The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) should issue to Century Realty Funds, Inc. (Century) Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 44000227.002 (the ERP), which would modify Management and Storage of Surface Waters (MSSW) Permit No. 400227.000 (the Permit) and Stormwater Exemption No. EO1481, issued by the District to Century in July 1985 for construction of a surface water management system for Angler's Green Mobile Home Park located in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The District issued Management and Storage of Surface Waters (MSSW) Permit No. 400227.000 and Stormwater Exemption No. EO1481 to Century in July 1985 for construction of a surface water management system for Angler's Green Mobile Home Park (MHP) located in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida. Angler’s Green MHP Angler’s Green MHP is an 83-acre residential golf course development of approximately 385 homes located off of State Road 37 near Mulberry. Residents at Angler’s Green own their own mobile homes and lease the residential lots pursuant to annual leases expiring December 31 of each year, with guaranteed renewal conditioned upon owner compliance with the terms and conditions of the lease. Prior to being developed as a mobile home park, the property which is now Angler’s Green MHP was part of a phosphate mining operation and was reclaimed under a phosphate mining land reclamation plan approved by the Florida Department of Natural Resources and a reclamation contract dated September 4, 1984. Final contours of the Angler’s Green site were made in accordance with the approved reclamation plan. After reclamation contouring, a 23-acre manmade (former phosphate mine pit) lake remained in the northeast quadrant of the Angler's Green site. The resulting lake had a finger arm (bay or cove) extending from the southwest corner of the main body of the lake, oriented in a north-to-south direction and located west of a peninsula of land extending into the northwest part of the lake from the north. The lake also had a short, narrow canal leading into the main body of the lake from the south; the canal connected at a right angle to longer narrow waterway to the south of and extending parallel to the main body of the lake in an east-to-west orientation. There also were two smaller ponds on the property after reclamation contouring. After reclamation, surface water onsite generally flowed westerly and discharged from the property to a railroad ditch along the western boundary of the property. The recorded post-reclamation, pre-development water level for the 23-acre lake, as indicated on the site grading plans, was around 127.1 to 127.8 feet above Mean Sea Level (M.S.L.). The 1985 Permits On July 10, 1985, the District issued MSSW Permit No. 400227.000 and Stormwater Exemption No. EO1481 to Century to authorize the construction of a surface water management system for Angler’s Green. The MSSW Permit had an expiration date of July 10, 1988. As designed, the permitted Angler’s Green surface water management system was to route internal stormwater runoff to swales, detention ponds, and catchment areas before discharging through a sidebank sand filtration system (a berm approximately 300 feet long containing an 8” perforated drain pipe covered by a filter fabric and sand filter material) to receiving waters at the northwest corner of the property. The permitted system was designed with five drainage areas known as Basins A through E. Basin A was in the southeast quadrant of the site; Basin B was to its east in the southeast quadrant of the site; Basin E was to the north of Basin A and included the 23-acre former phosphate mining pit reclaimed as an artificial lake, which was referred to as “Lake E” or sometimes “Pond E"; Basin C was to the west of Basin E; and Basin D was to the west of Basin C and to the north of Basin B. The two smaller ponds on the property were designated Pond C-1 and Pond B-1 and were located in Basin C and Basin B, respectively. Basin D was in the northwest corner of the site; the discharge structure was in the northwest corner of Basin D. As the system was designed, stormwater from Basin E would appear to sheet flow naturally into Lake E; stormwater from Basin A would appear to flow naturally to the southwest, away from Lake E, but the system routed the water from the southwest corner of Basin A to the western end of the waterway on Lake E through an underground pipe. Stormwater from Basin B was to flow to and be retained in Pond B-1; as the system was designed, surface water was not designed to discharge offsite from Basin B. As designed, Lake E served as a detention pond for water from Basin E and Basin A. It was to have a control structure (CS-1) in the arm of Lake E that would produce a seasonal fluctuation range of two feet, from 127.5’ above M.S.L. to 129.5’ above M.S.L. Stormwater discharging from CS- 1 was to be conveyed by pipe to Pond C-1, where it was to mingle with surface water draining from Basin C. When full, Pond C-1 would cascade into the golf course area in Basin D and, as necessary, in a portion of Basin B. After catchment and detention in the golf course area, overflow was eventually and ultimately to discharge offsite through the side-bank sand filtration system in the northwest corner of Basin D. In this manner, the Angler’s Green surface water management system was designed to accommodate the 24-hour, 25- year storm event, which was estimated to produce approximately 8 inches of water in a 24-hour period. It also was designed to comply with the water quality requirements as specified in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 17-25 (1985 Ann. Supp.) by detaining the first half-inch of runoff before discharging it offsite through the sidebank sand filtration system in the northwest corner of Basin D. (All rule citations are to the Florida Administrative Code.) Omission of the Stangls During the review process, the District noted from drawings submitted as part of Century's MSSW Permit application that the project area did not include approximately the eastern third of the main body of Lake E. District staff brought this to Century's attention in a request for additional information (RAI) and stated: "If possible, you should obtain a perpetual right to operate and maintain the lake from other owners." In response, Century falsely represented to the District that L. Kirk McKay, a joint venture partner of Century, was the only riparian owner on Lake E and that Century had obtained from him a perpetual right to operate and maintain Lake E as part of the MSSW Permit. In fact, the Stangls owned property on the east side of the lake, including approximately 500 feet of lakefront and contiguous lake bottom. The Stangls and two partners purchased the property from McKay himself in 1979. The Stangls bought out their partners in 1984. The District relied on Century's misrepresentation. The District would not have issued the MSSW Permit to Century if the District had known that Century did not own or control all the land being used for the Permit--specifically, including all of Lake E. See Rule 40D-4.101(1)(d) and (2)(d)6. (1985) (application must include "evidence of ownership or control"). In addition, because the District was unaware of the Stangls' ownership of a portion of Lake E, the District did not require Century to give the Stangls direct, actual notice of the Century's permit application. Instead, the District only required that Century publish notice of the District’s receipt of the permit application. Notice was published on April 3, 1985, in the Lakeland Ledger, a newspaper of general circulation qualified under the terms of Section 50.011, Florida Statutes. But the Stangls did not see the published notice, were unaware of the permit application, and did not ask to participate in the permitting process. The Stangl property adjacent to Angler’s Green remained undeveloped and unoccupied until 1999, when the Stangls' son, John, established a business on the site. Prior to 1999, the Stangls visited the property a couple times a year. They were fully aware of the construction and operation of Anglers Green as a mobile home park across Lake E. During this time, Century leased 385 lots with guaranteed annual renewal conditioned only upon compliance with lease terms and conditions. Amenities under the leases included clubhouse and golf course privileges. At no time before 2000 did the Stangls take any action to challenge the validity of Century's 1985 MSSW Permit. 1985 Surface Water Management Permitting Requirements In 1985, permitting requirements for surface water management systems were divided between two regulatory schemes. Surface water management permits in Polk County were issued by the District under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapters 40D-4 and 40D-40, which addressed water quantity and flooding issues for projects greater than and less than 40 acres, respectively. Water quality permits or exemptions from water quality permitting requirements were issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 17-25 to address water quality concerns. It was not until 1988 that permitting requirements were consolidated into the MSSW regulatory program administered by the District under Rule Chapters 40D-4 and 40D-40. In 1985, the District did not have a Basis of Review (BOR) to specify system design requirements for applicants to provide reasonable assurances that the conditions for issuance of surface water permits were satisfied. Standards and criteria for the design and performance of surface water management systems were contained in Rule 40D-4.301(2) (1985) Under subsection (2)(i) of that rule, projects designed to meet the requirements of Chapter 17-25 [Regulation of Stormwater Discharge] were presumed to meet applicable State water quality requirements. There were no requirements for wet detention pond littoral zones. 20. Under Rule 17-25.03(2)(b) (1985 Ann. Supp.), stormwater management systems for projects with drainage areas less than 100 acres that provided retention or detention with filtration of the first half-inch of runoff were exempt from the permitting requirements of Rule Chapter 17-25. 21. In 1985, District Rule 40D-4.301(2)(j) (1985) allowed for natural areas and existing water bodies to be used for stormwater retention or detention purposes when not in conflict with environmental or public use considerations. Areas that could be considered for this purpose included previously-degraded areas or man-made areas (such as borrow pits). Apparently, the District allowed Century to use Lake E as a detention pond under this provision. Deviations from MSSW Permit Angler’s Green MHP was constructed in two phases, with the first phase completed in 1985, and the second phase completed in 1987. Construction of at least the part of the surface water management system to serve the first phase took place prior to 1985; it was not clear from the evidence whether construction of the part of the surface water management system to serve the second phase also took place prior to 1985, but it clearly took place prior to construction of the second phase in 1987. Condition No. 4 of Century's MSSW Permit required the submittal of a certification that the system was constructed in accordance with the approved and permitted design. But Century did not provide any such certification. Century also never certified to the District that its new stormwater discharge facility, as constructed, continued to qualify for exemption from State water quality requirements. Although the surface water management system was constructed and operating, the District never transferred the 1985 Permit to the operation phase. In several respects, the Angler’s Green surface water management system was not constructed as designed, approved, and permitted in 1985. The pipe to convey stormwater from the southwest corner of Basin A back to the Lake E waterway apparently never was constructed; instead, stormwater from Basin A was routed to Pond B-1. (There also was a berm constructed in Basin A near the southern boundary of the site; but that berm apparently was a visual berm, and there was no evidence that it affected performance of the surface water management system.) Control structure CS-1 (which was supposed to be located in the arm or bay of Lake E) and the pipe to convey overflow from there into Pond C-1 also never were constructed. By the early 1990's, Angler's Green was experiencing flooding in the golf course area in Basin D and B for extended periods of time. In November 1993, the District responded to a complaint of flooding in that vicinity. Upon investigation, the District determined that malfunction of the surface water management system serving Reservation Lakes (now known as Paradise Lakes), a development to the north and downstream of the Angler's Green system, was causing water to back up through the wetlands and the sand filtration system in the northwest corner of the Angler’s Green project. As a result, water overtopped the discharge structure, equalized at levels above the top of the discharge structure's berm, and flooded the golf course for extended periods of time. At some undetermined point in time, an unpermitted pond was dug in Basin D, apparently in an attempt to alleviate flooding of the golf course. In addition, possibly for the same purpose, a pump was installed in Basin D near Pond C-1, and a pipe was installed to convey stormwater from there into Lake E. The sidebank sand filtration system designed to provide filtration of stormwater prior to discharge from the northwest corner of the site does not appear to exist today. It may be present but difficult to see after 15 years of plant growth; or it may have been removed or disturbed as a result of re-grading in the area. However, the evidence proved that the discharge structure was present in 1993, and there is no reason to believe that it was not installed during construction of the surface water management system--i.e., by 1987 at the latest. In addition, at some undetermined point in time, a pipe was installed at the northeast corner of Lake E to convey overflow from Lake E eastward to a drainage ditch located alongside SR 37 to the north of the Stangls' property. No witnesses could testify as to when the pipe to the SR 37 ditch was installed or its elevation. (The District and Century state in their PRO that Map No. 2 in P/I Exhibit 14--an aerial map/survey submitted to the District by Century on August 13, 1990, as part of Century's 1990 Water Use Permit No. 209993.000 application--notes the pipe's elevation as 127.95 feet above M.S.L.; but no such finding could be made from review of the exhibit.) Roads in Angler's Green have inverted crowns to convey runoff from roads, driveways, and roofs away from mobile home lots. Some runoff from these impervious surfaces appears to be directed into a swale on the east side of the site; this swale leads to Lake E. In addition, approximately 12 drains have been installed in or near roads in Angler's Green that convey water through pipes directly into Lake E or Pond C-1. Under current Rule Chapters 40D-4 and 40D-40, road drains connecting impervious surfaces to Lake E would have to be shown on application construction drawings, and separate stormwater calculations would have to be provided in an application. But in 1985 this was not required. Century's calculations, together with flow arrows on drawings showing the direction of stormwater flow towards the detention ponds, were considered sufficient--especially since Century's calculations used a relatively high runoff co-efficient. As a result, the existence of these drains and pipes are not considered to be substantial deviations from the original, approved design. Similarly, approximately 64 roof drains and pipes conveying water from roofs directly into Lake E and Pond C-1 would not be considered substantial deviations from the original, approved design. In addition, these apparently were installed by mobile homeowners over the years, not by Century. From 1985 to 2000, the District did not have occasion to address regulatory concerns at Angler’s Green, except for the complaint of flooding in the golf course area that occurred in November 1993 and a more recent complaint about an area of the golf course that was designed to flood under certain conditions. Otto Stangl’s Complaint and the District’s Response Around November 1999, John Stangl noticed a fish kill in the ditch along SR 37 near the Stangl property. He also was contacted by a governmental compliance officer concerning the fish kill. Upon investigating, John Stangl saw the unpermitted pipe leading from Lake E that was discharging into the SR 37 ditch where the fish kill was observed, as well as the unpermitted pump that was pumping water from the Angler’s Green golf course area through a pipe that discharged into Lake E. In February 2000, Otto Stangl complained to the District about the fish kill and the existence of the unpermitted structures associated with Lake E. Upon receiving Otto Stangl’s complaint, District staff conducted site visits of the Angler’s Green project. Staff observed the unauthorized pump and pipe conveying water from Pond C-1 to Lake E and the unauthorized pipe conveying water from Lake E to the SR 37 ditch. Staff also observed that the Lake E control structure was missing, the pipe to convey stormwater from Basin A to Lake E was missing, and Basin D had been re-graded. In February 2000, the District also became aware of the fact that Century did not have full ownership or control of Lake E. On March 15, 2000, the District issued Century Notice of Non-Compliance and directed Century to either construct the system as designed and permitted or to seek a permit modification. On May 8, 2000, Century submitted a letter application to modify the original MSSW Permit No. 400227.000 by constructing the originally permitted Lake E control structure and pipe conveying water from Lake E to Pond C-1, but in a different location in Lake E than originally permitted due to the existence of homes at the location where these structures were originally planned. The application was subsequently amended to be a formal modification upon Century’s request for further modification to allow Basin A stormwater to flow to Pond B-1 and to expand Pond B-1 and add a control structure and an effluent filtration system. Despite having actual knowledge since at least February 2000 that the Angler's Green surface water management system was built partially on their property, the Stangls did not ask for a hearing on the 1985 Permit. Instead, they awaited the District's consideration of Century's modification application and sought to challenge the District's notice of intent to grant the modification permit issued on October 29, 2001. The District’s Regulatory Compliance Practices In the 1980's, the District appeared to pay little or no attention to construction of permitted projects or submission of required post-construction certifications. Many projects permitted by the District in the 1980’s, such as Angler’s Green, were built and operating although no certifications had been submitted; as a result, the permits issued for these projects never were transferred to the operation phase. Eventually, some projects not built in compliance with issued permits came to the attention of the District, typically through third-party complaints about drainage problems and flooding. By this time, there was a large backlog of issued construction permits for which no required post-construction certifications had been submitted. The backlog of these older projects was so large that the District decided not to initiate an aggressive, systematic, and comprehensive review of all permits for which no required certifications had been submitted. Instead, projects were checked on an ad hoc basis as complaints regarding the functioning of their surface water management systems were registered. When it came to the attention of the District in this manner that a project had been built under an MSSW permit but that no required certifications had been submitted, the District first attempted to secure the required certifications in the form of certified as-built construction drawings and a Statement of Completion, as required by BOR 2.7. In so doing, it was common practice for the District to accept certifications beyond the expiration date on a permit. If projects were substantially completed, the District would not deem the permit as expired simply because the required certifications had not been submitted before the expiration date; and such projects did not lose their status as being permitted. It should be noted that, according to the testimony of the District's expert, William Hartmann, this agency practice was not based on an interpretation of Rule 40D- 4.321(1)(b) (1985) (on duration of construction permits). Rather, the agency practice was to ignore the expiration of the construction permit under those circumstances. In addition, it does not appear from the evidence that the District ever before has faced the situation presented in this case--where a person on whose property part of a surface water management system was built without the person's consent opposes modification and asserts the construction permit has expired. In cases where the agency's practice was applied, if the required certified as-built construction drawings and Statement of Completion could not be provided because the project was not built in accordance with the MSSW permit, the District would require the permittee to either bring the system into compliance with the approved permit designs or obtain a modification of the construction permit. Letter modifications would be accepted when the requested modification would not substantially alter the permit authorization, increase the authorized offsite discharge, impact the environmental features of the project, decrease the required retention/detention, decrease the required flood control elevations for roads or buildings, or decrease pollution removal efficiency. See Rule 40D-4.331(2)(b) (1985). (The current version of the rule adds renewal or extension of the existing permit duration.) Alterations meeting the threshold requirements for a letter modification would be presumed to meet the conditions for issuance for a permit. Otherwise, formal permit modifications would be required. When application is made for a permit modification, the District’s practice is to evaluate those aspects of the surface water management system being modified. Review generally would not extend to the entire system. Permittees seeking to modify their surface water management systems generally are not required by the District to bring the unmodified portions of the system into compliance with current design criteria. Proposed ERP Permit Modification ERP Application No. 44000227.002 seeks authorization to modify portions of the Angler’s Green surface water management system. The specific alterations for which approval is sought are: permanent removal of the existing, unpermitted 18-inch pipe between Lake E and SR 37 roadside ditch; permanent removal of the pump and associated piping conveying water from Pond C-1 to Lake E; installation of the control structure (CS-1), together with installation of pipe to convey water from the control structure to Pond C-1, as designed and approved in the 1985 Permit but different location in the northwest corner of the main body of Lake E; re-grading of the northwesterly portion of the golf course to more closely conform to the original permitted plan and help keep Basin B separate from Basin D; reconstruction of the side-bank sand filter system in the northwest corner of the property, as designed and approved in the 1985 Permit but with a slightly higher invert elevation (122.04 feet above M.S.L.) to prevent water from backing up into Angler's Green from Paradise Lakes again, and with a concrete flume and spreader swale between Pond C-1 and the berm of the side-bank sand filter system; enlargement of Pond B-1; installation of a control structure on Pond B-1; and installation of 100 feet of 6-inch side-bank sand filter discharging to the southwest corner of the property from Pond B-1. By removing the unpermitted pipe to the roadside ditch along SR 37 and by constructing control structure CS-1, with the same control elevations as in the 1985 Permit (albeit at a different location in Lake E), and connecting CS-1 by pipe to Pond C-1 as envisioned in the 1985 Permit, the function of Lake E should approximate its function under the design approved in 1985. Modifying the permitted design to authorize Basin A to flow to Pond B-1 instead of Lake E results in less water flowing to Lake E; these changes will not increase water quantity or quality impacts to Lake E, as compared to the 1985 Permit. As compared to reclamation conditions prior to implementation of the 1985 Permit, water quantity and quality impacts to Lake E would be expected both under the system as designed and permitted in 1985 and as proposed to be modified, by virtue of the similar use of Lake E as a detention pond under either system. Pond B-1 is being enlarged to better accommodate the flow from Basin A. The control structure being added at Pond B-1 will control flow into the swale to the west so as to address water quantity impacts in that area. Stormwater calculations for the revised Pond B-1 demonstrated that the post-development discharge rate will not exceed the pre- development discharge rate, so that there are no concerns for adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters or adjacent lands or flooding impacts to on-site or off-site property. The historical flows to the west are still maintained. The discharge structure being added at Pond B-1 will account for treatment of the Basin A flow. Based on calculations for revised Pond B-1, the enlarged pond will retain and percolate half an inch of stormwater runoff from the contributing area in 36 hours (which is consistent with current BOR design requirements). The proposed Pond B-1/Basin B modifications, including the routing of Basin A stormwater to Pond B-1, will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters in that vicinity such that state water quality standards would be violated. Angler's Green is located in the Southern Water Use Caution Area of Polk County. No surface or groundwater levels or surface water flows have been established for this area under Section 373.042, Florida Statutes. The proposed modifications do not involve any works of the District. The proposed modifications are based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles and employ treatment methods of effluent filtration which involve commonly accepted designs that can be effectively performed and function as proposed. There are no concerns about Century’s financial, legal, or administrative capability to undertake the proposed modifications as specified in the permit, if issued. There are no applicable special basin or geographic area criteria established for this area. Environmental Concerns As with its review of the proposed permit modification for water quantity impacts, the District's review of environmental concerns was limited to review of impacts from the proposed modifications to the original permitted design; unmodified portions of the original permit were not reviewed for compliance with current requirements. An approximately 20 square-foot permanent impact is proposed to Lake E due to the placement of the control structure (SW-1) in the water. A 379 square-foot temporary impact is proposed to Lake E due to the placement of a cofferdam to facilitate construction of the control structure. Temporary impacts to Lake E resulting from the construction of the control structure would be addressed through the use of sediment and erosion controls to prevent possible sedimentation and turbidity that may arise during the construction activity. The placement of a control structure in Lake E would create very minor permanent impacts resulting from the loss of the footprint of the control structure. These impacts would be insignificant. Due to the very minor nature of these proposed impacts, no mitigation would be required, and no loss of wetlands would be required to be recorded on the Wetlands/Surface Water Table. Construction of SW-1 would not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife, and listed species including aquatic and wetland dependent species, by wetlands, other surface waters and other water related resources of the District. No secondary impacts would be expected from construction of SW-1. No unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters would be expected to occur as a result of construction of SW-1. The project area includes .71 acre of herbaceous/forested wetlands (WL-1) in the northwest corner. The potential for secondary impacts is addressed by an existing fence surrounding WL-1, which eliminates concerns for secondary impacts to this wetland area. No adverse impacts would be anticipated to occur to these wetlands, and no adverse secondary impacts to the water resources would be expected to occur as a result of the proposed modifications themselves. The proposed modifications would not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. Class II or Class III waters would not be affected by the proposed modification project. Therefore, Rule 40D- 4.302(1)(c) is not applicable. No seawalls, lagoons or estuaries are involved in this project. Therefore, Rule 40D-4.302(d) is not applicable. The proposed modifications would not be contrary to the public interest. Relocation of a control structure and enhancement of the Basin B portion of the system would create no significant change in impacts. The proposed modifications constitute a slight improvement over water quality from the original permitted design. No threatened or endangered species were identified for Angler’s Green. The proposed relocation and construction of the Lake E control structure, preservation of onsite wetlands in the northwest corner, and re-design of Pond B-1 present no environmental concerns. Consequently, the proposed modifications do not create any potential for adverse effects regarding the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species or their habitats. The proposed modifications do not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity. The project area does not involve navigable waters and does not affect the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. Hence, Rule 40D-4.302(1)(a)(3) does not apply to this permit modification application. There are no significant historical and archaeological resources involved in this Project. Therefore, Rule 40D-4.302(1)(a)(6) is not applicable to this permit modification application. The proposed modifications would not be contrary to the public interest; they would not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others. No adverse impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed modifications. The proposed modifications maintain the historic water elevation for Lake E and maintain historic flows for the project area. The modified system should also provide some improvement in water quality.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order denying Century's permit modification application designated ERP No. 44000227.002. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph D. Magri, Esquire Merkle & Magri, P.A. 5510 West LaSalle Street Tampa, Florida 33607-1713 Joseph P. Mawhinney, Esquire Clark, Campbell & Mawhinney, P.A. Post Office Box 6559 Lakeland, Florida 33802 Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 E. D. Sonny Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Application No. 090107-1 for Environmental Resource Permit No. 56-03461-P and the Sovereignty Submerged Lands Public Easement for the Crosstown Parkway Extension should be issued as proposed in the notice issued by the South Florida Water Management District.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner resides in the City of Port St. Lucie, with a primary residence at 6470 Northwest Volusia Drive, Port St. Lucie, Florida. Petitioner frequents the area to be affected by the Proposed Project and uses the established Savannas Preserve State Park Halpatiokee Trail (“Halpatiokee Trail”) for birdwatching and engaging in activities, including lectures and tours, related to native plants found in the vicinity of the Halpatiokee Trail and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Intervenor is a 501(c)(3) corporation with its principal place of business in the City of Port St. Lucie. Intervenor’s standing was not challenged at the final hearing. The City is a Florida municipal corporation and the applicant for the Permit. The District is a water management district created by section 373.069, Florida Statutes. It has the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage, and control water resources within its geographic boundaries. See § 373.016, Fla. Stat. The District has the power and duty to exercise regulatory jurisdiction over activities subject to the Permit pursuant to chapter 373, Part IV, and to apply and implement statewide environmental resource permitting rules, including Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-330. § 373.4131(2)(a), Fla. Stat. In implementing responsibilities with regard to ERPs, the District has developed and adopted the ERP Applicant’s Handbook - Volume I (“A.H.”) to provide standards and guidance to applicants. § 373.4131(1)(a)9., Fla. Stat. The District also performs staff duties and functions on behalf of the BTIITF related to the review of applications for authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands necessary for an activity regulated under part IV of chapter 373 for which the District has permitting responsibility. § 253.002(1), Fla. Stat. The District has been delegated the authority to take final agency action, without any action by the BTIITF, on applications for authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands for any activity for which the District has permitting responsibility. § 253.002(2), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.0051(2). Background In 1980, the City had a population of approximately 20,000 residents. The City presently has a population of approximately 179,400 residents and is anticipated to reach 225,000 by 2035. The North Fork of the St. Lucie River (“NFSLR”) runs through the City in a general north-south direction. The City is divided by the NFSLR, with roughly two-thirds of the City being west of the NFSLR, and one-third of the City being east of the NFSLR. The NFSLR in the area of the Proposed Project is an Outstanding Florida Water Body and an Aquatic Preserve. The NFSLR within the City is spanned by two bridges linking and providing access to the two sides of the City. The southernmost bridge is the St. Lucie Boulevard Bridge, a six- lane bridge with three lanes in each direction. The northernmost bridge is the Prima Vista Boulevard Bridge, a four- lane bridge with two lanes in each direction. Both of the existing bridges, and intersections around the bridges, currently operate at peak hours with a level of service of “F”, which is the lowest level of service classification assigned by the Florida Department of Transportation. In addition to traffic congestion, the two existing bridges have been deemed to be deficient in matters of public health and safety, including emergency response times and the need for prompt evacuation in the event of a hurricane or a nuclear incident at the nuclear power plant on nearby Hutchinson Island. Planning The City first identified a third east-west crossing of the NFSLR in its 1980 Comprehensive Plan. A third crossing has been included in each revision to the Comprehensive Plan since that time. In January 2009, the City submitted a conceptual permit application for the Crosstown Parkway Extension to the District. The 2009 application included six proposed bridge alignment alternatives, designated as: 1(C); 1(F); 2(A); 2(D); 6(A); and 6(B). In order to evaluate alternatives for the proposed third crossing, the six alternatives were subjected to environmental assessments which included “purpose and need” considerations. The Proposed Project was evaluated by means of a Project Development and Environmental Study, and the City, in cooperation with the Florida Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration, prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. The City, along with Federal and state agencies, participated in the Efficient Transportation Decision Making Process (“ETDM”) to evaluate the alternative east-west corridors crossing the NFSLR. As part of the ETDM process, modifications to eliminate or reduce impact were analyzed, including widening the Prima Vista Boulevard and Port St. Lucie Boulevard bridges, construction of a tunnel, and construction of second decks on the existing bridges. For various legitimate reasons, those options were rejected. The EIS considered each of the proposed bridge alignment alternatives. Each of the alternatives would have affected the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve, though in differing degrees. The analysis of the six alternatives in the EIS was performed using three overall categories: socioeconomic; biological environment; and physical environment. Environmental impacts in terms of acreage and wetland functions were considered. The EIS also considered public health, safety, and welfare considerations as socioeconomic impacts of the six alternatives. Alternative 1(C) was ultimately identified as the preferred alternative corridor in the EIS. In February 2014, the City, the Florida Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration collectively chose Alternative 1(C) as the preferred route for the Crosstown Parkway Extension. The City amended the permit application in 2014 to request authorization for the construction of alternative 1(C). That amended application is the subject of the proposed agency action at issue. Alignment The existing Crosstown Parkway begins at the interchange of Interstate 95 on the west side of the City, and extends east to Manth Lane. The proposed Crosstown Parkway Extension would extend the existing Crosstown Parkway from its current terminus at Manth Lane for a distance of approximately 1.5 miles to the east side of Floresta Drive, then across a 4,000-foot bridge section over the NFSLR, ending at U.S. Highway 1. The proposed bridge is to be slightly north of midway between the existing bridges. The proposed Crosstown Parkway Extension bridge will have three lanes in each direction, with bicycle lanes and multi-use paths. Petitioners contend that Alternative 6(A) should have been selected as the preferred alignment. Alternative 6(A) would impact the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and wetlands, though to a lesser extent, but would have far greater impacts to residential communities on both sides of the NFSLR. More to the point, the City presented a prima facie case for the selection of Alternative 1(C) that included considerations of traffic flow, ease of evacuations, hospital access, and impacts to residential communities, all of which are “non-environmental safety factors” that are appropriate for consideration. See Fla. Bay Initiative, Inc., et al. v. Dep’t of Transp. and So. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., Case No. 95-5525 et seq. (DOAH Apr. 11, 1997; SFWMD June 23, 1997). Although Petitioners demonstrated that Alternative 6(A) would have fewer environmental effects, they failed to produce substantial competent evidence to counter the safety and public interest factors that are to be weighed and balanced in conjunction with the District’s evaluation of the Permit. The Environmental Resource Permit The proposed Crosstown Parkway Extension corridor includes portions of the NFSLR, Evans Creek, the Coral Reef Waterway, and associated floodplains. The Proposed Project area involves approximately 91.53 acres of development associated with the Crosstown Parkway Extension. Permanent in-water impacts include two sets of pilings. The total area of the pilings is 493 square feet, or 0.0113 acres. Construction of the Crosstown Parkway Extension bridge will involve secondary impacts resulting from shading of the water and benthic riverbed from the bridge, and temporary impacts related to construction. The application includes a 2.134 acre sovereignty submerged lands public easement. Approximately 1.44 acres of the Proposed Project will be constructed in, on, or over sovereignty submerged lands within the NFSLR. The difference in acreage is to account for temporary use of sovereignty submerged lands for construction and maintenance purposes. The area of the Proposed Project includes 14.202 acres of land owned by the BTIITF that are managed as part of the Savannas Preserve State Park. Those lands are not submerged. Authority to grant approval to use non-submerged state lands has not been delegated to the District, is not incorporated in the proposed agency action, and is not at issue in this proceeding. The City has applied for an easement for those state-owned lands from the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”). Water Quality and Water Quantity From the standpoint of water quantity permit criteria, the Proposed Project meets the discharge rate, design storm, floodplain encroachment, and flood protection criteria set forth in the ERP rules. The Proposed Project is divided into five stormwater basins. The stormwater management facilities are designed and permitted to provide water quality treatment and attenuation, including wet detention and dry retention areas. Stormwater from the bridge itself will not be drained into the waters of the NFSLR, but will be routed to the management facilities for treatment. The Permit authorizes the required water quality treatment volume of 2.5 inches times the percent of impervious area. The City has agreed to provide 50 percent more water quality treatment volume than is required by the permitting criteria. As to temporary impacts, the Permit includes implementation of a pollution prevention plan/turbidity and erosion control plan with additional conditions requiring compliance with water quality criteria during construction of the Proposed Project. By stipulation of the parties, the City has provided reasonable assurances to satisfy applicable water quality criteria pursuant to rule 62-330.301(1), and has provided reasonable assurances of compliance with rule 62-330.301(1). The Proposed Project is located within the watershed of DEP waterbody/WB ID/number 3194, the North St. Lucie Estuary, which has been identified as impaired for dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and fecal coliform. Since the existing ambient water quality of the receiving waters is impaired for nutrients, the City is required, pursuant to rule 62-330.301(2), to implement measures that will result in a net improvement of the water quality in the receiving waters for nutrients. The Stormwater Management Report, sections 3.1.6 and 4.4, demonstrate that the stormwater management system proposed for the Crosstown Parkway Extension will provide greater removal of nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorus, than currently exists, which will result in a net improvement of water quality. Thus, the City has established, through its prima facie case, that it meets the standards of rule 62-330.301(2). Petitioners failed to prove, by a preponderance of persuasive competent and substantial evidence, that the stormwater management system would be ineffective to remove nutrients as proposed. Natural Resources There are no seagrasses in the NFSLR in the vicinity of the proposed Crosstown Parkway Extension bridge out to the area subject to potential secondary impacts. Although Ms. Scotto speculated as to the existence of polychaete worms in the area, she had no direct knowledge of any benthic resources at the location. Wetlands within the Crosstown Parkway Extension area can generally be described as freshwater marsh, floodplain forest, and mixed wetland hardwoods. In addition, mangroves fringes exist along the edges of the open water bodies. Impacts Direct Impacts The Proposed Project will result in direct impacts to 7.9 acres of wetlands and 1.18 acres of surface waters with additional secondary impacts. The area of submerged lands physically impacted by the Proposed Project is limited to the pilings that support the bridge, which constitute a total of 0.29 acres of direct impacts. Wetland fill impacts of 1.53 acres will occur where the Crosstown Parkway transitions from a bridge to a roadway, to a width of 225 feet within the U.S. Highway 1 right-of-way. The low level of the bridge structure will result in canopy removal within forested wetlands, and shading of vegetation beneath the bridge structure. As a result, it was assumed that all wetlands underneath the bridge impacted by shading of the structure would be directly and fully eliminated. Petitioners assert that the permit application evaluation should have taken into account direct and secondary impacts to threatened plant species listed by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services in Florida Administrative Code Rule 5B-40.0055, particularly the rose pogonia and nodding pinweed. However, the District does not have authority to consider such species in the context of an ERP. Secondary Impacts Secondary impacts are not direct impacts of the Proposed Project, but are those adverse effects to the functions of the surrounding wetlands and habitats that would not occur but for the construction of the Proposed Project. Secondary impacts include shading from the Crosstown Parkway Extension bridge, and light and noise that could deter use of the area by fish and wildlife. Secondary impacts to wetlands were assessed in two zones extending outward from the direct impact area. The first zone extends from 0 to 50 feet from the bridge footprint, and the second zone extends from 50 to 250 feet from the bridge footprint. There was no persuasive competent and substantial evidence that the secondary impacts of the Proposed Project would have any measurable impact on surface waters, including temperature and salinity. The City provided reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts that would be caused by the Proposed Project will not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards, or adversely affect the functions of adjacent wetlands or other surface waters. Although there will be some locally evident impact to the functions of wetlands within the zones of secondary impact, because the City meets the “Opt-Out” provisions discussed below, the City is not required to implement practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate such impacts. There was no persuasive competent and substantial evidence that the secondary impacts of the Proposed Project would affect the functions of wetlands outside of the zone of secondary impacts. There was no persuasive competent and substantial evidence that the construction, alteration, and reasonably expected uses of the Crosstown Parkway Extension would adversely impact the ecological value of the uplands to aquatic or wetland-dependent listed species for enabling existing nesting or denning by these species. The loss of canopy, including issues of detrital export and functions related to downstream systems, were accounted for in the UMAM calculations for quantifying the functional loss of resource values resulting from the Proposed Project. Petitioners stipulated to the UMAM scores related to direct impacts of the Proposed Project. Petitioners disagreed with the UMAM scores related to secondary impacts because they were not “considered for the impacts to those [Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services]-listed threatened and endangered plants.” The ERP permitting criteria take into account a comprehensive list of invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals that are to be considered in the evaluation of secondary impacts that may result from a project. See A.H. Table 10.2.7-1. The City demonstrated, and Mr. Braun acknowledged, that the permitting standards do not list plants as a matter for consideration, either generically or by species. The suggestion that the evaluation of ecological values must include, by implication, species of plants is not accepted.3/ Mr. Braun also testified that the only issues in dispute regarding the quantification and mitigation of secondary impacts were those pertaining to the headwaters of Hogpen Slough. It was his opinion that the collection and treatment of stormwater from the bridge and road in the permitted stormwater basins will divert and interrupt sheet flow that currently flows from U.S. Highway 1 and undeveloped property to the north into the Hogpen Slough drainage area, and that such effects will alter the salinity envelope in Evans Creek and impact the fishery nursery in the area. However, Mr. Braun admitted that “there has been no modeling that would show how the effect of the changes in the water, how they will be effected by the project.” The basic thrust of Mr. Braun’s testimony was best characterized by the following exchange: Mr. Fumero: You don’t have any analysis to show that what's currently contemplated will result in a salinity imbalance? Your point is that the Applicant should demonstrate, should provide some analysis showing that it will not, correct? Mr. Braun: That's correct.[4/] In response to Petitioners’ concerns with the impacts to Hogpen Slough, the City demonstrated that the Hogpen Slough drainage basin encompasses an area of almost 700 acres, and extends for a mile and a-half to two miles east of the area discussed by Mr. Braun. Upon construction of the Proposed Project, the areas that currently drain to Hogpen Slough will continue to drain to Hogpen Slough, with enhanced water quality treatment and attenuation for the additional impervious area created by the road widening at the intersection with U.S. Highway 1. Thus, the Proposed Project will have a de minimis, if any, effect on the overall quantity of water draining from the Hogpen Slough drainage basin to Hogpen Slough, with the stormwater from the Proposed Project itself being subject to an enhanced degree of water quality treatment. Under the burden of proof applicable to this proceeding, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law herein, Mr. Braun’s concern as to the effect of the Proposed Project on Hogpen Slough, without more, is insufficient to support a finding as to any adverse secondary impacts. Cumulative Impacts The Proposed Project is considered not to have unacceptable cumulative impacts if mitigation offsets adverse impacts within the same basin where the impacts occur. As set forth herein, the proposed mitigation is located within the same basin as the impacts from the Proposed Project. Mitigation The City proposes to provide both on-site and off-site mitigation to offset impacts of the Proposed Project. The City has proposed proprietary mitigation for the easement to cross state lands and regulatory mitigation to compensate for impacts to natural resources. The ecological values of the areas affected by the Proposed Project’s direct, secondary, and temporary impacts to freshwater wetlands and surface waters, and the mitigation needed to offset those impacts, was determined using UMAM. UMAM is authorized by statute and adopted by rule. The undersigned accepts UMAM as an accurate and representative measure of the impacts of the Proposed Project. In order to calculate UMAM functional loss scores, and thereby the mitigation necessary to offset impacts, all areas under the Crosstown Parkway Extension bridge were accounted for as though they were to be filled in their entirety, with 100 percent functional loss. The loss of canopy was accounted for and included consideration of detrital export and functions related to downstream systems. In calculating the mitigation to be provided, the City developed a fictitious “hybrid corridor” that assumed the worst case scenario impacts of each of the six build alternatives identified in the 2009 application. That hybrid corridor included greater impacts than any single alternative corridor, including the Alternative 1(C) corridor at issue. That hybrid corridor was then used as the basis for the development of the mitigation plan used for the Alternative 1(C) corridor. As such, the mitigation proposed is conservative. Applying the UMAM methodology, it was determined that direct impacts would result in 6.64 functional loss units, secondary impacts would result in 2.47 functional loss units, and temporary impacts would result in 0.27 functional loss units, for a total of 9.38 functional loss units. Platt’s Creek To mitigate for the freshwater wetland and surface water impacts, the City constructed the Platt’s Creek mitigation area as authorized by District Permit No. 56-03199-P. Platt’s Creek, located approximately five miles upstream from the project and adjacent to the NFSLR, was an orange grove containing upland habitat and a retention pond. The Platt's Creek project, a joint mitigation area with St. Lucie County, is designed to restore and create hydric hammock, floodplain forest, and freshwater marsh. The mitigation at Platt’s Creek involves the same habitats that are being impacted by the project. Although Platt’s Creek is not located in the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve, it is located upstream of the Proposed Project, within the same basin as the Proposed Project’s impacts, and will provide downstream benefits to the Aquatic Preserve. The Platt's Creek project also provides a regional benefit to the NFSLR by improving water quality. The UMAM calculation established that 9.38 mitigation units would be required to offset the functional loss from all of the Proposed Project impacts. The City dedicated 11.25 functional units from the Platt’s Creek mitigation area to offset the impacts, which is in excess of the requirement. The City has completed construction and planting at Platt’s Creek, and is now monitoring success of the completed mitigation work. Pursuant to the Permit, St. Lucie County is responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Platt’s Creek mitigation area. Bear Point As mitigation to offset direct, secondary and temporary mangrove impacts, the City purchased mitigation credits from Bear Point Mitigation Bank located in the Indian River Lagoon. Bear Point provides the same type of mangrove habitat as that affected by the Proposed Project. Using the modified Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure, which was the method used to determine functional units when the Bear Point Mitigation Bank was created, it was determined that 0.26 functional units would be required to offset the worst case hybrid corridor mangrove impacts applied to the Proposed Project. The City purchased 0.50 functional units from the Bear Point Mitigation Bank to offset the 0.26 acres of functional loss, which is in excess of the requirement. The Proposed Project is in the Mitigation Service Area for the Bear Point Mitigation Bank. The proposed mitigation is within the same basin as the Proposed Project’s impacts. Mitigation Conclusion The City established, by a preponderance of competent substantial evidence, that the mitigation provided was sufficient to offset the environmental impacts. Petitioners failed to counter the City’s case. Mr. Braun’s concerns with the proposed mitigation were primarily directed to its failure to account for impacts to plants species as discussed herein. Ms. Scotto expressed no opinion as to whether the mitigation provided meets the ERP standards, whether the mitigation provided meets the standards for proprietary authorization, or whether the mitigation is consistent with the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve Management Plan. She did not review mitigation for secondary impacts. Ms. Goldberg, noting the extent of the proprietary mitigation provided, testified that mitigation should not be a “Christmas present” for agencies. She also noted that Platt’s Creek does not match the maturity and diversity of the impact areas. However, she did not dispute the UMAM scores that formed the basis for the mitigation. Elimination or Reduction of Impacts The City reduced the width of the main section of the bridge from 143 feet to 103 feet, resulting in a 3.27 acre reduction of impacts, an approximate 30-percent reduction. The evidence was convincing that the bridge could not be further reduced in width without compromising safety and functionality. The City proposed construction methods, including the use of top-down construction or construction by use of temporary pile-supported structures, designed to reduce temporary construction-related impacts. The City has committed to the installation of specialized light fixtures that direct light onto the pavement only, which will reduce light trespass on adjacent habitats. Impacts were eliminated and reduced through the location and design of the stormwater ponds as described in the Permit. No evidence was adduced to counter the prima facie case on that issue. Although Alternative 1(C) had greater environmental impacts than other build alternatives, the City demonstrated by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence that non- environmental safety factors, including traffic flow, ease of evacuations, hospital access, and impacts to residential communities, precluded further efforts to avoid impacts through the selection of a different corridor. Opt-Out Provision A.H. section 10.2.1.2(b) provides that: The Agency will not require the applicant to implement practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate impacts when: * * * b. The applicant proposes mitigation that implements all or part of a plan that provides regional ecological value and that provides greater long term ecological value than the area of wetland or other surface water to be adversely affected. Although the areas impacted by the proposed Crosstown Parkway Extension bridge are of high quality, the combination of using the Platt’s Creek Mitigation Area, the Bear Point Mitigation Bank, and the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve Management Plan Projects, provides regional ecological value and greater long- term ecological value than the areas affected. Based thereon, the City was not required to implement practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate impacts of the Proposed Project though, as indicated herein, it did so. Public Interest Balancing Test Portions of the Proposed Project are within Outstanding Florida Waters. Therefore, the City must provide reasonable assurances that the Proposed Project is clearly in the public interest, as described by the balancing test set forth in section 373.414(1)(a), rule 62-330.302(1)(a), and A.H. sections 10.2.3 through 10.2.3.7. To determine whether a regulated activity located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters is in the public interest, the following criteria must be considered and balanced: whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; whether the regulated activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; whether the regulated activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources; and the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed regulated activity. Public Health, Safety, or Welfare or the Property of Others A.H. section 10.2.3.1 establishes four criteria to be balanced in order to determine if regulated activities will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. The evidence in this case failed to demonstrate that impacts resulting from the Proposed Project would affect waters subject to a shellfish harvesting classification (A.H. section 10.2.3.1(b)), would cause or alleviate flooding on the property of others (A.H. section 10.2.3.1(c)), or would result in environmental impacts to the property of others (A.H. section 10.2.3.1(d)). A.H. section 10.2.3.1(a) requires an evaluation of hazards or improvements to public health or safety. The Crosstown Parkway Extension is calculated to relieve traffic and access problems that have earned the existing roadway infrastructure linking the east and west sides of the City a service level of “F”. By so doing, the Crosstown Parkway Extension is designed to improve emergency response times and evacuation times. The proposed Crosstown Parkway Extension corridor involves the fewest overall impacts to residences, communities, and businesses. Petitioners assert that the Crosstown Parkway Extension will create health issues from vehicle emissions, and adverse effects to wildlife and habitat from light pollution. Those alleged impacts would apply to all of the build alternatives, including Petitioners’ preferred Alternative 6(A). Furthermore, Petitioners failed to provide any quantification of either the amount or effect of any such impacts. Finally, as to the alleged light pollution, the City incorporated design modifications to the bridge lighting system to reduce such impacts. There was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the Crosstown Parkway Extension will, on balance, adversely affect public health or safety. Although more directly relevant to the sovereignty submerged lands easement, the water quality enhancement projects, including the installation of baffle boxes, reestablishment of oxbows, and dredging of unsuitable sediments in Evans Creek, will maintain and improve water quality in the NFSLR and, as a whole, result in an improvement to the water quality of the NFSLR. Thus, reasonable assurance has been provided that the Crosstown Parkway Extension will not adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. Conservation of Fish and Wildlife The Endangered Species Biological Assessment Report submitted as part of the ERP application was comprehensive in its scope, assessing each of the bridge alternatives. The Report concluded that the Proposed Project would have no effect on any federally-listed plant species, “may affect but [was] not likely to adversely affect” listed species, including the smalltooth sawfish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and manatee, and would have no effect on any other federally-listed species. The area of the Proposed Project includes no designated critical habitat. The report further concluded that each of the build alternatives, including the Proposed Project, could affect several state-listed plant and animal species, but that the Proposed Project would affect no threatened or endangered species. As to those state-listed species, the Report concluded that efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to species and their habitats had been implemented, and that a mitigation plan had been developed to compensate for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and fish habitat. The Report, which is part of the ERP application, and is, by law, part of the City’s prima facie case, is accepted. The City agreed to perform surveys for protected species and implement measures designed to protect those species from direct project effects as described by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the agreed-upon surveys and protective measures would be ineffective in preventing adverse impacts to the wildlife species of concern. Furthermore, the City incorporated design features and construction methodologies to reduce and eliminate impacts, and provided mitigation to replace functions provided to these species affected as a result of the project. More mitigation to provide habitat and improve water quality within or adjacent to the NFSLR and the Aquatic Preserve has been provided than was required. The mitigation provides regional ecological value and greater long-term ecological value than the wetlands to be impacted. There was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the Crosstown Parkway Extension will result in adverse impacts to the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters, or adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Petitioners assert that various plant species listed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services will be impacted by the Proposed Project. As set forth previously, the plant species of concern to Petitioners are not species defined in the A.H., and are not species that are subject to consideration in the decision to issue or deny an ERP. As set forth in paragraphs 54 and 55 above, Petitioners also assert that the alteration of the inputs to Hogpen Creek would affect the salinity regime in the Evans Creek receiving waters, thereby adversely affecting fishery nursery areas. Petitioners’ argument was made without information on the volume of water to be discharged over what period of time, without information as to the size of the Hogpen Slough watershed, without information as to the stormwater system design, and without modeling that would show how the waters would be affected by the Proposed Project. In sum, the evidence as to adverse impacts to Hogpen Slough, and resultant effects on the conservation of fish and wildlife, was made without evaluation, and was entirely speculative. The City demonstrated that areas that currently drain to Hogpen Slough will continue to drain to Hogpen Slough, with enhanced water quality treatment, and with attenuation for the additional impervious area created by the road widening at the intersection with U.S. Highway 1. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that post-construction discharges of water to Hogpen Slough will offer greater benefits to the conservation of fish and wildlife than current discharges. The City has demonstrated, by a preponderance of competent substantial evidence, that the proposed Project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, or their habitats. Navigation, Flow of Water, or Erosion or Shoaling The Proposed Project will not prevent fishing, boating, or other forms of recreation in the NFSLR. A bridge hydraulic analysis demonstrates that the Proposed Project will not cause impacts to water levels, flow, or velocity of the NFSLR or other water bodies. Navigation will not be adversely impacted as the bridge span will be at least as high as other bridges on the NFSLR. The bridge will meet Coast Guard minimum clearances, and Coast Guard-required aids to navigation will be included. Navigation by canoes and kayaks will be improved because of the dredging of the unsuitable sediments and the placement of a new and more accessible canoe launch. The Permit requires the implementation of best management practices to prevent erosion and sedimentation during construction. The City has demonstrated, by a preponderance of competent substantial evidence, that the Crosstown Parkway Extension bridge would cause no adverse effect on navigation or the flow of water, or harmful erosion or shoaling. Fishing or Recreational Values or Marine Productivity The Proposed Project is expected to have no effect on fishing, sport or commercial fisheries, or marine productivity. Although recreational values and fishing may be affected during construction, such impacts are temporary. The long-term effects of the Proposed Project, which include those direct and secondary impacts caused by shading of the vegetative and benthic resources under and adjacent to the Crosstown Parkway Extension bridge, are offset by mitigation including the reconnection of oxbows, which is designed to improve water quality and provide habitat that was previously isolated, and sediment dredging at Evans Creek, which will also improve water quality, fish habitat, and recreational values. The new Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”)- compliant canoe/kayak launch will allow for improved and more accessible recreational use. As has been discussed at length herein, the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the Proposed Project will be reasonably expected to eliminate or degrade fish nursery habitat, change ambient water temperature, change the normal salinity regime, significantly reduce detrital export, change nutrient levels, or otherwise have any adverse effects on populations of native aquatic organisms. Rather, with the mitigation proposed in terms of land acquisition, access enhancement, sediment removal and re-establishment of oxbows, water quality treatment projects, and the stormwater treatment and attenuation being provided, the City established that the Proposed Project would have no measurable adverse impact on fishing, recreational values, or marine productivity. There is no doubt that Petitioner’s enjoyment of the Halpatiokee Trail will be compromised. However, alternative, though more publically accessible areas for walking and canoeing will be provided. Petitioner was critical of the fact that the alternative areas would not be as wild and undeveloped as the existing trails and was particularly critical of the Savannas County Park Trail mitigation, since it is paved to provide access for handicapped nature lovers. This is, however, a balancing test. Based on the record as a whole, there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the Proposed Project will, on balance, have an adverse effect on fishing or recreational values and marine productivity. Temporary or Permanent Nature The Proposed Project is of a permanent nature. Temporary impacts will occur during construction, but are considered less harmful than the permanent impacts as the temporary impact areas will eventually recover. Although there will be permanent habitat loss, such loss will be offset through mitigation. Historical and Archaeological Resources There was no evidence of significant historical or archaeological resources on or near the Proposed Project. Current Condition and Relative Value of Functions The current condition and relative value of functions is high, as demonstrated by the UMAM scores. This value is due to the location in the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and state park, connectivity to other wetlands and surface waters, and utilization by fish and wildlife. To offset impacts to the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the Proposed Project, the City provided mitigation in excess of the rule requirements, including the purchase and enhancement of additional lands, and the construction of various types of water quality improvement projects. The mitigation projects and goals are described in the Aquatic Preserve Mitigation Plan. Public Interest Balancing Test - Conclusion The City has proven, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence adduced in this proceeding, that, upon balancing the impacts of the Proposed Project with its benefits, the activities authorized by the Permit will be clearly in the public interest. Sovereignty Submerged Lands The City requested an easement over 2.134 acres of sovereignty submerged lands. Approximately 1.44 acres of the 91.53-acre project will be constructed in, on, or over sovereignty submerged land. Permanent in-water impacts consist of two sets of piles to be installed in the Coral Reef Waterway, the NFSLR, and Evans Creek, with a total fill area within the sovereignty submerged lands of 492 square feet or 0.0113 acres. The submerged lands public easement is 157 feet wide, greater than the reduced 104-foot width of the Crosstown Parkway Extension bridge. The area of the easement in excess of the 1.44 acres over which the bridge will pass is to accommodate temporary construction and maintenance activities. Aquatic Preserve The area within the sovereignty submerged lands easement is in the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve. In order to obtain an easement in an aquatic preserve, the City is required to demonstrate that the benefits exceed the costs, and that the Proposed Project is consistent with the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve Management Plan. Consistency with the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve Management Plan is a component of the public interest assessment required by rule 18-20.004(2)(a)(3). Proprietary mitigation was proposed for recreation areas, water quality and quantity, wetlands, wildlife and habitat, floodplain social considerations, and relocations. Proprietary mitigation consistent with the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve Management Plan includes: the installation of baffle boxes within five waterways that discharge into the aquatic preserve. Baffle boxes are designed to slow the flow of water from upland and developed areas, allowing sediment to fall out before the water is discharged to the NFSLR. They are a proven and effective means of improving water quality in a receiving water body; the removal of muck and sediment from Evan’s Creek. The removal of such materials is designed to improve water quality, navigation, and habitat in Evans Creek; the construction of a new, ADA-accessible canoe/kayak launch to replace the current Halpatiokee launch that will be displaced by the Crosstown Parkway Extension, the creation of the ADA-compliant Savannas Recreation Area Trail between Savanna Road and Midway Road, and the improvement of the Savannas Preserve State Park Education Center. The Halpatiokee canoe/kayak launch was slated for closure by the DEP under any of the build alternatives. ADA-accessibility for the canoe/kayak launch and recreation trail, along with improved canoe/kayak launch parking, will enhance public access to the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and Savannas Preserve State Park5/; purchase and conveyance to the BTIITF of approximately 110 acres, including wetlands and uplands adjacent to the Aquatic Preserve at the Evans Creek, Crowberry, Brywood, Emerson, Highpoint, and Riverwalk sites. Acquisition also includes the Green River parcel in the Savannas Preserve State Park. Each of those sites was identified as priority acquisitions in the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve Management Plan or by the DEP. The conveyances also include an obligation for the City to remove exotic vegetation from the parcels over a period of five years; and oxbow reconnection and removal of accumulated sediments at Site 5 West and Riverplace Upstream, adjacent to the Aquatic Preserve, designed to improve water quality and habitat. Cost/Benefit Analysis Costs related to the 2.134-acre easement include reduced habitat at the bridge location, shading of the water column and areas of herbaceous and forested wetlands, including mangroves, pre-emption of public use, some of which is temporary and some of which due to the loss of functional use of the Halpatiokee Trail under the bridge, and reduced aesthetics. Those costs, except for the Halpatiokee Trail impacts, would be evident to varying degrees at each of the proposed build alternative routes. The City demonstrated that the Crosstown Parkway Extension is a public necessity for which no other reasonable alternative exists. The Crosstown Parkway Extension provides the most efficient means of addressing current traffic congestion, the severe traffic congestion anticipated in the future, and other access and evacuation issues described herein, with the least overall impact to the public. The Crosstown Parkway Extension will not involve dredging or filling in the Aquatic Preserve. Although there will be pilings in the Aquatic Preserve, pilings are not “fill” pursuant to rule 18-20.003(27). The DEP and the City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) that identifies projects that the City committed to undertake, and lands that the City committed to convey to state ownership to provide for proprietary and sovereignty submerged lands mitigation. The MOU projects are consistent with the approved NFSLR Aquatic Preserve Management Plan. Consistency with an adopted management plan is given great weight when determining whether the project is in the public interest. As set forth above, benefits of the Proposed Project to the Aquatic Preserve include enhanced public access, improved and enhanced water quality, and enhancement and restoration of natural habitats and functions. The City also proposes to convey approximately 110 acres to the BTIITF. The City has proven, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence adduced in this proceeding, that, upon balancing, the social, economic, and environmental benefits associated with the Proposed Project, including the extensive proprietary mitigation being provided, far exceed the costs of the 2.134-acre submerged lands easement. Findings of Fact - Conclusion Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, and as supported by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence, the standards and conditions for issuance of the Permit as set forth herein have been satisfied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order approving the issuance of Environmental Resource Permit and Sovereignty Submerged Lands Public Easement, Permit No. 56-03461-P, to The City of Port St. Lucie, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Notice of Consolidated Intent to Issue and Staff Report, as modified, and the complete Application for Environmental Resource Permit. Said approval shall not be construed as relieving The City of Port St. Lucie from obtaining an upland easement for the 14.202 acres of non-submerged state-owned land required for the Proposed Project. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 8th day of November, 2016. 1/ T.162:22-181:19.
The Issue On June 7, 1991 the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) released its intent to issue Permit No. DC05-194008, authorizing Florida Cities Water Company (FCWC) to construct a 300-acre restricted public access spray irrigation system for the land application of treated domestic wastewater (Sprayfield Permit). And, on August 6, 1991 DER released its intent to issue Permit No. MS05-194894, relating to stormwater management and management and storage of surface waters (MSSW Permit) for the sprayfield site. Petitioners Brevard Groves, Inc. and H & S Groves, Inc. (Groves), Parrish Properties, Inc., Parrish Management, Inc. (Parrishes), Atico Financial Corp. (Atico) and David and Eleanor Shreve (Shreve), each requested a formal administrative hearing challenging the issuance of the sprayfield permit. Groves requested a hearing challenging the issuance of the MSSW Permit. The ultimate issue is whether FCWC is entitled to these permits.
Findings Of Fact FCWC is a private utility company, with headquarters at 4837 Swift Road, Suite 100, Sarasota, Florida, 34231. FCWC's Barefoot Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant (the WWTP) provides water and wastewater service to the Barefoot Bay development in southern Brevard County, Florida. DER, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2900, is an agency of the State of Florida which regulates domestic wastewater treatment and disposal facilities and permits their construction and operation. For domestic wastewater projects, DER is also charged with reviewing applications for stormwater management and management and storage of surface water pursuant to an operating agreement between DER and St. Johns River Water Management District. David and Eleanor Shreve are beekeepers who live approximately a quarter-mile from the proposed sprayfield. They maintain beehives in the groves and woods surrounding the proposed site. The remaining Petitioners own citrus groves that are adjacent to, or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site. These groves are producing and are actively maintained. The WWTP has a treatment capacity of 0.9 million gallons per day (MGD). As of July, 1990, the WTTP was treating and disposing of effluent from approximately 4,200 residences in the Barefoot Bay development. At buildout, within the five-year life of the Sprayfield Permit, the WWTP will serve 5,000 residents, and will generate approximately 0.6 MGD of wastewater. Disposal of treated effluent is presently achieved by a 40-acre sprayfield, storage ponds and direct discharge of pond overflow to the San Sebastian Drainage District Canal (Canal). In 1986, DER issued FCWC a warning notice to the WWTP regarding an unlawful discharge to the Canal. FCWC met with DER to discuss options to correct the discharge. In 1988, FCWC entered a Consent Order that would allow FCWC to discharge treated effluent into the Canal until a deep injection well could be built for alternative disposal. FCWC also discussed other alternatives with DER, such as golf course irrigation. The Consent Order was amended in 1991 to provide for land application in lieu of deep injection. In accordance with the amended Consent Order, FCWC has submitted monthly monitoring reports to DER, for the WWTP and for the storage (percolation) ponds. DER has never issued a notice of violation to FCWC for failure to comply with monitoring in the Consent Order. The Site The proposed sprayfield site is divided into two large tracts, the "northern parcel" and the "southern parcel." The site is primarily citrus groves. Although some citrus trees were damaged by a freeze in recent years, most are still viable. Most of the areas between the trees and limited areas without trees are covered with dense grasses and weeds. The site, and the surrounding groves, have been significantly altered to provide sufficient drainage for citrus trees, which require well-drained conditions. The area is covered by shallow ditches (swales), between mounded rows of earth comprising beds for the trees. These citrus mounds, created by soil cast up during excavation of the swales, occur on 60-foot centers and rise 2 1/2-3 feet above the bottom of the swales. The swales have pipes at each end, which discharge into an agricultural collection ditch or the Canal. Each block of citrus is surrounded by a collection ditch some 8-10 feet deep. All collection ditches ultimately discharge into the Canal, which borders the site on the north and is approximately 20 feet deep and 100 feet wide. The collection ditches and Canal prevent the entrance of offsite surface water run- off into the site and receive surface water run-off and groundwater seepage from the site. The Sprayfield Project The project is proposed in two phases. Phase I meets total annual effluent disposal needs of 0.55 MGD, using both the proposed sprayfield and the existing 40-acre sprayfield, which will continue in operation for both phases of the project. Phase II meets the total annual effluent disposal needs of 0.6 MGD at build-out. This results in an average annual application rate of 0.54 inch/week or approximately 28 inches per year on the proposed sprayfield. The project is designed to eliminate the current discharge to the Canal. The effluent will be given secondary treatment with basic disinfection. The treated effluent will be pumped from the WWTP to storage ponds and then to the proposed sprayfield. The existing ponds will be retrofitted as storage ponds for Phase I. An additional storage pond will be constructed at the proposed sprayfield for Phase II. The spray irrigation system will operate primarily with four traveling gun sprinklers. Two sets of fixed-head sprinklers will also be used for the two small triangular portions of the site. The traveling sprinklers will be operated for approximately 5.9 hours/day during Phase I and 6.5 hours during Phase II. The four traveling sprinklers will run simultaneously on four of the thirty-three travel lanes (tracks) located between the swales covering the site. Ordinarily each track will be sprayed every eighth day. To make up for days when irrigation is not possible, additional disposal capacity can be obtained by operating the sprinklers for extra shifts on tracks not previously irrigated that day. The site will be mowed regularly, and any accumulated grasses or debris will be removed. Any areas presently in weeds, or the areas not covered by vegetation are reasonably expected to fill in with dense grasses when irrigation commences. Maintaining the grass cover in the swales will prevent erosion of soil and debris into the swales and reduce the need for maintenance of clogged swale outlet pipes. The system is designed and will be operated to avoid ponding or direct surface run-off of sprayed treated effluent. However, there may be some very limited potential for droplets of treated effluent clinging to vegetation being washed into the swales by a heavy storm event immediately following an application. Therefore, the sprinklers will not be operated when the water table is closer than four inches from the bottom of the swales. Operators will know when to spray by reading automatic groundwater elevation monitoring gauges installed in several places throughout each block of citrus, including the middle. In addition, an automatic device will shut off sprinklers during a rainfall, so that no significant amount of treated effluent will leave the site mixed with stormwater. The site is bordered on three sides by groves and on one side by undeveloped vacant land. The width of the proposed buffer zone from the sprayfield wetted area to the site property line is at least 100 feet, as required in Rule 17-610.421(2), F.A.C., and is substantially wider for extensive lengths of the project border. The buffer is approximately 130 ft. wide on the eastern boundary of the northern parcel, approximately 250 to 235 ft. wide on the western boundary of the northern parcel, and approximately 225 to 160 ft. on the western border of the southern parcel. The distance between the wetted area and adjacent property owners' boundaries is much greater than 100 ft. for other portions of the sprayfield borders due to linear features that provide additional buffering. It is over 200 ft. from the wetted area to the nearest property owner on the northern border of the northern parcel because of the San Sebastian Canal, and 160 ft. on the southern border of the northern parcel and the southern and eastern borders of the southern parcel because of the 60-foot wide Micco Road right-of-way. Aerosal Drift and Other Off-Site Impacts While Petitioners allege that their groves would be contaminated by aerosol drift from the site, they presented no expert or other competent, substantial evidence on the extent or volume of such drift. FCWC air modelling expert, Dr. Robert Sholtes, used the EPA Industrial Source Complex Model (ISC), the most commonly used predictive model in the air pollution community, to evaluate the project's aerosol drift. While the sprinklers are planned to be operated a maximum 6.5-hour shift, a conservative 7.0-hour shift was used. Other data inputs to the ISC Model were hourly windspeeds at the Daytona Beach weather station for five years; sprinkler nozzle size and pressure; and droplet size, distribution and settling rates obtained from the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. The model yielded the annual average deposition of sprayed effluent in grams per square meter (gm/m2) outside the wetted area for one sprinkler as it moves along its track. The accumulated deposition off the site property line, considering operation of all tracks, can be predicted using these results. Because heavy deposition of droplets settles out fairly rapidly, the aerosol from tracks farther into the site does not significantly affect the maximum impact shown for one track. Due to the prevailing east and west coastal winds, heaviest deposition will occur off the eastern and western property line of the site. The volume of treated effluent that will be blown offsite is not substantial. The greatest volume is approximately 1000 millimeters/square meter/year (ml/m2/yr) off the eastern property line out to approximately 50-75 feet, and 500 ml/m2/yr off the western property line out to approximately 75 feet. A maximum of 100 ml/m2/yr is predicted and a maximum of 50 ml/m2/yr is predicted off the southern and northern lines, respectively. In practice, volumes of aerosol drift off-site will be below the predicted levels in areas where trees occur in the buffers. Most significantly, there are existing rows of citrus trees along the eastern border of the northern parcel within the buffer area, which is the area of heaviest predicted drift. In addition, aerosol drift will be minimized by operating procedures. Wind speed and direction will be monitored at the site. If the wind is over 20 miles per hour, there will be no spraying. For winds of lesser speeds, the spray tracks on the edges of the sprayfield will not be used during a strong directional wind, e.g., for a wind blowing east, the track on the eastern border will not be utilized. The tracks are on approximately 240-foot centers. Therefore, elimination of spraying for the track on the edge of the site will have the effect of withdrawing the aerosol drift deposition pattern 240 feet further into the sprayfield. Considering that the farthest extent of the maximum 1000 ml/m2/yr levels of drift is 75 feet, such a program will be very effective in minimizing drift. Because no motors will be required to operate the site, significant noise is not expected. The treated effluent will not contain significant amounts of odor-causing constituents, and odors are not expected. Finally, lighting is not planned on the proposed sprayfield, so this is not expected to be a source of offsite impact. Assurances for Proposed Application Rate A determination of the site's ability to accept treated effluent at the maximum proposed application rate of 0.54 inch/week without adverse effects was based on (1) the hydraulic loading capacity of the site to receive the applied water, considering soil permeability and other physical site conditions, and (2) the allowable nitrogen loading rate, considering the ability of the vegetation to uptake the nitrogen contained in the treated effluent. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes a general manual for technical assistance in designing land application systems across the United States. This manual, "Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater - Process Design Manual" (EPA Manual), is cited as a general technical guidance source in DER Rule 17- 610.300(4), F.A.C. The EPA Manual contains formulae for the calculation of both the hydraulic loading capacity and the allowable nitrogen loading rate. The EPA Manual recommends use of the more restrictive of the hydraulic loading capacity or the allowable nitrogen loading rate as the hydraulic loading rate for the project. Hydraulic Loading Capacity. A hydraulic loading capacity of 0.63 inch/week for the proposed sprayfield was determined based on field exploration, laboratory testing, hydrogeological conditions and engineering evaluation, summarized in a report included in the application. This 0.63 inch/week hydraulic loading capacity is above the maximum proposed application rate of 0.54 inch/week and substantially below the maximum rate of 2 inches/week allowed by DER Rule 17-610.423(4), F.A.C. EPA Equation 4-3 for hydraulic loading capacity balances the volume of water that enters the site with the volume of water that leaves the site. Values in Equation 4-3 are evapotranspiration, which is the water released to the atmosphere from soil surfaces and by vegetation (ET); precipitation rate (rainfall); and Pw, which is water removed by vertical percolation downward through the soils. Due to the high vertical permeabilities of the sandy soils at this site, unrefined use of EPA Equation 4-3 would give a very high hydraulic loading capacity for this project, on the order of 10 times that proposed by FCWC. Therefore, a more detailed input/output water balance formula was used to determine annual hydraulic loading capacity (applied effluent in the formula) of 0.63 inch/week: rainfall + applied effluent + groundwater inflow = evapotranspiration, + groundwater outflow + surface run-off + evaporation + irrigation losses. The average annual rainfall, based on data from the U.S. NOAA weather station at Melbourne, is 48.17 inches. Due to the isolating effect of the deep ditches surrounding the site, groundwater inflow is considered to be so negligible that it was not assigned a value for the equation. ET, based on standard scientific references, is 45 inches/year for citrus trees. An additional 20 inches/year loss is attributable to grasses covering soil surfaces. In lieu of vertical percolation, groundwater outflow laterally through the surficial aquifer was projected to be 1.8 inches per year, based on hydraulic conductivity and soil permeabilities for the site. Surface run-off of stormwater was estimated to be 10 inches per year. Irrigation losses were estimated at 15% of the amount of applied effluent. Pond Storage Capacity. The proposed application rates for the two phases of the project are annual averages. The volume of storage needed for occasions when conditions preclude application must be determined. DER requires the calculation of storage by analytical means for the 10-year rainfall recurrence interval, using 20 years of rainfall data, and accounting for all water inputs on a monthly basis, using site-specific data. A minimum storage volume equal to three days application is required. Rule 17-610.414 (2), F.A.C. Calculations presented in the application met these requirements and showed storage needs of 8.08 million gallons (MG), or approximately 15 application days' volume, for Phase I; and 15 MG, or 25 application days for Phase II. Additional storage calculations, reflecting the monthly variations of wastewater inflow due to the seasonal population, were prepared for Phase I. These calculations reflected the same storage requirements. Petitioners' Allegations Regarding Application Rate and Storage Although they had prepared no analyses, performed no calculations, conducted no laboratory tests and undertaken only one field test (test hole for groundwater level), Petitioners' witnesses asserted that site conditions precluded successful operation of the sprayfield at the maximum proposed application rate of 0.54 inch/week. They asserted that swale pipes would plug and a clay "hardpan" at the bottom of the swales would prohibit percolation of stormwater. Thus, the swales would be full of water for long periods and further application would be precluded. They also asserted that significant volumes of treated effluent would leave the site as run-off. They alleged treated effluent would enter the swales directly from accumulation of spray and indirectly from seepage from the sides of the citrus mounds. Finally, Petitioners asserted 15 days of storage was inadequate because the site would be too wet for application for at least a month. FCWC presented testimony and evidence based on site reviews, numerous field and laboratory tests, computer modelling, and calculations that successfully refuted these allegations. Petitioners' expert in grove management and local soil conditions, Mr. Burnette, stated that extremely wet conditions required pumping of swales for weeks at a time in nearby groves. FCWC's experts asserted that the proposed sprayfield site currently has, and will continue to have, under proper maintenance, much better drainage than Mr. Burnette's groves, where regular grading of swale inverts and herbicide applications denude soil and cause erosion which plugs pipes and backs up water in the swales. In addition, unlike the situation described in Burnette's groves, the proposed site contains no swales that are lower in elevation than the collection ditches, thereby facilitating stormwater run-off. The top layer of soil comprising the citrus mounds and the swales is relatively clean sand. Petitioners' so-called "hardpan" is a slightly clayey to clayey fine sand layer which separates the upper sand from a thick layer of very clean, beach-type sand. FCWC geotechnical experts determined the clayey sand layer was 18 to 24 inches below the bottom of the swales. Without any field testing, Petitioners' expert hydrogeologist, Mr. Oros, asserted that the clayey sand layer was at the bottom of the swales. In contrast, Mr. Burnette stated that the clayey sand layer occurs four to eight inches below the bottom of the swales on the adjoining groves, where the graded swales are 10 to 14 inches deeper than the shallow swales on the proposed sprayfield site. Thus, Mr. Burnette's testimony supports the FCWC conclusion that this layer is found up to 2 feet below the swales on the proposed site. Moreover, contrary to Petitioners' assertions that the layer acts as a "hardpan", water can pass relatively freely through it and the water table will not "perch" above it. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS) reports a permeability value for this soil type of one to 12 feet per day. Dr. John Garlanger, FCWC expert in subsurface investigation and soil mechanics, conducted a field inspection of the soil and reviewed grain size distribution analyses. He determined that the permeability of the clayey sand layer is about one foot of water per day. Petitioners' expert hydrogeologist concurred that the layer could have this permeability rate. Soil is at the "wilting point" when its water content is too low for plants to transpire additional water. Soil is at "field capacity" when added water "fills up" the soil and it becomes saturated. The "water table" is the level at which the soil is totally saturated. Petitioners erroneously assert that 90% of the 0.54 inch of treated effluent will travel straight down to the water table. Instead, due to capillary action, the first foot of the sandy soil at the site can store about 0.6 inch of water between the wilting point and field capacity. If there is no rain between applications, 100% of the 0.54 inch will be transpired by vegetation out of the first foot of soil. This "resets" the soil moisture content to the wilting point in preparation for another application. If heavy rains cause the soil to remain at field capacity rather than returning to the wilting point through ET, the soil can still absorb up to 2.25 inches of water per foot, or three-fourths to one inch of water per four inches of soil, before it reaches saturation. Therefore, even if the soil is saturated up to 4 inches below the swales, the top 4 inches of soil will still absorb the 0.54 inch of treated effluent without reaching total saturation or causing any run-off. If subsequent heavy rains saturate the remaining soil and raise the water table to the bottom of the swales, the excess rainwater which falls on the saturated surface will run off as stormwater, and most of the treated effluent will remain stored within the soil. Furthermore, because the water table is proposed to be measured at centers of the blocks where, due to distance from the drainage ditches, the water table is closest to the surface, soil storage capacity across the site will exceed these projected levels. Petitioners' experts also asserted that if it rains after the 0.54 inch application, the groundwater will "mound" up below the citrus mounds, creating a hydraulic gradient or head differential (between the water table under the citrus mounds and the water table below the swales) sufficiently great to cause the treated effluent in the mound to flow toward the swales and seep into them from the sides of the citrus mounds. Mr. Golding admitted that such seepage would not occur when the groundwater table is below the bottom of the swales. Nevertheless, he opined that seepage of treated effluent would be considerable because he believed, based on opinion and experience alone, that the water table would be at the bottom of the swales or higher for at least 30 days straight in a "wet year." FCWC's experts successfully refuted these assertions. A significant portion of the treated effluent falling onto the citrus mounds will be stored in the soil as described above. The treated effluent (only applied when water level is 4 inches below the swales) that actually reaches the water table will cause only a very slight "water mound" (only 2 inches in 30 feet) which will not produce any appreciable "head" or lateral flow to the swales. On only three occasions (a total of 8 days) during the wettest year in ten did the "water mound" rise above the bottom of the swales resulting in any groundwater seepage from the citrus mounds into the swales. Thus, during the entire wettest year in ten, less than one-half of 1% (0.12 inch of the approximately 28 inches) of annual applied treated effluent, very diluted with groundwater, might seep from the mounds into the swale. Contrary to Petitioners' expert's assertion that the seasonal high water level (SHWL) was not provided by FCWC, this information was supplied in the application and was reaffirmed by calculations of Dr. Garlanger at rebuttal. The importance attached to the SHWL for this project was not adequately explained by Petitioners. FCWC experts explained that the SHWL is the average (NOT maximum) height of the groundwater during the two to six wettest months of the year. Because the water table varies throughout the year, it is the calculation of the position of the water table from month to month that is significant and is required by DER. This monthly changing water table was the basis of storage water balance calculations contained in the application. Even though the monthly storage calculation in the application meets the DER/EPA requirements, Petitioners' witnesses asserted that the application did not indicate how many days the water table would rise to four inches below the swales and thus how many days spraying was precluded and storage was required. Dr. Garlanger analytically calculated the water table beneath the site, using Darcy's Law, and known parameters at the site, such as the depths of the ditches, the geometry and relative distances, and the thickness and permeability of the soil layers. Thus, although never required for any of the 100 land application projects he has evaluated, Dr. Garlanger performed computer modelling and calculations to predict the daily level of the water table beneath the swales for both Phase I and II during the wettest year in ten. Water inputs in his model included treated effluent and daily rainfall from an actual year (1969) when rainfall reached the levels of the statistically wettest year in ten. Water losses were soil storage, ET, distribution losses, deep percolation and run-off. Treated effluent was not applied when the model predicted that the water table would be higher than four inches below the bottom of the swales and when there was significant rainfall (more than one-hundredth of an inch). This modelling predicted that 6.1 MG/11-day storage was needed for Phase I. Thus, the project as proposed has substantially more storage than needed, with a proposed 8.1 MG/15-day storage. The model produced similar results for Phase II, showing a total 10.1 MG/18-day storage need compared with the proposed 15 MG/25-day storage. Petitioners also challenged various "irrigation efficiency" figures used by FCWC experts. All water leaving a water source, in this case the WWTP, does not reach the roots of the crops for which it is intended. "Irrigation efficiency" expresses this fact as the percentage of water pumped that is used by the vegetation. In the monthly storage water balance calculations the applicant used an "irrigation efficiency" of 70% of the total applied treated effluent, which is recommended in IFAS Bulletin 247 and in the USDA, SCS, "Florida Irrigation Guide"; 15% of the applied treated effluent was attributed to "irrigation losses" in the calculations in the application to determine the hydraulic loading capacity; and Dr. Sholtes stated that data he used indicated that 94% of "the water that came out of the nozzle reached the ground" within the wetted area of the site and the remaining 6% was aerosol drift and evaporation. Petitioners' expert questioned whether an irrigation efficiency of 70%, 85% or 94% should have been used and suggested that the calculations should be redone. The expert misunderstood the terms, comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. With a 70% irrigation efficiency, 30% treated effluent is lost to the plants. Only a small portion of this 30% loss is attributable to aerosol drift and evaporation in the air. Most of the 30% treated effluent hits the ground but is still lost to the plants through evaporation of treated effluent intercepted on plant leaves, losses from the distribution system, e.g., leaky fittings at the WTTP, and percolation of water below the reach of plant roots. The "irrigation losses" (15%) in the application include all of those types of losses, except the treated effluent losses through percolation. This approximately 15% of the total treated effluent appeared as a separate value from "irrigation efficiency." Water Quality Assurances Nitrogen Loading Rate. Because nitrogen is generally the constituent of most concern for sprayfields, EPA Equation 4-4, which is intended to produce a conservative result, projects nitrogen loading possible without exceeding the groundwater standard for nitrate. Two FCWC experts calculated the allowable nitrogen loading rate. James Christopher, project engineer and expert in water quality and chemistry, adjusted the EPA equation to reflect stormwater leaving the site, which is a more technically correct refinement of the equation and has the effect of lowering the allowable rate. A "U value" (the variable for rate of nitrogen uptake by crop)of 100 kilograms/hectare/year (kg/ha/yr) was used by James Christopher. Dr. Harvey Harper, another FCWC water quality expert, an environmental engineer, who has taught numerous university courses in wastewater treatment and has been involved in scientific studies of pollution removal, also calculated the nitrogen loading rate for the annual average rainfall and the wettest year in ten. He did not adjust EPA Equation 4-4 for stormwater run-off, because Petitioners had questioned any deviations from the formula. He used a U value of 150 kg/ha/yr, because he considered a value of 100 too low to be realistic. He used the highest nitrogen value in data from the WWTP. Other values he used in the equation were nearly identical to those of Mr. Christopher. The results were an allowable nitrogen loading rate of 0.75 inch/week for a year of average rainfall and 0.93 inch/week for the wettest year in ten. These rates are substantially higher than the proposed gross hydraulic loading rate of 0.54 inch/week. Petitioners' expert, Dr. J. P. Subramani, asserted that a U value of 0 kg/ha/yr should have been used, although he admitted that a site with a U value of 0 kg/ha/yr would be bare sand devoid of vegetation. The U values of 100 and 150 kg/ha/yr used by FCWC were extremely conservative. The EPA Manual provides U value ranges for forage grasses, at a low of 130-225 kg/ha/yr for bromegrass, to a high of 400-675 kg/hayr for coastal bermuda grass. Ignoring the testimony of FCWC witnesses that the grass would be mowed and removed from the site, Dr. Subramani supported his opinion only with the unfounded contrary assertion that the vegetation on site will not be harvested and removed as a crop. Petitioners alleged that discharges from the site would contaminate surface and ground waters and otherwise adversely affect water quality; inadequate renovation of pollutants would take place in the soil; and the receiving waters were already below standards. Petitioners' experts did no studies or analyses, nor did they predict expected concentrations for any parameters for sprayed treated effluent leaving the site as surface waters or groundwaters. Petitioners' exhibits regarding water quality issues consisted of two single-day monitoring reports for the existing WWTP discharge and the Canal and a set of 1990-91 water quality report sheets for the WWTP. FCWC's expert, Dr. Harper, analyzed the project's impacts on groundwater and on surface waters (the Canal) if the treated effluent were to leave the site as surface run-off in the swales, as groundwater seepage into the collection ditches, or as aerosol drift. Based on 1990-91 water quality monitoring of the WWTP's existing treated effluent, Dr. Harper projected the concentrations of parameters of concern for the treated effluent to be sprayed at the site. Although monitoring of heavy metals is not required at the WWTP, he also projected levels for these parameters based on EPA figures and existing data from two larger domestic wastewater treatment plants. Because those two plants have contributions from industrial and commercial components not found at the WWTP, the projections substantially over-estimated heavy metals expected for the WWTP. Groundwater Impacts. Dr. Harper estimated the pollution removal efficiencies for treated effluent traveling through approximately one foot of soil by reference to the EPA Manual and a study he had performed. He then applied these efficiencies to the projected concentrations for the sprayed treated effluent. Even at maximum projected concentrations, the results showed that projected constituents would be at or better than groundwater quality standards after renovation in the soil. Thus, due to low levels of constituents of concern, including those for which no numerical standard is provided in the rules, the project will not cause groundwater water quality violations and will have no adverse effect on the biological functions in the groundwaters directly underlying the site. Contrary to Petitioners' assertions, DER witnesses stated that DER does not interpret provisions of Rules 17-600.530(4) and 17-610.310(3)(c)4, F.A.C., as requiring background groundwater samples in the application. Because research has shown that groundwater quality results for sprayfields are generally very good, DER routinely defers such sampling until after permit issuance. Thus, the groundwater monitoring plan in the application and in the draft sprayfield permit provides that all monitoring wells will be sampled to establish background water quality and results submitted to DER prior to spray irrigation. DER's expert witness in environmental engineering and wastewater land application design, Christianne Ferraro, as well as John Armstrong, DER's environmental specialist in site contamination clean-up, stated that they had reviewed groundwater monitoring currently provided by FCWC for the WWTP. They found no nitrogen violations. Surface Water Impacts. The preponderant evidence showed that treated effluent will not flow directly into the swales. Therefore, FCWC proved it will not leave site as surface run-off. However, in order to project the worst-case water quality evaluation for droplets greatly diluted by rainwater or groundwater which may enter the swales, it was assumed that all treated effluent landing within swales "made of glass" would run off directly into the Canal. In addition, uptake, removal or dilution likely to occur in the collection ditches was ignored. Pollution removal efficiencies for grassed swales (based on a year-long study) were applied to the projected concentrations for the treated effluent. After renovation in the swales, any treated effluent leaving the site would contain concentrations for parameters of concern at or better than surface water quality standards. Therefore, water quality in the receiving surface waters will not be violated. Due to removal efficiencies for soils, the treated effluent leaving the site as groundwater seepage into the collection ditches is expected to meet surface water quality standards. In addition, the trace quantity of effluent (0.12 inch for wettest year in ten) which may seep into the swales will reach the San Sabastian Canal only after being greatly diluted within the groundwater and filtered and purified in the soil in the citrus mounds and grassed swales. Even projecting ten times the amount of aerosol drift predicted for the project, the water quality impact of any sprayed treated effluent entering the Canal as drift is so small as to be insignificant. Ambient Water Quality. The existing discharge is having minimal effect on the water quality of the Canal. Furthermore, by eliminating the direct discharge, the project will reduce the present impacts on the Canal by 92-99%. Nonetheless, Petitioners suggest that the project may further degrade ambient waters which they allege are already below standards. Dr. Harper assessed the ambient water quality characteristics of the Canal, which is Class III fresh surface water and the ultimate receiving water for the site. Even including water quality data for the Canal put in evidence by Groves, the Canal is not currently at or below any state water quality standards for Class III waters, except for occasional Dissolved Oxygen (DO) levels. Levels of DO in sprayed treated effluent are expected to be very high. Even if groundwater seepage into the collection ditches and the Canal from the proposed sprayfield contains low levels of DO due its travel underground, it will not lower levels of DO in the ambient waters because the groundwater will also be low in BOD, which depresses DO. Thus, groundwater seepage is expected to have a neutral effect on ambient DO or to increase DO levels due to its diluting effect on BOD. Groundwater inflow to the site is negligible but outflow occurs at a significant measured rate. The only significant inputs are sprayed treated effluent and rainfall. Therefore, the groundwater under the site will eventually reach a stable condition where its constituent levels are the average of the constituent levels in rainwater and the treated effluent. The treated effluent to be applied on this site is at or above state groundwater standards. Necessarily, regardless of the condition of the existing groundwater it cannot possibly be degraded by the treated effluent to below state standards and may well be improved by it. Thus, FCWC has provided reasonable assurances that Rule 17- 600.530(4), F.A.C., has been met, without monitoring of ambient groundwaters in the application. The deposition of treated effluent will not violate the standard that all waters of the state shall be free from components which, alone or in combination with other substances, are present in concentrations that are carcinogenic or teratogenic to humans, animals or aquatic species or that pose a serious threat to public health, safety or welfare. Human Health Risk and Contamination. Petitioners allege that the sprayfield poses a hazard for contamination of their properties. They produced no witness or evidence of contamination other than experts in grove management, citrus production and management, and Petitioners themselves, who expressed scientifically unsubstantiated fears of the impact of the sprayfield on human health or the marketing of their fruit and honey. FCWC expert Dr. Christopher Teaf, who teaches biology, toxicology and risk assessment at Florida State University and is also president and principal toxicologist with a firm doing hazardous substance and waste management research, determined that the project poses no off-site contamination hazard. Pathogens. Fecal coliform is a standard measure for the health hazards of treated effluent based on an indicator group of microbiological organisms, present in the intestinal tracts of all warm-blooded animals as well as a number of insects and cold-blooded species. These organisms do not themselves ordinarily cause human disease, but may indicate the presence of other pathogenic organisms. Coliform bacteria are common in water bodies in general, and the state limit for these bacteria is 200/100 ml. Rule 17- 302.560(6), F.A.C. The World Health Organization has concluded that levels as high as 1,000/100 ml constitute an adequate standard and will not be associated with human disease. Only extremely limited numbers of bacteria can survive the hazardous journey from the WTTP to the Petitioners' property. First, required chlorination at the WWTP will reduce the coliforms to no more than 200/100 ml. At that level, pathogenic bacteria are negligible, if present at all. Pressures during ejection from the spray heads will cause a 70-90% mortality rate. Once airborne, bacteria will be killed because of temperature, ultraviolet radiation and desiccation. As water drops evaporate, constituents become more concentrated and the drops become toxic environments for bacteria. Bacteria falling to earth are filtered in the first few inches of surface soils. Any organisms borne off site will find that, due to the antibacterial qualities of citrus peel and fruit and the plethora of chemical agents routinely applied, the adjacent groves are an extremely inhospitable environment. Too few bacteria will survive at FCWC's proposed application levels, or at 10 times those levels, to constitute an infective dose and contribute to the incidence of human disease. Thus, treated effluent in the form of aerosol drift will have no adverse effect on the health of humans or otherwise cause contamination of areas adjacent to the proposed sprayfield. Consumption of Fruit. Bacteria are not taken up by the plant roots and the aerosol drift will not have any effect on the actual health of the citrus trees themselves. The minimal deposition from spray will be removed through washing required by governmental standards to remove dirt, grime and other contamination, such as fungicides, herbicides and pesticides applied as a normal practice in the citrus industry. Based on fifteen years of scientific literature, including the EPA Manual, crops irrigated with treated effluent do not contribute to human health problems in populations that consume those crops. With application of treated effluent with bacterial concentrations, even 10,000 to 100,000 times higher than the standard, there has been no incidence of human disease related to the consumption of such crops. Part II of Rule 17-610, F.A.C., "Reuse: Slow rate land application systems; restricted public access;" governs the type of sprayfield proposed by FCWC. Petitioners alleged that, due to the proximity of their groves and beekeeping activities, higher levels of treatment than those in Part II should be required. They argued that "advanced wastewater treatment" (AWT), defined in Section 403.086(4), F.S., would be more appropriate. This statute gives DER the discretion to require AWT when it deems necessary. Section 403.086(1)(a), F.S. However, AWT would not meet the requirements of Part III of Rule 17-610, which governs irrigation ("direct contact") of edible food crops and requires Class I reliability for treatment which is not required for AWT. Section 403.086(4), F.S.; Rule 17-610.460 and 17-610.475, F.A.C. Adjacent land uses were a part of the permit review for this project required in Part II. Buffer restrictions provide protection from the sprayfield so that levels of deposition are negligible compared to those when spray irrigation is applied directly at the food crop site. Thus, by its decision to issue this permit, DER recognized that minimal aerosol drift is not the "direct contact" envisioned in Part III and that because the project did not pose a hazard to adjoining groves higher levels of treatment are not necessary. Aerosol drift from treated effluent will have no effect on human health due to contamination of honey or adverse effects on the Shreve's bees located near the proposed sprayfield. Natural enzymes in unpasteurized honey are hostile to bacteria. The Shreves have never experienced a problem with the existing forty acre sprayfield even though it is accessible to their bees and has been in the area as long as the bees have. Petitioners allege that the sprayfield will attract birds, creating an aviation hazard to airplanes using the grass airstrip owned by Petitioner, Parrish Properties. Mr. Parrish, who is a licensed pilot, asserted that water ponding on the site and the mowing operation will attract birds. Both the proposed sprayfield and the surrounding groves will be mowed and irrigated and thus will provide the same type of mixed grass and citrus tree habitat as presently found in the groves. Therefore, Petitioners are currently attracting the same type and number of birds to their groves as FCWC's proposed sprayfield will attract. FCWC's expert in botany and ornithology, Mr. Noel Wamer, observed no large birds at the site, the existing 40-acre sprayfield or the surrounding citrus groves. He did observe small birds such as northern cardinals, towhees, and warblers, typical of citrus grove habitats. Cattle egrets might also be expected in the groves and the proposed sprayfield, particularly during mowing operations. Wading birds would only be attracted if water remained on the site for approximately one week or more to allow development of aquatic organisms as a food source. Birds present on the proposed sprayfield are very unlikely to fly up and collide with planes. The grass airstrip is used infrequently, with only 12 landings in the past year. For a number of years Mr. Wamer has observed bird behavior at the Tallahassee sewage treatment plant sprayfields near the Tallahassee Airport. The one-half mile distance between the runway and sprayfields in Tallahassee is nearly the same as the distance between the Petitioners' grass airstrip and the site. Planes landing at the Tallahassee airport are at an altitude of between 500 and 600 feet over the sprayfields, the same height as predicted over the site. Regardless of the size of planes, the birds, primarily cattle egrets, do not react, but continue feeding or resting. Stormwater and Surface Water Management Activities. On April 3, 1991, FCWC submitted an application with DER to modify and operate the existing stormwater and surface water management system on the sprayfield site (MSSW system). The Notice of Intent to Issue the MSSW Permit was published in the Florida Today newspaper on July 27, 1991. Minor activities are proposed to improve the existing system: (1) culverts at the ends of swales will be cleaned to restore full flow capacity; (2) obstructions and excess vegetation will be removed from the collection ditches to restore their original flow lines; and (3) any depressions in the swales will be filled and regraded to attain a minimum swale bottom elevation of 20.2 feet above mean sea level. As asserted by DER's expert in surface water management, the stormwater discharges will not be a combination of stormwater and domestic waste sufficient to trigger review of stormwater under DER rules as required by Rule 40C-42.061(3), F.A.C. Considering all proof adduced, particularly that stormwater will be treated to applicable standards in the grassed swales, water quality will not be violated, and the post- development peak discharge will not exceed the pre-development peak discharge from the site, FCWC provided reasonable assurances that the proposed MSSW system would not be harmful to the water resources in the area and would not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district. Summary of Findings and Permit Conditions FCWC has established that the sprayfield, as proposed, will meet the applicable regulatory requirements for the sprayfield and MSSW permits. Included in the specific conditions attached to the notice of intent to issue the sprayfield construction permit is the requirement that the site be operated to preclude saturated ground conditions or ponding. (FCWC Exhibit #3, paragraph 13, specific conditions). Witnesses for the applicant described certain proposals to assure this condition is met, and those proposals should be incorporated into the condition. Those proposals include the cessation of spraying during a rain event and the installation of devices to automatically turn off the sprinklers when rain occurs, the cessation of spraying whenever the groundwater level is within four inches of the bottom of the swales, and the installation of ground water gauges to determine when this level is reached. In order to minimize aerosol drift, the applicant proposes to establish wind gauges indicating the direction and speed of wind at the site. It was suggested that spraying would cease when the wind reaches 20 miles an hour, and sprinklers should be positioned to avoid spraying the downwind perimeter of the site when drift is likely to occur. This condition should also be incorporated in the permit. If the operational adjustments cannot be made automatically it will be necessary to require that the plant be staffed at all times that the spray system is turned on, notwithstanding the minimum six hours, five days a week required in Rule 17-602.370, F.A.C. and referenced in the intent to issue. Engineering computations in the application rely on the assumption that the vegetation onsite will be harvested (mowed and removed). Since spray irrigation treatment of wastewater depends on renovation or removal of effluent by the soil vegetation system, periodic mowing and removal of the vegetation should also be included as a permit condition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered issuing permits number DC05-194008 and MS05- 194894, with the additional conditions addressed in Finding of Fact paragraphs 60 and 61, above. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by Petitioners, Groves and Shreve: Rejected as unsupported by competent evidence (as to the allegation of irresponsible plant operation). 2.-4. Rejected as irrelevant. 5.-7. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in paragraph 9. 10.-11. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence as to "irrigation efficiency". 12.-13. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and mischaracterization of the witness' testimony. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as statement of testimony, not finding of fact, which testimony is outweighed by other evidence. 17.-18. Adopted in paragraph 3. 19. Adopted in paragraph 28. 20.-21. Adopted in paragraph 8. 22.-23. Adopted in substance in paragraph 22. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Average annual application rate of .54 inches/week yields 28 inches a year. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 26.-29. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 30.-31. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 19. Addressed in paragraph 36; adopted in substance. 38.-39. Rejected as unnecessary. 40. Adopted in paragraph 31. 41.-47. Rejected as unnecessary, or contrary to the weight of evidence as to "irrigation efficiency". 48.-49. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 50. Adopted in paragraph 34. 51.-52. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. The grass will be mowed and removed. The "U" value was based on the grasses, not the citrus. 53. Rejected as contrary to the evidence, as to "unknown density and type". 54.-57. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Adopted in paragraph 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. 63.-64. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 65. Rejected as confusing, as to the term "unsuitable conditions". 66.-69. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 70. Rejected as confusing. 71.-72. Rejected as unnecessary. 73.-74. Rejected as a mischaracterization of the witnesses' testimony. 75.-82. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 84.-85. Rejected as unnecessary. 86.-87. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 88.-89. Rejected as unnecessary. 90.-94. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 95.-97. Rejected as unnecessary. 98.-99. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 100.-103. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 104.-109. Rejected as a mischaracterization of the testimony or misunderstanding of the term "irrigation efficiency". 110.-112. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 113.-114. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 117.-118. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to the law and evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 16 by implication. Rejected as unnecessary and misunderstanding of the testimony. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 124.-126. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted by implication in paragraph 21. 129.-130. Rejected as unnecessary. 131. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 132.-134. Rejected as unnecessary. 135.-138. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 139.-141. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire OERTEL, HOFFMAN, FERNANDEZ & COLE, P.A. P. O. Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Harry A. Jones, Esquire EVANS, JONES & ABBOTT P.O. Box 2907 Titusville, FL 32781-2907 Kathleen Blizzard, Esquire Richard W. Moore, Esquire P.O. Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Douglas MacLaughlin Asst. General Counsel Dept. of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Dept. of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue is whether an Environmental Resource Permit should be issued to KGB Lake Howell, LLC, authorizing the construction of a surface water management system to serve an apartment complex known as the Estates at Lake Howell in the City of Casselberry, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this proceeding, Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District (District), proposes to issue an Environmental Resource Permit to Respondent, KGB Lake Howell, LLC (Applicant), authorizing the construction of a stormwater management system to serve a 240-unit apartment complex known as the Estates of Lake Howell. The project will be located on an undeveloped tract of land in the City of Casselberry (City), Seminole County, Florida, just north of the Orange County line. It will include ten three-story buildings, parking, clubhouse/ administration building, amenity complex, and wet detention pond. The project also incorporates a 3.62-acre stormwater pond, now owned and used by Seminole County (County), lying east of Lake Ann Lane across from the project site, which was included in the overall acreage calculations for the purpose of increasing apartment density on the site. The Applicant has authorization from the County to apply for the permit incorporating that tract of land. The pond will continue to function as a stormwater facility for the County and will not accommodate stormwater from the project site. The project site consists of 38.9 acres located on the north side of Howell Branch Road, east of State Road 436 (also known as Semoran Boulevard), and west of Lake Ann Lane in the City. The site is currently undeveloped and includes an abandoned orange grove and upland pine flatwoods community, which make up approximately 14.6 acres, while the remaining 24.3 acres is a mixed forested wetland system. The property is now owned by the Harold Kasik Living Trust (Kasik property), which has a contract for purchase with the Applicant. The Kasik property is in the shape of a rectangle, 648 feet by 2,530 feet, with its long sides running north- south. It is bordered on the north and east by single-family residential and vacant land, to the south by commercial development, and to the west by high-density residential and commercial development. The property has a high elevation of approximately 83 feet on its southeastern corner and falls to the north/northeast, where the edge of the wetland system is at an elevation of 63 or 64 feet. The major development constraint on the site is the large wetland tract on the northern portion of the property. In order to minimize proposed impacts to the wetlands, the Applicant proposed the transfer of the development entitlements from the County land to benefit the Applicant's property. More specifically, the Applicant will acquire the County property, the Applicant will simultaneously grant a perpetual drainage easement over the property to the County, the Applicant will maintain the landscaping of the property in perpetuity, the Applicant will convey around five acres of wetlands on the northern end of the Kasik property to the County in fee simple, and the City will allow the transfer of development rights from the property. The project will adversely impact 0.99 acres of low- quality wetlands, of which 0.72 acres are to be dredged and 0.27 acres are to be filled to provide the fencing around the wet detention facility. To offset this impact, the Applicant proposes to preserve 17.8 acres of forested wetlands, plus 1.2 acres of forested uplands, or a mitigation ratio of 18:1. The District's guidelines for preservation mitigation applicable to this project are 10:1 to 60:1 for wetland impacts and 3:1 to 20:1 for upland impacts; thus, the mitigation plan falls within these guidelines. Under current conditions, stormwater runoff from the project site sheet flows into the on-site wetland and ultimately Lake Howell (the Lake), a Class III water body which meets all applicable water quality standards and is not an Outstanding Florida Water. After development occurs, stormwater from the developed portions of the property will be conveyed to a wet detention pond for required water quality treatment and peak discharge rate attenuation. After treatment in the detention pond, the water will discharge to the on-site wetland, as it does now, and eventually will be conveyed into the Lake. Off-site flows will continue to be conveyed into the on-site wetland. The wet detention pond, which has a minimum depth of twelve feet and a permanent pool of water with a mean depth of two to eight feet, has been designed to accommodate a 25-year, 24-hour storm. Post-development discharge will be less than pre-development, and the outfall structure has been designed to avoid channelization in the wetlands after the point of discharge. Since at least the late 1940's, Petitioner, Shirley Haynes, or her relatives, have owned, or resided on, a multi-acre tract of land just north of the project site at 2764 Lake Howell Lane. She has substantial frontage on the south side of the Lake. The southern portion of her property, which are wetlands, adjoins the northern boundary of the project site. For the past three years, Petitioner, Egerton van den Berg, has resided on a ten-acre tract of land at 1245 Howell Point, which is northeast of the project site. He has approximately 235 feet of frontage on the south side of the Lake. As argued in their Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioners generally contend that the application is "materially deficient" in several respects in violation of Rule 40C-4.101; that the Applicant has failed to satisfy Rule 40C-4.301(1)(c) and (d), which in turn constitutes a failure to meet the requirements of Rule 40C-4.302(1)(a)-(c); that the Applicant failed to satisfy the criteria in Sections 12.2.3(a)-(f), 12.2.1, 12.2.1.1, 12.2.1.3, 12.2.2.3(a)-(e), 12.2.2.4(a) and (b), 12.3.2.2(c), and 12.3.8(a) of the Applicant's Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters (Applicant's Handbook); that the District did not adequately consider the cumulative impacts of the project as required by Section 373.414(8)(a), Florida Statutes; that a low flow analysis of the Lake was not performed, as required by Rule 40C-8.011(5); that the Applicant did not submit detailed mitigation plans as required by Section 12.3.3.2 of the Applicant's Handbook; that the 18:1 ratio for mitigation proposed by the Applicant is inappropriate; and that the District should not approve the density of the apartments established by the City. These concerns, to the extent they have been identified as issues in the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, are addressed in the findings below. Where contentions have been raised by Petitioners, such as the placement of the detention pond over a depressional area, and they have not been argued in the Proposed Recommended Order, they have been deemed to be abandoned. Conditions for issuance of permits Rule 40C-4.301(1)(a)-(k), Florida Administrative Code, specifies eleven substantive requirements for which reasonable assurance must be given in order for a standard permit to be issued. Subsection (3) of the same Rule provides that the standards and criteria contained in the Applicant's Handbook shall determine whether the foregoing reasonable assurances have been given. Additional conditions for the issuance of a permit are found in Rule 40C-4.302(1) when the project, or any part of it, is located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters. Therefore, because a part of the Applicant's system will be located in wetlands, the Applicant must also give reasonable assurance that the project will not be contrary to the public interest, and that it will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon the wetlands or surface waters. a. Rule 40C-4.301 Paragraphs (a)-(c) of the Rule require that an applicant provide reasonable assurance that the project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands, adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, or adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. If a system meets the requirements of Section 10.2.1(a) through (d) of the Applicant's Handbook, there is a presumption that the system complies with the requirements of Paragraphs (a) through (c). This presumption has been met since the evidence supports a finding that the post- development peak rate of discharge will be lower than the pre- development peak rate of discharge for a 24-hour, 25-year storm event. Therefore, the Applicant's system meets the requirements of these Paragraphs. Paragraph (d) of the Rule requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the project "will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters." To satisfy this requirement, an applicant must also demonstrate compliance with the two-prong test in Sections 12.2.2 and 12.2.2.4 of the Applicant's Handbook. Section 12.2.2 requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurance that a regulated activity will not impact the values of wetlands and other surface water functions so as to cause adverse impacts to the abundance, diversity, and habitat of fish, wildlife, and listed species. In its proposal, the Applicant proposes to fill a total of 0.99 acres of wetlands. Since these impacts will eliminate the ability of the filled part of the on-site wetland to provide functions to fish and wildlife, the filling will cause adverse impacts. Under these circumstances, Section 12.2.1.1 requires that the Applicant either implement practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate these adverse impacts or meet one of the exceptions under Section 12.2.1.2. Under Section 12.2.1.1, a proposed modification which is not technically capable of being done, is not economically viable, or which adversely affects public safety through the endangerment of lives or property is not considered practicable. The Applicant’s design for the proposed project went through a number of iterations prior to submittal to the District to reduce adverse impacts to the wetlands. During the permitting process, the District requested that the Applicant consider a number of other suggestions to reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts to wetlands such as adding a fourth floor to the apartment buildings to eliminate the need for one apartment building, building a parking garage for the tenants, and eliminating the tennis and volleyball courts. Because the Applicant provided detailed reasons why none of those suggestions were practicable, it was not required to implement any of those design modifications. In addition, the Applicant’s decision not to include a littoral zone around the stormwater pond did not increase the amount of wetland impacts as that engineering decision resulted in a stormwater pond that was simply deeper and not wider. Therefore, the Applicant has met the requirement to reduce or eliminate adverse wetland impacts. Section 12.2.1.1 only requires an elimination and reduction analysis when: (1) a proposed system will result in adverse impacts to wetland functions and other surface water functions so that it does not meet the requirements of Sections 12.2.2 through 12.2.3.7, or (2) neither one of the two exceptions within Section 12.2.1.2 applies. In determining whether one of the two exceptions in Section 12.2.1.2 applies, the District must evaluate the long- term ecological value of the mitigation proposed by the Applicant. If the mitigation is not adequate to offset the adverse impacts of the proposed system, then it is unlikely either exception in Section 12.2.1.2 will apply. As noted above, the Applicant’s proposed dredging and filling of the southern edge of the wetlands on the project site will eliminate the ability of that wetland area to provide functions to fish and wildlife. However, the Applicant’s mitigation plan of placing 17.8 acres of wetlands and 1.2 acres of uplands under a conservation easement to preserve that property in its natural state in perpetuity will fully replace the types of functions that the part of the wetlands proposed to be impacted provides to fish and wildlife. The mitigation plan will also offset the adverse impacts that this project will have on the value and functions provided to fish and wildlife by the impacted part of the wetlands. In this case, the first exception under Section 12.2.1.2(a) applies as it meets that Section's two requirements: the ecological value of the functions provided by the area of wetland to be adversely affected is low, and the proposed mitigation will provide greater long-term ecological value than the area or wetland to be adversely affected. Also, the quality of the wetland to be impacted is low. All of the proposed impacts will occur in the area of the wetland that was historically disturbed and in which nuisance and exotic species are prevalent. Due to nuisance and exotic vegetation, the ecological value provided by that area to wildlife is low. The mitigation for the proposed project will provide greater long-term ecological value to fish and wildlife than the part of the wetland proposed to be impacted because the proposed mitigation will preserve eighteen times more wetlands that are of higher quality and provide greater value than the wetland area to be impacted. The type of wetland to be preserved, a mixed forested wetland containing hardwoods, is rare for the area. Although the mitigation plan will provide greater long-term ecological value to fish and wildlife than the part of the wetland proposed to be impacted, the Applicant did not meet the second exception in the elimination and reduction rule under Section 12.2.1.2(b) because the wetlands to be preserved are not regionally significant. In addition to meeting the elimination and reduction rule through implementation of practicable design modifications, the Applicant also satisfied the same rule by meeting the first exception found in Section 12.2.1.2(a). Thus, the Applicant has satisfied Section 12.2.2, which is the first prong of the test to determine compliance with Paragraph (d). The second prong of the test to determine whether Paragraph (d) of the Rule has been satisfied is found in Section 12.2.2.4. That Section requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the activity will not change the hydroperiod of a wetland so as to affect wetland functions. For the following reasons, that prong of the test has been satisfied. Since the wetlands are primarily groundwater-influenced, the construction of the stormwater pond between the project and the wetlands will not adversely affect the wetlands. As the soils surrounding the pond are very porous with a high infiltration and percolation rate, water from the stormwater pond will still reach the wetlands through lateral seepage. Further, the Applicant will install an energy dissipating device on the outfall spout at the point of discharge so that water will be spread out from the stormwater pond as it discharges into the receiving wetlands. As noted earlier, this will prevent an adverse channelization effect. Finally, stormwater runoff from the surrounding basins that currently discharge into the wetlands will not be affected by the construction of the stormwater system. That runoff will continue to flow into the wetlands on the project site. Because the Applicant has satisfied Sections 12.2.2 and 12.2.2.4, Paragraph (d) of the Rule has been met. Paragraph (e) of the Rule generally requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurance that a project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. Here, the Applicant has provided such assurance. This is because the system has been designed in accordance with all relevant District criteria. Also, the Applicant has proposed to revise Permit Condition 26 as follows: Condition 26. This permit authorizes construction and operation of a surface water management system as shown on the plans received by the District on June 14, 2001, and as amended by plan sheet C4 (Sheet 07 of 207) received by the District on January 23, 2002. In view of this revision, the Applicant's wet detention system complies with all of the design criteria contained in Rule 40C-42.026(4). Under Rule 40C-42.023(2)(a), compliance with the design criteria contained in Rule 40C-42.026 creates a presumption that state water quality standards, including those for Outstanding Florida Waters, will be met. This presumption has not been rebutted; therefore, the requirements of Paragraph (e) of the Rule have been satisfied. Further, Sections 12.2.4.1 and 12.2.4.2 state, in part, that reasonable assurance regarding water quality must be provided both for the short term and the long term, addressing the proposed construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, and abandonment of the system. The Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that this requirement is met through the design of its surface water management system, its long-term maintenance plan for the system, and the long and short-term erosion and turbidity control measures it proposes. If issued, the permit will require that the surface water management system be constructed and operated in accordance with the plans approved by the District. The permit will also require that the proposed erosion and turbidity control measures be implemented. Section 12.2.4.5 does not apply because there are no exceedances of any water quality standards at the proposed receiving water. Also, Sections 12.2.4.3 and 12.2.4.4 do not apply because the Applicant has not proposed any docking facilities or temporary mixing zones. Paragraph (f) of the Rule requires that an applicant not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. Compliance with this requirement is determined by applying the four-part test in Section 12.2.7(a) through (d). As to Section 12.2.7(a), there are no secondary impacts from construction, alteration, and intended or reasonably expected uses of the proposed system that will cause water quality violations or adverse impacts to the wetland functions. The Applicant chose not to provide buffers abutting the wetlands but rather chose measures other than buffers to meet this requirement. The Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that secondary impacts will not occur by placing the stormwater pond between the planned project and the wetlands, so that the pond itself will serve as a buffer by shielding the wetland from the lighting and noise of the project, and by acting as a barrier to keep domestic animals out of the wetlands. In addition, the Applicant increased the amount of property to be preserved as mitigation by adding 2.97 acres of wetlands and 1.2 acres of uplands to the mitigation plan to mitigate for any remaining secondary impacts. Accordingly, the first part of the secondary impacts test in Section 12.2.7(a) is satisfied. As to Section 12.2.7(b), because there is no evidence that any aquatic or wetland-dependent listed animal species use uplands for existing nesting or denning adjacent to the project, the second part of the test has been met. No adverse secondary impacts will occur under the third part of the test in Section 12.2.7(c) because the proposed project will not cause impacts to significant historical or archaeological resources. Finally, adverse secondary impacts as proscribed by Section 12.2.7(d) will not occur because no evidence was presented that there would be additional phases or expansion of the proposed system or that there are any onsite or offsite activities that are closely or causally linked to the proposed system. Therefore, the proposed project satisfies Paragraph (f) of the Rule. Paragraph (g) of the Rule requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurance that a project will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows established in Chapter 40C-8. Minimum (but not maximum) surface water levels have been established for the Lake pursuant to Chapter 40C-8 for the basin in which the project is located. The project will not cause a decrease of water to, or cause a new withdrawal of water from, the Lake. Therefore, the project satisfies this requirement. Finally, Petitioners have acknowledged in their Proposed Recommended Order that the Applicant has given reasonable assurance that the requirements of Paragraphs (h), (i), (j), and (k) have been met. The parties have also stipulated that the receiving water (Lake Howell) meets all Class III water quality standards. Therefore, the project satisfies the requirements of Subsection 40C-4.301(2). Rule 40C-4.302 - Public Interest Test Under Rule 40C-4.302(1)(a)1.-7., an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the parts of its surface water management system located in, on, or over wetlands are not contrary to the public interest. Similar requirements are found in Section 12.2.3. The Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the parts of the project that are located in, on, or over wetlands (mainly the detention pond and fill) are not contrary to the public interest, because the evidence showed that all seven of the public interest factors to be balanced are neutral. Because the proposed permanent mitigation will offset the project’s adverse impacts to wetlands, no adverse effects to the conservation of fish and wildlife due to the project’s permanent nature will occur. The evidence also showed that best management practices and erosion control measures will ensure that the project will not result in harmful erosion or shoaling. Further, it was demonstrated that the project will not adversely affect the flow of water, navigation, significant historical or archaeological resources, recreational or fishing values, marine productivity, or the public health, safety, welfare or property of others. Finally, the evidence showed that the project’s design, including permanent mitigation, will maintain the current condition and relative value of functions performed by parts of the wetland proposed to be impacted. Therefore, the project meets the public interest criteria found in Rule 40C-4.302(1)(a). Rule 40C-4.302(1)(b) - Cumulative Impacts Rule 40C-4.302(1)(b) and Section 12.2.8 require that an applicant demonstrate that its project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters within the same drainage basin as the regulated activity for which the permit is being sought. Under this requirement, if an applicant proposes to mitigate the adverse impacts to wetlands within the same drainage basin as the impacts, and if the mitigation fully offsets these impacts, the District will consider the regulated activity to have no unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters. The Applicant has chosen to mitigate for the impacts to 0.99 acres of wetlands by preserving 17.8 acres of wetlands and 1.2 acres of uplands on-site. Since this mitigation will occur in the same drainage basin as the impacts and the mitigation fully offsets those impacts, the Applicant satisfies the requirements of the Rule. Rule 40C-4.302 - Other Requirements The parties have stipulated that the requirements of Paragraphs (c) and (d) of Rule 40C-4.302(1) do not apply. There is no evidence that the Applicant has violated any District rules or that it has been the subject of prior disciplinary action. Therefore, the requirements of Subsection (2) of the Rule have been met. Miscellaneous Matters County Pond Site The Seminole County pond site located on the east side of Lake Ann Lane and across the street from the project is not a jurisdictional wetland and does not have any wetland indicators. It is classified as an upland cut surface water. The Applicant is not proposing to impact any wetlands at the pond site, and the site is not part of the proposed mitigation plan for the project. The permit in issue here is not dependent on the pond site, and nothing in the application ties the project with that site. Indeed, the transfer of density rights from the County property is not relevant to the District permitting criteria. Review of Application When the decision to issue the permit was made, the District had received all necessary information from the Applicant to make a determination that the project met the District's permitting criteria. While certain information may have been omitted from the original application, these items were either immaterial or were not essential to the permitting decision. The application complies with all District permitting criteria. Contrary to Petitioners' contention, the Applicant does not have to be the contract purchaser for property in order to submit an application for that property. Rather, the District may review a permit application upon receipt of information that the applicant has received authorization from the current owners of the property to apply for a permit. In this case, the Applicant has the permission of the current owners (the Harold Kasik Living Trust).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order granting the requested permit as described above. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Kirby B. Green, III, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Shirley B. Haynes 2764 Lake Howell Road Winter Park, Florida 32792-5725 Egerton K. van den Berg 1245 Howell Point Winter Park, Florida 32792-5706 Charles A. Lobdell, III, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Meredith A. Harper, Esquire Shutts & Bowen Post Office Box 4956 Orlando, Florida 32802-4956
The Issue This case involves a challenge to St. Johns River Water Management District’s (District or SJRWMD) intended issuance of an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) granting the City's Application No. 4-127-97380-1, for the construction and operation of a surface water management system for a retrofit flood-relief project known as Drysdale Drive/Chapel Drive Drainage Improvements consisting of: excavation of the Drysdale Drive pond (Pond 1); improvement to the outfall at Sterling Lake; and the interconnection of Pond 1 and four existing drainage retention areas through a combination of pump stations and gravity outfalls (project or system). The issue is whether the applicant, the City of Deltona (City or Deltona), has provided reasonable assurance the system complies with the water quantity, environmental, and water quality criteria of the District’s ERP regulations set forth in Chapter 40C-4, Florida Administrative Code,1 and the Applicant’s Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters (2005) (A.H.).2
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order issuing to the City of Deltona an ERP granting the City's Application No. 4-127-97380-1, subject to the conditions set forth in the Technical Staff Report. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 2006.
The Issue The issue in this case was whether the Respondent, City of Cape Coral (City), was entitled to an Individual Environmental Resource Permit (Permit) that would allow removal of the Chiquita Boat Lock (Lock) and associated uplands, and installation of a 165-foot linear seawall in the South Spreader Waterway in Cape Coral, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based on the parties' stipulations and the evidence adduced at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties The Department is the administrative agency of the State of Florida statutorily charged with, among other things, protecting Florida's water resources. As part of the Department's performance of these duties, it administers and enforces the provisions of chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder in the Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to that authority, the Department determines whether to issue or deny applications for environmental resource permits. The City is a Florida municipality in Lee County. The City is the applicant for the Permit allowing the removal of the Lock and installation of a seawall (Project). The Project is located within the geographic boundary of the City. The South Spreader Waterway is a perimeter canal separating the City's canal system from shoreline wetlands to the west and south, which run the length of Matlacha Pass to the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River at San Carlos Bay.1/ The Association is a Florida non-profit corporation that was created in 1981. The Association was created to safeguard the interests of its members. The Association has approximately 150 members who reside in Matlacha and Matlacha Isles, Florida. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use and enjoyment of waters adjacent to and surrounding Matlacha. The Association's members were particularly interested in protecting the water quality of the surface waters in the area. Matlacha is an island community located to the northwest of Cape Coral, the South Spreader Waterway, and the Lock. Matlacha is located within Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve. Matlacha Pass is classified as a Class II waterbody designated for shellfish propagation or harvesting, and is an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-02.400(17)(b)36; 62-302.700(9)(h). Petitioner, Karl Deigert, is a resident and property owner in Matlacha. Mr. Deigert is the president of the Association. Mr. Deigert’s house in Matlacha is waterfront. He holds a captain’s license and has a business in which he gives sightseeing and ecological tours by boat of the waters around Matlacha. He fishes in the waters around his property and enjoys the current water quality in the area. He is concerned that removal of the Lock would have negative effects on water quality and would negatively impact the viability of his business and his enjoyment of the waters surrounding Matlacha. Petitioner, Melanie Hoff, is a resident and property owner in St. James City. St. James City is located to the southwest of Cape Coral. Ms. Hoff’s property is located within five nautical miles of the Lock. Ms. Hoff engages in various water sports and fishes in the waters around her property. She moved to the area, in part, for the favorable water quality. She is concerned that removal of the Lock would negatively impact water quality and her ability to use and enjoy waters in the area. Petitioner, Robert S. Zarranz, is a resident and property owner in Cape Coral. Mr. Zarranz’s house in Cape Coral is waterfront. He is an avid fisherman and boater. He is concerned that removal of the Lock would negatively impact water quality, and that the quality of fishing in the area would decline as a result. Petitioner, Yolanda Olsen, is a resident and property owner in Cape Coral. Ms. Olsen’s house in Cape Coral is waterfront. She enjoys watersports and birdwatching in the areas around her property. She is concerned that removal of the Lock would negatively impact water quality, and that her ability to enjoy her property and the surrounding waters would suffer as a result. Petitioner, Jessica Blanks, is a resident and property owner in Cape Coral. Ms. Blanks’ house in Cape Coral is waterfront. She is concerned that removal of the Lock would negatively impact water quality, and that her ability to enjoy her property and the surrounding waters would suffer as a result. Petitioner, Joseph Michael Hannon, is a resident and property owner in Matlacha. Mr. Hannon is a member of the Association. He enjoys boating, fishing, and kayaking in the waters surrounding Matlacha. He is concerned that removal of the Lock would negatively impact water quality, and that his ability to enjoy his property and the surrounding waters would suffer as a result. Petitioner, Debra Hall, did not appear at the final hearing and no testimony was offered regarding her standing. The Project and Vicinity The Project site is 0.47 acres. At the Lock location, the South Spreader Waterway is 200 feet wide, and includes a 125-foot wide upland area secured by two seawalls, the 20-foot wide Lock, a 32-foot wide upland area secured by one seawall, and 23 feet of mangrove wetlands. The Lock is bordered to the north by property owned by Cape Harbour Marina, LLC, and bordered to the south by mangrove wetlands owned by the state of Florida. The 125-foot wide upland area and the 20-foot wide Lock form a barrier separating the South Spreader Waterway from the Caloosahatchee River. The preponderance of the competent substantial evidence established that the South Spreader Waterway behind the Lock is not tidally influenced, but would become tidally influenced upon removal of the Lock. Joint Exhibit 1 at p. 46. The City proposes to remove the Lock and one of the seawalls, reducing the 125-foot upland area to 20 feet. The proposed future condition of the area would include 125 feet of open canal directly connecting the South Spreader Waterway with the Caloosahatchee River. Joint Exhibit 1 at p. 47. The primary purpose of the Lock's removal is to alleviate safety concerns related to boater navigation. The Project's in-water construction includes demolition and removal of the existing Lock, removal of existing fill in the 125-foot upland area, removal of existing seawalls, and construction of replacement seawalls. The City would employ Best Management Practices (BMPs) throughout the course of the Project, including sediment and erosion controls such as turbidity barriers. The turbidity barriers would be made of a material in which manatees could not become entangled. All personnel involved with the Project would be instructed about the presence of manatees. Also, temporary signs concerning manatees would be posted prior to and during all in-water project activities. History of the South Spreader Waterway In the mid-1970's, the co-trustees of Gulf American Corporation, GAC Properties Credit, Inc., and GAC Properties, Inc., (collectively GAC) filed for after-the-fact permits from the Department's predecessor agency (DER), for the large dredge and fill work project that created the canal system in Cape Coral. In 1977, DER entered into CO 15 with GAC to create the North and South Spreader Waterways and retention control systems, including barriers. The Lock was one of the barriers created in response to CO 15. The Spreader Waterways were created to restore the natural hydrology of the area affected by GAC's unauthorized dredging and filling activity. The Spreader Waterways collected and retained surface runoff waters originating from the interior of Cape Coral's canal system. The South Spreader Waterway was not designed to meet water quality standards, but instead to collect surface runoff, then allow discharge of the excess waters collected over and through the mangrove wetlands located on the western and southern borders of the South Spreader Waterway. This fresh water flow was designed to mimic the historic sheet flow through the coastal fringe of mangroves and salt marshes of the Caloosahatchee River and Matlacha Pass estuaries. The fresh water slowly discharged over the coastal fringe until it finally mixed with the more saline waters of the estuaries. The estuarine environments located west and south of the Lock require certain levels of salinity to remain healthy ecosystems. Restoring and achieving certain salinity ranges was important to restoring and preserving the coastal fringe. In 1977 GAC finalized bankruptcy proceedings and executed CO 15. CO 15 required GAC to relinquish to the state of Florida the mangrove wetlands it owned on the western and southern borders of the South Spreader Waterway. This land grant was dedicated by a warranty deed executed in 1977 between GAC and the state of Florida. The Petitioners' expert, Kevin Erwin, worked as an environmental specialist for DER prior to and during the construction of the Spreader Waterways. Mr. Erwin was DER's main representative who worked with the GAC co-trustees to resolve the massive dredge and fill violation and design a system to restore the natural hydrology of the area. Mr. Erwin testified that the Lock was designed to assist in retention of fresh water in the South Spreader Waterway. The fresh water would be retained, slowed down, and allowed to slowly sheet flow over and through the coastal fringe. Mr. Erwin also testified that the South Spreader Waterway was not designed to allow direct tidal exchange with the Caloosahatchee River. In Mr. Erwin's opinion, the South Spreader Waterway appeared to be functioning today in the same manner as originally intended. Breaches and Exchange of Waters The Department's second amended notice of intent for the Project, stated that the Project was not expected to contribute to current water quality violations, because water in the South Spreader Waterway was already being exchanged with Matlacha Pass and the Caloosahatchee River through breaches and direct tidal flow. This second amended notice of intent removed all references to mitigation projects that would provide a net improvement in water quality as part of the regulatory basis for issuance of the permit. See Joint Exhibit 1 at pp. 326-333. The Department's witnesses testified that waters within the South Spreader Waterway currently mix with waters of the Caloosahatchee River when the Lock remains open during incoming and slack tides. A Department permit allowed the Lock to remain open during incoming and slack tides. Department witness, Megan Mills, the permitting program administrator, testified that she could not remember the exact date that permit was issued, but that it had been "a couple years." The location of breaches in the western and southern banks of the South Spreader Waterway was documented on another permit's drawings and pictures for a project titled "Cape Coral Spreader Waterway Restoration." See Cape Coral Ex. 9. Those documents located three breaches for repair and restoration identified as Breach 16A, Breach 16B, and Breach 20. The modeling reports and discussion that support the City's application showed these three breaches connect to Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve. Breach 20 was described as a connected tidal creek. Breach 16A and 16B were described as allowing water movement between Matlacha Pass and the South Spreader Waterway only when relatively high water elevations occurred in Matlacha Pass or in the South Spreader Waterway. The Department's water quality explanation of "mixing," was rather simplistic, and did not consider that the waterbody in which the Project would occur has three direct connections with an OFW that is a Class II waters designated for shellfish propagation or harvesting. Such a consideration would require the Department to determine whether to apply the OFW permitting standards, and the Class II waters permitting criteria in section 10.2.5 of the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant's Handbook, Volume I. See Fla. Admin Code R. 62-330.302(1)(a); 62-4.242(2); and 62-302.400(17)(b)36. The Caloosahatchee River, at its entrance to the South Spreader Waterway, is a Class III waters restricted for shellfish harvesting. The mouth of the Caloosahatchee River is San Carlos Bay, which is a Class II waters restricted for shellfish harvesting. There was no evidence that the Department's regulatory analysis considered that the waterbody in which the Project would occur directly connects to Class III waters that are restricted for shellfish harvesting, and is in close proximity to Class II waters that are restricted for shellfish harvesting. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.400(17)(b)36. and 62-330.302(1)(c).2/ Total Nitrogen The City's expert, Anthony Janicki, Ph.D., testified that nitrogen concentrations in the Caloosahatchee River were higher than in the South Spreader Waterway in the years 2017 and 2018. Thus, he opined that if the Lock is removed, water from the South Spreader Waterway would not negatively impact the Caloosahatchee River. However, the City's application was supported by an analysis, with more than a decade of monitoring data, which showed nitrogen concentration values were comparable inside the South Spreader Waterway and in the Caloosahatchee River. Dr. Janicki also used the Department's Hydrologic Simulation Program – FORTRAN (HSPF) watershed model to estimate the Total Nitrogen (TN) loading that would enter the Caloosahatchee River through the Chiquita Lock. Dr. Janicki estimated that TN loading to the Caloosahatchee River, after removal of the Chiquita Lock, would amount to 30,746 pounds per year. The Caloosahatchee River is listed as impaired for nutrients and has a TN Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) that was set by the Department in 2009. Dr. Janicki opined that removing the Lock would not result in adverse impacts to the surrounding environment. But the Petitioners obtained his concession that his opinion was dependent on the City's completion of additional water quality enhancement projects in the future as part of its obligations under the Caloosahatchee Estuary Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) for achieving the TN TMDL. Dr. Janicki additionally testified that the potential TN loading to the Caloosahatchee River did not anticipate an actual impact to the River's water quality because the TN loads from the South Spreader Waterway were already factored into the 2009 TMDL. He essentially testified that the Lock's removal was anticipated and was factored into the model when the TMDL was established in 2009. Thus, the Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the competent and substantial evidence that the Department and the City were not aligned regarding how the City's application would provide reasonable assurances of meeting applicable water quality standards. The Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the competent and substantial evidence that the City relied on future projects to provide reasonable assurance that the removal of the Lock would not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards in the Caloosahatchee River and the Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve. The Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the competent and substantial evidence that the Department relied on a simplistic exchange of waters to determine that removal of the Lock would not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards in the Caloosahatchee River and the Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve. Water Quantity and Salinity The engineering report that supports the City's application stated that when the Lock is removed, the South Spreader Waterway behind the Lock will become tidally influenced. With the Lock removed, the volume of daily water fluxes for the South Spreader Waterway would increase from zero cubic meters per day to 63,645 cubic meters per day. At the location of Breach 20, with the Lock removed, the volume of daily water fluxes would drastically decrease from 49,644 cubic meters per day to eight cubic meters per day. Dr. Janicki testified that Breach 20 was connected to a remnant tidal creek that meanders and eventually empties into an embayment. The evidence demonstrated that the embayment is Punta Blanca Bay, which is part of the Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve. Dr. Janicki opined that Breach 20 was an area of erosion risk and sediment transport into downstream mangroves that would be significantly reduced by removing the Lock. He explained that the reductions in flow would result in reductions in velocities through Breach 20 and in the South Spreader Waterway itself. Mr. Erwin testified that Breach 20 was not a "breach."3/ He described it as the location of a perpendicular intersection of the South Spreader Waterway with a small tidal creek, which connected to a tidal pond further back in the mangroves. Mr. Erwin testified that an "engineered sandbag concrete structure" was built at the shallow opening to limit the amount of flow into and out of this tidal creek system. But it was also designed to make sure that the tidal creek system "continued to get some amount of water." As found above, Lock removal would drastically reduce the volume of daily water fluxes into and out of Breach 20's tidal creek system. Mr. Erwin also testified that any issues with velocities or erosion would be exemplified by bed lowering, siltation, and stressed mangroves. He persuasively testified, however, that there was no such evidence of erosion and there were "a lot of real healthy mangroves." Mr. Erwin opined that removal of the Lock would cause the South Spreader Waterway to go from a closed, mostly fresh water system, to a tidal saline system. He described the current salinity level in the South Spreader Waterway to be low enough to support low salinity vegetation and not high enough to support marine organisms like barnacles and oysters. The City's application actually supports this opinion. Using the Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) model developed by Dr. Janicki for this Lock removal project, comparisons were made describing the salinity distribution within the South Spreader Waterway. The model was run with and without the Lock, for both a wet and dry year. Dr. Janicki testified, and the model showed, that removal of the Lock would result in increased salinity above the Lock and decreased salinity downstream of the Lock. However, he generally opined that the distribution of salinities was well within the normal ranges seen in this area. The City's application also concluded that the resultant salinities did not fall outside the preferred salinity ranges for seagrasses, oysters, and a wide variety of fish taxa. However, Dr. Janicki did not address specific changes in vegetation and encroachment of marine organisms that would occur with the increase in salinity within the South Spreader Waterway. Secondary Impacts to the Mangrove Wetlands Mr. Erwin testified that the mangroves located on the western and southern borders of the South Spreader Waterway are currently in very good health. He additionally testified that loss of the current fresh water hydraulic head and an increase in salinity within the South Spreader Waterway would negatively impact the health of the mangrove wetlands. In addition, the City's application stated that removing the Lock would result in a drop in the water level of one to one and a half feet within the South Spreader Waterway. Mr. Erwin credibly and persuasively testified that a drop in water level of only a few inches would have negative effects on the health of mangroves, and that a drop of a foot could result in substantial mangrove die-off. Mr. Erwin testified that the mangrove wetlands adjacent to the South Spreader Waterway consist of a variety of plants and algae in addition to mangroves. He described the wetlands as a mangrove community made up of different types of mangroves, and epiphytic vegetation such as marine algae. This mangrove community provides habitat for a "wide range of invertebrates." He further testified that these plants and algae uptake and transform the nutrients that flow over and through the mangrove wetlands before they reach the receiving waters. Thus, the mangrove wetlands on the western and southern borders of the South Spreader Waterway serve to filter nutrients out of the water discharged from the Waterway before it reaches Matlacha Pass and the Caloosahatchee River. Mr. Erwin's credible and persuasive testimony was contrary to the City's contention that Lock removal would not result in adverse impacts to the mangrove wetlands adjacent to the South Spreader Waterway. The City and the Department failed to provide reasonable assurances that removing the Lock would not have adverse secondary impacts to the health of the mangrove wetlands community adjacent to the South Spreader Waterway. Impacts to Fish and Wildlife, Including Endangered and Threatened Species The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) reviewed the City's application and determined that if BMPs for in-water work were employed during construction, no significant adverse impacts on fish and wildlife were expected. For example, temporary signs concerning manatees would be posted prior to and during all in-water project activities, and all personnel would be instructed about the presence of manatees. The FWC determination only addressed direct impacts during in-water construction work. The City's application contained supporting material that identified the major change resulting from removal of the Lock that may influence fish and wildlife in the vicinity of the Project, was the opportunity for movement to or from the South Spreader Waterway canal system. Threatened and endangered species of concern in the area included the Florida manatee and the smalltooth sawfish. The City's application stated that literature review showed the smalltooth sawfish and the Florida manatee utilized non-main-stem habitats, such as sea-wall lined canals, off the Caloosahatchee River. The City cited studies from 2011 and 2013, which showed that non-main-stem habitats were important thermal refuges during the winter, and part of the overall nursery area for smalltooth sawfish. The City concluded that removal of the Lock "would not be adverse, and would instead result in increased areas of useable habitat by the species." However, the Petitioner's expert witness, John Cassani, who is the Calusa Waterkeeper, testified that there is a smalltooth sawfish exclusion zone downstream of the Lock. He testified that the exclusion zone is a pupping area for smalltooth sawfish, and that rapid salinity fluctuations could negatively impact their habitat. The City also concluded that any impacts to the Florida manatee would not be adverse, "and would instead result in increased areas of useable habitat by the species, as well as a reduction in risk of entrapment or crushing in a canal lock system." At the same time, the City acknowledged that "watercraft collision is a primary anthropogenic threat to manatees." The City's literature review included a regional assessment by FWC's Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) from 2006. Overall, the FWRI report concluded that the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River, at San Carlos Bay, was a "hot spot" for boat traffic coinciding with the shift and dispersal of manatees from winter refugia. The result was a "high risk of manatee- motorboat collisions." In addition, testimony adduced at the hearing from an 18-year employee of Cape Harbour Marina, Mr. Frank Muto, was that Lock removal would result in novice boaters increasing their speed, ignoring the no-wake and slow-speed zones, and presenting "a bigger hazard than the [L]ock ever has." Boater Navigation Concerns Oliver Clarke was the City’s principal engineer during the application process, and signed the application as the City's authorized agent. Mr. Clarke testified that he has witnessed boater congestion at the Lock. He also testified that lack of boating experience and weather concerns can exacerbate the boater congestion issues at the Lock. Petitioners presented the testimony of Mr. Frank Muto, the general manager of Cape Harbour Marina. Mr. Muto has been at the Cape Harbour Marina for 18 years. The marina has 78 docks on three finger piers along with transient spots. The marina is not currently subject to tidal flows and its water depth is between six and a half and seven and a half feet. He testified that they currently have at least 28 boats that maintain a draft of between four and a half and six feet of water. If the water depth got below four feet, those customers would not want to remain at the marina. Mr. Muto further testified that the Lock was in place when the marina was built, and the marina and docks were designed for an area with no tidal flow. Mr. Muto also testified that he has witnessed several boating safety incidents in and around the Lock. He testified that he would attribute almost all of those incidents to novice boaters who lack knowledge of proper boating operations and locking procedures. Mr. Muto additionally testified that there is law enforcement presence at the Lock twenty-four hours a day, including FWC marine patrol and the City's marine patrol.
Conclusions For Petitioners: J. Michael Hannon, Qualified Representative 2721 Clyde Street Matlacha, Florida 33993 John S. Turner, Esquire Peterson Law Group Post Office Box 670 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 For Respondent City of Cape Coral: Craig D. Varn, Esquire Amy Wells Brennan, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, P.A. 106 East College Avenue, Suite 820 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven D. Griffin City of Cape Coral Assistant City Attorney Post Office Box 150027 Cape Coral, Florida 33915-0027 For Respondent Department of Environmental Protection: Kirk Sanders White, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying Individual Environmental Resource Permit Number 244816-005 to the City of Cape Coral for removal of the Chiquita Boat Lock. The final order deny Petitioners' request for an award of attorney's fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 2019.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceedings concern whether Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 4-109-0216-ERP, should be modified to allow construction and operation of a surface water management system (project) related to the construction and operation of single-family homes on "Marshall Creek" (Parcel D) in a manner consistent with the standards for issuance of an ERP in accordance with Rules 40C-4.301 and 40C-4.302, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Project The project is a 29.9-acre residential development and associated stormwater system in a wetland mitigation area known as "Parcel D." It lies within the much larger Marshall Creek DRI in St. Johns County, Florida, bounded on the northeast by Marshall Creek, on the south and southeast by a previously permitted golf course holes sixteen and seventeen, and on the north by the "Loop Road." The project consists of thirty residential lots of approximately one-half acre in size; a short segment of Loop Road to access Parcel D; an internal road system; expansion of previously permitted Pond N, a wet detention stormwater management pond lying north of the Loop Road and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 1.15 acres of wetlands are located on the Parcel D site. The project plan calls for filling 0.63 acres of the wetlands for purposes of constructing a road and residential lots for Parcel D. Part of that 0.63-acre impact area, 0.11 acres, is comprised of a 760-foot-long, narrow drainageway, with 0.52 acres of adjacent wetland. Downstream of the fill area, 0.52 acres of higher quality wetland is to be preserved. Hines proposes to preserve 4.5 acres of existing wetland and 2.49 acres of upland, as well as to create .82 acres of forested wetland as mitigation for the proposed impact of the project. Additionally, as part of the project, Hines will implement a nutrient and pesticide management plan. The only pesticides to be used at the project will be approved by the Department of Agriculture for use with soil types prevailing at the site and only pesticides approved by the Environmental Protection Agency may be used on the site. All pesticides to be used on the project site must be selected to minimize impacts to ground and surface water, including having a maximum 70-day half-life. Stormwater Management System The majority of surface runoff from Parcel D will be diverted to a stormwater collection system and thence through drainage pipes and a swale into Phase I of Pond N. After treatment in Pond N, the water will discharge to an upland area adjacent to wetlands associated with Marshall Creek and then flow into Marshall Creek. The system will discharge to Marshall Creek. In addition to the area served by Pond N, a portion of lots fourteen though twenty drain through a vegetated, natural buffer zone and ultimately through the soil into Marshall Creek. Water quality treatment for that stormwater runoff will be achieved by percolating water into the ground and allowing natural soil treatment. The fifty-foot, vegetated, natural buffer is adequate to treat the stormwater runoff to water quality standards for Lots 14, 15 and 20. Lots 16, 17, 18 and 19, will have only a twenty-five foot buffer, so additional measures must be adopted for those lots to require either that the owners of them direct all runoff from the roofs and driveways of houses to be constructed on those lots to the collection system for Pond N or placement of an additional twenty-five foot barrier of xeriscape plants, with all non- vegetated areas being mulched, with no pesticide or fertilizer use. An additional mandatory permit condition, specifying that either of these measures must be employed for Lots 16, 17, 18 and 19, is necessary to ensure that water quality standards will be met. Pond N is a wet detention-type stormwater pond. Wet detention systems function similarly to natural lakes and are permanently wet, with a depth of six to twelve feet. When stormwater enters a wet detention pond it mixes with existing water and physical, chemical and biological processes work to remove the pollutants from the stormwater. Pond N is designed for a twenty-five year, twenty-four- hour storm event (design storm). The pre-development peak rate of discharge from the Pond N drainage area for the design storm event is forty cubic feet per second. The post-development peak rate of discharge for the design storm event will be approximately twenty-eight cubic feet per second. The discharge rate for the less severe, "mean annual storm" would be approximately eleven cubic feet per second, pre-development peak rate and the post-development peak rate of discharge would be approximately five cubic feet per second. Consequently, the post-development peak rate of discharge does not exceed the pre- development peak rate of discharge. Pond N is designed to meet the engineering requirements of Rule 40C-42.026(4), Florida Administrative Code. Because the pond is not designed with a littoral zone, the permanent pool volume has been increased by fifty-percent. Additionally, because Pond N discharges to the Class II waters of Marshall Creek, an additional fifty-percent of treatment volume is included in the pond design. The system design addresses surface water velocity and erosion issues through incorporation of best management practices promulgated by the District to prevent erosion and sedimentation, including; designing side slopes of 4:1; siding and seeding disturbed areas to stabilize soil; and the use of riprap at the outfall from Pond N. During construction, short- term water quality impacts will be addressed through installation of silt fences and hay bales. The majority of the eighteen-acre drainage basin which flows into the Parcel D wetland lies to the south and southwest of Parcel D. In accordance with the prior permit, water from those off-site acres will be intercepted and routed to stormwater ponds serving golf course holes sixteen and seventeen. The system design will prevent adverse impacts to the hydroperiod of remaining on-site and off-site wetlands. The remaining wetlands will be hydrated through groundwater flow. Surface waters will continue to flow to the wetlands adjacent to lots fourteen through twenty because drainage from those lots will be directed across a vegetated, natural buffer to those wetlands. There is no diversion of water from the natural drainage basin, because Pond N discharges to a wetland adjacent to Marshall Creek, slightly upstream from the current discharge point for the wetland which is to be impacted. This ensures that Marshall Creek will continue to receive that fresh-water source. An underground "PVC cut-off wall" will be installed around Pond N to ensure that the pond will not draw down the water table below the wetlands near the pond. Pond N has been designed to treat stormwater prior to discharge, in part to remove turbidity and sedimentation. This means that discharge from the pond will not carry sediment and that the system will not result in shoaling. There will be no septic tanks in the project. The system is a gravity flow system with no mechanical or moving parts. It will be constructed in accordance with standard industry materials readily available and there will be nothing extraordinary about its design or operation. The system is capable of being effectively operated and maintained and the owner of the system will be the Marshall Creek Community Development District (CDD). Water Quality Water entering Pond N will have a residence time of approximately 200 days or about fifteen times higher than the design criteria listed in the below-cited rule. During that time, the treatment and removal process described herein will occur, removing most of the pollutants. Discharge from the pond will enter Marshall Creek, a Class II water body. The discharges must therefore meet Class II water quality numerical and anti-degradation standards. The design for the pond complies with the design criteria for wet detention systems listed in Rule 40C-42.026(4), Florida Administrative Code. In addition to meeting applicable design criteria, the potential discharge will meet water quality standards. The pond will have low levels of nitrogen and phosphorous resulting in low algae production in the pond. The long residence time of the water in the pond will provide an adequate amount of time for pesticides to volatilize or degrade, minimizing the potential for pesticide discharge. Due to the clear characteristics of the water column, neither thermal stratification nor chemical stratification are expected. Periodically, fecal coliform and total coliform levels are exceeded under current, pre-development conditions. These are common natural background conditions. Because the detention time in the pond will be an average of 200 days, and because the life span of fecal coliform bacteria is approximately seven to fourteen days the levels for coliforms in the pond will be very low. Discharges from the pond will enhance water quality of the Class II receiving waters because the levels of fecal coliform and total coliform will be reduced. The discharge will be characterized by approximately 100 micrograms per liter total nitrogen, compared with a background of 250 micrograms per liter presently existing in the receiving waters of Marshall Creek. The discharge will contain approximately three micrograms per liter of phosphorous, compared with sixty-three micrograms per liter presently existing in Marshall Creek. Total suspended solids in the discharge will be less than one-milligram per liter compared with seventy-two milligrams per liter in the present waters of Marshall Creek. Biochemical oxygen demand will be approximately a 0.3 level in the discharge, compared with a level of 2.4 in Marshall Creek. Consequently, the water quality discharging from the pond will be of better quality than the water in Marshall Creek or the water discharging from the wetland today. The pollutant loading in the discharge from the stormwater management system will have water quality values several times lower than pre-development discharges from the same site. Comparison of pre-development and post-development mass loadings of pollutants demonstrates that post-development discharges will be substantially lower than pre-development discharges. Currently, Marshall Creek periodically does not meet Class II water quality standards for dissolved oxygen. Construction and operation of the project will improve water quality in the creek concerning dissolved oxygen values because discharges from Pond N will be subjected to additional aeration. This results from design features such as discharge from the surface of the system, where the highest level of dissolved oxygen exists, and the discharge water draining through an orifice and then free falling to a stormwater structure, providing additional aeration. Discharges from the system will maintain existing uses of the Class II waters of Marshall Creek because there will be no degradation of water quality. Discharges will not cause new violations or contribute to existing violations because the discharge from the system will contain less pollutant loading for coliform and will be at a higher quality or value for dissolved oxygen. Discharges from the system as to water quality will not adversely affect marine fisheries or marine productivity because the water will be clear so there will be no potential for thermal stratification; the post-development discharges will remain freshwater so there will be no change to the salinity regime; and the gradual pre-development discharges will be replicated in post-development discharges. Several factors minimize potential for discharge of pesticide related pollutants: (1) only EPA-approved pesticides can be used; (2) only pesticides approved for site-specific soils can be used; (3) pesticides must be selected so as to minimize impacts on surface and groundwater; (4) pesticides must have a maximum half-life of 70 days; and (5) the system design will maximize such pollutant removal. Archaeological Resources The applicant conducted an archaeological resource assessment of the project and area. This was intended to locate and define the boundaries of any historical or archaeological sites and to assess any site, if such exists, as to its potential eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). Only a portion of one archaeological site was located on the project tract. Site 8SJ3473, according to witness Anne Stokes, an expert in the field of archaeological assessment, contains trace artifacts dating to the so-called "Orange Period," a time horizon for human archaeological pre-history in Florida dating to approximately 2,300 B.C. The site may have been only a small campsite, however, since only five pottery fragments and two chert flakes, residuals from tool-making were found. Moreover, there is little possibility that the site would add to knowledge concerning the Orange Period or pre-history because it is a very common type of site for northeast Florida and is not an extensive village site. There are likely other campsites around and very few artifacts were found. No artifacts were found which would associate the site with historic events or persons. The applicant provided the findings of its cultural resource assessment, made by Dr. Stokes, to the Florida Division of Historical Resources. That agency is charged with the responsibility of reviewing cultural resource assessments to determine if significant historic or archaeological resources will be impacted. The division reviewed the survey techniques used by Dr. Stokes, including shovel testing, sub-surface testing and pedestrian walk-over and investigation. The division determined that the site in question is not of a significant historical or archaeological nature as a resource because it does not meet any of the four criteria for inclusion in the National Register.1 Thus the referenced agency determined that the site in question is not a significant historical or archaeological resource and that construction may proceed in that area without further investigation, insofar as its regulatory jurisdiction is concerned. Wetlands The wetlands to be impacted by the project consist of a 1,000 foot drainage-way made up of a 0.11 acre open-water channel, approximately four feet wide, and an adjacent vegetated wetland area of approximately 0.52 acres containing fewer than 30 trees. The open-water channel is intermittent in that it flows during periods of heavy rainfall and recedes to a series of small, standing pools of water during drier periods. The Parcel D wetland is hydrologically connected to Marshall Creek, although its ephemeral nature means that the connection does not always flow. The wetland at times consists only of isolated pools that do not connect it to Marshall Creek. Although it provides detrital material export, that function is negligible because the productivity of the adjacent marsh is so much greater than that of the wetland with its very small drainage area. Because of the intermittent flow in the wetland, base flow maintenance and nursery habitat functions are not attributed to the wetland. The Parcel D wetland is not unique. The predominant tree species and the small amount of vegetated wetland are water oak and swamp bay. Faunal utilization of the wetland is negligible. The wetland drainage-way functions like a ditch because it lacks the typical characteristics of a creek, such as a swampy, hardwood floodplain headwater system that channelizes and contains adjacent hardwood floodplains. The location of the wetland is an area designated by the St. Johns County comprehensive plan as a development parcel. The Florida Natural Areas Inventories maps indicate that the wetland is not within any unique wildlife or vegetative habitats. The wetland is to be impacted as a freshwater system and is not located in a lagoon or estuary. It contains no vegetation that is consistent with a saltwater wetland. The retaining wall at the end of the impact area is located 1.7 feet above the mean high water line. Wetland Impacts The proposed 0.63 acre wetland impact area will run approximately 760 linear feet from the existing trail road to the proposed retaining wall. If the wetland were preserved, development would surround the wetland, adversely affecting its long-term functions. Mitigation of the wetland functions is proposed, which will provide greater long-term ecological value than the wetland to be adversely affected. The wetland to be impacted does not provide a unique or special wetland function or good habitat source for fish or wildlife. The wetland does not provide the thick cover that would make it valuable as Black Bear habitat and is so narrow and ephemeral that it would not provide good habitat for aquatic-dependent and wetland-dependent species. Its does not, for instance, provide good habitat for woodstorks due to the lack of a fish population and its closed- in tree canopy. Minnow sized fish (Gambusia) and crabs were seen in portions of the wetland, but those areas are downstream of the proposed area of impact. Mitigation Mitigation is offered as compensation for any wetland impacts as part of an overall mitigation plan for the Marshall Creek DRI. The overall mitigation plan is described in the development order, the mitigation offered for the subject permit and mitigation required by prior permits. A total of 27 acres of the more than 287 acres of wetlands in the total 1,300-acre DRI tract are anticipated to be impacted by the DRI. Approximately 14.5 acres of impacted area out of that 27 acres has already been previously authorized by prior permits. The overall mitigation plan for the DRI as a whole will preserve all of the remaining wetlands in the DRI after development occurs. Approximately one-half of that preserved area already has been committed to preservation as a condition of prior permits not at issue in this case. Also, as part of prior permitting, wetland creation areas have been required, as well as preserved upland buffers which further protect the preserved wetlands. The mitigation area for the project lies within the Tolomato River Basin. The development order governing the total DRI requires that 66 acres of uplands must also be preserved adjacent to preserved wetlands. The overall mitigation plan for the DRI preserves or enhances approximately 260 acres of wetlands; preserves a minimum of 66 acres of uplands and creates enhancement or restores additional wetlands to offset wetland impacts. The preserved wetlands and uplands constitute the majority of Marshall Creek, and Stokes Creek which are tributaries of the Tolomato River Basin, a designated Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). Preservation of these areas prevents them from being timbered and ensures that they will not be developed in the future. The overall DRI mitigation plan provides regional ecological value because it encompasses wetlands and uplands they are adjacent to and in close proximity to the following regionally significant resources: (1) the 55,000 acre Guana- Tolomato-Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve; (2) the Guana River State Park; (3) the Guana Wildlife Management Area; (4) an aquatic preserve; (5) an OFW; and (6) the 22,000 acre Cummer Tract Preserve. The mitigation plan will provide for a wildlife corridor between these resources, preserve their habitat and insure protection of the water quality for these regionally significant resources. The mitigation offered to offset wetland impacts associated with Parcel D includes: (1) wetland preservation of 0.52 acres of bottom land forest along the northeast property boundary (wetland EP); (2) wetland preservation of 3.98 acres of bottom land forest on a tributary of Marshall Creek contained in the DRI boundaries (Wetlands EEE and HHH); (3) upland preservation of 2.49 acres, including a 25-foot buffer along the preserved Wetlands EEE and HHH and a 50-foot buffer adjacent to Marshall Creek and preserved Wetland EP; (4) a wetland creation area of 0.82 acres, contiguous with the wetland preservation area; and (5) an upland buffer located adjacent to the wetland creation area. The wetland creation area will be graded to match the grades of the adjacent bottomland swamp and planted with wetland tree species. Small ponds of varying depths will be constructed in the wetland creation area to provide varying hydrologic conditions similar to those of the wetland to be impacted. The wetland creation area is designed so as to not de-water the adjacent wetlands. All of the mitigation lands will be encumbered with a conservation easement consistent with the requirements of Section 704.06, Florida Statutes. The proposed mitigation will offset the wetland functions and values lost through the wetland impact on Parcel D. The wetland creation is designed to mimic the functions of the impact area, but is located within a larger ecological system that includes hardwood wetland headwaters. The long-term ecological value of the mitigation area will be greater than the long-term value of the wetland to be impacted because; (1) the mitigation area is part of a larger ecological system; (2) the mitigation area is part of an intact wetland system; (3) the wetland to be impacted will be unlikely to maintain its functions in the long-term; and (4) the mitigation area provides additional habitat for animal species not present in the wetland to be impacted. Certain features will prevent adverse secondary impacts in the vicinity of the roadway such as: (1) a retaining wall which would prevent migration of wetland animals onto the road; (2) a guard rail to prevent people from moving from the uplands into wetlands; and (3) a vegetated hedge to prevent intrusion of light and noise caused by automotive use of the roadway.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered granting the subject application for modification of Permit 4-109-0216A-ERP so as to allow construction and operation of the Parcel D project at issue, with the addition of the inclusion of a supplemental permit condition regarding the vegetated natural buffers for Lots 16 through 19 described and determined above. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 2001.
Findings Of Fact The proposed project is a six-lane, combination low and high level bridge crossing Mill Cove and the St. John's River in Duval County, Florida. The project entails construction of approximately 6,000 feet of low level trestle-type bridge structure and approach spans beginning on the south side of Mill Cove and extending across the Cove to the northern edge of Quarantine Island, an artificial spoil island; 3,000 feet of high level bridge crossing the main channel of the St. John's River; and northern approach spans touching down on Dame Point on the northern shore of the St. John's River. In order to construct the proposed project, JTA is required to obtain a water quality permit and certification from DER. JTA filed its application with DER, accompanied by supporting data, including several studies performed by professional consultants. After review of the application, DHR filed notice of its intent to issue the requested water quality permit and certification, and Petitioners filed a timely request for a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1) Florida Statutes, to oppose the issuance of the permit and certification. Petitioners are various groups and individuals concerned about water quality in the St. John's River and the Jacksonville area. Petitioners' standing to seek relief in this proceeding was stipulated by all parties. Construction of the project will result in: filling of approximately .07 acres of wetlands to construct the south abutment on the shore of Mill Cove; dredging of approximately 185,000 cubic yards of material from Mill Cove to create a 4,400 foot long, 190 foot wide barge access channel, with a five foot navigation control depth parallel to the low level portion of the project; temporary filling of approximately .3 acres of wetlands above mean high water on the south shore of Quarantine Island to provide construction access to the island, which area is to be restored upon completion of construction; construction of a diked upland spoil containment site approximately 31 acres in size above mean high water on Quarantine Island to retain all dredge spoil associated with the project; construction of a temporary dock at the northern end of Quarantine Island for access and staging purposes, which is to be removed on project completion; and filling of approximately 16,000 cubic feet of material waterward of mean high water for rip-rap protection around main piers in the St. John's River. Dredged materials will be removed by hydraulic dredges. The St. John's River and its tributaries have been designated Class III waters by DER in the project area. The project involves dredging below mean high water and filling above mean high water, and is a dredge-and-fill project for purposes of Chapters 403 and 253, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, and is regulated by DER. The project is an element in a proposed eastern bypass around the City of Jacksonville. It is expected that, as a result of the project, existing area industry will receive more efficient transportation service, commuter trip miles from southeastern Jacksonville to northern Jacksonville will be reduced, transportation routes to education facilities will be improved, and tourist traffic will be routed around downtown Jacksonville, reducing miles traveled to nearby beach resorts and thereby relieving downtown congestion. The benefits to costs ratio of the project appears positive and beneficial to Duval County and Jacksonville, in that for every dollar spent to construct the project, $2.80 could be returned to the community in the form of increased economic activity and more efficient transportation. Testimony clearly established that the state waters in the project area are currently severely degraded and are not likely to meet Class III water quality standards. Violations of Class III standards for dissolved oxygen and some heavy metals, such as mercury, presently exist as background conditions in the St. John's River and Mill Cove. Further, a water quality analysis performed by DER in the project area indicates high background concentrations of heavy metals and PCB's in both the water column and sediments in the project area. When the pro posed project is analyzed within the context of these existing background water quality conditions, it appears highly unlikely that any impact from the project will further degrade existing conditions. The project as currently designed includes plans for total containment of spoil material resulting from dredging activity on the upland portions of Quarantine Island. There will be no direct discharge of dredge $materials from this containment area into the receiving waters of the state. JTA performed a water and sediment analysis of the project area, the purpose of which was to determine the existence and concentrations of specific pollutants that could adversely impact Class III waters if reintroduced into the aquatic system. JTA employed a consultant whose analytical program was designed in consultation with DER and complied with all standard testing procedures required by Rule 17-3.03, Florida Administrative Code. This analysis identified three primary-project activities where control of toxic and deleterious materials was critical: turbidity control; upland spoil containment; and direct discharge of spoil water to state waters. Sediments in the Mill Cove area are extremely fine and may be resuspended in the water column in quantities that could violate state water quality standards if dredging is done improperly. It appears from the evidence that any turbidity problem can be avoided by employing silt curtains and hydraulic dredging during channel excavation. Silt curtains should adequately retain turbidity below levels which would violate state water quality standards, in view of the fact that the JTA study hypothesized a "worst-case" condition for projecting turbidity and pollutant concentration by assuming no upland spoil containment, silt curtains or reasonable mixing zone. Although use of silt curtains and hydraulic dredging cannot absolutely guarantee zero-discharge of suspended sediments from the dredging area, the proposed system of turbidity control is adequate to provide reasonable assurance of non-violation of state water quality standards. Due to the existing toxic background conditions in Mill Cove, DER imposed a permit condition requiring spoil from dredging activities to be completely contained in an upland landfill-type site, with no overflow that could allow effluent to return to waters of the state. The upland dike system proposed in the project application is designed to retain all spoil material and water without direct discharge into state waters. Testimony established that the proposed dike system is designed to hold far more spoil material than the proposed project will generate. Although the dike system is to be constructed from dredged material previously deposited on Quarantine Island, it appears from the testimony that these materials were dredged from the main channel of the St. John's River and are cleaner and sandier in character than sediments in the Mill Cove area. The dike system, in conjunction with natural percolation and evaporation, is adequately designed to retain dredge spoil on the upland portion of Quarantine Island, and can reasonably be expected not to release toxic and deleterious substances into receiving waters of the state. It is also significant that a condition of the requested permit requires project water quality monitoring to afford continuing assurance that the project will not violate standards contained in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. These standards and the conditions required to achieve them have been included in DER's letter of intent to issue the permit for this project. It is specifically concluded from the evidence that project dredging will not release toxic and deleterious substances into Class III waters in violation of state water quality standards, and that project dredging in Mill Cove incorporates reasonable safeguards for spoil disposal and turbidity control so as to assure non-violation of state water quality standards. JTA plans to use a direct discharge method to dispose of storm water from the bridge. Storm water will fall through 4-inch screened holes called "scuppers" placed at regular intervals along the bridge surface directly into either Mill Cove or the St. John's River. JTA was required to provide in its application reasonable assurance that storm water runoff from the Project would not exceed applicable state standards for turbidity, BOD, dissolved solids, zinc, polychlorinated biphenols, lead1 iron, oils or grease, mercury, cadmium and coliform. To this end, JTA submitted a study entitled Effect of Rainfall Runoff from Proposed Dame Point Bridge on Water Quality of St. John's River. This study analyzed the chemical composition of storm water runoff from an existing bridge, comparable in both size and design, to the proposed project, which crosses the St. John's River south of the City of Jacksonville. This study adequately established that storm water runoff into the St. John's River across the length of the proposed bridge will not degrade the water quality of the St. John's River below current water quality standards. All but three of the parameters tested in the study were within standards contained in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. The remaining three pollutants were either not automobile-related, or would not violate applicable water quality standards after a reasonable opportunity" for mixing with receiving waters. One of these pollutants, mercury, is not automobile-related, and the concentration of mercury discovered in bridge runoff test samples was essentially the same as that measured in rainfall samples. The sampling for mercury was performed using the ultrasensitive "atomic absorption" method, which is capable of measuring tenths of a part per billion of mercury. Another method, the "Dithizone" method, is a technique recognized as effective by DER, and would have, if utilized, yielded a result within the "none detectable" standard contained in Rule 17-3.05(2) , Florida Administrative Code. As to the remaining two pollutants, coliform and lead, testimony established that a dilution rate of 400 to 1, after mixing with receiving waters, would not result in violation of applicable Class III water standards. Testimony also clearly established that water circulation in the project area would result in the requisite dilution ratio of approximately 400 to 1. The storm water runoff study was performed on a bridge similar in all important characteristics to the proposed project, and therefore validates the scientific methodology utilized to determine the expected impact of runoff from the proposed project on water quality in the St. John's River. The applicant has provided in its permit application the best practicable treatment available to protect state waters in the design of both the low and high level portions of the proposed bridge. Extensive research and analysis of design alternatives for both the low and high level portions of the bridge were undertaken by JTA and its consultants prior to selecting the proposed design for the bridge. JTA prepared and submitted to DER, as part of the application process, a document entitled Summary of Construction Techniques in Mill Cove, Dame Point Expressway. This document analyzed and summarized the available construction and design alternatives for the low level trestle portions of the project. The analysis included consideration of overhead construction, construction from a temporary wooden structure parallel to the project, and construction from barges using a shallow channel parallel to the project. The design chosen will cost more than one million dollars less than the next alternative, and will cut construction time by two years over the next alternative design. Given the demonstrated need for the proposed project, the already degraded water quality in the project area, the safeguards for water quality contained-in the project design, and the savings to be realized in both cost and time of construction, the design presently contained in the application is the best practicable. Both Petitioners and JTA have submitted proposed findings of fact. Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1 through 4 have been substantially adopted herein. JTA's Proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1 through 7 have also been substantially adopted. To the extent that proposed findings of fact submitted by either Petitioners or JTA are not adopted in the Recommended Order, they have been specifically rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD, or District) should issue a Modification to Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 11- 02055-P, Application No. 060713-9, to G.L. Homes of Naples Associates II, Ltd. (G.L. Homes, or Applicant), which authorizes modifications to the surface water management system (SWMS) for a residential development known as Saturnia Falls (the Project).
Findings Of Fact PARTIES The District is a water management district with the power and duty to exercise regulatory jurisdiction over the administration and enforcement of ERP criteria, pursuant to the provisions of Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, and Sections 373.413, 373.414, and 373.416, Florida Statutes. G.L. Homes is an entity with the administrative, legal, and financial capabilities of undertaking the activity in accordance with the terms and conditions of the 2006 ERP, meeting the criteria in Rule 40E-4.301(1)(j). The Conservancy was duly incorporated in 1966 under the laws of the State of Florida as a not for-profit corporation and has it headquarters in Collier County, Florida. G.L. Homes contests the Conservancy's assertion of "associational standing." But there is no question as to the Conservancy's "citizen standing" under Section 403.412(6), Florida Statutes. The Conservancy has approximately 6,200 members, with approximately 4,200 residing in Collier County. Twenty-five current members in good standing who reside in Collier County were identified during the hearing. The Conservancy's purpose is to "protect and sustain the natural environment of southwest Florida through advocacy, education, research, land acquisition and other lawful means." Specific purposes relevant to the subject matter of this case include: "to acquire and protect sanctuaries, greenbelts, parks, and beaches"; "to assist governing bodies to remedy present pollution and to prevent future pollution of water, air, and our waterfronts and beaches"; and "to encourage and stimulate the interests of residents and visitors to the area, to increase their knowledge of, and to promote the preservation of the southwest Florida natural environment." The Conservancy also asserts standing under Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. In furtherance of its corporate purpose, the Conservancy owns approximately 300 acres of land for preservation in Collier County, including a 46-acre parcel located on the Cocohatchee River downstream from the proposed Saturnia Falls development. The Conservancy also conducts scientific research in the waters of the Wiggins Pass Estuary downstream from the proposed Saturnia Falls development, including water quality monitoring and research on seagrass restoration. Further impacts to the water quality in the Cocohatchee River would affect the value of the Conservancy's property for conservation and would affect its interests in research in the area. These interests of the Conservancy would be adversely affected if the 2006 ERP were issued improperly. The Conservancy's assertion of "associational standing" is based on the testimony of eight of its members who engage in various recreational activities, including boating, fishing, bird-watching, nature study, and observation of wildlife. Some visit Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary and the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) to view endangered wood storks and other wildlife. Some also visit and recreate in downstream waters, such as the Wiggins Pass Estuary, for fishing, boating, or wildlife observation. These interests would be adversely affected if the 2006 ERP were issued improperly. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PERMITTING HISTORY The Project site is located one mile north of Immokalee Road, approximately 2 miles east of 1-75 and lies near the CREW lands in Collier County. The entire Project site consists of approximately 646 acres, of which 533.1 acres are wetlands. The Project has a permitting history dating back to 1997, when the previous owner, Robert Vocisano, applied to construct a development called Wildewood Lakes. The Wildewood Lakes application was denied in 1998, at least in part because wetland impacts were not reduced and eliminated to the extent practicable, and was mediated pursuant to Section 120.573, Florida Statutes. After three years of responding to additional requests for information, the application was submitted to the Governing Board for approval in May 2002. This ERP, referred to as “the 2002 ERP,” authorized the construction and operation of a SWMS to serve a residential and golf course development, discharging to the Cocohatchee Canal via a conveyance channel/Flow-way known as the Mirasol Flow-way (Flow-way). The Flow-way feature was to be built on lands owned by three different property owners, one of whom was the owner of the Terafina Project, and was intended to address flooding and storage criteria in the BOR and alleviate flooding problems in the region that resulted from previous drainage and development projects that altered the natural sheet-flow through the region to the Cocohatchee and Imperial Rivers, and on to the Gulf Coast. As reported in the Staff Report for the 2004 ERP, studies current at the time indicated that, during the initial part of the rainy season, the wetland systems in the vicinity of the proposed Flow- way carried the flow between the Corkscrew Swamp and the Cocohatchee Canal with the peak stages contained with the limits of the wetland areas. However, as the wet season progressed, the wetland vegetation impeded the conveyance of flow and resulted in elevated water stages that inundated properties adjacent to those wetlands, including portions of the eastern half of the Project. There were approximately 288 acres of direct impacts to wetlands under the 2002 ERP. There was a total of 291.20 acres of onsite preserve, including 259.97 acres of wetlands and 31.23 acres of uplands. Part of the Flow-way was to be located within the eastern third of the property (225.74 acres, including 217.80 acres of wetlands and 7.94 acres of uplands), which would be preserved after construction of part of the Flow- way in 23 of those acres. There also would be off-site mitigation in the form of a payment of $1,232,000 "specifically for the purchase of 154 acres . . . of land within CREW, a project within the District's Save Our Rivers Program." Of that total, $712,404 was to be deposited in an account for the land purchase, $437,206 in an account to pay for restoration work within the CREW project, and $82,390 in an escrow account for general operations and maintenance costs incurred by the District within the CREW project. On March 10, 2004, the Governing Board approved a modification to the 2002 ERP authorizing the construction and operation of the Project, at the time known as the Terafina PUD. This ERP is referred to as “the 2004 ERP.” The 2004 ERP removed the golf course and proposed a residential development within the same 646-acre parcel. It also discharged to the Cocohatchee Canal via the Flow-way. The 2004 ERP modified the Project to consist of: single-family residential areas; a recreation area; internal roadway; onsite wetland preserve areas within the development of approximately 73.99 acres; and 210 acres of wetland preserve east of the development, which included the Flow-way, and is referred to as the Eastern Preserve. The 2004 ERP proposed to impact approximately 280 acres of wetlands, slightly less than in the 2002 ERP. To mitigate for the impacts, the 2004 ERP authorized onsite mitigation consisting of the preservation and enhancement of 253.04 acres of wetlands, preservation of 31.27 acres of uplands, creation of 0.1 acres of wetlands, and offsite mitigation by a payment to the District for the purchase, restoration, and management of lands in CREW. Apparently by mistake, the amount of the CREW payment was reduced to $1,001,000, with $418,404 to go into the purchase account, $437,206 to go into the restoration account, and $82,390 to go into the escrow account for general operations and maintenance. In addition, the time for deposit of the funds was extended to June 30, 2004. The District included Special Condition No. 18 in the 2004 ERP, delaying any construction under the 2004 ERP until the Flow-way was completed. However, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) refused to permit construction of the Flow-way. On July 13, 2006, G.L. Homes submitted an application to modify the 2004 ERP (the 2006 Application), which is the subject of this proceeding. (A letter modification was issued on October 5, 2006, authorizing installation of a 48" outfall pipe within the Logan Boulevard right-of-way to convey the discharge from the Project to the Cocohatchee Canal. This letter modification was not challenged by the Conservancy and is not at issue in this proceeding.) On November 9, 2006, SFWMD proposed issuance of the 2006 ERP authorizing the construction and operation of the residential development now known as Saturnia Falls (the 2006 ERP). The 2006 Staff Report proposes elimination of the Flow- way, and enhancement and preservation of the 23.5 acres that would have been located in the eastern third of the Project area, similar to the rest of the Eastern Preserve. The SWMS also was altered, and the Staff Report noted that the CREW payment was made in June 2004 in the amount of $1,260,000 "as funding for the off-site mitigation in CREW," which was said to have "provided a substantial amount of up-front mitigation in CREW." The Conservancy did not challenge the 2002 ERP or the 2004 ERP but did challenge the 2006 ERP. THE MODIFIED SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM In addition to removal of the 23.5-acre segment of the Flow-way from the Eastern Preserve, the current proposal would modify the SWMS under the 2004 ERP by replacing the 80-foot weir at Lake 9, which was the sole final outfall under the 2004 ERP, with two operable Water Control Structures (WCS), located at the eastern (WCS-2) and western (WCS-1) boundaries of the Project, as the final outfall structures. The 80-foot weir in the 2004 ERP consisted of a rectangular notch in the 17.7 foot NGVD berm between Lake 9 and the Eastern Preserve, with a crest elevation of 13.8 foot NGVD and a 5 foot wide, .4 foot deep rectangular notch (that is, with an invert elevation of 13.4 foot NGVD) within the 80-foot weir, which served as a bleeder for water quality. The structure was fixed, and water was to pass freely through the bleeder and over the weir depending on the water levels on either side of the structure. In contrast, the structures proposed in the 2006 ERP are operable based on water levels in the Eastern Preserve. WCS- 1 is located in Lake 4 and discharges to the Cocohatchee Canal via a 48" reinforced concrete pipe located in the Logan Boulevard right-of-way. WCS-2 is located to the east of the development and discharges to the Eastern Preserve and then ultimately to the Cocohatchee Canal. As modified under the 2006 ERP, the SWMS continues to consist of eleven controlled sub-basins with a total area of 397.46 acres. The remainder of the proposed Project also is the same as under the 2004 ERP, including road alignments, type and number of houses, lots, lakes and grading information, and wetland impacts. It is the position of the Applicant and the District that the mitigation proposal also is identical; but Petitioner takes the position that proposed onsite mitigation will be adversely affected by the proposed modifications and that offsite mitigation no longer has the same benefit, so that mitigation no longer fully offsets the wetland impacts. The SWMS is set at the control elevation of 13.4 feet NGVD, which represents the wet season water table (WSWT) for the currently existing wetlands. The seasonal high water level for the wetlands was determined to be approximately 14.0 feet NGVD. When water levels in the Eastern Preserve are below 14.00 feet NGVD (typically in the dry season), the SWMS discharges to the Eastern Preserve through WCS-2, which is located in the perimeter berm to be constructed with sloping banks and a crest elevation of 17.7 feet NGVD between the Eastern Preserve and one of the western wetland preserves, called preserve P-5. WCS-2 consists of a 23-foot weir fitted with an operable bleeder at the control elevation of 13.40 feet NGVD, and a fixed discharge V-Notch weir with an invert elevation of 14.20 feet NGVD, and a crest elevation of 15.40 feet NGVD. This discharge will flow southerly through the Eastern Preserve to the receiving waterbody, the Cocohatchee Canal. WCS-1 will be closed during these periods. The maximum discharge rate under these conditions will be 15.28 cubic feet per second (cfs) to the Eastern Preserve. Based on the hydraulic modeling results, the Eastern Preserve experiences levels below 14 feet NGVD approximately 70% of the time on an annual basis. When water levels in the Eastern Preserve are above 14.00 feet NGVD (typically in the wet season), the SWMS will discharge predominately to the west via WCS-1 to the Cocohatchee Canal. When the water level in the Eastern Preserve reaches 14.00 ft NGVD, the operable bleeder on WCS-2 will close and the operable bleeder/discharge structure on WCS-1 will open. During the 25- year 3-day storm, the maximum discharge rate through WCS-1 is 13.50 cfs. During these conditions, discharge will also occur through the fixed 60-degree V-notch in WCS-2, with a maximum discharge of 2.10 cfs, ensuring bidirectional flow of water so long as the water level in the SWMS stays above 14.20 feet NGVD. The total discharge rate from both structures under this condition is 15.61 cfs. During the 25-year 3-day storm event, water levels in the Eastern Preserve fluctuate from 13.40 feet NGVD to 15.31 feet NGVD. When the water levels in the Eastern Preserve are higher than 14.20 feet NGVD, and the water level in the SWMS is lower than 14.20 feet NGVD, water from the Eastern Preserve will enter into the SWMS through the 60-degree V-Notch in WCS-2. The SWMS is designed to receive water from the Eastern Preserve to provide flood storage and hydrology to the onsite wetlands within the development. THE ERP PERMITTING CRITERIA In order to obtain an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions for issuance set forth in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. In this case, the evidence must be viewed under Rule 40E-4.331(2)(a), pertaining to modification of permits, which requires the District to review permit modification applications “using the same criteria as new applications for those portions of the project proposed for, or affected by, the modification.” The test in this case is not whether the District properly evaluated the 2004 ERP, but whether the areas proposed to be modified or affected by the modification meet the applicable conditions for issuance. Rule 40E-4.301(1) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a SWMS: Will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; Will not cause adverse flooding to on- site or off-site property; Will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; Will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters; Will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the water quality standards set forth in Chapters 62- 4, 62-302, 62-520, 62-522, 62-550, F.A.C., including any antidegradation provisions of paragraphs 62-4.242(1)(a) and (b), subsections 62-4.242(2) and (3), and Rule 62-302.300, F.A.C., and any special standards for Outstanding Florida Waters and Outstanding National Resource Waters set forth in subsections 62-4.242(2) and (3), F.A.C., will be violated; Will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources; Will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows established pursuant to Chapter 373.042, F.S.; Will not cause adverse impacts to a work of the District established pursuant to Section 373.086, F.S.; Will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed; Will be conducted by an entity with the sufficient financial, legal and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, if issued; and Will comply with any applicable special basin or geographic area criteria established in Chapter 40E-41, F.A.C. The parties stipulated that the Project either complies with Rules 40E-4.301(1)(g),(h),(j), and (k), and Sections 4.3.8, 7.5, and 9.0 of the BOR, or that those rules are not applicable. THE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT CRITERIA Water Quantity (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a)) As indicated, the 2006 modifications eliminate the Flow-way and change the manner in which water flows in and out of the proposed SWMS. Otherwise, there are no changes to the engineered features of the SWMS. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a) requires that G.L. Homes demonstrate that the Project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands, and not exceed the capacity of the downstream receiving water bodies. Section 6.2 of the BOR requires that a project be designed so it is consistent with the downstream carrying capacity of the receiving waters. The receiving waterbody for this Project is the Cocohatchee Canal. The allowable discharge rate for the Cocohatchee Canal is 15.9 cfs. The Project’s calculated rate of discharge is 15.6 cfs, so the Project does not exceed the allowable discharge rate. The Project's discharge rate is lower in 2006 (15.6 cfs) than it was in the 2004 ERP (291 cfs). Petitioner argued that the significant difference in discharge rates between the 2006 and the 2004 ERPs violated the District’s water quantity criteria. But the discharge rate calculated in 2004 was associated with the Flow-way and entailed a different overall analysis for the entire area served by the Flow-way. G.L. Homes provided reasonable assurances that the discharge rate allowed for its Project would not be exceeded, as required in Section 6.2 of the BOR. G.L. Homes complied with Section 6.3 of the BOR which requires the 25-year, 3-day storm event to be used when computing the discharge rate for the Project. Section 6.8 of the BOR is entitled “Offsite Lands.” Compliance with this Section requires that a project allow the passage of drainage from offsite areas to downstream areas, which is necessary to demonstrate that off-site receiving waterbodies are not being adversely affected. G.L. Homes complied with Section 6.8 by conducting a hydrologic analysis, using the 25-year, 3-day storm event, which demonstrated that discharge would be directed to WCS-1 and WCS-2, allowing for the passage of drainage from offsite areas to the downstream areas. Section 6.10 of the BOR requires that the design of the Project conserve water and not over-drain wetlands. There is nothing about the modifications that violate Section 6.10. In this case, the control elevations have been set at 13.4 feet NGVD, which is the average WSWT. The WSWT was established using biological indicators to determine the average elevation in the Project’s wetlands during the wet season. Setting the control elevation at the WSWT does not violate Section 6.10. To the contrary, when water levels are at or above the control elevation, the design helps prevent the wetlands from being drawn down below 13.4 feet NGVD, and not over-drain them. The WSWT of 13.4 was permitted in the 2004 ERP. The structures also allow for the interchange of water from the Eastern Preserve into the preserve wetlands within the SWMS. This exchange of water helps preserve the Project’s environmental values. Setting the control elevation at 13.4 also reduces unnecessary runoff from the Project, retaining the water for recharge. In addition, the ability of the SWMS to accept flows from the Eastern Preserve also conserves freshwater by preventing that water from being discharged downstream. As indicated, when water levels in the Eastern Preserve are below the control elevation, no water will enter the SWMS from the Eastern Preserve. During those times, it is possible that wetlands within the SWMS will be drained into the deep lakes dug as part of the project. However, that would not be the result of 2006 modifications but would be inherent in the previously-approved SWMS. The 2006 modifications do not re-open the soundness of that previously-approved part of the design. Section 6.10 also requires that a project not lower water tables so that the existing rights of others would be adversely affected. Again, by setting the control elevations at the WSWT, the water table is not expected to be lowered so as to affect the existing rights of others. The Project also must demonstrate that the site’s groundwater recharge characteristics will be preserved through the design of the SWMS. G.L. Homes complied by setting the control elevations at the WSWT, allowing standing water in the wetland preserves to recharge the groundwater. Section 6.11 addresses Detention and Control Elevations which are intended to assist in complying with the provisions of Section 6.10. By designing WCS-1 and WCS-2 at control elevation 13.4, the Project maintains the detention component and the control (wetland protection) elevations under the previously-approved SWMS. The Required Design Information and Assumptions are contained in Section 8.0 of the BOR. This Section includes various assumptions and information regarding the design of the SWMS. By incorporating these assumptions into the Project, G.L. Homes complied with Section 8.0. Flooding (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(b)) This Rule requires G.L. Homes to demonstrate that the Project will not cause adverse flooding to onsite or offsite property. Section 6.4 requires that building floors be designed to be protected from a 100-year, 3-day storm event. G.L. Homes complied with this provision by providing construction plans demonstrating that the building floors are being built higher than the 100-year, 3-day storm event. Likewise, Section 6.5 pertains to providing flood protection for the Project’s roads and parking lots. G.L. Homes complied with this provision by exceeding the District’s 5-year design criteria, and instead designing the roads and parking lots using the 25-year, 3-day storm event. G.L. Homes was required to comply with the Historic Basin Storage provision in Section 6.7, which requires the Project to replace or otherwise mitigate the loss of historic basin storage provided by the site. In this case, the amount and extent of historic storage that is being displaced by the 2006 ERP is the same as that in the 2004 ERP. However, the replacement or mitigation for loss of historic basin storage is reduced due to elimination of the Flow-way. Instead of relying on the Flow-way to address this criterion, G.L. Homes relied on the “Saturnia Falls Slough Hydraulic Study” prepared by Taylor Engineering, the “Taylor Report” (RJ Ex. 32), which demonstrates the current flood levels in the Eastern Preserve and other adjacent properties and wetlands, and that the Project’s configuration would not affect the basin’s historic storage. Lastly, to demonstrate that the Project will not cause adverse flooding to offsite properties, G.L. Homes was required to comply with Section 6.9, Minimum Drainage. This provision requires that the SWMS recover, consistent with the environmental criteria in 6.10 of the BOR, within 12 days or less. The Taylor Report also demonstrated that the Project will recover from the design storm event in time to provide the required attenuation for the next storm event, while preserving environmental or wetland features. There may be times when the recovery may exceed 12 days, but the need to protect the hydrology of the wetlands required the control elevations to be set at 13.4 ft NGVD. Balanced against Section 6.10, G.L. Homes still complies with Section 6.9. Accordingly, G.L. Homes provided reasonable assurances demonstrating that the 2006 ERP will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, satisfying Rule 40E- 4.301(1)(b). Storage and Conveyance (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c) requires that an applicant demonstrate that the proposed development will not adversely impact existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. In order to accomplish this demonstration, applicants are to consider the capability of the adjacent properties to both store and convey stormwater runoff from their developments. Section 6.6 of the BOR, entitled Floodplain Encroachment, specifies the parameters by prohibiting a net encroachment into the floodplain, between the average WSWT and the 100-year event, which will adversely affect the existing rights of others. G.L. Homes addressed this criterion through the analysis submitted and contained in the Taylor Report. The Taylor Report used the hydrologic model, HEC-HMS, and hydraulic model, HEC-RAS, to provide a simulation of flood stages propagating through the Eastern Preserve and the adjacent wetland system. This analysis assessed the existing flood stages within the offsite areas, starting at the Cocohatchee Canal and ending approximately 2-3 miles northeast of the eastern boundary of the Project. The analysis captured the expected flood levels during both the 25-year, 3-day and the 100-year, 3-day storm events in the area's current condition, and then compared the analysis of the two storm events considering the Project in its development condition. The analysis relied on the Project’s proposal to remove the current melaleuca infestation from the Eastern Preserve as part of the Project’s post-development condition. The Taylor Report concluded that the removal of such exotics would remove a flow impediment and allow the water to flow through the Eastern Preserve at a higher rate, and therefore at lower flood stages. The Taylor Report made these conclusions while accounting for the development as well as the mitigation-required plantings. The Taylor Report, along with Mr. Hull’s testimony, demonstrated that even with the mitigation reaching full maturity, the removal of melaleuca results in lower flood stages than the study area is currently experiencing. The evidence was that the model used by Taylor Engineering, the HEC-RAS model, is an appropriate model to determine flood stages and to calculate the floodplain conveyance. Furthermore, although Petitioner attacked the choice of inputs, mainly the “Manning’s n coefficients” used to determine the roughness or the friction provided by current and post-development vegetation, the balance of the evidence supports the coefficients contained in the Taylor Report as reasonable and within the ranges of the cited data and models. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Van Lent, who conducted no analysis of his own, admitted that HEC-RAS was an accepted tool to use for floodplain conveyance and that the other models he suggested are either inappropriate or rarely used by ERP applicants. The Applicant provided reasonable assurances demonstrating that the 2006 ERP will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, satisfying Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c). However, that is not to say that the 2006 ERP replaces the storage and conveyance capabilities that would have been provided under the 2004 ERP with the proposed Flow-way, which also required removal of melaleuca and required the same mitigation plantings except within the Flow-way itself. To the contrary, storage and conveyance capability under the 2004 ERP clearly would have been greater. Wetland Impacts (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d)) This Rule provision, while typically associated with the wetland ERP criteria review, also applies to the SWMS through Section 6.12 of the BOR, which requires that a lake system be designed so that an adverse gradient is not created between the lakes and wetland areas. G.L. Homes complied with this criterion by setting the control elevation at 13.4 feet NGVD, the WSWT, for the lake system, the SWMS wetland preserves and the Eastern Preserve, ensuring no gradient (or difference in elevation) between the wetland elevation and the lake elevation. Petitioner argued that additional analysis regarding the timing and levels of inundation in the wetland preserves is necessary to fully determine the impacts to the wetlands. Contrary testimony indicated that setting the control elevations within the development area at the WSWT protects the onsite wetlands and ensures that those wetlands will function as expected. Mr. Waterhouse testified that additional analysis, such as groundwater or evapotranspiration, is not necessary because the Project was designed so that the control elevation that affects the lake levels and the wetlands are the same. The testimony was that, since the control elevation was set using the WSWT, the timing and levels within the wetlands will not be affected by the revised SWMS, and that no additional modeling, as recommended by Dr. Van Lent, is necessary because the SWMS complies with Section 6.12. As indicated, it is questionable on this record whether wetlands within the SWMS will be drained during dry conditions by adjacent deep lakes. No such analysis was presented in evidence in this case. However, such an impact on the wetlands within the SWMS would not be the result of 2006 modifications but would be inherent in the previously-approved SWMS. The 2006 modifications do not re-open the soundness of that previously-approved part of the design. As for the 2006 modifications, the evidence was persuasive that no additional analysis regarding the timing and levels of inundation in the wetland preserves is necessary to determine that the elimination of the 80-foot weir and its replacement with WCS-1 and WCS-2 will not impact the wetlands. Water Quality (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the Project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that water quality standards will be violated. Section 5.2 describes the District’s standard water quality criteria. This provision, requiring a minimum of one inch detention of stormwater, is referred to as a “presumptive criterion” because it is presumed that if an applicant provides the required one inch of detention, Class III water quality standards and rule requirements will be met. In this case, G.L. Homes provides one inch of detention in its lake system in the exact manner it did in the 2004 ERP. A difference from the 2004 to the 2006 ERP is the classification of the Cocohatchee Canal, the Project’s receiving waterbody, as impaired for iron and dissolved oxygen (DO). Therefore, G.L. Homes was also required to comply with Section 4.2.4.5 of the BOR to demonstrate that it is not contributing to the impairment. See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.301(2). Section 4.2.4.5, entitled "Where Ambient Water Quality Does Not Meet State Water Quality Standards," states as follows: If the site of the proposed activity currently does not meet state water quality standards, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the water quality standards by meeting the provisions in 4.2.4.1, 4.2.4.2, and 4.2.4.3, as applicable, and for the parameters which do not meet water quality standards, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed activity will not contribute to the existing violation. If the proposed activity will contribute to the existing violation, mitigation may be proposed as described in subsection 4.3.1.4. To comply, G.L. Homes must show that neither short- term (4.2.4.1) nor long-term (4.2.4.2) water quality impacts will occur. G.L. Homes complied with the short-term requirements by submitting the Construction Pollution Prevention Plan (CPPP), detailing how water quality will be protected during the construction process. In addition to the inch of treatment, the long-term water quality requirement was addressed, in part, by the Urban Stormwater Management Plan (USMP), which details various source controls or best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented once the Project is built and operating. These BMPs help keep pollutants out of the lake system. In addition to the BMPs, the USMP requires G.L. Homes to institute a water quality monitoring plan and submit results to the District for review after the Project is developed. Dr. Harper concurred with Petitioner that the USMP as proposed (in R.J. 28, § 6.0) was deficient in certain respects and recommended that it be clarified or supplemented to specify testing for oxygen, iron, nitrogen, phosphorus, hardness, and a few heavy metals, namely copper, lead, and zinc. Dr. Harper also concurred and recommended that that samples should be collected at both WCS-1 or WCS-2, not just at one of them, depending on which structure is discharging water at the time of sampling. (Dr. Harper confirmed the propriety of testing three times per year, which is a common frequency for monitoring in situations like this.) Mr. Waterhouse agreed with Dr. Harper's additions/clarifications and testified that the USMP, as supplemented and clarified, would comply with District’s criteria. G.L. Homes accepted Dr. Harper's additions/clarifications to the USMP. Another component of Section 4.2.4.5 requires additional assurance for parameters that do not meet water quality standards. The District prepared the “Terrie Bates Water Quality Memo dated June 11, 2004,” referred to as “the Bates Memo,” to provide guidance on the implementation of Section 4.2.4.5 for projects which discharge into an impaired waterbody. The Bates Memo suggests that an additional 50 percent of treatment, among other BMPs, be incorporated into a SWMS. G.L. Homes complied with the Bates Memo because runoff from the lakes, after meeting the one inch detention treatment requirement, spills into the wetland preserves within the SWMS for an additional 50 percent of treatment. In terms of operation of the SWMS, this is no different from the 2004 ERP, but the 2006 ERP simply calculates and takes credit for the additional treatment that was also provided by the onsite wetlands in the 2004 ERP. It is uncontested that the wetland preserves within the development are not impaired and are only required to meet Class III water quality standards. When the stormwater spills into the SWMS wetland preserves, it is presumed to meet Class III water quality standards due to the one inch of detention treatment. Accordingly, the SWMS wetland preserves can be used to provide the additional 50 percent of treatment. The Bates Memo also lists seven BMPs as potential options to consider, in addition to the extra 50 percent treatment volume. G.L. Homes is implementing 6 of the 7 items as follows: (1) the CPPP, which is a stormwater pollution prevention plan; (2) an operation plan or long-term plan addressing routine maintenance is included in the USMP; (3) planting littoral zones; (4) some utilization of onsite wetlands for additional treatment downstream of the SWMS by discharging into the Eastern Preserve wetland system through WCS-2 at times; (5) a site-specific water quality evaluation for the Project’s pre- and post-development conditions is addressed by the Harper Report (RJ Ex. 25); and (6) a Water Quality Monitoring Plan, which is required under the USMP. Petitioner erroneously argued that the Bates Memo does not allow the 50 percent treatment to occur in the preserve wetlands within the development. The argument stems from the phrase “in addition to the extra 50% treatment volume” at the bottom of page 3 of the memo, and bullet No. 5 on page 4, which recommends “treatment in wetlands downstream of the SWMS.” Absent any analysis of her own or any experience in the application of the Bates Memo, Ms. Hecker contended that the Bates Memo precludes the use of onsite wetlands. The argument is contradictory and confusing because Hecker admits that the preserve wetlands within the development are not downstream of the SWMS, and acknowledges that the Eastern Preserve is the wetland downstream of the SWMS. Ms. Hecker, along with Mr. Boler, ultimately admitted that criteria exist allowing the use of wetlands as part of the SWMS. Mr. Waterhouse, who has vastly more experience with the District’s water quality criteria than Ms. Hecker, and participated in the drafting of the Bates Memo, refuted Ms. Hecker’s position about the intent of the Bates Memo, citing to Section 5.3.1 of the BOR as additional support for the use of onsite wetlands for water quality treatment. In addition to these water quality submittals, G.L. Homes also provided a water quality analysis specific to the Project prepared by Dr. Harvey Harper. The analysis, entitled “Evaluation of Water Quality Issues Related to the Saturnia Falls Project” (RJ Ex. 25), referred to as the “Harper Report,” analyzed the Project’s pre- and post-development pollutant loads to help demonstrate that the Project would not contribute to the impairment of the Cocohatchee Canal. The Harper Report estimated the removal efficiency of the SWMS lakes to determine how much pollutant removal would be achieved by the lakes on the Project. Dr. Harper relied solely on the lakes without accounting for any of the additional treatment expected to occur in the wetlands or from the source control BMPs contained in the USMP, which means his report errs on the conservative side in those respects. Although the Canal is impaired for dissolved oxygen (DO), it is uncontested that a nutrient analysis is the appropriate method to assess DO conditions. The Harper Report, as summarized in the table below, concluded that the Project would result in lower post-development loading rates than the pre-development loading rates for nutrients. Nitrogen (N) Pre-Development Total N Load 390.6 kg Post-Development Removal (Dry4) Total N Load 204.99 kg Post-Development Removal (Wet5) Total N Load 194.69 kg Phosphorus (P) Pre-development Total P Load 15.12 kg Post-Development Removal (Dry) Total P Load 5.29 kg Post-Development Removal (Wet) Total P Load 4.49 kg The Harper Report compared the Post-Development Total Basin Loading numbers for P (136.43 kg) and for N (922.57 kg), on an average annual basis, coming from the residential areas (roads and lots) to the Post-Development Removal Loads for P [5.29 kg (dry) and 4.49 kg (wet)] and for N [204.99 kg (dry) and 194.69 kg (wet)] discharging from the lakes after treatment. The calculations demonstrated that approximately 77 percent of N would be removed by the lakes in the dry season conditions and approximately 78 percent would be removed in the wet season conditions. Approximately 95 percent of P would be removed by the lakes in both the dry and wet season conditions. Additional removal and treatment above these percentages is expected due to a number of other source control measures not accounted for in the Harper Report. The Harper Report also concluded that iron discharges from the SWMS would be extremely low and substantially less than the Class III standard of 1 mg/l. Petitioner presented no evidence to counter this conclusion. Petitioner questioned the validity of Harper Report’s use of wetlands as part of the loading calculations, and attacked his underlying methodology. Petitioner's witnesses called it "bad science" to attribute pollutant loading to wetlands because wetlands remove nutrients from the water column and because attributing nutrient loading to wetlands would make it easier to obtain a permit to destroy wetlands. However, none of Petitioner's witnesses were able to credibly defend the position that wetlands cannot contribute to the loading calculations and at times conceded to this fact. Generally, wetlands can in fact contribute some nutrients that pass through without being taken up by wetland vegetation, either because the water is moving through the wetlands too fast or because the nutrient load in the wetland overtaxes the wetland's ability to take up nutrients. That does not necessarily mean that the nutrient load attributable to a wetland will be greater than the load attributable to other post-development land uses. Indeed, the only post-development land use characterized by Dr. Harper as having a lower pollutant load than a wetland was low- intensity commercial, and that was only for total nitrogen. (Dr. Harper's use of data from some distance away in Corkscrew Swamp as the basis for characterizing the pollutant loadings for the onsite wetlands, instead of data from a closer monitoring station in the Cocohatchee Canal weir, was justified; his use of that data instead of collecting data onsite was a valid criticism, but there was not enough evidence in support of that criticism to undermine the additional assurance derived from Dr. Harper's work.) As for the argument that the "Harper method" makes it easier to obtain a permit to destroy wetlands, there are many regulatory criteria other than just water quality that are supposed to be considered before a permit is issued to impact wetlands. Another component of Petitioner’s attack on the Project’s water quality compliance included vague references to an 80 percent removal efficiency. In actuality, the 80 percent removal efficiency is not adopted or incorporated into any District rule criteria. In any event, the Harper Report and other evidence give reasonable assurance that, along with other source controls, the proposed SWMS probably will remove 80 percent of pollutants on an average annual basis. Lastly, the District clarified why Section 4.2.8 of the BOR, regarding cumulative impacts for water quality, was not applicable in this case. Since no contribution or impacts to water quality are expected, a cumulative impacts analysis is not necessary to assess the extent of the impacts. The combination of all these water quality measures, when taken together, give reasonable assurance that the 2006 ERP will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that State water quality standards will be violated, and that Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) will be satisfied. Engineering Principles (Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the SWMS will be capable, based on generally-accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed. Section 7.0 of the BOR specifies implementation of the Rule. Since WCS-1 and WCS-2 are proposed as operable structures, the District is requiring that G.L. Homes enter into an operable Control Structure Agreement with the Big Cypress Basin Board. The agreement provides for the Big Cypress Basin Board to operate and maintain the two operable structures, instead of the Saturnia Falls Homeowners Association. As Mr. Waterhouse explained, this is a reasonable and logical requirement. WETLAND ERP CRITERIA As with the SWMS criteria, the wetland criteria review of this modification compares the Project to 2004 ERP. Functions To Fish & Wildlife And Listed Species (Subsection 40E- 4.301(1)(d)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances to demonstrate that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, or abandonment of a SWMS will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Section 4.2.2 of the BOR provides further specificity to ensure that a project will not impact the abundance and diversity of fish, wildlife and listed species. The 2006 ERP makes no changes or modification to the 280 acres of wetland impacts allowed in the 2004 ERP. Since the impacts remain the same, the 2006 ERP does not modify or affect the values the wetlands provide to either the abundance or diversity of fish and wildlife, compared to the 2004 ERP. Review of this criterion was determined in the 2004 ERP and should not be re- opened. Section 4.2.2.3 of the BOR addresses the functional assessment of the values provided by the Project’s wetlands. The wetland values were not reassessed in the 2006 ERP because the wetland impacts remain the same as in the 2004 ERP. The evidence was that the current value of the wetlands remains low due to heavy melaleuca infestation, with 75 percent coverage in most locations. While Petitioner may disagree with how the current wetlands were evaluated, nothing in this modification request requires a reassessment of their value. Accordingly, the value of the wetlands currently onsite has not changed, and this criteria should not be re-opened. Section 4.2.2.4 of the BOR requires that a regulated activity not adversely impact the hydroperiod of wetlands or other surface waters. Specifically, the criterion states as follows: [An] applicant must provide reasonable assurances that the regulated activity will not change the hydroperiod of a wetland or other surface water, so as to adversely affect wetland functions or other surface water functions as follows: Whenever portions of a system, such as constructed basins, structures, stormwater ponds, canals, and ditches, are reasonably expected to have the effect of reducing the depth, duration or frequency of inundation or saturation in a wetland or other surface water, the applicant must perform an analysis of the drawdown in water levels or diversion of water flows resulting from such activities and provide reasonable assurance that these drawdowns or diversions will not adversely impact the functions that wetlands and other surface waters provide to fish and wildlife and listed species. Increasing the depth, duration, or frequency of inundation through changing the rate or method of discharge of water to wetlands or other surface waters or by impounding water in wetlands or other surface waters must also be addressed to prevent adverse effects to functions that wetlands and other surface waters provide to fish and wildlife and listed species. Different types of wetlands respond differently to increased depth, duration, or frequency of inundation. Therefore, the applicant must provide reasonable assurance that activities that have the potential to increase discharge or water levels will not adversely affect the functioning of the specific wetland or other surface water subject to the increased discharge or water level. Whenever portions of a system could have the effect of altering water levels in wetlands or other surface waters, applicants shall be required to: monitor the wetland or other surface waters to demonstrate that such alteration has not resulted in adverse impacts; or calibrate the system to prevent adverse impacts. Monitoring parameters, methods, schedules, and reporting requirements shall be specified in permit conditions. Subsection (a) applies if the Project was expected to reduce the depth, duration, or frequency of inundation or saturation in any of the Project’s wetlands. Subsection (b) applies if the Project is expected to increase the depth, duration, or frequency of inundation through changing the rate or method of discharge of water to wetlands or other surface waters. Subsection (c) requires monitoring of the wetlands to determine the effects of the hydrological changes. Persuasive engineering and biological testimony demonstrated that no change (neither a reduction nor an increase) in the hydrology on the preserved wetlands or the Eastern Preserve will occur from what was permitted in the 2004 ERP. By analyzing the various biological indicators onsite, control elevations within the SWMS and the wetlands (both the Eastern Preserve and onsite preserve wetlands) were set at 13.4 feet NGVD, which is the WSWT. This matched the control elevation under the 2004 ERP. Ms. Bain and Mr. Passarella both testified that the hydroperiods in the wetlands would remain the same as in the 2004 ERP during normal conditions, the most important indicator of wetland success, and that the wetlands would be unaffected by the modifications. The WSWT is a common indicator of average wet season water levels in a wetland, which generally is the best indicator of maintaining appropriate hydrology and thereby maintaining the expected level of wetland function. However, as indicated, the deep lakes next to preserved wetlands within the SWMS could draw down those wetlands during dry conditions; but the potential lake effect was present in the 2004 ERP. Both Dr. Van Lent and Jason Lauritsen conceded that, with the elimination of the Flow-way, the hydrology in the Eastern Preserve would be better in the 2006 ERP than in the 2004 ERP. But, as indicated, there was no detailed analysis of wetland impacts from the 2006 modifications because G.L. Homes and the District took the position that no detailed analysis was necessary since the control elevation remained unchanged. Petitioner attempts to cast doubt as to the level of data reviewed by the District to conclude that no changes will occur in the hydrology of the wetlands. But the additional modeling recommended by Petitioner is unnecessary and unwarranted in the face of the biological indicators collected from the Project site over several years. These biological indicators are reliable and customary information to use when ensuring compliance with Section 4.2.2.4. They also resulted in the same control elevation that was set in the 2004 ERP. Petitioner never disputed the credibility of the biological indicators, nor did they present any contrary evidence (either a model or otherwise) that purported to show the wetlands would not function as permitted in the 2004 ERP based on these indicators. Instead, they simply asserted that additional analysis should be done. Although not precipitated by this criterion, G.L. Homes will conduct monitoring of the wetlands by implementing the Monitoring Plan as additional reasonable assurances that the wetlands will not be affected. Secondary Impacts To Water Resources (Subsection 40E- 4.301(1)(f)) Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f) and Section 4.2.7 of the BOR require a demonstration that the proposed activities will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. No secondary impact analysis was done because the site plan and wetland impacts remained unchanged from the 2004 ERP. Additional Wetland Provisions (Subsection 40E-4.301(3) and 40E- 4.302 Subsection 40E-4.301(3) addresses the remaining wetland criteria in the BOR, including mitigation and elimination or reduction of impacts. Rule 40E-4.302(1)(b) addresses the cumulative impacts analysis contained in Section 4.2.8 of the BOR. No assessment of elimination and reduction of wetland impacts was done because the wetland impacts remain unchanged from the 2004 ERP. The 2006 modifications do not warrant another elimination and reduction analysis. No cumulative impacts analysis is necessary because, as in the 2004 ERP, all proposed mitigation for wetland impacts are within the same drainage basin (West Collier) as the impacts. Logically, if the mitigation proposed for the 2006 modifications fully offsets the wetland impacts, there will be no impacts to cumulate with others impacts of other development activities. On the other hand, if the mitigation does not fully offset the impacts, the application will be denied for that reason, without the need for a cumulative impacts analysis. Section 4.3 of the BOR specifies criteria for mitigation proposed as part of an ERP application. Both G.L. Homes and the District took the position that, similar to the wetland impacts, the proposal for both onsite and offsite mitigation did not change from the 2004 ERP, and that no detailed analysis of the mitigation proposal, or comparison to wetland impacts, was required. Indeed, the onsite mitigation proposal--which includes preservation, restoration of wetlands by removing melaleuca, and the creation of four shallow depressional areas for wood stork habitat--remains unchanged from the 2004 ERP, including the Grading and Planting Plan, the Monitoring Plan, and Mitigation, Monitoring and Maintenance Plan. It was proven that the Flow- way footprint never was considered to be either a wetland impact or a part of the mitigation proposal, and that its removal from the Eastern Preserve does not decrease the amount or the value of the mitigation. (Actually, its removal probably increases the value of the mitigation, but the amount of any such increase was not analyzed or quantified.) It also was proven that the onsite wetlands will not be adversely affected as a result of the 2006 modifications so as to decrease their mitigation value, as Petitioner contended. Petitioner also raised the concern that the wetland mitigation within the SWMS would not function as permitted in the 2004 ERP due to the storage of the additional 50 percent within those wetlands, thereby affecting the mitigation assessment. However, as already indicated, when the water reaches those internal wetland preserves, it will have been treated to Class III water quality standards. In addition, operationally, the water also would have been stored in those wetlands under the 2004 ERP; the only difference is that the 2006 modifications calculate and claim credit for the storage, which was not necessary or done for the 2004 ERP. In addition to the onsite mitigation, G.L. Homes previously had been permitted to provide offsite mitigation in the form of a $1.26 million cash payment to the District. The payment was for the purchase, restoration, and enhancement of 154 acres of lands within the boundaries of the District’s environmental restoration project called CREW. Payment of cash for use by the District is addressed in Section 4.3.1.8 of the BOR. These types of offsite mitigation opportunities are referred to as a regional offsite mitigation areas or “ROMAs.” Unlike most mitigation banks, ROMAs, such as CREW, involve a land acquisition component and are owned and operated by the District. G.L. Homes and the District take the position that, under Section 4.3.1.8 of the BOR, and the previous 2004 ERP, G.L. Homes’ responsibilities ended when it paid the cash donation to the District. They take the position that the mitigation is unaffected by the modification, and that re- opening of the offsite mitigation requirement is unwarranted. However, while the Staff Report characterizes the $1.26 million payment as "a substantial amount of up-front mitigation for the proposed wetland impacts," no land in CREW has been purchased as of yet. In addition, the evidence was that, as a result of the passage of time and market forces, it unlikely that 154 acres of land within CREW can be purchased, enhanced, and maintained with the funds paid to the District under the 2004 ERP. Indeed, for a number of reasons, including the lack of willing sellers to participate in the CREW ROMA, in 2004 the District stopped accepting payment of funds to purchase land in CREW as an acceptable form of mitigation for wetland impacts. As a result, it no longer can be said that the proposed mitigation package, which includes and relies on the use of the funds to purchase, enhance, and maintain 154 acres in CREW, fully offsets the proposed wetland impacts. (In addition, under Rule 40E- 4.331(2)(a), any new mitigation proposal would have to analyzed using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology, Rule 62- 345.100.) Finally, if the offsite mitigation outside the drainage basin is used, a cumulative impact analysis will be necessary. Public Interest Test (Rule 40E-4.302(1) In addition to complying with Rule 40E-4.301, since the Project is located in, on, or over wetlands, G.L. Homes must also address the criteria contained in the Public Interest Test, Rule 40E-4.302 and Section 4.2.3 of the BOR, by demonstrating that the Project is not contrary to the public interest. (Since the Project is not within an OFW or does not significantly degrade an OFW, the higher standard of “clearly in the public interest” does not apply.) The District considers and balances the following seven factors in determining compliance with the test: Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others (40E-4.302(1)(a)1.); 93. G.L. Homes provided reasonable assurances that the Project will not cause any onsite or offsite flooding, nor will the Project cause any adverse impacts to adjacent lands because the SWMS is designed in accordance with District criteria and the post-development peak rate of discharge does not exceed the allowable discharge rate. The Project is considered neutral as to this factor. However, it appears from the evidence that the 2002 ERP and the 2004 ERP viewed those proposals as positive as to this factor due to the inclusion of the Flow-way in an effort to alleviate regional flooding. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats (40E-4.302(1)(a)2.); 94. As indicated, the Project proposes onsite mitigation which has not changed from the 2004 ERP, but passage of time and market conditions have changed the offsite mitigation proposal. As a result, it no longer can be said based on the evidence in this case that the overall mitigation proposal offsets potential impacts to fish and wildlife, including wood stork habitat, even though the mitigation plan for the Eastern Preserve would improve wood stork habitat from its current melaleuca-infested condition. For these reasons, the Project cannot be considered positive as to this factor. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling (40E-4.302(1)(a)3.); 95. The Project will not adversely affect navigation. In addition, no evidence was introduced to suggest that the Project’s construction would result in harmful erosion or shoaling. The balance of the testimony pertaining to the flow of water in the Project indicated that it will not be adversely affected. Although there will be reduced discharge to the Eastern Preserve as a result of the 2006 modifications, the Project is considered neutral as to this factor. In contrast, it appears from the evidence that the 2002 ERP and the 2004 ERP would have viewed those proposals as positive as to this factor due to the inclusion of the Flow-way in an effort to alleviate regional flooding. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity (40E-4.302(1)(a)4.); 96. The Project does not provide any fishing, recreational values, or marine productivity. Therefore, the Project is neutral as to this factor. Whether the regulated activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature (40E-4.302(1)(a)5.); 97. The Project is permanent in nature and is considered neutral as to this factor because reasonable assurances have not been given that mitigation will fully offset the permanent wetland impacts. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, F.S. (40E- 4.302(1)(a)6.); 98. There are no significant archeological or historical resources that will be adversely affected by the Project. In addition, no new information was received by the District indicating that historical resources would be impacted. Therefore, the Project is considered neutral as to this factor. The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed regulated activity (40E-4.302(1)(a)7.); As found, reasonable assurance has not been given that the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by the areas affected by the Project will be fully offset by mitigation. Therefore, the Project should be considered negative as to this factor. On balance, the Project, overall, is negative when measured against these criteria. Accordingly, it must be determined that reasonable assurance has not been given that the Project, as a whole, is not contrary to the public interest.
Conclusions DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. Under Section 403.412(6), Florida Statutes: Any Florida corporation not for profit which has at least 25 current members residing within the county where the activity is proposed, and which was formed for the purpose of the protection of the environment, fish and wildlife resources, and protection of air and water quality, may initiate a hearing pursuant to s. 120.569 or s. 120.57, provided that the Florida corporation not for profit was formed at least 1 year prior to the date of the filing of the application for a permit, license, or authorization that is the subject of the notice of proposed agency action. It is concluded that use of virtually the identical statutory language is not mandatory for standing under this statute and that the Conservancy meets the requirements for standing under this statute. Party status under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, also can be based on proof that "substantial interests will be affected by proposed agency action." § 120.52(12)(b), Fla. Stat. This requires proof of "an injury in fact which is of sufficient immediacy and is of the type and nature intended to be protected" by the substantive law. § 403.412(5), Fla. Stat. See also Agrico Chemical Co. v. Dept. of Environmental Reg., 406 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). An organization like the Conservancy may allege and prove either that its own substantial interests or those of a substantial number of its members will be affected. See Florida Home Builders Ass'n v. Dept. of Labor and Employment Security, 412 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1982); Farmworker Rights Organization, Inc. v. Dept. of Health, etc., 417 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). In addition, Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes, provides: No demonstration of special injury different in kind from the general public at large is required. A sufficient demonstration of a substantial interest may be made by a petitioner who establishes that the proposed activity, conduct, or product to be licensed or permitted affects the petitioner's use or enjoyment of air, water, or natural resources protected by this chapter. The Conservancy made a sufficient demonstration under this statute that the proposed 2006 ERP will affect its use or enjoyment of water and natural resources protected by Chapter 403. As a result, the Conservancy also proved standing under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. Because the Conservancy has "citizen standing" under Section 403.412(6), Florida Statutes, as well as standing under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, it is not necessary to decide G.L. Homes' challenge to the Conservancy's "associational standing." It also is unnecessary and premature to determine whether any party would be entitled under Section 120.68(1), Florida Statutes, to judicial review of the final order entered in this case as "a party who is adversely affected." It is believed that such a determination, if it becomes necessary, can be made upon the evidence in the record. BURDENS OF PROOF AND PERSUASION This is a de novo proceeding designed to formulate final agency action. See Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So. 2d 778, 786-787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); and § 120.57(1)(k), Fla. Stat. As an ERP applicant, G.L. Homes has the ultimate burden of proof and burden of persuasion. See J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So. 2d at 786-789. In light of the evidence presented in this case, the option suggested in the J.W.C. case to shift the burden of presenting evidence was not useful. ERP CRITERIA The permitting criteria for G.L. Homes' proposed Project are found in Parts I and IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-345, Florida Administrative Code Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302, and the BOR, which is adopted by reference in Rule 40E-4.091(1)(a). For its proposed Project to be permitted, G.L. Homes must give reasonable assurance of compliance with those criteria. Issuance of an ERP must be based solely on compliance with applicable permit criteria. See Council of the Lower Keys v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 429 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Reasonable assurance contemplates a substantial likelihood that the project will be successfully implemented. See Metropolitan Dade County v. Coscan Florida Inc., 609 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Absolute guarantees are not necessary, and a permit applicant is not required to eliminate all contrary possibilities or address impacts that are only theoretical and cannot be measured in real life. See City of Sunrise v. Indian Trace Community Development District, et al., DOAH Case No. 91- 6036, 1991 Fla. ENV LEXIS 6997, 92 ER FALR 21 (DOAH 1991, SFWMD 1992); Manasota-88, Inc. v. Agrico Chemical Co. and Department of Environmental Regulation, DOAH Case No. 87-2433, 1990 Fla. ENV LEXIS 38 (DOAH Jan. 5, 1990; DER Feb. 19, 1990). The test in this case is not whether the District properly evaluated the 2004 ERP, but whether the areas proposed to be modified or affected by the modification met the applicable conditions for issuance. When a permittee seeks to modify an existing permit, the District’s review includes only that portion of the existing permit that is proposed to be modified or is affected by the modification. Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.331(2). See also Friends of the Everglades, Inc., v. Dep't. of Envt'l. Reg., 496 So. 2d 181, 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Behrens v. Boran, ORDER NO. SWF 02-052, ER FALR 257 (SWFWMD Aug. 27, 2002), DOAH Case No. 02-0282, 2002 Fla. ENV LEXIS 192 (DOAH July 29, 2002); Kunnen v. Southwest Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., ORDER NO.: SWF 02-003, DOAH Case No. 01-2571, 2002 Fla. ENV LEXIS 4 (DOAH Dec. 17, 2001; SWFWMD Jan. 29, 2002). The "reasonable assurance" requirement applies to the activities for which permitting is presently sought and, except to the extent affected by the proposed modification, does not burden the applicant with "providing 'reasonable assurances' anew with respect to the original permit." Friends of the Everglades, supra at 183. Accordingly, Petitioner’s arguments that certain criteria must be revisited because they were not properly addressed in previous permits is irrelevant to this proceeding; but previously-decided criteria must be reviewed again to the extent that proposed modifications affect those criteria. CONSIDERATION OF THE ERP CRITERIA In order to provide reasonable assurances that a Project will not be harmful to the water resources of the District, the applicant must satisfy the conditions for issuance set forth in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. In this case, the evidence must be viewed under the rule pertaining to modification of permits. Rule 40E-4.331(2)(a) requires the District to review permit modification applications “using the same criteria as new applications for those portions of the project proposed for, or affected by, the modification.” Surface Water Management Criteria Water Quantity and Flooding Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a) and (b) address adverse water quantity to receiving water bodies and flooding either onsite and offsite. As found, G.L. Homes complied with the applicable criteria to satisfy both of these rules. Storage and Conveyance Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c) requires G.L. Homes to provide reasonable assurances that the Project will not adversely impact storage and conveyance capabilities. As found, the submittal of the Taylor Report provides reasonable assurances that the Project will not adversely affect the conveyance of water. Moreover, although some criticism was aimed at the choice of the friction coefficients used in the Taylor Report, the evidence as a whole proves that the coefficients in the Taylor Report are reasonable and scientifically defensible. Water Quality Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) requires G.L. Homes to provide reasonable assurances that the Project will not result in adverse water quality impacts. As found, coupled with the clarifications/additions to the USMP suggested by Dr. Harper and accepted by G.L. Homes, the numerous water quality submittals demonstrated compliance with this Rule, including assurances regarding the impairment status of the Cocohatchee Canal. While Petitioner leveled numerous criticisms against the Project’s ability to comply with water quality, none of the criticisms rose to the level of “contrary evidence of equivalent quality.” Taken as whole, and balanced against Petitioner’s lack of equivalent evidence and credible witnesses, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that, with the Monitoring Plan additions/clarifications, G.L. Homes meets the District’s water quality criteria. Engineering Principles As required by Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i), G.L. Homes has provided reasonable assurances to demonstrate that the SWMS will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and functioning as proposed. Wetlands Criteria Elimination and Reduction, Secondary and Cumulative Impacts 115. Rules 40E-4.301(1)(f) and (2) and 40E-4.302(1)(b) require G.L. Homes to demonstrate compliance with the following District criteria pertaining to wetland impacts: (1) elimination and reduction; (2) secondary impacts; and (3) cumulative impacts. As found, the 2006 ERP proposes no changes or modifications to the wetlands impacts approved in the 2004 ERP. Therefore, Petitioner’s arguments that these assessments were either not done or done improperly in the previous permit are not valid bases to relitigate those issues. Accordingly, elimination and reduction, secondary impacts, and cumulative impacts addressed in the 2004 ERP are not properly litigated in this modification proceeding, except to the extent that they are affected by the proposed modifications. While the proposed modifications do not affect either elimination and reduction or secondary impacts, they could affect cumulative impacts, depending on whether offset mitigation needed to fully offset wetland impacts is accomplished in the West Collier drainage basin. Wetland Values and Functions to Fish and Wildlife Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d) requires G.L. Homes to provide reasonable assurances that the Project will not adversely impact the value and functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands. Rule 40E-4.301(3) requires an applicant to comply with the District’s mitigation provisions in the BOR. As found, Petitioner’s contention that the revised SWMS affected the values and functions provided to fish and wildlife, particularly the wood stork, was not supported by the weight of the evidence as to onsite mitigation. However, the passage of time and market conditions affected the offsite mitigation proposed and presumably evaluated for the 2004 ERP, and the impacts and mitigation were not re-evaluated for the 2006 ERP. Under Rule 40E-4.331(2), they must be re-evaluated using UMAM, as required by Rule 62-345.100. Public Interest Test The public interest test is limited in scope to only the seven factors set forth in Rule 40E-4.302(2). As found above, after a balancing of the factors, reasonable assurance was not provided that the Project is not contrary to the Public Interest.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the proposed 2006 ERP be denied. If it is granted, it should include the additions/clarifications to the USMP suggested by Dr. Harper and accepted by G.L. Homes. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 2007.
The Issue Respondent Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. (JSI) filed a permit application with the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, (DER), for permission to conduct maintenance dredging in a basin associated with its shipyard operation. This permit application was made in accordance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. In the face of DER's statement of intent to grant this permit, George H. Hodges, Jr., (Petitioner), has petitioned in protest. Therefore, the issues to be considered in this dispute concern the entitlement of JSI to the grant of an environmental permit for maintenance dredging of its shipyard basin.
Findings Of Fact DER is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the environmental protection of waters within Florida. Its authority includes regulatory powers announced in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. Certain activities involving state waters require permission from DER before they be lawfully undertaken. Among those activities are dredge projects such as contemplated by JSI in its pending request to be allowed to maintenance dredge as much as 66,000 cubic yards of material per year from its shipyard basin located in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. This is an undertaking which is envisioned by Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, related to the permit responsibility of DER. It is specifically addressed by Rule 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code, in which is found the statement of permit requirements for dredge and fill activities. JSI, the applicant, operates a facility known as Bellinger Shipyard, which is engaged in the repair and maintenance of commercial and naval vessels. This enterprise includes the drydocking of vessels upon which repairs are effected, through the use of several drydock chambers in shipyard basin. In the course of the maintenance, a technique known as "gritblasting" is employed. The purpose of this "gritblasting" is to clean the ships in anticipation of repainting. On occasion the "gritblasting" would remove all coats of paint down to the metal finish of the ship. The paints being removed contain antifouling and anticorrosive materials. Those materials have, among other properties, the ability to repel marine organisms, causing their mortality. The "gritblasting" process utilizes a material known as "black beauty." This is a waste product from firing power plant boilers and it contains iron, silica, aluminum, titanium, magnesium, lime, penta oxide (P2O5), sodium oxide, sulfur trioxide and potassium oxide. The "black beauty" is applied through the use of a pressurized system which forces the material onto the treated surface under pressure of 70 to 85 pounds per square inch. After the preparation is made, vessels under repair are repainted, and similar paint with antifouling and anticorrosive properties is reapplied. During the "gritblasting" process, dust is generated and a portion of that material finds its way into the water within the basin. Other particles being removed drop to the deck surface of the drydock. When paint is reapplied to the surface of a vessel undergoing repair, it is given the opportunity to dry and the vessel is then refloated and removed from the drydock. To do this, the drydock itself is submerged. When the vessel has exited the drydock facility, the drydock resurfaces and is allowed to dry out. The material which has been removed from the surface of the repaired vessel is then shoveled into containers and transported to an offsite sanitary landfill for disposal. This material removed includes the "gritblasting" compound and paint which has been stripped from the surface of the vessel. When the drydock is submerged following vessel servicing, the inference can be drawn that a certain amount of the materials on the drydock deck surface will be introduced into the water within the basic before the drydock is resurfaced. The arrangement for refloating the vessel is the reverse of the technique employed in lifting the vessel out of the water for maintenance. When the vessel is brought in for service, it is guided into a submerged drydock. Water is then pumped out of the hollow drydock walls and deck to raise the vessel out of the water, allowing access to the vessel, which is completely above the water surface, as is the drydock work deck. The basin in which the business activities of JSI take place is located on the western shore of the Intercoastal Waterway. The Waterway and basin are part of an estuarine system, as these water bodies are tidally influenced. The basin and the Intercoastal Waterway constitute Class III waters of Florida. The configuration of the basin is as found in JSI Exhibit 16, an aerial photograph of the site. Moving from east to west within the basin, it is approximately one thousand feet from the Intercoastal Waterway to the back of the basin in its western-most extremity. In the back area of the basin the north- south axis is 250 feet. The interface between the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway on the eastern reach north-south axis is approximately 625 feet. There are no obstructions to the confluence of the Intercoastal Waterway and the eastern side of the repair basin. The southern-most reach of the basin is approximately 350 feet in length running east to west. On the eastern side of the basin there is a pier area which is roughly 360 feet north-south by 60 feet east-west. As described before, the pier is not a solid structure extending to the bottom of the water. Thus, water can be exchanged between the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway beneath the pier. JSI had acquired the Bellinger Shipyard in 1974. At that time environmental permits had been issued allowing for the maintenance dredging of the basin. These permits were valid through 1975. In 1975, JSI obtained a dredge and fill permit from the Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, as well as a dredge and fill permit from the United States Corps of Engineers. These permits were for a ten-year period. They allowed maintenance dredging in the amount of 66,000 cubic yards per annum and for the disposal of the dredged material in an EPA-approved offshore site. In 1980 DER confirmed the dredge and fill permit that had been obtained from the Florida Board of Trustees. This permit by DER required JSI to conduct monitoring of turbidity during dredging, but did not require employment of turbidity screens. In 1979 the Army Corps had required JSI to conduct bioassay analysis in furtherance of the federal dredge and fill permit. In the face of the results obtained in that bioassay analysis, the Army Corps continued the dredge and fill permit to JSI dating from August 14, 1980. A subsequent extension of the federal permit was given through August 14, 1986. Contemporaneous with the present permit application before DER, JSI has requested further permission from the Army Corps related to the ability to excavate as much as 66,000 cubic yards of material on an annual basis. JSI has not been cited by any regulatory agency related to water quality violations associated with its dredging activity. The present DER permit application is for renewal of the 1980 Permit No. 16-21380 and is being processed under the DER File No. 161071139. This application for permit renewal was submitted on July 16, 1985. The application requests permission to maintenance dredge for a period of ten years. If granted, it is the intention of the applicant to use a closed clam shell bucket to excavate the material in the basin. This choice is in furtherance of the suggestion of DER and is a departure from the applicant's initial intention to use an open bucket to excavate. JSI also intends to employ turbidity curtains during the dredge activities. The applicant intends to transport the dredged material to the aforementioned EPA disposal site which is at sea. In doing so, a hopper barge is propelled by a towing vessel. Both the barge and towing vessel are inspected and certified by the United States Coast Guard. The crews involved in the transport of the material are qualified and licensed. In the past, transport of the material has been done under fair weather and smooth sea conditions, and it is intended that the transportation be done in that same setting if the permit is granted. The barge would not be loaded fully, thereby minimizing spillage. This was the arrangement in the past. The United States Coast Guard will be apprised of the departure time of the voyage in transport of the material, certain activities within that transport and upon return. The hopper barge has a bottom dump which is closed during transport and is opened at the bottom in disposing the dredge material. After satisfying DER about its proposal, JSI was informed that DER intended to grant the dredge permit requested. When Petitioner, George H. Hodges, Jr., the owner of real property adjacent to the site of the project, learned of the stated intention to grant the maintenance dredging permit, he offered a timely petition in opposition to the proposed agency action. This property of Petitioner is in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. It is located north of the JSI property at issue. Petitioner's real property is connected to the Intercoastal Waterway. Petitioner has filed this action in opposition to the grant of the permit upon the expressed belief that the dredging activity will cause pollution at his property. In particular, it is JSI's intention at various times in the calendar year to do maintenance dredging in the entire basin. In addition to using a closed clam shell bucket, a system of turbidity barriers or curtains will be employed in segmented dredge areas. Those several locations within the basin which are cordoned off with the turbidity curtains are as depicted in JSI's Exhibit 9 admitted into evidence. The design maintenance depths for the dredging project are set forth in JSI's Exhibit 4 admitted into evidence. They vary from -17 to -37.5 feet, with the greatest depth being contemplated under drydock number 1 in the northwestern corner of the basin. Near the Intercoastal Waterways the depth sought is -17 feet, transitioning to -21.5 feet moving toward the back of the basin at the western extreme and outside of the area dredged beneath drydock number 1. The depths sought under drydock numbers 2 and 3 are -26.5 feet and -20 feet respectively. These desired elevations correspond to conditions at mean low water. The tidal range in the Intercoastal Waterway adjacent to the basin, which would promote an influence in the basin proper, is in the neighborhood of 4-foot intervals, with two tidal cycles a day. This would mean, as example, that at the high tide range, the shallowest design depths for dredging of -17 feet become -21 feet in the transition from mean low water to mean high water. Those 4-foot variations would pertain to the other design depths contemplated in the dredging as described in the preceding paragraph as well. The turbidity barriers contemplated for use will extend from the surface through the water column to depths near the bottom. See JSI Exhibits 4 and 9. It is desirable, according to Dr. Gregory Powell, witness for JSI, a reliable expert in describing the effectiveness and use of turbidity curtains, to have those curtains extend to an area just above the bottom. Dr. Powell's education includes a Masters Degree in coastal and oceanographic engineering and a Ph.D. Degree in engineering mechanics, with emphasis on coastal and oceanographic engineering. In consideration of his remarks, under the influence of high tide there could be as much as a 4 foot gap between the curtain and the bottom. Powell and other experts who offered testimony agreed that turbidity screens can have effectiveness in areas of low current velocity, assuming the proper installation, maintenance and extension to a location near the bottom of the water body. If mismanaged, turbidity screens are not effective in controlling turbidity. Moreover, they are less effective in areas where significant current velocities are experienced. This would include the circumstance in which a foot and a half or more per second of flow was being experienced, according to Dr. Powell, whose opinion is accepted on this point. He also indicated that the quiescent areas in the basin, toward the back of the basin or western dimension of the basin, would show a flow regime in a rate of one centimeter per second. This expression is credited. Although, as described by Dr. Powell, the currents in the Intercoastal Waterway are moving at a rate approximating nine feet per second on ebb time at the bridge located on the Intercoastal Waterway to the south of the project site, these current velocities are not expected in the area where the dredging is occurring. Dr. Powell is correct in this assessment. As he describes, and in acceptance of that testimony, eddies from the current from the Intercoastal Waterway at peak flood tide could come into the basin and temporarily show velocities of one foot per second; however, these velocities are within the acceptable range of performance of the turbidity barrier. Dr. Powell's conclusion that wind would have no significant effect on the current velocity, given the depth of this basin, is also accepted. The remaining flow regime in the basin is not found to be a detriment to the function of the turbidity barriers. The use of turbidity curtains in this project is not found to be a "placebo" to placate DER as suggested by Erik J. Olson, engineering expert who testified in behalf of the Petitioner The monitoring that is intended in the course of the dredging activities would call for examination of background turbidity levels at three sites in the Intercoastal Waterway prior to commencing of dredging and twice daily at each of these sites during dredging. Should a violation of state water quality standards for turbidity be detected, dredging will cease until the problem with turbidity can be rectified. To provide ongoing assurances of compliance with water quality standards, JSI will analyze the sediment in the basin for the parameters of cadmium, copper, aluminum, lead, mercury, oil and grease every two years. Dr. Powell, expert in engineering and recognized as an expert in the matter of transport of the resuspended sediment associated with the dredging, as well as David Bickner, the project review specialist for DER, believe that the use of the closed clam shell bucket technique and employment of siltation screens or barriers, together with turbidity monitoring, will effectively protect against turbidity violations in the Intercoastal Waterway adjacent to the basin. This opinion is accepted. Bickner brings to his employment a Bachelor of Science degree in biology and a Master of Science degree in ecology. Bickner identified the principal concern of DER related to this project as the possibility of release of resuspended sediments into the Intercoastal Waterway. With the advent of the techniques described in the previous paragraph, only minimal changes in background conditions related to turbidity are expected. Although there would be turbidity violations within the confines of the areas where the dredging occurs, the principal influence of that turbidity will be confined in those regions. This speaks to dredge areas I, 2 and 3. According to Bickner, whose opinion is accepted, the turbidity changes within the dredge areas in relationship to background conditions do not require a mixing zone permit, nor do they constitute a basis for denial of the permit. As alluded to before, and as described by Dr. Powell, the basic nature of the basin in question is one of quiescent conditions with low current velocity. He points out that the layout of the basin is such that it is a sediment trap allowing the deposit of silt, in particular in the deeper sections of the basin near the western side. The greatest influence by resuspension of sediment in the dredging activities can be expected in the back portions of the basin and it is in this area that the silt barrier can be expected to be most efficient, based upon Powell's remarks. Dr. Powell indicated that there is the expectation of increased efficiency in turbidity control when a closed clam shell bucket is used, as opposed to the open style of clam shell bucket. Those efficiencies range from 30 to 70 per cent. There is some risk of increased turbidity near the bottom of the water column in the use of a closed clam shell bucket, and for that reason the applicant should monitor the activities of the operator of the excavation machinery to guard against inordinate disturbance of the area being excavated. On balance, the closed clam shell bucket is a superior technique to the open style of clam shell bucket excavation when those alternatives are compared. As Dr. Powell explained, the segmentation of the dredge area allows the resuspended sediment to be confined in more discrete circumstances and to be controlled. The location of the silt barriers behind the pier structure guard against the effects of eddying. The silt barriers can be properly anchored and will not be unduly influenced by current velocity. Dr. Powell believes that the use of silt barriers, taking into account a low velocity of current in the basin, and the proper deployment of the siltation screen could bring about a reduction of the resuspended solids by 80 to 90 per cent on the outside of the barrier. To calculate the influence or the environmental significance of that remaining 10 to 20 per cent of resuspended solids at the Intercoastal Waterway, Dr. Powell testified that the suspended load behind the silt curtain resulting from the dredging is expected to average from 100 milligrams per liter to a peak amount of 500 milligrams per liter. He believes that, depending on which methods of calculation is used, the dilution factor in the Intercoastal Waterway ranges from 330:1 to 600:1. In using an environmentally conservative assessment, that is 80 per cent effectiveness of the silt curtain with a 330:1 ratio, Powell calculated that the release of resuspended materials into the Intercoastal Waterway would be approximately .3 to 1.5 milligrams per liter. This translates to less than 1 NTU against background conditions. This result would not exceed the 29 NTU limit against background that is described as the standard for turbidity control. Dr. Powell's opinion of turbidity results based upon the dredge activity is accepted. There is exchange of water between the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway and to accommodate this influence, the turbidity curtains would be placed in such a fashion that they would not compete with the ebb and flow of the tide. Dr. Powell's assessment of the circumstance in describing the effectiveness of turbidity barriers takes into account the tidal conditions and the inappropriateness of trying to have the silt curtains prohibit the flow conditions during these tidal changes. In order to promote maximum effectiveness of the turbidity barriers during the entire course of excavation of materials, the length of, the silt screen must be adjusted as desired elevations are approached. Erik J. Olson is an expert in civil engineering with an emphasis on hydraulics and the holder of a Masters Degree in coastal and oceanographic engineering. As alluded to before, he questions the validity of the use of siltation barriers as an effective protection against the implications of turbidity. He properly points out that the curtains will not extend to the region of the interface of the basin and the water column at all times. He describes the exchange of water between the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway, to include the unrestricted sediment transport beneath the turbidity curtain. He believes that wind can cause changes in current velocity as great as .2 foot per second, activities within the basin an additional .3 foot per second, and eddying .3 foot per second. All of these taken together do not exceed the range of effective response of the turbidity barriers. On balance, Olson's criticism of the benefit of turbidity curtains is unconvincing. Arlynn Quinton White, Jr., who holds a Bachelor of Science Degree, a Master of Science Degree in biology and a Ph.D. in matters related to marine biology, offered his testimony in support of Petitioner. He believes that as much as 2 to 3 per cent of the resuspended sediment related to the dredging activities would reach the Intercoastal Waterway under the best of conditions. It is difficult to translate that testimony into a measurement of changes in turbidity levels against ambient conditions in the Intercoastal Waterway. In any event, as already indicated, the changes in turbidity levels are not expected to exceed 29 NTU against background. It is evident that the turbidity curtains are necessary and their proper use must be assured to protect against problems associated with turbidity and the implications of the constituents of the resuspended particulate matter related to possible toxicity. Therefore, the close monitoring suggested in the statement of intent to grant the dredge permit is viable. Another matter associated with the implications of turbidity pertains to the fact that when the dredge material has been resuspended, as much as two days could pass before the basin returns to background conditions, given the high content of silt with its attached metals. This becomes significant given the uncertainty of the location of the dredge equipment during the course of excavation, i.e., inside the barrier or outside the barrier. Final choice about the placement of the dredge equipment will have to be made at the time of the excavation. Should the dredge equipment be inside of the cordoned area while excavation is occurring, it would be necessary to allow turbidity conditions to achieve background levels before opening up the barrier for the exit of the hopper barge which contains the excavated material. Otherwise, the estimates as to the influence of the dredging activities in the Intercoastal Waterway are unduly optimistic. Likewise, if the excavation platform is placed outside of the work site, that is to say, on the outside of the siltation curtain, extreme caution must be used to avoid spillage of the excavated material when being loaded onto the hopper barge. The occasions in which the excavation is being made from this side of the barrier should be minimized. These safeguards are important because any changes in sediment loading within the Intercoastal Waterway promote an influence in the area immediately adjacent to the basin and other sites within the Intercoastal Waterway as well. The subject of the use of a hydraulic dredge as an alternative to excavation by use of a closed clam shell bucket was examined in remarks by the witnesses appearing at hearing. Olson believes that there are hydraulic dredges which can achieve the design depth contemplated by the project and which equipment could fit inside the basin area. This is contrary to the opinion of witnesses for the applicant and DER who do not believe that the hydraulic dredging equipment which would be necessary to achieve the design depths would fit into the basin area. On balance, the record does not establish that such equipment with the appropriate capability and size does exist. More importantly, the proposed method of excavation is environmentally acceptable when examined in the context of the permit sought in this case. Finally, it was not essential for the applicant to make a detailed investigation of availability of hydraulic dredging equipment and it is not determined that failure to make this investigation warrants the denial of the requested permit. Although an hydraulic dredge is more desirable from the standpoint that it causes less turbidity through resuspension of sediments, it is not the only plausible method of excavation in this instance. Raymond D. Schulze testified in behalf of JSI. He holds a Bachelor of Science Degree and a Master of Science Degree in environmental engineering sciences. In particular, he established the fact that the amount of resuspended solids that would be introduced into the Intercoastal Waterway associated with the dredging activity would not result in the smothering of organisms or to clogging of gills of fish. In addition to the possible problems with turbidity, there is the additional issue of violation of water quality standards in the several parameters associated with concentrations of metals in the water column within the basin and in the sediments or related parameters such as dissolved oxygen and biological integrity. Having considered the testimony, the facts do not point to water quality violations for any parameters occurring in the Intercoastal Waterway as a result of the dredging. To arrive at this factual impression, the testimony of Dr. Pollman and Schulze is relied upon. Water quality sampling done by JSI in locations within the basin and in the Intercoastal Waterway, that by Dr. Pollman and Schulze, supports their impression of the acceptability of the dredge activities. This water quality data was admitted as JSI's Exhibit 18. Additionally, the field conditions existing at the time of testing, to include water temperature, weather conditions, tidal cycle, ph and dissolved oxygen were also made known. This water quality data and other information examined by these witnesses points to the fact that no increases in concentrations of metals are occurring within the Intercoastal Waterway as a result of the business activities of the applicant, nor are they to be expected while dredging operations are under way. Dr. Pollman correctly identifies the fact that there will not be significant degradation of water quality, above DER's minimum standards, related to the Intercoastal Waterway based upon the dredging activities within the basin, dealing with the water quality parameters of mercury, zinc, cadmium, chromium, lead, aluminum, iron and copper, substances which are within the basin. Dr. Pollman also examined sediment data collected by DER, and that data tended to confirm his assessment of the influences of the dredging activity related to these parameters. Dr. Pollman does not believe that metal concentrations contained in the sediment of the basin are leaching into the water column in quantities sufficient to cause violation of water quality standards. His opinion is accepted. Pollman had collected water quality samples in the two locations where the greatest siltation rate was expected and as a consequence the greatest concentration of metals would be expected. The water quality samples were taken at several depths to reach an opinion as to the matter of leaching of metals into the water column and the possibility of those metals dissolving in the water column. If leaching had been occurring, a concentration of metals expressed as a gradient would be expected. The greatest concentration in this instance would be near the sediment interface with the water column. No such gradation was detected and the idea of leaching was ruled out. Bickner's testimony established that testing for the exact amount of iron present at the dredge site was not required, given the nature of the iron source being introduced into the water within the basin. Bickner did not find that type of iron to be toxic. As stated before, Pollman agrees that no violation of state water quality standards as a result of the presence of iron associated with the maintenance dredging should be expected. There is some data which shows water quality violation for mercury in the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway. Subsequent water samples collected by Schulze in the westerly portion of the basis did not show detectable levels of mercury. Moreover, data taken by Pollman and Schulze and compared with the DER sediment data shows that the concentration levels of mercury are greater in the Intercoastal Waterway than in the basin, thereby suggesting that there is no concentration gradient for mercury which would lead to the belief that the basin contributes to the amount of mercury found in the Intercoastal Waterway, nor is the mercury believed to be leaching into the water column in the basin. The explanation of the differences in measurements of the amount of mercury in the basin, depending upon the point in time at which analysis was made, may be attributable to a natural phenomenon, given numerous sources of mercury within the environment. Whatever the explanation of these changes, Dr. Pollman does not believe that the release of mercury associated with the resuspended sediments that may find their way into the Intercoastal Waterway would show a violation of the state water quality standard for mercury in that water body and his opinion is credited. Data collected by Pollman and Schulze did not show water quality violations for aluminum and the DER test data described before indicated aluminum levels lower in the basin than in the Intercoastal Waterway. Some data collected by Technical Services, Inc., an environmental consulting firm in Jacksonville, Florida, which was reviewed by Pollman, Schulze, and Bickner showed a substantial violation of the water quality standard related to aluminum in sediment sampling that was done. The origin of that amount of aluminum found on that occasion was not clear. It is possible, as described by Bickner, Pollman and Schulze, that the level detected In the Technical Service report could have occurred based upon natural phenomena such as storm water runoff from uplands. Bickner also questioned the findings of Technical Service and felt like the determination might be influenced by some intervening circumstance which would promote the need for re-analyzing that parameter. Whatever the explanation of the findings in the Technical Service report, it does not point to any water quality violation of the standard related to aluminum based upon the dredging activities, given the limited amount of total suspended solids that would be introduced into the Intercoastal Waterway. Schulze, in his assessment of the implications of metal concentrations in the sediment transported to the Intercoastal Waterway, did not find them to cause concern about toxicity to marine life in the Intercoastal Waterway. This point of view is accepted. In trying to understand the implications of metal concentrations, Schulze believed that the biologically available fractions of those metals in the sediment is not very high, and when the dilution of the sediments which occurs in these circumstances is examined, no toxicity is expected. Moreover, as Dr. Pollman described related to the parameter aluminum, it is not a toxic material at the ph levels found in the basin, and the resuspension during dredging will not cause it to gain toxicity. This opinion of Dr. Pollman is supported by Bickner and Schulze. The opinion of Dr. White that the amount of aluminum, copper and zinc within the sediment found in the basin would eventuate in the violation of water quality standards for those parameters when introduced into the Intercoastal Waterway is rejected. The information available to Pollman, Schulze and Bickner which describes their opinion about water quality standards was sufficient to reach an opinion, the position of Petitioner's witness Sanford Young, holder of a Bachelor of Science Degree in civil engineering and a Master of Science Degree in zoology notwithstanding. As Bickner indicated in his testimony, it is essential that an applicant give reasonable assurances of compliance with all parameters listed in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, dealing with water quality. However, this does not mean that testing must be done for each parameter set forth in that chapter. Reasonable assurance has been given that water quality parameters as identified in that chapter will not be violated. Bickner indicates the biological integrity standard is not one of concern in that given the nature of business operations within the basin, there is no expectation of a stable benthic community which might be disturbed by dredging. From the remarks of Schulze, there is no prospect of danger to benthic communities within the Intercoastal Waterway. These impressions by Bickner and Schulze are accepted. Under the facts of the case, the failure of the DER permit appraisers to discover benthic organisms in the sample grabbed at the site is not unexpected. There is also some question about whether that sample is representative of the circumstance at the site, given the limited sampling. On the topic of normalization of the DER data which was described in the course of the hearing and is identified by Dr. Pollman, the value of that information is seen as establishing the relative quantities of certain metals within the basin as compared with other sites throughout the Intercoastal Waterway. Twenty-one different locations were involved in this analysis. Concentration ratios using aluminum to normalize the data are as reflected in JSI's Exhibit 17 admitted into evidence. The significance of this information as it grossly describes whether the basin routinely contributes to increases in the amounts of these metals within the Intercoastal Waterway. Overall, basin activities are not shown to have promoted such an outcome. This normalization comparison does not address the issue of site specific water quality violations; however, no such violations are expected associated with the dredging activities within the basin as it relates to violations in the adjacent Intercoastal Waterway. Schulze had made sampling related to dissolved oxygen within the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway. As Schulze describes, the levels of dissolved oxygen seem to be at their lowest point just prior to the dawn hours. Sampling which he did was done at 5:00 a.m. in order to obtain the lowest dissolved oxygen readings. Three sites were sampled within the basin and an additional site was sampled in the Intercoastal Waterway. Readings were taken at varying depths at each site to gain an impression of the overall water column. The mean reading for the circumstance was in excess of the required range for state water quality, that is 4.0 per million. Having considered the evidence, no problems with dissolved oxygen are expected in that deficit contribution is in the range of .1 milligram per liter, per Pollman. In addition, Dr. Powell, through modeling, examined the implications of long-term dredging activities on the topic of dissolved oxygen. He employed field data gathered by Schulze in this assessment. This modeling established that decreases in dissolved oxygen levels would range from .1 to .15 milligrams per liter. Given the average of 4.5 parts per million oxygen in the basin at present, the incremental decreases in dissolved oxygen levels related to the dredging would not pose a problems with state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen other than short-term effects in the immediate vicinity of the dredge area, which is an acceptable deviation. As the Petitioner urges in its fact proposal, a 1983 report of Technical Services, Inc., JSI Exhibit 4, and a 1985 report of that firm, JSI Exhibit 7, were made available as part of the application. Officials within Technical Services, Inc. did not appear at the hearing and offer testimony related to the specific findings found in those reports. This information was used by the experts who did testify on behalf of the applicant, in particular Dr. Pollman, as data to question, his assumptions made about the implications of the project in terms of water quality concerns. Pollman also utilized DER data taken from a source known as Storette, and this pertains to the 21 sampling stations involved in the preparation of JSI Exhibit 17, the graphing document related to concentrations of various metals. Again, this was in furtherance of the basic underlying opinion which Pollman had about the project. The Storette data as such was not offered into evidence. Witnesses for the Petitioner, namely Olson and White, were aware of the two reports of Technical Services, Inc. and the use of the DER Storette data and offered their criticism of the project taking into account this information. Petitioner points out that there is no indication as to how far below the sediment/water interface the Technical Services, Inc., and DER sediment samples related to reports of the consultant and the Storette information of DER were extracted. Therefore, it only reflected one portion of the sediment at a depth of extraction. A more complete understanding of the sediment characteristics would have been shown through a core sample, especially in the area to be dredged, but that understanding was not essential. The suggestion by the Petitioner that it was inappropriate to normalize data for purposes of describing the relative concentrations of the metals parameters is not accepted. The preparation of JSI's Exhibit 17 does not point to abnormally high amounts of aluminum, such that the use of aluminum as a known commodity in carrying out the normalization would be contraindicated. As identified by the petitioner in its proposal, sediment sizes within the strata found in the basin depicts higher percentage of silt and clay-size sediments in the back end of the basin with lesser amounts of the silt- and clay-size sediments in the southern reach of the basin and at the intersection of the basin with the Intercoastal Waterway. The smaller the particles, such as silt and clay, will remain suspended for a longer period of time and have a tendency to promote bonding with heavy metal. Nonetheless, this information does not change the impression that the turbidity barriers will be effective. The 1983 Technical Services, Inc., information related to the settling of resuspended sediment and similar information imparted in the 1985 report by that organization tend to confirm that approximately two days should be necessary to allow the area of excavation to return to background conditions related to turbidity. This is in corroboration of remarks by Dr. Powell. These time projections are not found to be inadequate when taking into account other factors such as tidal changes, boat traffic, other activities within the basin, wind and weather events. As White described, the antifouling properties of the paint involved in the business activity of the applicant can be expected to adversely impact any larval forms of marine organisms when introduced into the basin. Nonetheless, this toxicity is not expected to pose a danger to marine organisms in the Intercoastal Waterway given the percentage of resuspended sediment that will escape capture by the sediment barriers and the dilution factor before introduction of those resuspended sediments into the Intercoastal Waterway. Petitioner questions the acceptability of evidence of the findings set forth by E G & G Bionomics, a firm which performed an examination to determine existing diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates. Those results are reported in Petitioner's Exhibit 13, a 1980 report. They were not accepted as evidence of the specific findings within that report in that they were not the subject of discussion by persons who authored that report. The use was limited to corroboration of the opinion by Dr. Pollman and Schulze as to water quality considerations and they were not Crucial to their opinions. Moreover, it was not necessary for the applicant to perform a more recent bioassay in order to give reasonable assurance to DER concerning water quality matters or to establish the implications of the influence of contaminants within the sediment found in the basin related to benthic macroinvertebrates. The biological integrity of the basin area was at risk prior to the proposal for maintenance dredging. The relevant inquiry is the influence of the dredging activities on the biological integrity in the Intercoastal Waterway and those activities do not place organisms within the Intercoastal Waterway in peril. Any synergistic aspects of metals which act as toxins, for example, the increase in the aggregate value of the toxicity of zinc and cadmium, compared to their individual implications as toxins, will not present problems with water quality in the Intercoastal Waterway. Petitioner takes issue with the proposed disposition of the dredge material at an ocean site. While an appropriate upland disposal site would be preferred, it is not mandated. The approved EPA disposal site within federal jurisdiction is acceptable. Petitioner in its fact proposals found at paragraphs 36-39 (incorporated by this reference) points out violations of water quality standards for cadmium, mercury, and aluminum, and other possible violations of the standard for mercury. This information does not cause a change of opinion about the acceptability of the project in terms of reasonable assurances. There is no indication that oils and greases will present a problem related to water quality standards. The project is not contrary to public interest in that: (a) the project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare or the property of others; (b) the project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitat; (c) the project will not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion of shoaling; (d) the project will not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; (e) the project will be of a temporary nature; (f) the project will not adversely affect significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; (g) the project is in no other way contrary to the public interest. The purpose of this fact finding does not include the issue of whether there are ongoing violations of state water quality standards associated with the business activity of the applicant, that not being the subject of the hearing. In any event, the testimony of Dr. Pollman established that the operations of JSI are not causing water quality problems associated with the parameters of cadmium, copper, aluminum, mercury, lead, chromium, tin, zinc or iron related to the Intercoastal Waterway. The influences of the business activities associated with those parameters within the basin are not understood when the evidence presented is examined but are not found to be essential to the resolution of this dispute.
Recommendation Having considered the facts, and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That DER issue a final order which grants the requested maintenance dredging permit in keeping with the safeguards described in the fact finding of this recommended order. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of October 1986 at Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-0365 Having examined the proposed facts submitted by the parties, those proposals have been found as fact with the exception of the following which are distinguished: Petitioner's facts Paragraph 1: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 2: The first sentence in this paragraph is rejected because the fact is not found within the indicated exhibits, nor can that fact be fairly inferred. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15: Except for the last sentence in that latter paragraph are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 15: The last sentence: Contrary to facts found. Paragraph 18: The last sentence: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 27: Contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 28, 29, 30 and 31: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 32: Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraphs 33 and 34: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 35: Contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 40, 41 and 42: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraphs 44, 45: Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 47: The first two sentences are information that is not sufficiently credible to allow application to the issues of the present case. Paragraphs 48, 49, 50 and 51: Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 52: Reject as fact. Paragraph 54: Contrary to facts found. Paragraph 55: Not necessary to dispute resolution. JSI and DER facts Paragraph 2: Pertaining to sentence 8 and the last phrase within sentence 11; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 3: As to the first sentence, fourth sentence and seventh sentence; Not necessary to fact resolution. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 to the colon in paragraph 6: Not necessary to dispute resolution. The remaining portions of paragraph 6 are subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 10: as to the last two sentences; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 13: As to the next to the last sentence; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 14: As to the fourth sentence and the last sentence; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraphs 16, 17, 18 and 20: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 21: Sentence 3 is subordinate to fact finding sentence 4 is not necessary to dispute resolution; sentences 5 and 6 are subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 22: Next to the last sentence; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraphs 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38 and 41: Subordinate to fact finding, except the comments in the last sentence of paragraph 41 related to the operations of JSI causing or contributing elevated concentrations of parameters within the basin which is not found as fact. Paragraphs 42, 43 and 44: Subordinate to fact finding. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Chris Bryant, Esquire OERTEL AND HOFFMAN, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Thomas M. Baumer, Esquire Deborah Barton, Esq. GALLAGHER, BAUMER, MIKALS, BRADFORD, CANNON AND WALTER, P.A. 252-5 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Bradford L. Thomas, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
