the BOR. As indicated above, during periods of lower water levels, the notches in the weir along the northern boundary will allow for the flow to pass onto the project site consistent with existing conditions. During major storm events, water will pass over the weir into the pass-through lake system to be conveyed to the Canal. Therefore, Collier has provided reasonable assurance that the criteria in Section 6.8 have been met. Section 6.10 of the BOR requires that the project be designed to conserve water and site environmental values and not lower the water table or groundwater or over-drain wetlands. Section 6.11 of the BOR provides that the control and detention elevations for the project must be established at elevations to accomplish the objectives of Section 6.10. The latter section is adhered to when the control elevations proposed for a project are established consistent with the onsite wetland conditions. In this case, the control elevations for the wetlands and surface water management lakes are essentially the same as the design in the 2002 Permit. Collier has set the control elevations above the average wet season water table (WSWT) for the area, thereby ensuring that the SWMS will not over-drain and will conserve fresh water. Section 6.11 of the BOR addresses Detention and Control Elevations which are intended to assist in complying with the provisions of Section 6.10. The SWMS design control elevation maintains the detention component and the control (wetland protection) elevations in the previously approved SWMS. The control elevations were set by the design engineers in consultation with Collier's wetland ecologist taking into account the ground elevations and biological indicators. The control elevation for the pass-through system and internal drainage basins work in conjunction with the control elevation along the northern boundary of the project and the control elevation for the discharge point along the southern boundary to ensure that the project does not overdrain the wetlands and to preserve the project site's environmental values. By setting the control elevation above the WSWT, the design ensures that the wetlands will not be drawn down below the average WSWT and the SWMS will not over-drain them. Section 6.10 also requires that a project not lower water tables so that the existing rights of others would be adversely affected. Again, based on the control elevations, the water table is not expected to be lowered so there should be no effect on the existing rights of others. Collier must further demonstrate that the site's groundwater recharge characteristics will be preserved through the design of the SWMS. Collier complied with this requirement by setting the control elevations above the average WSWT, allowing standing water in the wetland preserves to recharge the groundwater. The ability of the SWMS to accept flows from the Northern Preserve conserves freshwater by preventing that water from being discharged downstream. The SWMS leaves water elevations in the Northern Preserve unchanged. Consequently, water will remain in the wetlands for the same duration and elevations as in the existing conditions, thereby preserving groundwater recharge characteristics. Section 6.12 of the BOR prohibits lake designs that create an adverse gradient between the control elevations of the lakes and the adjacent wetlands. To satisfy this requirement, Collier set all control elevations at 13.4 - 13.5 NGVD while controlling the internal wetland preserves at a slightly higher elevation. Consequently, there is no adverse gradient and no potential for an adverse effect upon the internal preserves from adjacent lakes. Petitioners argued that the pass-through system would quickly lower water levels in the internal wetland preserves. However, the internal wetlands are still protected from drawdown because there are control structures set at or above the wet season elevation between the pass-through lakes and internal wetlands. They also argued that the internal wetlands would be overdrained during the dry season by the deep lakes. However, no witness presented any real analysis to back up this contention. Indeed, the pass-through lakes are only twelve feet deep, and the wetlands are separated from all the lakes by protective berms to avoid any drawdown. In summary, Collier has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed modification in the 2006 Permit will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters or adjacent lands and will not exceed the capacity of the downstream receiving waters (the Canal). Flooding Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(b) requires Collier to demonstrate that the project "[w]ill not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property." BOR Section 6.4 sets forth criteria and standards for implementing this requirement and provides that building floors be designed to be protected from a 100-year, 3-day storm event. BOR Section 6.5 provides criteria and standards for flood protection for the project's roads and parking lots. Collier complied with these provisions by providing construction plans demonstrating that the building floors and roads will be built higher than the 100-year, 3-day storm event. BOR Section 6.6 provides that a project may not result in any net encroachment into the 100-year floodplain. Collier was also required to comply with the historic basin provision in Section 6.7 of the BOR, which requires the project to replace or otherwise mitigate the loss of historic basin storage provided by the site. The level of encroachment into the 100-year flood plain and loss of historic basin storage attributed to the project are essentially unchanged from the 2002 design. The only difference between the 2002 Permit and the 2006 Permit is how the conveyance of flood water is provided. In 2002, the Flow-Way served this function, while the pass-through system provides it in the 2006 Permit. Collier's flood simulations demonstrated that the project will not alter flood stages during the 25-year and 100- year design storms, while the testimony of witnesses Tomasello and Waterhouse established that the project will not have adverse flooding impacts on adjacent properties, either alone or in conjunction with neighboring developments. Storage and Conveyance Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c) requires that an applicant demonstrate that the proposed development "[w]ill not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities." This criterion is closely related to paragraph (1)(b) of the same rule, which prohibits adverse flooding to onsite or offsite property. Section 6.6 of the BOR implements this provision and specifies the parameters for applying this criterion and prohibits a net encroachment between the WSWT and the 100-year event which will adversely affect the existing rights of others. Collier addressed this criterion through the hydrologic analysis submitted. As previously found, that model is the appropriate model to determine flood stages and to calculate the floodplain. Engineering Design Principles Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the SWMS "[w]ill be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed." Section 7.0 of the BOR contains the specific standards and criteria to implement this rule. The evidence demonstrates that the SWMS is based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles and is capable of performing and functioning as proposed. Section 8.0 of the BOR includes various assumptions and information regarding the design of the SWMS. By incorporating these assumptions into the design, Collier complied with Section 8.0. Water Quality Impacts Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) requires that the proposed modification "[w]ill not adversely affect the quality of the receiving waters such that the water quality standards set forth in Chapters 62-4, 62-302, 62-520, 62-522 and 62-550, F.A.C., including any antidegradation provisions of paragraphs 62-4.242(1)(a) and (b), subsections 62- 4.242(2) and (3), and Rule 62-302.300, F.A.C., and any special standards for Outstanding Florida Waters and Outstanding National Resource Waters set forth in subsections 62-4.242(2) and (3), F.A.C., will be violated." Stated more plainly, the proposed modifications must not adversely affect the quality of the Canal's waters such that State water quality standards will be violated. Section 5.2 of the BOR describes the District's standard water quality criteria. This provision, which requires a minimum of one-inch detention of stormwater, is referred to as a "presumptive criteria" because it is presumed that if an applicant provides the required one inch of detention, it meets Class III water quality standards, thereby satisfying the rule. As it did under the 2002 Permit, Collier satisfies the presumptive criteria with the 2006 design by providing the one- inch wet detention in its lake system. In fact, the system is designed to provide one and a half inches of treatment in the lake system thereby providing additional treatment. The receiving body of water for the project is the Canal. When the 2002 Permit was issued, the Canal was classified as a Class III water body. It is now classified by DEP as impaired for iron and dissolved oxygen. Because of this new classification, Collier must now comply with Section 4.2.4.5 of the BOR, which reads as follows: If the site of the proposed activity currently does not meet water quality standards, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the water quality standards by meeting the provisions in 4.2.4.1, 4.2.4.2, and 4.2.4.3, as applicable, and for the parameters which do not meet water quality standards, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed activity will not contribute to the existing violation. If the proposed activity will contribute to the existing violation, mitigation may be proposed as described in subsection 4.3.1.4. Collier demonstrated that neither short-term (during construction) nor long-term (during operation) water quality impacts will occur. It complied with the short-term requirements by submitting a Construction Pollution Prevention Plan detailing how water quality will be protected during the construction process. As to long-term impacts, the Terrie Bates Water Quality Memorandum (Bates Memo) prepared by District staff on June 11, 2004, provides guidance on the implementation of Section 4.2.4.5 for projects which discharge into an impaired water body. The document sets forth a number of design and operational criteria for the types of additional measures that can be incorporated into a project design to provide the necessary reasonable assurance. The Bates Memo suggests that an additional fifty percent of treatment be incorporated into a SWMS. Collier complied with this suggestion by designing the treatment lakes to provide an additional one-half inch of treatment for the additional fifty percent treatment. In addition to the one and one-half inch treatment, Collier is implementing six of the seven items the Bates Memo lists as potential options to consider. The long-term water quality requirement is addressed by Collier, in part, through an Urban Stormwater Management Plan, which details various source controls or best management practices to be implemented once the project is built and operating. Best management practices assist in ensuring that pollutants will not enter into the lake system. Collier is also implementing a stormwater pollution prevention plan and will utilize the lake system for additional treatment downstream. Collier has further agreed to planting the littoral zones as part of its design of the treatment lakes to provide additional pollutant removal. The design calls for an amount of littoral zones equal to twenty percent of the surface area of the treatment lakes. Collier has agreed to make a Water Quality Monitoring Plan a permit condition, even though such a condition was not included in the staff report. See Collier Exhibit 25. The Bates Memo includes as an option for meeting the long-term requirement a site-specific water quality evaluation of pre vs. post-development pollutant loadings. Collier has presented several such analyses, all of which indicate the post- development pollutant discharges from the site will be less than the pre-development. Mr. Barber prepared a pre vs. post- analysis using a 2003 methodology developed by Dr. Harper. The 2003 version of the Harper methodology is currently accepted by the Corps. (Although Petitioners' witness, a former Corps employee, suggested that the Corps' acceptance of the study was a "political" rather than a scientific decision, there is insufficient evidence to support this contention.) Besides his first analysis, at the direction of the District staff, Mr. Barber prepared a second analysis using the 2003 methodology with certain conservative assumptions that limited the pollutant residents time to fifty days and utilized lower starting concentrations for phosphorous and nitrogen than were recorded in the nearby monitoring stations. Based upon those reports, the District's staff concluded that Collier had provided reasonable assurances that the project met the criteria in BOR Sections 5.2 and 4.2.4.5. At the hearing, Mr. Barber presented a third analysis utilizing an updated methodology developed by Dr. Harper in February 2006. The 2006 methodology was developed after Dr. Harper conducted a study of water management district criteria throughout the state for DEP. All three of the analyses prepared by Mr. Barber concluded that the project would discharge less nitrogen and phosphorous into the receiving body in the post-development condition than is currently being discharged in the pre-development condition. In addition to the three water quality submittals from Mr. Barber, Collier provided an additional water quality analysis specific to the project prepared by Dr. Harper. See Collier Exhibit 26, which is commonly referred to as the Harper Report. The analysis evaluated the project's pre vs. post- development water quality loads and also concluded the project would not contribute to the impairment of the Canal. In preparing his analysis, Dr. Harper relied solely on the lakes for estimating removal of pollutants without accounting for any of the additional treatment expected to occur from the source control best management practices contained in the Urban Stormwater Management Plan, which means his report errs on the conservative side. The Harper Report concluded that iron discharges from the SWMS would be extremely low and substantially less than the Class III standard of 1 mg/L. Petitioners presented no specific evidence to counter these conclusions. Petitioners questioned the Harper Report's use of wetlands as part of the loading calculations and attacked his underlying methodology. However, the evidence is clear that wetlands contribute to the water quality constituents in the pre-development condition. This finding is based on data from monitoring stations located in the middle of Corkscrew Swamp, a statewide study on stormwater treatment and wetlands, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) assignment of nutrient loading rates to wetlands in its regional pollutant loading model. Ignoring the actual water quality in pre-development conditions would not be a true pre vs. post-development analysis. Finally, Petitioners' contention that the Harper methodology should not be considered as admissible evidence because it constitutes "novel" (and therefore unreliable) scientific evidence under the rationale of Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), has been rejected. To begin with, the Frye test has not been accepted in Florida administrative proceedings. Moreover, the methodology is the basis for a new statewide rulemaking effort, has been accepted by the EPA, the Corps, and by the Division of Administrative Hearings in at least two proceedings, and has been subjected to two peer reviews. Petitioners also alleged that Collier failed to show that it complied with Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 40.432(2)(a)1., a rule administered by DEP which requires that a new SWMS "[a]chieve at least 80 percent reduction of the average annual load of pollutants that would cause or contribute to violations of state water quality standards." However, this is a broad overstatement of DEP's rule. Also, there is no eighty percent removal efficiency requirement adopted or incorporated into any District rule or BOR criteria. See, e.g., Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Inc. v. G.L. Homes of Naples Associates II, LTD et al., DOAH Case No. 06-4922 (DOAH May 15, 2007, SFWMD July 11, 2007). Instead, the District's "presumptive criteria" is that one inch of volumetric treatment required in Section 5.2 of the BOR meets the Class III standards. If, as in this case, additional assurances are required, those assurances are met through implementation of the BOR Section 4.2.4.5. Finally, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-40.110(2) provides that Rule Chapter 62-40 is "intended to provide water resource implementation goals, objectives, and guidance for the development and review of programs, rules, and plans relating to water resources." Also, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 40.110(4) states that "[t]his chapter, in and of itself, shall not constitute standards or criteria for decisions on individual permits. This chapter also does not constitute legislative authority to the Districts for the adoption of rules if such rules are not otherwise authorized by statute." Even if an eighty percent reduction standard applied, Collier has demonstrated that the project very likely will remove eighty percent or more of pollutants when additional low-impact development techniques, pollutant source reduction practices, and additional uncredited wet and dry detention capacity are considered. Based upon the evidence presented, Section 4.2.8 of the BOR regarding cumulative impacts for water quality is not applicable in this case. Collier's submittals provide reasonable assurances that the project will not be contributing to the water quality impairment of the Canal or contribute to any other water quality violation. Indeed, the information submitted indicates there will be an incremental improvement in the post-development condition as compared to existing. Since no contribution or impacts to water quality are expected, a cumulative impact analysis is not necessary to assess the extent of the impacts. The combination of all these water quality measures, when taken together, demonstrates that the 2006 Permit will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that state water quality standards will be violated. Therefore, reasonable assurance has been given that Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) will be satisfied. Wetland Impacts Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d) requires Collier to provide reasonable assurance that the modification of the SWMS "[w]ill not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters." In determining whether this criterion has been satisfied, it is also necessary to determine whether any 2002 permitted impacts should be subject to a second review in this case. Mitigation is a method by which an applicant can propose to impact certain wetlands on the project site in exchange for providing compensation in the form of preserving, enhancing, restoring, or creating wetlands or uplands to offset those impacts. As noted earlier, there has been no change to the wetland impacts or mitigation proposal as it relates to the Northern Preserve. See Findings of Fact 27 and 28, supra. As a result of the modified SWMS, there has been some additional impact to wetlands within the development area of the project. An additional 40.18 acres will be impacted under the 2006 Permit mostly due to the modified SWMS system. However, 39.5 acres of those wetlands were already considered secondarily impacted under the 2002 Permit. In addition, the preserve areas were expanded by 13.32 acres in the 2006 design. Thus, a portion of the impacts to those wetlands was already factored into the mitigation plan that was developed and approved for the 2002 Permit. As a result, there are 26 acres for which mitigation is necessary under the 2006 Permit. Section 4.3 of the BOR specifies criteria for mitigation proposed as part of an ERP application. Collier has proposed an acceptable mitigation plan for the new wetland impacts that will result from the project due to the proposed modifications incorporated in the 2006 Permit. Except for the mitigation for the additional wetland impacts, the mitigation plan for the 2006 Permit remains essentially unchanged from the 2002 Permit, including the Grading and Planting Plan, Monitoring Plan, and Mitigation, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plan. The onsite mitigation proposal includes preservation and restoration of wetlands through the removal of melaleuca and other exotic plants and replanting in areas of dense exotic species coverage. Significantly, Collier has not proposed any modifications that would change the effectiveness of the Northern Preserve in providing mitigation for the wetland impacts proposed and approved in the 2002 Permit. While Petitioners claim that the wetlands in the Northern Preserve may be subject to some changes in the level and seasonality of inundation as a result of the SWMS modifications, the evidence does not support those assertions. The revised SWMS will continue to allow water to flow through the Northern Preserve in a manner consistent with existing conditions while providing some flood control protection for extreme rainfall events. Petitioners also suggest that additional analysis regarding the timing and levels of inundation in the wetland preserves is necessary to fully determine the impacts of the modified SWMS on the wetlands. However, the more persuasive testimony indicates that the timing and levels within the wetlands will not be affected by the revised SWMS. The control elevations within the development area have not changed from the 2002 Permit, and these protect the onsite wetlands and ensure that those wetlands will function as expected. With respect to the internal wetlands within the development area, the control elevations have not changed from the 2002 Permit and the evidence establishes that the internal wetlands will continue to function and operate as contemplated in the 2002 Permit. There has been some relocation and reconfiguration of the internal wetland preserve areas that will actually enhance the value of the mitigation by connecting those wetland areas to other preserve areas. Petitioners further suggested that the wetland mitigation within the development area would not function as permitted in the 2002 Permit due to the spill over from the lakes to the wetlands. However, when the water reaches those internal wetland preserves, it has been treated to Class III water quality standards. Therefore, the mitigation values of those wetlands preserves will not be changed or affected due to water quality. Petitioners' objections to the wetland impacts and mitigation were primarily directed at the overall impacts rather than to the 2006 modifications. However, their witness was unaware of the values provided by the additional acres that will be impacted through the 2006 Permit. Therefore, a challenge to 2002 permitted wetlands impacts and mitigation is inappropriate in this proceeding. Functions To Fish and Wildlife and Listed Species Section 4.2.2 of the BOR implements Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d) and provides that an applicant must provide reasonable assurances that a project will not cause adverse impact to the abundance and diversity of fish, wildlife, and listed species or their habitat. With respect to the 586.66 acres of wetland impacts permitted in the 2002 Permit, the 2006 Permit does not modify or affect the values that the wetlands provide to either the abundance or diversity of fish and wildlife. Review of the wetlands criteria as to those acres was finally determined in the 2002 Permit and should not be reopened. By relocating thirteen of the previously impacted acres so they are most closely connected to other wetlands, their value to fish and wildlife will increase. As explained by the District's witness Bain, if Collier had moved the preserve area and changed its functional value, the District would have been required to reevaluate the mitigation that had been accepted for the wetland impacts in the 2002 permit. In this case, however, because the Northern Preserve area did not change, the District's review is limited to the newly impacted wetlands internal to the development for which mitigation was not provided in the 2002 Permit. Section 4.2.2.3 of the BOR addresses the functional assessment of the values provided by the project's wetlands. The only wetland values assessed in the 2006 Permit were the additional wetland impacts that were not mitigated in the 2002 Permit. The evidence establishes that the current value of the wetlands is low due to the heavy melaleuca infestation, which is greater than fifty percent coverage in most locations and seventy-five percent or more in much of the area. Melaleuca has the effect of draining short hydroperiod wetlands. While Petitioners may disagree with how the wetlands were previously evaluated, nothing in the 2006 modification allows or requires a reassessment of their value. Section 4.2.2.4 of the BOR requires that a regulated activity not adversely impact the hydroperiod (the depth, duration, or frequency of inundation) of wetlands or other surface waters. Subsection (a) of this standard applies if the project is expected to reduce the hydroperiod in any of the project's wetlands. Conversely, subsection (b) applies if the project is expected to increase the hydroperiod through changing the rate or method of discharge of water to wetlands or other surface waters. Subsection (c) requires monitoring of the wetlands to determine the effects of the hydrological changes. Again, there is no basis for the District to reopen and reevaluate the wetlands for which mitigation has already been permitted. No evidence was presented to indicate that there would be any obstacles or problems to accomplishing the mitigation that was proposed and accepted in 2002. In any event, the engineering and biological testimony demonstrated that no change (neither a reduction nor an increase) in the hydrology on the preserved wetlands or the Northern Preserve will occur from what was permitted in the 2002 Permit. By analyzing the various biological indicators onsite and setting the control elevations within the SWMS and the wetlands (both the Northern Preserve and onsite preserve wetlands) above the WSWT, the project ensures that the appropriate hydrology will be maintained. Though the fish and wildlife are not expected to be adversely affected by the 2006 Permit, Collier will be conducting monitoring of plants and animals on the site as an extra measure of assurance as contemplated under BOR Section 4.2.3.4(c). Focusing on just the changes from 2002 to 2006, Petitioners' two experts conceded that the hydrology in the Northern Preserve and its value to wildlife and listed species (including the wood stork) would be benefited in the 2006 Permit over that contemplated in the 2002 Permit due to the removal of the Flow-Way. Secondary Impacts to Water Resources Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f) requires a demonstration that the proposed activities "[w]ill not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources." A similar demonstration is required by Sections 4.1.1(f) and 4.2.7 of the BOR. In this case, the secondary impacts considered by the District were potential impacts due to the relocation and expansion of the buffer preserve areas to the perimeter of the project site. In conducting a secondary impact analysis, BOR Section 4.2.7 requires that the District consider only those future projects or activities which would not occur "but for" the proposed system. Here, the evidence demonstrated that no wetlands or other surface waters will be secondarily impacted by the modifications to the SWMS as part of the 2006 Permit. The undersigned has rejected Petitioners' contention that a proposed extension of County Road 951 through the development site should be considered a secondary impact in evaluating this project. This extension has been proposed for at least fifteen years and its precise configuration is unclear. It is not required to be built as a result of the project and there are no firm plans or contracts in place to construct the road. Although the road is listed on the County's transportation plan, it remains speculative as to if and when it will be built. Additionally, there is no evidence the County has any ownership interest in property for a road in the area identified by Petitioners. Witness Bain testified that the District examined the Collier County Public Records and an easement had not been granted to the County to build the road. i. Elimination and Reduction Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301((3) provides in part that "the provisions for elimination or reduction of impacts contained in the [BOR] shall determine whether the reasonable assurances required by subsection 40E- 4.301(1) and Rule 40E-4.302, F.A.C., have been provided." Section 4.2.1.1 of the BOR implements that provision and provides that elimination and reduction of impacts is not required when: The ecological value of the function provided by the area of wetland or other surface water to be adversely affected is low based on site specific analysis using the factors in subsection 4.2.2.3 and the proposed mitigation will provide greater long term ecological value than the area of wetland or other surface water to be adversely affected; . . . In accordance with that section, Collier was not required to implement practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate impacts. The District did a site-specific analysis of the quality of the 39.5 acres of adversely affected wetlands, taking into consideration the condition of the wetlands, hydrologic connection, uniqueness, location, and fish and wildlife utilization. The unrebutted testimony is that the quality of the 39.5 acres of wetlands to be impacted by the 2006 Permit is low and these wetlands were already previously authorized to be secondarily impacted. The low quality wetlands are melaleuca dominated making them not unique. The mitigation will provide greater long-term ecological value than the impacted wetlands. As noted on page 10 of the Staff Report, there will be a larger, contiguous mitigation area to offset direct impacts to previously preserved, but secondarily impacted wetlands and the preservation/enhancement of the external preserve area. The 2006 Permit provides that 5.68 credits are required to be purchased in the PIMB. Collier has advised the District that 27.68 credits are being purchased pursuant to its Corps permit. Thus, Collier will be purchasing more credits than required by the District. Witness Bain took this additional mitigation into account in determining whether the proposed mitigation will provide greater long term ecological value than the area impacted. While the Corps permit is an entirely separate permit action, Collier has agreed to include an additional 5.68 credits within the Basin beyond what is required in the Staff Report as a condition to this 2006 Permit. Therefore, the mitigation is clearly of greater long-term ecological value than the area impacted. Additional Requirements Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302 imposes additional requirements on an ERP applicant, including a cumulative impact assessment, if appropriate, and satisfaction of a public interest test. Cumulative Impacts Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302(1)(b) requires that an applicant demonstrate the project "[w]ill not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters as set forth in subsections 4.2.8 through 4.2.8.2 of the [BOR]." Cumulative impacts are the summation of unmitigated wetland impacts within a drainage basin, and a cumulative impact analysis is geographically based upon the drainage basins described in Figure 4.2.8-1 of the BOR. See Florida Wildlife Federation et al. v. South Florida Water Management District et al., 2006 Fla. ENV LEXIS 49 at *49, DOAH Case Nos. 04-3064 and 04-3084 (DOAH Dec. 3, 2006, SFWMD Dec. 8, 2006). Also, Section 373.414(8)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the District to consider the cumulative impacts upon surface water and wetlands within the same drainage basin. Thus, the cumulative impact analysis applies only when mitigation is proposed outside of the drainage basin within which the impacts are to occur. Broward County v. Weiss et al., 2002 Fla. ENV LEXIS 298 at *29, DOAH Case No. 01-3373 (DOAH Aug. 27, 2002, SFWMD Nov. 14, 2002). In this case, all of the proposed mitigation associated with the 2006 Permit modifications is located within the West Collier Basin. The evidence shows that the mitigation will offset the impacts to wetlands proposed in the 2006 Permit. Therefore, since the mitigation will be performed in the same Basin as the impacts and will offset the adverse impacts, the District must "consider the regulated activity to meet the cumulative impact requirements" of Section 373.414(8)(a), Florida Statutes. A new cumulative impacts analysis based on removal of the Flow-Way is not necessary because the modification does not change the cumulative impacts analysis conducted in the 2002 Permit. Since the Flow-Way was not considered a wetland impact or contributing to the mitigation in the 2002 Permit, its removal does not affect the adequacy of the previously conducted cumulative impacts analysis or the mitigation. Accordingly, there is no need for a new cumulative impact analysis with regards to the Northern Preserve. Finally, contrary to Petitioners' assertion, there is no rule or BOR provision which requires Collier to mitigate for the alleged prior impacts of other projects. Public Interest Test In addition to complying with the above criteria, because the project is located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters, Collier must also address the criteria contained in the Public Interest Test in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302(1) and Section 4.2.3 of the BOR by demonstrating that the project is not contrary to the public interest. See also § 373.414(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Since the project does not discharge into an OFW or significantly degrade an OFW, the higher standard of "clearly in the public interest" does not apply. In determining compliance with the test, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302(1)(a) requires that the District do so by "balancing the [seven] criteria [in the rule]." Findings with respect to each of the seven criteria are set out below. (Except for pointing out that the District does not have an adopted rule which provides more specific detail on how to perform the balancing test than is now found in paragraph (1)(a), and a contention that witness Bain's testimony was insufficient to explain how the staff balanced those factors, Petitioners did not present any evidence at hearing or argument in their Proposed Recommended Order in support of their contention that the above rule, BOR section, or the associated statute have been applied by the District in an unconstitutional manner.) Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others (40E-4.302(1)(a)1.) Collier provided reasonable assurances that the project will not cause any onsite or offsite flooding nor cause any adverse impacts to adjacent lands because the SWMS is designed in accordance with District criteria. Also, the post- development peak rate of discharge does not exceed the allowable discharge rate. Further, the project will not cause any environmental hazards affecting public health, safety, or welfare. The project is considered neutral as to this factor. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats (40E-4.302(1)(a)2.) For the direct wetland impacts under the 2006 Permit, Collier proposes mitigation which has not changed from the 2002 Permit. The mitigation proposed was previously determined to offset potential impacts to fish and wildlife and particularly wood stork habitats. The evidence indicates that the mitigation plan for the Northern Preserve will improve wood stork habitat from its current melaleuca infested condition. For the additional 40.18 acres of wetland impacts authorized in 2006, the mitigation is of greater long-term value. Thus, the project should be considered positive as to this factor. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling (40E-4.302(1)(a)3.) The parties have stipulated that the project will not adversely affect navigation. In addition, no evidence was introduced to suggest that the project's construction would result in harmful erosion or shoaling. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity (40E-4.302(1)(a)4.) The project does not provide any fishing, recreational values, or marine productivity. Therefore, the project is neutral as to this factor. Whether the regulated activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature (40E-4.302(1)(a)5.) It is undisputed that the project is permanent in nature. Even though the project is permanent, it is considered neutral as to this factor because mitigation will offset the permanent wetland impacts. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, F.S. (40E- 4.302(1)(a)6.) The parties have stipulated that no significant archeological or historical resources have been identified on this site. Therefore, the project is considered neutral as to this factor. The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed regulated activity (40E-4.302(1)(a)7.) The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by the areas affected by the project is low due to the melaleuca infestation. Project mitigation will restore 940 acres of poor quality wetlands and uplands, greatly enhancing their function and value. Therefore, the project should be considered positive as to this factor because the implementation of the mitigation offsets the wetland impacts and improves the current value. Summary of Public Interest Factors Overall, the project is no worse than neutral measured against any one of the criteria individually. Therefore, the project is not contrary to the public interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order granting the application of I. M. Collier, J.V. for a modification to Environmental Resource Permit No. 11-02031P. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 2007.
The Issue Whether Petitioner Ross has standing to challenge the issuance of the WUP? Whether the District should approve the Application and enter a final order that issues the WUP?
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Ross Petitioner Ross is a resident of Pinellas County, (referred to by him at hearing as "the most urbanized county in the State of Florida"). Besides residing there, Petitioner Ross operates a farm on his property in the County. The City's experts reasonably projected and mapped a 0.5 foot drawdown contour surrounding the well field that is the subject of this proceeding. The contour defines "the cone of depression" associated with the well field. See Tr. 136. Mr. Ross' property is outside the cone of depression, to its south and west. The overall groundwater gradient in the area of the well field is from the east to the west. The water pumped from the well field does not pull water from the west because the pumping withdrawal will not reduce the potentiometric surface gradient enough to reverse the current gradient. Mr. Ross' property and the well on his property are "way outside," tr. 138, the well field and the 0.5 drawdown contour surrounding the well field. Based on the amount of drawdown reasonably projected by the well field, the effect on Mr. Ross' property could not be measured because it would be so slight. If the water in his well were to rise after the WUP is implemented, it would be impossible to tell whether the water rose "because the pump's turned off or because it rained the day before." Tr. 163. The District The District is the administrative agency charged with the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage, and control the water resources within its geographic boundaries. The District administers and enforces chapter 373, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Among those rules are those that relate to the consumptive use of water found in chapter 40D-2. The City The City of Tarpon Springs is the applicant for the WUP that is the subject of this proceeding. The City's application seeks to modify an existing permit. The Existing Permit The City has an existing Water Use Permit (the "Existing Permit") from the District. Originally granted in 1976, it allows for withdrawal of fresh groundwater for public supply. The Existing Permit was last renewed in October of 2005 for a ten-year period. It expires in October of 2015. Under the Existing Permit, the withdrawal capacity is 1.38 million gallons per day annual average and allows for seven production wells. The Application and its Modification The City submitted the Application in July, 2008. The Application at that time was for 25 wells in a brackish water well field for a proposed brackish groundwater reverse osmosis plant that the City plans to build. The City's intent originally was to apply for a permit separate from the Existing Permit.1/ In September of 2009, however, the City requested that the Application be considered a modification of the Existing Permit. In honoring the request, the District changed the number assigned to the Application to "20000742.010."2/ The Application was also modified with regard to the number of production wells in the brackish well field. The number was reduced from 25 to 22, "due to land acquisition efforts indicating that the maximum number of wells . . . required for the project would be 22." Tr. 54. The Application contains an introduction that summarized the City's water supply system and its water supply plans, a completed Individual Water Use Permit Application form, a completed Public Supply Supplemental form, and an Impact Analysis Report (the "Report"). The Report states that the ground-water flow model "MODFLOW"3/ was used to perform the impact analysis. Assessment of average annual and peak month withdrawal impacts in the Upper Floridan and surficial aquifers used the SWFWMD District Wide Regulation Model Version 2 ("DWRM2"). One of the enhancements the DWRM2 offers over earlier model versions is "integrated focused telescopic mesh refinement (FTMR) which allows the model grid user to refine the model grid spacing to focus on specific areas within the District."4/ The Report included the FTMR model grid, total drawdown scenarios in the Upper Floridan Aquifer and the surficial aquifer, and a peak month drawdown scenario. The Application also included a summary of the regional hydro-geology, a summary of the City's wastewater system, a description of the City's potable water supply, an historical operating protocol and a proposed well field management plan for the City's new brackish water well field, a service area and well field location aerial, a table showing the general hydrostratigraphy in northern Pinellas County, a summary of seasonal fluctuations which addressed the conditions for issuance of a permit as set forth in rule 40D-2.381, a summary of the City's reclaimed water system, well location maps, wetland maps, Water Use Permit maps and schedules, the City's well field protection ordinance, maps pertaining to the proposed service areas, a water conservation letter, and water conservation information. The 22 new production wells in the brackish water well field will provide enough water once treated at the proposed reverse osmosis membrane treatment plant to enable the City to supply the anticipated potable water demand for all of the City's customers through the year 2015. Installation of the additional production wells will increase the annual average quantity of groundwater pumpage to 4,200,000 gallons per day ("gpd") and the peak month quantity to 6,300,000 gpd. Review of the Application by the District led to four requests by the District for additional information. The City responded to each. The responses included a well construction and aquifer testing program report, a Water Quality/Water Level Well Impact Mitigation Plan, a Water Quality Action Plan, a revised Water Quality/Water Level Well Impact Mitigation Plan, a revised Water Quality Action Plan and a second revision of the Water Quality Action Plan, a second Water Quality/Water Level Well Impact Mitigation Plan, a proposed Environmental Monitoring Plan, a third revised Water Quality Action Plan, a third revised Water Quality/Water Level Well Impact Mitigation plan, and the final Environmental Monitoring Plan. Draft Water Use Permit On October 8, 2010, the District gave notice of its intent to issue a permit that would modify the City's Existing Permit for public supply use. Attached to the notice is a Draft WUP. The modification includes the development of a brackish water well field with 22 additional production wells to allow the City to self-supply the anticipated potable water demand in 2015 for a customer base of approximately 34,259 persons. The annual average quantity authorized by the WUP is 4,200,000 gpd and the permitted peak month quantity increases to 6,300,000 gpd.5/ Special conditions of the Draft WUP require the City to maintain meters on existing and proposed withdrawal points; record and report monthly meter readings; confirm meter accuracy every five years; monitor and report the water quality and aquifer water levels; maintain an adjusted per capita rate of 150 gpd or less; conduct and report water audits; submit annual reports of residential water use, reclaimed water supplied, per capita water use rates, and well field operations; investigate withdrawal-related well complaints; conduct a well field inventory prior to the activation of the proposed production wells; comply with the environmental monitoring plan; set water quality concentration limits prior to the activation of the proposed production wells; and submit an Annual Water Quality Report and an annual Well Field Report. Criteria in Rule for Issuance of WUPs The District utilizes rule 40D-2.381 (the "Rule") in its review of water use permit applications. The Rule opens with the following: In order to obtain a Water Use Permit, an Applicant must demonstrate that the water use is reasonable and beneficial, is consistent with the public interest, and will not interfere with any existing legal use of water . . . Rule 40D-2.381(1), Tab 1 of the Binder Containing the Matters Officially Recognized, pp. 7-8. The Rule requires that the applicant make the required demonstrations through the provision of "reasonable assurances, on both an individual and a cumulative basis that the water use," id., will meet 14 conditions listed in subsections (a) through (n).6/ Condition (a) Condition (a) requires that the City demonstrate that the water use is necessary to fulfill a certain reasonable demand. To meet this condition, the City provided a population estimate through the end of the permit term and also provided a per capita rate that the City had used in the last five years. Calculations set forth in a table prepared at the request of the City show the population projections and projected water demands over a period from 2008 through 2030. These calculations provide reasonable assurances that the proposed water use meets Condition (a). Condition (b) Condition (b) requires that the City must demonstrate that the water use will not cause quantity or quality changes that adversely affect the water resources, including both surface water and groundwater. The City provided a groundwater model showing the anticipated groundwater drawdowns within the Upper Floridan and surficial aquifers. The City also completed a study on the wells within the sections of the actual proposed well field. Based upon the modeling, the drawdowns are not large enough to cause any impacts to quantity or quality of the water in the area. The City has a Water Quality/Water Level Well Impact Mitigation Plan, should there be any complaints of impact, to correct any problems after implementation of the WUP. The well field is designed with 22 supply wells. All 22 wells need not be operated at the same time to meet the water demand. Wells beyond those needed by demand have been designed into the well field so that there can be rotational capacity. Pumping at lower rates from among the 22 wells on a rotational basis is a management tool for protecting the resource and minimizing the effects of the withdrawals. The City's monitoring program provides for the collection of water levels from a large number of wells either on a monthly or quarterly basis to assess water level fluctuations in the Upper Floridan and surficial aquifers. The City also has numerous wells that will sample for chloride sulfates, total dissolved solids (TDS) and other water quality constituents on a monthly and quarterly basis to ensure that the conditions of issuance continue to be met. The City will submit groundwater pumping data on a monthly basis from all the production wells so that the District can determine that the City is indeed adhering to the quantities reflected in the WUP. Groundwater in the Upper Floridan Aquifer flows in a westward direction towards the Gulf of Mexico. The location of the proposed wells is in an urban land use area near the Gulf Coast. The wells will capture brackish groundwater that would otherwise flow westward into the Gulf. Brackish groundwater from the City's service area is the lowest quality water available for public supply in the area. The City plans to construct a reverse osmosis facility to utilize available brackish groundwater. The brackish groundwater pumped from the well field is an alternative supply source. Isolated from the regional system, it will be used for public supply in the service area. The high number of low-capacity wells will provide rotational ability for the City to manage the quantity and quality of the water resource in the area of the well field. Maximum drawdown within the well field area due to the average annual withdrawal is approximately 3 feet, with an additional 1.5 feet during peak month withdrawal. This amount of drawdown is not likely to impact other wells in the area. Condition (c) Condition (c) requires the City to demonstrate that water use will comply with the provisions of 4.2 of the WUP Basis of Review, incorporated by reference in rule 40D-2.091, regarding adverse impacts to wetlands, lakes, streams, estuaries, fish and wildlife or other natural resources. The Anclote River and associated wetlands are tidally influenced and will not be adversely impacted by the proposed withdrawal. Other wetlands in the well field area examined by a District biologist identified several isolated wetlands of concern. Isolated wetlands are generally more sensitive to withdrawal of groundwater than wetlands connected to larger basins. Initially, the City's proposed drawdowns were deemed to be unacceptable to the District because of the impact to the isolated wetlands of concern. As a first step, the City reduced the quantities of water to be withdrawn. Subsequently, an extensive Wetland Monitoring Plan was developed that included a mitigation plan if adverse impacts did occur to wetlands. Storm-water runoff will be the primary factor controlling the functions of the wetland areas. Mitigation measures, should any adverse impact become too great, include reduction of well field pumping, augmentation with well water, potable water and other feasible sources, and the purchase of mitigation credits. Condition (d) Condition (d) requires the City to demonstrate that the water use will not interfere with a reservation of water as set forth in rule 40D-2.302. The groundwater modeling that the City provided the District indicates that there are no adverse impacts to the minimum flows and levels ("MFLs") in the Anclote River or the water level at the Tarpon Road Deep Well. There are, therefore, no impacts to reservations of water. Condition (e) Condition (e) requires the City to demonstrate that the water use will comply with the provisions of 4.3 of the WUP Basis of Review,7/ regarding MFLs. The closest MFL site is the Upper Floridan Aquifer monitoring well called Tarpon Road Deep, located approximately 2.4 miles southeast of the well field. The impact analysis model results show that at the annual average withdrawal rate of 4.20 million gallons per day ("mgd") approximately 0.1 feet of drawdown at this MFL site is currently projected to occur, assuming static pumping conditions in all other regional groundwater withdrawals. This amount of drawdown will not cause the water level at the Tarpon Road Deep Well to fall below its minimum level. The District is in the process of setting an MFL for the Anclote River. Based on the operation of the new well field and the City's continued operation of their freshwater discharge to the Anclote River from their reclaimed water facility, there will be no impact to the Anclote River. Condition (f) Condition (f) requires the City to demonstrate that the water use will utilize the lowest water quality the City has the ability to use, provided that its use does not interfere with the recovery of a water body to its established MFL and it is not a source that is either currently or projected to be adversely impacted. The City is using brackish water, the lowest water quality available to be used for public supply. The City will be treating it at a reverse osmosis water treatment plant. Water of this quality is not available for others to use without special treatment. Based upon the modeling provided by the City, there are no anticipated impacts to MFLs or any other water body resources. Condition (g) Condition (g) requires the City to demonstrate that the water use will comply with section 4.5 of the WUP Basis of Review,8/ regarding saline intrusion. Groundwater in the Upper Floridan Aquifer in the area of the well field is brackish. The well field's design allowing well rotation minimizes changes in water quality during operation. The amount of drawdown and the fact that water levels will remain above sea level suggests that saline water intrusion will not occur. The reported potentiometric surface in the area of the well is approximately five feet NGVD while the land surface is roughly five feet higher at approximately ten feet NGVD. The City's monitoring and mitigation programs will address adverse impacts from saline intrusion should they occur. Condition (h) Condition (h) requires the City to demonstrate that the water use will not cause the pollution of the aquifer. Soil and groundwater contamination is documented at the Stauffer Management Company site located approximately 3,000 feet west of the well field. The drawdown from the well field is calculated to be about one foot at the Stauffer site. That level of drawdown will not induce migration of contaminants because the upward head differential from the Upper Floridan Aquifer to the surficial aquifer will be altered and the Stauffer site is down gradient of the well field. Testimony from Mr. Wiley established that the aquifers should not be contaminated by the City's withdrawals despite the presence of the Stauffer site: [T]here is a known source of contamination approximately 3,000 feet from the new well field to the west, Stauffer Chemical Company. With the small amount of drawdown that's caused in the Upper Floridan aquifer and the surficial aquifer, there's no potential for the withdrawals to cause pollution of the aquifer. Tr. 254-55. Mr. Wiley's opinion was reached primarily based on the use of the groundwater flow model to determine the drawdown at the Stauffer site and through review of groundwater levels in the Floridan and the surficial aquifers. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") is in charge of managing the contamination at the Stauffer site. A remediation plan has been developed based, in part, on EPA records. The remediation plan includes the construction of a barrier wall in the subsurface around the contaminated area to prevent contaminated groundwater from migrating. The City's groundwater monitoring wells will detect movement of contaminants toward the well field. The monitoring of the wells and the mitigation plan will assist in preventing pollution of the aquifers. Condition (i) Condition (i) requires the City to demonstrate that the water use will not adversely affect offsite land uses existing at the time of the application. Primary existing land uses within the City's service area are residential, commercial, and light industrial. The proposed withdrawal will not adversely impact these land uses as shown in Figure 10 of the City Exhibit 1. Five sink holes are known to exist in the general area around the well field. The closest is approximately 1,000 feet from a proposed well location. Maximum drawdown at the distance is approximately 2 feet. This amount of drawdown does not significantly increase the potential for sinkhole activity. Condition (j) Condition (j) requires that the City demonstrate the water use will not adversely impact an existing legal withdrawal. The Pasco County Utilities' wells located to the north of the well field are listed on the WUP as plugged. Wells owned by Crest Ridge Utility Corp. are located within 0.5 to 0.8 miles of the well field. Drawdown at these wells, due to the average annual withdrawal, is approximately one foot, with an additional 0.4 feet during peak month withdrawal. This amount of drawdown will not create a water level impact at these wells. Maximum drawdown at domestic wells in the area due to the average annual withdrawal is approximately three feet, with an additional 1.5 feet during peak month withdrawal. This amount of drawdown is not likely to impact other wells in the area. The City's mitigation plan addresses any adverse impact that might occur from the City's withdrawal. Condition (k) Condition (k) requires the City to demonstrate that the water use will incorporate water conservation measures. The existing per capita use rate for the City's service area is 110 gpd. Its position well below the district goal of 150 gpd per person demonstrates that the City's water conservation measures are effective. The City uses an inclined block rate structure which encourages water conservation. It also encourages water conservation through a reclaimed water system that encourages conservation of public water supply. It currently uses a little over one million gallons per day of reclaimed water. The City also conserves water through a leak protection program, a water loss audit program, adherence to the District's watering restrictions and provision of a low-flow toilet rebate program through the County, a landscape code, and the provision of educational materials to users. Condition (l) Condition (l) requires the City to demonstrate that the water use will incorporate the use of alternative water supplies to the greatest extent possible. The City has an extensive reclaimed water program. It provides reclaimed water for its golf course, for residential irrigation, for public parks and recreation, and for public schools. The City expanded its reclaimed water storage system recently by doubling the amount of reclaimed water that it is able to store for redistribution. Condition (m) Condition (m) requires the City to demonstrate that the water use will not cause water to go to waste. The City performs an unaccounted-for water audit of its system as required by a special condition of its existing WUP. The unaccounted-for water use is approximately 4 percent, well below the District guidelines. Furthermore, the City's per capita use rate of 110 gpd is well within the District's goal of 150 gpd per person. The City also has an extensive reclaimed water system which offsets potable water supply and prohibits wasted drinking water as an irrigation source. Condition (n) Condition (n) requires that the City demonstrate that the water use will not otherwise be harmful to the water resources within the District. Facts found above support a conclusion that the City has provided reasonable assurances that it meets this condition. In addition, the water that is pumped locally by the City will offset the need for ground water that would have otherwise been obtained from elsewhere in the region. Notices The District published its Notice of Proposed Agency Action in the Tampa Tribune on October 22, 2010. The District published its Notice of Proposed Agency Action in the St. Petersburg Times on October 24, 2010.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order determining that Petitioner Ross lacks standing and that his Petition, therefore, be dismissed. Should it be determined in a Final Order that Petitioner Ross has standing, it is recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order that issues Water Use Permit No. 20000742.010 to the City of Tarpon Springs. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2011.
Findings Of Fact The Proposed Permit This case involves a 65-acre site in north Lee County owned by the City of Ft. Myers. At all material times, the land has been zoned under industrial- equivalent designations. By leases that are not part of this record, Ft. Myers has leased 21.4 acres of the 65 acres to various governmental agencies, including Lee County, Lee County Sheriff's Office, and possibly the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (formerly known as Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services). The following facilities are presently located on the 21.4 acres: Juvenile Detention Center, Lee County Stockade, Price Halfway House, Sheriff's Office Aviation Department, and Emergency Operations Center. By lease dated September 20, 1993, Ft. Myers leased the remaining 43.6 undeveloped acres to Lee County for a term of 50 years. This lease allows Lee County to use the 43.6 acres for $1 per year, but only for the operation of a Juvenile Justice Facility. Under Paragraph 20 of the lease, Ft. Myers may terminate the lease if Lee County ceases to operate the facility. Likewise, Lee County may terminate the lease if the Department of Juvenile Justice ceases to fund the County's operation of the facility. Under the lease, preference is given to juvenile residents of Ft. Myers. Paragraph 22 of the lease allocates liability to Lee County for claims or damages arising from released fuels, including from pipelines. The lease is not assignable without Ft. Myer's consent. By agreement dated December 17, 1993, Ft. Myers consented to the sublease of the entire 43.6- acre parcel to the Department of Juvenile Justice for the purpose of the construction of a juvenile residential commitment facility. Lee County receives no rent from the Department of Juvenile Justice. In Paragraph 10 of the agreement, the Department of Juvenile Justice agrees to maintain, at its expense, "all improvements of every kind . . .." Lee County must make any repairs to improvements if the Department of Juvenile Justice fails to do so. By subsequent agreement, Respondent Department of Management Services (DMS) became the agent for the Department of Juvenile Justice for the design, permitting, and construction of the juvenile justice facility. By Application for a surface water management permit executed June 16, 1994, DMS applied for a surface water management permit for the construction and operation of a 10.9- acre project known as the Lee County Juvenile Commitment Facility. This 10.9-acre project is part of the 43.6 acres leased to Lee County and subleased to the Department of Juvenile Justice. The application states that the existing 21.4 acres of developed sites, which are leased under separate agreements to different governmental entities, "will be permitted as is." The Staff Review Summary of Respondent South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) describes the purpose of the application as follows: This application is a request for Authorization for Construction and Operation of a surface water management system to serve a 10.9 acre Institutional project discharging to Six Mile [Cypress] Slough via onsite wetlands and road- side swales. The application also requests Authorization for Operation of a surface water management system serving a 21.4 acre existing facility and 32.7 acres to remain unchanged for a total permitted area of 65.0 acres. Staff recommends approval of both authorizations with conditions. The Staff Review Summary accurately states that the owner of the land is Ft. Myers. Of questionable accuracy is the statement that Ft. Myers leases to Lee County the 21.4 acres devoted to the five existing facilities. Although Lee County probably is a lessee of some of these parcels, the Lee County Sheriff's Office is the lessee (or perhaps sublessee) of at least two parcels. One of the other parcels may involve a state agency, again under either a lease or a sublease. The Staff Review Summary inaccurately states that the project developer is Lee County. The project developer is DMS or its principal, the Department of Juvenile Justice. The Staff Review Summary reviews the existing development on the 21.4 acres. The improvements consist of the 4.8-acre Juvenile Detention Center, 2.9- acre Price Halfway House, 4.7-acre Lee County Stockade, 5.1-acre Sheriff's Office Aviation Department, and 3.9-acre Emergency Operations Center. The Staff Review Summary states that the footer of the Juvenile Detention Center was inspected in February 1980. The site drains into a 1.2- acre retention pond, which was a natural pond dug out to accept the drainage from the Juvenile Detention Center. A small amount of surface flow drains from the Juvenile Detention Center to a perimeter swale that drains west into a ditch running along Ortiz Avenue. The Staff Review Summary states that the building permit for the Price Halfway House was issued in October 1982. The site drains into the 1.2-acre retention pond, which was apparently enlarged a second time to accept the additional flow. A small amount of the flow from the Price Halfway House also drains to the perimeter swale and west into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary states that the building permit for the Lee County Stockade was issued on May 25, 1976. SFWMD issued an exemption and a determination that no permit was required for two additions to the stockade in 1988 and 1989. For the additional impervious surface added by these additions, one inch of water quality treatment was provided. After the abandonment of a pumping system, drainage of the stockade site consists of water building up in existing onsite ditches and sheet flowing into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary adds that a small retention area constructed at the southeast corner of the site treats stormwater from the stockade and the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department. The summary adds that a small amount of stormwater drains north into an exterior swale that drains into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary states that a building permit was issued for the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department in August 1977. Stormwater from the site sheetflows to exterior swales north and south of the building. When the swales fill up, the water flows into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary states that a building permit was issued for the Emergency Operations Center on October 11, 1977. Drainage from the center flows directly into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. Under "Water Quality," the Staff Review Summary reports that SFWMD "did not require compliance with discharge rate or criteria" based on Section 1.6, Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within the [SFWMD] March 1994 (Basis of Review), which contains guidelines issued by SFWMD for the construction and operation of surface water management systems. The summary adds that there have been no "water quality or quantity complaints associated with this site over the past 18 years since its initial construction." Noting that a surface water management permit is requested for the entire 65-acre parcel, the Staff Review Summary states that the above-described drainage systems for the five existing facilities are "operational and will remain as they now exist." Turning to the proposed development, the Staff Review Summary states that the remaining 43.6 undeveloped acres "will also be leased to Lee County by the City for the proposed commitment facilities." The facilities are accurately described as a 5.2-acre halfway house and a 5.7-acre bootcamp, both of which will be drained by internal drainage swales and culverts flowing into detention areas, which will discharge through a control structure into onsite wetlands leading to the Ortiz Avenue swale. Addressing designed discharge rates, the Staff Review Summary acknowledges that the bootcamp's discharge rate will exceed the allowable rate for a 25-year, three-day storm event. The allowable rate is .33 cfs, and the design rate is .37 cfs. The Staff Review Summary explains that this discrepancy results from the use of the minimum size orifice (three inches) in the control structure. Addressing water quality, the Staff Review Summary reports that commercially zoned sites are required to provide one-half inch dry pretreatment for water quality unless reasonable assurance can be provided that hazardous material will not enter the surface water management system. Determining that no hazardous material will be stored or generated on the site, SFWMD did not require the one-half inch dry pretreatment of runoff. Noting that no surface water management permits have ever been issued for any part of the 65-acre parcel, the Staff Review Summary recommends that, subject to the customary Limiting Conditions, SFWMD issue: Authorization for Construction and Operation of a 10.9 acre Institutional Project discharging to Six Mile Cypress Slough via onsite wetlands and roadside swales, Operation of a 21.4 acre existing facility and 32.7 acres to remain unchanged for a total permitted area of 65.0 acres. Limiting Condition 4 states that the permittee shall request transfer of the permit to the "responsible operational entity accepted by [SFWMD], if different from the permittee." Limiting Condition 8 adds: A permit transfer to the operation phase shall not occur until a responsible entity meeting the requirements in section 9.0, "Basis of Review . . .," has been established to operate and maintain the system. The entity must be provided with sufficient ownership or legal interest so that it has control over all water management facilities authorized herein. Special Condition 11 states: "Operation of the surface water management system shall be the responsibility of Lee County." The Permittee and the Entity Responsible for Maintenance The proposed permit consists of two authorizations. The first authorization is for the construction and operation of the surface water management system on the 10.9-acre parcel on which will be constructed the bootcamp and halfway house. The second authorization is for the operation of the existing surface water management system on the already-developed 21.4 acres and the unimproved surface water management system on the remaining 32.7 acres. There are two problems with the designation of Lee County as the entity responsible for maintaining the permitted surface water management systems. Basis of Review 9.1.B states: To satisfy [P]ermit [L]imiting [C]ondition [8], the Permittee must supply appropriate written proof, such as either by letter or resolution from the governmental entity that the governmental entity will accept the oper- ation and maintenance of all the surface water management system components . . .. The authorization for operation of the systems on the 21.4-acre and 32.7-acre parcels does not await any construction. Once the permit is issued, the authorization is effective. Therefore, all prerequisites to the designation must have been satisfied before the operation permit issues. For the 21.4-acre parcel, DMS has not provided reasonable assurance that Lee County is the lessee or sublessee of all of the parcels underlying the five existing facilities. In fact, it appears that Lee County is not the lessee or sublessee of all of these parcels. Even if Lee County were the lessee or sublessee of these five parcels, DMS has not provided reasonable assurance that Lee County has assumed responsibility for the maintenance of the surface water management system for the five parcels. Contrary to Basis of Review 9.1.B, there is no written agreement by Lee County to assume operational responsibility, nor is there even an actual agreement to this effect. SFWMD's rules sensibly require that written consent be obtained before the operation permit is issued. Likewise, DMS has failed to show that Lee County has agreed to assume responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the surface water management system for the 32.7-acre parcel. Again, SFWMD must obtain written consent before issuing the permit because no construction will precede operation for the surface water management system on this parcel. Unlike the situation as to the 21.4-acre parcel, the 32.7-acre parcel is leased to Lee County as part of the 43.6- acre parcel. But in the December 17, 1993, agreement, the Department of Juvenile Justice, not Lee County, assumes responsibility for maintaining all improvements, which arguably includes drainage improvements. As between Ft. Myers and Lee County, Lee County assumes secondary liability for the maintenance of all improvements. But the failure of the Department of Juvenile Justice to do so would likely represent a default under the agreement. In such a case, the lease and separate agreement probably would either be in litigation or Lee County would have terminated its obligations under the contracts. In either case, it is unlikely that Lee County would perform its secondary responsibility to maintain the drainage improvements, especially where it is receiving no rent from the Department of Juvenile Justice and priority is given to Ft. Myers juveniles in admission decisions. Construction will precede operation as to the 10.9- acre parcel so the parties have an opportunity, even after the construction and operation permit is issued, to secure the necessary written consent before the operation permit goes into effect. But similar deficiencies exist with respect to the 10.9- acre parcel because the same agreement imposes upon the Department of Juvenile Justice, not Lee County, the obligation to maintain improvements. An additional complication arises as to the 10.9-acre parcel. The Department of Juvenile Justice intends to contract with one or more private entities to operate the bootcamp and halfway house, so there is at least one more party that Lee County could claim was responsible for maintenance of the surface water management system. The question of who is responsible for maintaining the surface water management systems is important. Drainage quantities and directions can change if swales clog up with vegetation or other matter. In this case, one roadside swale in the area of the 21.4-acre parcel is blocked with vegetation. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the designated entity has assumed responsibility for the maintenance and operation of the existing systems or will assume responsibility for the maintenance and operation of the proposed system following its construction. Permit for Existing Development Section 1.6, Basis of Review, states: [SFWMD] issues construction and operation permits for proposed surface water management activities and operation permits for existing systems. The criteria herein are specifically designed to apply to proposed activities (construction and operation permits). Therefore, some of the criteria may not be applicable to the permitting of existing systems (operation permits). For example, in some cases, existing systems may not meet flood protection criteria. Criteria deviation for existing systems will be identified in staff reports. SFWMD has produced no evidence explicating the extent to which existing systems, such as the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels, are entitled to operating permits without meeting some of the criteria applicable to proposed systems, such as the system on the 10.9-acre parcel. There is nothing whatsoever in the record to explain why certain existing systems might not have to meet certain criteria, such as flood protection criteria. Except for the quantity deviation discussed below, there is nothing in the record disclosing the extent to which SFWMD has waived, or even considered the applicability of, certain or all criteria prior to the issuance of operation permits for the existing systems. In practice, SFWMD does not adhere even to the vague standards implied in 1.6. According to the SFWMD witness, the practice of SFWMD, as reflected in this case as to the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels, is to permit existing systems "as is, where is," as long as they have had no reported problems. There are numerous deficiencies in the "as is, where is" unwritten policy, apart from the obvious one that it conflicts with the assurance of 1.6 that only "some of the criteria may not be applicable" to existing systems. First, the record does not define what a "problem" is. Second, the record discloses no means by which reported problems are collected and later accessed, such as by a parcel index. The "as is, where is" policy is an abdication of the limited responsibilities that SFWMD imposes upon itself in 1.6, especially when applied to the present facts. The facts are straightforward. Neither Ft. Myers, Lee County, nor any other party has ever obtained a permit for any surface water management system, despite numerous improvements in the past 20 years requiring such permits, including the construction of a heliport, at which maintenance and refueling of helicopters takes place. In two relatively minor cases, discussed below, SFWMD erroneously determined that no permit was required. In one of those cases, the applicant, Lee County, candidly admitted the existence of a flooding problem. Based on the present record, neither DMS nor SFWMD has justified the issuance of an operation permit for the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels based either on Basis of Review 1.6 or on the "as is, where is" unwritten policy. Construction of the five improvements on the 21.4 acres began between 1975 and December 1977 with construction of a portion of the Lee County Stockade building and parking, Emergency Operations Center building and parking, and a now- removed barn for the Lee County Sheriff's Office. At the same time, a lake was dug, probably for fill purposes. By the end of 1977, about 2.39 acres of the 21.4 acres were converted to impervious surface. From 1978 to March 1980, another 0.96 acres of the 21.4 acres were converted to impervious surface by the construction of a perimeter dike and road. During this period, construction commenced on the Juvenile Detention Center, adding another 1.63 acres of impervious surface. Between March 1980 and December 1981, additions were made to the Lee County Stockade building and the lake for an additional 0.45 acres of impervious area. Between December 1981 and March 1984, the Price Halfway House building and parking were constructed, adding another 0.79 acres of impervious surface. Between March 1984 and February 1986, a heliport facility and landing area were constructed for the Lee County Sheriff's Office, adding another 1.01 acres of impervious surface. Between February 1986 and February 1990, an additional 2.31 acres of impervious surface were added through additions to the Lee County Stockade and parking area, juvenile detention center, and Emergency Operations Center parking area. Between February 1990 and April 1993, another addition to the Lee County Stockade added 0.62 acres of impervious surface. An additional 0.17 acres of lake was excavated. During this time, applicable rules and statutes required permits for the construction of "works" affecting surface water, including ditches, culverts, and other construction that connects to, or draws water from, drains water into, or is placed in or across the waters in the state. The buildings, parking, other impervious surfaces, ditches, swales, dikes, lake excavations, and, at one point, addition of a now- abandoned pump all constituted "works" for which surface water management permits were required. In 1988, Lee County or Ft. Myers applied for an exemption for an addition to the Lee County Stockade. The basis for the claim of exemption was that the parcel consisted of less than 10 acres and the total impervious surface did not exceed two acres. Although rules in effect at the time required consideration of the contiguous 65 acres under common ownership and the total impervious surface for the 9.7-acre "parcel" exceeded two acres, SFWMD erroneously issued an exemption letter. The second instance involving a claim of exemption took place in 1989 when Lee County submitted plans for another addition to the Lee County Stockade, adding 0.51 acres of impervious surface. The submittal acknowledged a "flooding" problem, but promised a master drainage plan for the "entire site." SFWMD determined that no permit would be required due to the promise of a master drainage plan. No master drainage plan was ever prepared. The flooding problem precluded issuance of the operation permit on an "as is, where is" basis for the already-developed 21.4-acre parcel, even assuming that SFWMD adequately justified the use of this unwritten permitting procedure. In fact, SFWMD has not explained adequately its "as is, where is" permitting procedure or even the undelineated permitting criteria referenced in 1.6, Basis of Review. The 65- acre parcel is a poor candidate for preferential permitting of existing systems. The owner and developer constructed the existing systems in near total disregard of the law. The two times that the owner and developer complied with the permitting process involved small additions for which exemptions should not have been granted. In one case, SFWMD exempted the proposed activity due to its error calculating minimum thresholds as to the areas of the parcel and the impervious surface. In the other case, SFWMD exempted the proposed activity partly in reliance on a promised master drainage plan that was not later prepared. To issue operation permits for the existing systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels would reward the owner and developer of the 65-acre parcel for noncompliance with the law and provide an incentive for similarly situated landowners and developers likewise to ignore the law. Before issuing operation permits on systems that have received no comprehensive review and that have been added piecemeal over the years, SFWMD must evaluate the surface water systems on the entire 65-acre parcel to determine whether they meet all applicable criteria. The "as is, where is" unwritten policy has no applicability where there have been reports of flooding. If SFWMD chooses to dispense with criteria in reliance upon Basis of Review 1.6, it must be prepared to identify and explain which criteria are waived and why. Water Quality Basis of Review 5.2.2 provides that projects that are zoned commercial or industrial, such as the present one, must provide one-half inch of "dry" detention or retention pretreatment, unless reasonable assurances are provided "that hazardous materials will not enter the project's surface water management system." There is no existing or proposed dry detention on the 65 acres. The existing development includes the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department, which serves as a heliport. The fueling and maintenance of helicopters means that contaminants may enter the stormwater draining off the site. The functioning of the surface water system on this site is therefore of particular importance. There also may be more reason to question the functioning of the surface water system on this site. It is south of the Lee County Stockade, where flooding has been reported. The heliport site has also been the subject of more elaborate drainage improvements, such as the location of a small retention pond near the Stockade boundary and a pump, the latter of which has since been abandoned. The existing system on the 21.4-acre parcel, as well as the existing and proposed systems on the remainder of the 65 acres, require dry pretreatment for reasons apart from the presence of the heliport. The materials likely to be used with the existing and proposed developments are similar to those found on residential sites. SFWMD and DMS contend that there is therefore no need to require dry pretreatment as to these areas. However, the existing and intended institutional uses, such as jails and bootcamps, represent an intensity of use that exceeds the use typical in areas zoned residential. This increased intensity implies the presence of typical residential contaminants, such as petroleum-based products or cleaning solvents, but in greater volumes or concentrations, if not also, in the case of solvents, different compositions. The lease addresses potential liability for released petroleum. In the absence of a showing that such hazardous materials are prevented from entering the runoff, SFWMD must require dry pretreatment for the systems occupying the entire 65-acre parcel. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the existing systems satisfy applicable water quality criteria or that the proposed system will satisfy applicable water quality criteria. Water Quantity The 65-acre parcel adjoins Ortiz Avenue on the west and property owned by Petitioners on the east and south that is undeveloped except for a borrow pit some distance from the 65- acre parcel. The parcel is roughly 1000 feet east- west and 2700 feet north-south. The proposed halfway house is at the north end of the parcel. The halfway house is situated between a proposed detention pond on the west and a recreation field on the east. A paved road divides the halfway house from the rest of the 65- acre parcel. South of the road are the Lee County Stockade on the west, which abuts Ortiz Avenue, and the Juvenile Detention Center on the east. A berm separates these two sites. The berm runs from the road along the west shore of the twice- enlarged 1.2- acre retention pond and the west boundary of the Price Halfway House, which is south of the Juvenile Detention Center. To the west of the berm, south of the Lee County Stockade, is the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department or heliport facility, which abuts Ortiz Avenue. South of the Aviation Department is an outparcel used by the Florida Department of Corrections that also abuts Ortiz Avenue. East of the outparcel is the proposed halfway house with a proposed detention pond west of the halfway house and south of the outparcel. The Emergency Operations Center, which abuts Ortiz Avenue, is south of the detention pond and surrounded on three sides by the 32.7 acres to be left undisturbed at this time. There are perimeter berms around all of the parcels except for the Juvenile Detention Center and Price Halfway House, which are served by a single berm, and the Emergency Operations Center, which appears not to be bermed. The prevailing natural drainage is not pronounced either by direction or volume because the land is nearly level. The natural direction of drainage is to the south and west and remains so on Petitioners' land to the east and south and the undisturbed 32.7 acres to the south. The variety of drainage directions within the remainder of the 65- acre parcel reflects the extent to which berms, swales, ponds, pumps, roads, buildings, parking areas, and other works have been added to the northerly parcels. Runoff reaching the northern boundary of the 65 acres will be diverted due west around the proposed detention pond to the swale running along the east side of Ortiz Avenue. Runoff from the recreation field and halfway house building and parking area drain into the proposed detention pond, which releases water through a gravity control device to the Ortiz Avenue swale. There appears to be a connection routing some runoff from the south side of the recreation field to the Juvenile Detention Center, where it travels west in a roadside swale to the Ortiz Avenue swale. A little less than half of the area of the Juvenile Detention Center site drains into perimeter swales along the north and east borders and then to the west before emptying into the Ortiz Avenue swale. The remainder of the Juvenile Detention Center drains into the retention pond. The same is true of the Price Halfway House. The Lee County Stockade drains to each of its borders where the water then runs west along the north or south border to the Ortiz Avenue swale. The southern half of the Lee County Stockade site drains into the small retention pond at the northwest corner of the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department. Most of the runoff from the heliport facility runs to the southwest corner of the parcel, which is the location of the abandoned pump. From there, the runoff continues to the Ortiz Avenue swale. Very little if any of the runoff from the heliport enters the small retention pond on the northwest corner of the parcel. The bootcamp drains into the detention pond, which then releases water by a gravity control structure into a portion of the undisturbed 32.7-acres before entering the Ortiz Avenue swale. The Emergency Operations Center site drains in all directions away from the building and parking area, eventually draining into the Ortiz Avenue swale. Stormwater discharge rates from the proposed halfway house and bootcamp are 0.28 cfs and 0.37 cfs. Under SFWMD rules, the allowable maximums in the Six Mile Cypress drainage basin are 0.30 cfs and 0.33 cfs, respectively. SFWMD and DMS contend that the excessive discharge from the bootcamp is acceptable because the gravity control device for the proposed detention pond is of the smallest size allowable, given the indisputable need to avoid clogging and ensuing upstream flooding. Initially, SFWMD approved the discharge rates for the halfway house and bootcamp because, when combined, they did not exceed the total allowable value. However, this approach was invalid for two reasons. First, the two sites contain entirely independent drainage systems separated by several hundred feet. Second, after correcting an initial understatement for the value for the halfway house, the actual total exceeds the maximum allowable total. SFWMD contends that the slight excess is acceptable because of the inability to use a smaller orifice in the gravity control structure. However, the discharge quantity easily could have been reduced by design alternatives, such as enlarging the detention pond, which is mostly surrounded by land that is to be left undisturbed. The ease with which the minimum-orifice problem could have been avoided rebuts the presumption contained in Basis of Review 7.2.A that excessive discharge quantities are presumably acceptable if due to the inability to use a smaller orifice. Also, SFWMD and DMS have failed to show that the effect of the excessive discharge quantities is negligible, so the exception in the SFWMD manual for negligible impacts is unavailable. Neither SFWMD nor DMS provided any reasonable assurance as to the quantity of discharge from the 21.4 acres. Rough estimates suggest it is more likely that the quantity of discharge may greatly exceed the allowable maximum. SFWMD must evaluate the water-quantity issues before issuing operation permits for the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7- acre parcels and a construction and operation permit for the 10.9-acre parcel. Obviously, if SFWMD determines that all water quantity criteria are met as to the existing systems, it may issue operation permits for the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7- acre parcels. Otherwise, SFWMD must quantify the extent of the deviation and, if it seeks to waive compliance with any or all quantity standards in reliance on Basis of Review 1.6, evaluate the effect of the waiver and explain the basis for the waiver. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the existing systems satisfy applicable water quantity criteria or that the proposed system will satisfy applicable water quantity criteria. Impacts on Adjacent Lands Petitioners' property is impacted by the above- described drainage in two ways. First, Petitioners' property abutting the east side of Ortiz Avenue, south of the 65 acres, is especially vulnerable to flooding because the Ortiz Avenue swale is not a V-notch, but a half-V. The closed side of the swale prevents the water from running onto Ortiz Avenue. The open side of swale abuts Petitioners' property, so, if the swale's capacity is exceeded, stormwater will be released onto Petitioners' land. Second, perimeter berming along the east side of the 10.9- and 21.4- acre parcels will impede flow off the part of Petitioners' property located to the east of the 65 acres. A swale between the proposed halfway house and the Juvenile Detention Center will receive runoff from a small portion of Petitioners' property to the east and mostly north of the 65 acres. But there is no indication how much runoff from Petitioners' property can be so accommodated, how much runoff is impeded by the existing berm along the east side of the Juvenile Detention Center and Price Halfway House, and how much runoff will be impeded by the addition of new berms along the east side of the proposed halfway house and bootcamp. Basis of Review 6.8 requires that swales and dikes allow the passage of drainage from off-site areas to downstream areas. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that a surface water management system will not cause adverse water quality or quantity impacts on adjacent lands. Neither SFWMD nor DMS obtained topographical information for Petitioners' property, as required by the Basis of Review. Rough estimates suggest that the proposed project may require Petitioners' property to retain considerably more stormwater from the design storm event of 25 years, three days. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed system would not have an adverse impact on Petitioners' upstream and downstream land.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order denying the application of the Department of Management Services for all permits for the operation and construction and operation of surface water management systems on the 65-acre parcel. ENTERED on June 19, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on June 19, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Proposed Findings of Petitioners 1-18: adopted or adopted in substance. 19: rejected as subordinate. 20-21: adopted or adopted in substance. 22-24 (first sentence): rejected as irrelevant. 24 (remainder)-46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47-53: rejected as subordinate. 54-64 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 64 (second sentence)-66: rejected as subordinate. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Respondent SFWMD 1-10: adopted or adopted in substance. 11: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 12: rejected as unnecessary. 13: adopted or adopted in substance. 14-15: rejected as subordinate. 16: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17 (except for last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 17 (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 18-32 (first sentence): rejected as unnecessary. 32 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 33: rejected as subordinate. 34: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that the proposed ponds are wet detention. 35 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 35 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 36-45: rejected as unnecessary. 46-47: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 48-50 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 50 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 51-52, 55-57 (first sentence), and 58: adopted or adopted in substance, although insufficient water quality treatment. 53: adopted or adopted in substance. 54: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 57 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 59: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 60: adopted or adopted in substance, except after "therefore." None of remainder logically follows from what is said in 1.6. 61: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 62-64: rejected as subordinate, unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, and irrelevant. 65: rejected as subordinate. 66: rejected as irrelevant. The burden is on the applicant and SFWMD, if it wishes to issue the permits, to provide reasonable assurances as to the adverse impact of the drainage systems. 67-68: rejected as subordinate. 69: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 70: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 71: rejected as repetitious. 72: rejected as irrelevant, except for past report of flooding, which is rejected as repetitious. 73: rejected as repetitious. 74: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 75 (first three sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 75 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 1 and 2: rejected as irrelevant insofar as the same result is reached with or without the permit modifications. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Respondent DMS 1-4: adopted or adopted in substance. 5: rejected as subordinate. 6: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8: rejected as subordinate. 9: adopted or adopted in substance, except that the excessive discharge was not "caused" by the minimum-sized orifice, only defended on that basis. 10: adopted or adopted in substance. 11-12: rejected as subordinate. 13: rejected as irrelevant. 14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15: adopted or adopted in substance, except for implication that no flooding problems existed. 16: rejected as recitation of evidence. 17: rejected as subordinate. 18: rejected as irrelevant. 19: adopted or adopted in substance, to the extent that separateness of systems is relevant. 20: rejected as subordinate. 21: adopted or adopted in substance, except for last sentence, which is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 22: rejected as subordinate. 23-30: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, recitation of evidence, and subordinate. 31: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, based on the present record. 33: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and relevance. COPIES FURNISHED: Tilford C. Creel Executive Director South Florida Water Management District P. O. Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416 Russell P. Schropp Harold N. Hume, Jr. Henderson Franklin P.O. Box 280 Ft. Myers, Fl 33902 O. Earl Black, Jr. Stephen S. Mathues Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Vincent J. Chen Toni M. Leidy South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, FL 33401
