The Issue The issue is whether to approve an application by Respondent, I.M. Collier, J.V. (Collier), to modify its Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 11-02031P (2002 Permit) by changing the surface water management system (SWMS) for a proposed residential and golf course development in Collier County (County), Florida, known as Mirasol.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties National Audubon Society, Inc. is a not-for-profit corporation (incorporated outside the State of Florida) while Collier County Audubon Society, Inc., Florida Wildlife Federation, and Conservancy of Southwest Florida are Florida not-for-profit corporations. All are environmental organizations. Franklin Adams is a resident of the County and a member of each of the above organizations. Respondents have not contested Petitioners' standing based upon the stipulated facts set forth in the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation. The District is a water management district with the power and duty to exercise regulatory jurisdiction over the administration and enforcement of ERP criteria pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Title 40E. Collier is the holder of the 2002 Permit authorizing the construction of a SWMS to serve the Mirasol project, a large development located in the County. The parties have stipulated that Collier has the administrative, legal, and financial capabilities to undertake the proposed activity. Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.301(1)(j). The Project Site The Mirasol project consists of approximately 1,713.45 acres located on the north side of Immokalee Road and the Cocohatchee Canal (Canal) in the northern half of the County, approximately three miles east of the intersection with Interstate 75. The property spans three sections of land, the northern third of the property encompassing Section 10, the middle third encompassing Section 15, and the southern third encompassing most of Section 22. The site also includes a peninsula of land extending east of Section 10, encompassing the northernmost quarter of Section 11. The site is bounded on the south by the Canal and Immokalee Road and on the east by an existing residential development known as Heritage Bay, which was previously a rock- mining quarry. To the west of the site, running north to south, are two other proposed residential developments known as Parklands Collier and Terafina/Saturnia Falls and an existing residential and golf course community known as Olde Cypress. There are other existing and proposed residential developments and farm fields to the north of the site. The site is located southwest of the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary (Corkscrew Swamp), which is owned by the National Audubon Society, Inc., and appears to stretch from Immokalee (in the northeastern part of the County) south and southwestward through parts of the County. Corkscrew Swamp sits roughly at the center of a 315-mile watershed, much of which is comprised of short hydroperiod wetlands which dry down completely during the late winter and spring and become inundated again in the late summer and fall during the wet season. This water gradually sheet flows down a very slight downhill gradient toward the south and west. A portion of the sheet flow travels southwest in the vicinity of the site. The region has experienced occasional floods, the most severe of which occurred in 1995. At the direction of the District, the cause of the flooding was investigated in the South Lee County Watershed Study (Study), which concluded that the watershed discharges through a variety of outfalls, but that historic connections to downstream conveyances like the Canal were severed by the construction. While downstream conveyances exist, the Study concluded that connections between upstream flows and downstream conveyances should be enhanced or restored. In the late 1990s, the Canal was improved to increase its conveyance capacity. A berm was constructed by the Big Cypress Basin Board (Basin Board), a legislatively-created entity which manages water resources in the County, on the northern bank in the vicinity of, and across from, the Mirasol site. This berm prevented historic wet season sheet flow from reaching the Canal through the project site, except for a few culverts located along that water body. The Basin Board also built a 1,000-foot-long hardened concrete weir on the north side of the Canal a few thousand yards west of the project site. This weir provides the primary outlet for sheet flow in and around the Mirasol site. Currently, upstream drainage flows in a southwesterly direction across Section 10. As the water moves south to the Canal, the flow becomes constricted down to a 580-foot wide gap between the Olde Cypress residential development and commercial developments along Immokalee Road to the east. This constricted area further narrows to a 270-foot wide opening before the sheet flow reaches the 1,000-foot weir and discharges into the Canal. During a 3-day, 25-year storm event, a combined peak flow of 553 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water is discharged into the Canal through the 1,000-foot weir, but the Mirasol property only conveys a small portion of this water (around 20 cfs) through culverts in the Canal berm. Most of the water flows to the west of Mirasol where it passes through the narrow gap and over the 1,000-foot weir. Around 1,431 acres of the 1,714-acre site are jurisdictional wetlands. However, these wetlands are in poor condition due to existing impediments to sheet flow, artificially high water levels during the wet season, and heavy infestation of exotic species, principally melaleuca. Permit History In February 2002, the District issued the 2002 Permit approving the construction of a SWMS to serve two 18-hole golf courses, a single-family residential community, a golf course clubhouse and parking area, golf course maintenance facilities, sales facility, and parking area. The issuance of the 2002 Permit was not challenged. The SWMS included a 36.5-acre flow-way (Flow-Way) that encircled the northern boundary of the development in Section 15 and extended off-site and across adjacent properties to the west. (If constructed, the Flow-Way would be a 200-foot wide, 4-foot deep, 89-acre channel, more than half of which would have been located on the Saturnia Falls/Terafina and Olde Cypress properties.) Besides providing a conveyance function for the Mirasol site, the Flow-Way also enhanced flood protection for other properties by accelerating conveyance of floodwaters to the Canal and reducing peak flood stages by 0.4 feet during a three-day, 25-year storm event. The District included Special Condition 26 in the 2002 Permit, which required construction of the Flow-Way before the remainder of the project could be constructed. The 2002 Permit authorized Collier to directly impact (fill or excavate) 568.66 acres of wetlands within the footprint of the development. Additionally, 39.5 acres of wetlands, which were isolated remnant strips along the golf courses within the development, were considered secondarily impacted and assessed a thirty-three percent reduction in functional value. Mitigation for the project consisted of preservation and enhancement of wetlands and uplands on site. Enhancement of the preserve areas was primarily credited to the eradication of malaleuca and other exotic species and replanting with appropriate native vegetation. Permit conditions required management of the preserve areas to prevent a recurrence of exotic species. The preserve areas included an 846.95-acre external preserve area to the north and northeast of the area to be developed. It was anticipated that this northern preserve area would ultimately be donated to an existing mitigation area known as the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed, along with an interest-bearing fund to ensure perpetual management. In December 2005, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) denied Collier's federal wetlands permit application for the project and the Flow-Way. Because of this denial, in May 2006 Collier submitted an ERP application with the District seeking to modify the 2002 Permit by revising the SWMS and removing the Flow-Way. On October 12, 2006, the District Governing Board approved a modification to the 2002 Permit, which authorized an alternate SWMS to serve the golf course and residential development (2006 Permit). Petitioners' challenge to the proposed modification followed. The 2006 Modification Because of the Corps' denial of its application, Collier was required to remove the Flow-Way and redesign the project's SWMS. The most substantial change in the project was the removal of the Flow-Way and associated control structures and its replacement with a series of interconnected lakes running from north to south through the property allowing for the pass-through of surface waters from the area north of the development site into the Canal. The modification does not alter the boundaries and location of the development. However, the revised SWMS includes: five controlled basins with a total area of 718.43 acres, each of which provides treatment of stormwater prior to discharging into the pass-through system; 45.16 acres of interconnected lakes serving as a pass-through for surface waters from the north; 2.12 acres of perimeter berm backslope/ buffers/spreader swales; and 7.27 acres along the Canal for the existing 100-foot wide canal easement and proposed canal contouring. These changes also required elimination of the 39.5 acres of remnant wetlands inside the development that had previously been assessed as secondarily impacted. Also, there were 0.68 acres of additional impacts resulting from slight changes in the internal site design due to the SWMS. To partially offset these impacts, the internal wetland preserves were enlarged by 13.32 acres. The remaining impacts were mitigated with mitigation credits from the Panther Island Mitigation Bank (PIMB). (The PIMB holds a mitigation bank permit issued by the District for a wetland restoration project in Southwest Florida.) The main preserve was left unchanged, except that 36.5 acres previously dedicated to construction of the Flow-Way will be added to the main preserve and similarly enhanced and preserved. In summary, as modified under the 2006 Permit, the total onsite mitigation consists of the preservation and enhancement of 830.89 acres of wetlands, preservation of 109.58 acres of uplands, and the purchase of a total of 5.68 credits from the PIMB. At hearing, Collier also agreed to purchase from the PIMB an additional 5.68 credits within the Basin for a total of 11.36 credits. The ERP Permitting Criteria To obtain an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions in Florida Administrative Code Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. The first rule focuses primarily on water quantity, environmental impacts, and water quality, while the second rule generally requires that a public interest balancing test be made, that cumulative impacts, if any, be considered, and that the District consider past violations, if any, by the applicant of District or Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) rules. (The parties have cited no prior violations by the applicant that should be considered.) Besides these two rules, a number of BOR provisions which implement the rule criteria must also be taken into account. If an applicant proposes to modify an existing ERP, as it does here, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.331(2)(a) comes into play and requires that the District review the application to modify the ERP "using the same criteria as new applications for those portions of the project proposed for, or affected by, the modification." Under this rule, those portions of the project altered or affected by the modification are reviewed under the current ERP criteria, but otherwise the 2002 Permit is not the subject of review in this case. Therefore, the District's review includes only that portion of the existing permit that is proposed to be modified or affected by the modification. In this case, the 2006 design is very similar to the 2002 design, and the project's footprint, control elevations, roadway network, southern outfall, and main preserve are unchanged. However, as pointed out below, since most of the engineering-related components of the SWMS were affected by the Flow-Way's removal, the District reassessed the hydrologic components of the internal water management system and the pass- through lake system for levels of flood protection and water quality treatment. Because most of the engineering-related components of the SWMS for the project were modified as a result of the removal of the Flow-Way, the District staff reassessed the project's hydrologic calculations associated with levels of flood protection and reassessed the project's water quality treatment volumes applying the currently existing ERP criteria. As to wetland impacts and mitigation, review of the wetland impacts for the 2006 Permit was limited to an analysis of additional wetlands impacts associated with the modification. This was primarily the elimination of the previously permitted, secondarily impacted wetlands. Thus, only the additional wetlands impacts due to the revised SWMS are considered under the currently existing ERP criteria. The 2006 Permit made only slight changes to the project's wetland impacts and mitigation components authorized under the 2002 Permit. The project's footprint was not changed and the main mitigation area (the Northern Preserve) was unaffected by the changes except that 36.50 acres were actually added to that preserve as a result of the removal of the Flow- Way. Collier did not receive any credit in its mitigation analysis for the additional acreage that will become part of the preserve due to the removal of the Flow-Way. Surface Water Management Criteria As noted above, the ERP criteria in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301 focus primarily on three areas of concern: water quantity, environmental impacts, and water quality. Related BOR provisions must also be considered. These areas of concern are discussed below. Water Quantity Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a) requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurance that the construction of a SWMS "[w]ill not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands." BOR Section 6.2 implements that provision and requires that a project be designed so that it is consistent with the downstream carrying capacity of the receiving waters. In other words, it must not exceed the capacity of downstream receiving waters, which in this case is the Canal. In making this determination, Section 6.3 of the BOR requires that the 25-year, 3-day design storm event be used. Collier complied with this requirement through an extensive hydrologic study conducted by its expert, Richard S. Tomasello, a former District employee. Applying a hydrologic model simulation known as S2DMM, the witness determined the appropriate amount of upstream sheet flow that would need to be routed through the project to avoid adverse water quantity and flooding impacts and calculated the correct dimensions of the intake weir to admit that flow into the project's pass-through system. The S2DMM model is a combination of other accepted models including the Sheet 2d, Massmod, and MBR models, which were developed by Mr. Tomasello, and they have been evaluated and used by the District on numerous occasions. In addition, the S2DMM model has been used for other flood studies in Collier and Lee Counties, and it will be used on a restoration project in Martin County. Based upon Mr. Tomasello's analysis, Collier incorporated a 100-foot-long intake weir with a crest elevation of 14.95 NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum) along the northern boundary of the project to maintain existing upstream water elevations. Collier also complied with BOR Section 6.3, which requires the use of a 25-year, 3-day storm event to be used when computing the discharge rate for the project. The modified intake weir on the northern boundary includes two 3.5-foot wide rectangular notches set at an elevation of 14.00 NGVD, which will provide a "base flow" of up to 20 cfs into the pass-through lakes to mimic the current flow through the property. The determination of this base flow was made through an analysis of the existing culverts at the southern end of the property. While not required by the ERP criteria, Collier also performed a long-term analysis (using a four-year period of record) of the SWMS's effect upon water levels. This analysis demonstrated that the modified system would leave water levels in the wetland areas upstream of the project unchanged during normal rainfall and low-flow periods. This analysis provides additional assurances that the modifications to the SWMS will not affect the Northern Preserve. While Petitioners questioned the accuracy and reliability of the hydrologic study, and its specific application to this project, the criticisms are considered to be vague and unsubstantiated. As noted above, the model has been previously accepted for use in South Florida, and Petitioners' expert conceded he did not have enough information to determine the model's accuracy. The more persuasive evidence established that the hydrologic study submitted by Collier included the relevant available data and was prepared by competent professionals knowledgeable in the field. The claim of Petitioners' experts that they lacked sufficient information to form an opinion on the accuracy of the modeling is not a sufficient basis to overcome the evidence submitted by Collier to meet this criterion. The project's discharge rate in 2006 will not exceed what was permitted in the 2002 Permit. During the 25-year, 3-day storm event, the existing discharge from the project site and the natural area west of the project site into the Canal is 553 cfs. Based on modeling of the modified SWMS, the total discharge from the pass-through system will be 529 cfs, or 24 cfs less than the project's existing pre-development discharge. The discharges resulting from the project as modified in 2006 will not exceed the capacity of the Canal as required by Section 6.3 of the BOR. Accordingly, Collier has provided reasonable assurance that the discharge rate allowed for its project would not be exceeded, as required in Section 6.2 of the BOR. Section 6.8 of the BOR requires that a project allow the passage of drainage from offsite areas to downstream areas, which is necessary to demonstrate that off-site receiving water bodies are not being adversely affected. Collier complied with this provision by conducting the hydrologic analysis using the 25-year, 3-day design storm event, which demonstrated that the discharge rate would be directed to the southern discharge point allowing for the passage of drainage from offsite areas to the downstream areas. The evidence also shows that the current predominant sheetflow from areas outside the project passes through a narrowly constricted area west of the project and discharges into the Canal over an existing concrete weir. See Finding of Fact 9, supra. Only a small portion of the upstream waters currently discharge through the Mirasol site. Petitioners' allegation that the construction of the project will further constrict the sheetflow area is rejected, as the constriction of sheetflow will continue to exist whether the project is built or not. The evidence also shows that the project will not further constrict the flow because it will allow for the pass-through of water from outside the project area. Under the 2002 Permit, the Flow-Way was designed to aid in the diversion of upstream flows around the project. Under the 2006 modifications, the pass-through lake system will convey up to forty percent of the upstream flow through the development which complies with the provisions of Section 6.8 of the BOR. As indicated above, during periods of lower water levels, the notches in the weir along the northern boundary will allow for the flow to pass onto the project site consistent with existing conditions. During major storm events, water will pass over the weir into the pass-through lake system to be conveyed to the Canal. Therefore, Collier has provided reasonable assurance that the criteria in Section 6.8 have been met. Section 6.10 of the BOR requires that the project be designed to conserve water and site environmental values and not lower the water table or groundwater or over-drain wetlands. Section 6.11 of the BOR provides that the control and detention elevations for the project must be established at elevations to accomplish the objectives of Section 6.10. The latter section is adhered to when the control elevations proposed for a project are established consistent with the onsite wetland conditions. In this case, the control elevations for the wetlands and surface water management lakes are essentially the same as the design in the 2002 Permit. Collier has set the control elevations above the average wet season water table (WSWT) for the area, thereby ensuring that the SWMS will not over-drain and will conserve fresh water. Section 6.11 of the BOR addresses Detention and Control Elevations which are intended to assist in complying with the provisions of Section 6.10. The SWMS design control elevation maintains the detention component and the control (wetland protection) elevations in the previously approved SWMS. The control elevations were set by the design engineers in consultation with Collier's wetland ecologist taking into account the ground elevations and biological indicators. The control elevation for the pass-through system and internal drainage basins work in conjunction with the control elevation along the northern boundary of the project and the control elevation for the discharge point along the southern boundary to ensure that the project does not overdrain the wetlands and to preserve the project site's environmental values. By setting the control elevation above the WSWT, the design ensures that the wetlands will not be drawn down below the average WSWT and the SWMS will not over-drain them. Section 6.10 also requires that a project not lower water tables so that the existing rights of others would be adversely affected. Again, based on the control elevations, the water table is not expected to be lowered so there should be no effect on the existing rights of others. Collier must further demonstrate that the site's groundwater recharge characteristics will be preserved through the design of the SWMS. Collier complied with this requirement by setting the control elevations above the average WSWT, allowing standing water in the wetland preserves to recharge the groundwater. The ability of the SWMS to accept flows from the Northern Preserve conserves freshwater by preventing that water from being discharged downstream. The SWMS leaves water elevations in the Northern Preserve unchanged. Consequently, water will remain in the wetlands for the same duration and elevations as in the existing conditions, thereby preserving groundwater recharge characteristics. Section 6.12 of the BOR prohibits lake designs that create an adverse gradient between the control elevations of the lakes and the adjacent wetlands. To satisfy this requirement, Collier set all control elevations at 13.4 - 13.5 NGVD while controlling the internal wetland preserves at a slightly higher elevation. Consequently, there is no adverse gradient and no potential for an adverse effect upon the internal preserves from adjacent lakes. Petitioners argued that the pass-through system would quickly lower water levels in the internal wetland preserves. However, the internal wetlands are still protected from drawdown because there are control structures set at or above the wet season elevation between the pass-through lakes and internal wetlands. They also argued that the internal wetlands would be overdrained during the dry season by the deep lakes. However, no witness presented any real analysis to back up this contention. Indeed, the pass-through lakes are only twelve feet deep, and the wetlands are separated from all the lakes by protective berms to avoid any drawdown. In summary, Collier has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed modification in the 2006 Permit will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters or adjacent lands and will not exceed the capacity of the downstream receiving waters (the Canal). Flooding Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(b) requires Collier to demonstrate that the project "[w]ill not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property." BOR Section 6.4 sets forth criteria and standards for implementing this requirement and provides that building floors be designed to be protected from a 100-year, 3-day storm event. BOR Section 6.5 provides criteria and standards for flood protection for the project's roads and parking lots. Collier complied with these provisions by providing construction plans demonstrating that the building floors and roads will be built higher than the 100-year, 3-day storm event. BOR Section 6.6 provides that a project may not result in any net encroachment into the 100-year floodplain. Collier was also required to comply with the historic basin provision in Section 6.7 of the BOR, which requires the project to replace or otherwise mitigate the loss of historic basin storage provided by the site. The level of encroachment into the 100-year flood plain and loss of historic basin storage attributed to the project are essentially unchanged from the 2002 design. The only difference between the 2002 Permit and the 2006 Permit is how the conveyance of flood water is provided. In 2002, the Flow-Way served this function, while the pass-through system provides it in the 2006 Permit. Collier's flood simulations demonstrated that the project will not alter flood stages during the 25-year and 100- year design storms, while the testimony of witnesses Tomasello and Waterhouse established that the project will not have adverse flooding impacts on adjacent properties, either alone or in conjunction with neighboring developments. Storage and Conveyance Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c) requires that an applicant demonstrate that the proposed development "[w]ill not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities." This criterion is closely related to paragraph (1)(b) of the same rule, which prohibits adverse flooding to onsite or offsite property. Section 6.6 of the BOR implements this provision and specifies the parameters for applying this criterion and prohibits a net encroachment between the WSWT and the 100-year event which will adversely affect the existing rights of others. Collier addressed this criterion through the hydrologic analysis submitted. As previously found, that model is the appropriate model to determine flood stages and to calculate the floodplain. Engineering Design Principles Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the SWMS "[w]ill be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed." Section 7.0 of the BOR contains the specific standards and criteria to implement this rule. The evidence demonstrates that the SWMS is based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles and is capable of performing and functioning as proposed. Section 8.0 of the BOR includes various assumptions and information regarding the design of the SWMS. By incorporating these assumptions into the design, Collier complied with Section 8.0. Water Quality Impacts Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) requires that the proposed modification "[w]ill not adversely affect the quality of the receiving waters such that the water quality standards set forth in Chapters 62-4, 62-302, 62-520, 62-522 and 62-550, F.A.C., including any antidegradation provisions of paragraphs 62-4.242(1)(a) and (b), subsections 62- 4.242(2) and (3), and Rule 62-302.300, F.A.C., and any special standards for Outstanding Florida Waters and Outstanding National Resource Waters set forth in subsections 62-4.242(2) and (3), F.A.C., will be violated." Stated more plainly, the proposed modifications must not adversely affect the quality of the Canal's waters such that State water quality standards will be violated. Section 5.2 of the BOR describes the District's standard water quality criteria. This provision, which requires a minimum of one-inch detention of stormwater, is referred to as a "presumptive criteria" because it is presumed that if an applicant provides the required one inch of detention, it meets Class III water quality standards, thereby satisfying the rule. As it did under the 2002 Permit, Collier satisfies the presumptive criteria with the 2006 design by providing the one- inch wet detention in its lake system. In fact, the system is designed to provide one and a half inches of treatment in the lake system thereby providing additional treatment. The receiving body of water for the project is the Canal. When the 2002 Permit was issued, the Canal was classified as a Class III water body. It is now classified by DEP as impaired for iron and dissolved oxygen. Because of this new classification, Collier must now comply with Section 4.2.4.5 of the BOR, which reads as follows: If the site of the proposed activity currently does not meet water quality standards, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the water quality standards by meeting the provisions in 4.2.4.1, 4.2.4.2, and 4.2.4.3, as applicable, and for the parameters which do not meet water quality standards, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed activity will not contribute to the existing violation. If the proposed activity will contribute to the existing violation, mitigation may be proposed as described in subsection 4.3.1.4. Collier demonstrated that neither short-term (during construction) nor long-term (during operation) water quality impacts will occur. It complied with the short-term requirements by submitting a Construction Pollution Prevention Plan detailing how water quality will be protected during the construction process. As to long-term impacts, the Terrie Bates Water Quality Memorandum (Bates Memo) prepared by District staff on June 11, 2004, provides guidance on the implementation of Section 4.2.4.5 for projects which discharge into an impaired water body. The document sets forth a number of design and operational criteria for the types of additional measures that can be incorporated into a project design to provide the necessary reasonable assurance. The Bates Memo suggests that an additional fifty percent of treatment be incorporated into a SWMS. Collier complied with this suggestion by designing the treatment lakes to provide an additional one-half inch of treatment for the additional fifty percent treatment. In addition to the one and one-half inch treatment, Collier is implementing six of the seven items the Bates Memo lists as potential options to consider. The long-term water quality requirement is addressed by Collier, in part, through an Urban Stormwater Management Plan, which details various source controls or best management practices to be implemented once the project is built and operating. Best management practices assist in ensuring that pollutants will not enter into the lake system. Collier is also implementing a stormwater pollution prevention plan and will utilize the lake system for additional treatment downstream. Collier has further agreed to planting the littoral zones as part of its design of the treatment lakes to provide additional pollutant removal. The design calls for an amount of littoral zones equal to twenty percent of the surface area of the treatment lakes. Collier has agreed to make a Water Quality Monitoring Plan a permit condition, even though such a condition was not included in the staff report. See Collier Exhibit 25. The Bates Memo includes as an option for meeting the long-term requirement a site-specific water quality evaluation of pre vs. post-development pollutant loadings. Collier has presented several such analyses, all of which indicate the post- development pollutant discharges from the site will be less than the pre-development. Mr. Barber prepared a pre vs. post- analysis using a 2003 methodology developed by Dr. Harper. The 2003 version of the Harper methodology is currently accepted by the Corps. (Although Petitioners' witness, a former Corps employee, suggested that the Corps' acceptance of the study was a "political" rather than a scientific decision, there is insufficient evidence to support this contention.) Besides his first analysis, at the direction of the District staff, Mr. Barber prepared a second analysis using the 2003 methodology with certain conservative assumptions that limited the pollutant residents time to fifty days and utilized lower starting concentrations for phosphorous and nitrogen than were recorded in the nearby monitoring stations. Based upon those reports, the District's staff concluded that Collier had provided reasonable assurances that the project met the criteria in BOR Sections 5.2 and 4.2.4.5. At the hearing, Mr. Barber presented a third analysis utilizing an updated methodology developed by Dr. Harper in February 2006. The 2006 methodology was developed after Dr. Harper conducted a study of water management district criteria throughout the state for DEP. All three of the analyses prepared by Mr. Barber concluded that the project would discharge less nitrogen and phosphorous into the receiving body in the post-development condition than is currently being discharged in the pre-development condition. In addition to the three water quality submittals from Mr. Barber, Collier provided an additional water quality analysis specific to the project prepared by Dr. Harper. See Collier Exhibit 26, which is commonly referred to as the Harper Report. The analysis evaluated the project's pre vs. post- development water quality loads and also concluded the project would not contribute to the impairment of the Canal. In preparing his analysis, Dr. Harper relied solely on the lakes for estimating removal of pollutants without accounting for any of the additional treatment expected to occur from the source control best management practices contained in the Urban Stormwater Management Plan, which means his report errs on the conservative side. The Harper Report concluded that iron discharges from the SWMS would be extremely low and substantially less than the Class III standard of 1 mg/L. Petitioners presented no specific evidence to counter these conclusions. Petitioners questioned the Harper Report's use of wetlands as part of the loading calculations and attacked his underlying methodology. However, the evidence is clear that wetlands contribute to the water quality constituents in the pre-development condition. This finding is based on data from monitoring stations located in the middle of Corkscrew Swamp, a statewide study on stormwater treatment and wetlands, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) assignment of nutrient loading rates to wetlands in its regional pollutant loading model. Ignoring the actual water quality in pre-development conditions would not be a true pre vs. post-development analysis. Finally, Petitioners' contention that the Harper methodology should not be considered as admissible evidence because it constitutes "novel" (and therefore unreliable) scientific evidence under the rationale of Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), has been rejected. To begin with, the Frye test has not been accepted in Florida administrative proceedings. Moreover, the methodology is the basis for a new statewide rulemaking effort, has been accepted by the EPA, the Corps, and by the Division of Administrative Hearings in at least two proceedings, and has been subjected to two peer reviews. Petitioners also alleged that Collier failed to show that it complied with Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 40.432(2)(a)1., a rule administered by DEP which requires that a new SWMS "[a]chieve at least 80 percent reduction of the average annual load of pollutants that would cause or contribute to violations of state water quality standards." However, this is a broad overstatement of DEP's rule. Also, there is no eighty percent removal efficiency requirement adopted or incorporated into any District rule or BOR criteria. See, e.g., Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Inc. v. G.L. Homes of Naples Associates II, LTD et al., DOAH Case No. 06-4922 (DOAH May 15, 2007, SFWMD July 11, 2007). Instead, the District's "presumptive criteria" is that one inch of volumetric treatment required in Section 5.2 of the BOR meets the Class III standards. If, as in this case, additional assurances are required, those assurances are met through implementation of the BOR Section 4.2.4.5. Finally, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-40.110(2) provides that Rule Chapter 62-40 is "intended to provide water resource implementation goals, objectives, and guidance for the development and review of programs, rules, and plans relating to water resources." Also, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 40.110(4) states that "[t]his chapter, in and of itself, shall not constitute standards or criteria for decisions on individual permits. This chapter also does not constitute legislative authority to the Districts for the adoption of rules if such rules are not otherwise authorized by statute." Even if an eighty percent reduction standard applied, Collier has demonstrated that the project very likely will remove eighty percent or more of pollutants when additional low-impact development techniques, pollutant source reduction practices, and additional uncredited wet and dry detention capacity are considered. Based upon the evidence presented, Section 4.2.8 of the BOR regarding cumulative impacts for water quality is not applicable in this case. Collier's submittals provide reasonable assurances that the project will not be contributing to the water quality impairment of the Canal or contribute to any other water quality violation. Indeed, the information submitted indicates there will be an incremental improvement in the post-development condition as compared to existing. Since no contribution or impacts to water quality are expected, a cumulative impact analysis is not necessary to assess the extent of the impacts. The combination of all these water quality measures, when taken together, demonstrates that the 2006 Permit will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that state water quality standards will be violated. Therefore, reasonable assurance has been given that Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) will be satisfied. Wetland Impacts Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d) requires Collier to provide reasonable assurance that the modification of the SWMS "[w]ill not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters." In determining whether this criterion has been satisfied, it is also necessary to determine whether any 2002 permitted impacts should be subject to a second review in this case. Mitigation is a method by which an applicant can propose to impact certain wetlands on the project site in exchange for providing compensation in the form of preserving, enhancing, restoring, or creating wetlands or uplands to offset those impacts. As noted earlier, there has been no change to the wetland impacts or mitigation proposal as it relates to the Northern Preserve. See Findings of Fact 27 and 28, supra. As a result of the modified SWMS, there has been some additional impact to wetlands within the development area of the project. An additional 40.18 acres will be impacted under the 2006 Permit mostly due to the modified SWMS system. However, 39.5 acres of those wetlands were already considered secondarily impacted under the 2002 Permit. In addition, the preserve areas were expanded by 13.32 acres in the 2006 design. Thus, a portion of the impacts to those wetlands was already factored into the mitigation plan that was developed and approved for the 2002 Permit. As a result, there are 26 acres for which mitigation is necessary under the 2006 Permit. Section 4.3 of the BOR specifies criteria for mitigation proposed as part of an ERP application. Collier has proposed an acceptable mitigation plan for the new wetland impacts that will result from the project due to the proposed modifications incorporated in the 2006 Permit. Except for the mitigation for the additional wetland impacts, the mitigation plan for the 2006 Permit remains essentially unchanged from the 2002 Permit, including the Grading and Planting Plan, Monitoring Plan, and Mitigation, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plan. The onsite mitigation proposal includes preservation and restoration of wetlands through the removal of melaleuca and other exotic plants and replanting in areas of dense exotic species coverage. Significantly, Collier has not proposed any modifications that would change the effectiveness of the Northern Preserve in providing mitigation for the wetland impacts proposed and approved in the 2002 Permit. While Petitioners claim that the wetlands in the Northern Preserve may be subject to some changes in the level and seasonality of inundation as a result of the SWMS modifications, the evidence does not support those assertions. The revised SWMS will continue to allow water to flow through the Northern Preserve in a manner consistent with existing conditions while providing some flood control protection for extreme rainfall events. Petitioners also suggest that additional analysis regarding the timing and levels of inundation in the wetland preserves is necessary to fully determine the impacts of the modified SWMS on the wetlands. However, the more persuasive testimony indicates that the timing and levels within the wetlands will not be affected by the revised SWMS. The control elevations within the development area have not changed from the 2002 Permit, and these protect the onsite wetlands and ensure that those wetlands will function as expected. With respect to the internal wetlands within the development area, the control elevations have not changed from the 2002 Permit and the evidence establishes that the internal wetlands will continue to function and operate as contemplated in the 2002 Permit. There has been some relocation and reconfiguration of the internal wetland preserve areas that will actually enhance the value of the mitigation by connecting those wetland areas to other preserve areas. Petitioners further suggested that the wetland mitigation within the development area would not function as permitted in the 2002 Permit due to the spill over from the lakes to the wetlands. However, when the water reaches those internal wetland preserves, it has been treated to Class III water quality standards. Therefore, the mitigation values of those wetlands preserves will not be changed or affected due to water quality. Petitioners' objections to the wetland impacts and mitigation were primarily directed at the overall impacts rather than to the 2006 modifications. However, their witness was unaware of the values provided by the additional acres that will be impacted through the 2006 Permit. Therefore, a challenge to 2002 permitted wetlands impacts and mitigation is inappropriate in this proceeding. Functions To Fish and Wildlife and Listed Species Section 4.2.2 of the BOR implements Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d) and provides that an applicant must provide reasonable assurances that a project will not cause adverse impact to the abundance and diversity of fish, wildlife, and listed species or their habitat. With respect to the 586.66 acres of wetland impacts permitted in the 2002 Permit, the 2006 Permit does not modify or affect the values that the wetlands provide to either the abundance or diversity of fish and wildlife. Review of the wetlands criteria as to those acres was finally determined in the 2002 Permit and should not be reopened. By relocating thirteen of the previously impacted acres so they are most closely connected to other wetlands, their value to fish and wildlife will increase. As explained by the District's witness Bain, if Collier had moved the preserve area and changed its functional value, the District would have been required to reevaluate the mitigation that had been accepted for the wetland impacts in the 2002 permit. In this case, however, because the Northern Preserve area did not change, the District's review is limited to the newly impacted wetlands internal to the development for which mitigation was not provided in the 2002 Permit. Section 4.2.2.3 of the BOR addresses the functional assessment of the values provided by the project's wetlands. The only wetland values assessed in the 2006 Permit were the additional wetland impacts that were not mitigated in the 2002 Permit. The evidence establishes that the current value of the wetlands is low due to the heavy melaleuca infestation, which is greater than fifty percent coverage in most locations and seventy-five percent or more in much of the area. Melaleuca has the effect of draining short hydroperiod wetlands. While Petitioners may disagree with how the wetlands were previously evaluated, nothing in the 2006 modification allows or requires a reassessment of their value. Section 4.2.2.4 of the BOR requires that a regulated activity not adversely impact the hydroperiod (the depth, duration, or frequency of inundation) of wetlands or other surface waters. Subsection (a) of this standard applies if the project is expected to reduce the hydroperiod in any of the project's wetlands. Conversely, subsection (b) applies if the project is expected to increase the hydroperiod through changing the rate or method of discharge of water to wetlands or other surface waters. Subsection (c) requires monitoring of the wetlands to determine the effects of the hydrological changes. Again, there is no basis for the District to reopen and reevaluate the wetlands for which mitigation has already been permitted. No evidence was presented to indicate that there would be any obstacles or problems to accomplishing the mitigation that was proposed and accepted in 2002. In any event, the engineering and biological testimony demonstrated that no change (neither a reduction nor an increase) in the hydrology on the preserved wetlands or the Northern Preserve will occur from what was permitted in the 2002 Permit. By analyzing the various biological indicators onsite and setting the control elevations within the SWMS and the wetlands (both the Northern Preserve and onsite preserve wetlands) above the WSWT, the project ensures that the appropriate hydrology will be maintained. Though the fish and wildlife are not expected to be adversely affected by the 2006 Permit, Collier will be conducting monitoring of plants and animals on the site as an extra measure of assurance as contemplated under BOR Section 4.2.3.4(c). Focusing on just the changes from 2002 to 2006, Petitioners' two experts conceded that the hydrology in the Northern Preserve and its value to wildlife and listed species (including the wood stork) would be benefited in the 2006 Permit over that contemplated in the 2002 Permit due to the removal of the Flow-Way. Secondary Impacts to Water Resources Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f) requires a demonstration that the proposed activities "[w]ill not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources." A similar demonstration is required by Sections 4.1.1(f) and 4.2.7 of the BOR. In this case, the secondary impacts considered by the District were potential impacts due to the relocation and expansion of the buffer preserve areas to the perimeter of the project site. In conducting a secondary impact analysis, BOR Section 4.2.7 requires that the District consider only those future projects or activities which would not occur "but for" the proposed system. Here, the evidence demonstrated that no wetlands or other surface waters will be secondarily impacted by the modifications to the SWMS as part of the 2006 Permit. The undersigned has rejected Petitioners' contention that a proposed extension of County Road 951 through the development site should be considered a secondary impact in evaluating this project. This extension has been proposed for at least fifteen years and its precise configuration is unclear. It is not required to be built as a result of the project and there are no firm plans or contracts in place to construct the road. Although the road is listed on the County's transportation plan, it remains speculative as to if and when it will be built. Additionally, there is no evidence the County has any ownership interest in property for a road in the area identified by Petitioners. Witness Bain testified that the District examined the Collier County Public Records and an easement had not been granted to the County to build the road. i. Elimination and Reduction Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301((3) provides in part that "the provisions for elimination or reduction of impacts contained in the [BOR] shall determine whether the reasonable assurances required by subsection 40E- 4.301(1) and Rule 40E-4.302, F.A.C., have been provided." Section 4.2.1.1 of the BOR implements that provision and provides that elimination and reduction of impacts is not required when: The ecological value of the function provided by the area of wetland or other surface water to be adversely affected is low based on site specific analysis using the factors in subsection 4.2.2.3 and the proposed mitigation will provide greater long term ecological value than the area of wetland or other surface water to be adversely affected; . . . In accordance with that section, Collier was not required to implement practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate impacts. The District did a site-specific analysis of the quality of the 39.5 acres of adversely affected wetlands, taking into consideration the condition of the wetlands, hydrologic connection, uniqueness, location, and fish and wildlife utilization. The unrebutted testimony is that the quality of the 39.5 acres of wetlands to be impacted by the 2006 Permit is low and these wetlands were already previously authorized to be secondarily impacted. The low quality wetlands are melaleuca dominated making them not unique. The mitigation will provide greater long-term ecological value than the impacted wetlands. As noted on page 10 of the Staff Report, there will be a larger, contiguous mitigation area to offset direct impacts to previously preserved, but secondarily impacted wetlands and the preservation/enhancement of the external preserve area. The 2006 Permit provides that 5.68 credits are required to be purchased in the PIMB. Collier has advised the District that 27.68 credits are being purchased pursuant to its Corps permit. Thus, Collier will be purchasing more credits than required by the District. Witness Bain took this additional mitigation into account in determining whether the proposed mitigation will provide greater long term ecological value than the area impacted. While the Corps permit is an entirely separate permit action, Collier has agreed to include an additional 5.68 credits within the Basin beyond what is required in the Staff Report as a condition to this 2006 Permit. Therefore, the mitigation is clearly of greater long-term ecological value than the area impacted. Additional Requirements Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302 imposes additional requirements on an ERP applicant, including a cumulative impact assessment, if appropriate, and satisfaction of a public interest test. Cumulative Impacts Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302(1)(b) requires that an applicant demonstrate the project "[w]ill not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters as set forth in subsections 4.2.8 through 4.2.8.2 of the [BOR]." Cumulative impacts are the summation of unmitigated wetland impacts within a drainage basin, and a cumulative impact analysis is geographically based upon the drainage basins described in Figure 4.2.8-1 of the BOR. See Florida Wildlife Federation et al. v. South Florida Water Management District et al., 2006 Fla. ENV LEXIS 49 at *49, DOAH Case Nos. 04-3064 and 04-3084 (DOAH Dec. 3, 2006, SFWMD Dec. 8, 2006). Also, Section 373.414(8)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the District to consider the cumulative impacts upon surface water and wetlands within the same drainage basin. Thus, the cumulative impact analysis applies only when mitigation is proposed outside of the drainage basin within which the impacts are to occur. Broward County v. Weiss et al., 2002 Fla. ENV LEXIS 298 at *29, DOAH Case No. 01-3373 (DOAH Aug. 27, 2002, SFWMD Nov. 14, 2002). In this case, all of the proposed mitigation associated with the 2006 Permit modifications is located within the West Collier Basin. The evidence shows that the mitigation will offset the impacts to wetlands proposed in the 2006 Permit. Therefore, since the mitigation will be performed in the same Basin as the impacts and will offset the adverse impacts, the District must "consider the regulated activity to meet the cumulative impact requirements" of Section 373.414(8)(a), Florida Statutes. A new cumulative impacts analysis based on removal of the Flow-Way is not necessary because the modification does not change the cumulative impacts analysis conducted in the 2002 Permit. Since the Flow-Way was not considered a wetland impact or contributing to the mitigation in the 2002 Permit, its removal does not affect the adequacy of the previously conducted cumulative impacts analysis or the mitigation. Accordingly, there is no need for a new cumulative impact analysis with regards to the Northern Preserve. Finally, contrary to Petitioners' assertion, there is no rule or BOR provision which requires Collier to mitigate for the alleged prior impacts of other projects. Public Interest Test In addition to complying with the above criteria, because the project is located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters, Collier must also address the criteria contained in the Public Interest Test in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302(1) and Section 4.2.3 of the BOR by demonstrating that the project is not contrary to the public interest. See also § 373.414(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Since the project does not discharge into an OFW or significantly degrade an OFW, the higher standard of "clearly in the public interest" does not apply. In determining compliance with the test, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302(1)(a) requires that the District do so by "balancing the [seven] criteria [in the rule]." Findings with respect to each of the seven criteria are set out below. (Except for pointing out that the District does not have an adopted rule which provides more specific detail on how to perform the balancing test than is now found in paragraph (1)(a), and a contention that witness Bain's testimony was insufficient to explain how the staff balanced those factors, Petitioners did not present any evidence at hearing or argument in their Proposed Recommended Order in support of their contention that the above rule, BOR section, or the associated statute have been applied by the District in an unconstitutional manner.) Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others (40E-4.302(1)(a)1.) Collier provided reasonable assurances that the project will not cause any onsite or offsite flooding nor cause any adverse impacts to adjacent lands because the SWMS is designed in accordance with District criteria. Also, the post- development peak rate of discharge does not exceed the allowable discharge rate. Further, the project will not cause any environmental hazards affecting public health, safety, or welfare. The project is considered neutral as to this factor. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats (40E-4.302(1)(a)2.) For the direct wetland impacts under the 2006 Permit, Collier proposes mitigation which has not changed from the 2002 Permit. The mitigation proposed was previously determined to offset potential impacts to fish and wildlife and particularly wood stork habitats. The evidence indicates that the mitigation plan for the Northern Preserve will improve wood stork habitat from its current melaleuca infested condition. For the additional 40.18 acres of wetland impacts authorized in 2006, the mitigation is of greater long-term value. Thus, the project should be considered positive as to this factor. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling (40E-4.302(1)(a)3.) The parties have stipulated that the project will not adversely affect navigation. In addition, no evidence was introduced to suggest that the project's construction would result in harmful erosion or shoaling. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity (40E-4.302(1)(a)4.) The project does not provide any fishing, recreational values, or marine productivity. Therefore, the project is neutral as to this factor. Whether the regulated activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature (40E-4.302(1)(a)5.) It is undisputed that the project is permanent in nature. Even though the project is permanent, it is considered neutral as to this factor because mitigation will offset the permanent wetland impacts. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, F.S. (40E- 4.302(1)(a)6.) The parties have stipulated that no significant archeological or historical resources have been identified on this site. Therefore, the project is considered neutral as to this factor. The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed regulated activity (40E-4.302(1)(a)7.) The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by the areas affected by the project is low due to the melaleuca infestation. Project mitigation will restore 940 acres of poor quality wetlands and uplands, greatly enhancing their function and value. Therefore, the project should be considered positive as to this factor because the implementation of the mitigation offsets the wetland impacts and improves the current value. Summary of Public Interest Factors Overall, the project is no worse than neutral measured against any one of the criteria individually. Therefore, the project is not contrary to the public interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order granting the application of I. M. Collier, J.V. for a modification to Environmental Resource Permit No. 11-02031P. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 2007.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent Land Trust #97-12 (“Land Trust”) is entitled to an Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) for its proposed project on Perico Island in Bradenton, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Joseph McClash is a resident of Bradenton, Florida, who uses the waters in the vicinity of the project for fishing, crabbing, boating, and wildlife observation. Petitioner Manasota-88, Inc., is an active Florida nonprofit corporation for more than 20 years. Manasota-88 has approximately 530 members, most of whom (approximately 300) reside in Manatee County. The mission and goal of Manasota-88 includes the protection of the natural resources of Manatee County, including Anna Maria Sound and Perico Island. Petitioner FISH is an active Florida nonprofit corporation in existence since 1991. FISH owns real property in unincorporated Cortez in Manatee County and maintains a Manatee County mailing address. FISH has more than 190 members and more than 150 of them own property or reside in Manatee County. The mission and goal of FISH includes protection of the natural resources of Manatee County, including Anna Maria Sound and Perico Island. Intervenor Suncoast Waterkeeper, Inc., is an active Florida nonprofit corporation in existence since 2012. The mission of Suncoast Waterkeeper is “to protect and restore the Suncoast’s waterways through enforcement, fieldwork, advocacy, and environmental education for the benefit of the communities that rely upon coastal resources.” Suncoast Waterkeeper provided the names and addresses of 25 members residing in Manatee County. A substantial number of the members of Suncoast Waterkeeper use the area and waters near the proposed activity for nature-based activities, including nature observation, fishing, kayaking, wading, and boating along the natural shorelines of Anna Maria Sound and Perico Island. Intervenor Sierra Club, Inc., is a national organization that is a California corporation registered as a foreign nonprofit corporation in Florida. Sierra Club has been permitted to conduct business in Florida since 1982. The mission of Sierra Club includes protection of the natural resources of Manatee County, which include Anna Maria Sound and Perico Island. Sierra Club provided the names and addresses of 26 members who live in Manatee County. A substantial number of the members of Sierra Club use the area and waters near the proposed project for nature-based activities, including observing native flora and fauna, fishing, kayaking, wading, and boating along the natural shorelines of Anna Maria Sound and Perico Island. Respondent Land Trust is the applicant for the challenged ERP and owns the property on which the proposed project would be constructed. Respondent District is an independent special district of the State of Florida created, granted powers, and assigned duties under chapter 373, Florida Statutes, including the regulation of activities in surface waters. The proposed project is within the boundaries of the District. The Project Site The project site is 3.46 acres of a 40.36-acre parcel owned by Land Trust. The parcel includes uplands, wetlands, and submerged lands, on or seaward of Perico Island, next to Anna Maria Sound, which is part of Lower Tampa Bay. Anna Maria Sound is an Outstanding Florida Water. The project site is adjacent to a large multi-family residential development called Harbour Isles, which is currently under construction. Access to the Land Trust property is gained through this development. The Land Trust parcel contains approximately seven acres of high quality mangroves along the shoreline of Anna Maria Sound. They are mostly black and red mangroves, with some white mangroves. The mangroves on the project site amount to a total of 1.9 acres. Mangroves have high biological productivity and are important to estuarine food webs. Mangroves provide nesting, roosting, foraging, and nursery functions for many species of wildlife. Mangroves also provide a buffer from storm surge and help to stabilize shorelines. Wildlife species found on the project site include ibises, pelicans, egrets, spoonbills, mangrove cuckoos, bay scallops, fiddler crabs, mangrove tree crabs, horseshoe crabs, marsh rabbits, raccoons, mangrove bees, and a variety of fish. No endangered species have been observed on the project site, but mangroves are used by a number of listed species. The Proposed Project The proposed project is to construct a retaining wall, place fill behind the wall to create buildable lots for four single-family homes, construct an access driveway, and install a stormwater management facility. The stormwater management facility is a “Stormtech” system, which is an underground system usually used in situations where there is insufficient area to accommodate a stormwater pond. Riprap would be placed on the waterward side of the retaining wall. The retaining wall would be more than 35 feet landward of the mean high water line in most areas. Petitioners contend the proposed retaining wall is a vertical seawall, which is not allowed in an estuary pursuant to section 373.414(5). “Vertical seawall” is defined in section 2.0(a)(111), Volume I, of the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook (“Applicants Handbook”) as a seawall which is steeper than 75 degrees to the horizontal. It further states, “A seawall with sloping riprap covering the waterward face to the mean high water line shall not be considered a vertical seawall.” The retaining wall is vertical, but it would have riprap covering its waterward face and installed at a slope of 70 degrees. The retaining wall is not a vertical seawall under the District’s definition. Stormwater Management Stormwater in excess of the Stormtech system’s design capacity would discharge into Anna Maria Sound. Because Anna Maria Sound is an Outstanding Florida Water, District design criteria require that an additional 50 percent of treatment volume be provided. The Stormtech system meets the District’s design criteria for managing water quality and water quantity. Projects which meet the District’s design criteria are presumed to provide reasonable assurance of compliance with state water quality standards. Petitioners’ evidence was not sufficient to rebut this presumption. Petitioners contend the District waiver of water quality certification for the proposed project means that Land Trust was not required to meet water quality standards. However, that was a misunderstanding of the certification process. All state water quality criteria are applicable. Petitioners contend water quality monitoring should be imposed for this project. However, section 4.7 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume II, provides that if the applicant meets the District’s design criteria, water quality monitoring is not required. Petitioners failed to prove the proposed stormwater management system cannot be constructed, operated, or maintained in compliance with applicable criteria. Wetland Impacts In order to create buildable lots, 1.05 acres of the 1.9 acres of mangroves on the project site would be removed and replaced with fill. A swath of mangroves approximately 40 feet wide would remain waterward of the retaining wall. The proposed direct and secondary impacts to the functions provided by wetlands were evaluated using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (“UMAM”) as required by Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-345. UMAM is used to quantify the loss of functions performed by wetlands considering: current condition, hydrologic connection, uniqueness, location, fish and wildlife utilization, time lag, and mitigation risk. The District determined the filling of 1.05 acres of wetlands would result in a functional loss of 0.81 units and the secondary impacts resulting from installation of the retaining wall would result in a loss of 0.09 units for a total functional loss of 0.9 units. Petitioners contend the functional loss would be greater. Petitioners contend the wetland delineation performed by Land Trust and confirmed by the District did not extend as far landward as the hydric soils and, therefore, the total acreage of affected wetlands would be greater. However, Petitioners did not produce a wetland delineation for the project site, and their evidence was not sufficient to rebut Land Trust's prima facie evidence on this issue. Petitioners’ experts believe the secondary impacts caused by the proposed project would be greater than calculated, including fragmentation of the shoreline mangrove system, damage to the roots of mangroves near the retaining wall, and scouring effects caused by wave action associated with the retaining wall. Respondents assert that the analysis by Petitioners’ expert Jacqueline Cook relied on federal methodology and that “the science used in her analysis is not contained in the state or district rule criteria.” Reliance on science is always appropriate. However, Ms. Cook’s use of a federal impact assessment methodology creates doubt about whether her scoring is consistent with UMAM. Despite the unreliability of Ms. Cook’s UMAM score, it is found that Respondents’ UMAM score under-calculated secondary impacts due to scour and other effects of changed water movement that would be caused by the retaining wall. It was not explained how the loss of storm buffering and erosion prevention functions of wetlands are accounted for in the UMAM score. Elimination or Reduction of Impacts Section 10.2.1 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume I, states that in reviewing a project the District is to consider practicable design modifications to eliminate or reduce impacts to wetland functions. Section 10.2.1.1 explains: The term “modification” shall not be construed as including the alternative of not implementing the activity in some form, nor shall it be construed as requiring a project that is significantly different in type or function. A proposed modification that is not technically capable of being completed, is not economically viable, or that adversely affects public safety through the endangerment of lives or property is not considered “practicable.” A proposed modification need not remove all economic value of the property in order to be considered not “practicable.” Conversely, a modification need not provide the highest and best use of the property to be “practicable.” In determining whether a proposed modification is practicable, consideration shall also be given to cost of the modification compared to the environmental benefit it achieves. Land Trust originally proposed constructing a surface water retention pond. The Stormtech stormwater management system would cause less wetland impact than a retention pond. Land Trust contends the use of a retaining wall reduces wetland impacts because, otherwise, more mangroves would have to be removed to account for the slope of the waterward side of the fill area. However, this proposition assumes the appropriateness of the size of the fill area. Land Trust also contends wetland impacts are reduced by using the adjacent development to access the proposed project site, rather than creating a new road. However, the evidence did not establish that Land Trust had a practicable and preferred alternative for access. Unlike the Stormtech system, the retaining wall and access driveway were not shown to be project modifications. The proposed project would cause fewer impacts to wetlands if the fill area was reduced in size, which was not shown to be impracticable. Reducing the size of the fill area would not cause the project to be significantly different in type or function. Land Trust did not demonstrate that it implemented reasonable design modifications to eliminate or reduce impacts to wetland functions. Mitigation Land Trust proposes to purchase credits from the Tampa Bay Mitigation Bank, which is 17 miles north of the proposed project site. The Tampa Bay Mitigation Bank is in the Tampa Bay Drainage Basin. The project site is in the South Coastal Drainage Basin. Pursuant to section 10.2.8 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume I, if an applicant mitigates adverse impacts within the same drainage basin, the agency will consider the regulated activity to have no unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters. However, if the applicant proposes to mitigate impacts in another drainage basin, factors such as “connectivity of waters, hydrology, habitat range of affected species, and water quality” will be considered to determine whether the impacts are fully offset. The parties disputed whether there was connectivity between the waters near the project site and the waters at the Tampa Bay Mitigation Bank. The more persuasive evidence shows there is connectivity. There was also a dispute about the habitat range of affected species. The evidence establishes that the species found in the mangroves at the project site are also found at the mitigation bank. However, local fish and wildlife, and local biological productivity would be diminished by the proposed project. This diminution affects Petitioners’ substantial interests. The loss or reduction of storm buffering and erosion prevention functions performed by the mangroves at Perico Island cannot be mitigated for at the Tampa Bay Mitigation Bank. Cumulative impacts are unacceptable when the proposed activity, considered in conjunction with past, present, and future activities would result in a violation of state water quality standards, or significant adverse impacts to functions of wetlands or other surface waters. See § 10.2.8.1, Applicant’s Handbook, Vol. I. Section 10.2.8(b) provides that, in considering the cumulative impacts associated with a project, the District is to consider other activities which reasonably may be expected to be located within wetlands or other surface waters in the same drainage basin, based upon the local government’s comprehensive plan. Land Trust did not make a prima facie showing on this point. Land Trust could propose a similar project on another part of its property on Perico Island. Anyone owning property in the area which is designated for residential use under the City of Bradenton’s comprehensive plan and bounded by wetlands could apply to enlarge the buildable portion of the property by removing the wetlands and filling behind a retaining wall. When considering future wetland impacts in the basin which are likely to result from similar future activities, the cumulative impacts of the proposed project would result in significant adverse impacts to wetland functions in the area. Public Interest For projects located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the project will not be contrary to the public interest, or if such activities significantly degrade or are within an Outstanding Florida Water, are clearly in the public interest, as determined by balancing the criteria set forth in rule 62- 330.302(1)(a), and as set forth in sections 10.2.3 through of the Applicant’s Handbook. Rule 62-330.302, which is identical to section 373.414, Florida Statutes, lists the following seven public interest balancing factors to be considered: Whether the activities will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activities will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activities will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activities will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activities will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activities will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, F.S.; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed regulated activity. The Parties stipulated that the proposed project would not have an adverse impact on public health, navigation, historical resources, archeological resources, or social costs. Land Trust proposes to give $5,000 to the City of Palmetto for an informational kiosk at the City of Palmetto’s public boat ramp. A District employee testified that this contribution made the project clearly in the public interest. Reasonable assurances were not provided that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest because of the adverse cumulative effects on the conservation of fish and wildlife, fishing and recreational values, and marine productivity of Anna Maria Sound, an Outstanding Florida Water.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District issue a final order that denies the Environmental Resource Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Christian Thomas Van Hise, Esquire Abel Band, Chartered Post Office Box 49948 Sarasota, Florida 34230-6948 (eServed) Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 7601 Highway 301 North Tampa, Florida 33637 (eServed) Douglas P. Manson, Esquire MansonBolves, P.A. 1101 West Swann Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 (eServed) Joseph McClash 711 89th Street Northwest Bradenton, Florida 34209 (eServed) Ralf G. Brookes, Esquire Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway, Suite 107 Cape Coral, Florida 33904 (eServed) Justin Bloom, Esquire Post Office Box 1028 Sarasota, Florida 34230 (eServed) Robert Beltram, P.E., Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) is currently engaged in widening State Road (SR) 5, the Overseas Highway, to four lanes on Marathon Key. To handle surface water runoff from a portion of the project, DOT received approval from the South Florida Water Management District for a surface water management system which included two retention ponds (west pond and east pond) to be located on Marathon Airport.1 On May 23, 1985, DOT filed an application with DER for authorization to construct four Class V, group five stormwater drainage wells within the retention ponds on Marathon Airport. DOT proposed to locate three wells within the west pond and one well within the east pond to comply with a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) request that water levels be minimized to deter the attraction of birds which could present a hazard to aircraft navigation. By letter dated August 12, 1985, DER forwarded to DOT permit number US44-104852, dated July 26, 1985, for construction of the subject wells. Upon its receipt of the permit, DOT let the contracts for the widening of SR 5; however, neither DER nor DOT published notice of DER's intent to issue the requested permit. On November 29, 1985, a few days after he received actual notice that the permit had been issued, Robert C. Ernst filed a request for hearing with DER contesting its issuance. Mr. Ernst owns a home which lies atop the groundwaters to be impacted by the subject permit and which abuts Dodge Lake, a Class III surface water body; Mr. Ernst uses the waters of Dodge Lake for swimming, fishing, and other recreational pursuits. On December 20, 1985, Mr. Ernst and others, on behalf of Neighbors for Clean Canals (NCC), filed a request for hearing challenging the same permit. NCC was alleged to be a neighborhood association, formed December 17, 1985, to represent the interests of property owners affected by the proposed project; however, no such proof was offered at hearing. The retention ponds proposed by DOT are designed to accommodate the first inch of stormwater runoff.2 Significantly, the first 1/2" of runoff from a highway system contains the bulk of pollutants. By retaining this runoff, and permitting it to evaporate or percolate through the soils underlying the retention ponds, any adverse impact to the ground waters is minimized. DOT's proposal to install four injection wells within the ponds will deprive them of their retention capability. These wells will, within a 12-20 hour period, inject the first 1/2" of runoff (over 1 million gallons) directly into the groundwaters. Therefore, evidence of the nature of the pollutants, the quality of the receiving waters, and the geologic and hydrologic qualities of the area are significant. Highway runoff contains high concentrations of pollutants ranging from toxic mutagenic and carcinogenic substances such as heavy metals (primarily lead and zinc), pesticides, and herbicides to oxygen consuming materials and solids which cause damages such as siltation and eutrophication. These pollutants, including oils, greases, and copper, can have significant adverse effects upon the quality of the receiving waters and the life forms it supports. Underlying the proposed retention ponds is an aquaclude which extends from the surface to a depth of 30-40 feet. This aquaclude, a hard layer formation with very poor percolation qualities, will preclude any waters injected below it from returning to the surface and will direct their flow laterally. Since the maximum depths of Dodge Lake and the 100th Street Canal are 13' and 21' respectively, injection of the stormwater runoff at 50', well below the existing aquaclude, provides reasonable assurances that these water bodies will not be adversely impacted by the proposed project. However, the impacts to the groundwater and other water bodies is not so clear. Other than sampling the groundwater to establish its character as Class III groundwater,3 DOT and DER did not perform any water quality analysis. Accordingly, the existing quality of the receiving groundwaters was not shown. Further, there was no showing of the hydrologic characteristics of the area. Therefore, there was no evidence of the mixing or dilution of the contaminants which would be injected, or of their ultimate point(s) of discharge into the surface waters surrounding Marathon Key.4 DOT and DER assert that "specific conditions" #4 and #5 attached to the subject permit will provide assurances that injection of the stormwater runoff will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards. Those conditions provide: The following parameters shall be sampled at Well W-2 Florida Department of Transportation drawing sheet 3 of 5 and Well E-1 Florida Department of Transportation drawing sheet 4 of 5 and reported quarterly to the Department ninety (90) days following certification and placement of this facility in operation. The parameters to be sampled are: Napthalene, Lead and volatile organic compounds including: Trichloroethylene, Tetrachloroethylene, Carbon Tetrachloride, Vinyl Chloride, 1,1,1,-Trichloroethane, 1,2- Dichloroethane, Benzene, and Ethylene Dibromide. The discharge authorized by this permit shall be consistent at all times with the water quality standards set forth in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. Should conditions in the receiving stream warrant, the Permittee may be required by the Department to upgrade, reduce, or cease the discharge approved by this permit and adopt an alternative method of disposal within a reasonable period of time. Under specific condition #4, the ground waters will be sampled at one injection well within each of the retention ponds. Without evidence of the mixing and flow characteristics of the groundwater, the reliability of the proposed monitoring program is questionable since it was not shown where, transitionally or ultimately, the pollutants would settle. Absent such proof, there is no evidence that the wells are sited so as to detect any water quality violations. Therefore, specific conditions #4 and #5 do not provide reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards.
Conclusions The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings. Petitioners, Robert C. Ernst and Neighbors for Clean Canals (NCC), pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, contest the decision of DER to issue a permit to DOT to construct four Class v, group five-stormwater drainage wells. Pertinent to this proceeding, Section 120.57 provides: The provisions of this section apply in all proceedings in which the substantial interests of a party are determined by an agency. When standing is resisted, as it is in this proceeding, the burden is on the protestant to prove standing. State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, v. Alice P., 367 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, does not attempt to define substantially affected persons. The Florida courts have, however, adopted the federal "injury-in-fact" and "zone of interest" tests governing standing. Montgomery v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 468 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA) 1985). Under this two-prong test, a person is substantially affected if he can demonstrate that he will suffer "injury-in- fact" which is of sufficient immediacy to entitle him to relief and the injury is of a type or nature which the proceeding is designed to protect (the "zone of interest"). Where, as here, an association institutes a proceeding on behalf of its members, it can be accorded standing only when it demonstrates that a substantial number of its members, although not necessarily a majority, are substantially affected by the proposed agency action, the nature of the injury is of a type which the proceeding is designed to protect: and, the relief requested is of a type appropriate for an association to receive on behalf of its members. See Florida Home Builders Assoc. v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 412 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1982). Mr. Ernst has demonstrated his standing to maintain this action. His home lies atop the groundwaters to be impacted by the proposed project and he uses the waters proximate to the proposed wells which could be adversely impacted if the wells were not properly constructed or sited. NCC failed, however, to demonstrate its standing since it failed to offer any evidence that a substantial number of its members could be substantially affected by the proposed project or that the interest sought to be protected was within the association's general scope of interest and purpose. Although Mr. Ernst has demonstrated standing, DOT asserts that his petition was untimely since it was filed more than three months after DOT received its permit. DOT's assertion is without merit. It is established law that persons whose substantial interests may be affected by proposed agency action must be accorded a point of entry into the proceedings. See Capeletti Brothers, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 362 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Until accorded notice, actual or constructive, such person has not been offered a point of entry. Rule 17-103.150, F.A.C., provides a method to assure constructive notice is given to all substantially affected persons, and to limit the time within which a request for an administrative hearing may be filed. That rule provides that each person who filed an application for a DER permit may publish a notice of proposed agency action in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the activity will be located. If notice is published, a person whose substantial interests might be affected by the proposed action must file his request for hearing within 14 days of the date of publication. Significantly, the rule also provides: Since persons whose substantial interests are affected by a Department decision on a permit application may petition for an administrative proceeding within fourteen (14) days after receipt of notice and since, unless notice is given or published as prescribed in this rule, receipt of notice can occur at any time, the applicant or persons benefiting from the Department's action cannot justifiably rely on the finality of the Department's decision without the notice having been duly given or published. DOT elected not to publish notice under the provisions of Rule 17-103.150, F.A.C., and cannot justifiably rely on the finality of DER's decision. Mr. Ernst's petition for hearing, filed within a few days of his receipt of notice, was timely. 5 DER has jurisdiction over the permitting of the proposed four Class V, group five-stormwater drainage wells pursuant to Section 403.087, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 17-4 and 17-28, F.A.C. A party seeking approval to inject stormwater drainage into Class G-III water must provide reasonable assurances that the project will not violate water quality standards set forth in Rule 17-3.402(1), F.A.C. That rule provides: All ground water shall at all places and at all times be free from domestic, industrial, agricultural, or other man-induced non- thermal components of discharges in concentrations which, alone or in combination with other substances, or components of discharges (whether thermal or non-thermal): Are harmful to plants, animals, or organisms that are native to the soil and responsible for treatment or stabilization of the discharge relied upon by Department permits or Are carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, or toxic to human beings, unless specific criteria are established for such components in Rule 17-3.404: or Are acutely toxic to indigenous species of significance to the aquatic community within surface waters affected by the ground water at the point of contact with surface waters or Pose a serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare; or Create or constitute a nuisance or Impair the reasonable and beneficial use of adjacent waters. DOT has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed stormwater discharge will not cause or contribute to a violation of the groundwater standards set forth in Rule 17-3.402(1), Florida Administrative Code. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order: Dismissing the petition for hearing filed by Neighbors for Clean Canals, and Denying the issuance of permit number US44-104852 to the Department of Transportation. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 1986.
Findings Of Fact Existing Conditions Between 1952 and 1957 the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Florida Central and Southern Flood Control District (the forerunner of SFWMD) constructed a chain of levees, L-1, L-2, L-3 and later L-4 in eastern Hendry County, Florida. These levees which begin approximately 10 miles to the southwest of Lake Okeechobee run first east, then south and then east again for a distance of approximately 38 miles. The purpose of these levees is to shield the land5/ to the east of them from the natural sheet flow of water which comes from the west during the area's rainy season. The EAA which is protected from natural flooding consist of rich muck soils which have been successfully exploited for years by sugar cane farming. The present levees were created by excavating a "borrow" canal parallel to the southern and western sides of L-1, 2, 3 and 4. The borrow canal is no larger than was required to provide sufficient material for construction of the levees; nevertheless, the canal has a considerable water carrying capacity in the amount of 1,260 CFS 6/ at peak flow. The canal is a navigable fresh water of the state. It interconnects into other navigable canals which terminate in either Lake Okeechobee or the Miami River. The water carried by the borrow canal flows south and discharges into the Miami canal via either a pumping station designated S-8, or via the borrow canal next to L-28.7/ The water which enters the Miami canal ultimately travels to canal C-60 and then into the section of WCA-3 south of Alligator Alley (State Road 84). Flooding The rain water which once moved from west to east directly across the eastern portion of Hendry County, Florida into the EAA is now interdicted by L- 1, 2 and 3. As a result it ponds in the corner of the intersection of L-1 and L-2 (known in these proceedings as the L-1 angle). The area flooded is grass land used by Hendry County ranchers for the open grazing of beef cattle. Some of the pasture is improved, that is fertilized, but the majority of the area is unimproved range. During flood times the ranchers move their cattle to alternative pastures either to the north or to the west. The deepest flooding, when it occurs, is immediately next to the levees in the L-1 angle. The flooding has been known to reach depths as great as 10 feet and to extend westward for several miles. Because the land to the west of the L-1 angle is higher, the depth of the flooding decreases in a westerly direction. The duration of the ponding immediately in the L-1 angle has been as long as 80 days after a prolonged and heavy rainfall event. This flooding occurs despite the capacity of the borrow canal to remove 0.18 inch of flood water per day from the inundated area. When there is flooding in the L-1 angle there is also high water In the northeast corner of WCA-3A where some of the water from the borrow canal is presently discharged. During a dry season the land immediately adjacent to the present borrow canal suffers overdraining due to seepage of ground water into the canal and its resulting evaporation or conveyance south. Water Conservation Area 3A is part of a series of conservation areas established as their name implies to conserve water. Extending over portions of several South Florida counties including Palm Beach, Broward and Dade, they provide the recharge source for the Biscayne Aquifer and other aquifers which are the water supply for metropolitan South Florida. The water conservation areas are also wildlife refuges and provide natural habitats for numerous South Florida animals such as deer, alligator, and wading birds. Description of Project The Hendry County plan as described by the Corps in General Design Memorandum No. 2, 8/ envisions the construction of a flood control canal, C- 139, with two water flow control structures, S-239 and S-243. To create C-139, the Corps plans to further excavate the existing borrow canal next to L-2, L-3 and L-4 for a total distance of 37 miles. See Illustration I.* This excavation will result in the removal of 5.2 million cubic yards of earth and limestone. Some of the resulting spoil will be used to create a levee along the west side of C-139. Most of the excavation will be done by draglines on the canal banks. Upon its completion C-139 will be an immense water conveyance. At its northern end the canal will be only five feet across the bottom with a depth of 10.6 feet, but by the time the canal reaches WCA-3A it will have enlarged to a bottom width of 80 feet across and a depth of 19.5 feet. Its peak design capacity is 3,000 CFS. That is more than twice the present capacity of the existing borrow canal. Downstream from S-239 C-139 turns south to be designated C-139(S) and to gradually become increasingly shallower. This will cause a discharge pattern designed to create a sheet flow across WCA-3A. Benefits, Future Land Use It appears that when levees L-1, 2 and 3 were constructed the Corps failed to fully consider the adverse effect which would result from the impoundment of water by the new levees. According to the General Design Memorandum, Levees 1, 2, 3 and 4 were constructed in the mid 1950s to prevent flood waters originating on the then sparsely developed lands westward of the levees from contri- buting to flooding on the rich agricultural lands lying to the east of the levees. The original borrow canals were sized based on materials needed for the levee construction. The sparse economic development of the lands to the west precluded increasing the con- veyance capacity of these canals to prevent flooding on those lands. Construction of the levees and the subsequent increased de- velopment over the drainage area have aggra- vated flooding problems on the lands. Water stands on some of the land during practically the entire wet season virtually every year. As the landowners developed the land, they became increasingly vociferous about con- struction of works to alleviate the flooding for which they contend is project-induced. There is merit in their contention in that the adjacent project works adversely affected both depth and duration of flooding in the area west of Levees 1, 2 and 3. (Emphasis added) The facts presented at the instant final hearing are somewhat to the contrary, in that there was no showing of significant subsequent development west of the levees after their construction. For many decades vast family ranches have raised cattle on the mentioned lands as they continue to do today. The primary purpose of the proposed project is to now provide flood control to an approximately 261 square mile drainage basin west of the flood-causing levees.9/ With a design capacity of 3,000 CFS, C-139 can handle twice the water which drains through the present borrow canal. By way of comparison the present canal has a drainage capacity of .18 inches per day from the flooded area during a ten-year flood,10/ while C-139 has the capacity to drain .43 inches per day. This heightened discharge rate will cause land in the L-1 angle to flood less, and once flooded, to be underwater for a shorter period of time. For instance, an area which during a ten-year storm might have been submerged for 40 days prior to the construction of the project Is estimated to have an inundation period of only 10 days upon the project's completion. The significance of the reduced flooding to the landowners in the flooded area is difficult to gauge from the evidence. Because an intensification of land use would result in a lowering in the quality of the water which runs off the land and into C-139 and thence into the environmentally sensitive water conservation area,11/ the landowners supporting the project were understandably reluctant to testify that the project will allow them to use their land for more than continued cattle grazing. The testimony of Mr. Joe Hillard, a partner in Hillard Bros. of Florida, Inc., one of the larger ranches is illustrative: Q If this project, the flood control portion, were built, would your company change any of its land uses on this land that you described? A No, sir, not at all. Not with what I understand is going to be done with the project I wouldn't change anything. In response to the Hearing Officer's later inquiry, Mr. Hillard explained that the project would allow pasture land to be used for twelve months per year as opposed to the current nine months per year during a flood season. He does not anticipate grazing any more head per acre after the project. This evidence contrasted with the assumptions made by the Corps in that part of the General Design Memorandum which discusses the cost-benefit ratio of the project. The Memorandum states at p. 52: As noted previously, the existing activity within the area is predominately agricultural with major emphasis in beef cattle production. Local landowners and managers were asked to indicate the production changes they expected to make with the reduced flood hazards available under with (sic) project condi- tions. These expectations were prepared as a land use map with the basic control matrix. For the most part, these changes in land use represented more intensive types of agricultural cultivation. In some cases, existing beef pastures were expected to be replaced with sugarcane, truck crops, and citrus production. The majority of the changes were an upgrading of existing beef cattle operations. Such upgrading was affected (sic) by planting the more pro- ductive types of pasture such as clover and grass combinations, and the application of additional fertilizers and supplemental water. These expectations were assumed to exist under favorable cultivation conditions. Because of the nature of soil conditions in the project drainage basin, sandy with poor nutrient and water retention ability, it is unlikely that land use in the 261 square mile drainage basin will change significantly. As predicted by Mr. Hillard, it is likely that all the project would do is allow more grazing time on land which is now periodically flooded. Since it is not the function of this proceeding to inquire into whether the purported cost- benefit ratio of the project is accurate, no findings will be made concerning that issue. Project Permitting History The Hendry County portion of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control project for flood control west of levees 1, 2 and 3 was authorized by the Congress of the United States in the Flood Control Act of October 27, 1965. The Army Corps of Engineers is the actual builder of the project, but SFWMD is the local sponsor and is the Corps' agent in applying for the necessary permits from DER. The Department as the permitting agency is in a curious position here. Its Bureau of Water Resources (BWR) was responsible for the State Public Works Program through which Florida requested Congress to fund the Hendry County Project. Mr. Charles Littlejohn who was head of the Bureau in 1976 had the responsibility of lobbying in Washington for funding of the project. The DER through its Bureau of Permitting is now asked to pass on the validity of a project which the BWR has so vigorously promoted. The Department's uncomfortable posture was recognized by its permitting staff. In a memorandum dated March 9, 1979 to Mr. E.D. "Sonny" Vergara, Mr. Forrest Fields at DER wrote: I told Mr. Brown, as I told you yesterday that I felt rather awkward in reviewing for permitting a project which the agency had endorsed for the public works list." Every year projects being sponsored for federal approval are reviewed by a process In the Division of State Planning called the A-95 Clearinghouse.12/ The Hendry County Project had a checkered history there. Serious objections concerning the environmental impact of the project were raised; nevertheless, DER through the BWR continued to seek and was successful in obtaining federal funding. On November 15, 1978, SFWMD filed an application with DER for the requisite permits to begin construction. During the course of DER's review of the project several issues arose between the parties. Among them were: Whether local approval pursuant to Section 253.124, Florida Statutes would be required? Would an exception from dissolved oxygen (DO) standards be necessary? Whether local water quality standards would apply if they were stricter than state standards? Local Approval As early as February 19, 1979, DER noted that plans submitted by the applicant proposed the placement of fill in waters of the state. In a letter to Mr. Lee M. Brown of SFWMD, Mr. Forrest Fields, the DER permit processor, observed: Second, on page 2/11 of your drawings, you indicated that approximately 5,800 cubic yards of fill material will be placed water- ward of ordinary mean high water. I pre- sume that this fill is associated with structures S-243 and S-239. Pursuant to Section 253.124, Florida Statutes, approval of this filling by resolution of the local government is required. To do this I will, upon receipt of the Department of Environ- mental Regulation field report, summarize and send this to the Hendry County Commission. The Commission will have to consider this report, and, by vote, adopt a resolution approving the project. I will send you a sample resolution. The requirement of local approval was reiterated numerous times. In March, 1979, Mr. Fields sent a staff report of a biological survey of the project to the Hendry County Commission for consideration in their approval of the project. During a meeting on March 21, 1979 in the DER Secretary's office representatives of SFWMD were told that local approval would be required. On April 10, 1979 the County Commissioners of Hendry County gave their approval to the project. In correspondence to Mr. Charles Lee of the Florida Audubon Society, Secretary Jacob D. Varn noted that the permit applications were still incomplete because local approval for filling associated with the two water control structures had not yet been received by DER. During a public meeting held on May 22, 1979, the County Commissioners of Broward County, after three and one-half hours of testimony, voted 6-0 against approving the project as it related to fill in Broward County. Subsequent to that vote the Corps and SFWMD asserted that local approval by Broward County was not required. In response to this assertion Mr. Charles Littlejohn, on behalf of the Secretary, requested a legal opinion from DER's General Counsel. On October 30, 1979, General Counsel's Legal Opinion 79- 72 concluded that the Department could assert Chapter 253 jurisdiction over the project and therefore "local approval" is a statutory requirement for its permitting. On March 17, 1980 Mrs. Evelyn Jackman of Jackman and Sons, Inc., one of the major ranchers in the project drainage basin, wrote to Governor Graham to urge the rapid approval of the project. Her correspondence was forwarded to DER for an appropriate response. Ms. Victoria J. Tschinkel as Assistant Secretary noted in her reply on April 3, 1980 that: Pursuant to Section 253.124(3), Florida Statutes approval must be obtained from the County Commissioners before we can complete the processing of a permitting application for fill in navigable waters. Approval has not been received from Broward County and there Is fill proposed for the Broward County portion of the project. Ms. Tschinkel did, however, assure Mrs. Jackman that: The Department of Environmental Regulation is sympathetic to the problems outlined in your letter, and for that reason the Depart- ment has made this project part of its public works package given each year to Congress. We still support this as a public works pro- ject and for that reason we are attempting to work out the permitting problems as ex- peditiously as possible. Shortly after Ms. Tschinkel's letter was sent there was another meeting in the Secretary's office to discuss the project. Mr. Lotspeich's interoffice memorandum outlines the Department's new position as it related to local approval. In addition, the issue of what constituted fill pursuant to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, for local approval purposes was discussed. Helen Setchfield also partici- pated in this discussion. After Helen and I looked more closely at the project, it appeared that only a concrete structure (S-239) was to be placed waterward of OHW.13/ We both agreed that in past permitting practices we had not required local approval for the construction of structures waterward of OHW, but only when fill to extend existing lands or create new lands was involved. Since the application drawings did not clearly show the relation of the fill and structure relative to OHW and sheet 2 of 11 clearly indicates that fill will be placed "below MHW" Forrest must have assumed that local approval would be required if the canal was determined to be under Chapter 253, Florida Statutes jurisdic- tion. GCO-79-72 from Randie Denker indicated that the Department can assert Chapter 253, Florida Statutes jurisdiction in the canals and therefore local approval would be required. It would appear that there was really no clear understanding as to what the "fill" consisted of in the case of structure 239. Conversation with Mr. Walker [counsel for SFWMD] and Messrs. Parsons [counsel for Alico and other landowners] and Davis [SFWMD] indicated that there was no intention to place fill in the canal waterward of OHW and that the concrete structure would span the entire canal width. Since the application drawings did not clearly show the relation of the structure and fill re- lative to existing OHW, Mr. Walker said he would provide new drawings which would show this. Helen and I discussed the situation and we scheduled an appointment to talk the problem over the (sic) Terry Cole. It was agreed at the meeting that simultaneous "intent" letters would be sent on May 5, 1980 from permitting and the exception review people. May 16, 1980 DER entered into a Stipulation with SFWMD which states in its entirety: The SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT and the DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULA- TION for purposes of this proceeding hereby stipulate and agree that: The DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULA- TION has jurisdiction under Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, to require permits autho- rizing construction and other activities described in the application which is the subject of this proceeding. None of the activities or construction, including the construction of the proposed Spillway S-239, as described in the appli- cation which is the subject of this pro- ceeding, constitute construction of islands or an addition to or extension of existing lands and islands so that approval of local governments as described in Section 253.124, Florida Statutes, is not required. This Stipulation is executed by counsel for each party on the date shown. On May 20, 1980 coordinated letters of intent to grant permits for the construction of the project were issued. Pursuant to the Stipulation local approval was no longer being required by DER. Alternative Site Specific Criteria After receipt of SFWMD's permit application for the construction of C- 139 and associated structures, DIR noted that it did not have adequate data on dissolved oxygen. In correspondence dated March 9, 1979, Mr. Forrest Fields said: Fourth, the dissolved oxygen data are not adequate. The available data were col- lected during daylight, only, and these data include occasional concentrations of less than 4.0 mg/l. In an effort to re- solve these deficiencies so that reasonable assurances may be provided, you, Walt Dineen, and I will discuss the South Florida Water Management District data on Thursday, March 15. The results of the March 15, 1979 meeting were memorialized by Mr. Fields in a file memorandum dated March 19, 1979. The memorandum stated in pertinent part that: On March 15, 1979, Mr. Lee Brown, Mr. Walt Dineen, and Mr. Fred Davis, from SFWMD, called to discuss the staff's request for "reasonable assurance" re. the Department's water quality standards. Mr. Davis, the applicant's chief chemist, said that, throughout the Everglades, in both canals and conservation areas, the water quality standards for both conductivity and dis- solved oxygen are frequently violated. He asserted that this is typical of the area. He believes that these data represent natural background. The situation regarding affirmative, reasonable assurance appears to be this: widespread and frequent observations of DO data which are less than the minimum for Class III waters commonly occur within the existing L-1, L-2, L-3 canals. The increase in depth associated with C-139 is predicted to exacerbate existing stress- es on the DO regime.... However, the SFWMD's response does not constitute reasonable assurance re. other Class III standards. The District's DO and conductivity data may conceivably supply assurances that these standards will be violated in C-139. (Whether background DO and conductivity violate the standards may become important.) The District appears to have two alternatives: 1) attack the Class III standard; 2) apply for variances for, at least, DO and conductivity. A follow-up meeting was held on March 21, 1979. Again, in a file memorandum dated March 28, 1979 Mr. Fields wrote: Consideration of reasonable assurance began at the March 15, 1979, conversation among Messrs. Brown, Davis and Fields. According to the SFWMD, widespread and frequent violations of the Class III water quality standard for dissolved oxygen, as contained in Chapter 17-3, F.A.C., occur throughout the Everglades, in the canals, agriculture areas, Lake Okeechobee, and the conservation areas. The existing borrow canals follow this pattern. The SFWMD alleges that this condition is natural back- ground. They agree that it is probable that any existing DO stresses exist in the borrow canal will be exacerbated in the proposed C-139. However, both the former and present editions of Chapter 17-3 F.A.C. allow for exceptions for natural background. The SFWMD will review these rules to determine which regulatory approach will be taken. In addition, the SFWMD will supply to DER data for the "benchmark" station in the L-28 canal and at Everglades National Park to demonstrate lower back- ground concentrations of DO. Furthermore, the SFWMD will apply, per Ch. 403.087, F.S., for a temporary operating permit for the completed structure. Conditions governing private connections and incor- porating BMPs may be included in the TOP. On April 5, 1979, SFWMD submitted in support of its original permit application a document called Evaluation of Natural Background Dissolved Oxygen in Conservation Area 3-A, South Florida. This evaluation received unfavorable reviews at. DER. Landon P. Ross, chief biologist, wrote in an April 9, 1979 memo that: I have reviewed the data provided by SFWMD regarding background DOs in the Everglades area and have the following comments: Indication that DOs are not harmful to local organisms are, in a legal sense, irrelevant to the question. The data provided give evidence of the occurrence of low DOs in the area. Since the measured low DOs seem to be from artificial drainage channels, they can hardly be supposed to be "natural". The measures that SFWMD provided, however, do not seem too different from the values that I would expect to find in a natural swamp habitat. The proposed "standard" cannot be logically derived from the DO measurements provided. This Evaluation was later submitted in support of first Petition for Exception noted infra. In his review of the data Mr. Fred Bartleson at DER wrote:14/ The data submitted by the South Florida Water Management District does not justify the requested exception for dissolved oxy- gen criteria for the Hendry County Project. The petition alleges that D.O. concentra- tions lower than 1.0 mg/l occur in the re- ceiving waters of Conservation Area 3A. However, the data submitted from that area indicate a minimum value of 2.3 mg/l. The value cited in the petition of less than 1.0 mg/l was recorded in the L-3 borrow canal adjacent to the conservation area. This canal drains an agricultural area. Similar data from the L-28 east canal which is less affected by cultural activity depicts minimum D.O. values between 3 - 2 mg/l. The low D.O. values found naturally in fresh- water wetlands during the warmer months ob- viously result in stress to the biota. The introduction of larger quantities of water from the proposed Hendry County Project, which is anticipated to have lower D.O. values as well as nutrients and pesticides from agricultural runoff, could adversely affect the ecosystem. The proposed exception allowing discharge of water with not less than 1.0 mg/l for more than two consecutive hours in any 24-hour period is arbitrary and not supported by data. It may well be that an exception could be granted for some lowering of the D.O. criteria with time constraints. However, more defini- tive and conclusive data are required to in- sure that this action would not cause adverse effects. The burden of supplying this infor- mation should rest with the petitioner. His views were supported by Messrs. Kevin Edwards, Vernon Myers, and G. J. Thabaraj. Mr. Edwards also noted the difference in DO readings between the WCA- 3A and the borrow canals. SFWMD filed a Petition for an Exception on July 23, 1979. The Petition alleged that the receiving waters of the proposed discharge are located in WCA-3A and that due to natural causes that portion of WCA-3A which will receive the discharge does not meet the state standards for DO as set out in Section 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code. The DO levels of the proposed discharge are alleged to be similar to those levels already present in the water conservation area. In response to the Petition DER requested more information by a letter from Stephen Fox dated August 29, 1979. The letter requested: Data which supports the contention that the condition of the waters is the re- sult of natural causes, that is, there is an absence of man-induced alteration; or Data which supports the contention that the condition of the waters is the re- sult of man-induced causes which cannot be controlled or abated with technology or management practices. Data which supports the contention that the biota have not been adversely af- fected or will not be affected adversely. The data submitted with the application did not address the possibility that the low dis- solved oxygen levels may be caused by the practice of pumping water off the agriculture areas during the summer wet season. Compari- son with similar subtropical, undisturbed aquatic environment should be made. The dis- solved oxygen data should be compared with pumping schedules and with dissolved oxygen values of water pumped. Comprehensive water- shed and land use data is needed for a thorough review. Further, the data submitted did not support the contention in the petition of a corre- lation between C.A. 3A and canals L-3 and L-28. Also, the contention that in C.A. 3A dis- solved oxygen concentrations were below 1.0 mg/l were recorded was unsupported. The data array was not adequate in terms of distri- bution and frequency of sampling, to demon- strate that the dissolved oxygen regime ap- proaches the proposed alternative criteria. On October 2, 1979, E. D. Vergara summarized the status of the SFWMD application for the DER Secretary, Jacob D. Varn. His memorandum with respect to dissolved oxygen states: ... (permits) originally requested under old 17-3 rules, it was found quality assurances could not be made due to a naturally occurring condition of low DO. The Department requested information sup- portive of the low DO background, but due to differences in opinions among the biologists, the district elected to re- quest an exception under the provisions of the new 17-3 rule instead. Additional information has now been requested by the Department to support the request for an exception, and the District is cur- rently putting this together. It is the general feeling that with this additional data, granting the exception should be possible. SFWMD responded to Mr. Fox's letter above by submitting in the Spring of 1980, an Amended Petition for Exception from Criteria. In its Amended Petition the District abandoned the comparison, found in the original petition, of the proposed discharged waters' dissolved oxygen levels to the levels found in the water conservation district. Instead the District concentrated on a comparison of the dissolved oxygen levels in the proposed discharge waters to the levels in the relatively clean canals in the South Florida area, specifically the L-28 canal system. The District proposed that as an alternative to Class III standards the following criterion be established: During any 24-hour cycle the dissolved oxygen concentration within the photic zone shall exceed 1.0 mg/l, except during the extreme low point when values shall not be less than 1.0 mg/l for more than two consecutive hours. (Emphasis added) Accompanying SFWMD's Amended Petition was a report (Supporting Report) dated February, 1980, which provided a voluminous compilation of data to justify the alternative standard proposed.15/ On April 8, 1980, Ms. Helen Setchfield sent a memorandum to DER staff requesting that they review the Amended Petition and report back to her within five days. Also on April 8, 1980, after a meeting attended by both SFWMD representatives and DER representatives, it was decided that DER would issue coordinated letters of intent on May 5, 1980 for both the exception and the dredge and fill applications. In spite of the decision to issue letters of intent, DER permitting staff were not satisfied with the concept that ban-made canals were "natural" background or that the proposed DO standard was reasonable. On April 16, 1980, Rick Lotspeich wrote to Suzanne Walker, Chief of the Bureau of Permitting, that: I have reviewed the referenced "request for exception" and it appears that the petition and supporting report are suf- ficiently complete to allow evaluation of the merits of the request. It would appear that the proposed dis- solved oxygen standard of 2.0 mg/l over 24 hours and 1.0 mg/l "during the extreme low point" for not more than two hours, is excessively low and not warranted by the data presented. A review of the data from figures 4 and 5 generally indicate that the following standard would be appropriate: Dissolved Oxygen: The concentration should not average less than 4.0 mg/l in a 24-hour period and not less than 3.0 mg/l except during the months of June--September, when the concentra- tion shall not average less than 3.0 mg/l in a 24-hour period and never less than 1.0 mg/l. Later, after having received comments from Rick Cantrell and Bob Siciler, Mr. Lotspeich wrote to Ms. Walker the following: My recollection from reading the request for exception was that SFWMD had indeed recognized the fact that the canals and their design had contributed to the de- pressed DO values of the water in them. Pursuant to Subsection 17-3.031(1), Florida Administrative Code, there may be a consideration for "man-induced causes which cannot be controlled or abated I am in full agreement with Cantrell and Siciler's discussion of the adverse impacts that canals in general, and the specific canal involved in this project, have on water quality and biological resources. However, I disagree with the conclusions that they reached. Clearly, there are extenuating circumstances involved in this case which set it apart from other dredge and fill cases. In light of these circum- stances, the fact that the depressed DO levels have resulted from man-induced causes which cannot be controlled, and Cantrell and Siciler's own statement that approval of this project has little probability of worsening the existing water quality of L-2, L-3 and WCA-3, I would recommend that the exception be granted. However, the alternate DO standard which I recommended in my previous memo is still applicable. (Emphases added. The "extenuating circum- stances" were never explained.) Subsequently, on May 20, 1980, the Department issued a coordinated letter of intent to grant an exception but for the standard proposed by Mr. Lotspeich, not that requested by the Water Management District. Dissolved Oxygen and Exception Section 17-3.121(14), Florida Administrative Code requires that discharges into fresh waters of the state must exhibit dissolved oxygen concentrations of 5.04 mg/l or more. Normal daily and seasonal fluctuations above that level must be maintained. Dissolved oxygen in certain concentrations is required for aquatic life. The amount of oxygen contained in water is subject to numerous variables, many of which are interrelated. They include: amount of sunlight entering the water, ability of the water to transmit light, photosynthetic activity of aquatic plants, water temperature, mechanical oxygenation, mixing with other water which may have either a higher or lower dissolved oxygen content, depth of water, rate of oxygen consumption by resident biota, and time of day. It is undisputed that during certain seasons and times of day the water in the existing borrow canal does not meet the state dissolved oxygen standard. Readings as low as 0.9 mg/l have been obtained there. These low readings usually occur in the months of heavy rainfall, primarily July through September. See the data on Figure 4 of SFWMD's Supporting Report. Similar, though not so low measurements have been obtained in neighboring man-made canals such as L-28. L-28 has been used by water quality experts as a "benchmark" for canal water quality since it does not receive large amounts of runoff from agricultural areas where pollutants such as fertilizers are used. There are numerous times during a given year that the dissolved oxygen levels in L-28 are below the 5.0 mg/l state standard. It is also possible to find at least two locations in WCA-3A wetlands where dissolved oxygen readings are below Class III standards. At Gauge 3-2 in the northwest corner of WCA-3A near where the project would discharge, dissolved oxygen levels have varied from 2.3 mg/l to 10.8 mg/l; however, the mean value for the measured levels has been 5.5 mg/l as reported on Table 2 of the Supporting Report.16/ Unfortunately, the data regarding dissolved oxygen concentrations in the proposed discharge area are scant. This paucity was recognized by the Supporting Report which states at page 6: "No systematic study of the dissolved oxygen conditions or requirements for fresh water wetlands in general, or WCA-3A in particular, have yet been conducted." Despite the limited data on WCA-3A, certain comparisons between DO readings in it and in the borrow canal which would discharge into the area can be made. Readings taken at Gauge 3-2 do not sink to levels as low as those found in L-3. Compare Figure 4 of the Report to Table 2. The minimum readings taken in L-3 were during those periods of greatest discharge. If the discharge from the existing borrow canal were presently sent into the area of Gauge 3-2 during months of peak discharge, the waters entering WCA-3A would have a lower dissolved oxygen concentration than would exist naturally in the area. It is not surprising that water in the borrow canal exhibits unusually low dissolved oxygen levels. The levee sides limit reaeration which could occur due to wind movement. The surface-to-volume ratio is also unfavorable. Much oxygenation occurs at the interface between the water and surrounding air, but because the canal is relatively deep compared to its surface area, the proportion of water coming into direct contact with the air is low.17/ The depth of the photic zone, i.e., the section of water penetrated by light, is limited due to the naturally high color of canal water. Construction of C-139 will add somewhat to a lowering of dissolved oxygen levels in the entire canal water column. To increase its conveyance capacity, the existing borrow canal will be deepened significantly, particularly in its southern reaches. This deepening will result in a lowering of the ratio between the area of water surface to the depth of the canal. No mathematical data were presented by which the lowered ratio can be computed; however, an examination of Plates A-24 and A- 25 of the General Design Memorandum indicates that completed C-139 will contain a higher ratio of water below the photic zone than is presently contained in the borrow canal.18/ This is true only during those times when the canal is relatively full of water. As the canal level drops during a drought the photic zone will approach the canal bottom in the shallower sections. Both SFWMD and DER have proposed site specific DO alternative standards. These have been set out in the foregoing discussion of the permitting history. There is a significant difference between the proposals. SFWMD's proposal includes only the waters contained in the photic zone. It fails to recognize that during times of discharge, the waters of C-139 which are deposited in WCA-3A will not be only those of the photic zone, but will come from the entire water column of the canal. While SFWMD's standard might be acceptable for C-139 when it is in a no discharge state, the standard is completely unacceptable when the canal is discharging. Neither the standard proposed by DER nor SFWMD recognizes the difference between the dissolved oxygen regime which can be predicted for C-139 and that presently existing in WCA-3A. The data submitted would justify an exception from the present 5.0 mg/l Class III standard. There are certainly times when both the water existing in relatively unpolluted canals and in the water conservation area contain less than the present minimal content of dissolved oxygen. When C-139 is not discharging an exception, which would have a range now exhibited by the existing borrow canal, would be justified for the new canal. Sufficient data was not presented here to suggest the precise figures for such an exception. The information given for L-3 for instance, is compiled from samples taken only once during a given day. The water depth of the sample is not given. Accurate data would account for the diel variation and the effect of water depth on each sample. Without data which gives a daily average, it is impossible to determine if the water either standing in, or discharging from C- 139 will meet any proposed alternative criterion. For the same reason the data obtained for the present DO concentrations in WCA-3A is incomplete for establishing appropriate levels for discharge waters entering that area. The establishment of site specific alternative criteria must await the submission of more complete dissolved oxygen readings from the applicant. One of the elements in considering whether to grant an exception to established standards is whether the existing biota have adapted to the background DO levels. The proof here shows that the fish and other biota now living in the borrow canal either tolerate or have adapted to the present low DO regime there. It has also been proven that the biota in WCA-3A are tolerant of the naturally occurring low DO levels in that area. It was not shown how they would respond to a massive influx of low DO water when C-139 would be discharging. Hydroperiod in WCA-3A The northwest corner of WCA-3A, where C-139 and C-139(S) will discharge, has a higher ground elevation than that of the southern portion of the water conservation area. The highest elevation in the extreme northwest corner is approximately 17 feet above mean sea level (MSL). It tapers down to approximately ten feet MSL at the southern boundary of WCA-3A. The project is designed to facilitate the sheet flow of discharge water from the northwest area towards the southeast with an ultimate destination being flow into the Miami canal. The construction of the Miami canal, C-123, which runs on a northwest- southeast diagonal across the area, causes overdrainage of the northwest section. The borrow canal along Alligator Alley also contributes to excess runoff. This overdrainage has shortened the hydroperiod in the northwest corner from approximately 9 to 10 months to approximately 5 to 7 months. "Hydroperiod" is the span of time during which land is inundated by ponded water. The shorten hydroperiod has a profoundly destructive impact on the natural environment. The muck soil when not submerged oxidizes at an accelerated rate. At the present time the rate of oxidation in the northwest corner is more rapid than the replacement rate. Since the natural hydroperiod has been altered muck fires have been more severe and frequent. These fires destroy existing tree islands which dot the Prior to 1974 WCA-3A received discharges from the waters of the L-1, 2 and 3 borrow canal. The outlet of the canal at L-4 was determined to be inadequate for flood control purposes in the L-1 angle. To increase the discharge rate of the borrow canal culverts G-88 and G-89 were installed at the L-3/L-4 intersection in October of 1974. G-89 directs part of the flow from the L-3 canal into canal L-28 west, and then into pumping station 5-140 and into C- 60 (parallel to Alligator Alley). G-88 directs another part of the flow from the L-3 canal into the L-4 borrow canal and then into S-8 where it is pumped into the Miami canal. Rather than being allowed to flow in a shallow sheet across the water conservation area, the direct water flow is now sent southeast in canals for ultimate discharge outside the area. This waste would be eliminated by the proposal to have C-139 discharge into WCA-3A via C-139(S). There is no dispute that more water is needed annually in the northwest corner of the water conservation area. What is at issue here is the timing of placing additional water there. Generally when there is flooding in the L-1 angle and C-139 would be discharging at its maximum rate there is already flooding in WCA-3A. Rainstorm events are somewhat regional and cover both areas. The applicant estimates that if the volume of water discharged by C-139 in a two-week period were to be instantaneously spread over the northwest corner of WCA-3A 20/ it would raise the water stage by 0.4 feet. This would occur during a one in ten year storm. At that time the wildlife in the water conservation area would already be stressed by high water levels. A 0.4 foot increase in stage could kill deer and other terrestrial animals and destroy alligator nests, but it also could benefit the more aquatic animals. The result of this increase cannot be accurately predicted on the data supplied by the applicant.21/ While expert witnesses on behalf of the applicant were willing to express an opinion that the influx of drainage water from C-139 would be beneficial, the opinions were simplistically based on the unsupported assumption that because WCA-3A currently suffers from overdrainage, any additional water at any time would be beneficial. It is possible that those opinions were based on studies conducted which prove that a discharge of water such as will come from C-139 may create a beneficial increase in the marsh hydroperiod. Unfortunately, no evidence of the existence of such studies is in this record. The applicant's expert witnesses' opinions are therefore given little weight. In the present situation WCA-3A receives some water from the borrow canal during the dry season when additional water is most beneficial. At the expense of overdraining the land west of the borrow canal, ground water seepage now enters the canal and travels south through L-1, 2 and 3. After the construction of S-239, designed to prevent overdrainage, any possible flow into WCA-3A during dry periods will be cut off. No evidence was presented on what quantity of water WCA-3A will lose during a dry season due to S-239. Also the record does not reflect what effect that reduction will have on biota in the water conservation area. S-239 and Fill When the level of water in the borrow canal drops below the nearby water table, there is groundwater seepage laterally into the canal. If C-139 were to be constructed without any water control devices, it would exacerbate the overdrainage because it will be a far more efficient conveyance than is the borrow canal. S-239 has been designed to prevent this overdrainage. The structure will be located in Broward County. On May 22, 1979 the County declined to give its approval of the use of any fill, as the term is used in Section 253.124, Florida Statutes, for the construction of this project in Broward County. The Department of Environmental Regulation has not maintained a consistent unwritten policy on what is "fill" in navigable waters of the state.22/ Testimony from past and present Department employees indicated that at times a "use" concept was employed to determine what was fill. If additional dry land were created which would be used for commercial purposes, then the newly created land was called fill which required local approval. At other times use was unimportant. The test was whether or not the result of the additional material would be moving the point, at which the high water mark intersected the land, in a waterward direction. It is found that what constituted fill in past permit cases depended upon the personal interpretation of each Department employee. S-239 as proposed is a massive structure which will cost 1.32 million dollars 23/ to build. It will contain 11,000 cubic yards of fill and backfill; 530 cubic yards of 1' by 1' pieces of stone rip-rap; 1,230 cubic yards of concrete and 647,000 pounds of cement. 153,800 pounds of reinforcing steel will be required. The structure will be over 50 feet high and will span C-139 where it is 60 feet wide. Each of the two vertical lift gates which control the water flow will be 27 feet wide. See Illustration II.* In between them will be a concrete pier three feet wide and approximately 38 feet long. The cement bottom of the structure will rise from an elevation of 8.0 feet MSL to a crest of 3.3 feet MSL for a total height of 11.3 feet. In order to allow service vehicles to pass across the canal a bridge 13 feet wide will span from one bank to the other. This bridge will support large trucks. The stone protection provided for in the plans consists of 1 foot square pieces of rip-rap to be placed 40 feet immediately upstream from the control gates and 30 feet immediately downstream of the gates. The purpose of this protection is to prevent erosion of the canal bottom and sides where the water flows by at a relatively high velocity. The majority of rip-rap will be placed below the ordinary high water mark. Local Water Quality Standards The issue of local water quality standards arose late in the permitting process. DER had already issued two letters of intent to SFWMD before the Department gave consideration to standards promulgated by Broward County. It appears from the record that the Broward County standards were formally brought to DER's attention through the County's Petition for Formal Hearing filed on June 3, 1980. On June 26, 1980, DER issued an amended letter of intent which said: This letter is an amendment of the letter of intent to issue signed by the Department on May 20, 1980. In that letter, the Depart- ment stated: "This intent to issue is contin- gent upon the applicant being granted an exception from the criteria for dis- solved oxygen, for Class III waters, pursuant to Section 17-3.031, Florida Administrative Code." The preceding paragraph is hereby amended to include a provision that the applicant must obtain relief from the dissolved oxygen stan- dards that appear in Section 27-5.072(19), Broward County Code, through a variance or other legal mechanism, in addition to the exception from state standards for dissolved oxygen. Section 27-5.072(19), Broward County Code, states that DO is to have a "daily average not less than 5 mg/l; single reading never less than 4 mg/l. The May 20, 1980, letter also contained a paragraph that read: "However, should the Department grant an exception from the dissolved oxygen criteria pursuant to Section 17-3.031, Florida Administrative Code, the Division intends to issue the permit." This paragraph is hereby stricken and the following paragraph substituted: "If the Department grants an exception from the State dissolved oxygen criteria pursuant to Section 17-3.031, Florida Administrative Code, the Division intends to issue a conditional permit which will only become valid upon the granting of relief by Broward County from its existing local standards for dissolved oxygen." The Department is taking this position upon consideration of Section 403.182(6), Florida Statutes, which requires the Department to en- force all stricter or more stringent rules, regulations or orders in the jurisdiction where they apply. It is the Department's position that it is without discretion to grant relief from Broward County's local standard for dis- solved oxygen. By its Petition the County alleged that it has an approved local pollution control program and that the proposed project will violate its local standards for dissolved oxygen and nutrients found in Sections 27-117(b)(9) and 27-117(11) of the Broward County Code.24/ Neither SFWMD nor the Corps has applied to the Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board for either a license under Chapter 27 of the County Code or for a variance from the standards established therein. On April 20, 1972, the Florida Department of Pollution Control (the predecessor of the Department of Environmental Regulation) gave temporary and conditional approval for six months to the Broward County Pollution Control Program. This approval provided that the County has full authority to enforce its own laws, rules and regulations, provided that they must be as strict or stricter than those of the State. The County was also required to modify its rules if the State subsequently adopted the regulations in conflict with those of the County. On November 7, 1972, the Department of Pollution Control gave Broward County full and final approval pursuant to Section 403.182, Florida Statutes. Subsequently, in 1974 and 1976 the State and Broward County entered into new agreements. These agreements were the result of DER's desire to make uniform all its agreements with all qualified local programs. The Broward County pollution control program including the portion administered by the Environmental Quality Control Board, continues to be an approved local program as defined at Section 403.182, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter an Order denying South Florida Water Management District's application for a water quality permit and for a dredge and fill permit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Department of Administration Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1982. * NOTE: Illustration I, noted in paragraph 8 and Illustration II, noted in paragraph 49 are not a part of this ACCESS document. Illustrationn II is available for review in the Division's Clerk's Office.
The Issue The issue is whether the District should approve Environmental Resource Permit No. 43024788.002 for the construction of a surface water management system to serve the proposed residential subdivision on Westfield’s property in southern Pasco County, and based upon the prior litigation between the parties in DOAH Case No. 04-0003 and the pre-hearing rulings in this case, the issue turns on whether Westfield has provided “reasonable assurances” in relation to the proposed development's potential impacts on Wetland A3 and fish and wildlife.
Findings Of Fact Parties Dr. Blanco is a veterinarian. He grew up on, and has some sort of ownership interest in the property (hereafter “the Blanco property”) immediately to the west of the property on which the proposed development at issue in this case will occur. Dr. Blanco is particularly concerned about the impacts of the proposed development on the ecological health of Wetland A3, a significant portion of which is on the Blanco property. He has spent considerable time over the years observing and enjoying that wetland. Westfield is the applicant for the ERP at issue in this case, and it owns the property (hereafter “the Westfield property”) on which the development authorized by the ERP will occur. The District is the administrative agency responsible for the conservation, protection, management, and control of the water resources within its geographic boundaries pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40D. Among other things, the District is responsible for reviewing and taking final agency action on ERP applications for projects within its boundaries. The District includes all or part of 16 counties in southwest Florida, including Pasco County. The Proposed Development (1) Generally The Westfield property consists of 266.36 acres.3 It is located in southern Pasco County on the north side of State Road 54, approximately three miles west of U.S. Highway 41 and less than one-half mile east of the intersection of State Road 54 and the Suncoast Parkway. The Westfield property is bordered on the south by State Road 54,4 on the north by an abandoned railroad right-of- way and undeveloped woodland property, on the east by pastureland and property that has been cleared for development, and on the west by the Blanco property. The development proposed for the Westfield property is a residential subdivision with 437 single-family lots and related infrastructure (hereafter “the Project” or “the proposed development”). The ERP at issue in this proceeding is for the surface water management system necessary to serve the Project. There are 19 isolated and contiguous wetlands on the Westfield property, including Wetland A3, which is partially on the Westfield property and partially on the Blanco property. Wetlands cover 72.69 acres (or 27.3 percent) of the Westfield property. The proposed development will result in 1.61 acres of the existing wetlands -- Wetlands B4 and C4, and a portion of Wetland B12 -- being permanently destroyed. The remaining 71.08 acres of existing wetlands will be preserved. Wetlands B4 and C4 are small (each less than 0.75 acres), shallow, wet depressions in a pasture that have been significantly impacted by livestock grazing and periodic mowing. Wetland B12 is a low-quality, small (0.58 acres), isolated, forested wetland that has been impacted by livestock grazing and the intrusion of exotic species. The proposed development will create 2.89 acres of new wetlands, which means that the Project will result in a net gain of 1.28 acres of wetlands. The created wetlands, referred to as Wetland B2 or the “mitigation area,” are in the northern portion of the property along the abandoned railroad right-of-way and to the east of Wetland A3. The proposed ERP includes a number of special conditions, Nos. 6 through 11, related to the mitigation area. Among other things, the conditions require monitoring of the mitigation area to ensure that it develops into the type of forested wetland proposed in the ERP application. (2) Prior ERP Application The ERP at issue in this case is the second ERP sought by Westfield for the Project. The first ERP, No. 43024788.000, was ultimately denied by the District through the Final Order in Blanco-I. Blanco-I, like this case, was initiated by Dr. Blanco in response to the District’s preliminary approval of Westfield’s ERP application. Administrative Law Judge David Maloney held a three- day final hearing in Blanco-I at which the parties, through counsel, fully litigated the issue of whether Westfield satisfied the regulatory criteria for the issuance of an ERP for the proposed development. On December 17, 2004, Judge Maloney issued a comprehensive, 64-page Recommended Order in which he recommended that Westfield’s ERP application be denied. Judge Maloney determined in his Recommended Order that Westfield failed to provide reasonable assurances as required by the applicable statutes and rules because “[1] it omitted an adequate wildlife survey from the submission of information to the District and [2] it failed to account for seepage from Pond P11 and its effect on Wetland A3 and the Cypress-forested Wetland.”5 In all other respects, Judge Maloney determined that the applicable permit requirements had been satisfied. Dr. Blanco did not file any exceptions to the Recommended Order in Blanco-I. Westfield’s exceptions to the Recommended Order in Blanco-I were rejected by the District, and the Recommended Order was adopted “in its entirety” in the District’s Final Order. The Final Order in Blanco-I was rendered on January 27, 2005, and was not appealed. (3) Current ERP Application On April 29, 2005, approximately three months after the Final Order in Blanco-I, Westfield submitted a new ERP application for the Project. The current ERP application, No. 43024788.002, is identical to the application at issue in Blanco-I, except that the depth of Pond P11 was reduced in certain areas from a maximum of approximately 25 feet to a maximum of approximately 12 feet, an analysis of the potential impact of Pond P11 on Wetland A3 resulting from “seepage” was included with the application, and additional wildlife surveys were included with the application. On July 29, 2005, the District gave notice of its preliminarily approval of the current ERP application. The notice was accompanied by a proposed ERP, which contained a description of the Project as well as the general and special conditions imposed by the District. On August 24, 2005, Dr. Blanco timely challenged the District’s preliminary approval of the current ERP application. The Request for Administrative Hearing filed by Dr. Blanco in this case is identical to the request that he filed in Blanco-I. Disputed Issues Related to the Current ERP Application Impact of Pond P11 on Wetland A3 Dr. Blanco’s primary objection to the Project is the excavation of Pond P11 adjacent to Wetland A3. Wetland A3 is on the western border of the Westfield property and, as noted above, the wetland extends onto the Blanco property. The portion of Wetland A3 that is on the Westfield property is approximately 30 acres, and the portion of the wetland on the Blanco property appears to be slightly larger. Wetland A3 is a large, mature, Cypress-forested wetland. It has been impacted by nearby development and is not a pristine wetland, but it is still a mid to high quality wetland for the area.6 Wetland A3 is part of a larger wetland system that extends northward and westward beyond the abandoned railroad right-of-way that serves as the northern boundary of the Westfield and Blanco properties. Cypress-forested wetlands, such as Wetland A3, are very tolerant of prolonged periods of drought and inundation. The seasonal high groundwater level in Wetland A3 is approximately one foot below the surface in most areas of the wetland. There are, however, areas in Wetland A3 in which water is frequently a foot or two above the surface. The groundwater levels in Wetland A3 have, in the past, been significantly impacted by drawdowns in the aquifer caused by pumping in nearby wellfields. The impact has been less significant in recent years as a result of the reductions in pumping mandated by the Tampa Bay Consolidated Water Use Permit. The planned interconnection of several nearby wellfields is also expected to minimize the drawdowns in the aquifer and should further stabilize the groundwater levels in Wetland A3. Pond P11 will be located adjacent to Wetland A3. There will be a 25-foot buffer between the pond and the wetland. The location of Pond P11 is unchanged from the first ERP application. Pond P11 will have a surface area of approximately 37 acres. The surface area of Pond P11 is unchanged from the first ERP application. Pond P11 is a necessary component of the surface water management system for the Project. It also serves as a “borrow pit” because the soil excavated from the pond will be used on- site as fill for the proposed development. The excavation of Pond P11 to the depth proposed in the current ERP application is not necessary for water storage. The pond could be excavated to the seasonal high water level -- approximately 2.5 feet deep -- and still function as intended as part of the proposed surface water management system. Pond P11 will be used for attenuation, but the pond is also expected to provide at least some amount of water quality treatment, which is an added benefit to Wetland A3 into which the proposed surface water management system will ultimately discharge through Pond P11. The only change made to Pond P11 between the first and current ERP applications was a reduction in the pond’s maximum depth. The pond, which had a maximum depth of approximately 25 feet in the first ERP application, was “shallowed up” in the current ERP application. Pond P11 will now be approximately 12-feet deep at its deepest point, unless the District authorizes excavation to a greater depth in accordance with special condition No. 28. The shallowest area of Pond P11 will be along the western edge of the pond adjacent to Wetland A3 where there will be an expansive “littoral shelf” that will have almost no slope and that will be excavated only to the seasonal high water level.7 There was no change in the design of the surface water management system between the first ERP application and the current ERP application. The reduction in the depth of Pond P11 will have no impact on the operation of the system, which was described in detail in Blanco-I.8 Pond P11 will have a control structure to allow water to be discharged into Wetland A3 near its southern end, which is a more upstream location than water is currently discharged as a result of the ditches that intercept surface water flowing across the Westfield property. This design feature of the surface water management system is intended to mimic historic hydrologic conditions and is expected to increase the hydration of Wetland A3. The ERP includes a special condition, No. 28, relating to the excavation of Pond P11. The condition provides: Maximum depth of excavation will be +38 feet NGVD[9] unless additional field observations and data are provided that support excavation to greater depth, subject to review and approval by District staff. Proposed maximum depths of excavation . . . may be exceeded based upon field observations and approval as specified. Due to the potentially irregular depths to limestone, excavation will be stopped at a shallower depth if confining soils are encountered before reaching the maximum depth specified in Subcondition A, above. A geotechnical field technician will be present on site during the entire excavation process in order to monitor excavated soils. The field technician will be under the supervision of a Professional Geologist or Professional Engineer. For the purposes of the specific project, confining soils are defined as soils with more then 20 percent fines passing a No. 200 sieve. The field technician will be authorized to halt depth of excavation when confining soils are encountered. Excavation may proceed deeper than soils containing 20 percent or more fines if the soils are shown to be an isolated lens of material significantly above underlying confining soils or limestone, as determined by field observations and data subject to approval by District staff. Confining soils do not uniformly overlie the limestone; therefore it is possible that the underlying limestone could be encountered in spite of precautions in Subconditions A and B above. If the underlying limestone is encountered, excavation will be halted in the area of exposed underlying limestone. The area of exposed limestone will be backfilled to a minimum depth of two feet with compacted material meeting the specification of confining soils, having more than 20 percent fines passing a No. 200 sieve. The geotechnical field technician must certify that the backfill material meets this specification. One of the reasons that the ERP application was denied in Blanco-I was that Westfield failed to take into account the potential hydrologic impacts on Wetland A3 caused by “seepage” of water from Pond P11 due to the depth to which the pond was to be excavated and the corresponding removal of the confining layer of soils between the bottom of the pond and the aquifer. After Blanco-I, Westfield retained Marty Sullivan, a professional engineer and an expert in geotechnical engineering and groundwater and surface water modeling, to evaluate the seepage issue and the potential hydrologic impacts of Pond P11 on Wetland A3. Mr. Sullivan developed an integrated or “coupled” groundwater/surface water model to assess these issues. The model was designed to project the change in groundwater levels caused by the proposed development more so than absolute groundwater levels. The model utilized a widely-accepted computer program and incorporated data from topographic and soil survey information maintained by the U.S. Geologic Service; data from soil borings performed on the Westfield property in the vicinity of Wetland A3 in the area where Pond P11 will be located; data from groundwater monitoring wells and piezometers installed around the Westfield property; data from soil permeability tests performed on-site and in the laboratory; data from a rain gauge installed on the Westfield property; and data from the District’s groundwater monitoring wells in the vicinity of the Westfield property. Mr. Sullivan “calibrated” the model based upon known pre-development conditions. He then “ran” the model with the data from the Interconnected Pond Routing (ICPR) model10 used to design of the surface water management system in order to project the post-development groundwater conditions over a simulated ten-year period. Mr. Sullivan’s coupled groundwater/surface water model addresses the shortcoming of the ICPR model set forth in Blanco- I.11 The model projects that the post-development groundwater levels at the western boundary of the Westfield property in Wetland A3 adjacent to Pond P11 will be the same as the pre-development levels during the “wet season” of June to September, and that, on average and during the “dry season” of October to May, the post-development groundwater levels will be 0.3 feet higher than the pre-development levels. Mr. Sullivan summarized his conclusions based upon these projections in a report provided to the District with the current ERP application. The report states that: no adverse hydrologic effects will result from the excavation of Pond P11 and the development of the surrounding area. Particularly, Wetland A3 will be essentially unaffected and will be slightly enhanced by this development. Some additional hydration of wetland A3 will occur due to eliminating the north-south drainage ditch and instead routing runoff to Pond P11, which is adjacent to Wetland A3. The relative differences in the pre- and post- development levels are more important than the absolute levels projected by the model and, in this case, there is almost no difference in the levels. The minimal change in the water levels expected in Wetland A3 will not affect the wetland’s ecological functioning or its viability. A 0.3-foot change in the water level is well within the normal range of hydroperiod fluctuation for Wetland A3. The rate at which water increases and decreases in a wetland can impact wetland ecology and wetland-dependent species. The proposed surface water management system will not increase the surface water discharges from the Westfield property, and in compliance with Section 4.2 of the Basis of Review (BOR),12 the post-development discharge rates will not exceed the pre-development peak discharge rates. There is no credible evidence that there will be an adverse impact on Wetland A3 caused by changes in the discharge rate from the Westfield property through Pond P11 into Wetland A3. The range of error, if any, in Mr. Sullivan’s model is unknown. He has never performed a post-development review to determine how accurately the model predicts the post-development conditions that are actually observed. Nevertheless, the more persuasive evidence establishes that Mr. Sullivan’s model is reasonable, as are his ultimate conclusions based upon the model’s projections. Mr. Sullivan recommended in his report that Pond P11 be excavated no deeper than two feet above the limestone to avoid potential breaches of the confining soils above the aquifer. That recommendation led to the pond being “shallowed up,” and it was incorporated by the District into special condition No. 28. The provisions of special condition No. 28 are reasonable to ensure that excavation of Pond P11 will not breach the confining layer. The standards in special condition No. 28 pursuant to which a geotechnical field technician will monitor the excavation of Pond P11, and pursuant to which the District will determine whether to authorize deeper excavation of the pond, are generally accepted and can be adequately monitored by professionals in the field and the District. There is a potential for the loss of “significant volumes of water” from Pond P11 through evaporation “[d]ue to the sheer size of P11’s open surface area.”13 It is not entirely clear how the evaporation of water from Pond P11 was taken into account in Mr. Sullivan’s model, but it appears to have been considered.14 Dr. Mark Rains, Petitioner’s expert in hydrogeology, ecohydrology, and geomorphology, testified that evaporation from open water is generally about 12 inches more per year than evaporation from a wet meadow or Cypress forest, but he did not offer any specific criticism of the projections in Mr. Sullivan’s model related to the issue of evaporation. In sum, the more persuasive evidence establishes that Wetland A3 is not likely to suffer any adverse ecological or hydrological impacts from the proposed surface water management system and, more particularly, from Pond P11. Westfield has provided reasonable assurances in that regard. (2) Adequacy of the Wildlife Surveys The other reason why the first ERP application for the Project was denied in Blanco-I was that the wildlife surveys submitted with that application were found to be inadequate. Wildlife surveys are not required with every ERP application and, in that regard, Section 3.2.2 of the BOR provides that: [t]he need for a wildlife survey will depend on the likelihood that the site is used by listed species, considering site characteristics and the range and habitat needs of such species, and whether the proposed system will impact that use such that the criteria in subsection 3.2.2 through 3.2.2.3 and subsection 3.2.7 will not be met. Westfield conducted a “preliminary” wildlife assessment in 2001. No listed species were observed, nor was any evidence of their presence on the Westfield property. Nevertheless, as detailed in Blanco-I,15 the District requested that Westfield perform a wildlife survey of Wetlands B4, C4, and B12, because all or part of those wetlands will be permanently destroyed by the proposed development. In an effort to comply with the District’s requests, Westfield conducted additional field visits in 2003 and also performed specific surveys for Southeastern Kestrels and Gopher Tortoises. The field visits “confirmed” the findings from the preliminary wildlife assessment, and no evidence of Southeastern Kestrels and Gopher Tortoises was observed during the surveys for those species. Judge Maloney found in Blanco-I that the wildlife surveys conducted by Westfield were inadequate because they “did not employ the methodology recommended by the District: the FWCC methodology.”16 However, the wildlife surveys were not found to be inadequate in Blanco-I because they focused on Wetlands B4, C4, and B12, instead of evaluating the entire Westfield property and/or all of the potentially impacted wetlands, including Wetland A3. After Blanco-I, a team of qualified professionals led by Brian Skidmore, an expert in wetlands, Florida wetlands ecology, and listed species assessment, conducted additional wildlife surveys of the Westfield property. Mr. Skidmore and his team had performed the preliminary wildlife assessment and the supplemental surveys submitted with Westfield’s first ERP application. The “FWCC methodology” referenced in Blanco-I is a methodology developed by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) to evaluate potential impacts to listed species from large-scale projects, such as developments-of- regional impact and new highways. It is not specifically designed for use in the ERP process, which focuses only on wetland-dependent species. Mr. Skidmore adapted the FWCC methodology for use in the ERP process. The methodology used by Mr. Skidmore was reviewed and accepted by the District’s environmental regulation manager, Leonard Bartos, who is an expert in wetland ecology and ERP rules. The surveys performed by Mr. Skidmore and his team of professionals occurred over a five-day period in February 2005. The surveys focused on Wetlands B4, C4, and B12, and were performed at dawn and dusk when wildlife is typically most active. Additional wildlife surveys of the entire site were performed on five separate days between October 2005 and January 2006. Those surveys were also performed at dawn and dusk, and they included observations along the perimeter of Wetland A3 and into portions of the interior of that wetland on the Westfield property. Mr. Skidmore reviewed databases maintained by FWCC to determine whether there are any documented waterbird colonies or Bald Eagle nests in the vicinity of the Project. There are none. Mr. Skidmore contacted the Florida Natural Area Inventory to determine whether there are any documented rare plant or animal species on the Westfield property or in the vicinity of the Project. There are none. The post-Blanco-I wildlife surveys did not evaluate the usage of the Westfield property by listed species during the wetter spring and summer months of March through October even though, as Mr. Skidmore acknowledged in his testimony, it is possible that different species may use the property during the wet season. The post-Blanco-I wildlife surveys, like the original wildlife surveys, focused primarily on the species contained in Appendix 5 to the BOR -- i.e., wetland-dependent species that use uplands for nesting, foraging, or denning -- but Mr. Skidmore testified that he and his surveyors “were observant for any species,” including wetland-dependent species that do not utilize uplands. No listed wetland-dependent species were observed nesting or denning on the Westfield property. Several listed wetland-dependent birds -- i.e., snowy egret, sandhill crane, wood stork, and white ibis -- were observed foraging and/or resting on the property. Those birds were not observed in Wetlands B4, C4, or B12. The parties stipulated at the final hearing that the determination as to whether Westfield provided reasonable assurances with respect to the statutory and rule criteria related to fish and wildlife turns on whether the wildlife surveys submitted by Westfield are adequate.17 BOR Section 3.2.2 provides that “[s]urvey methodologies employed to inventory the site must provide reasonable assurance regarding the presence or absence of the subject listed species.” The wildlife surveys conducted by Westfield subsequent to Blanco-I in accordance with the FWCC methodology meet this standard. Although the surveys could have been more extensive in terms of the species assessed and the period of time over which they were conducted, the more persuasive evidence establishes that the wildlife surveys are adequate to document the presence or, more accurately the absence of listed wetland- dependent species on the Westfield property. The wetlands that will be directly impacted by the proposed development -- Wetlands B4, C4, and B12 -- do not provide suitable habitat for listed species. Those wetlands are small, low-quality wetlands, and Wetland B12 is technically exempt from the District’s fish and wildlife review because it is a small isolated wetland. There is no credible evidence that there will be any other adverse impacts to fish and wildlife from the proposed surface water management system. For example, even if there are undocumented listed species -- e.g., frogs, snakes, snails, etc. -- in Wetland A3, Mr. Skidmore credibly testified that the expected 0.3-foot increase in groundwater levels in that wetland during the dry season is not likely to adversely affect those species or their habitat because the water will still be below the surface. In sum, Westfield has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed development will not adversely affect fish and wildlife.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District issue a final order approving Environmental Resource Permit No. 43024788.002, subject to the general and special conditions set forth in the proposed ERP dated July 29, 2005. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 2006.
The Issue The issue is whether the applicant for an Environmental Resource Permit ("ERP"), the City of Deltona ("City" or "Applicant"), has provided reasonable assurance that the system proposed complies with the water quantity, environmental, and water quality criteria of the St. Johns River Water Management District's ("District") ERP regulations set forth in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40C-4, and the Applicant's Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters (2005).
Findings Of Fact The District is a special taxing district created by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, charged with the duty to prevent harm to the water resources of the District, and to administer and enforce Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. The City of Deltona is a municipal government established under the provisions of Chapter 165, Florida Statutes. The Lake Theresa Basin is comprised primarily of a system of interconnected lakes extending from Lake Macy in the City of Lake Helen to the Butler Chain of Lakes (Lake Butler and Lake Doyle). The Lake Theresa Basin is land-locked and does not have a natural outfall to Lake Monroe and the St. Johns River. In 2003, after an extended period of above-normal rainfall in the Deltona area, the lakes within the land-locked Lake Theresa Basin staged to extremely high elevations that resulted in standing water in residential yards, and rendered some septic systems inoperable. Lake levels within the Lake Theresa Basin continued to rise and were in danger of rising above the finished floor elevations of some residences within the basin. On March 25, 2003, the District issued an Emergency Order (F.O.R. No. 2003-38) authorizing the construction and short-term operation of the Lake Doyle and Lake Bethel Emergency Overflow Interconnection. Since wetland and surface water impacts would occur, the Emergency Order required the City of Deltona to obtain an ERP for the system. The project area is 4.1 acres, and the system consists of a variable water structure on the west shore of Lake Doyle connected to a series of pipes, swales, water control structures, and wetland systems which outfall to a finger canal of Lake Bethel, with ultimate discharge to Lake Monroe and the St. Johns River. The first segment of the system extends downstream from the weir structure on the west shore of Lake Doyle via a pipe entrenched in the upland berm of the Sheryl Drive right-of-way. The pipe passes under Doyle Road and through xeric pine-oak uplands to the northeast shore of a large (approximately 15 acres) deepwater marsh. Water flows south through the deepwater marsh where it outfalls through four pipes at Ledford Drive. Two of the four pipes are overflow structures, controlled by canal gates. The pipes at Ledford Drive discharge into a ditch and into a large (greater than 20 acres) shallow bay swamp. The south end of the bay swamp is defined (and somewhat impounded) by a 19th Century railroad grade. Water flows through the bay swamp where it outfalls through five pipes at the railroad grade. Three of the five pipes are overflow structures, controlled by channel boards. The pipes at the railroad grade discharge to a 1500-foot long finger canal that was dug some time during the period 1940-1972 from the north central shore of Lake Bethel. The overflow interconnection system has three locations whereby the system can be shut down: 1) Lake Doyle--a control weir, controlled by three sluice gates; 2) Ledford Drive--two thirty-inch reinforced concrete pipes, controlled by canal gates; and 3) railroad grade--three thirty-inch reinforced concrete pipes, controlled by channel boards (collectively referred to as "Overflow Structures"). The Overflow Structures are designed to carry the discharge of water from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel. With the Overflow Structures closed the system returns to pre-construction characteristics, meaning there will be no increase or decrease in the quantity or quality of water throughout the path of the system as a result of the project. An unequivocal condition of the permit is that the system would operate with all of the Overflow Structures closed. As an added assurance, the City proposes to place a brick and mortar plug in the Lake Doyle weir structure outfall pipe to prevent any discharge from the weir. The City has submitted to the District preliminary plans for a future phase in which the system would be modified for the purpose of alleviating high water levels within the Lake Theresa Basin when the water level in Lake Doyle rises above an elevation of 24.5 feet. The District shall require a separate permit application to be submitted for such future plans. Petitioner, Barbara Ash, has lived on Lake Theresa for 19 years. Ms. Ash lives upstream from the area of the weir that will be plugged in accordance with the ERP. She does not trust either the City of Deltona to comply with or the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP applied for by the City. Petitioner, Barbara Ash, also served as the qualified representative for Petitioners, Francell Frei, Bernard J. and Virginia Patterson, and Ted and Carol Sullivan. Ms. Ash represented that Ms. Frei has lived on Lake Theresa for 12 years, and both the Pattersons and the Sullivans live on Lake Louise, which is within the area of concern in this proceeding. Petitioner, Diana Bauer, has lived on Lake Theresa since February 2004. She fears that the lake will become too dry if the system is allowed to flow. She also believes the wildlife will be adversely affected if the water levels are too low since many species need a swampy or wet environment to thrive. She fears her property value will decrease as a result of the approval of the ERP. She also does not trust either the City to comply with or the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP. Petitioner, Howard Ehmer, lives two to three hundred yards down Lake Theresa from Ms. Bauer. He is concerned about the lake bed being too dry and attracting people on all terrain vehicles who enjoy driving around the lake bottom. He is concerned about his property value decreasing if the lake bed is dry. Further, when the lake level is too low, people cannot enjoy water skiing, boating, and fishing on Lake Theresa. Petitioner, Phillip Lott, a Florida native, has also owned and lived on property abutting Lake Theresa since 1995. Mr. Lott has a Ph.D. in plant ecology, and M.P.A. in coastal zone studies, an M.B.A. in international business, and a B.S. in environmental resource management and planning. Mr. Lott has been well acquainted with the water levels on Lake Theresa for many years. Based upon his personal observations of the lake systems in the Deltona area over the years, Mr. Lott has seen levels fluctuate greatly based upon periods of heavy and light rainfall. Mr. Lott is concerned that the District will permit the City to open the weir to let water flow through the system and cause flooding in some areas and low water levels in other areas. He fears that the District will allow the water to flow and upset the environmental balance, but he admits that this ERP application is for a closed system that will not allow the water to flow as he fears. Mr. Lott similarly does not trust the City to comply with and the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP. Petitioners, James E. and Alicia M. Peake, who were represented by Steven L. Spratt at hearing as their qualified representative, live on Lake Louise, which is interconnected with the Lake Theresa basin. The Peakes are concerned that if the level of Lake Louise drops below 21 feet, nine inches, they will not be able to use the boat launch ramps on the lake. Petitioner, Steven L. Spratt, also lives on Lake Louise, and is concerned about the water levels becoming so low that he cannot use the boat launch on the lake. He has lived on the lake since 2000, and remembers when the water level was extremely low. He fears that approval of the ERP in this case will result in low levels of water once again. Petitioner, Gloria Benoit, has live on Lake Theresa for two years. She also enjoys watching recreational activities on the lake, and feels that approval of the ERP will devalue her lakefront property. Ms. Benoit appeared at the first day of the hearing, but offered no testimony on her behalf. J. Christy Wilson, Esquire, appeared prior to the final hearing as counsel of record for Petitioners, Steven E. Larimer, Kathleen Larimer, and Helen Rose Farrow. Neither Ms. Wilson nor any of the three Petitioners she represented appeared at any time during the hearing, filed any pleadings seeking to excuse themselves from appearing at the final hearing, or offered any evidence, testimony, pre- or post- hearing submittals. Petitioner, Gary Jensen, did not appear at hearing, did not file any pleadings or papers seeking to be excused from appearing at the final hearing, and did not offer any evidence, testimony, pre- or post-hearing submittals. Both the City and the District recognize that areas downstream from the project site, such as Stone Island and Sanford, have experienced flooding in the past in time of high amounts of rainfall. The system proposed by the City for this ERP will operate with the overflow structures closed and a brick and mortar plug in the outfall pipe to prevent water flow from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel. So long as the overflow structures are closed, the system will mimic pre-construction flow patterns, with no increase in volume flowing downstream. The District has considered the environment in its proposed approval of the ERP. The area abutting the project is little urbanized and provides good aquatic and emergent marsh habitat. With the exception of the western shore area of the deepwater marsh ("west marsh area"), the bay swamp and remaining deepwater marsh area have good ecological value. In the 1940's, the west marsh area was incorporated into the drainage system of a poultry farm that occupied the site. This area apparently suffered increased nutrient influxes and sedimentation that contributed to a proliferation of floating mats of aquatic plants and organic debris. These tussocks reduced the deepwater marsh's open water and diminished the historical marsh habitat. Water under the tussocks is typically anoxic owing to total shading by tussocks and reduced water circulation. Thick, soft, anaerobic muck has accumulated under the matted vegetation. Exotic shrubs (primrose willow Ludwigia peruvania) and other plants (cattails Typha spp.) dominate the tussocks. The construction of the project, from the 2003 Emergency Order, resulted in adverse impacts to 1.3 acres of wetlands having moderately high- to high ecological value and 0.2 acres of other surface waters. The 0.2 acre impact to other surface waters was to the lake bottom and the shoreline of Lake Doyle where the weir structure was installed. The 0.3 acres of wetland impacts occurred at the upper end of the deepwater marsh where the pipe was installed. The largest wetland impact (1.0 acre) was to the bay swamp. The bay swamp is a shallow body dominated by low hummocks and pools connected inefficiently by shallow braided channels and one acre is filled with a 1-2 foot layer of sediment following swamp channelization. Disturbance plants (e.g., primrose willow, Ludwigia peruvania, and elderberry Sambucus Canadensis) now colonize the sediment plume. Pursuant to the District's elimination and reduction criteria, the applicant must implement practicable design modifications, which would reduce or eliminate adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. A proposed modification, which is not technically capable of being done, is not economically viable, or which adversely affects public safety through endangerment of lives or property is not considered "practicable." The City reduced and/or eliminated the impacts to the lake bottom and shoreline of Lake Doyle and deepwater marsh, to the extent practicable. The impacts were the minimum necessary to install the weir structure and pipe for the system; the weir structure and pipe were carefully installed on the edges of the wetland and surface water systems, resulting in a minimum amount of grading and disturbance. To compensate for the loss of 1.3 acres of wetlands and 0.2 acres of other surface waters, the City proposes to preserve a total of 27.5 acres of wetlands, bay swamp, marsh, and contiguous uplands. Included in this 27.5 acres are 6.4 acres of the west marsh, which are to be restored. The parties stipulated that the mitigation plan would adequately compensate for losses of ecological function (e.g. wildlife habitat and biodiversity, etc.) resulting from the project. Water quality is a concern for the District. Lake Monroe is included on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's verified list of impaired water bodies for nitrogen, phosphorous, and dissolved oxygen. Water quality data for Lake Monroe indicate the lake has experienced high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous and low levels of dissolved oxygen. Prior to construction of the project, there was no natural outfall from the Lake Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe and therefore no contribution from this basin to nitrogen and phosphorous loadings to Lake Monroe. Lake Colby, Three Island Lakes (a/k/a Lake Sixma), and the Savannah are surface waters within the Lake Theresa Basin for which minimum levels have been adopted pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40C-8. The system will operate with the overflow structures closed and a brick and mortar plug in the outfall pipe to prevent water flow from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel, resulting in no outfall from the Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe. Minimum flows established for surface waters within the Lake Theresa Basin will not be adversely impacted. Under the first part of the secondary impact test, the City must provide reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts from construction, alteration, and intended or reasonable expected use of the project will not adversely affect the functions of adjacent wetlands or surface waters. The system is designed as a low intensity project. As proposed, little activity and maintenance are expected in the project site area. The reasonably expected use of the system will not cause adverse impacts to the functions of the wetlands and other surface waters. None of the wetland areas adjacent to uplands are used by listed species for nesting or denning. In its pre-construction state, the project area did not cause or contribute to state water quality violations. Under the second part of the secondary impact test, the City must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, and intended or reasonably expected uses of the system will not adversely affect the ecological value of the uplands to aquatic or wetland dependent species for enabling existing nesting or denning by these species. There are no listed threatened or endangered species within the project site area. Under the third part of the secondary impact test, and as part of the public interest test, the District must consider any other relevant activities that are closely linked and causally related to any proposed dredging or filling which will cause impacts to significant historical and archaeological resources. When making this determination, the District is required, by rule, to consult with the Division of Historical Resources. The Division of Historical Resources indicated that no historical or archaeological resources are likely present on the site. No impacts to significant historical and archaeological resources are expected. Under the fourth part of the secondary impact test, the City must demonstrate that certain additional activities and future phases of a project will not result in adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or water quality violations. The City has submitted to the District preliminary plans for a future phase in which the system would be modified for the purpose of alleviating high water levels within the Lake Theresa Basin when the level in Lake Doyle rises above an elevation of 24.5 feet. Based upon the plans and calculations submitted, the proposed future phase, without additional measures, could result in minor increases in the loadings of nitrogen and phosphorous to Lake Monroe. Lake Monroe is included on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's verified list of impaired water bodies due to water quality data indicating the lake has experienced high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous, and low levels of dissolved oxygen. Under this potential future phase, there would be an outfall from the Lake Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe. To address the impact on water quality of this potential future phase, the City has submitted a loading reduction plan for nitrogen, phosphorous, and dissolved oxygen. The plan includes compensating treatment to fully offset the potential increased nutrient loadings to Lake Monroe. Specifically, the loading reduction plan includes: Construction and operation of compensating treatment systems to fully offset anticipated increased nutrient loadings to Lake Monroe. Weekly water quality monitoring of the discharge from Lake Doyle for total phosphorous and total nitrogen. A requirement that the overflow structure be closed if the total phosphorous level reaches 0.18 mg/l or higher or the total nitrogen level reaches 1.2 mg/l or higher in any given week and will remain closed until levels fall below those limits. The implementation of these water quality mitigation measures will result in a net improvement of the water quality in Lake Monroe for nitrogen, phosphorous, or dissolved oxygen. The future phase was conceptually evaluated by the District for impacts to wetland functions. The future phase as proposed could result in adverse impacts to wetland functions. Operation of the system with the overflow structures open could impact the bay swamp and deepwater marsh. The City has demonstrated that any adverse impacts could be offset through mitigation. Based upon the information provided by the City and general engineering principles, the system is capable of functioning as proposed. The City of Deltona will be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the surface waster management system. A local government is an acceptable operation and maintenance entity under District rules. The public interest test has seven criteria. The public interest test requires the District to evaluate only those parts of the project actually located in, on, or over surface waters or wetlands, to determine whether a factor is positive, neutral, or negative, and then to balance these factors against each other. The seven factors are as follows: the public health, safety, or welfare of others; conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats; fishing, recreational value, and marine productivity; temporary or permanent nature; 5) navigation, water flow, erosion, and shoaling; 6) the current condition and relative value of functions; and 7) historical and archaeological resources. There are no identified environmental hazards or improvements to public health and safety. The District does not consider impacts to property values. To offset any adverse impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitats, the City has proposed mitigation. The areas of the project in, on, or over wetlands do not provide recreational opportunities. Construction and operation of the project located in, on, or over wetlands will be permanent in nature. Construction and operation of the project located in, on, or over wetlands will not cause shoaling, and does not provide navigational opportunities. The mitigation will offset the relative value of functions performed by areas affected by the proposed project. No historical or archaeological resources are likely on the site of the project. The mitigation of the project is located within the same drainage basin as the project and offsets the adverse impacts. The project is not expected to cause unacceptable cumulative impacts.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting the City of Deltona's application for an environmental resource permit with the conditions set forth in the Technical Staff Report, and dismissing the Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by Gary Jensen in Case No. 04-2405, and by Steven E. Larimer, Kathleen Larimer, and Helen Rose Farrow in Case No. 04-3048. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 27th day of May, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: George Trovato, Esquire City of Deltona 2345 Providence Boulevard Deltona, Florida 32725 Diana E. Bauer 1324 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 Barbara Ash, Qualified Representative 943 South Dean Circle Deltona, Florida 32738-6801 Phillip Lott 948 North Watt Circle Deltona, Florida Howard Ehmer Nina Ehmer 32738-7919 1081 Anza Court Deltona, Florida 32738 Francell Frei 1080 Peak Circle Deltona, Florida 32738 Bernard T. Patterson Virginia T. Patterson 2518 Sheffield Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Kealey A. West, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 J. Christy Wilson, Esquire Wilson, Garber & Small, P.A. 437 North Magnolia Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Gloria Benoit 1300 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 Gary Jensen 1298 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 James E. Peake Alicia M. Peake 2442 Weatherford Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Steven L. Spratt 2492 Weatherford Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Ted Sullivan 1489 Timbercrest Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Kirby Green, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177
The Issue The issues to be determined in these consolidated cases are whether All Aboard Florida – Operations, LLC (“the Applicant”), and Florida East Coast Railway, LLC (“FECR”), are entitled to an Environmental Resource Permit Modification authorizing the construction of a stormwater management system and related activities to serve railway facilities, and a verification of exemption for work to be done at 23 roadway crossings (collectively referred to as “the project”).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners Martin County and St. Lucie County are political subdivisions of the State of Florida. Petitioners have substantial interests that could be affected by the District’s proposed authorizations. Intervenor Town of St. Lucie Village is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Intervenor has substantial interests that could be affected by the District’s proposed authorizations. The Applicant, All Aboard Florida – Operations, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company based in Miami. All Aboard Florida is part of a group of corporate entities formed for the principal purpose of developing and operating express passenger train service in Florida. Co-applicant Florida East Coast Railway, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company based in Jacksonville. FECR owns the existing railway corridor the passenger train service will use between Miami and Cocoa. South Florida Water Management District is a regional agency granted powers and assigned duties under chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes, including powers and duties related to the regulation of construction activities in wetlands. The proposed activities are within the boundaries of the District. Background The objective of the All Aboard Florida Project is to establish express passenger train service connecting four large urban areas: Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, and Orlando. Most of the passenger service route, including the portion which will pass through Martin County and St. Lucie County, will use an existing railroad right-of-way used since the late 1800s. The FECR rail corridor runs along Florida’s east coast from Miami to Jacksonville. It supported passenger and freight operations on shared double mainline tracks from 1895 to 1968. The passenger service was terminated in 1968 and portions of the double track and certain bridge structures were removed. The freight service continued and remains in operation today. The passenger service will use the FECR right-of-way from Miami to Cocoa and then turn west on a new segment to be constructed from Cocoa to Orlando. The railway corridor will be operated as a joint facility, with passenger and freight trains sharing the double mainline tracks. The Applicant is upgrading the portion of the corridor between Miami and Cocoa by, among other things, replacing existing railroad ties and tracks, reinstalling double mainline tracks, and improving grade crossings. The Applicant is also installing Positive Train Control systems which provide integrated command and control of passenger and freight train movements and allow the trains to be directed and stopped remotely or automatically in the event of operator error or disability, or an obstruction on the track. The All Aboard Florida Project is being developed in two phases, Phase I extends from Miami to West Palm Beach, and Phase II from West Palm Beach to Orlando. This proceeding involves a segment within Phase II, known as Segment D09, which runs from just north of West Palm Beach to the northern boundary of St. Lucie County. The railway corridor in Segment D09 passes through Jonathan Dickinson State Park in Martin County and the Savannas Preserve State Park, parts of which are in both Martin County and St. Lucie County. Surface waters within these state parks are Outstanding Florida Waters (“OFWs”). The railway in Segment D09 also passes over the St. Lucie River using a bridge that can be opened to allow boats to pass. The Applicant plans to run 16 round trips per day between Miami and Orlando, which is about one train an hour in each direction, starting early in the morning and continuing to mid-evening. In 2013, the District issued the Applicant an exemption under section 373.406(6), which exempts activities having only minimal or insignificant adverse impacts on water resources. The 2013 exemption covers proposed work in approximately 48 of the 65 miles which make up Segment D09, and includes replacement of existing tracks and re-establishment of a second set of mainline tracks where they were historically located. The 2013 exemption covers all but 24 of the roadway crossings within Segment D09 where work is to be done in connection with the All Aboard Florida Project. In 2015, the District issued the Applicant a general permit under rule 62-330.401, which authorizes activities that are expected to cause minimal adverse impacts to water resources, for the installation of fiber optic cable along the rail bed within Segment D09. The 2013 exemption and 2015 general permit were not challenged and became final agency action. The Proposed Agency Actions The ERP Modification covers work to be done in approximately 17 of the 65 miles which make up Segment D09. The work will consist primarily of replacing existing tracks, installing new tracks, making curve modifications in some locations to accommodate faster trains, culvert modifications, and work on some fixed bridge crossings over non-navigable waters. The 2017 Exemption at issue in this proceeding covers improvements to 23 of the 24 roadway crossings that were not covered by the 2013 exemption. Proposed improvements at Southeast Florida Street in Stuart will be permitted separately. The improvements covered by the 2017 Exemption include upgrading existing safety gates and signals; installing curbs, guardrails, and sidewalks; resurfacing some existing paved surfaces; and adding some new paving. Petitioners argue that, because the District’s staff report for the ERP Modification states that the ERP does not cover work at roadway crossings, track work at roadway crossings has not been authorized. However, the staff report was referring to the roadway improvements that are described in the 2017 Exemption. The proposed track work at the roadway crossings was described in the ERP application and was reviewed and authorized by the District in the ERP Modification. “Segmentation” Petitioners claim it was improper for the District to separately review and authorize the proposed activities covered by the 2013 exemption, the 2015 general permit, the ERP Modification, and the 2017 Exemption. Petitioners contend that, as a consequence of this “segmentation” of the project, the District approved “roads to nowhere,” by which Petitioners mean that these activities do not have independent functionality. Petitioners’ argument is based on section 1.5.2 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume 1,1/ which states that applications to construct phases of a project can only be considered when each phase can be constructed, operated, and maintained totally independent of future phases. However, the activities authorized by the four agency actions are not phases of a project. They are all parts of Phase II of the All Aboard Florida Project, which is the passenger railway from West Palm Beach to Orlando. Section 1.5.2 is not interpreted or applied by the District as a prohibition against separate review and approval of related activities when they qualify under the District’s rules for exemptions, general permits, and ERPs. Much of Phase II is outside the District’s geographic boundaries and, therefore, beyond its regulatory jurisdiction. The District can only review and regulate a portion of Phase II. The District is unable to review this portion as a stand-alone railway project that can function independently from other project parts. The Proposed Stormwater Management System Where the Applicant is replacing existing tracks or re- establishing a second set of tracks, it will be laying new ties, ballast, and rail on previously-compacted earth. In those areas, no stormwater management modifications were required by the District. The Applicant’s new proposed stormwater management system will be located in a five-mile area of the corridor where an existing siding will be shifted outward and used as a third track. In this area, swales with hardened weir discharge structures and skimmers will be installed to provide stormwater treatment beyond what currently exists. The weir discharge structures will serve to prevent erosion at discharge points. The skimmers will serve to capture any floating oils or refuse. Because the FECR right-of-way is not wide enough in some three-track areas to also accommodate swales, the proposed stormwater management system was oversized in other locations to provide compensating volume. The District determined that this solution was an accepted engineering practice for linear systems such as railroads. Petitioners argue that the Applicant’s proposed stormwater management system is deficient because some of the proposed swales do not meet the definition of “swale” in section 403.803(14) as having side slopes equal to or greater than three feet horizontal to one foot vertical (3:1). The statute first defines a swale to include a manmade trench which has “a top width-to-depth ratio of the cross-section equal to or greater than 6:1.” The swales used in the proposed stormwater management system meet this description. Petitioners showed that the plans for one of the 46 proposed swales included some construction outside the FECR right-of-way. In response, the Applicant submitted revised plan sheets to remove the swale at issue. The Emergency Access Way The ERP application includes proposed modifications to portions of an existing unpaved emergency access way which runs along the tracks in some areas. The access way is a private dirt road for railroad-related vehicles and is sometimes used for maintenance activities. At the final hearing, Petitioners identified an inconsistency between an application document which summarizes the extent of proposed new access way construction and the individual plan sheets that depict the construction. The Applicant resolved the inconsistency by correcting the construction summary document. Petitioners also identified an individual plan sheet showing proposed access way modifications to occur outside of the FECR right-of-way. This second issue was resolved by eliminating any proposed work outside the right-of-way. Petitioners believe the proposed work on the access way was not fully described and reviewed because Petitioners believe the access way will be made continuous. However, the access way is not continuous currently and the Applicant is not proposing to make it continuous. No District rule requires the access way segments to be connected as a condition for approval of the ERP. Water Quantity Impacts An applicant for an ERP must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, operation, and maintenance of a proposed 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. The District’s design criterion to meet this requirement for water quantity management is a demonstration that the proposed stormwater system will capture the additional runoff caused during a 25-year/3-day storm event. The Applicant’s proposed stormwater system meets or exceeds this requirement. Petitioners argue that the Applicant failed to provide reasonable assurance because the ERP application materials did not include a calculation of the discharge rates and velocities for water discharging from the swales during the design storm. The ERP application contains the information required to calculate the discharge rates and velocities and the Applicant’s stormwater expert, Bruce McArthur, performed the calculations and testified at the final hearing that in the areas where there will be discharges, the discharge rates and velocities would be “minor” and would not cause adverse impacts. The District’s stormwater expert, Jesse Markle, shared this opinion. Petitioners argue that this information should have been provided to the District in the permit application, but this is a de novo proceeding where new evidence to establish reasonable assurances can be presented. Petitioners did not show that Mr. McArthur is wrong. Petitioners failed to prove that the proposed project will cause adverse water quantity impacts, flooding, or adverse impacts to surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Water Quality Impacts To obtain an ERP, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, operation, and maintenance of a regulated project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters, such that state water quality standards would be violated. The District’s design criteria for water quality required the Applicant to show that its proposed stormwater system will capture at least 0.5 inches of runoff over the developed area. To be conservative, the Applicant designed its proposed system to capture 1.0 inch of runoff in most areas. Under District rules, if a stormwater system will directly discharge to impaired waters or OFWs, an additional 50 percent of water quality treatment volume is required. The proposed stormwater system will not directly discharge to either impaired waters or OFWs. In some locations, there is the potential for stormwater discharged from the proposed stormwater system to reach OFWs by overland flow, after the stormwater has been treated for water quality purposes. The Applicant designed its proposed stormwater system to provide at least an additional 50 percent of water quality treatment volume in areas where this potential exists. To ensure that the proposed construction activities do not degrade adjacent wetlands, other surface waters, or off-site areas due to erosion and sedimentation, the Applicant prepared an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Temporary silt fences and turbidity barriers will be installed and maintained around the limits of the construction. The District’s design criteria for water quality do not require an analysis of individual contaminants that can be contained in stormwater, except in circumstances that do not apply to this project. Compliance with the design criteria creates a presumption that water quality standards for all potential contaminants are met. See Applicant’s Handbook, V. II, § 4.1.1. Although not required, the Applicant provided a loading analysis for the proposed swales which could potentially discharge overland to impaired waters or OFWs. The analysis compared pre- and post-development conditions and showed there would be a net reduction in pollutant loading. Petitioners believe the pollutant loading analysis was inadequate because it did not specifically test for arsenic and petroleum hydrocarbons. However, the analysis was not required and adequate treatment is presumed. Petitioners did not conduct their own analysis to show that water quality standards would be violated. Petitioners’ expert, Patrick Dayan, believes the compaction of previously undisturbed soils in the emergency access way would increase stormwater runoff. However, he did not calculate the difference between pre- and post-construction infiltration rates at any particular location. His opinion on this point was not persuasive. Petitioners failed to prove that the proposed project will generate stormwater that will adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that state water quality standards would be violated. The preponderance of the evidence shows the project complies with District design criteria and will not cause water quality violations. Soil and Sediment Contamination Petitioners argue that the ERP Modification does not account for the disturbance of existing contaminants in soils and sediments that could be carried outside of the right-of-way and into OFWs. Petitioners’ argument is based on investigations by their geologist, Janet Peterson, who collected soil, sediment, and surface water samples at 13 sites along the FECR rail corridor in the vicinity of OFWs, or surface waters that eventually flow into OFWs. During her sampling visits, Ms. Peterson saw no visual evidence of an oil spill, fluid leak, or other release of hazardous materials. Ms. Peterson compared her soil sample results to the Residential Direct Exposure Soil Cleanup Target Levels (“SCTLs”) established in rule 62-777. The SCTLs are the levels at which toxicity becomes a human health concern and the residential SCTLs assume soil ingestion of 200 mg/day for children, and 100 mg/day for adults, 350 days a year, for 30 years. Some of the soil sampling results showed exceedances of SCTLs, but the SCTLs are not applicable here because none of the sample sites are locations where children or adults would be expected to ingest soil at such levels for such lengths of time. Petitioners did not show that the contaminants are likely to migrate to locations where such exposure would occur. Ms. Peterson compared her soil sample results to the Marine Surface Water Leachability SCTLs, but she did not develop site-specific leachability-based SCTLs using DEP’s approved methodology. Nor did she show that the proposed project will cause the soils to leach the contaminants. Ms. Peterson collected sediment samples from shorelines, but not where construction activities are proposed. She compared her sediment sample results to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (“DEP”) Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines (“SQAGs”). These guidelines are not water quality standards. Any exceedance of these guidelines requires further analysis to determine potential water quality impacts. Ms. Peterson did not conduct the analysis. Ms. Peterson acknowledged that there are numerous sources for these pollutants at or near her sample sites, such as high-traffic roads, vehicular bridges, commercial and industrial facilities, boatyards, and golf courses. She did not establish baselines or controls. Ms. Peterson collected surface water samples at seven sites, some of which were located outside the FECR right-of-way. The results showed levels of phosphorous and nitrogen above the criteria for nutrients at some locations. Phosphorous, nitrogen, and the other nutrients are prevalent in the waters of Martin County and St. Lucie County and come from many sources. Petitioners’ evidence focused on existing conditions and not expected impacts of the proposed project. The evidence was insufficient to prove the proposed project will cause or contribute to water quality violations. Functions Provided by Wetlands and Other Surface Waters An applicant for an ERP must provide reasonable assurance that a proposed project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Petitioners claim the Applicant and District should not have relied on Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (“FLUCCS”) maps to identify and characterize wetlands and other habitat areas because the maps are too general and inaccurate. However, the FLUCCS maps were not used by the Applicant or District to evaluate impacts to wetlands or other habitats. The Applicant began its evaluation of impacts to wetlands and other habitat areas by field-flagging and surveying the wetland and surface water boundaries in the project area using a GPS device with sub-meter accuracy. It then digitized the GPS delineations and overlaid them with the limits of construction to evaluate anticipated direct impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. The District then verified the delineations and assessments in the field. The Applicant and District determined that there are a total of 4.71 acres of wetlands within the FECR right-of-way, including tidal mangroves, freshwater marsh, and wet prairie. They also determined the proposed project will directly impact 0.35 acres of wetlands, consisting of 0.09 acres of freshwater marsh and 0.26 acres of mangroves. Petitioners contend that the Applicant failed to account for all of the project’s wetland impacts, based on the wetland delineations made by their wetland expert, Andrew Woodruff. Most of the impacts that Mr. Woodruff believes were not accounted for are small, between 0.01 and 0.05 acres. The largest one is acres. The Applicant’s delineations are more reliable than Mr. Woodruff’s because the methodology employed by the Applicant had greater precision. It is more likely to be accurate. Petitioners argue that the 2013 exemption and the 2015 general permit did not authorize work in wetlands and, therefore, the impacts they cause must be evaluated in this ERP Modification. However, Petitioners did not prove that there are unaccounted-for wetland impacts associated with those authorizations. Any impacts associated with best management practices for erosion control, such as the installation of silt fences, would be temporary. The District does not include such temporary minor impacts in its direct, secondary, or cumulative impacts analyses. Most of the wetlands that would be directly impacted by the ERP Modification are degraded due to past hydrologic alterations and soil disturbances from the original construction and historical use of the FECR railway corridor, and infestation by exotic plant species. Most of these wetlands are also adjacent to disturbed uplands within or near the rail corridor. The functional values of most of the wetlands that would be affected have been reduced by these disturbances. The Applicant provided 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. Secondary Impacts Section 10.2.7 of the Applicant’s Handbook requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts from construction, alteration, and intended or reasonably expected uses of a proposed activity (a) will not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards or adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or other surface waters; (b) will not adversely impact the ecological value of uplands for bald eagles, and aquatic or wetland-dependent listed animal species for nesting or denning by these species; (c) will not cause impacts to significant historical or archaeological resources; and (d) additional phases for which plans have been submitted, and closely linked projects regulated under chapter 373, part IV, will not cause water quality violations or adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or other surface waters. The proposed work will be entirely within the limits of the existing railway corridor where secondary impacts to wetlands and other surface waters caused by noise, vibration, fragmentation of habitats, and barriers to wildlife have existed for decades. The preponderance of the evidence shows that any increase in these kinds of impacts would be insignificant and would not reduce the current functions being provided. Because the affected wetlands are not preferred habitat for wetland-dependent, endangered, or threatened wildlife species, or species of special concern, and no such species were observed in the area, no adverse impacts to these species are expected to occur. Petitioners contend that adverse impacts will occur to the gopher tortoise, scrub jay, and prickly apple cactus. These are not aquatic or wetland-dependent species. However, the preponderance of the evidence shows any increase in impacts to these species would be insignificant. When the train bridges are closed, boats with masts or other components that make them too tall to pass under the train bridges must wait for the bridge to open before continuing. Petitioners contend that the current “stacking” of boats waiting for the bridges to open would worsen and would adversely impact seagrass beds and the West Indian Manatee. However, it was not shown that seagrass beds are in the areas where the boats are stacking. The available manatee mortality data does not show a link between boat stacking and boat collisions with manatees. Mr. Woodruff’s opinion about increased injuries to manatees caused by increased boat stacking was speculative and unpersuasive. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the adverse effects on both listed and non-listed wildlife species, caused by faster and more numerous trains would be insignificant. The activities associated with the 2013 exemption and the 2015 general permit for fiber optic cable were based on determinations that the activities would have minimal or insignificant adverse impacts on water resources. These determinations are not subject to challenge in this proceeding. The Applicant provided reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts of the project will not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards, adversely impact the functions of wetlands or other surface waters, adversely impact the ecological value of uplands for use by listed animal species, or cause impacts to significant historical or archaeological resources. Elimination and Reduction of Impacts Under section 10.2.1.1 of the Applicant’s Handbook, if a proposed activity will result in adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters, the applicant for an ERP must implement practicable design modifications to eliminate or reduce the impacts, subject to certain exceptions that will be discussed below. Petitioners argue that this rule requires the Applicant and District to evaluate the practicability of alternative routes through the region, routes other than the existing railway corridor in Segment D09. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, that argument is rejected. The evaluation of project modifications to avoid impacts was appropriately confined to the railway corridor in Segment D09. The Applicant implemented practicable design modifications in the project area to reduce or eliminate impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. Those modifications included the shifting of track alignments, the elimination of certain third-track segments, and the elimination of some proposed access way modifications. However, the project qualified under both “opt out” criteria in section 10.2.1.2 of the Applicant’s Handbook so that design modifications to reduce or eliminate impacts were not required: (1) The ecological value of the functions provided by the area of wetland or surface water to be adversely affected is low, and the proposed mitigation will provide greater long-term ecological value; and (2) the applicant proposes mitigation that implements all or part of a plan that provides regional ecological value and provides greater long-term ecological value. Mitigation The Applicant proposes to mitigate for impacts to wetlands by purchasing mitigation credits from four District- approved mitigation banks: the Bluefield Ranch, Bear Point, Loxahatchee, and F.P.L. Everglades Mitigation Banks. Each is a regional off-site mitigation area which implements a detailed management plan and provides regional long-term ecological value. The number of mitigation credits needed to offset loss of function from impacts to wetlands was calculated using the Modified Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (“MWRAP”) or Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Review (“WATER”), as prescribed in the state permit for each mitigation bank. Applying these methods, the Applicant is required to purchase mitigation credits. The Applicant proposed to mitigate the adverse impacts to freshwater marsh wetlands by purchasing 0.01 freshwater herbaceous credits from the Bluefield Ranch Mitigation Bank, and 0.06 freshwater herbaceous credits from the Loxahatchee Mitigation Bank. The adverse impacts to tidal mangrove wetlands would be mitigated by purchasing 0.12 saltwater credits from the Bear Point Mitigation Bank, and 0.02 saltwater credits from the F.P.L. Everglades Mitigation Bank. The Applicant committed to purchase an additional 0.29 freshwater herbaceous credits from the Bluefield Ranch Mitigation Bank, for a total of 0.50 mitigation credits. The proposed mitigation implements a plan that will provide greater long-term ecological value than is provided by the wetlands that will be impacted. The Applicant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the project complies with the District’s mitigation requirements. Cumulative Impacts To obtain an ERP, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that a regulated activity will not result in unacceptable cumulative impacts to water resources. This assurance can be provided by proposing to fully mitigate the impacts within the same basin. However, when an applicant proposes mitigation in another drainage basin, the applicant must demonstrate that the regulated activity will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts. The proposed project will adversely impact 0.02 acres of freshwater marsh wetlands and 0.21 acres of tidal mangrove wetlands in the St. Lucie River basin. The impacts to the freshwater marshes must be mitigated out-of-basin because there are no mitigation banks in the basin which offer freshwater herbaceous mitigation credits. The proposed project will adversely impact 0.07 acres of the freshwater marshes and 0.05 acres of the mangrove wetlands in the Loxahatchee River basin. Those impacts must also be mitigated out-of-basin because there are no mitigation banks in the Loxahatchee River basin. Because some of the Applicant’s proposed mitigation must be provided out-of-basin, the ERP application included a cumulative impact analysis. The analysis evaluated whether the proposed project, when considered in conjunction with other possible development within the St. Lucie River and Loxahatchee River drainage basins, would result in unacceptable cumulative impacts considering each basin as a whole. There are approximately 10,068 acres of freshwater marshes within the St. Lucie basin, of which an estimated 4,929 acres are not preserved and would be at risk of potential future development. The proposed project will adversely impact 0.02 of those acres, which is only 0.0004 percent of the total at-risk acreage. There are about 34,000 acres of freshwater marshes within the Loxahatchee River basin, of which an estimated 7,463 acres are at risk of future development, and approximately 564 acres of tidal mangrove wetlands, of which an estimated 75 acres are at risk of future development. The project will adversely impact 0.07 acres of the freshwater marshes (0.0009 percent), and 0.05 acres of the tidal mangrove wetlands (0.0667 percent). Petitioners contend the Applicant’s analysis did not account for impacts from proposed activities authorized in the 2013 and 2015 general permit. However, Petitioners failed to prove there are unaccounted-for wetland impacts. The preponderance of the evidence supports the District’s determination that the proposed project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. Public Interest When an applicant seeks authorization for a regulated activity in, on, or over wetlands or surface waters, it must provide reasonable assurance that the activity will not be contrary to the public interest, or if the activity is within or significantly degrades an OFW, is clearly in the public interest, as determined by balancing the following criteria set forth in section 373.414(1)(a): Whether the activities will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activities will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activities will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activities will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activities will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activities will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activities. The proposed work is not within an OFW, but entirely within the FECR corridor. The potential for overland flow and indirect impacts to OFWs is addressed by additional treatment of the stormwater prior to discharge. The proposed project would not significantly degrade an OFW. Therefore, the applicable inquiry is whether the project is contrary to the public interest. Factor 1: Public Safety, Safety, and Welfare Petitioners contend that the proposed project will adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare by impacting water quantity, water quality, and certain non-environmental matters such as emergency response times, traffic congestion, and potential train collisions with pedestrians and vehicles. Potential environmental impacts have been addressed above and, by a preponderance of the evidence, the District and the Applicant showed that such impacts would be insignificant or would be mitigated. As to the potential for non-environmental impacts associated with train operations, it is explained in the Conclusions of Law that the public interest test does not include consideration of non-environmental factors other than those expressly articulated in the statute, such as navigation and preservation of historical or archaeological resources. However, because evidence of non-environmental impacts was admitted at the final hearing, the issues raised by Petitioners will be briefly addressed below. The regulatory agency with specific responsibility for railroad safety is the Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”). The FRA reviewed the safety features associated with the proposed passenger train operations, and approved them. Public safety will be enhanced at roadway crossings because of the proposed improvements and the use of modern technology in monitoring and managing the movement of trains. Petitioners contend that the addition of the passenger rail service will impede emergency response times in Martin County and St. Lucie County due to more frequent roadway closures. However, freight trains currently impede emergency response times due to their length and slow speed. The passenger trains will be much shorter in length and faster so that roadway crossing closures for passing passenger trains will be much shorter than for freight trains. The ERP Modification and 2017 Exemption do not affect freight train operations. The preponderance of the evidence shows that passenger rail service is unlikely to cause a material increase in the occurrence of circumstances where an emergency responder is impeded by a train. The current problem must be addressed through changes in freight train operations. Petitioners also contend that the passenger rail service will interfere with hurricane evacuation. The persuasive evidence does not support that contention. Train service would cease when a hurricane is approaching. Petitioners contend the trains will have to be “staged” on either side of the two moveable bridges while other trains cross, thereby blocking road intersections. However, this was a matter of speculation. The Applicant does not propose or want to stage trains at the bridges. Petitioners contend that the project will cause hazards to boaters on the St. Lucie River because there will be more times when the train bridge will be closed to allow the passage of passenger trains. Although there were many statistics presented about the number of boats affected, the evidence was largely anecdotal with respect to the current hazard associated with boaters waiting for the passage of freight trains and speculative as to the expected increase in the hazard if shorter and faster passenger trains are added. Factor 2: Conservation of Fish and Wildlife As previously found, the proposed activities will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including threatened or endangered species. The preponderance of the evidence shows the project will have only insignificant adverse impacts on water resources and wildlife. Factor 3: Navigation of the Flow of Water Petitioners claim the project will hinder navigation on the St. Lucie and Loxahatchee Rivers because of the increase in bridge closures if passenger trains are added. The U.S. Coast Guard is the agency with clear authority to regulate the opening and closing of moveable train bridges over navigable waters in the interests of navigation. Petitioners’ insistence that the District address the bridge openings is novel. No instance was identified by the parties where this District, any other water management district, or DEP has attempted through an ERP to dictate how frequently a railroad bridge must open to accommodate boat traffic. The Coast Guard is currently reviewing the project’s potential impacts on navigation and will make a determination about the operation of the moveable bridges. It has already made such a determination for the moveable bridge which crosses the New River in Ft. Lauderdale. Petitioners point to section 10.2.3.3 of the Applicant’s Handbook, which states that the District can consider an applicant’s Coast Guard permit, and suggest that this shows the District is not limited to what the Coast Guard has required. However, Section 10.2.3.3 explains the navigation criterion in terms of preventing encroachments into channels and improving channel markings, neither of which encompasses the regulation of train bridges. The preponderance of the evidence shows the project would not cause harmful erosion or shoaling or adversely affect the flow of water. Factor 4: Fishing, Recreational Values, and Marine Productivity The preponderance of the evidence shows that there would be no adverse impacts or only insignificant impacts to fishing or recreational values and marine productivity. Factor 5: Permanent Impact The proposed project will have both temporary and permanent impacts. The temporary impacts include the installation of silt fences and turbidity barriers designed to reduce water quality impacts and impacts to functions provided by wetlands and surface waters. The impacts due to track installation, construction and rehabilitation of the non-moveable bridges, at-grade crossing improvements, and stormwater system improvements are permanent in nature. The permanent impacts have been minimized and mitigated. Factor 6: Historical or Archaeological Resources Petitioners do not contend that the project will adversely affect significant historical or archaeological resources. Factor 7: Wetland Functions in Areas Affected Because the proposed work is within the limits of an existing railway corridor where impacts have been occurring for decades, and the majority of the wetlands to be affected are of a low to moderate quality, there would be only a small loss of functional values and that loss would be fully mitigated. Public Interest Summary When the seven public interest factors are considered and balanced, the proposed project is not contrary to the public interest. Even if Petitioners’ non-environmental issues are included, the project is not contrary to the public interest. Compliance With Other Permit Conditions The project is capable, based on accepted engineering and scientific principles, of performing and functioning as proposed. The Applicant demonstrated sufficient real property interests over the lands upon which project activities will be conducted. It obtained the required consent for proposed activities relating to bridge crossings over state-owned submerged lands. The Applicant provided reasonable assurance of compliance with all other applicable permit criteria. Exemption Verification for Roadway Crossings The Applicant’s ERP application included a mixture of activities which required an individual permit, as well as activities in roadway crossings which the Applicant claimed were exempt from permitting. Pursuant to section 5.5.3.4 of the Applicant’s Handbook, the Applicant requested a verification of exemption as to certain work to be done within 23 of those 24 roadway crossings. The District determined that the improvements for which an exemption was sought were exempt from permitting under rule 62-330.051(4)(c) for minor roadway safety construction, rule 62-330.051(4)(d) resurfacing of paved roads, and rule 62-330.051(10) for “construction, alteration, maintenance, removal or abandonment of recreational paths for pedestrians, bicycles, and golf carts.” The preponderance of the evidence shows the proposed work qualifies for exemption under these rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order that: approves Environmental Resource Permit Modification No. 13-05321-P on the terms and conditions set forth in the District’s Corrected Proposed Amended Staff Report of May 11, 2017; and approves the Verification of Exemption dated March 31, 2017. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 2017.
The Issue Petitioners challenge the South Florida Water Management District’s (the District) proposed action to issue Individual Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) 50-06558-P to authorize conceptual approval of a surface water management (SWM) system to serve 1,919 acres of a phased, multiple-use development referred to as the Palm Beach County Biotechnolgy Research Park (BRP) and to authorize construction and operation of Phase 1A of that proposed project. The ultimate issue is whether the Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed activities will not be harmful to the water resources of the District; will not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the District; and will comply with the water quantity, environmental, and water quality criteria of the District’s ERP regulations, which are set forth in Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40E-4, et. seq.; and the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District – September 2003 (BOR).1
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES The Florida Wildlife Federation, Audubon Society of the Everglades, and Jupiter Farms Environmental Council, Inc. (d/b/a Loxahatchee River Coalition) are not-for-profit corporations in existence prior to 2003 with more than 25 members in Palm Beach County. Palm Beach County Environmental Coalition was formed in 1997 and is a private, county-wide, non-profit citizen’s organization. Ms. Ketter, Mr. Bell, Ms. Larson, and Mr. Christensen are individuals affected by the proposed BRP. The Respondents stipulated that the parties who remained Petitioners after Mr. Silver’s withdrawal as a Petitioner have standing to bring this proceeding. The District, a public corporation existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, operates pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, as a multipurpose water management district with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida. The County is a duly-constituted governmental entity. THE PROJECT SITE AND ADJACENT LANDS The site of the project is generally referred to as the Mecca Farms, which is a contiguous tract of 1,919 acres of land. At present, the Mecca Farms is used for farming and mining operations. There presently exists a permitted, SWM system on the Mecca Farms that was first permitted in 1979, and has been modified from time to time since then. The existing SWM system includes 73 acres of ditches and a 272-acre above-ground impoundment area. The Mecca Farms site is located within the C-18 Basin. There are no jurisdictional wetlands or delineated surface waters on the Mecca Farms. The following, which is taken from the Staff Report (SFWMD Ex. 1), accurately describes the project site and its adjacent lands: The project site consists of 1,919 acres presently supporting an active orange grove with approximately 73 acres of associated drainage and irrigation ditches/canals and a 30-acre active sand mining operation. The ditches/canals are presently maintained at an elevation of approximately 17 feet NGVD.[3] These ditches/canals provide drainage conveyance to a 272-acre above- ground impoundment located in the northeast corner of the site utilizing four (4) 22,000 gpm pumps. The above-ground impoundment discharges to the west leg of the C-18 Canal via gravity discharge. Project site ditches and canals also connect directly to the C-18 Canal through an 18,000 gpm pump. An additional 224-acre agricultural area east of the 1,919 acres of orange groves is connected to and drains into the canal/ditch system on the project site. This adjacent area was leased from the adjacent land owner by the grove owner for use as row crops and was connected to the grove canal/ditch system for better control of drainage and irrigation. The area is no longer used for row crops. There is also a small area on the site that contains caretaker housing and an equipment maintenance building for the orange groves. These facilities were originally permitted in 1979 under Surface Water Management Permit No. 50-00689-S and subsequent modifications. The citrus grove and primary drainage facilities have been in existence since the 1960s. The Hungryland Slough is located north of the project site, separated from the project site by the C-18 Canal. This area is comprised primarily of publicly-owned natural areas, including an area referred to as Unit 11, which is owned in the majority by Palm Beach County. To the west is the J.W. Corbett Wildlife Management Area (CWMA) owned and managed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). To the east, a large area of low-intensity agricultural land exists under the ownership of Charles Vavrus and within the City of Palm Beach Gardens. These lands contain extensive wetlands that are adjacent to the Loxahatchee Slough to the east. The Acreage, a low-density residential area, is located directly to the south of the project site. The only access to the site at this time is an unpaved extension of Seminole Pratt-Whitney Road (SPW), connecting the site at its southwestern corner to the Acreage. THE PROPOSED PROJECT The subject application is for conceptual approval of the SWM system for the BRP and for construction and operation of Phase 1A of the project. All of the proposed Phase 1A construction will occur on the Mecca Farms site. The following, taken from the Staff Report, accurately describes the proposed project: The [BRP] is a phased multiple use development planned for approximately 1,919 acres and will consist of land uses related to science and technology, biotechnology, biomedical, and other related research and development industries and manufacturing. Additionally, proposed support and complementary land uses include educational, institutional, residential, commercial, and recreational facilities, along with utilities and a large created natural area. THE PROPOSED SWM SYSTEM The proposed SWM system will consist of several interconnected lakes that will provide wet detention for storm water runoff from the property site and from 39 acres of off- site flows from SPW Road and a proposed Florida Power and Light (FPL) Substation. The lakes will collect, store, and treat the runoff. The storm water will pass through the lakes, through a 247-acre area referred to as the “Natural Area” (which will be created as part of the mitigation plan), and discharged to the C-18 Canal. To provide additional water quality treatment, these lakes will include planted littoral zones and the southern lake will include a filter marsh. The Natural Area will, in subsequent construction phases, be constructed on the western boundary of the Mecca site with discharge to the C-18 canal, which is adjacent to the northern boundary of the Mecca Farms. The southern boundary of the Natural Area will be the north boundary of the lake that is to be constructed on the southern end of the property. This is the area that is available for use as a flow-way (which will be discussed in greater detail in a subsequent section of this Recommended Order). The Natural Area will be a wetland type system that will move water slowly through that system providing additional storage and water quality benefits prior to discharging through a gravity control structure into the C-18 Canal. The C-18 Canal discharges to either the Northwest or Southwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River, depending on how structures are operated downstream. Discharges travel in the C-18 Canal for approximately nine miles before reaching the Loxahatchee River. The existing SWM system for the Mecca Farms currently discharges to the C-18 Canal, as will the proposed SWM system. The proposed project will not discharge to the CWMA or the Hungryland Slough. The Grassy Waters Preserve and the Loxahatchee Slough are several miles from the project site and will not be affected by the project’s proposed activities. The following, which is taken from the Staff Report, accurately describes the proposed SWM system. The proposed conceptual surface water management system which will serve the 1,919-acre site will consist of site grading, storm water inlets and culverts which will direct all runoff to a series of interconnected lakes for water quality treatment and attenuation of the peak runoff rate. Pumps will control the runoff rate from the developed site into the adjacent onsite BRP natural area. The BRP natural area will discharge into the C-18 canal via a gravity control structure. The system has been designed to accommodate 39 acres of off-site flows from SPW [Road] and a proposed Florida Power and Light (FPL) Substation. The existing control elevation of the citrus grove is 17.0’ NGVD. The proposed control elevations are 18.0’ NGVD for the developed area and 19.0’ NGVD for the natural area. The control elevations are being raised to provide a “step down” of water elevations from wetlands to the north, west and east of the site (20.5’ to 21.0’) to lower elevations to the south (17.0’). PHASE 1A CONSTRUCTION The following, which is taken from the Staff Report, accurately describes the proposed Phase 1A construction: The Phase 1A construction activities will allow the applicant to proceed with lake excavation, clearing and site grading of 536 acres in the southern portion of the site. No permanent buildings or parking areas are proposed at this time. Stormwater from Phase 1A and the remainder of the site, to remain in agricultural use, will be treated in the Phase 1A lakes and then pumped into the existing impoundment for additional water quality treatment and attenuation prior to discharging to the west leg of the C-18 Canal via the existing weir structures. The existing 18,000 gpm pump that connects the on-site ditches and canals directly to the C-18 Canal will remain, but will only be used if the impoundment is full. (See Special Condition No. 21). Approval of Phase 1A authorizes the use of the existing, previously permitted surface water management facilities, therefore, the previous permit no. 50-00689-S is superceded by this permit. The 224 acre agricultural area east of the existing grove that is connected to the grove canal/ditch system will be severed as part of Phase 1A. The pipe connecting this area will be removed and portions of the berm around this area will be regraded so the area will sheetflow into the adjacent pasture land’s canal/ditch system as it did previously [sic] to being connected to the grove system. Of the 536 acres involved in the Phase 1A construction, 87 acres will become lake bottom and 449 acres will remain pervious area, subject only to grading. CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL Pertinent to this proceeding, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.021(5) defines the term “conceptual approval” to mean an ERP issued by the District which approves a conceptual master plan for a surface water management system or a mitigation bank. Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.305, pertains to conceptual approvals and provides, in relevant part, as follows: Conceptual approvals constitute final District action and are binding to the extent that adequate data has been submitted for review by the applicant during the review process. A conceptual approval does not authorize construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, or abandonment of a surface water management system or the establishment and operation of a mitigation bank. * * * For phased projects, the approval process must begin with an application for a conceptual approval which shall be the first permit issued for the project. An application for construction authorization of the first phase(s) may also be included as a part of the initial application. As the permittee desires to construct additional phases, new applications shall be processed as individual or standard general environmental resource permit applications pursuant to the conceptual approval. The conceptual approval, individual and standard general permits shall be modified in accordance with conditions contained in Chapters 40E-4 and 40E-40, F.A.C. Issuance of a conceptual approval permit pursuant to Chapter 40E-4, F.A.C., shall not relieve the applicant of any requirements for obtaining a permit to construct, alter, operate, maintain, remove, or abandon a surface water management system or establish or operate a mitigation bank, nor shall the conceptual approval permit applicant be relieved of the District’s informational requirements or the need to meet the standards of issuance of permits pursuant to Chapters 40E-4 or 40E-40, F.A.C. . . . PERMITTING CRITERIA In order to obtain an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions for issuance set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. The conditions for issuance focus on water quantity criteria, environmental criteria, and water quality criteria. Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301 contains the following permitting conditions applicable to this proceeding: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit ... an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, or abandonment of a surface water management system: 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 ...; 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 ...; will not cause adverse impacts to a work of the District ...; 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. Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302 provides the following Additional Conditions for Issuance of Permits applicable to this proceeding: In addition to the conditions set forth in section 40E-4.301, F.A.C., in order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter or Chapter 40E-40, F.A.C., an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, and abandonment of a system: Located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters will not be contrary to the public interest, or if such an activity significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding Florida Water, that the activity will be clearly in the public interest, as determined by balancing the following criteria as set forth in subsections 4.2.3 through 4.2.3.7 of the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District: Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, F.S.; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. Will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters as set forth in subsections 4.2.8 through 4.2.8.2 of the Basis of Review. . . . THE BASIS OF REVIEW The District has adopted the BOR and incorporated it by reference by Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E- 4.091(1)(a). The standards and criteria found in the BOR are used to determine whether an applicant has given reasonable assurances that the conditions for issuance of an ERP have been satisfied. Section 1.3 of the BOR provides, in part, as follows: . . . Compliance with the criteria established herein [the BOR] constitutes a presumption that the project proposal is in conformance with the conditions for issuance set forth in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302, F.A.C. WATER QUANTITY The term “control elevation” describes the level of freshwater water bodies established by a SWM system. The existing SWM system has a control elevation of 17’ NGVD. The control elevation for the proposed lake system will be raised to 18’ NGVD, and the control elevation for the proposed Natural Area will be raised to 19’ NGVD. Raising the control elevations will permit more treatment of storm water prior to discharge and will permit a more controlled discharge. In addition, raising the control elevation will lessen seepage onto the project site from adjacent wetlands. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands, thereby satisfying the criteria set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E- 4.301(a). The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, thereby satisfying the criteria set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(b). The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, thereby satisfying the criteria set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(c). VALUE OF FUNCTIONS OF WETLANDS AND SURFACE WATERS Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(d), requires the Applicants to establish that “. . . the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, or abandonment of a surface water management system . . .” “. . . will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters.” The District established that the term “value of functions,” as used in the rule, refers to habitat and life support functions. Because there are no wetlands or delineated surface waters on the Mecca Farms site, there are no direct adverse impacts to the functions that wetlands provide to fish and wildlife. The Applicants have provided reasonable assurances to demonstrate that the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters will not be adversely affected. The existing project site does not contain nesting areas for wetland-dependent endangered or threatened wildlife species or species of special concern. The potential for use of the existing project site for nesting by such species is minimal. The existing project site does contain habitat for the American Alligator and foraging habitat for wading birds and birds of prey. The primary foraging habitat on the existing site is around the perimeter of the existing 272-acre impoundment area in the northeast portion of the site. The existing impoundment will be replaced by on-site storm water treatment lakes and the BRP Natural Area that will have shallow banks planted with wetland plant species common to the area. Wildlife is opportunistic; and wading birds commonly feed in areas where there is water, wetland vegetation and wetland plants. The end result will be that the proposed project will have more and better foraging habitat acreage than the existing site. The Natural Area will provide a wetland buffer between the developed area and CWMA that will prevent any adverse impacts both to the wetlands and other surface waters in CWMA and to the value of the functions those wetlands and other surface waters provide to fish, wildlife, and listed species. The Natural Area will provide a wetland buffer between the developed area and Unit 11 that will prevent any adverse impacts both to the wetlands and other surface waters in Unit 11 and to the value of the functions those wetlands and other surface waters provide to fish, wildlife, and listed species. There was no competent evidence that the proposed project would impact the ability of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to manage the CWMA through control burns or otherwise, thereby adversely affecting the diversity or abundance of fish and wildlife (including endangered species and their habitats). Petitioners attempted to raise the issue of mosquito control in their Petitions and at the Final Hearing. The allegations pertaining to mosquito control were struck by the District and Special Condition Number 26 was added before the Petitions were referred to DOAH. Petitioners made no attempt to amend their Petitions and have not challenged Special Condition 26. The Addendum to Staff Report (SFWMD Ex. 2) contains the following Special Condition Number 26: “Upon submittal of an application for construction of any buildings, the permittee shall submit a mosquito control plan for review and approval by District Staff.” Since there will be no buildings containing people or other facilities which would encourage the use of mosquito spraying, it is appropriate for the mosquito control condition to apply to only future phases of construction. There was no competent evidence of impacts attributable to pesticides associated with the application for the SWM system or for Phase 1A construction and operation that would adversely affect the diversity or abundance of fish and wildlife including endangered species and their habitats. The Applicants have satisfied the criteria set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(d). WATER QUALITY The primary concern during Phase 1A construction will be erosion control. Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) are operational and design elements used to either eliminate or reduce the amount of pollutants at the source so they do not get into a SWM system or move downstream. To contain erosion in Phase 1A, the Applicants will use the following BMPs: Silt screens and turbidity barriers within existing ditches and around the perimeter of property. Planned construction sequencing to reduce movement and stock piling of material; Slope stabilization and seeding or sodding of graded areas; and Containment of construction materials with berms. All erosion and turbidity control measures will remain in place until the completion of the on-site construction and approval by the District’s post-permit compliance staff. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed Phase 1A construction activities will not adversely impact the quality of receiving waters and that those activities will not violate State water quality standards. Section 5.2.1, BOR, requires that a SWM system provide wet detention for the first one inch of runoff. The proposed SWM system will provide wet detention for one and one-half inches of runoff. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances to demonstrate that the technical criteria in the BOR will be met. Under Section 1.3 of the BOR, compliance with the criteria in the BOR constitutes a presumption that the Proposed Project is in conformance with the conditions for issuance. This presumption was not rebutted by the Petitioners. The lake system will include planted littoral zones to provide additional uptake of pollutants. A filter marsh is also included in the southern lake. All of the storm water runoff from the lakes will pass through the filter marsh, which will be planted with wetland plants. The filter marsh will provide additional polishing of pollutants, uptake, and filtering through the plants. The discharge will then go into the BRP, which will provide the discharge additional uptake and filtering. BMPs utilized during the Operations and Maintenance phase will include regular maintenance inspections and cleaning of the SWM system, street-sweeping, litter control programs, roadway maintenance inspections and repair schedule, municipal waste collection, pollution prevention education programs, pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer storage, and application training and education. The littoral zones, filter marsh, BRP natural area, and BMPs were not included in the water quality calculations and are over and above rule requirements. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances to demonstrate that the proposed project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. Therefore, Rule 40E- 4.301(1)(e), F.A.C., will be satisfied and water quality standards will not be violated. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES Pursuant to Section 5.5.5 of the BOR, commercial or industrial zoned projects shall provide at least one-half inch of dry detention or retention pretreatment as part of the required retention/detention, unless reasonable assurances can be offered that hazardous materials will not enter the project's SWM system. The Addendum to Staff Report reflects the following Special Condition 25 pertaining to hazardous materials: Upon submittal of an application for construction of commercial or industrial uses the permittee shall submit a plan that provides reasonable assurances that hazardous materials will not enter the surface water management system pursuant to the requirements of section 5.2.2(a) of the Basis of Review. Applicable permitting criteria does not require the Applicants to present a hazardous substances plan at this point because no facilities that will contain hazardous materials are part of the Phase 1A construction. SECONDARY IMPACTS Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f) and Section 4.1.1(f) of the BOR, require an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed activities will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. A secondary impact is an indirect effect of a project resulting in adverse effects to wetlands or other surface waters. The District considers those adverse effects that would not occur "but for" the activities that are closely linked and causally related to the activity under review. This standard is discussed further in the Conclusions of Law section of this Recommended Order. The County’s Exhibit 3 is a secondary impact analysis identifying the secondary impacts that may potentially result from the proposed project. These impacts are: 1) the widening of SPW Road; 2) the construction of an FPL substation; 3) the extension of PGA Boulevard; and 4) the potential relocation of a runway at North County Airport. The secondary impact analysis performed pursuant to the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) contained in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-345 reflects that up to 153.3 acres of wetlands may be partially or completely impacted by these secondary impacts, resulting in approximately 71.21 units of functional loss. Where future activities are expected to directly impact wetlands, secondary impacts were assessed based on the loss of all current functional value within the direct footprint of that activity. Additionally, an assessment was conducted to determine the degree of partial functional loss where impacts beyond the footprint of these activities are anticipated. SPW Road is an existing dirt road which is in the County's five-year road plan to widen as a four-lane paved road. Because the widening of the existing dirt road to a four-lane paved road is part of the five-year road plan, the impacts of that widening are not attributable to the subject project. However, as part of the proposed project, it is proposed to widen SPW Road to a six-lane paved road. The additional impacts associated with the widening from four to six lanes will be caused by, and are linked to, the proposed project. These impacts amount to approximately 2.2 acres. The FPL substation, which is proposed to service the proposed project, may result in 1.6 acres of potential direct impacts to wetlands. In addition, 1.0 acre of potential indirect secondary impacts may occur to wetlands that are not going to be dredged and filled. Those indirect secondary impacts may have some adverse impact on the functional value to those wetlands for wildlife utilization. The extension of PGA Boulevard to the Mecca Farms site has the potential to result in 45.6 acres of direct impacts to wetlands and 56.6 acres of indirect secondary wetland impacts which will not be dredged or filled, but will be in close proximity to the road. The secondary impact assessment for PGA Boulevard assumed the incorporation of wildlife crossings to minimize habitat fragmentation. If the airport runway needs to be shifted, potential direct wetland impacts to an additional 22.7 acres may occur. Indirect impacts to 23.6 acres of wetlands in close proximity could also occur. Runway relocation may or may not be necessary due to the PGA Boulevard extension; however, the analysis assumed the need for the relocation. Each of the projects listed above as potential secondary impacts will require a separate construction and operation permit from the District. The issuance of this permit does not in any way guarantee the issuance of permits for any of these identified potential secondary impacts. MITIGATION PLAN The Applicants provided a conceptual mitigation plan using UMAM to demonstrate how potential secondary impacts could be offset. Mitigation options have the potential to provide more than twice the functional gain than the functional loss from the identified secondary impacts. The conceptual mitigation options include: 194 acres of the land that had been acquired for future mitigation needs in Unit 11. 227 acres of the BRP natural area. 32.6 acres in the southern lake wetland along with proposed upland habitat. Sufficient mitigation is available in these options to offset the potential secondary impacts. The mitigation for the four potential secondary impacts is not required to be implemented now because the impacts are not occurring now. Section 4.2.7 of the BOR requires that the District consider those future impacts now and that a conceptual mitigation plan be provided to demonstrate and provide reasonable assurances that those impacts, in fact, can be offset in the future. The Governor and Cabinet sitting as the Board of Trustees considered and approved a request for public easement of approximately 30 acres to use a portion of CWMA for SPW Road, an FPL substation, and the land area that may be needed by District in the future for the connection to the flow-way. As consideration in exchange for the public easement over 30 acres, the County will transfer fee simple title of 60 acres to the State. This public easement also provides a benefit for CERP as it includes the small portion that the District is going to need for its future CERP project to connect to the flow-way on the proposed project site. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that mitigation will offset secondary impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. UNIDENTIFIED SECONDARY IMPACTS Testimony at the final hearing raised a question as to whether there is nesting or roosting by listed wading bird species in adjacent off-site wetlands outside the eastern boundary of the project site. Evidence was inconclusive on nesting or roosting in these areas. Because the status of adjacent listed wading bird nesting or roosting is uncertain, the District suggested in its Proposed Recommended Order that a special condition requiring a wildlife survey prior to construction near the eastern project boundary be added to the permit as follows: Prior to application for construction within 1000 feet of the eastern boundary of the above-ground impoundment, the applicant shall conduct a wildlife survey to identify any nesting or roosting areas in the adjoining off-site wetlands utilized by listed species of wading birds. If such nesting or roosting areas are found the permittee shall, if determined necessary by the District, incorporate additional buffers or other appropriate measures to ensure protection of these wetland functions. The District represented in its Proposed Recommended Order that the County has no objection to adding the foregoing condition. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 373.414(8), Florida Statutes, the District is required to consider cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters delineated in Section 373.421(1), Florida Statutes, within the same drainage basin. Cumulative impacts are the summation of unmitigated wetland impacts within a drainage basin. The cumulative impact analysis is geographically based upon the drainage basins described in Figure 4.2.8-1 of the BOR. Cumulative impacts are unacceptable when they would result in unacceptable adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands and surface waters within a drainage basin. There are no wetlands or other surface waters delineated pursuant to Section 373.421(1), Florida Statutes, on the Mecca Farms site. Therefore, no cumulative impacts are created by the direct impacts of the project. Cumulative impacts may be created by a project's secondary impacts. If a wetland impact has been appropriately mitigated on-site within the drainage basin, there is no residual impact, and therefore no cumulative impact. The PGA Boulevard extension, a portion of the SPW Road widening, and the airport runway relocation are located within the C-18 Basin. The proposed mitigation options are all located in the C-18 Basin and will offset those impacts. Those potential secondary impacts are considered to meet the cumulative impact requirements of Section 373.414(8), Florida Statutes. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not result in cumulative impacts to the C-18 Basin. The FPL substation is located within the L-8 Drainage Basin. The majority of the SPW Road expansion is located within the C-18 Basin, but a portion is located on the basin line between the C-18 Basin and the L-8 Basin. Because the mitigation for the L-8 impacts are proposed in a different basin, the Applicants were required to conduct a cumulative impact analysis for the L-8 Basin impacts. Based on the Florida Land Use Cover Classification System, there are 43,457 acres of freshwater wetlands within the L-8 Basin. Approximately 41,000 acres of the wetlands in L-8 Basin are in public ownership. This total constitutes approximately 95 percent of all the wetlands in the L-8 Basin. Public ownership of these wetlands provide a high level of assurance that these lands will be protected in perpetuity. The Respondents established that proposed mitigation can fully offset the potential impacts from the SPW Road expansion and the FPL substation and the approximately four acres of impacted wetlands in the L-8 Basin. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that there are no unacceptable adverse cumulative impacts on the L-8 Basin.4 GROUND WATER FLOWS, SURFACE WATER FLOWS, AND MINIMUM FLOWS AND LEVELS Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(g) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed activity will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows established pursuant to Section 373.042, Florida Statutes. The term "maintenance of surface and groundwater levels or surface water flows" in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(g) means that a project will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface water flows that contribute to meeting the minimum flow for the water body. An adverse impact to the maintenance of surface or groundwater levels or surface water flows may occur when a project discharging to a water body with a designated minimum flow level is proposed to be diverted. An analysis was done to compare the peak discharge rate from the existing SWM system on the Mecca Farms site with the projected peak discharge rate from the proposed SWM system. The analysis showed that the peak discharge rate under the proposed system will be less than that of the existing system. That result was expected since the proposed system will have higher control elevations, which, as noted above, will provide better treatment and permit a better control of the discharge into the C-18 Canal. Under the existing SWM system, storm event water in a dry period is frequently stored in the existing impoundment for future irrigation purposes. Under the proposed SWM system such storm event water will be discharged downstream, which will benefit those downstream areas during dry periods. The proposed system will also provide better control over pulse discharges during heavy storm events. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed activities will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground levels or surface water flows as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(g). THE DISTRICT’S OBJECTIVES Sections 373.414 and 373.416, Florida Statutes, require an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that a regulated activity will not be harmful to the water resources and will not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the District. Congress initially authorized the Central and Southern Florida (“C&SF”) Project in 1948. Thereafter extensive work was undertaken pertaining to flood control; water supply for municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses; prevention of saltwater intrusion; and protection of fish and wildlife. The work included construction of a primary system of 1000 miles each of levees and canals, 150 water-control structures, and 16 major pump stations. Unintended consequences of the C&SF Project have included the irreversible loss of vast areas of wetlands, including half of the original Everglades; the alteration in the water storage, timing, and flow capacities of natural drainage systems; and the degradation of water quality and habitat due to over-drainage or extreme fluctuations in the timing and delivery of fresh water into the coastal wetlands and estuaries. In 1992, Congress authorized the C&SF Project Comprehensive Review Study, which is generally referred to as the “Restudy.” The objective of the Restudy was to reexamine the C&SF Project to determine the feasibility of modifying the project to restore the South Florida ecosystem and provide for the other water-related needs of the region, such as water supply and flood protection. In April 1999, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued the Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (“Restudy Report”). The Restudy Report recommends a comprehensive plan for the restoration, protection, and preservation of the water resources of Central and South Florida. The resulting plan is known as CERP. The North Palm Beach County Part I project, which includes restoration of the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River (“NWFLR”), is a component of CERP. The successful completion of CERP and the successful restoration of the NWFLR are high-priority objectives of the District. The Loxahatchee River is an important feature of the South Florida ecosystem, nationally and internationally unique, and an important natural and economic resource. Rules pertaining to MFL for the NWFLR and for the recovery of the NWFLR are found at Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-8.011; 40E-8.221(4); and 40E-8.421. Recovery goals, which are not presently being met, have been established; and strategies to meet those goals have been identified. The Mecca Farms site is located within the boundaries of the CERP North Palm Beach County Part I project and has the potential to affect CERP and the restoration of the NWFLR. Projects that potentially would affect or would be within or adjacent to a CERP project are evaluated on a case-by- case basis to determine whether a proposed project would not be inconsistent with CERP and other District objectives. There was a dispute between Respondents and Petitioners as to whether the proposed project was inconsistent with the District’s objectives, including CERP and its goals pertaining to the restoration of the NWFLR. Petitioners contend that the District has insufficient evidence that the Mecca Farms will not be needed for the construction of a reservoir. That contention is rejected. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that sufficient storage is available at a superior site known as the Palm Beach Aggregates (PBA) site in the L-8 Basin, which is a unique geological site that will provide in-ground storage of water.5 Water from the PBA storage site can be conveyed to the NWFLR to increase dry season flows. Water can be stored at the PBA site in the wet season to prevent potentially damaging high flows. The L-8 Basin, which is adjacent to the C-18 Basin, receives more water during the wet season than it uses. This means that at present a significant amount of water must be discharged to tide (lost) during the wet season to provide for flood protection in this area. As envisioned, the water currently lost to tide could be stored at the PBA site for use during the dry season. By combining the water storage in the L-8 Basin with connective flow-ways to the C-18 Canal, water demands within the C-18 Basin, including the NWFLR, can also be met by the PBA storage site.6 An increase in freshwater flows to the NWFLR will further the District’s restoration goals for the NWFLR. Storage at PBA has regional benefits for other significant natural areas because it will provide additional flows to the Loxahatchee Slough and Grassy Waters Preserve. Those additional flows will further the District’s CERP goals. Since October of 2003, County staff and the District’s ERP staff have coordinated review of the subject project with the District’s CERP Planning and Federal Projects Division and other District staff working on projects in this region. The County asked the District to determine if the Mecca Farms’ site could in some way accommodate CERP objectives, and three alternatives were considered: 1) no action; 2) a reservoir; and 3) a flow-way. As opposed to a reservoir, the more valuable and the more practical, use of the Mecca Farms site would be as part of the system to convey the stored water to the areas that would most benefit from its discharge. The proposed flow-way in the BRP Natural Area would be an integral part of that conveyance system and would provide the District with greater flexibility in managing and directing the discharge of the water stored at the PBA site. Prior to the development of the flow-way concept as part of the proposed development, CERP identified a single route to take water from PBA to the NWFLR. The flow-way will provide an additional route from PBA to the NWFLR. That additional route will provide the District with greater operational flexibility. The flow-way will complement the L-8 Basin flow- way and help reduce peak flows to the NWFLR and the Estuary. The flow-way also provides a potential route allowing excess water to be brought back from the C-18 Basin to the PBA site for storage. There are no other potential routes that allow water to be directed from the C-18 Basin in the wet season to the PBA site. The flow-way provides a feature that was not part of the CERP original plan and is therefore an unanticipated benefit for CERP. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project is not inconsistent with the District’s objectives.7
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District issue the subject ERP for the conceptual approval of the SWM system for the BRP and the Phase 1A construction and operation subject to the general and special conditions set forth in the Staff Report and the Amended Staff Report. It is further RECOMMENDED that the District add the following special condition: Prior to application for construction within 1000 feet of the eastern boundary of the above-ground impoundment, the applicants shall conduct a wildlife survey to identify any nesting or roosting areas in the adjoining off-site wetlands utilized by listed species of wading birds. If such nesting or roosting areas are found the permittee shall, if determined necessary by the District, incorporate additional buffers or other appropriate measures to ensure protection of these wetland functions. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 3rd day of December, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Communities Financial Corporation is a Florida corporation engaged in the subdivision and sale of real property. In 1971 CFC purchased approximately twenty-two sections, or 22 square miles, of real property ("the land") in Township 34 South, Range 33 East, Okeechobee County, Florida, which it proposed to sell as individual one-and-one-quarter (1-1/4) acre lots. The subsequent development of that land is the subject of this proceeding. Respondent Coquina Water Management District ("Coquina") was organized pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, by judgment of the Circuit Court for Okeechobee County, Florida to perform drainage activities on the land. The land which CFC purchased in 1971 was originally platted in 1912 in a grid system with roads, drainage canals, and ditches. Extensive drainage was required for use of the land because it was very flat and had a high water table. Approximately one-half of the land was subject to flooding. After it was originally platted it was utilized for cattle ranching with drainage ditches connecting the low areas to encourage runoff. Ten-acre tracts surrounded by dikes and two to three foot deep ditches were used for tomato farming. Such agricultural ditching covered approximately 15 square miles of the property. At one time a hotel was situated on a portion of the property. North-South and East-West roads and a 5,000-foot airstrip were constructed across the property. The East-West road along the South boundary of the property, which is now a state road, has an adjacent drainage ditch which received ranchland water runoff from property east of the land. In 1971 and 1972 CFC registered the platted lots for sale with the Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums ("Land Sales") of the State of Florida Department of Business Regulation. In the normal course of compiling the documentation to be submitted for registration, CFC contacted several state regulatory agencies to determine whether such agencies required CFC to obtain permits for development of the property. CFC provided those agencies copies of its drainage plans, which included roads, swales, canals, and control structures. The State of Florida Department of Natural Resources ("DNR") stated that the construction of improvements as planned in the development would not be subject to that agency's jurisdiction for purposes of a dredge and/or fill permit. The State of Florida Department of Pollution Control ("DPC"), predecessor of DER, first stated in a letter of October 4, 1971, to Mr. Moseley Collins, who submitted a "plan of reclamation to DPC, that it had no regulatory responsibilities over the project: In response to your request for comments this Department has conducted a preliminary review of the proposed plan. We have no basic objections to the overall plan of development and believe it could be platted as shown. Specific details as to drainage techniques will be reviewed at a latter [sic] date. It is brought to you [sic] attention that although we have no regulatory responsibili- ties in this area we will welcome the opportunity to review cross sections and details at a latter [sic] date. We thank you for the opportunity to review a project of this magnitude at an early date. [Emphasis added.] The DPC, in a letter of March 30, 1972, to Collins, also observed that: This Department has conducted a review of the revised plan for the subject project and endorse the approach that you are contemplating in developing these areas. I have coordinated with other agencies and organizations and they concur with the approach. We would like to review the project at a future date to deter- mine the method of construction of the swales or greenways to move the water from one lake to another through the complete watershed area. You and your client are to be commended on this approach. From the preliminary layout you can see the possibilities for the potential develop- ment of an area for residential usage that will retain a large percentage of the natural resources and minimize the downstream effect on the overall watershed. Please advise when you want to review the project in greater detail. [Emphasis added.] In connection with the registration of the development, CFC submitted to Land Sales the above-referenced letters from DNR and DPC, detailed evidence of the proposed plan of development, and a public offering statement for use in solicitation of lot sales from the general public. Each offering statement contains several statements to the effect that "this is not a homesite subdivision." Land Sales approved use of the offering statement. In using it to solicit sales, CFC committed to the purchasers that it would complete the required road and drainage improvements by December 31, 1979. CFC commenced sales of lots in the development in 1971. The Agreements for Deed approved by Land Sales and subsequently entered into by CFC with lot purchasers required CFC to deliver improved lots by December 31, 1979. Most of the land sales were made between 1971 and 1973. (6,412 lots were sold and 1,146 were conveyed by June 23, 1977.) Approximately eighty percent of the lots have been sold to date. Up to one-half of the approximately nine thousand lot purchasers hold legal title to their lots pursuant to deeds issued to them by CFC upon full payment. CFC began construction of the promised improvements, consisting of roads and drainage, in 1972. At the present time approximately $1,000,000 of improvements have been completed and approximately $750,000 remain to be completed. In 1973 or 1974, CFC and Coquina submitted plans for the surface water management system which CFC proposed to construct for the property to the South Florida Water Management District ("SFWMD"). The initial plan of development called for the construction of a road and canal system. At the request of SFWMD, the plan was subsequently changed to a road and swale system, and the configuration of one of the control structures was changed. The design changes resulted in more water retention on the property and the preservation of sensitive areas. After several years of analysis and review of the design plan, inspection of the project site, and a public hearing, SFWMD granted conceptual approval for the surface water management system to be constructed by CFC in 1977. The conceptual approval was partially based on the SFWMD staff's assessment than pollutant loadings from the property after development would be less than existing loadings, and that adverse water quality impacts as a result of the proposed development were unlikely. The 1977 SFWMD conceptual approval of the drainage plan for the development was followed by the issuance of a construction permit for the westernmost seven sections on March 15, 1979. Throughout this period construction was continuing. The drainage system as approved consists of grassed lot, roadside, and collector "swales" together with a retention area comprised of natural wetlands in the area of the property known as Ash Slough. The volume of water leaving the property after development will be the same as that leaving the property before development. The drainage conveyances are designed with gradually sloping sides, vary to widths of over 100 feet for the larger collector conveyances, and have depths varying from 2 feet for the "lateral" swales to 3 feet for the larger collector swales. The groundwater table in the area of the project site varies from zero to approximately 30 inches below ground surface. The swales were designed at the request of SFWMD in lieu of the canals proposed within the same easements in the original drainage plan for the development. It appears from the evidence that these drainage conveyances are designed so as to contain contiguous areas of standing or flowing water only following the occurrence of rainfall or flooding. Although some testimony indicated that these conveyances contained contiguous areas of standing water, these observations were made either at isolated times during the progress of construction or soon after a major hurricane passed through the area. Since the purpose of the "swales" is to facilitate drainage from the property, it would appear necessary from an engineering viewpoint to allow some period of time after construction of the swales for them to stabilize to make a valid determination that they will not function as designed. Accordingly, it would not appear unusual that the swales contain areas of standing water until they have been given ample opportunity to stabilize. On the basis of the record in this proceeding, a determination simply cannot be made at this point in time that the swales will not function as designed. Following DPC's initial determination of no jurisdiction in 1971 and 1972, it and DER, its successor agency, were not involved with the project until 1974, when DPC received an inquiry concerning land sales matters from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In 1975, a DER staff member conducted a critical review of the Project and filed an internal memorandum faulting the project on the same essential grounds that are the basis for the Notice of Violation issued June 1, 1979. DER representatives participated in various SFWMD meetings from 1975 to 1977 when the conceptual approval of the drainage plan for the project was discussed. During this period, SFWMD forwarded copies of various materials dealing with the project to DER. Further, a DER representative attended the public hearing on September 8, 1977, when the conceptual approval of the project was granted by SFWMD. Respondents' first indication of DER's renewed interest in the development was a letter from DER Subdistrict Manager Warren Strahm to Robert Birenbaum on June 23, 1977. This letter stated, in part, that: The above referenced application/staff report has been supplied to this office by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). It has been determined that your project is subject to Chapters 403 and/or 253, Florida Statutes. A review of drainage plans by our staff indicates the referenced project will comply with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes permit requirements for pollutant discharge. Since these plans have been incorporated into the SFWMD permit, no discharge permit or monitoring in addition to SFWMD permit requirement will be required by the Department at this time. It appears, however, that the referenced project may fall within the permitting requirements set forth in Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to F.A.C. 17-4.28(2) should any excavation take place in submerged lands or within the transitional zone of submerged lands, dredge and fill permits will be required by this Department prior to commencement of said activi- ties. [Emphasis added.] Please contact Mr. Roger G. Gallop, at the Fort Pierce Branch Office, telephone (305) 464-8525, at your convenience in order to discuss the need for a construction dredge and fill permit. Thank you for your cooperation. Three months later, in a letter from James Brindell to Coquina, Respondents were notified that: A review, by this agency, of the plans associated with your Surface Water Management Permit Applica- tion No. 02187-A indicates that permits will be required from the Department of Environmental Regulation pursuant to Chapter 403 and/or Chapter 253, Florida Statutes for the construction con- templated. Specifically, permits will be required for the construction and operation of discharge structures as well as for any dredging and/or filling in the waters of the state including the submerged lands and transitional zone of these submerged lands. Additionally, certification pursuant to section 401 of F.L. 92-500 may be required. Formal or conceptual appova1 of your project by the South Florida Water Management District does not imply that your project will satisfy the requirements of this agency. Please contact Mr. Warren G. Strahm, Subdistrict Manager, 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, phone 305/689-5800, at your earliest convenience concerning application for these permits. (Emphasis added). This letter was followed one-and-one-half months later by a "Letter of Notice" from DER advising Respondents that DER had reason to believe the project was in violation of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and requesting CFC to cease any further work. Throughout this series of correspondence, CFC and Coquina maintained that DER did not have permit jurisdiction. This position was reasserted in a letter of November 1, 1977, from Emerson Allsworth, counsel for Coquina, to DER. During this period, numerous meetings were held involving representatives of Respondents and DER in which Respondents were urged by DER to apply for permits. Respondents failed to do so, and, on June 1, 1979, DER issued its Notice of Violation. Natural drainage from the property occurs southwestward into an area known as Ash Slough; southward from the central portion of the property into Gore Slough; and from the northeast section of the property into Company Slough. The headwaters of both Ash Slough and Gore Slough originate on the project site and periodically extend off Respondents' property to the south to join the waters of Chandler Slough. Chandler Slough, in turn, eventually empties into Lake Okeechobee 11 to 15 miles from the property. Company Slough also extends off the project site eastward onto the lands of others. There is, however, insufficient evidence in this record from which to conclude that Company Slough regularly exchanges flow with any other body of water. A "slough", as that term is used in the context of this proceeding, is a surface conveyance pathway for waters whose lateral boundaries are not as well-defined as a stream bed, and whose rate of flow is relatively slow. Due to the flat topography of the project site, Ash, Gore and Company Sloughs have imprecise boundaries, and their rates of flow appear to range at various times from very slow to nonexistent. By Cease and Desist Order dated March 28, 1978, the United States Army Corps of Engineers required Respondents to halt any further work then being conducted on the project, asserting that work in progress at that time was being conducted in waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands, without first having acquired a permit from the Corps of Engineers. This Order provided, in part, that: Section 301(a) of the [Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972] makes it unlawful to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States unless author- ized by a Section 404 permit issued by the Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief of Engineers. Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 prohibits the excavation or depositing of material or erecting any struc- tures in navigable waters of the United States unless authorized by a Department of the Army permit. The work referred to in the paragraph above is deemed to have occurred in waters subject to these statutory requirements without the requisite permits and is considered unlaw- ful by this office. Prior to 25 July, the Corps of Engineers limited the requirement for Section 404 type permits to areas either below the mean high water line in tidal areas or below the ordinary high water line of rivers and streams which either now sup- port, had supported, or were capable of supporting interstate commerce. However, on 25 July 1975, the regulatory juris- diction of the District was expanded to all waters of the United States and adjacent wetlands. [Emphasis add.] Subsequently, however, by memorandum dated May 17, 1978, the United States Army Corps of Engineers determined that it did not have jurisdiction over Respondent's activities for the following reasons: In the northeast and eastern portion of the tract the flagponds and saw grass prairies are isolated with no discernible drainage sloughs or patterns. The other area of concern, in the south west sector, contains isolated ponds and an old man-made drainage canal that comprises shallow, intermittent potholes above the natural headwaters of Ash and Gore Sloughs. There was no recognizable flow in any part of the canal and the point at which average annual flow appear to be 5 c.f.s. or greater is located to the south a considerable distance from the subject tract. The project, as proposed, will not destroy or threaten any endangered species or their habitat nor adversely impact water quality of the ultimate receiving waters in Kissimmee River and Lake Okeechobee. In 1971, the Soil Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture classified Ash and Gore Sloughs, as well as Fish Slough, to which Company Slough is alleged by DER to connect, as "intermittent". This determination is supported by hydrological data compiled by the South Florida Water Management District which shows no net flow in Chandler Slough for as many as six months in 1975 and four months in 1976. In the South Florida Water Management District report concerning flow patterns in Chandler Slough, it was pointed out that: The climate in this portion of Florida is subtropical with warm summers and moderate winters. Rainfall is seasonal with about 75 percent of the total occur- ring in a well-defined wet season, from May to October. This distribution of rainfall results in considerable surface water flow during part of the year. During the late winter and early spring many of the creeks and sloughs, such as Chandler Slough, become completely dry. [Emphasis added.] In addition, testimony in the record in this proceeding establishes that on at least one occasion during the time in which construction on the property was being conducted, Company Slough was completely dry. There is no data in the record quantifying the annual flow of water from Ash and Gore Sloughs into Chandler Slough. Further, there is no evidence concerning the periodicity of any such water exchanges between Ash and Gore Sloughs and Chandler Slough. As indicated above, the evidence establishes that Chandler Slough, which is the larger collector slough into which both Ash and Gore sloughs allegedly discharge, periodically becomes "completely dry." DER witnesses testified that they had observed contiguous areas of standing water in Ash, Gore and Company Sloughs during visits to the site, and had also determined the existence of an exchange of waters between Ash, Gore and Company Sloughs with other sloughs connecting to Chandler Slough by analyzing aerial photographs. However, those aerial photographs were not made a part of the record in this proceeding. Additionally, the relatively few visits to the site by these witnesses, in the absence of validly derived data establishing pertinent flow rates, is insufficient to establish "normal" conditions in the area. This is especially true in light of the aforementioned countervailing determinations based upon data compiled by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the United States Department of Agriculture and the South Florida Water Management District. The evidence shows that some of the types of vegetation listed in DER's vegetation indices by which DER determines whether areas are "submerged lands" or "transitional zones" of submerged lands have been found on the project site. Among the types of vegetation observed in and around Ash, Gore and Company Sloughs are maidencane, water willow, pickerelweed, button bush, saw grass and St. John's wort. Although these species were detected in some locations by visual observation, apparently no attempt was made to quantify these plants vis-a-vis other vegetative types, nor were any physical measurements made to locate their boundaries. In a report dated August 26, 1977, the SFWMD attempted to identify the acreage, but not boundaries, of wetlands on the development site. The findings of that report show that approximately 2,014 of 14,080 acres, or 14.3 percent of the total site, contains wetlands vegetation. The report also indicates that the wetlands vegetation is scattered in different locations over the site, with the median occurrence being 68 acres per 640-acre section. DER presented quantified evidence showing turbidity readings in the Ash Slough area of the development during the construction of swales in August, 1979, of 325 Jackson Units and November and December, 1979, of 155 and 176 Jackson Units, respectively. It should be noted that these readings were performed after the filing of the Notice of Violation herein. Although samples of August 6, 1979, were taken without a background sample in Ash Slough, the evidence establishes that background readings in Ash Slough were less than 25 Jackson Units. The evidence clearly establishes that DER's water quality sampling and analysis were conducted in accordance with applicable requirements of Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. The evidence establishes that these readings are attributable to construction of swales and control structures and would not be expected to continue after completion of construction. There is no evidence to show the duration of the discharges resulting in these turbidity readings, nor is there any showing of actual damage to animal, plant or aquatic life. Petitioner and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact in this proceeding. To the extent that those findings of fact are not adopted in this 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.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner in this matter is Capeletti Brothers, Inc., a Florida corporation. .The Respondent is the State of Florida, Department: of Environmental Regulation, an agency of the State of Florida with regulatory authority granted pursuant to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and those rules attendant thereto. Through its Petition as received by the State of Florida, Department: of Environmental Regulation, the present: Petitioner has filed a formal proceeding pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, and through this Petition has challenged the Department's assertion of jurisdiction to require an-environmental permit and in the alternative has requested that the permit be granted if it is determined that a permit is necessary. (The jurisdictional question was ruled on by order dated December 7, 1979.) The Petitioner's activity which fostered the current dispute between the parties involved the Petitioner's intention to excavate certain property in Broward County, Florida, and through such excavation remove rock fill material constituted primarily of limestone and leave in place a quarry containing water. The Petitioner holds an option to purchase the property in question subject to the granting of necessary environmental permits to conduct the excavation. The terms and conditions of that option to sell may be found in the Petitioner's Exhibits 10 and 11, admitted into evidence. The Petitioner had intended to use the fill material in the furtherance of a road building project by contract entered into between the Petitioner and the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, the contract award being made on February 23, 1977. The parties to that contract terminated the contract prior to any permit for dredging having been granted; however, Petitioner still desires to excavate at the site for the purpose of obtaining fill material for future building projects and the nature of the option to purchase would allow the Petitioner to continue to pursue its efforts at obtaining a permit, notwithstanding the termination of the original agreement between Capeletti Brothers, Inc., and the State of Florida, Department of Transportation. The Respondent has issued a Notice of Intent to Deny the permit by a letter dated March 26, 1979, and a copy of the Notice of Intent to Deny may be found as Exhibit "A" to the Petition. This Notice of Intent to Deny followed the receipt and review of Capeletti Brothers, Inc.'s application for permit dated October 18, 1978. In addition, the Respondent has asserted permit jurisdiction based upon grounds not set forth in the Notice of Intent to Deny. This claim for jurisdiction is a claim for jurisdiction under the provisions of Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and their associated rules. A copy of the application for permit may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence and this application contains sketches showing the location of the proposed project with reference to the surrounding terrain and other features. The proposed project site consists of approximately forty-four acres of land located south of Andytown, Florida, and west of State Road 25 (U.S. 27). The site is surrounded by Alligator Alley to the north; State Road 25 to the east, with a contemplated borrow canal to be constructed between State Road 25 and the project location, immediately adjacent to State Road 25; to the west by Florida Power and Light patrol road, with a borrow canal running north and south located west of the patrol road and Levee 37 further west of the borrow canal, this levee being maintained by the South Florida Water Management District. To the south of the project is an access road which grants access to the Florida Power and Light patrol road. The quarry which is to be dug on the acreage in question will not intersect either of the borrow canals referred to above. Upon completion, the pit area will consist of approximately twenty-two acres of open excavation approximately forty feet deep with a littoral zone constituted of sawgrass. At the conclusion of the project, all fill material that has been excavated will have been removed from the project site and the access road to the project site destroyed. The pit will be left full of water that has entered the pit at the excavation during the dredging. That water will be constituted primarily of groundwater located immediately below the surface in pockets found in the limestone fill material. The displacement of limerock will allow the groundwater to fill the void. Although the water which enters the excavation site will be primarily groundwater, the waters within its boundaries will eventually have the characteristics of surface waters due to the design of the activity being much like a natural pond. Approximately four thousand feet south of the project site is an abandoned rock quarry with an access road from State Road 25 and approximately two miles south of the project site is an active rock quarry operated by Rosen, Rosen and Tupler. The nature of the Rosen, Rosen and Tupler quarry is similar to that as contemplated by the Petitioner's plan. There are other rock quarries of similar nature located in the vicinity of the project site. The project site does not receive surface flows or sheet flows from adjacent properties due to the fact that the project site is surrounded by dykes and borrow canals which block surface flows or sheet flows from any adjacent properties. The surface water flow on the property is in a more or less southeasterly direction. The rainfall that occurs at the project site causes the project site to be inundated at times with standing water as deep as six or eight inches. This water will not exit the property except in times of high incidence of rain, when the water may overflow the Florida Power and Light access road and make entry into the borrow canal adjacent to State Road 25, gaining such access at the southeast of the project site. At present, part of the borrow canal east of the project site and adjacent to State Road 25 has been filled in. As stated before, this area will be replaced by a future excavation of a borrow canal in the area now covered. The surface water which stands on the project site normally percolates into the ground or evaporates into the atmosphere. The primary vegetation at the project site is sawgrass. The project: as contemplated would remove some of these grasses and attached heavy muck soils, but there would remain a sawgrass zone between the contemplated borrow canal located east of the project and the Levee 37 borrow canal located west of the project. The borrow canals located to the east and west of the project site flow south to the South New River Canal, which runs generally east and west. The waters collected in the South New River Canal are subject to being pumped through the pumping station S-9 which distributes water to the west or the water may be carried through the South New River Canal in an easterly direction, eventually entering the South New River, a natural waterway subject to navigation. The South New River is approximately twenty miles from the project site. The South New River empties into the Atlantic Ocean. Those waters which are pumped westerly through pumping station S-9 may enter other natural waterways and eventually the Gulf of Nexico by transportation through a series of artificial canals and natural water connections. Although the Petitioner does not intend to introduce contaminants at the proposed project site during the preparation stage; stage of excavation and stage of evacuation, the testimony concerning the project site and an active quarry of similar nature in the immediate vicinity, and other similar quarries, establishes that it could be reasonably expected that oils, greases and lead would be dispersed in the area of the quarry pit, the immediately adjacent wetlands and at times of high incidence of rainfall, into the borrow canals adjacent to the property. However, before the contaminants reach the borrow canals by overland sheet flow, they will be filtered out by the wetlands. The contamination into the pit would find its way into the Biscayne Aquifer, the Aquifer at the project site being only a foot or so beneath the surface., The introduction of contaminants into the Biscayne Aquifer at the project site will eventually lead to the direct mixing of those contaminants with portions of the Biscayne Aquifer adjacent to the project site, in particular west of the project site in the containment area which is part of the system of submerged lands of the state and to the borrow canal east of the project site. There is also the possibility of copper, zinc, iron, chromium, manganese, dieldrin and polychlorinated biphenyls contaminants being introduced into the pit (quarry). in association with the project, though this possibility is more remote than in the case of the substances previously mentioned and the possibility is so remote that it is not reasonably expected to occur. Therefore, these are not substances for which the Petitioner must do actual testing to show that they do not exceed water quality standards in order to establish necessary reasonable assurances. The facts presented did not give rise to even a potentiality for the presence of other regulated substances that might exceed applicable water quality standards, with the exception of phenols which are reported next. Phenolic-type compounds were found in the active and inactive quarry pits similar to the proposed installation These compounds as detected in the sample and reasonably expected at the project are naturally occurring phenomena and not the direct product of the mining activity. The mining will create turbid conditions and there will be fluctuations in dissolved oxygen concentrations and BOD values and changes in pH values in the pit. The above-referenced contamination and variations in values would be injurious to human health or welfare, animal and plant life and property and, as a consequence, interfere with the enjoyment of life and property, if found to exceed the Respondent's applicable water quality standards. The Petitioner, if allowed to carry out the project, has given specific reasonable assurance that it will not violate the Respondent's applicable water quality standards related to the turbidity, dissolved oxygen, BOD, lead, oils and greases, and pnenols. See Rule 17-3.05(2), Florida Administrative Code. Other substances-and conditions found in that subsection of the rule not being reasonably expected to occur, necessary reasonable assurance has been established for those. There will be no discharges of heated water. See Rule 17-3.05(3), Florida Administrative Code. The project site does not involve outstanding Florida waters within the meaning of Rules 17-3.041 and 17-4.242(1), Florida Administrative Code. Testimony offered in the course of the hearing shoes that in similar projects in terms of their location and purpose, the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, has at times disclaimed its jurisdiction to require a permit and at other times granted permits.
