The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC (Mosaic), has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed mining and reclamation of the South Fort Meade Mine in Hardee County can be conducted in a manner that comports with the applicable statutes and rules such that the proposed Environmental Resource Permit (ERP), Conceptual Reclamation Plan (CRP), variance from minimum standards for dissolved oxygen, and variance from littoral zone percentage provisions for the Project should be issued by Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (Department).
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Mosaic is a limited liability company authorized to do business in the State of Florida and is the applicant in these proceedings. It was formed by the merger of IMC Phosphates Company and Cargill, Inc., in 2004. Mosaic has applied for permits to mine, reclaim, and conduct associated activities on property in Hardee County, Florida, known as the South Fort Meade Hardee County tract. These activities are referred to in this Recommended Order as the "Project" or "site." The Department is a state agency with jurisdiction over ERP permitting under Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, for phosphate mining activities with jurisdiction over phosphate mining reclamation under Part III, Chapter 378, Florida Statutes, and with jurisdiction over variances associated with phosphate mining under Section 403.201, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to that authority, the Department reviewed the ERP, CRP, DO Variance, and Zone Variance applications for the Project. Lee and Sarasota Counties are political subdivisions of the State of Florida. Both Counties have filed challenges to other mining applications and have been found to have standing in those cases. The site is located within the Greater Charlotte Harbor Basin, approximately sixty percent of which lies within Lee County. In this case, Lee County is concerned about the potential destruction of stream and wetlands in the mine area and the impact of mining and its effects on Charlotte Harbor and the Peace River. Sarasota County is a member of the Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority, and they jointly hold a water use permit, which authorizes them to withdraw water from the Peace River for potable supply. Sarasota County operates a water treatment plant on the Peace River downstream from the site and is concerned with potential impacts to water quality and wetlands. After three years of data collection and site analysis, on October 13, 2006, Mosaic filed applications with the Department's Bureau of Mine Reclamation for an ERP/Water Qualify Certification for the disturbance of approximately 7,756 acres of uplands, wetlands, and other surface waters within a 10,856– acre area which makes up the site; a CRP for the same parcel; and the associated Zone and DO Variances. Three sets of additional information were requested by the Department, and on January 31, 2008, the applications were deemed to be complete. On June 30, 2008, the Department issued Notices of Intent to issue the permits and grant the variances. The Project is located within the Peace River Basin. Little Charlie Creek, a tributary to the Peace River, enters the site in the northeast part of the tract and flows diagonally across the tract in a general southwest direction. The Project is located to the east of the Peace River, east of the town of Bowling Green, northeast of the City of Wauchula, and just south of the Polk-Hardee County Line in Hardee County, Florida. The Project site is twenty-nine miles from the Sarasota County line and fifty-three miles from the Lee County line. The Peace River eventually empties into Charlotte Harbor near Port Charlotte in Charlotte County. The Project consists of approximately eighty percent of upland land cover types, including large acreages converted to agricultural uses, such as cattle grazing, citrus production, and row crop production. The Project site consists primarily of citrus groves and pasture. Richard W. Cantrell, Deputy Director of Water Resources for the Department, has extensive experience and knowledge concerning agricultural parcels of this size in Central Florida. Based on his familiarity with the site, he indicated that all the streams have been impacted, the impacts to some areas of the site are severe, and the "site contains some of the most polluted streams with respect to sedimentation that I have ever seen." The other Mosaic and Department ecological experts familiar with the site concurred in that assessment, and the substantial data collections and application information support that assessment of the site. Of the 2,590.7 acres of wetlands on the property, approximately 751 acres of wetlands and other surface waters will be impacted. Of that 751, 91 are upland cut ditches or cattle ponds, 108 acres are other surface waters, and 274 acres are herbaceous wetlands. Virtually all of the native upland vegetation on the site has been destroyed due to the agricultural activities that have been undertaken on the site over time. Only remnant patches of native upland remain on the site. These comprise approximately nine percent of the site and are predominantly within the riparian corridors of Little Charlie Creek and the Peace River and are proposed to be preserved. The evidence established that the majority of the wetlands and streams proposed for impact are lower in quality; the higher quality wetlands are typically associated with the riparian stream corridors and are proposed to be preserved. The preserved uplands are primarily pasture but also include one hundred thirty-nine acres of upland forest. Twenty-nine distinct vegetative communities were mapped on the site during approximately two years of evaluation and assessment utilizing the Florida Land Use, Cover and Classification System (FLUCCS). There are numerous natural stream segments that were mapped on the parcel including the primary drainage systems on site, consisting of the Peace River, Little Charlie Creek, Lake Dale Branch, Parker Branch, and Max Branch. Substantial portions of the natural streams and their flood plains will be preserved; sixty-two natural stream segments totaling 58,769 linear feet will be mined. No sovereign submerged lands are proposed to be impacted by the activities. The Peace River to its ordinary high water line is sovereign submerged lands; however, no other streams on site are claimed as sovereign. Therefore, no authorization to utilize or impact sovereign submerged lands is required. The field work assessing the ecological condition of the site's wetlands, streams, and surface waters consisted of detailed quantitative and qualitative assessments using FLUCCS, the Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure, and the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM) codified in Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62-345. The level of assessment expended in evaluating the native upland and wetland habitats on the site was considerable and provided reasonable assurances that the current condition and relative value of the systems were adequately considered in the permitting process. From 2002 to 2004, Mosaic conducted intense ecological evaluations of the site, evaluating historical and aerial photography and other site documentation and conducting extensive examinations in the field, including vegetative, macroinvertebrate, and fish sampling and surveying, surface and ground water quality and quantity monitoring, wildlife observations, surveys and trapping, stream mapping and evaluation, soil analysis, and other efforts, both in areas to be mined and areas to be preserved, and in both uplands and in wetlands. The ecological assessments were primarily conducted prior to the hurricane events of 2004, although additional field work was conducted following the hurricanes. Mosaic and the Department's experts revisited the site in the fall of 2008 and agreed that the various ecological and biological assessments conducted prior to the hurricanes would tend to overstate the quality of the site as compared to its current condition. The hurricanes caused a significant amount of damage to the remaining forested habitats on the site. A formal wetland jurisdictional determination was issued and published without challenge in 2007 and therefore conclusively establishes the boundaries of the wetlands and surface waters on the site for permitting purposes. Seasonal surveys for wildlife on the site were conducted in 2003-2004 using the wildlife survey methodology prescribed and approved by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Specialized wildlife surveys and night-time surveys were also conducted. A total of 4,600 man hours of effort were expended to evaluate the presence of fish and wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, on the site. The entire site was surveyed, with over 2,600 miles of wildlife transects, to assess the presence of wildlife, and detailed information was recorded for all wildlife observations, including anecdotal observations by the ecologists performing the wetland assessments. Mosaic also engaged in an extensive effort to identify the natural stream channels proposed for impacts on the site. After discussion with the Department staff, Mosaic distinguished the natural streams in accordance with FLUCCS codes 511, 512, 513, and 514, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-16.0051(4). Streams are a subset of the term "other surface waters" for ERP purposes. Although streams are defined in Section 373.019(18), Florida Statutes, as are other watercourses and surface waters, there is no operative use of, or reference to, streams in Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, governing ERP permits. Also, there are no specific ERP mitigation requirements applicable to streams. Thus, the only specific regulatory use of the word "stream" occurs in the context of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-16.0051, and not the ERP rules. The Department and Mosaic established that the delineation of streams proposed for impact by mining on the site was sufficient and adequate for purposes of the CRP rules. In addition, Mr. Cantrell stated that, for purposes of the acre- for-acre, type-for-type (for wetlands) and linear foot (for streams) reclamation requirements in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-16.0051, the Department required Mosaic to delineate a stream as such until the point it enters or after it leaves a wetland area and to delineate the wetland polygon itself as a wetland, not a stream. This is true even if water continues to flow through the wetlands and reform as a stream at the other side. If the stream will not be impacted, then nothing in either the ERP or CRP rules requires its precise delineation, because the CRP rules apply only to reclamation of impacted areas. Thus, Lee County's assertion that "streams" has some special status by virtue of the definition in Section 373.019(18), Florida Statutes, has not been accepted. Mr. Cantrell further testified that the Department utilizes a substantially similar definition to delineate "streams" pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-16.0051(4), but as noted in Findings of Fact 44-46, subsection (5) of the rule requires restoration on a linear foot basis only of natural streams. Lee County contended that over 12,000 feet of natural streams were omitted or misidentified in the application. However, based upon the evidence presented, both historical and current, and applying the applicable regulations and statutes, this argument has been rejected. This contention was based on after-the-fact approximation of stream locations and lengths plotted from memory in a desktop analysis. Further, during his site visit to mark stream locations, Lee County's expert failed to use a handheld GPS device or maps. Therefore, the evidence submitted by Mosaic and the Department as to the location and length of the streams proposed for impact has been credited. Mr. Cantrell testified that even the best of the streams proposed for impact have been subjected to at least sixty years of agricultural disturbance and manipulation. For example, the system 22 series of stream segments will be impacted and replaced by the clay settling areas. While the witness characterized segment 22(o) as the most stable and least impacted of the streams to be mined, that segment is 376 feet long and located at the uppermost reach of the 22 systems. It is an extremely small percentage of the overall 12,000 plus feet of less stable and more severely impacted parts of system 22. Mosaic and the Department analyzed the origins and current condition of the streams to be impacted, most of which are less than three-to-four feet wide and one foot or less deep and flow only intermittently and seasonally. The ecological and hydrologic conditions of the site and its fish and wildlife populations and habitat values were assessed for purposes of the ERP and CRP regulatory criteria. Respondents' characterization of the functional value of the wetlands, streams, and surface waters is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Lee and Sarasota Counties' assertion that the site wetlands and streams are in "good" condition and can be easily restored is not credited in light of the lack of empirical data to support this contention. The only way to recover the phosphate ore is through mining to remove the overburden layer and expose the phosphate matrix with a dragline. The first step prior to any land disturbance associated with phosphate mining is the installation of a "ditch and berm" system, which is recognized as a best management practice (BMP) by the Department and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Installation of the ditch and berm system proceeds in phases to protect unmined wetlands and habitats from mining impacts as mining progresses; it is not constructed all at once. The ditch and berm remains in place around an individual mining unit until mining and reclamation have been completed and monitoring indicates the revegetation is sufficiently established such that no violations of water quality standards will occur upon re-connection to adjacent and downstream waters. It is then removed in accordance with the reclamation plan. The system serves a number of purposes described below. Berms are required to be constructed in accordance with specific design criteria. The height of the berm will be designed in accordance with rules specific to such structures to prevent water from overtopping the berm during a 25-year, 24- hour storm event, even if the ditch becomes blocked. Following installation of a ditch and berm system, bulldozers clear the mining area of vegetation. Up to three large electrically powered draglines operate generally in parallel rows to remove the overburden layer (the upper layer of sand and clay soil), which is approximately 23.6 feet thick on average, to expose the phosphate matrix, which is approximately 13-to-15 feet thick on average. The overburden is cast to the side in piles to be later reused in reclamation. The phosphate matrix is a mixture of sand, clay, and phosphate, which must be separated after mining. At the beneficiation plant, washing, screening, and flotation processes are used to separate the phosphate rock from the sand and clay. After washing and screening, the sand is pumped back to the mine cuts for use in reclamation, and the clay is pumped to clay settling areas (CSAs) in slurry form to decant. Both the transport of sand back to the mine areas for use in reclamation and the transport of clays to CSAs are considered "mining operations," not "reclamation." See Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority, et al. v. IMC Phosphates Company, et al., DOAH Case No. 03-0791 (DOAH June 16, 2006; DEP July 31, 2006); Fla. Admin. Code R. 62C-16.0021(10) and (15). Thus, contrary to Lee County's allegation, the transportation of clays and sand is not a valid consideration in the financial responsibility required for mitigation. Through testimony and its materials balance tables, which are part of the application, Mosaic demonstrated that it has sufficient sand tailings and other waste materials to meet all of its reclamation requirements mine-wide, including both the Polk side and the Project site. However, while there is sufficient sand available to create the proposed reclamation topography and contours, the tables and testimony demonstrated a need, on a mine-wide basis, for lakes, as voids will remain otherwise. There will be only a very small pile of available sand remaining after all reclamation obligations on both the Polk side and the Project are met, an insufficient amount to eliminate the need for deep lakes as proposed. Mr. Myers, Mosaic's Vice-President of Mining, testified as to the three basic ways the waste materials generated by the beneficiation plant are disposed of on-site to facilitate reclamation. Sand tailings will be utilized in areas to be reclaimed as native habitats, wetlands, and streams. Clays will be disposed of in CSAs. However, based on the materials balance and logistical issues, the "land and lakes" reclamation method, which utilizes only the available overburden material remaining on-site after mining, will be used for the lake reclamation. This method allows sand tailings preferential use in reclamation of native habitats and use of shaped and contoured overburden in areas not proposed for wetland mitigation. Such is the case for the proposed reclaimed lakes. A CSA is an above-grade impoundment to hold clay slurry pumped from the beneficiation plant. This clay slurry is pumped into one side of a CSA in the form of muddy water. The clay settles to the bottom, and the clear water remains at the top. The clear water is drawn out from the opposite side of the impoundment, where it is recycled back to the beneficiation plant and mine for reuse. Over time, the clay consolidates and solidifies to form a solid soil, the surface area is drained, and the impoundment reclaimed. Three CSAs will be constructed on the northern portion of the site to hold the clay that cannot be stored in already- permitted CSAs in Polk County. The use of stage filling has allowed Mosaic to have additional usable space in its CSAs, minimizing the footprint of new CSAs in Hardee County. In addition, approximately fifty percent of the clay waste from the site will be disposed of at the Polk site to further minimize the clay disposal footprint and eliminate and reduce impacts. To evaluate the number of CSAs required, Mosaic asked Ardaman & Associates, a consulting firm, to examine different clay generation scenarios when predicting the CSAs required by mining and beneficiation. The life of mine waste disposal plan, most recently updated in September 2008, indicated that, in all but one scenario (the seventy percent clay containment scenario), all three CSAs would be required. However, Mosaic witness Garlanger established that all three CSAs in Hardee County would be necessary based on the best available information as to the amount of clays reasonably likely to be generated by mining; the seventy percent scenario is not likely. No evidence was presented to rebut that testimony. A diversion system was also voluntarily included for the CSAs by Mosaic. In the highly unlikely event of a dam failure, this system will re- direct any escaped water and/or clay materials to adjacent open mining cuts where they can be safely stored. The diversion system will be reclaimed when the CSAs are reclaimed. The evidence established that the ditch and berm system, CSAs, and diversionary structure are capable of being constructed and functioning as designed. The reclamation plan includes avoidance (no mining) of approximately 3,100 acres, or twenty-nine percent, of the site, including more than seventy-one percent of the total wetlands on-site. Of this, 2,100 acres will be placed in a perpetual conservation easement. There is a wide gamut of habitat types on the site that will be preserved and not mined, including both streams and wetlands. The most complex and least impacted habitats on the site have generally been included in the preserve area. The project includes disturbance of 751.3 acres of wetlands and other surface waters, which include non-wetland floodplains, cattle ponds, and upland-cut ditches, and mining of 58,769 linear feet of natural and modified natural streams. An additional 1,661 linear feet of stream channel will be disturbed but not mined for six temporary crossings for dragline/utility/ pipeline corridors. To mitigate for impacts to streams and wetlands under the ERP rules, Mosaic will create 641 acres of wetlands and other surface waters and 67,397 feet of stream channel and will also provide a conservation easement to the Department on 2,100 acres of unmined wetland and upland habitat associated with the major riparian systems. The conservation easement area will be permanently preserved and protected from secondary impacts. The UMAM rule is applied to ERP applications to measure the functional loss to wetlands and other surface waters proposed for impact and the functional gain associated with the proposed mitigation. Functional loss is compared to functional gain to determine whether sufficient mitigation has been offered that offsets the proposed impacts. The proposed preservation and wetland and surface water creation, along with certain upland enhancements, will provide more than enough UMAM mitigation "lift" (with 48 excess credits) to satisfy the ERP mitigation obligations and offset those wetland impacts that cannot be eliminated or reduced. The UMAM scores for the reclaimed areas are conservative, that is, using higher risk factors by assuming muck or other appropriate topsoil will not be available, and take into account the risk or difficulty associated with creation of a particular system, based on actual UMAM scores for existing reclaimed systems. Time lag, which is normally a factor considered in the UMAM mitigation equation, expressly does not apply to phosphate mines pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-345.600. Thus, Lee County's attempt to argue that some greater amount of mitigation of streams is required to account for the time required to construct and reinstate flow and vegetation to the streams is not credited. Mr. Cantrell confirmed that "fat" was built into the foot-for-foot stream reclamation because 7,000 more feet of stream will be reclaimed beyond the amount impacted; some "stream" segments, specifically, stream segment 18(i), probably should not have been required to be reclaimed at all. Under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-16.0051, the 511 and 512 classified "natural" streams are the only streams warranting reclamation as streams under the Department's reclamation rules. Only natural streams currently existing immediately prior to mining are required to be reclaimed on a linear foot basis. Reclamation meeting the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-16.0051 is adequate mitigation under the ERP program in Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, if it maintains or improves the functions of the biological systems currently existing onsite. See § 373.414(6)(b), Fla. Stat. Mr. Cantrell established that, under subsection (5) of the rule, the Department has discretion to request the applicant to restore wetlands and streams to a different type of system than existing on the site if "mitigating factors indicate that restoration of previously modified streams as a different type of lotic system would produce better results for the biological system and water quality." The evidence established that the rules do not require reclamation of artificially created water courses or remnant stream segments that lack the functions or landscape position one normally associates with natural streams. Instead, a better lotic system will be created that will improve existing functions and water quality, consistent with Section 373.414(6)(b), Florida Statutes, and the CRP rules. In addition to the wetlands and surface waters created to meet mitigation requirements, the Project will also reclaim uplands and will include what is known as "land and lakes" reclamation in the southeastern portion of the site. Utilizing shaped and contoured overburden, Mosaic will create four lakes totaling 180 acres and 43 acres of associated herbaceous littoral zone as CRP reclamation. This is based predominantly on the mine-wide materials balance showing a need for reclaimed lakes to account for mine voids on the Hardee site, the Polk site, or both. As a result, Mosaic has proposed 180 acres of reclaimed lakes in Hardee County in lieu of 500 acres of reclaimed lakes in Polk County, as this results in eliminating overall reclaimed lake acreage while satisfying Hardee County's request for deep lakes. In addition, timing and property logistics in that portion of the site make transport of tailings to the area from the beneficiation plant problematic. As the site is an extension of the existing South Fort Meade Mine in Polk County, Mosaic possesses permits that are not at issue in this proceeding, but are relevant to the project. Discharges from a mine recirculation system require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Discharges may only occur at specified discharge points upon verification that the discharge meets stringent water quality conditions in the permit, which are set to ensure that water quality standards in the receiving water are met at the point of discharge (without mixing) and that downstream water quality will be protected. A separate NPDES permit is not needed for the Project, because Mosaic already has a valid NPDES permit for the Polk County beneficiation facility, which will serve the site. Mosaic currently has a Water Use Industrial Permit (WUP) issued by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). The WUP includes both the Polk County and Hardee County portions of the South Fort Meade mine and governs both dewatering of the mine area prior to mining and operation of water supply wells located in Polk County that will be used to provide supplemental water to the recirculation system. Mosaic's evidence demonstrated that the Project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts, consistent with Florida Administrative Code Rules 40D-4.301(1)(a), 40D-4.302(1), and 62C-16.0051 and related BOR provisions. Mosaic presented evidence concerning the potential long term impacts of the proposed project on surface and ground water quantities and flows both during active mining and reclamation activities, and after reclamation is complete. Extensive analyses were presented by Mosaic's expert witnesses and evaluated by the Department. Such analyses showed no adverse impacts to water quantity on the site, adjacent properties, or in the Peace River or Charlotte Harbor. The site was studied extensively by Mosaic, and detailed hydrology characteristics were assessed as part of the preparation of the ERP and CRP applications. Various surface water stations, topographic maps, and ground water sampling points were utilized and geologic information was developed by evaluation of various borings across the site. Mosaic witness Burleson, a professional engineer, further considered soil types, land use and vegetative cover, and existing site hydrologic factors such as culverts, bridges, and other such changes to the site by the prior owners. Mosaic's modeling expert, Dr. Mark Ross, considered these factors on a regional scale in his integrated modeling for the 360 square mile regional basin. In the region of Florida that encompasses the site, there are three major hydrogeologic layers that are significant to a hydrologic analysis: (1) the surficial aquifer system, comprised of the overburden (the top layer of soil) and the phosphate matrix; (2) the confining layer and intermediate aquifer system; and (3) the Floridan, or deep, aquifer system. The confining layer separates the surficial from the intermediate and Floridan aquifer systems. By understanding the surface and ground water systems and physical characteristics of the site, the Mosaic experts were able to apply appropriately-calibrated hydrologic models to assess (1) pre-mining and post-reclamation floodplains and storm event runoff comparisons; (2) base flows to reclaimed streams; (3) potential hydrologic impacts of stream crossings; (4) effectiveness of the perimeter "recharge ditches"; (5) hydroperiod of reclaimed wetlands; and (6) potential impacts of the project on flows in the Peace River. These models were used to predict with reasonable certainty the effect of the Project on water quantity on-site, off-site, and on a regional scale. As set forth below, the evidence established that water quantity and flows in adjacent unmined wetlands and streams will be maintained during mining activities as a result of the installation of the ditch and berm system as proposed. Before the ditch and berm system is constructed, Mosaic will refine the design of the system based on actual geological data and gradient information to assure the ditch and berm will function as proposed and modeled. The ditch and berm system is inspected regularly. Recharge wells within the recharge ditch are not required unless localized conditions dictate use of the wells. Contrary to Lee County's assertions, this site is distinguishable from the Ona mine site (which is also in Hardee County), and the depth of mining is far more shallow with relatively few areas mined to a depth of fifty feet, which was common at the Ona mine site. Additionally, Mosaic must install perimeter monitor wells at regular intervals adjacent to and downgradient of the ditch and berm system prior to mining. These wells are monitored prior to mining to establish a baseline and regularly throughout mining in accordance with the requirements of Mosaic's WUP and the ERP to assure that the water table in adjacent areas is not adversely affected by mining activities. The water in the ditch portion of the perimeter system must be maintained at levels sufficient to maintain groundwater levels in undisturbed areas. Maintaining water in the ditch at appropriate levels precludes drainage of groundwater from adjacent sites into open mine cuts. Mosaic witness Pekas, a professional engineer, conducted modeling to determine whether adequate base flow will be provided to protected streams and reclaimed streams during mining. Provided the ditch and berm system is operated properly, proper base flows will be maintained. All of the hydrologic experts agreed that proper operation of a ditch and berm system assures that adequate groundwater outflow, or base flow, is available to support adjacent streams and wetlands during mining. During active mining operations, the ditch and berm system collects rainfall on areas within the system. The ditch and berm system temporarily detains this rainfall, preventing the direct discharge of untreated, turbid runoff to adjacent wetlands and waters, but does not permanently retain the rainfall. The evidence demonstrated that most of the rainfall that falls on areas disturbed by mining and mining-related activities is detained by the perimeter ditches, routed to the mine recirculation system, and is subsequently discharged, when it meets water quality standards, through NPDES-permitted outfalls to waters of the state. This will serve to attenuate surface water flows, allowing surface water retained during storm events to be discharged during extreme low flow events, providing for less "flashiness" in the streams. Lee County's assertion that runoff will be permanently retained is not credited; the evidence clearly established that controlled releases of treated stormwater occur through the permitted NPDES outfalls. The evidence shows that Mosaic will re-connect mined and reclaimed areas at the mine in Polk County at a rate exceeding the rate at which the Project's mine areas will be diverted by the ditch and berm system. Thus, any potential downstream impact of the ditch and berm construction on the site will be offset and buffered beyond the safeguards incorporated in the project design. The evidence demonstrated that the proposed ditch and berm recharge and monitoring system described here is capable, based upon generally accepted engineering principles, of being effectively performed and functioning as proposed and will preclude any adverse impact on the surficial aquifer beneath the preserved areas and adjacent properties and on adjacent surface waters and wetlands. The Department will apply the relevant BOR criteria concerning water quantity impacts on a pre-mining/post- reclamation basis consistent with the application of these same criteria to other non-mining ERP applicants. In this case, the Department reviewed Mosaic's submittals, assessed the impacts, and determined no adverse impacts to water quantity would occur during mining. Mosaic submitted a detailed analysis of potential surface water quantity impacts that may occur after reclamation is complete. This analysis included evaluation of post- reclamation floodplains and storm event run-off compared to pre- mining patterns, and characteristics of reclaimed natural systems. Floodplains, run-off, and reclaimed natural systems were assessed in the manner described below. Mosaic modeled potential impacts of the project on surface water flow using existing site conditions to calibrate and verify the model. Mr. Pekas developed a water balance hydroperiod spreadsheet model calibrated using existing, on-site wetlands to evaluate the expected hydroperiods of various types of wetland systems proposed to be reclaimed at the site. The evidence shows that the Pekas spreadsheet model was an appropriate model for predicting hydroperiods for reclaimed wetlands. Appropriate ranges for the expected hydroperiods and other hydrological characteristics needed for the different types of wetland systems to be created in the post-reclamation landscape were established. In order to reflect natural conditions, the Department specifically requested that the targets for expected hydroperiods of reclaimed wetlands vary across the established range of the hydroperiod for the type of wetland at issue, and these target hydroperiods are summarized in Table E-6 to the draft ERP. Mosaic demonstrated and verified that the Pekas spreadsheet reasonably predicts the hydroperiods to be expected from a given design for a proposed reclaimed wetland. After mining, site-specific conditions such as hydraulic conductivity will be reassessed and final design parameters will be developed accordingly. Lee County's witness Jonas demonstrated the importance of hydraulic conductivity when she adjusted the value for wetland 2-1C (one of Mr. Pekas' verification wetlands) from 0.5 to 30, based on a value not from the Project site, but from an off-site reclamation project. Not surprisingly, she concluded that a conductivity of 30 would not provide hydrology to support the wetland functionality. Her analysis demonstrates the importance of requiring reclamation of subsurface hydrology not based on an off-property conductivity value, but on site- specific hydraulic conductivity information. In his own analysis, Mr. Pekas relied on actual soil borings on-site, and at wetland 2-1C the average hydraulic conductivity was 0.5, which when modeled, provided appropriate hydrology for that wetland. Furthermore, ERP Specific Condition 11 requires Mosaic to reclaim wetlands with functionally equivalent hydraulic conditions based on verified field information as to site- specific hydrologic properties existing after mining, and the wetlands will not be released until functioning as required. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that reclaimed wetland can be designed and built in a manner that will achieve the required hydroperiods for each wetland type proposed to be disturbed and reclaimed at the site, including the bay swamps. In addition, each of the wetlands must be individually evaluated immediately prior to construction to provide additional verification of site-specific hydrologic conditions to assess, re-model, and verify the final wetland designs prior to construction. Condition 11c of the draft ERP also requires Mosaic to mimic the existing hydraulic conductivity and gradients near streams to ensure that base flows will be present post-reclamation. All of this will ensure that reclaimed streams will be hydrologically supported, and wetlands with the target hydroperiods requested by the Department will be constructed. The contrary testimony of Lee County's hydrologists does not credibly rebut this evidence. In performing their calculations, they utilized unrealistic numbers. The claim of Lee and Sarasota Counties' experts that they lacked sufficient information to form an opinion as to the accuracy of the modeling is not sufficient to overcome the evidence submitted by Mosaic to meet this criterion. See, e.g., National Audubon Society, et al. v. South Florida Water Management District, et al., DOAH Case No. 06-4157, 2007 Fla. ENV LEXIS 164 at *21 (DOAH July 24, 2007, SFWMD Sept. 13, 2007). Mr. Burleson determined that the original drainage patterns of the site would be restored post-reclamation. Mosaic provided reasonable assurances that the proposed reclamation is capable of being constructed and functioning as proposed. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the proposed mining and reclamation of the site will not cause adverse water quantity impacts post-reclamation, as addressed by Florida Administrative Code Rules 40D-4.301(1)(a) and (c), associated BOR provisions, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-16.0051(8)(b). Mosaic presented evidence demonstrating reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, consistent with Florida Administrative Code Rules 40D-4.301(1)(b) and 62C- 16.0051(8) and associated BOR provisions. During mining, there is no reasonable likelihood that active mining and reclamation activities at the site will result in any increased flooding conditions upstream of, on, or downstream of the site. The ditch and berm system reduces direct surface water runoff from areas disturbed by mining operations during peak rainfall events. Subsequent NPDES discharges of water typically lag slightly behind the rainfall events. This lag during mining decreases peak discharges in adjacent streams while augmenting lower flows slightly, thereby attenuating peak flows. Mr. Burleson evaluated the pre-mining and post- reclamation peak flow analyses for the project site to determine whether the post-reclamation topography, soils, and vegetative cover would result in flooding, using the Interconnected Pond Routing program or "ICPR" model, an accepted model for stormwater modeling, as required by the BOR. Mosaic's evidence established that the Project will not adversely impact existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, consistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-4.301(1)(c) and related BOR provisions. Additionally, Mosaic proposes to preserve from mining the 100-year flood plain of Little Charlie Creek and the Peace River and most of the higher quality small tributaries on the site. The smaller streams to be mined will be restored in a way that maintains or improves pre-mining conditions and will not cause harmful or erosional flows or shoaling. The federal Hydrologic Engineering Center Reservoir Analysis System and the National Flood Frequency Program were used by Mr. Burleson to verify the floodplains are accurately mapped and also that there will not be an increase in flood risk in the post-reclamation condition. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates reasonable assurances that the proposed mining and reclamation activities at the site will not result in adverse flooding impacts, consistent with Florida Administrative Code Rules 40D- 4.301, 40D-4.302(1)(a)3., and 62C-16.0051(8), and the BOR, including water quality standards in Chapter 4. The evidence presented by Dr. Ross established that the proposed mining and reclamation activities on the site will not adversely impact flows in the Peace River. No adverse effects of the Project will be observable at the Zolfo Springs United States Geological Survey (USGS) gauging station. A minimum flow for the Upper Peace River has been established pursuant to Section 372.042, Florida Statutes. A minimum low flow of 45 cfs from April to June (Upper Peace MFL) was established at Zolfo Springs by the SWFWMD; since the MFL has not been met since adoption, a recovery plan has been instituted. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D-8.041(7). Lee County asserts that the Project will violate the Upper Peace MFL and the recovery plan, arguing that a reduction in average annual flow, regardless of how infinitesimal, constitutes a violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-4.301(1)(g). This argument was refuted by Dr. Ross, who established that the project would increase flows during low flow periods. The Department concurred with, and the evidence supports, Dr. Ross' assessment that the project would not exacerbate the Upper Peace MFL or interfere with the recovery plan. Dr. Ross created a regional-scale integrated model utilizing public domain computer programs in an iterative fashion that coupled surface water and ground water to comprehensively evaluate the effects of the project on the flows in the Peace River post-reclamation. The regional approach included a full range of upstream and downstream influences on the site, not simply mining, that could affect the hydrologic evaluation of any impacts from the Project on the Peace River. The model domain included 360 square miles. To account for site-specific impacts in the model, Dr. Ross increased the refinement and discretization over the site. Thus, the model was capable of considering impacts from the site in its entirety within the region as measured at the Zolfo Springs USGS gauging station. Zolfo Springs is the first USGS gauging station directly downstream of the site and is the point of compliance for minimum flows adopted for the Upper Peace River system. The regional model predicted virtually no change in flows at the Zolfo Springs gauging station after the project as proposed is reclaimed, and that both the high and low flows observed at Zolfo Springs would be maintained post-reclamation. Dr. Ross concluded that there would not be any reduction of low flows at Zolfo Springs due to the Project. He further concluded that the Project will not impact or affect the recovery of minimum flows. Dr. Ross calculated the differences between the model- predicted high flows and low flows from the observed flows and found that the modeled high flows were slightly attenuated and the modeled low flows were slightly augmented at Zolfo Springs. The attenuation is consistent with the increased storage for water in the post-reclamation system. Consistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 40D-8, the Department considered potential impacts to low flows as the determining factor in determining whether a minimum low flow requirement like the one set for the Upper Peace MFL will be met. It concluded that the project is consistent with the Upper Peace MFL and its recovery strategy. The recovery strategy discusses projects which, like the one proposed, would yield a long-term increase in low flow conditions by storing some peak flow volumes and releasing them in low flow conditions. The Department's interpretation of its ERP rules and BOR provisions regarding MFLs, as well as other governing rules, is reasonable and has been accepted. Lee County's experts based their MFL testimony on an inappropriate use of annual average flow information and improper interpretation of Mosaic's data. Further, they inappropriately attempted to reach conclusions by estimates and extrapolation, and the overall weight of the evidence supports Mosaic's evidence that mining and reclamation will not cause a violation of the Upper Peace MFL. Accordingly, Mosaic has provided reasonable assurances that the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D- 4.301(1)(g) and associated BOR provisions have been satisfied. The ditch and berm system and other proposed BMPs, such as silt fences, at the site will provide water quality protection to adjacent undisturbed surface waters and wetlands during mining and reclamation activities. The actual construction of the ditch and berm and stream crossings will be conducted using BMPs to avoid adverse construction-related impacts. During mining, the ditch and berm system will preclude uncontrolled releases of turbid water to adjacent un-mined areas. The evidence established that the proposed Project will not cause a violation of water quality standards, either in the short-term or long-term. Dr. Durbin, an ecologist, evaluated water quality data from the existing South Fort Meade mine in Polk County and compared data from the 10-year period before the mine opened against the 10-year period after the mining began, finding water quality to be equivalent or better after mining began in Polk County. This allowed him to conclude that water quality on the site will not be adversely affected and, in light of existing agricultural activities, will be maintained or improved both during mining and post-reclamation; water quality in reclaimed systems will be sufficient to maintain designated uses of the systems. Dr. Durbin opined that the ERP contains detailed water quality monitoring requirements that, based on his long experience, are sufficient to establish a baseline, assess compliance, and detect significant trends. Sarasota County's witness has no experience in ERP or CRP permitting and his suggestion for far more frequent monitoring is not credited. No additional monitoring conditions or criteria are warranted. For the above reasons, Mosaic has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that reasonable assurances that water quality standards will not be violated either during mining, while reclamation is underway, or post-reclamation. The evidence further established that accepted BMPs will be used during mining to protect the water quality of adjacent and downstream waters, and that these measures can be expected to be effective to prevent any violations of water quality standards. Dr. Durbin provided unrebutted evidence that water quality standards in waters of the state and downstream of the project will be met post-reclamation and existing water quality in the unmined and reclaimed wetlands and waters will be maintained or improved post-reclamation. Thus, no adverse water quality impacts to the Peace River or Charlotte Harbor will occur during mining or post-reclamation. Therefore, reasonable assurances have been given that the requirements of Sections 373.414(1) and 373.414(6)(b), Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rules 40D- 4.301(1)(e) and 62C-16.0051(7), and associated BOR provisions are satisfied as to water quality. There is a wide range of habitat types on the site that will be preserved and not mined, including both streams and wetlands. The most complex and least impacted habitats on the site have generally been included in the no-mine and preserved areas. Mosaic does not propose to mine all or even most of the jurisdictional wetland and surface waters. In fact, seventy-one percent will be avoided. When developing a mining plan, Mosaic considers how to eliminate or reduce proposed impacts to waters and wetlands. The evidence established that Mosaic and the Department engaged in a protracted elimination and reduction discussion throughout the review process associated with the site's ERP/CRP applications. BOR Section 3.2.1 emphasizes the effort required to assess project design modifications that may be warranted to eliminate and reduce impacts to ecological resources found on the site. This effort was undertaken with the Department as early as 2004 during the DRI pre-application conferences. The major project design modifications involved the preservation of the named stream channels, the 100-year floodplain of the Peace River and Little Charlie Creek, and the 25-year floodplain of the other named tributaries. These areas will be permanently preserved by a 2,100-acre conservation easement; 1,000 additional acres will remain unmined. Also, the project design was modified and developed to maximize resource protection by integrating the Polk and Hardee mining operations. The testimony established how the activities at the Hardee operation will be greatly facilitated by relying upon and using the beneficiation plant and infrastructure already in place and permitted at the Polk site. Almost fifty percent of the clays generated at the Hardee mine will be disposed of in the existing Polk County CSAs, thereby eliminating one CSA altogether and substantially reducing the footprint needed for CSAs on the site. Likewise, the Department established that mine-wide, approximately 320 acres of lakes were eliminated. The Department discussed further modifications to the mine plan with Mosaic throughout the lengthy review process, doing a wetland and stream-by-stream assessment of the functions provided and the reclamation capability to maintain or improve the functions of the biological systems present prior to mining. The balance was struck between temporary resource extraction, recognized by Florida law as inextricably related to wetland disturbance, and the significantly altered natural resource features found on the site. In light of the 3,100 acres already eliminated and reduced from impact consideration, the Department in its discretion did not find it necessary to pursue economic data or analysis on the "practicability" of any further reductions. The highly disturbed nature of the wetlands and other surface waters being impacted gave the Department a high degree of confidence that mitigation and reclamation of these areas would in fact maintain and improve the functions provided prior to mining. Specifically, Mosaic has eliminated impacts to stream systems to the greatest extent practicable. Based on a Department field evaluation in late August 2008, Mosaic was directed to revise the no-mine line in the 3A stream system to more accurately reflect the floodplain of the stream draining the two bay heads north of the stream. In October 2008, Mosaic made the revision to add approximately 2.7 acres to the no-mine area. The majority of the streams proposed for impact by mining cannot be avoided, given the location of the three CSAs that are required for clay disposal associated with mining. The evidence established that there is no other location for the three CSAs that will have a lesser ecological or public health, safety, or welfare impact than the proposed location, given the site topography. As noted above, the volume of clays to be disposed of on the site has been reduced by half, and three CSAs are still needed. The location was chosen to move the CSAs as far from the Peace River and Little Charlie Creek as possible in light of the site topography, and this location avoids all impacts to named stream systems. As set forth above, Mosaic has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the best and most complex habitats on the site have been preserved at the expense of a loss of a significant amount of phosphate reserves in the preserved areas. All significant stream systems have been avoided to the extent practicable in light of the necessary CSAs. Both Mosaic and Department witnesses testified that the proposed no-mine area was the result of design modifications to eliminate or reduce impacts to wetlands to the greatest extent practicable. This satisfies the requirements of applicable rules and Section 373.414(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-16.0051(4) and (5) provides specific guidance on the classification and reclamation of natural streams. The Department provided direction to the applicant through the review process in the identification of natural streams and the design guidance manual to ensure foot-for-foot replacement and functional replacement or improvement. The permit reflects the 58,769 feet of the streams identified as numbers 511 and 512 to be impacted, and Mosaic has proposed approximately 65,700 feet of restored stream. Lee County's assertion that 2.3 miles of additional unmapped streams should be added to the reclamation obligation has been rejected. It is clear many of the areas alleged to be unmapped streams were depressions, low lying areas, or standing water within wetland areas more accurately identified as marshes or swamps. The fact that a discernible natural stream channel exists upstream and downstream of a wetland did not change the accuracy of acknowledging the different structure, form, and functional attributes that result in the wetland being distinct from the stream. Also, many of the alleged unmapped streams were located in the no-mine areas, and thus the alleged lack of delineation is of no consequence. Lee County's witness Erwin admittedly took no measurements of the alleged streams. Also, he provided no evidence that he or his staff delineated the alleged streams on- site. Rather, he reconstructed where they were located as a desktop exercise from memory, without any aids or tools used in the field. He then superimposed an alignment and put it on a GIS layer over an aerial photograph, resulting in an electronically generated approximation. The witness offered no physical evidence of depth, width, length, or bankfull width of stream function, but merely an assertion as to areas that appeared to have a bed or channel, even if dry, and the attributes or functions of a stream were immaterial or irrelevant to his analysis. No other independent witness attested to the alleged stream discrepancy, whereas both Mosaic's expert, Mr. Kiefer, a recognized fluvial geomorphologist, and the state's expert on jurisdictional delineations, Mr. Cantrell, who was the author of the applicable rules, expressly disagreed with these allegations. The testimony of Mosaic and the Department is found to be the most persuasive on this issue. Mosaic and the Department established that the proposed stream restoration plan is more than adequate to meet the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C- 16.0051(5) and will ensure the reclaimed streams maintain or improve the biological function of the streams to be impacted. Dr. Janicki, a scientist who testified on behalf of Lee County, was critical of the stream restoration plan. However, he acknowledged he was not an expert in stream restoration and that part of his job was to "look at how we might improve . . . on some of those shortcomings in the [stream] restoration plan." Dr. Janicki incorrectly assumed the design curve numbers were based on regional curves from north and northwest Florida rather than site-specific measurements. He stated that the guidance document was generalized and lacking specificity, but Table 4 contained in the guidance document contains nineteen stream morphological parameters for all forty- nine of the stream segments to be reclaimed. Dr. Janicki has never designed nor implemented a stream restoration project, and he acknowledged that he is not a fluvial geomorphologist. Conversely, Mosaic witnesses Boote and Kiefer, both accepted in this area, stated unequivocally that the plan was sufficiently detailed and that a qualified restoration and construction contractor could implement the plan in the field with appropriate field adjustments and construction level refinements based on site conditions. The allegation that the plan does not comport with ERP and CRP requirements because it lacks sufficient specificity is not credited. First, the ERP rules do not contain stream-specific restoration criteria. Second, the CRP stream rules adopted in May 2006 have never been applied in a prior case, and in this case the Department determined in its discretion that the plan as proposed meets the stream reclamation requirements of the CRP rules. Similarly, the stream restoration plan was criticized because measurements from every single segment or reach of stream were not used to develop the post-mining stream. However, Mr. Boote and Mr. Kiefer confirmed that only the most stable and least impacted of the stream segments on site were used as templates for stream reclamation. None of the recognized stream experts suggested that erosive, unstable "F" and "G" classified stream segments should be replaced in that unstable form or used as the template for reclamation. By a preponderance of the evidence, Mosaic has established that the reclamation plan for the site will more than offset any adverse impacts to wetlands resulting from the mining activities, because it will maintain or improve water quality and the functions of biological systems present on the site today, as required by Sections 373.414(1) and 373.414(6)(b), Florida Statutes. The evidence established that applicable Class III water quality standards will not be violated and that the water in wetlands and surface waters on-site post-reclamation will maintain or improve and be sufficient to support fish and wildlife in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rules 62C-16.0051 and 40D-4.301(1)(e) and relevant BOR provisions. The proposed mitigation will also restore a more appropriate or more natural hydrologic regime that will allow for a better propagation of fish and invertebrates in reclaimed systems. The reclamation plan will maintain the function of biological systems of wetlands to be mined on-site by replacing the wetlands to be impacted with wetlands of the same type and similar topography and hydrology in the post-reclamation landscape. In many cases, it will enhance the function of those systems by improving the landscape position of the wetlands, relocating them closer to the preserved Little Charlie Creek corridor, and moving cattle ponds and pasture away from the corridor. Likewise, the existing streams proposed for mining will be replaced with stream reaches modeled on streams that are comparable or better than the existing, unstable, and eroded streams. The Department has determined that Mosaic can reclaim the streams and wetlands to at least as good as or better than existing condition on the site. Mosaic has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed reclamation plan will maintain or improve the existing function of biological systems. Mosaic's reclamation plan for the site therefore satisfies the mitigation requirements of Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the implementing regulations and the BOR, as applied to phosphate mining activities through Section 373.414(6)(b), Florida Statutes. Through the testimony of witnesses Durbin, Kiefer, and Simpson, as well as documentary evidence, Mosaic has established that the proposed project, as reclaimed, will cause no adverse impacts on the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species and their habitats, as required by Section 373.414(1)(a)2., Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rules 40D- 4.301(1)(d) and 40D-4.301(1)(a)2., as well as the associated BOR Section 3.2.2 provisions. Likewise, the CRP criteria pertaining to fish and wildlife will be met. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62C- 16.0051(11). Mosaic's reclamation and site habitat management plan will maintain or improve the functions of the biological systems on the site with respect to fish and wildlife, including threatened and endangered species and their habitat. Mosaic witness Simpson provided unrebutted testimony that the proposed mining and reclamation will not have adverse impacts on wildlife populations or conservation of wildlife including threatened or endangered species and their habitats and that proposed reclamation would maintain or improve wildlife habitat values. The evidence shows that the mining and reclamation will not have adverse impacts on fish populations or conservation of fish. The fish habitat on the site will either be preserved or, if mined, will be replaced with in many cases superior habitat. There will be a net increase in suitable fish habitat post-reclamation. The wetland and stream fish habitats on the site will provide appropriate habitat for the fish and wildlife that can be expected to occur in the region. The sampling described above can be expected to reflect the majority, if not all, of the fish species reasonably expected to be present on the site. Mosaic witness Durbin further confirmed that the fish species collected on-site are consistent with similar sites in the immediate vicinity with similar agricultural usage with which he is familiar. In August and September 2008, verification of that fish sampling effort was performed by Dr. Durbin, an outside consulting firm (ECT), and the Department. They confirmed that the fish collection efforts reasonably reflect the native and exotic fish species that are likely to occupy the site. Through the testimony of Dr. Fraser, Lee County compared two streams on the Ona mine site with three stream segments on the Project site. However, the sole basis of the witness' comparison was recollections of field work he participated in over four years ago and photos taken at that time compared with photos taken at the new site. The witness conceded that he did not consider or compare sedimentation levels in the two stream systems. On the other hand, Department witness Cantrell established that the streams compared by Dr. Fraser were dissimilar. In fact, one of the streams Dr. Fraser held up as an apparent example of prime aquatic habitat was Stream 20C, which Mr. Cantrell demonstrated is nearly completely choked by sand and sedimentation. All of the streams proposed for impact are first or second order streams; most of them are intermittent, carrying flow only seasonally and therefore are only periodically occupied by fish and macroinvertebrate communities. The fish that do tend to utilize such systems in the wet season tend to be very small, usually less than one inch in size. The proposed preservation will preserve the best aquatic habitat on the property; the streams to be preserved are the main pathways and aquatic habitats utilized by fish. Mosaic witnesses Durbin, Keenan, and Kiefer all testified that the reclamation plan will restore better aquatic habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms than exists presently on site on a greater than acre- for-acre, type-for-type and linear foot basis. They further testified that the proposed reclamation will provide better aquatic habitat for fish and wildlife than currently provided, consistent with both ERP and CRP requirements. In addition, Dr. Fraser's suggestion that the fish sampling done on the site was insufficient and that the ERP should be modified to require fish collection as a success criterion for the reclaimed streams is not credited. This is because such a proposal is not a requirement of the ERP or CRP rules. Dr. Fraser's comparisons of reclaimed to unmined streams were inconsistent with his own anecdotal fish observations, and he testified as to the difficulty of ensuring adequate fish sampling or knowing where fish will be on any given day, given their mobility. Also, he provided no comparisons as to how the reclaimed streams sampled are constructed compared to the plan for the site and admitted he did not know how or when they were built. Dr. Fraser's discussion of fish in basins where mining has occurred was discredited by his own data showing that no reduction in the number of native fish species has occurred over time in those basins. Mosaic's reclamation plan, which consolidates the native upland and wetland habitats along the Little Charlie Creek corridor, will improve the fish and wildlife function of those systems and increase fish and wildlife abundance and diversity, as set forth above. There will be no adverse impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitat or to the conservation of fish and wildlife, including listed species, post-reclamation, because the fish and wildlife function of the tract will be maintained and in many cases improved by the reclamation and habitat management plans. This is particularly true in light of the existing condition, hydrologic connection, location, and fish and wildlife utilization of the wetlands and surface waters on site. Therefore, Mosaic has provided reasonable assurances that the requirements of Section 373.414(1)(a)2., Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rules 40D-4.301(1)(d) and 40D- 4.302(1)(a)2., and the relevant BOR provisions have been satisfied. Mosaic demonstrated that it has reclaimed wetlands, uplands, and streams consistent with the regulatory requirements and permit conditions in place at the time the area was reclaimed. Indeed, many of these reclaimed areas, whether or not under different ownership and control or whether released from further regulatory requirements, continue to demonstrate that they are successful and functioning ecosystems. The reclamation proposed for the site is state-of- the-art, reflecting the most recent evolution of reclamation techniques for uplands, wetlands and streams, with more planning and detail that should achieve the reclamation goals faster. Many older wetland projects were designed to meet a +/- 1-foot contour and were designed with older generations of equipment and survey techniques. However, Mosaic's third party contractor's bulldozers/tractors are now equipped with GPS and sensors to enable grade tolerances within two inches, allowing for much more accurate backfilling and wetland construction. Accordingly, Mosaic's newer wetlands contain both deep and shallow areas with gradation/zonation in between. Hydrologic regimes and hydroperiods can thus be effectively created to target and achieve more specific hydrologic conditions required by certain wetland systems such as seepage slopes and wet prairies. Nonetheless, the projected UMAM scores for the reclaimed systems take into account a higher risk factor for systems that historically were more difficult to reclaim. Mosaic has provided reasonable assurances of its ability to restore the hydrology and types of vegetation found on the site and of its ability to create ecosystems that will maintain or improve the function of the biological systems proposed for mining on the site. Mosaic has restored wetlands in a variety of configurations ranging from small round depressions of less than a few acres to large complex polygons in excess of two hundred acres, as well as wetlands with low slope gradients. For example, Mr. Kiefer described and depicted Mosaic's ability to restore a bay swamp at point 84(5) at the Fort Green Mine and at Alderman Bay. Lee and Sarasota Counties focused on bay swamps in particular, but failed to acknowledge that Mosaic will be reclaiming 98.5 acres of bay swamps while only impacting 62.1 acres. Mosaic demonstrated that herbaceous and forested wetlands can be and have been restored by Mosaic and its predecessors. Mosaic has demonstrated that it can restore the various zones and depths of freshwater marshes, including shrub marshes, from the deep emergent zone to the wet prairie fringe, and has demonstrated that these zones in reclaimed marshes are providing important and key wetland functions, such as water quality, food chain support, habitat, and other functions, similar to those functions provided by site marshes. This evidence was not effectively rebutted by Lee or Sarasota Counties. In fact, Sarasota County witness Lipstein acknowledged Mosaic is proposing to mitigate for all impacts. When asked if the proposed bay swamps will be successful or unsuccessful, she replied that she did not know and, "you will have to just wait and see if it reaches that success criteria." There have been different success criteria applied in Department permits over the years, and Mosaic has demonstrated the ability to meet those changing and more stringent criteria. In the past, stream restoration was accomplished relatively simply by contouring the stream valley and floodplain to support wetland vegetation, then allowing a flow channel to self-organize. While this technique has resulted in successful streams that met Department permit criteria, it can take many years to occur. For example, Dogleg Branch (which is located on the site of another mining operation) took almost twenty years to achieve success. Mosaic has previously developed successful stream restoration projects which have been documented to provide flow regimes similar to that of natural flatwoods streams, with in- stream aquatic habitat diversity similar to or better than the stream segments proposed for mining at the site and which met reclamation criteria. Mosaic witness Kiefer demonstrated this with evidence of the functions that various reclaimed streams provided. He also showed that, in newer stream restoration projects, like Maron Run, certain functions and form, such as habitat availability, bank stability, meander, and pool-riffle sequence, are developing rapidly. Also, Department witness Rivera testified to Mosaic's commitment to achieving stream success in its efforts to retrofit certain of these earlier reclaimed streams to achieve greater function and habitat diversity. Using an average sinuosity of 1.35, over 65,700 linear feet of streams will be created as part of the mitigation plan. The foot-for-foot requirement for the reclaimed streams will be exceeded by 7,000 feet. Mosaic's mitigation proposal incorporates state-of- the-art stream restoration techniques and the post-reclamation topography to be used as guidance for the final construction plans. The guidance is based on extensive data collected from twenty-one cross sections of reference reaches within the project area, including measurements for channel dimensions, sinuosity, bankfull, and entrenchment ratios. Snags, debris, and other woody material will be placed at appropriate intervals within the channel to provide in-stream habitat and aid in-channel stabilization and development. Restored streams will have primarily forested riparian zones. Trees will be planted using techniques that will assist rapid canopy closure and aid in rapid bank stabilization. Biodegradable erosion control blankets will be used to control erosion. The streams will be designed such that the stream morphology fits within the Rosgen Stream Classification System (Rosgen) described in the reference reaches. To create a design template, Mosaic's experts carefully measured the important geomorphic characteristics of the stream segments to be disturbed. The plan incorporates, among other factors, design specifications for meander patterns, longitudinal valley and bed slopes, bank slopes, cross-sectional area, widths, depths, large woody debris, pools, riffles, bends, and sediment composition. It is the second known low-order stream creation plan in Florida to provide this level of detail. The stream plan represents an overall improvement upon the existing conditions at the site, as Mosaic is generally only mining small, shallow, intermittent stream segments of significantly lower ecological value and will create streams that are less erosive and will have greater in-stream habitat diversity and availability than the segments to be mined. Accordingly, the reclaimed streams segments will at least maintain and in many cases improve the ecological functions served by the existing segments. Special emphasis has been placed on assuring that post-reclamation soils are a suitable growing medium for the proposed reclaimed habitat. Soils will be used to closely mimic the native Florida soils profile. Mosaic witness Schuster established that proposed reclaimed soil conditions do not pose limitations on Mosaic's ability to create upland and wetland ecosystems. The soil reclamation plan uses parent materials available after mining in a sequence similar to the textural or horizon sequence in soils present at the site before mining. This soil profile will have a created topsoil layer as a suitable growing medium and subsurface layers whose thicknesses can be adjusted to achieve the drainage class, that is, hydraulic conductivity or permeability, that is needed to support the post-reclamation hydrology. The overburden used to form the lower part of the reclaimed soil sequence is native Florida soil and underlying geologic material. The overburden is excavated so that the matrix can be mined, but then the material is put back in the mined areas in a sequence that resembles native soil horizons. Where available, the top layer of the soil sequence will be a direct transfer of muck/topsoil pursuant to the permit conditions. Where donor topsoil is not available, other appropriate materials can be used if approved by the Department. Possible methods may include establishment of cover crops, green manuring, mulching, and sod placement, all of which have been demonstrated to provide organic matter and a suitable growing medium for reclaimed wetlands and will facilitate success of the wetlands. These methods comport with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-16.0051(3). For reclamation, Mosaic will use various thicknesses of materials including sand tailings and overburden, depending on the area to be reclaimed and the needed hydraulic conductivity as dictated by the modeling that is required. Sand tailings will be utilized in native habitats. Sand tailings have a much higher rate of hydraulic conductivity than overburden, which is low, but not impermeable. Reclaimed soils behave similarly to native soils. On site development of soil morphology at reclaimed sites has occurred, including organic matter accumulation in the topsoil formation of redox concentrations, and other components of soil structure, which evidence that the same natural processes are present in both reclaimed and native soils. Lee County's witnesses incorrectly assumed an overburden cap that will not be present. Mosaic has provided appropriate cost estimates for financial assurances of reclamation and has satisfied the BOR requirements of providing third-party estimates and draft financial assurance documentation. The first three years of mitigation at one hundred ten percent is $3,957,356.00. This amount is determined to be sufficient. Lee and Sarasota Counties' witnesses could provide no contrary cost estimates of actual comparable large-scale projects. The proffered costs of Lee County witness Erwin were rejected in another mining case (the Ona case), they ignore the definitions of "waste" and "mining operations," and they assume mitigation requirements not found in the BOR. The evidence supports a finding that all adverse impacts, including any secondary impacts, associated with the Project will be temporary and will be offset by the proposed reclamation. All of the proposed impacts from the Project will occur within the Peace River Basin, and Mosaic's proposed mitigation will all occur within the Peace River Basin as well. Therefore, the cumulative impacts review requirements of Section 373.414(8)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-4.302(1)(b) are satisfied. The BMPs put into place will prevent adverse secondary impacts from occurring during mining, and no adverse secondary impacts are expected from the project post- reclamation. No secondary impacts to listed wildlife are reasonably expected to occur, based on the buffers and on the post-reclamation habitat that will exist. In summary, Mosaic has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed project meets the permitting criteria of Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-4.301 and associated BOR provisions. Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-4.302(1)(a) requires reasonable assurances the proposed activities "will not be contrary to the public interest" as determined by balancing seven factors. See also § 373.414(1), Fla. Stat. For the reasons set forth below, the preponderance of evidence supports a finding that the public interest factors set forth in the statute and rule weigh in favor of issuing the permit. The Florida Legislature has recognized that phosphate mining "is important to the continued economic well-being of the state and to the needs of society." See § 378.202(1), Fla. Stat. Mosaic has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that both the public and the environment will benefit from the project as described above. Mining of the site will also result in a more general benefit to the public, including local residents. It is estimated that mining of the site will result in fifty million tons of recoverable phosphate rock reserves, which will be used to make fertilizer. Mosaic employs 272 people at its South Fort Meade facility and spends approximately $75,000.00 per employee per year for direct wages, benefits, and compensation. In addition, it has been estimated there are four to five persons employed in support industries for each direct Mosaic employee, considering contractors, vendors, and suppliers. The site project is expected to generate up to $23 million in severance taxes, tangible taxes, property taxes, and other benefits to Hardee County over the life of the mine. The evidence shows that the proposed activities will not cause adverse impacts to the public health, safety, or welfare or to the property of others. Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D- 302(1)(a)1. Witness Burleson established that the water quantity criteria in BOR Chapter 4 have been satisfied and that no flooding problems will occur. No environmental hazards or public health and safety issues have been identified. Section 373.414(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-4.302(1)(a)1., and BOR Section 3.2.3.1 have accordingly been satisfied. The evidence established that the proposed mining and reclamation will not cause adverse impacts to the conservation of fish and wildlife or their habitat, including endangered or threatened species, satisfying Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-4.302(1)(a)2. and BOR Sections 3.2.2, 3.2.2.3, and 3.2.3.2. The evidence shows that the proposed activities will not cause adverse impacts to navigation or flow and will not cause harmful erosion or shoaling. Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D- 4.302(1)(a)3. The evidence shows that the proposed activities will not cause adverse impacts to fishing or recreation or marine productivity, and the lakes will enhance fishing and recreation. Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D-4.302(1)(a)4. As a matter of law, Section 378.202(1), Florida Statutes, provides that phosphate mining is a temporary activity. Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D-4.302(1)(a)5. The parties have stipulated that there will be no adverse impacts on historical or archaeological resources. Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D-4.302(1)(a)6. The evidence shows that the current condition and relative value of functions of the site landscape have been significantly affected over time by agricultural activities, causing alteration of natural streams and wetlands and low fish and wildlife utilization. A preponderance of the evidence established that these negative impacts will be ameliorated by the proposed reclamation. Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D-4.302(1)(a)7. In light of the above, Mosaic has provided reasonable assurances that Section 373.414(1)(a), Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-4.302(1)(a), and associated BOR requirements for the public interest test have been satisfied, and those criteria weigh in favor of issuing the permit. Section 373.414(6)(b), Florida Statutes, establishes the appropriate mitigation for wetland and surface water impacts associated with phosphate mines as follows: "Wetlands reclamation activities for phosphate and heavy minerals mining undertaken pursuant to chapter 378 shall be considered appropriate mitigation for this part if they maintain or improve the water quality and the function of the biological systems present at the site prior to the commencement of mining activities." Part III of Chapter 378, Florida Statutes, addresses phosphate land reclamation, and the Department has adopted specific regulations pursuant to this part, which are found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-16.0051. For the reasons set forth below, Mosaic has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the reclamation and restoration standards in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-16.0051 have been met. The parties stipulated the Project will meet the safety standards in subsection (1) of the rule. Any temporary structures will be removed following mining and the area then reclaimed. Appropriate BMPs will also be installed. The Project will meet the backfilling and contouring requirements of subsection (2). Specifically, the evidence shows that the area will be backfilled and contoured to achieve the desired landforms; slopes will be no steeper than a 4:1 ratio; bank stabilization techniques will be used; and post- reclamation contouring and topography will help ensure that the reclamation plan and hydrologic response is successful. The reclamation will meet the requirement in subsection (3) that Mosaic use good quality topsoil when available and other suitable growing media to achieve the planned vegetative communities. The Project will meet the acre-for-acre requirement for wetlands because more acres of wetlands and surface waters are being proposed to be restored than will be impacted. The Department uses FLUCCS Category II to determine whether the minimum type-for-type requirement is met. Thus, the type-for-type requirement is met by looking at the forested wetlands acreage overall and the herbaceous wetlands acreage overall. Subsection (4) has been satisfied by the proposed CRP. While the herbaceous wetland fringe of the lakes is included in the acre-for-acre, type-for-type calculation, the open waters of the lake are not. The Project will meet the type-for-type requirement in the rule because, category-by- category, type-for-type, more than a 1:1 ratio of forested and herbaceous wetlands are being restored. As noted above, the wetlands and streams were mapped during the application process in accordance with the directives of the Department and the requirements of subsection (4). Where wetlands are directly associated with or adjacent to streams, restoration of both is integrated and included in the restoration plan. Non-wetland and wetland floodplains will be restored as directed by the Department in accordance with this rule. No natural lakes or ponds exist on site, thus the portion of this rule related to natural lakes does not apply. All natural streams proposed for impact will be restored foot-for-foot based on Rosgen Level II. More stream linear feet (65,700 feet) are being replaced than are being mined (58,769 feet). Therefore, the requirements of subsection (5) have been met. Subsection (6) has been satisfied after accounting for the Littoral Zone Variance described below authorized by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-16.0051(13). The design of the reclaimed wetlands and lakes will maximize beneficial drainage, provide fish and wildlife habitat, maintain downstream water quality, and incorporate a variety of vegetation and hydraulic zones. Greenbelts of vegetation are incorporated. Subsection (7) has been satisfied. There will be no water quality concerns either during mining or post-reclamation with the reclaimed streams, lakes, wetlands or other surface waters. Subsection (8) has been met; the Project is not expected to cause flooding, and the original drainage pattern will be restored to the extent possible. Subsection (9) has been satisfied with respect to waste disposal. Areas used for clay settling will be minimized, and only three CSAs are proposed for the site, as fifty percent of the clays generated at the site will be disposed of in previously-permitted CSAs in Polk County. Backfilling of mine cuts is the highest priority use for the site's sand tailings. No tailings will be sold. The evidence showed that sand tailings will not be permanently stored above natural grade, although temporary stock piles are authorized to facilitate reclamation. Reclamation of CSAs will occur as expeditiously as possible. Solid waste was not an issue in this proceeding. The revegetation proposed for the Project will succeed to achieve permanent revegetation and meets the requirements of subsection (10). Mosaic has submitted a plan for revegetation that lists species by species what will be replaced through planting or seeding into each of the different types of wetlands. The revegetation plan and planting tables provide clear guidance to the entire reclamation plan and will minimize erosion, conceal the effects of mining, and recognize the requirements for fish and wildlife habitat. Upland cover and forested upland requirements in the rule will be met under the CRP; the appropriate forested densities are set forth in the CRP and can reasonably be expected to be established within one year. Likewise, the wetland vegetative cover requirements in the CRP meet the rule requirements and can be easily met. As set forth above, the wetlands to be created are of the types Mosaic has successfully recreated in the past, and advances in reclamation and maintenance techniques will further ensure the vegetation plan is successfully implemented. The vegetative plans, including the stream plan, provide appropriate habitat for fish and wildlife. The best available technologies will be used to restore and revegetate wetlands. Furthermore, the vegetation plan meets and exceeds the requirements for the use of indigenous species. Native plants and grasses will be used in all native habitats. As required by subsection (11), measures have been identified and incorporated into the CRP to offset fish and wildlife values lost as a result of mining operations. Special programs to restore and/or reclaim particular habitats, especially for endangered and threatened species have been identified. A Site Habitat Management Plan has been incorporated to prevent adverse impacts to threatened and endangered species, and the proposed conservation easement and reclamation plan will protect and restore currently impaired habitat to a better condition. Specifically, Dr. Durbin testified with respect to the CRP requirements for aquatic species, including fish and macroinvertebrates; the best fish and wildlife habitat onsite will be preserved. Mr. Simpson testified regarding habitat preservation and reclamation activities, the proposed wildlife management plans, and the proposed enhancements to habitat that will benefit wildlife, including listed wildlife. Mosaic has sufficiently addressed the requirements of subsection (11) of the rule in the CRP. Subsection (12) has been satisfied. The proposed mining and reclamation schedule in the application documents comports with the rule requirements by including time schedules for mining, waste disposal, contouring, and revegetation, and the completion dates for such activities comport with the rules. Mosaic has proposed, and the DEP has indicated an intent to issue, the Littoral Zone Variance as an experimental technique to improve the quality of the reclaimed lakes pursuant to this subsection and Section 378.212(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Given the depth of the proposed reclamation lakes, Mosaic applied for, and the Department has proposed to grant, a variance from the water quality standard for DO in the lower portions of the lakes. The DO Variance from Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.530(31) is being sought pursuant to Sections 373.414(6)(a), 373.414(17), and 403.201(1)(a), Florida Statutes, which provide the minimum standards for DO levels in surface waters. Class III freshwater water quality standards apply to those portions of the site that constitute surface waters as defined by Florida law. For at least those reclaimed lakes that will connect offsite to downstream waters or wetlands (Lakes 1, 3, and 4), there is no dispute that Class III water quality standards would apply. The minimum water quality standard for DO in freshwater systems is 5.0 milligrams per Litre (mg/L). The evidence demonstrated that alternatives to the lakes in terms of both size and location were considered. The Department considered the proposed lakes as part of the elimination and reduction of overall wetland impacts on both South Fort Meade Polk and Hardee. On balance, it is a preferable alternative to use the available sand resulting from mining of the Hardee County portion of the South Fort Meade mine to eliminate lakes and create additional wetlands on the Polk County portion of the mine rather than utilize that sand to eliminate all lakes on the Hardee County portion of the site. This is especially true given the desire of Hardee County for recreational lakes and the Department's preference to reduce the overall acreage of the reclaimed lakes at the South Fort Meade mine. It is not feasible to make the lakes shallower given the available materials. There is no practicable means known or available for increasing DO in the deep pockets of lakes of the proposed depths that would not have a potential negative effect. This fact has been established and recognized by the Florida Legislature in Section 373.414(6)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides that the deep pits left by mining operations may not meet the DO criteria below the surficial layers of the lakes. The Legislature has further provided that a variance from the DO standard can be issued where deep lakes must be left as part of the reclamation plan. Id. The evidence established that lower DO levels may at times occur in the deep pockets of some of the reclaimed lakes to the same extent and effect as those lower levels occur in natural lakes of similar depths. This effect will occur only in the hypolimnion, or lower levels, of the lakes in the hotter summer months. The evidence likewise established that it is very unlikely that DO levels below 1.0 mg/L will occur at any time in any of the proposed reclaimed lakes. Provided the DO levels do not drop below 1.0 mg/L for any extended period of time, the only expected effect of the occasional seasonal reduction in DO in the lowest level of the reclaimed lakes will be to temporarily exclude fish from those lower portions of the lake during the summer months, which is also true of natural deep lakes. The evidence established that reclaimed lakes function well and provide habitat for fish and wildlife. Water quality standards will be met in all of the lakes other than occasional seasonal DO violations in the lower portions of the deepest lake. All water quality standards, including DO, will be met at all lake outlets and discharge points. All other applicable regulatory criteria will be met in the reclaimed lakes. Dissolved oxygen levels in the upper layers of the lakes are expected and required to meet the minimum DO criteria in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 302.530 and will be adequate to support healthy fish populations. The evidence showed no downstream impacts will occur due to the DO Variance for the lakes. The evidence showed reclaimed lakes support healthy fish and macroinvertebrate communities and provide recreational fishing opportunities. Even older lakes, such as the Tenoroc lakes (located in an old mining area in Polk County), provide substantial recreational fishing and wildlife utilization opportunities. This testimony was not rebutted. The evidence offered by Lee and Sarasota Counties as a means to increase DO levels in the reclaimed lakes actually demonstrated that artificially attempting aeration of a deeper lake can have negative environmental effects. Therefore, the testimony of witnesses Janicki and Merriam has not been credited. By a preponderance of the evidence, Mosaic proved entitlement to the DO Variance for the lakes pursuant to Sections 373.414(6)(a) and 403.201(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Given the location of the reclaimed lakes and as a means of experimenting with different reclamation planting techniques to create a variety of shorelines, Mosaic also applied for, and the Department has proposed to grant, a variance from the reclamation requirements in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-16.0051 pertaining to the planting of littoral shelves or zones around reclaimed lakes. The Littoral Zone Variance is being sought under Section 378.212(1)(e), Florida Statutes, from Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-16.0051(6)(a) and (b), which provides minimum water zones for emergent and submerged vegetation, known as the littoral zones of the lakes. Subsection (6) of the rule provides for a twenty-five percent high-water zone of water fluctuation to encourage emergent and transition zone vegetation, and that a twenty percent low water zone between the annual low water line and six feet below the annual low water line to provide fish bedding areas and submerged vegetation zones. These vegetative zones are collectively known as the littoral zone of a lake. Traditionally, these percentages have been met in reclaimed lakes by sloping and creation of a uniform fringe of herbaceous wetland vegetation completely encircling the lake; however, such uniform fringes are not typical around natural lakes, which vary in composition and width. Rather than create a uniform band of vegetation around the lakes, Mosaic has proposed to reclaim the littoral zones around the reclaimed lakes by concentrating them in several broad, shallow areas, including the outlets of the lakes where such outlets occur (Lakes 1, 3 and 4). Of the proposed lakes, one will meet the littoral zone requirement, two will have over twenty percent of the total area in littoral zone, and the remaining lake will have a littoral zone of just under fourteen percent of the total area. The littoral zones will be reclaimed by constructing broad shelves of differing depths and planting the shelves with herbaceous wetland plant species. This design provides the environmental benefit of herbaceous vegetation at the outlet to provide increased filtration of nutrients or sediments of any water overflowing from the lakes during other high water events. This increases environmental benefits at the outlet of the lakes and has the potential to improve water quality downstream. Further, the proposed clustering of the littoral zones in several broad shallow shelves, rather than creation of a thin fringe around the lakes as is customary, will benefit wildlife and fish by creating a more extensive wetland ecosystem in lieu of the monoculture typically created by the thin littoral fringe. The proposed littoral zone clustering also creates more useable shoreline for boating, fishing, and recreational activities in the areas where the littoral zones are not clustered, with the added benefit of tending to separate the wildlife usage in the littoral zone clusters from the human usage in the upland forested areas of the shoreline where minimal littoral zones are planned. This is an experimental technique that advances reclamation methods by balancing habitat, water quality, and recreational considerations. Mosaic has demonstrated that the Littoral Zone Variance comports with Section 378.212(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and may be issued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting Mosaic's applications for the requested permits and variances. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 2008, 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 18th day of December, 2008.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Ben A. Leasure, should have a $3,000.00 administrative penalty imposed, take corrective action, and pay investigative costs for allegedly illegally filling 0.17 acres of wetlands contiguous with the Withlacoochee River (River), a Class III water, on land located in unincorporated Hernando County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent is the owner of an approximate 5-acre parcel of land located at the intersection of Olivet Drive and State Road 50 (5345 Olivet Drive) in unincorporated Hernando County, Florida. The property is also known as Parcel Identification Number R09-123-21-1110-00J0-0010. In broader geographic terms, the property lies just east of Interstate 75, west of U.S. Highway 301, and just west-southwest of Ridge Manor, a small community in Hernando County. The western boundary of the parcel is approximately 500 feet east of the River, a Class III Outstanding Florida Waterbody (OWF), which meanders through the area. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 302.700(9)(i)41. In November 1971, Respondent purchased his property and on a later undisclosed date built a residence. According to Department Exhibit 24, which is a letter authored by Respondent in 1987, he first began filling the floodplain on the western part of his land "probably" in 1971, or just after he purchased the property. Historical aerial photographs of the site indicate that sometime before 1984, he constructed a pond just north of his house, apparently to be used for fishing, and by 1992 he had constructed a second, smaller pond just south of the larger pond. On February 3, 1986, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) sent Respondent a Cease and Desist Order in the form of a letter in which it advised Respondent that he had placed a "considerable amount of fill material" in wetlands adjacent to the River; that such filling was in violation of the federal Clean Water Act of 1977; that legal action would be taken if further filling occurred; that he must reply within 15 days indicating that he had complied with the terms of the letter; and that within the same timeframe he must provide information concerning the public and/or private need for the work, the effects on the surrounding area, and any other relevant information. By letter dated March 12, 1986, Respondent responded to the Cease and Desist Order and stated that prior to 1977 the land had been changed from wetlands to usable farmland, that his land did not connect to the River, and that there were no natural waters on his property that connected to state or federal waters. A follow-up letter was sent by the Corps on February 26, 1987, in which the Corps advised Respondent that he could resolve the violation "by removing all unauthorized fill material" and restoring the area. He was also told that in lieu of doing this, he could file an application for an after- the-fact permit authorizing the filling. A copy of a Joint Application for Permit was attached to the letter. On March 7, 1987, Respondent replied to the Corps' letter and stated that his land did not connect with any other waterbody; that he had been filling his property since 1971 without objection by anyone; that he had a "hard time understanding all these rules and regulations"; and that he questioned why the Corps was causing him "so much trouble for the last couple of years." Respondent never filed an application for an after-the-fact permit nor did he receive a reply to his letter. After an "Unauthorized Wetland Alteration Field Investigation" was conducted by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) sometime in 1992, by letter dated November 3, 1992, the District advised Respondent that it appeared the "wetland in question was disturbed prior to October, 1984" and that any filling done before that date was exempt from its jurisdiction; that it appeared that other dredge/fill work had been performed on the same wetland since that date; that Respondent's claim that the area was being used for agricultural purposes was not supported by any evidence; that Respondent's activities constituted a violation of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes; and that all illegal activity must be ceased immediately. The disposition of further contacts between the District and Respondent, if any, are unknown. Against this backdrop, on August 16, 2002, the Department's Tampa District Office received a complaint from the District stating that Respondent had illegally filled wetlands on his property. (The record does not show why the District waited almost ten years to refer the complaint to the Department.) In response to that complaint, and as a precursor to issuing a formal notice of violation, on August 20, 2002, the Tampa district office sent Respondent a warning letter indicating that a violation "may exist on [his] property" and requesting that he contact the Department to arrange a meeting "to discuss this matter." By mutual agreement, an inspection of the property was scheduled for September 5, 2002. Because a Department representative became unavailable just before the inspection, the Department did not appear at the property on the scheduled date or notify Respondent that the inspection had been cancelled. The following day, September 6, 2002, Department personnel were in the area and appeared unannounced at Respondent's property. However, no one was home and they did not inspect the property. Several weeks later, Department personnel again visited the site but could not gain access. Because Respondent was unwilling to grant access to his property, on April 17, 2003, the Department obtained an inspection warrant from the Circuit Court in Hernando County authorizing an inspection of Respondent's property. On April 22, 2003, seven Department employees inspected the property. Based upon plant species and hydrological indicators found on the property, it was established that the northwestern corner of Respondent's property lay within the surface water floodplain of the River and constituted wetlands, as defined by Section 373.019(22), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-340.200(19). (The Department also established that there is a fifty percent chance of the filled area being flooded during any given year.) Therefore, any filling on that portion of Respondent's property would require a permit. Department records reflected that Respondent had never obtained a permit authorizing any work. During their inspection, Department representatives observed that a narrow strip of land totaling around 0.20 acres in the northwest corner of the parcel (just west of the larger fish pond) had been filled with concrete debris and sand to a height of around 6 or 7 feet in an effort to sever the connection between the River and the wetlands.5 Unless the berm is removed, the activity could lead to adverse cumulative impacts, including a loss in available habitat for floral and fauna that currently use the area, a loss in water storage capacity of the current system, and a loss in detritus formation and nutrient/pollution cycling. An Enforcement Inspection Report prepared after the inspection recommended that an enforcement action be initiated. On June 10, 2004, the Department issued its Notice alleging that Respondent had violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-343.050, which requires a permit to fill wetlands or surface waters, and Section 403.161(1)(b), Florida Statutes, which makes it unlawful to violate a Department rule. On August 12, 2004, Respondent filed his Petition challenging the Notice. In his Petition, Respondent denied that he owned the property on which the filling occurred; alleged that the property had been previously inspected in 1986 by the Corps; alleged that the District confirmed by letter in 1992 that the filling had occurred prior to 1984 and was therefore exempt from regulation; and alleged that he is entitled to "restitution" for damages caused by the Wysong Dam being rebuilt downstream from his property. At hearing, Respondent also suggested that the filled area was not wetlands. This proceeding followed. On November 17, 2004, the Department conducted a second inspection of Respondent's property. The objectives of that inspection were to determine the boundary of the filled area by Global Position Satellite equipment and to allow Eric D. Hickman, the new Environmental Manager who was not present during the first inspection, to perform a review of the property. Through ground reconnaissance and photo- interpretation, Mr. Hickman was able to establish the landward extent of the wetlands and other surface waters of the State. Based on vegetation, soils, and hydrologic indicators found on the site, he was able to confirm that the filled area on Respondent's property is wetlands. In fact, because of the overwhelming evidence of wetland indicators on the property (that is, the site conditions met nearly every single test criterion for a wetland), Mr. Hickman stated that he could make that determination with "100 percent certainty." Mr. Hickman concurred with the findings in the earlier inspection report, including one that the filled area is located entirely within a forested floodplain, which is both a surface water and a wetland due to regular flooding in the area for sustained periods of time. Photographs received in evidence, and testimony by Department representatives, confirm that the flooding occurs on a regular basis. See also Finding of Fact 13, supra. Significantly, Mr. Hickman observed that additional filling had occurred since the first inspection some eighteen months earlier, and that there were two signs on the front of his property reading "Needed Clean Fill." Finally, the location of two large cypress trees on the property suggested that an intact and mature floodplain existed before the alterations occurred. The filling poses a threat to the functions of the land, such as vegetation and habitat. Therefore, removal of the concrete debris and sand is necessary in order to restore those functions. While the Department would not promise that he could do so, it did represent that it would consider Respondent's request to remove the debris and sand to the upland area of his property, which would be much less expensive than hauling it offsite. At hearing, Respondent acknowledged that despite a warning by the Corps in 1986 that the filling was illegal, he has continued to engage in that activity for at least two reasons: to prevent flooding of his property and to prevent contaminated River water from reaching his fish ponds. He further acknowledged that as recently as 2003 he allowed several trucks to dump concrete debris and sand onto his property. (The concrete debris was obtained from a local Walmart store.) Respondent justified his actions in part on the ground that the Corps failed to respond to his letter in March 1987, and he assumed that this was an indication that the filling was legal. He also contended that the filled area was originally uplands when he purchased the property, but it changed to wetlands due to increased runoff from heavy development in the area and the construction of a dam downstream which caused the River to overflow during heavy rains. As a consequence, his property and others in the area (such as homes on Cyril Drive) have been prone to flooding. However, Mr. Hickman established that a floodplain existed on the property before any filling occurred. In any event, the Department has jurisdiction over both natural and artificial wetlands, and permits are needed for filling either type of wetland. Therefore, while the filling may have been performed for a salutary purpose, after 1984 he needed a permit to do so (assuming that such activities in a wetland are permittable). The fact that the land is zoned agricultural by Hernando County does not negate this requirement.5 Finally, a contention that a wetland is changed to uplands by merely placing dry dirt onto the wetland has been rejected. The land still remains a wetland for jurisdictional purposes. Respondent never filed for an after-the-fact permit (as suggested by the Corps in 1987) because it was too "complicated" to fill out the form. He conceded, however, that he did not ask the Department for assistance in doing so. Except for the explanations discussed above, Respondent presented no mitigating evidence. He has asked that due to his financial circumstances the amount of the fine be moderated or forgiven. At hearing, three Tampa District Office employees established that they spent a total of 70 hours of time on this case. At their hourly rate of pay, this totals $1,850.00 in investigative costs. In addition, Mr. Hickman was required to perform a wetland determination on the property. The normal charge for an assessment on a property of this size is $550.00. The reasonableness of these amounts was not disputed by Respondent. However, the Department is seeking reimbursement of only $500.00.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (“Commission”) is entitled to the requested minor modification of its existing Environmental Resource Permit and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization, which would authorize the backfilling of a portion of Fisheating Creek as part of a restoration project.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state agency responsible for regulating construction activities in waters of the State. The Department has also been delegated authority to process and act on applications for authorization from the Board of Trustees for activities on sovereignty submerged lands. The Commission is the state wildlife management agency. The Commission is the applicant for the minor modification at issue in this proceeding. Petitioner, Save Our Creeks, Inc., is a non-profit Florida corporation with its offices in Lake Place, Florida. Save Our Creeks’ members are interested citizens and groups devoted to the conservation of natural resources, especially creeks and small waterways. Save Our Creeks owns property on Fisheating Creek in Glades County, approximately nine miles upstream of Cowbone Marsh. Petitioner, Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida, Inc. (ECOSWF), is a non-profit Florida corporation with its offices in Sarasota, Florida. A substantial number of the members of Save Our Creeks and ECOSWF use and enjoy the waters of Fisheating Creek for a variety of purposes, including canoeing, boating, fishing, and wildlife observation. Their interests would be affected by the proposed project. Fisheating Creek and Cowbone Marsh Fisheating Creek flows from Highlands and Desoto Counties south and east through Glades County. The Creek runs in a northeastern direction through Cowbone Marsh before draining into Lake Okeechobee. The Creek contributes approximately nine percent of the flow into Lake Okeechobee. Fisheating Creek is designated as Class III waters. Cowbone Marsh is located about eight miles west of Lake Okeechobee. It is a mile and a half long and two miles wide, covering about 2,500 acres. Fisheating Creek and Cowbone Marsh are within the Fisheating Creek Wildlife Management Area. In 1929, the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("USACOE") prepared a survey map which shows Fisheating Creek as an open water route from Lake Okeechobee through Cowbone Marsh and continuing beyond. The accuracy of the course of the Creek as it is depicted in the 1929 map is not disputed by the parties. The 1929 map does not describe the depth or width of the Creek. Some evidence about historical widths and depths was presented, but it was incomplete. There was credible evidence showing that some segments of Fisheating Creek were four to five feet deep and 20 to 30 feet wide. There was also credible evidence that other segments of the Creek were shallower and narrower. The record shows only that canoes, kayaks, and other vessels drawing twelve inches of water or less have been used on the Creek. For a number of years, much of Fisheating Creek has been choked by vegetation and “tussocks.” Tussocks are floating mats of vegetation. Carolina willow now dominates Cowbone Marsh, having replaced areas that were previously open water or covered with herbaceous marsh communities. The vegetation in the Creek made navigation difficult or impossible through Cowbone Marsh. The 1998 Judgment and 1999 Settlement Agreement In 1989, Lykes Bros., Inc., asserted ownership of Fisheating Creek and tried to prevent public access to the Creek. The Board of Trustees responded with a civil action against Lykes Bros., seeking a determination that Fisheating Creek throughout Glades County is navigable and, consequently, the title to its bottom is held by the Board of Trustees as sovereignty submerged lands. Petitioners in this administrative proceeding intervened in the circuit court case on the side of the Board of Trustees. The jury found Fisheating Creek navigable throughout Glades County and the court entered a judgment in 1998 determining that the Creek is sovereignty land held in trust by the Board of Trustees. The judgment did not include any findings about the widths and depths of Fisheating Creek. The court retained jurisdiction to determine the boundaries of the Creek, but the boundaries were never determined. The circuit court case was appealed, but in May 1999, the parties entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which Lykes Bros. agreed to sell to the Board of Trustees a conservation easement on upland areas adjacent to Fisheating Creek, to be held and managed for the benefit of the public. The conservation area is known as the Fisheating Creek Expanded Corridor. The settlement agreement also called for the Board of Trustees to lease the Fisheating Creek Expanded Corridor to the Commission, who the Board of Trustees designated as the managing agency. The settlement agreement acknowledges the public's "right to boat and canoe on Fisheating Creek throughout the entire Expanded Corridor.” With respect to navigation, the settlement agreement provides: Protection of Navigation. The navigability of Fisheating Creek throughout the entire Expanded Corridor shall be maintained and enhanced through a navigation maintenance program which includes aquatic weed control and removal of fallen logs and similar obstructions. This section does not authorize dredging. The Cookie-Cutter Project In January 2009, the Commission aerially applied an herbicide to kill the vegetation along the course of the Creek. In April 2010, the Commission contracted with A & L Aquatic Weed Control (“A & L”) to “[m]echanically dismantle floating tussocks.” The Commission directed A & L to perform the project by “shredding vegetation and accumulated organic material to re-open the navigation across Cowbone Marsh.” The Commission instructed A & L to re-open a channel "approximately 2.2 miles long and 18-20 feet wide,” and to clear some areas of the Creek “as wide as 35-feet wide occasionally as necessary to turn shredding equipment during the shredding process.” The Commission did not direct A & L to dredge a deeper channel. The vessel used by A & L to perform the work is known as a “cookie-cutter.” The cookie-cutter has two cutting wheels at the front of the vessel to shred and side-cast vegetation. The cutting wheels also act as propellers to propel the cookie- cutter forward. The cookie-cutter can clear woody vegetation up to four inches in diameter. The two cutting wheels can be lowered or raised in order to cut vegetation at various depths in the water. Evidence was presented to show how the cutting wheels could be lowered two to three feet, but it was not made clear whether the cutting wheels could be lowered even more. No evidence was presented to establish how deep the cookie-cutter blades were lowered into Fisheating Creek during the work performed by A & L. No evidence was presented to establish what depth of soil the cookie-cutter was capable of dredging through if the cutting wheels cut into the Creek bottom. The cookie-cutter began on the eastern side of Cowbone Marsh and moved upstream. The parties disputed the point of beginning. Petitioners contend it was farther upstream, but the more persuasive evidence for the point of beginning was presented by the Commission. The cookie-cutter generally followed the course of Fisheating Creek as depicted on the 1929 USACOE map. However, there are three areas where the cookie-cutter deviated from the 1929 map. One deviation is about 100 feet off-line. The other two deviations are 25 to 30 feet off-line. No explanation was given for the deviations, but the cookie-cutter operator generally followed the path of dead vegetation killed by the aerial spraying of herbicide and the line may have deviated from the true course of the Creek in these three areas. During the cookie-cutter project, water levels within the Creek and Marsh fluctuated. At some point, the project was postponed due to low water conditions. A sandbag dam was placed in the channel to artificially raise the water level so the cookie-cutter could continue. In July 2010, the Department and USACOE ordered the Commission to stop the project due to its adverse environmental impacts, including the draining of Cowbone Marsh. Before the cookie-cutter stopped, it had cleared about two miles of Fisheating Creek. Where the cookie-cutter stopped there is a discernible channel continuing west, but it is shallower and narrower than the channel created by the cookie-cutter. At this terminus, the cookie-cutter was dredging a deeper and wider channel than existed naturally. Additional evidence of dredging along the Creek channel is the soil cast up on the banks, and the removal of peat soils in the bottom of the Creek and exposure of underlying mineralized soil. The cookie-cutter altered the natural conditions of the Fisheating Creek in some areas by dredging the sides and bottom of the Creek. The dredging by the cookie-cutter altered the hydrology of the Creek and Marsh. The Marsh drained rapidly to Lake Okeechobee. In addition, large quantities of soil, muck, silt, and debris disturbed by the cookie-cutter were carried downstream toward Lake Okeechobee. Some of the soil and debris settled out at the mouth of the Creek, causing shoaling. The sides of the channel in many areas is continuing to erode. The Department’s Emergency Final Order In July 2010, the Department issued an Emergency Final Order, which directed the Commission to: (a) remove the cookie- cutter and immediately stop all activities associated with the cookie-cutter; (b) place temporary emergency flow restrictors in the channel to reduce flow velocities and minimize downstream sediment transport, as well as raise the water level to minimize surface and groundwater flow from the adjacent marsh into the channel; and (c) develop a long-term remedial plan to return water levels within the Marsh to pre-impact conditions and apply to the Department for an Environmental Resource Permit to implement the plan. In August 2010, pursuant to the Emergency Final Order, the Commission constructed an aluminum weir in the Creek to decrease flow velocities, reduce erosion, and maintain the hydration of the Marsh. The weir was placed approximately half a mile downstream from where the cookie-cutter stopped. During the wet season of 2010, the aluminum weir was completely submerged. Erosion and shoaling occurred immediately downstream. The Commission determined that the weir was ineffective and removed it. The EPA Compliance Orders In March 2011, the EPA issued an Administrative Compliance Order in which it alleged the Commission had engaged in "unauthorized activities associated with the excavation and construction of a channel within Cowbone Marsh.” The Commission was ordered to construct an initial check dam in the upper reaches of the Marsh to minimize the loss of groundwater and prevent further adverse impacts. In April 2011, EPA issued a second Administrative Compliance Order, directing the Commission to construct five additional check dams. The order describes the check dams as "initial corrective measures" and states that the “final restoration plan will include measures for backfilling the unauthorized cut through Cowbone Marsh.” The Initial Permits In May 2011, the Department issued to the Commission an Environmental Resource Permit and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization, which authorized the construction of six earthen check-dams within the portion of Fisheating Creek where the cookie-cutter had operated. The purpose of the check dams was to improve the hydrology of Cowbone Marsh and promote the accumulation of sediments within the channel to restore the natural depth and width of Fisheating Creek. The check dams were constructed using sand bags, marine plywood, coconut matting, and pressure-treated posts. The check dams have ten-foot wing walls which extend into the surrounding marsh. The wing walls are to prevent erosion around the dams and to direct water into the marsh. The installation of the check dams was completed in July 2011. Since that time, some repair efforts have been required to replace lost sandbags and to address erosion that has occurred around the check dams. The check dams have been somewhat successful in maintaining higher water levels in the Marsh. However, they have not restored natural hydrologic conditions, or prevented erosion along the channel. The Proposed Modification In June 2012, the Commission applied for a "minor modification" to the existing permits, which the Department granted. The modified permits authorize the Commission to backfill the channel cleared by the cookie-cutter with approximately 27,000 cubic yards of sand. The check dams would not be removed. The sand for the backfilling would be excavated from a "borrow" area located about a mile away. Petitioners contend that the borrow area is in wetlands, but the more persuasive evidence is that it is uplands. A 1.164-mile temporary access road would be constructed from the borrow area through uplands and wetlands to a 100-square-foot staging area adjacent to Fisheating Creek where the backfilling would begin. Wetland impacts would be minimized by constructing the temporary access road and staging area with interlocking mats. Petitioners did not show that the route or manner in which the temporary road would be constructed and used would have unacceptable adverse impacts to the environment or otherwise fail to comply with applicable criteria. The sand would be dumped into the Creek and then compacted. As the Creek was filled, the compacted sand would be used as a roadway for the trucks to transport sand to the end of the filled area to dump more sand, until the backfilling was completed. The proposed backfilling would not restore a typical stream profile, deepest in the middle and becoming more and more shallow moving toward the banks. That kind of profile can be seen in the photographs of Fisheating Creek taken before the cookie-cutter project. The proposed modification calls for filling the cut channel from "bank to bank": Final Grade: Fill must be compacted and ground surface elevations must be the same as the adjacent marsh ground surface elevations (within a tolerance of +6/-6 inches) The filled channel would be seeded and fertilized to grow native vegetation. The proposed seed mixture is mostly water grasses, but has some willow included. Compliance with Criteria Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-343.100 provides that a modification is treated as either minor or major depending on the magnitude of the changes and the potential for environmental impacts that differ from those addressed in the original permit: modification shall be considered to be minor only where the modification does not: Require a new site inspection by the Department in order to evaluate the request; or Substantially: Alter permit conditions; Increase the authorized discharge; Have substantially different or increased impacts on wetlands and other surface waters. . . ; Decrease the retention/detention specified by the original permit; Decrease any flood control elevations for roads or buildings specified by the original permit; or Increase the project area. At the final hearing, it was not shown how the modification meets the criteria for a minor modification. The proposed modification does not meet the criteria because it required new site visits, substantially alters the original permit conditions, and has a substantially different impact on wetlands. The criteria applicable to an application for a major modification were not identified, nor was it shown how the evidence presented at the final hearing satisfies the requirements for such an application. The proposed backfilling plan would not restore the natural conditions that existed in Fisheating Creek. The Commission did not show that it made a reasonable effort to determine the pre-disturbance conditions throughout the disturbed area. The proposed modification would not restore the natural depths in the Creek. The backfilling plan calls for a finished grade of plus or minus six inches above the level of the adjacent marsh. A final grade of zero to plus six inches would essentially eliminate Fisheating Creek. The maximum allowed depth of minus six inches below the level of the adjacent marsh would be shallower than the natural depths in portions of the Creek. Even the Department described the Creek was "one to two feet deep" before the cookie-cutter project. Adequate measures are not included in the permits to ensure that after backfilling and planting, the Creek would have the ordinary attributes of a creek. The proposed modification would not restore the pre- existing hydrologic conditions of the Creek. The modified Environmental Resource Permit requires strict compliance with the terms of the 1999 settlement agreement. The modification would not be consistent with the 1999 settlement agreement because the backfilling and planting would destroy the navigability of the Creek. Petitioners want to preserve the current depths of Fisheating Creek, but some of those depths are unnatural, being the result of dredging by the cookie-cutter. However, the proposed backfilling would not restore the natural depths in some parts of the Creek and would not maintain the navigability of the Creek, even for shallow draft vessels such as canoes and kayaks.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Department deny the requested modification to the Commission's Environmental Resource Permit and Sovereignty Submerged Lands Authorization. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 2013, 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 3rd day of July, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Alisa A. Coe, Esquire Joshua D. Smith, Esquire Bradley I. B. Marshall, Esquire Earthjustice 111 South Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold "Bud" Viehauer, General Counsel Ryan Osborne, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Matthew Z. Leopold, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue in this case is whether, and under what conditions, the Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District (District), should grant Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 40-109-81153-1 authorizing Respondents, Jay and Linda Ginn (Ginns or Applicants), to construct a 136-unit single-family residential development with associated surface water management system.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Proposed Project Respondent, the District, is a special taxing district created by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, charged with the duty to prevent harm to the water resources of the District, and to administer and enforce the cited statutes and Florida Administrative Code Rules promulgated by the District under the authority of those statutes. (Unless otherwise stated, all Florida Statutes refer to the 2003 codification, and all Florida Administrative Code Rules refer to the current codification.) Respondents, Jay and Linda Ginn, are the owners of 47 acres of land located just west of the City of St. Augustine in St. Johns County, Florida. They are seeking ERP Permit No. 40- 109-81153-1 from the District to construct a 136-acre residential community and associated surface water management facilities on the property, to be known as Ravenswood Forest. The 47-acre project site is predominantly uplands, with a large (10.98-acre) wetland (Wetland 1) located on the eastern boundary and completely separating the uplands on the project site from adjacent properties to the east. While the central portion of the site is mostly a sand pine vegetated community, and the western portion is largely a pine flatwood community, there are six other smaller wetlands scattered within the upland areas lying west of Wetland 1, each numbered separately, 2 through 7. The site is currently undeveloped except for some cleared areas that are used as dirt road trails and a borrow pit or pond excavated in the central part of the site. This clearing and excavation was accomplished in the 1980’s for a project that was never completed. The project site is bordered on the north by Ravenswood Drive. On the east lies an existing residential development probably constructed in the 1970’s; to the west of the project site is a power-line easement; and to the south is a Time Warner cable facility. The land elevations at the project site are generally higher on the west and slope off to Wetland 1 on the east. Under current conditions, water generally drains from west to east into Wetland 1. Some water from the site, as well as some water entering the site from off-site properties to the west, flows into the existing pond or borrow pit located in the central portion of the site. Under extreme rainfall conditions, the borrow pit/pond can reach a stage that allows it to overflow and discharge into Wetland 1. Some off-site water also enters Wetland 1 at its north end. Water that originates from properties to the west of the Ravenswood site is conveyed through ditches to the roadside ditch that runs along the south side of Ravenswood Drive. Water in this roadside ditch ultimately enters Wetland 1 at its north end and flows south. Once in Wetland 1, water moves north to south. Water leaves the part of Wetland 1 that is located on the Ravenswood site and continues to flow south through ditches and culverts ultimately to the San Sebastian River. The Wetland 1 system is contiguous with wetlands located on property owned by Petitioner, Marilyn McMulkin. Mrs. McMulkin lives on Hibiscus Street to the east of the project. Mrs. McMulkin is disabled and enjoys observing wildlife from her home. Mrs. McMulkin has observed woodstorks, kites, deer, cardinals, birds, otter, indigo snake, flying squirrels, gopher tortoises, and (more recently) bald eagles on her property or around the neighborhood. Mrs. McMulkin informed the District of the presence of the bald eagle in 2002, but it was not discovered until November of 2003 that there was an eagle nest on the Ginns property in Wetland 1. Petitioner, Diane Mills, owns a house and property on Hibiscus Street to the east of the Project. The proposed stormwater discharge for the Project is to a wetland system that is contiguous with a wetland system that is in close proximity to Mrs. Mills' property. Petitioners' property is not located in a flood plain identified by FEMA. Nevertheless, Petitioners' property experiences flooding. At times, the flooding has come through Mrs. McMulkin's house and exited out the front door. The flood water, which can be 18-24 inches high in some places on Mrs. McMulkin's property, comes across her backyard, goes through or around her house, enters Hibiscus Street and turns north. The flooding started in the late 1980's and comes from the north and west, from the Ginns' property. The flooding started after Mr. Clyatt Powell, a previous co-owner of the Ravenswood property, started clearing and creating fill roads on the property using dirt excavated from the property. The flooding now occurs every year and has increased in duration and frequency; the flooding gets worse after the rain stops and hours pass. The evidence, including Petitioners' Exhibit 1, indicated that there are numerous other possible reasons, besides activities on the Ginns' property in the late 1980's, for the onset and exacerbation of Petitioners' flooding problems, including: failure to properly maintain existing drainage facilities; other development in the area; and failure to improve drainage facilities as development proceeds. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners have standing to object to ERP Permit No. 40-109-81153-1. Project Description As indicated, water that originates west of the project site currently enters the project site in two ways: (1) it moves across the western project boundary; and (2) it travels north to a ditch located on the south side of Ravenswood Drive and is conveyed to Wetland 1. The offsite water that moves across the western project boundary comes from a 16-acre area identified as Basin C (called Basin 4 post-development). The offsite water that moves north to the ditch and enters Wetland 1 comes from a 106.87-acre area identified as Basin D (called Basin 5 post-development). The project’s stormwater conveyance and treatment facilities include two connected wet detention ponds with an outfall to a wetland on the eastern portion of the project site. Stormwater from most of the project site will be conveyed to a pond, or detention area (DA) DA-1, which will be located near (and partially coinciding with the location of) the existing pond or borrow pit. The water elevation in DA-1 will be controlled at a level of 26 feet. Water from DA-1 will spill over through a control structure into a pipe that will convey the spill-over to DA-2. In addition to the spill-over from DA-1, offsite water that currently enters the project site across the western boundary will be conveyed to a wetland area at the southwest corner of the project site. At that point, some of the water will be taken into DA-2 through an inlet structure. The water elevation in DA-2 will be controlled at level 21. Water from DA-2 will be released by a control structure to a spreader swale in Wetland 1. While some of the water conveyed to the wetland area at the southwest corner of the project site will enter DA-2, as described, some will discharge over an irregular weir (a low area that holds water until it stages up and flows out) and move around the southern boundary of the project site and flow east into Wetland 1. Wetland 1 is a 10.98-acre onsite portion of a larger offsite wetland area extending to the south and east (which includes the wetlands on Mrs. McMulkin's property). For purposes of an Overall Watershed Study performed by the Ginns' engineering consultant, the combined onsite and offsite wetlands was designated Node 98 (pre-development) and Node 99 (post- development). From those areas, water drains south to ditches and culverts and eventually to the San Sebastian River. Best management practices will be used during project construction to address erosion and sediment control. Such measures will include silt fences around the construction site, hay bales in ditches and inlets, and maintenance of construction equipment to prevent release of pollutants, and may include staked sod on banks and turbidity barriers, if needed. In addition, the District's TSR imposed permit conditions that require erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented. The District's TSR also imposed a permit condition that requires District approval of a dewatering plan within 30 days of permit issuance and prior to construction. The Ginns intend to retain the dewatering from construction on the project site. Wetland Impacts Onsite Wetlands Wetland 1 is a 10.98-acre mixed-forested wetland system. Its overall condition is good. It has a variety of vegetative strata, a mature canopy, dense understory and groundcover, open water areas, and permanent water of varying levels over the course of a year. These attributes allow for species diversity. Although surrounded by development, the wetland is a good source for a variety of species to forage, breed, nest, and roost. In terms of vegetation, the wetland is not unique to northeast Florida, but in November 2003 an eagle nest was discovered in it. A second wetland area onsite (Wetland 2) is a 0.29-acre coniferous depression located near the western boundary of the site. The overall value of the functions provided by Wetland 2 is minimal or low. It has a fairly sparse pine canopy and scattered ferns provide for little refuge and nesting. Water does stand in it, but not for extended periods of time, which does not allow for breeding of most amphibians. The vegetation and inundation do not foster lower trophic animals. For that reason, although the semi-open canopy would be conducive to use by woodstorks, birds and small mammals do not forage there. A third wetland area onsite (Wetland 3) is a 0.28-acre mixed-forested wetland on the northern portion of the site. The quality of Wetland 3 is low. A 24-inch culvert drains the area into a 600-foot long drainage ditch along the south side of Ravenswood Drive leading to Wetland 1. As a result, its hydroperiod is reduced and, although it has a healthy pine and cypress canopy, it also has invasive Chinese tallow and upland species, along with some maple. The mature canopy and its proximity to Ravenswood Drive would allow for nesting, but no use of the wetland by listed species has been observed. In order to return Wetland 3 to being productive, its hydroperiod would have to be restored by eliminating the connection to the Ravenswood Drive ditch. A fourth wetland area onsite (Wetland 4) is a 0.01- acre portion of a mixed-forested wetland on the western boundary of the site that extends offsite to the west. Its value is poor because: a power line easement runs through it; it has been used as a trail road, so it is void of vegetation; and it is such a small fringe of an offsite wetland that it does not provide much habitat value. A fifth wetland area onsite (Wetland 5) is a 0.01-acre portion of the same offsite mixed-forested wetland that Wetland 4 is part of. Wetland 5 has a cleared trail road through its upland fringe. Wetland 5 has moderate value. It is vegetated except on its upland side (although its vegetation is not unique to northeast Florida), has a nice canopy, and provides fish and wildlife value (although not as much as the interior of the offsite wetland). A sixth wetland area onsite (Wetland 6) is a 0.28-acre wetland located in the western portion of the site. It is a depression with a coniferous-dominated canopy with some bays and a sparse understory of ferns and cord grass that is of moderate value overall. It does not connect with any other wetlands by standing or flowing water and is not unique. It has water in it sufficient to allow breeding, so there would be foraging in it. Although not discovered by the Ginns' consultants initially, a great blue heron has been observed utilizing the wetland. No listed species have been observed using it. Wetland 6 could be good gopher frog habitat due to its isolation near uplands and its intermittent inundation, limiting predation by fish. In addition, four gopher tortoise burrows have been identified in uplands on the project site, and gopher frogs use gopher tortoise burrows. The gopher frog is not a listed species; the gopher tortoise is listed by the State of Florida as a species of special concern but is not aquatic or wetland-dependent. Woodstorks are listed as endangered. Although no woodstorks were observed using Wetland 6, they rely on isolated wetlands drying down to concentrate fish and prey in the isolated wetlands. With its semi-open canopy, Wetland 6 could be used by woodstorks, which have a wingspan similar to great blue herons, which were seen using Wetland 6. However, Wetland would not provide a significant food source for wading birds such as woodstorks. The other surface water area onsite (Wetland 7) is the existing 0.97-acre pond or borrow pit in the southwest portion of the project site. The pond is man-made with a narrow littoral shelf dominated by torpedo grass; levels appears to fluctuate as groundwater does; and it is not unique. It connects to Wetland 1 during seasonal high water. It has some fish, but the steep slope to its littoral shelf minimizes the shelf's value for fish, tadpoles, and larvae stage for amphibians because fish can forage easily on the shelf. The Ginns propose to fill Wetlands 2, 3, 4, and 6; to not impact Wetland 5; and to fill a 0.45-acre portion of Wetland and dredge the remaining part into DA-1. Also, 0.18 acre of Wetland 1 (0.03 acre is offsite) will be temporarily disturbed during installation of the utility lines to provide service to the project. Individually and cumulatively, the wetlands that are less than 0.5-acre--Wetlands 3, 6, 2, 4, and 5--are low quality and not more than minimal value to fish and wildlife except for Wetland 5, because it is a viable part of an offsite wetland with value. While the Ginns have sought a permit to fill Wetland 4, they actually do not intend to fill it. Instead, they will simply treat the wetland as filled for the purpose of avoiding a County requirement of providing a wetland buffer and setback, which would inhibit the development of three lots. Offsite Wetlands The proposed project would not be expected to have an impact on offsite wetlands. Neither DA-1 nor DA-2, especially with the special conditions imposed by the District, will draw down offsite wetlands. The seasonal high water (SHW) table in the area of DA- 1 is estimated at elevation 26 to 29. With a SHW table of 26, DA-1 will not influence groundwater. Even with a SHW table of 29, DA-1 will not influence the groundwater beyond the project's western boundary. DA-1 will not adversely affect offsite wetlands. A MODFLOW model was run to demonstrate the influence of DA-1 on nearby wetlands assuming that DA-1 would be controlled at elevation 21, that the groundwater elevation was 29, and that no cutoff wall or liner would be present. The model results demonstrated that the influence of DA-1 on groundwater would barely extend offsite. The current proposed elevation for DA-1 is 26, which is higher than the elevation used in the model and which would result in less influence on groundwater. The seasonal high water table in the area of DA-2 is 28.5 to 29.5. A cutoff wall is proposed to be installed around the western portion of DA-2 to prevent it from drawing down the water levels in the adjacent wetlands such that the wetlands would be adversely affected. The vertical cutoff wall will be constructed of clay and will extend from the land surface down to an existing horizontal layer of relatively impermeable soil called hardpan. The cutoff wall tied into the hardpan would act as a barrier to vertical and horizontal groundwater flow, essentially severing the flow. A MODFLOW model demonstrated that DA-2 with the cutoff wall will not draw down the adjacent wetlands. The blow counts shown on the boring logs and the permeability rates of soils at the proposed location of DA-2 indicate the presence of hardpan. The hardpan is present in the area of DA-2 at approximately 10 to 15 feet below the land surface. The thickness of the hardpan layer is at least 5 feet. The Ginns measured the permeability of hardpan in various locations on the project site. The cutoff wall design is based on tying into a hardpan layer with a permeability of 0.052 feet per day. Because permeability may vary across the project site, the District recommended a permit condition that would require a professional engineer to test for the presence and permeability of the hardpan along the length of the cutoff wall. If the hardpan is not continuous, or if its permeability is higher than 0.052 feet per day, then a liner will be required to be installed instead of a cutoff wall. The liner would be installed under the western third of DA-2, west of a north-south line connecting the easterly ends of the cutoff wall. (The location of the liner is indicated in yellow on Applicants' Exhibit 5B, sheet 8, and is described in District Exhibit 10.) The liner would be 2 feet thick and constructed of clay with a permeability of no more than 1 x 10-6 centimeters per second. A liner on a portion of the bottom of pond DA-2 will horizontally sever a portion of the pond bottom from the groundwater to negate the influence of DA-2 on groundwater in the area. A clay liner would function to prevent adverse drawdown impacts to adjacent wetlands. The project, with either a cutoff wall or a clay liner, will not result in a drawdown of the groundwater table such that adjacent wetlands would be adversely affected. Reduction and Elimination of Impacts The Ginns evaluated practicable design alternatives for eliminating the temporary impact to 0.18-acre of Wetland 1. The analysis indicated that routing the proposed utility services around the project site was possible but would require a lift station that would cost approximately $80,000 to $100,000. The impact avoided is a temporary impact; it is likely that the area to be impacted can be successfully reestablished and restored; and preservation of Wetland 1 is proposed to address lag-time for reestablishment. It was determined by the Ginns and District staff that the costs of avoidance outweigh the environmental benefits of avoidance. Petitioners put on evidence to question the validity of the Wetland 1 reduction/elimination analysis. First, Mr. Mills, who has experience installing sewer/water pipes, testified to his belief that a lift station would cost only approximately $50,000 to $60,000. He also pointed out that using a lift station and forced main method would make it approximately a third less expensive per linear foot to install the pipe line itself. This is because a gravity sewer, which would be required if a lift station and forced main is not used, must be laid at precise grades, making it is more difficult and costly to lay. However, Mr. Mills acknowledged that, due to the relatively narrow width of the right-of-way along Ravenswood Drive, it would be necessary to obtain a waiver of the usual requirement to separate the sewer and water lines by at least 10 feet. He thought that a five-foot separation waiver would be possible for his proposed alternative route if the "horizontal" separation was at least 18 inches. (It is not clear what Mr. Mills meant by "horizontal.") In addition, he did not analyze how the per-linear-foot cost savings from use of the lift station and forced main sewer would compare to the additional cost of the lift station, even if it is just $50,000 to $60,000, as he thinks. However, it would appear that his proposed alternative route is approximately three times as long as the route proposed by the Ginns, so that the total cost of laying the sewer pipeline itself would be approximately equal under either proposal. Mr. Mills's testimony also suggested that the Ginns did not account for the possible disturbance to the Ravenswood eagles if an emergency repair to the water/sewer is necessary during nesting season. While this is a possibility, it is speculative. There is no reason to think such emergency repairs will be necessary, at least during the approximately 20-year life expectancy of the water/sewer line. Practicable design modifications to avoid filling Wetland 4 also were evaluated. Not filling Wetland 4 would trigger St. Johns County wetland setback requirements that would eliminate three building lots, at a cost of $4,684 per lot. Meanwhile, the impacted wetland is small and of poor quality, and the filling of Wetland 4 can be offset by proposed mitigation. As a result, the costs of avoidance outweigh the environmental benefits of avoidance. Relying on ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1 the Ginns did not perform reduction/elimination analyses for Wetlands 2 and 6, and the District did not require them. As explained in testimony, the District interprets ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.1 to require a reduction/elimination analysis only when a project will result in adverse impacts such that it does not meet the requirements of ERP-A.H. 12.2.2 through 12.2.3.7 and 12.2.5 through 12.3.8. But ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1 does not require compliance with those sections for regulated activities in isolated wetlands less than one-half acre in size except in circumstances not applicable to this case: if they are used by threatened or endangered species; if they are located in an area of critical state concern; if they are connected at seasonal high water level to other wetlands; and if they are "more than minimal value," singularly or cumulatively, to fish and wildlife. See ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1(a) through (d). Under the District's interpretation of ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.1, since ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1 does not require compliance with the very sections that determine whether a reduction/elimination analysis is necessary under ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.1, such an analysis is not required for Wetlands 2 and 6. Relying on ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.2, a., the Ginns did not perform reduction/elimination analyses for Wetlands 3 and 7, and the District did not require them, because the functions provided by Wetlands 3 and 7 are "low" and the proposed mitigation to offset the impacts to these wetlands provides greater long-term value. Petitioners' environmental expert opined that an reduction/elimination analysis should have been performed for all of the wetlands on the project site, even if isolated and less than half an acre size, because all of the wetlands on the project site have ecological value. For example, small and isolated wetlands can be have value for amphibians, including the gopher frog. But his position does not square with the ERP- A.H., as reasonably interpreted by the District. Specifically, the tests are "more than minimal value" under ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1(d) and "low value" under ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.2, a. Secondary Impacts The impacts to the wetlands and other surface waters are not expected to result in adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, including endangered or threatened listed species or their habitats. In accordance with ERP-A.H. 12.2.7(a), the design incorporates upland preserved buffers with minimum widths of 15 feet and an average width of 25 feet around the wetlands that will not be impacted. Sediment and erosion control measures will assure that the construction will not have an adverse secondary impact on water quality. The proposed development will be served by central water and sewer provided by the City of St. Augustine, eliminating a potential for secondary impacts to water quality from residential septic tanks or septic drainfields. In order to provide additional measures to avoid secondary impacts to Wetland 1, which is the location of the bald eagles’ nest, the Applicants proposed additional protections in a Bald Eagle Management Plan (BEMP) (App. Ex. 14). Under the terms of the BEMP, all land clearing, infrastructure installation, and exterior construction on homes located within in the primary zone (a distance within 750 feet of the nest tree) is restricted to the non-nesting season (generally May 15 through September 30). In the secondary zone (area between 750 feet and 1500 feet from the nest tree), exterior construction, infrastructure installation, and land clearing may take place during the nesting season with appropriate monitoring as described in the BEMP. Proposed Mitigation The Ginns have proposed mitigation for the purpose of offsetting adverse impacts to wetland functions. They have proposed to provide mitigation for: the 0.18-acre temporary impact to Wetland 1 during installation of a water/sewer line extending from existing City of St. Augustine service to the east (at Theodore Street); the impacts to Wetlands 3, 4 and 7; and the secondary impacts to the offsite portion of Wetland 4. The Ginns propose to grade the 0.18-acre temporary impact area in Wetland 1 to pre-construction elevations, plant 72 trees, and monitor annually for 5 years to document success. Although the easement is 30 feet in width, work will be confined to 20 feet where vegetation will be cleared, the top 1 foot of soil removed and stored for replacing, the trench excavated, the utility lines installed, the trench refilled, the top foot replaced, the area replanted with native vegetation, and re- vegetation monitored. To facilitate success, the historic water regime and historic seed source will give the re-vegetation effort a jump-start. The Ginns propose to restore and enhance a 0.12-acre portion of Wetland 1 that has been degraded by a trail road. They will grade the area to match the elevations of adjacent wetland, plant 48 trees, and monitor annually for 5 years to document success. This is proposed to offset the impacts to Wetland 4. The proposed grading, replanting, and monitoring will allow the area to be enhanced causing an environmental benefit. The Ginns propose to preserve 10.58 acres of wetlands and 3.99 acres of uplands in Wetland 1, 1 acre of upland buffers adjacent to Wetlands 1 and 5, and the 0.01 acre wetland in Wetland 5. The upland buffer will be a minimum of 15 feet wide with an average of 25 feet wide for Wetland 1 and 25 feet wide for Wetland 5. A conservation easement will be conveyed to the District to preserve Wetlands 1 and 5, the upland buffers, and the wetland restoration and enhancement areas. The preservation of wetlands provides mitigation value because it provides perpetual protection by ensuring that development will not occur in those areas, as well as preventing activities that are unregulated from occurring there. This will allow the conserved lands to mature and provide more forage and habitat for the wildlife that would utilize those areas. Mitigation for Wetlands 2 and 6 was not provided because they are isolated wetlands less than 0.5-acre in size that are not used by threatened or endangered species; are not located in an area of critical state concern; are not connected at seasonal high water level to other wetlands; and are not more than minimal value, singularly or cumulatively, to fish and wildlife. As previously referenced in the explanation of why no reduction/elimination analysis was required for these wetlands, ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1(d) does not require compliance with under ERP- A.H. 12.3 through 12.3.8 (mitigation requirements) for regulated activities in isolated wetlands less than one-half acre in size except in circumstances found not to be present in this case. See Finding 44, supra. The cost of the proposed mitigation will be approximately $15,000. Operation and Maintenance A non-profit corporation that is a homeowners association (HOA) will be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the surface water management system. An HOA is a typical operation and maintenance entity for a subdivision and is an acceptable entity under District rules. See ERP-A.H. 7.1.1(e) and 7.1.2; Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C- 42.027(3) and (4). The Articles of Incorporation for the HOA and the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions contain the language required by District rules. Water Quantity To address water quantity criteria, the Applicants' engineers ran a model (AdICPR, Version 1.4) to compare the peak rate discharge from the project in the pre-project state versus the peak rate discharge after the project is put in place. The pre-project data input into the model were defined by those conditions that existed in 1985 or 1986, prior to the partial work that was conducted, but not completed, on the site in the late 1980's. The project’s 1985/1986 site condition included a feature called Depression A that attenuated some onsite as well as offsite stormwater. Because of work that was done on the project site after 1985/1986 (i.e., the excavation of the borrow pit and road-clearing activities in the late 1980's), the peak rate of discharge for the 1985/1986 project site condition was lower than the peak rate of discharge for today’s project site condition. (Flooding at Mrs. McMulkin's house began after the work was performed on the project site in the late 1980's.) Because this partial work conducted in the late 1980's increased peak rate discharge from the site, by taking the pre-project conditions back to the time prior to that work, the peak rate of discharge in the 1985-86 pre-project condition was lower than it would be under today's conditions. The model results indicated that for the 25-year, 24- hour storm event, the pre-project peak rate discharge is 61.44 cubic feet per second (cfs). The post-project peak rate discharge is 28.16 cfs. Because the completed project reduces the pre-project peak rate discharges, the project will not cause any adverse flooding impacts off the property downstream. A similar analysis of the peak rate discharges under pre-project conditions that exist today (rather than in 1986) was compared to peak rate discharges for the post-project conditions. This analysis also showed post-project peak rate discharges to be less than the peak rate discharges from the site using today’s conditions as pre-project conditions. As further support to demonstrate that the project would not cause additional flooding downstream, a second modeling analysis was conducted, which is referred to as the Ravenswood Overall Watershed Model (OWM). The Applicants' engineer identified water flowing into the system from the entire watershed basin, including the project site under both the pre- and post-project conditions. The water regime was evaluated to determine what effect the proposed project will have on the overall peak rate discharges, the overall staging, and the duration of the staging within the basin that ultimately receives the water from the overall watershed. This receiving basin area was defined as the "wetland node" (Node 98 pre- project, and Node 99 post-project). As previously stated, the area within this "wetland node" includes more than just the portion of Wetland 1 that is located on the Ravenswood site. It also includes the areas to the south and east of the on-site Wetland 1 (including properties owned by the Petitioners) and extends down to an east-west ditch located just north of Josiah Street. The project’s surface water management system will not discharge to a landlocked basin. The project is not located in a floodway or floodplain. The project is not located downstream of a point on a watercourse where the drainage is five square miles or more. The project is impounding water only for temporary storage purposes. Based on testimony from their experts, Petitioners contend that reasonable assurances have not been given as to water quantity criteria due to various alleged problems regarding the modeling performed by the Ginns' engineer. Tailwater Elevations First, they raise what they call "the tailwater problem." According to Petitioners, the Ginns' modeling was flawed because it did not use a 19.27-foot SHW elevation in Wetland 1 as the tailwater elevation. The 19.27-foot SHW was identified by the Ginns' biologist in the Wetland 1 near the location of the proposed utility line crossing the wetland and was used as the pre-development tailwater in the analysis of the project site. The post-development tailwater condition was different because constructing the project would change the discharge point, and "tailwater" refers to the water elevation at the final discharge of the stormwater management system. (SW- A.H., Section 9.7) The post-development tailwater was 21 feet, which reflects the elevation of the top of the spreader swale that will be constructed, and it rose to 21.3 feet at peak flow over that berm. For the OWM, the final discharge point of the system being modeled was the east-west ditch located just north of Josiah Street, where the tailwater elevation was approximately 18.1 feet, not the 19.27 feet SHW mark to the north in Wetland 1. The tailwater condition used in the modeling was correct. Petitioners also mention in their PRO that "the Applicants' analysis shows that, at certain times after the 25 year, 24 hour storm event, in the post development state, Wetland 1 will have higher staging than in the predevelopment state." But those stages are after peak flows have occurred and are below flood stages. This is not an expected result of post- development peak-flow attenuation. Watershed Criticism The second major criticism Petitioners level at the Applicants' modeling is that parts of the applicable watershed basins were omitted. These include basins to the west of the project site, as well as basins to the north of the site, which Petitioners lumped into the so-called "tailwater problem." Petitioners sought to show that the basins identified by the Ginns as draining onto the project site from the west were undersized, thus underestimating the amount of offsite water flowing onto the project site. With respect to Basin C, Petitioners' witness testified that the basin should be 60 acres instead of 30 acres in size, and that consequently more water would flow into pond DA-2 and thus reduce the residence time of the permanent pool volume. In fact, Basin C is 16 acres in size, not 30 acres. The water from Basin C moves onto the project site over the western project boundary. A portion of the water from Basin C will be directed to pond DA-2 through an inlet structure, and the rest will move over an irregular weir and around the project site. With respect to Basin D, Petitioners' witness testified that the basin should encompass an additional 20 acres to the west and north. West of Basin D, there are ditches routing water flow away from the watershed, so it is unclear how water from an additional 20 acres would enter the watershed. The western boundary of the OWM is consistent with the western boundaries delineated in two studies performed for St. Johns County. Petitioners' witness testified that all of the water from the western offsite basins currently travels across the project site's western boundary, and that in post-development all of that water will enter pond DA-2 through the inlet structure. In fact, currently only the water from Basin C flows across the project site's western boundary. Post-development, only a portion of water from Basin C will enter pond DA-2. Currently and post-development, the water in Basin D travels north to a ditch south of Ravenswood Drive and discharges into Wetland 1. Petitioners also sought to show that a 50-acre area north of the project site should have been included in the OWM. Petitioners' witness testified that there is a "strong possibility" that the northern area drains into the project site by means of overtopping Ravenswood Drive. The witness' estimate of 50 acres was based on review of topographical maps; the witness has not seen water flowing over Ravenswood Drive. The Ginns' engineer testified that the area north of Ravenswood Drive does not enter the project site, based on his review of two reports prepared by different engineering firms for St. Johns County, conversations with one of those engineering firms, conversations with the St. Johns County engineer, reviews of aerials and contour maps, and site observations. Based on site observations, the area north of the project site drains north and then east. One report prepared for St. Johns County did not include the northern area in the watershed, and the other report included an area to the north consisting of 12 acres. The Ginns' engineer added the 12-acre area to the OWM and assumed the existence of an unobstructed culvert through which this additional water could enter Wetland 1, but the model results showed no effect of the project on stages or duration in the wetland. Even if a 50-acre area were included in the OWM, the result would be an increase in both pre-development and post- development peak rates of discharge. So long as the post- development peak rate of discharge is lower than the pre- development peak rate of discharge, then the conveyance system downstream will experience a rate of water flow that is the same or lower than before the project, and the project will not cause adverse flooding impacts offsite. Petitioners' witness did not have any documents to support his version of the delineations of Basins C and D and the area north of Ravenswood Drive. Time of Concentration Time of concentration (TC) is the time that it takes a drop of water to travel from the hydraulically most distant point in a watershed. Petitioners sought to show that the TC used for Basin C was incorrect. Part of Petitioners' rationale is related to their criticism of the watersheds used in the Ginns' modeling. Petitioners' witness testified that the TC was too low because the distance traveled in Basin C should be longer because Basin C should be larger. The appropriateness of the Basin C delineation already has been addressed. See Finding 71, supra. Petitioners' witness also testified that the TC used for the post-development analysis was too high because water will travel faster after development. However, the project will not develop Basins C and D, and thus using the same TC in pre- development and post-development is appropriate. The project will develop Basins A and B (called Basins 1, 2, and 3 post- development), and the post-development TC for those basins were, in fact, lower than those used in the pre-development analysis. Groundwater Infiltration in DA-2 One witness for Petitioners opined that groundwater would move up through the bottom of DA-2 as a result of upwelling (also referred to as infiltration or seepage), such that 1,941 gallons per day (gpd) would enter DA-2. That witness agreed that if a liner were installed in a portion of DA-2, the liner would reduce upwelling in a portion of the pond. Another witness for Petitioners opined that 200 gpd of groundwater would enter the eastern part and 20,000 gpd would enter the western part of DA-2. Although that witness stated that upwelling of 200 gpd is not a significant input and that upwelling of 20,000 gpd is a significant input, he had not performed calculations to determine the significance. Even if more than 20,000 gpd of groundwater entered DA-2, DA-2 will provide sufficient permanent pool residence time without any change to the currently designed permanent pool size or the orifice size. Although part of one system, even if DA-2 is considered separate from DA-1, DA-2 is designed to provide an additional permanent pool volume of 6.57 acre-feet (in addition to the 20.5 acre/feet provided by DA-1). This 6.57 acre-feet provided by DA-2, is more than the 4.889 acre-feet of permanent pool volume that would be necessary to achieve a 21-day residence time for the 24+ acres that discharge directly into DA-2, as well as background seepage into DA-2 at a rate of 0.0403 cfs, which is more upwelling than estimated by Petitioners' two witnesses. There is adequate permanent pool volume in DA-2 to accommodate the entire flow from Basin C and for water entering through the pond bottom and pond sides and provide at least 21 days of residence time. Water Quality Criteria Presumptive Water Quality The stormwater system proposed by the Ginns is designed in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rules 40C-42.024, 40C-42.025, and 40C-42.026(4). Wet detention ponds must be designed for a permanent pool residence time of 14 days with a littoral zone, or for a residence time of 21 days without a littoral zone, which is the case for this project. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C-42.026(4)(c) and (d). DA-1 and DA-2 contain sufficient permanent pool volume to provide a residence time of 31.5 days, which is the amount of time required for projects that discharge to Class II Outstanding Florida Waters, even though the receiving waterbody for this project is classified as Class III Waters. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C-42.026(4)(k)1. Best management practices will be used during project construction to address erosion and sediment control. Such measures will include silt fences around the construction site, hay bales in ditches and inlets, and maintenance of construction equipment to prevent release of pollutants, and may include staked sod on banks and turbidity barriers if needed. In addition, the District proposed permit conditions that require erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented. (Dist. Ex. 1, pp. 8-9, #4; Dist. Ex. 2, p. 1, ##3, 4, and 5, and p. 6, #10). ERP/MSSW/Stormwater Special Conditions incorporated into the proposed permit require that all wetland areas or water bodies outside the specific limits of construction must be protected from erosion, siltation, scouring or excess turbidity, and dewatering. (Dist. Ex. 2). The District also proposed a permit condition that requires District approval of a dewatering plan for construction, including DA-1 and DA-2, within 30 days of permit issuance and prior to construction. The Ginns intend to retain the dewatering from construction on the project site. As previously described, Petitioners' engineering witness sought to show that DA-2 will not provide the required permanent pool residence time because Basin C should be 60 acres in size. Petitioners' environmental witness also expressed concern about the capacity of the ponds to provide the water quality treatment required to meet the presumptive water quality criteria in the rules, but those concerns were based on information he obtained from Petitioners' engineering witness. Those issues already have been addressed. See Findings 77-78, supra. Groundwater Contamination Besides those issues, Petitioners raised the issue that groundwater contamination from a former landfill nearby and from some onsite sludge and trash disposal could be drawn into the proposed stormwater management system and cause water quality violations in the receiving waters. If groundwater is contaminated, the surface water management system could allow groundwater to become surface water in proposed DA-1. St. Johns County operated a landfill from the mid-1950s to 1977 in an area northwest of the project site. The landfill accepted household and industrial waste, which was buried in groundwater, which in turn could greatly enhance the creation of leachate and impacted water. Groundwater flows from west to east in the vicinity of the landfill and the project site but there was conflicting evidence as to a minor portion of the property. The Ginns' witness testified that if the landfill extended far enough south, a small part of the project site could be downgradient from the landfill. But there was no evidence that the landfill extended that far south. Petitioners' witness testified that the groundwater flow varies on the south side of the landfill so that groundwater might flow southeast toward the site. Even if Petitioners' witness is correct, the surface water management system was designed, as Petitioners' other witness agreed, so that DA-1 would have minimal influence on groundwater near the pond. In 1989, sewage sludge and garbage were placed in a pit in the central part of the project site, north of the existing pond, which also is the area for proposed DA-1; and at various times refuse--including a couple of batteries, a few sealed buckets, and concrete--has been placed on the surface of the site. In 1989, to determine the amount of sewage and garbage on the project site, the St. Johns County Health Department chose several locations evidencing recent excavation south of Ravenswood Drive, had the areas re-excavated, and found one bag of garbage and debris such as tree stumps and palmettos. In 2001, an empty 55-gallon drum was on the site; there was no evidence what it once contained or what it contained when deposited onsite, if anything. In addition, trespassers dumped solid waste on the property from time to time. Petitioners' witness searched the site with a magnetometer and found nothing significant. On the same day, another of Petitioners’ witnesses sampled with an auger but the auger did not bore for core or any other type sample; it merely measured groundwater level. In 1985, 1999, and 2000, groundwater offsite of the project near the landfill was sampled at various times and places by various consultants to determine whether groundwater was being contaminated by the landfill. The groundwater sampling did not detect any violations of water quality standards. Consultants for the Ginns twice sampled groundwater beneath the project site and also modeled contaminant migration. The first time, in 2001, they used three wells to sample the site in the northwest for potential impacts to the property from the landfill. The second time, they sampled the site through cluster wells in the northwest, middle, and south. (Each cluster well samples in a shallow and in a deeper location.) The well locations were closest to the offsite landfill and within an area where refuse may have been buried in the north- central part of the site. Due to natural processes since 1989, no sewage sludge deposited onsite then would be expected to remain on the surface or be found in the groundwater. The evidence was that the sewage sludge and garbage were excavated. Although samples taken near the center of the property contained substances that are water quality parameters, they were not found in sufficient concentration to be water quality violations. There is an iron stain in the sand north of the existing pond in the area where pond DA-1 is to be located. Based on dissolved oxygen levels in the groundwater, Petitioners' witness suggested that the stain is due to buried sewage, but the oxygen levels are not in violation of water quality standards and, while toward the low end of not being a violation, the levels could be due to natural causes. No evidence was presented establishing that the presence of the iron stain will lead to a violation of water quality standards. Petitioners' witness, Mr. Boyes, testified that iron was a health concern. But iron itself is a secondary drinking water standard, which is not a health-based standard but pertains to odor and appearance of drinking water. See § 403.852(12) and (13), Fla. Stat. Petitioners argued that the Phase I study was defective because historical activity on the project site was not adequately addressed. But the Phase I study was only part of the evidence considered during this de novo hearing. Following up on the Phase I study, the 2001 sampling analyzed for 68 volatile organics and 72 semi-volatile organics, which would have picked up solvents, some pesticides, petroleum hydrocarbons, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons--the full range of semi-volatile and volatile organics. The sampling in August 2003 occurred because some of the semi-volatile parameters sampled earlier needed to be more precisely measured, and it was a much broader analysis that included 63 semi-volatiles, 73 volatile organic compounds, 23 polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, 25 organic phosphate pesticides, 13 chlorinated herbicides, 13 metals, and ammonia and phosphorus. The parameters for which sampling and analyses were done included parameters that were representative of contaminants in landfills that would have now spread to the project site. They also would have detected any contamination due to historical activity on the project site. Yet groundwater testing demonstrated that existing groundwater at the project site meets state water quality standards. Based on the lack of contaminants found in these samples taken from groundwater at the project site 50 years after the landfill began operation, the logical conclusion is that either groundwater does not flow from the landfill toward the project site or that the groundwater moving away from the landfill is not contaminated. Groundwater that may enter the stormwater ponds will not contain contaminants that will exceed surface water quality standards or groundwater quality standards. Taken together, the evidence was adequate to give reasonable assurances that groundwater entering the stormwater ponds will not contain contaminants that exceed surface water quality standards or groundwater quality standards and that water quality violations would not occur from contaminated water groundwater drawn into the proposed stormwater management system, whether from the old landfill or from onsite waste disposal. The greater weight of the evidence was that there are no violations of water quality standards in groundwater beneath the project site and that nothing has happened on the site that would cause violations to occur in the future. Contrary to Petitioners' suggestion, a permit condition requiring continued monitoring for onsite contamination is not warranted. J. Fish and Wildlife Except for the bald eagle nest, all issues regarding fish and wildlife, listed species, and their habitat as they relate to ERP-A.H. 12.2.2 through 12.2.2.4 already have been addressed. When the Ginns were made aware in November 2003 that there was an eagle nest in Wetland 1, they retained the services of Tony Steffer, an eagle expert with over 25 years of experience working specifically with eagles and eagle management issues, including extensive hands-on experience with eagles and the conduct of field studies, aerial surveys, and behavioral observations as well as numerous research projects on the bald eagle. Mr. Steffer visited the Ravenswood site on numerous occasions since the discovery of the nest, made observations, and was integral in the drafting of the Ravenswood BEMP. It is Mr. Steffer’s opinion that the proposed project, with the implementation of the BEMP, will not adversely affect the eagles. This opinion was based on Mr. Steffer's extensive knowledge and experience with eagle behavior and human interactions. In addition, Mr. Steffer considered the physical characteristics of the Ravenswood site and the nest tree, the dense vegetation in Wetland 1 surrounding the nest site, and the existing surrounding land uses, including the existing residential community that lies a distance of about 310 feet from the nest site, the existing roadways and associated traffic, and the school (with attendant playground noise) that is to north of the site. In Mr. Steffer's opinion, the eagles are deriving their security from the buffering effects provided by the surrounding wetland. He observed that the nesting and incubating eagles were not disturbed when he set up his scope at about 300-320 feet from the tree. The BEMP requires that Wetland 1, and the upland islands located within it, be preserved and limits the work associated with the water/sewer line to the non-nesting season. With the BEMP implemented, Mr. Steffer expressed confidence that the Ravenswood eagles would be able to tolerate the proposed activities allowed under the BEMP. The Ravenswood project plans and the BEMP were reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The USFWS analyzed information in their files relating to projects which proposed activities within the primary zone of an eagle nest and reported abandoned nests. None of the reported abandoned nests could be attributed to human activities in and around the nest tree. Based on the project plans, the terms of the BEMP, and this analysis, the USFWS concluded that the Ravenswood project "is not likely to adversely affect" the bald eagles at the Ravenswood site. According to the coordination procedures agreed to and employed by the USFWS and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), the USFWS takes the lead in reviewing bald eagle issues associated with development projects. In accordance with these procedures, for the Ravenswood project, the USFWS coordinated their review and their draft comments with the FFWCC. The FFWCC concurred with the USFWS’s position that the project, with the implementation of the BEMP, will not adversely affect the Ravenswood eagles or their nest. This position by both agencies is consistent with the expert testimony of Mr. Don Palmer, which was based on his 29 years of experience with the USFWS in bald eagle and human interactions. Petitioners and their witnesses raised several valid concerns regarding the continued viability of the Ravenswood eagle nest during and after implementation of the proposed project. One concern expressed was that parts of the Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region (Eagle Management Guidelines) seem inconsistent with the proposed project. For example, the Eagle Management Guidelines state: "The emphasis [of the guidelines] is to avoid or minimize detrimental human-related impacts on bald eagles, particularly during the nesting season." They also state that the primary zone, which in this case is the area within a 750 foot radius of the nest tree, is "the most critical area and must be maintained to promote acceptable conditions for eagles." They recommend no residential development within the primary zone "at any time." (Emphasis in original.) They also recommend no major activities such as land clearing and construction in the secondary zone during the nesting season because "[e]ven intermittent use or activities [of that kind] of short duration during nesting are likely to constitute disturbance." But the eagle experts explained that the Eagle Management Guidelines have not been updated since 1987, and it has been learned since then that eagles can tolerate more disturbance than was thought at that time. Another concern was that the Ravenswood eagles may have chosen the nest site in Wetland 1 not only for its insulation from existing development to the north and east but also for the relatively sparse development to the west. Along those lines, it was not clear from the evidence that the eagles are used to flying over developed land to forage on the San Sebastian River and its estuaries to the east, as the eagle experts seemed to believe. Mr. Mills testified that eagles have been seen foraging around stocked fish ponds to the west, which also could be the source of catfish bones found beneath the Ravenswood nest. But it is believed that the confident testimony of the eagle experts must be accepted and credited notwithstanding Petitioners' unspecific concerns along these lines. Finally, Petitioners expressed concern about the effectiveness of the monitoring during the nesting required under the BEMP. Some of Petitioners' witnesses related less-than-perfect experiences with eagle monitoring, including malfeasance (monitors sleeping instead of monitoring), unresponsive developers (ignoring monitors' requests to stop work because of signs of eagle disturbance, or delaying work stoppage), and indications that some eagle monitors may lack independence from the hiring developer (giving rise, in a worst case, to the question whether an illegal conspiracy exists between them to ignore signs of disturbance when no independent observer is around). Notwithstanding these concerns, Petitioners' witnesses conceded that eagle monitoring can be and is sometimes effective. If Mr. Steffer is retained as the eagle monitor for this project, or to recruit and train eagle monitors to work under his supervision, there is no reason to think that eagle monitoring in this case will not be conducted in good faith and effectively. Even if the Ginns do not retain Mr. Steffer for those purposes, the evidence did not suggest a valid reason to assume that the Ginns' proposed eagle monitoring will not be conducted in good faith and effectively. K. Other 40C-4.301 Criteria – 40C-4.301(1)(g)-(k) 40C-4.301.301(1)(g) - No minimum surface or groundwater levels or surface water flows have been established pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rules Chapter 40C-8 in the area of the project. 40C-4.301.301(1)(h) - There are no works of the District in the area of the project. 40C-4.301.301(1)(i) - The proposed wet detention system is typical and is based on accepted engineering practices. Wet detention systems are one of the most easily maintained stormwater management systems and require very little maintenance, just periodically checking the outfall structure for clogging. 40C-4.301.301(1)(j) - The Ginns own the property where the project is located free from mortgages and liens. As previously indicated, they will establish an operation and maintenance entity. The cost of mitigation is less than $25,000 so that financial responsibility for mitigation was not required to be established. (Costs associated with the proposed BEMP are not included as part of the Ginns' mitigation proposal.) 40C-4.301.301(1)(k) - The project is not located in a basin subject to special criteria. Public Interest Test in 40C-4.302 The seven-factor public interest test is a balancing test. The test applies to the parts of the project that are in, on, or over wetlands, and those parts must not be contrary to the public interest unless they are located in, on, or over an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) or significantly degrade an OFW, in which case the project must be clearly in the public interest. No part of the project is located within an OFW. Balancing the public interest test factors, the project will not be contrary to the public interest. 40C-4.302(1)(a)1. - The project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others because the surface water management system is designed in accordance with District criteria, the post-development peak rate of discharge is less than the pre-development peak rate of discharge, and the project will not cause flooding to offsite properties. 40C-4.302(1)(a)2. - Mitigation will offset any adverse impacts of the project to the conservation of fish and wildlife or their habitats, and the BEMP is designed to prevent adverse effects on the Ravenswood eagles. Although active gopher tortoise burrows were observed on the site, the impacts to these burrows are addressed by the FFWCC’s incidental take permit. The mitigation that is required as part of that permit will adequately offset the impacts to this species. 40C-4.302(1)(a)3. - The project will not adversely affect navigation or cause harmful shoaling. The project will not adversely affect the flow of water or cause harmful erosion. The project's design includes erosion and sediment control measures. The project's design minimizes flow velocities by including flat slopes for pipes. The stormwater will be discharged through an upsized pipe, which will reduce the velocity of the water. The stormwater will discharge into a spreader swale (also called a velocity attenuation pond), which will further reduce the velocity and will prevent erosion in Wetland 1. The other findings of fact relevant to this criterion are in the section entitled "Water Quantity." See Findings 61-67, supra. 40C-4.302(1)(a)4. – Development of the project will not adversely affect the legal recreational use of the project site. (Illegal use by trespassers should not be considered under this criterion.) There also will not be any adverse impact on recreational use in the vicinity of the project site. Wetlands 1 and 5 may provide benefit to marine productivity by supplying detritus to the marine habitat, and these wetlands will remain. 40C-4.302(1)(a)5. - The project will be of a permanent nature except for the temporary impacts to Wetland 1. Mitigation will offset the temporary adverse impacts. 40C-4.302(1)(a)6. - The District found no archeological or historical resources on the site, and the District received information from the Division of Historical Resources indicating there would be no adverse impacts from this project to significant historical or archeological resources. 40C-4.302(1)(a)7. - Considering the mitigation proposal, and the proposed BEMP, there will be no adverse effects on the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed project. The proposed project is no worse than neutral measured against any one of these criteria, individually. For that reason, it must be determined that, on balance, consideration these factors indicates that the project is not contrary to the public interest. Other 40C-4.302 Criteria The proposed mitigation is located within the same drainage basin as the project and offsets the adverse impacts so the project would not cause an unacceptable cumulative impact. The project is not located in or near Class II waters. The project does not contain seawalls and is not located in an estuary or lagoon. The District reviewed a dredge and fill violation that occurred on the project site and was handled by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in 1989. The Ginns owned the property with others in 1989. Although they did not conduct the activity that caused the violation, they took responsibility for resolving the matter in a timely manner through entry of a Consent Order. The evidence was that they complied with the terms of the Consent Order. Applicants' Exhibit 30K was a letter from DER dated February 13, 1991, verifying compliance based on a site inspection. Inexplicably, the file reference number did not match the number on the Consent Order. But Mr. Ginn testified that he has heard nothing since concerning the matter either from DER, or its successor agency (the Department of Environmental Protection), or from the District. The evidence was that the Ginns have not violated any rules described in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40C- 4.302(2). There also was no evidence of any other DER or DEP violations after 1989.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order issuing to Jay and Linda Ginn ERP number 40-109-81153-1, subject to the conditions set forth in District Exhibits 1, 2, and 10. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 2004.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department was the state agency responsible for the regulation and issuance of dredge and fill permits for waters of the state. Hunt is a real property development company which owns the property in issue located contiguous to Sarasota Bay on the east and an artificial canal, dredged many years ago, located to the south. The property in issue includes submerged lands. Petitioners, Manasota and Manatee are environmental interest associations whose standing as parties hereto was stipulated to by Hunt and the Department. The Rosens are owners of a piece of land at the bayward end of the property located to the south of the artificial canal to the south of the property in issue. On September 2, 1988, Hunt applied to the Department for a dredge and fill permit to construct a dock system four feet wide and approximately one thousand feet in length along the northern edge of the artificial canal. Four access walkways would extend from the existing berm to the north out to the proposed dock. The request also sought permission to trim mangroves to facilitate construction of and provide access to the dock; to place 22 cubic yards of fill to stabilize an existing private road; and to relocate the existing access channel by dredging approximately 700 cubic yards of material. Petitioners do not object to the placement of the 22 cubic yards of fill. During the review process, the Department identified several deficiencies in the proposal which it required be modified before a permit could be issued. Hunt agreed to comply with all of the Department's modifying requirements. As a result, in its amended form the proposal calls for the dock to be reduced in size from 5,080 square feet to approximately 3,800 square feet; access points to be reduced from four to three; the installation of a flushing system consisting of a 30 inch culvert between the west end of the canal and the mangrove swamp to the north to enhance the water quality in the artificial canal; the submittal of historical information to demonstrate the existence of a historic canal which would support maintenance dredging; and the submittal of a mitigation proposal for the seagrasses which would be destroyed by the dredging of a new channel and for the mangroves to be trimmed to facilitate the dock construction. The revised application also sought permission to construct a previously approved (different permit) boardwalk, the mitigation for which has been completed and is apparently successful. This mitigation is located in the northern boundary of the Hunt property. The wetlands area adjacent to Hunt's north property line is a Class II, Outstanding Florida Water, (OFW). The property in issue is located contiguous to Sarasota Bay, a Class II water body designated as an OFW). This portion of the bay is not approved for shellfish harvesting. Sometime between 1951 and 1957, a channel was dredged from the Intracoastal Waterway running generally north and south in the bay, west across approximately 400 feet of bay bottom into what was then a mangrove forest on the east side of Longboat Key. The westernmost 1400 foot extension of that channel into the forest is the artificial canal in issue which receives untreated storm water runoff from Jungle Queen Way, the roadway to the south of the canal. The canal is a Class III water and is not an OFW. Approximately 1,225 feet of the southern shoreline of that canal is seawalled, with approximately 35% of the southern shoreline having mature mangrove trees along it. The entire northern shoreline is vegetated by mature mangrove trees. There is no seawall on the northern shore. The canal varies in depth from less than one foot at points to a maximum of 7 1/2 feet at other points. As a result of shoaling at the canal juncture with the bay, a sand spit has formed, and at low tide, water depth is minimal but allows the passage of shallow draft vessels if their motors are raised. The original channel has silted in to a great degree and has become vegetated by approximately 1,350 square feet of various shoal grasses. It is home to several species of water animal including crown conch, lightning whelk, venus sunray clams, jingle shell, banded tulip snail and common nassa snail as well as supporting a diverse and abundant group of bottom dwelling organisms. The grass beds are fish habitats as well as nursery and feeding grounds and fish species present include some important to commercial and sport fishing. Though the remains of the original channel are often indistinct and difficult to define, the Department, in its analysis of the application for permit, determined from a review of the documentary evidence presented , and it is also found here, that a historic channel exists as described, and is navigable at least fifty percent of the time. As such, the Department concluded that that channel qualified for the maintenance dredge exemption. The Department also concluded that a minimum amount of dredging would be required to clear the historic channel sufficiently to allow boats to utilize it during a full range of tidal conditions. The seagrass beds currently existing in the historic channel would be substantially damaged by a maintenance dredging in the area. Though the Department has no authority to require mitigation for this impact should Hunt exercised its right to maintenance dredge, as an alternative, Hunt proposed to dredge a hook shaped channel curving to the north around that portion of the historic channel which penetrates the grass beds. This alternative site is also located in Class II waters and an Outstanding Florida Water. Dredging at the alternative site would displace much the same amount of material, (approximately 700 cubic yards), and the resultant channel would be approximately the same length, width, and depth overall. The alternative site will cross an area which contains a shoal grass, Cuban Shoalweed, but utilization of this site will have a substantially lesser impact to the overall seagrass population than would dredging of the historic channel. If Hunt chooses to utilize the alternative route, it would have to comply with the Department's mitigation requirements which include transplanting the displaced grass from the alternative channel to another location. The conditions for the mitigation were developed by Department personnel in conjunction with the Department of Natural Resources whose personnel have agreed to participate in the transplantation. Hunt has agreed to undertake additional mitigation planting regardless of whether the transplant is successful. The Department has determined that Hunt's total mitigation program is sufficient to offset the adverse impacts of the proposed dredging. Any sea grasses in the area of the channel will be protected by the installation of signs indicating their location. Speed will be limited by the installation of "No Wake" zone signs, and, in addition, the natural dog-leg in the channel should minimize the impact to adjacent shorelines and reduce the potential for shoaling or erosion. The Department gathered water quality data for the area from 1988. This is consistent with the current statutory and rule criteria which permits the use of data existing in the year prior to application. To supplement this, however, the Department also required that Hunt submit water quality data for the actual project site as a part of the application process. From this input, existing ambient water quality standards were established. To insure that these existing ambient water quality standards within the OFW are maintained during construction, the Department has established a mixing zone and has indicated a requirement for the use of double turbidity curtains. Additional safeguards include limiting dredging to periods of low tide. The Department has concluded that these prosthetic activities will most likely result in maintenance of the water quality standards required for Class II and OFW. Any diminishment of those standards would be of limited duration. The Department was also satisfied that the project would not adversely impact in this area after construction was completed and the facility in operation. In support of this position, the Department relied on evidence tending to show that the design of a culvert proposed for incorporation into the project should significantly improve flushing of the water within the canal. Pollutant loading to the system should be reduced as a result of the biological filtration of the mangrove community which will absorb many of the excess nutrients currently in the canal water, and the removal of suspended solids. Expert evidence on the subject indicates that flushing time, currently estimated at 9 days, will be reduced to less than 4 days. Polluting activities, such as fueling facilities, live-aboards, and major repair and maintenance of boats in the canal will be prohibited. Any pollutants not removed by the natural filtration process described above will, therefore, remain in the canal water for less time than before. If vessels are docked in the canal, the minimal amount of resulting oil and grease pollution should not be sufficient to degrade water quality in either the canal or the bay to a point below acceptable established standards. In fact, such impact should be both non-detectable and non-measurable.. Hunt's plan calls for the removal of approximately 20 of the approximately 2,400 mangrove trees and the trimming of approximately 230 additional ones. Though this trimming, as a part of an exempt activity, is also exempt, and as a result, mitigation in not required, Hunt indicates its intention to plant 3 trees for every tree removed or trimmed, and this proposal, considered acceptable to the Department, has been incorporated as one of the permit conditions. The new mangrove area to be planted in mitigation should be fully established within 3 years of planting and will provide the same beneficial function as the replaced trees. Hunt's mitigation planting for the previously mentioned boardwalk project has been successful. To protect the manatee population as much as possible, the Department has also included conditions to the permit requiring the posting of manatee awareness signs along the canal and channel and the installation of a permanent informational display at the facility. These measures, though no guarantee of compliance by individual boaters, are currently the most effective safeguards short of prohibition of boat activity. The Department has concluded, and it is so found, that, considering the proposed project against the statutory criteria relating to dredge and fill permitting of this nature, the project, as conditioned, is in the public interest and would have no cumulative impact on the environment in the area. When the 36 special conditions attached to the permit by the Department are complied with, the effect on fish and wildlife resources in the area should be beneficial. As a result of the mitigation activities, both mangrove and seagrass populations should be increased and the shoreline enhanced. Water quality in the canal should be significantly improved above existing conditions, and the abandonment of the historic maintenance dredging operation, with its associated impacts, is clearly in the public interest. The incorporation of a permit condition precluding any subsequent maintenance dredging in the historic channel upon completion of the relocation is a safeguard clearly in the public interest. The evidence also indicates, supporting Departmental findings to that effect, that the project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare or property of others; nor will it adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, endangered, threatened or other. It will not adversely affect navigation or flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. It will not adversely affect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the area; nor will it endanger significant historical or archaeological resources which exist currently in the area.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case granting a Dredge and Fill permit to Hunt Building Corporation consistent with the terms and conditions outlined in the Department's Intent to Issue, dated March 29, 1990, under file NO. 41-1542543. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASES NO. 90-2350 & 90-2736 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR PETITIONERS, MANASOTA AND MANATEE: 1. Accepted. 2(a) - (e). Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Accepted. - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 22. Not appropriate Findings of Fact. Should be in Conclusions of Law. 23. - 26. Rejected. 27. - 30. Accepted and incorporated herein. 31. - 33. Accepted. Accepted except for last clause. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the state of the evidence. Rejected. Not proven. Not a proper Finding of Fact and not supported by authority. Accepted and incorporated herein except that the canal is a Class III water body. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. Rejected. Accepted. Accepted but not determinative of any issue of fact or law. Ultimate Fact. Rejected. FOR RESPONDENT HUNT Accepted and incorporated herein. & 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4. & 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. & 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8. - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. & 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. Repetitive information. 14-1 & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 28. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT: 1. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. 23. & 24. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 31. Accepted and incorporated herein. 32. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Martin Rosen 672 Jungle Queen Way Longboat Key, Florida 34228 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 123 Eighth Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Patricia Petruff, Esquire John V. Quinlan, Esquire Dye & Scott, P.A. P.O. Box 9480 Bradenton, Florida 33506 Cecile I. Ross, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel DER 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue Whether Rules 40E-400.315(f) and 40E-4.301(f), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 4.1.1(f) and 4.2.7(a)-(d), Basis of Review Handbook for Environmental Resource Permit Application, are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), is a public corporation existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and operating 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. Petitioner, Royal Palm Beach Colony, L.P. (Royal Palm), owns three lots in Unit 11 of the Indian Trail Improvement District, located in northwest Palm Beach County, Florida. Intervenor 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc., is a not-for- profit, tax exempt membership corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. By letter dated March 19, 1998, Royal Palm notified SFWMD that Royal Palm was entitled to No Notice General Permits for Activities in Uplands (NNGP) for three of the lots which it owns in Unit 11, Lots 61, 245, and 247. Royal Palm intends to build one single-family home on each of the lots. The proposed development of the lots would include individual septic tanks and stormwater retention ponds. By letter dated April 9, 1998, SFWMD informed Royal Palm that SFWMD staff had determined that the three lots do not qualify for no-notice general permits for single family home construction. As part of the basis for denial of the NNGPs, the April 9, 1998, letter stated: Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that the proposed system or project is not part of a larger common plan of development. See Rule 40E-400.315(1)(f), Fla. Admin. Code. Royal Palm Beach Colony is the owner of approximately 170 lots within Unit 11 of the Indian Trail Improvement District, and the three proposed lots appear to be merely part of this large common plan of development. As an additional basis for denial, the April 9 letter stated: Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, including, but not limited to, significant interference with the construction and operation of a regional stormwater system needed for adequate flood protection and stormwater treatment in the Unit 11 area. See Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f), Fla. Admin. Code. Royal Palm filed a Petition for Administrative Determination of the Invalidity of the above-cited rules, Rule 40E-400.315(1)(f) and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code. Also being challenged are those portions of SFWMD's "Basis of Review Handbook for Environmental Resource Permit Applications" (BOR), which discuss secondary impacts, Sections 4.1.1(f) and 4.2.7(a)-(d). SFWMD's Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) program has four different types of permits: NNGPs, noticed general permits, standard general permits, and individual permits. The permits are grouped according to degree of potential impact and, correspondingly, according to degree of regulatory review. NNGPs are for very minor activities that have no potential to cause adverse impacts or harm to water resources provided that the criteria in the rule are met. A NNGP typically receives no review by SFWMD staff. An applicant reviews the criteria, and if the proposed project meets the criteria the project may be undertaken without notification to or approval by SFWMD. The degree of regulatory review for water management systems that do not qualify for NNGPs will vary. A system that qualifies for a noticed general permit pursuant to Rule 40E-400, Subpart C, Florida Administrative Code, will be reviewed within 30 days of receipt of notice, and if the criteria listed in the general permit rule are met it is presumed that the project meets all SFWMD's standards and is permittable. If the system does not fit within a noticed general permit and if the proposed system is less than 100 acres total size or has less than one acre of wetland impact, the project will be reviewed as a standard general permit pursuant to Rule 40E-40, Florida Administrative Code. Standard general permits are reviewed and issued by SFWMD staff, and unlike the noticed general permits, there are no presumptions that if certain limited criteria are met that all the SFWMD standards are met. The proposed project is reviewed to determine if reasonable assurances have been provided that all standards have been met. Finally, if a proposed water management system is greater than 100 acres or entails more than one acre of filled wetlands, an individual environmental resource permit is required. As with standard general permits, these applications are reviewed to determine if the applicant has provided reasonable assurance that all SFWMD standards are met. Individual environmental resource permits require permit authorization from SFWMD's governing board. Unlike the noticed general, the standard general, and the individual environmental resource permits, the NNGP does not require any regulatory review. An individual minor system fitting within the specific criteria for a NNGP can proceed with the activity without noticing SFWMD. Such a permit is very similar to an exemption from the permitting requirements. The use of a NNGP was not intended for approval of water management systems that contain shared or common water management facilities, such as a common drainage system for a housing development. Such systems require regulatory review to ensure that the system does not cause adverse water quality, water quantity, or environmental impacts. To allow a series of individual projects to have authorization to proceed under a NNGP, when together they are part of a larger common plan of development or sale, cumulatively would have a significant adverse impact to flood protection and environmental protection. Such master systems are to have regulatory review under one of the other three SFWMD permits. Thus, the requirement that a project permitted pursuant to a NNGP not be part of a larger common development or sale was placed in Rule 40E-400.315(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code. Without such a requirement, it would be possible to development a larger system without regulatory review by permitting individual systems within the larger system using a NNGP. The term "not part of a larger common plan of development or sale" contained in Rule 40E-400.315(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, originated in Section 403.813(2)(q), Florida Statutes, which contains exemptions from permitting under Chapter 373, Florida Statues. In developing Rule 40E-400.315(1)(f), SFWMD did not further define the term because the plain meaning of the term was deemed adequate, as it was by the Florida Legislature when it did not define the same term in Section 403.813(2)(q). The plain meaning of the term is consistent with SFWMD's regulatory scheme for permitting water management systems. The most minimal permit authorization, the NNGP, should not authorize projects that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale because the larger projects are more likely to have larger water resource impacts. Interpretations of the term "part of a larger common plan of development" by staff from SFWMD are consistent. The interpretations indicate that the individual project and the larger master plan have shared or common water management systems. The focus is on whether common infrastructure would be needed to carry out the individual project. In its permitting program, SFWMD looks at all adverse impacts to water resources, whether direct, secondary, or cumulative. When evaluating secondary impacts, SFWMD looks for the same adverse impacts on water resources that it would for direct impacts, such as adverse impacts on the functions of wetlands or surface waters or adverse impacts on water quality. SFWMD interprets a secondary impact as some impact, other than a direct impact in the footprint of the proposed project, which is closely linked and causally tied to proposed activity to be permitted. Section 4.2.7, BOR sets guidelines for how SFWMD considers secondary impacts from water management systems. In developing Section 4.2.7, SFWMD applied existing case law concerning secondary impacts. Section 4.2.7(a), BOR, regulates construction, alteration, and reasonably expected uses of a proposed system so that the functions of wetlands to fish and wildlife and listed species are protected from adverse impacts caused by activities in adjacent uplands. Such secondary impacts may result, for example, from disturbance during adjacent upland construction or disturbance due to the close proximity of human habitation to a wetland where none previously existed. Section 4.2.7(a), BOR, gives examples of secondary impacts, and provides a mechanism in the form of a buffer that creates a presumption that provides reasonable assurance that secondary impacts to habitat functions of wetlands will not be adverse, assuming a wetland is not being used by a listed species for nesting, denning, or significant feeding habitat. Section 4.2.7(b), BOR, protects existing upland nesting or denning sites of listed aquatic or wetland dependent species and the adjacent uplands which are necessary to enable these nests or dens to be used successfully by such species. Section 4.2.7(c), BOR, looks at potential adverse secondary impacts to significant historical and archeological resources. The intent of the section is to allow consideration of secondary impacts of a project that may have a very minor impact from construction, but more serious implications once in operation. For example, a water control structure that may have a footprint of only a tenth of an acre may result in greater water velocities that would harm submerged archeological resources. Section 4.2.7(d), BOR, considers specific water resource impacts from future project phases and activities that will be very closely linked and causally related to the proposed system. This section seeks to prevent future impacts that may be necessitated by a proposed project design. As part of the analysis, SFWMD will consider the impacts of the intended or reasonably expected uses of future activities on water quality and wetland and other surface water functions.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the Respondents, Florida Department of Transportation (“FDOT”) and Palm Beach County (also referred to as “the Applicants”), are entitled to the issuance of an Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) to construct an extension of State Road 7 (“SR 7”) and its associated surface water management system in Palm Beach County.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The City is a municipality incorporated under Florida law. The District is a regional agency with the authority to regulate the construction, operation, and maintenance of any surface water management system pursuant to chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Titles 40E and 62. FDOT is an agency of the state of Florida charged with the establishment, maintenance, and regulation of public transportation. It is a co-applicant for the ERP permit. Palm Beach County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and is a co-applicant for the ERP permit. Background State Road 7 Extension The ERP was issued by the District for an 8.5-mile extension of SR 7 between Okeechobee Boulevard and Northlake Boulevard in Palm Beach County. The purpose of the proposed roadway is to relieve traffic now moving through rural residential areas and two large residential developments known as The Acreage and Jupiter Farms. The proposed roadway would also improve hurricane evacuation by providing additional capacity and connectivity, and reduce emergency response time in the rural residential areas. The proposed roadway alignment was selected by FDOT after a multiyear corridor study under a National Environmental Protection Policy Act process. Four corridors were considered using federal selection criteria that addressed social, environmental, property, physical, and financial impacts. There are two segments of the proposed roadway covered by the ERP. The southern segment would add two more lanes to the existing two-lanes of SR 7 from Okeechobee Boulevard North to 60th Street North, just south of the M-Canal. This segment is 4.4 miles long. The southern segment is not at issue in this case. The northern segment would extend four lanes of SR 7 east from 60th Street North about one mile, and then north 3.1 miles to Northlake Boulevard. This is the roadway segment challenged by Petitioner. Hereafter, all references to “the Project” are to the northern segment. The Project includes a raised roadway, median, sidewalks, bike lanes, and stormwater swales. It also includes a bridge over the M-Canal and a bridge over a water control outfall. The Project would be constructed in an existing right- of-way (“ROW”). FDOT owns a ROW that is approximately 200 feet wide. The County owns an adjacent 120-foot-wide ROW, so that the total width of the Project ROW is 320 feet. Running north/south within the ROW is a dirt service road, a ditch, and a fence. Much of the vegetation in the ROW is dominated by invasive and exotic plant species, including Melaleuca, Carolina Willow, Brazilian Pepper, and Australian Pine. The Ibis Development West of the Project ROW is the 1,958-acre Ibis Golf and Country Club residential development (“Ibis”). In 1989, an ERP was issued for Ibis’ surface water management system (“the Ibis system”). The Ibis system includes almost 300 acres of interconnected lakes that provide water management and water quality treatment for Ibis. The 1989 permit required the Ibis system to be sized to receive and treat runoff from a segment of Northlake Boulevard and from an existing two-lane road off of Northlake Boulevard that serves the commercial area of Ibis, which is directly north of the Ibis residential area. The Ibis system was also required to receive and provide water treatment and storage for the stormwater runoff from 46.8 acres of the ROW for SR 7. The parties introduced evidence about modifications to the 1989 permit, which the City contends reduced the treatment capabilities of the system. It is found from the preponderance of the evidence that the original system and its modifications continued to meet design requirements to store and treat future runoff from 46.8 acres of the SR 7 ROW.1/ When the water in the Ibis lakes reaches elevation 17.5 feet NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum), pumps at two pump stations at the south end of Ibis begin pumping water over a berm into Ibis Preserve, a 366-acre natural area directly south of Ibis. Water is retained in Ibis Preserve unles it exceeds an elevation of 18.5 feet, when it then passes over an outfall structure into the Grassy Waters Everglades Preserve (“Grassy Waters”) to the east. Ibis Preserve provides additional water quality treatment for the water pumped from Ibis, but this additional treatment was not part of the calculation of water quality management for Ibis. The Ibis system was required to meet District permitting criteria before discharge to Ibis Preserve. The North Palm Beach County Improvement District (“Improvement District”) owns and has operational and maintenance responsibility for the Ibis system. It also owned and managed Ibis Preserve, but transferred ownership and management of Ibis Preserve to the City in 2004. Grassy Waters/Water Catchment Area To the east of the Project is the City-owned “Water Catchment Area,” which covers about 14,700 acres or 23 square miles. The Water Catchment Area is owned by the City and is part of its public drinking water supply system. Water in the Water Catchment Area flows to Lake Mangonia where it is withdrawn, treated, and then delivered to residents and businesses in the City, the Town of Palm Beach, and the Town of South Palm Beach. There is a statement in the Project application that Grassy Waters refers only to the open water marsh within the Water Catchment Area. The Water Catchment Area includes other habitat types besides open marsh. Most of the information in the record indicates that Grassy Waters and the Water Catchment Area have the same boundaries. Therefore, in this Recommended Order, Grassy Waters and the Water Catchment Area are treated as being two names for the same area. Grassy Waters was once connected to the Everglades and large portions of it have the same characteristics, being an open water marsh with an extended hydroperiod. It is oligotrophic, meaning it is low in nutrients and has an ecosystem adapted to low nutrient conditions. It was undisputed that most areas of Grassy Waters are of high or even pristine environmental quality. Grassy Waters has periphyton, an assemblage of algae that only survive in phosphorous levels of less than 10 parts per billion (“ppb”). Periphyton is the base of the food chain in the open water marsh area of Grassy Waters and is consumed by apple snails and many invertebrates and fish. Grassy Waters has a visitor and nature center and provides recreational opportunities, such as canoeing, hiking, and bird watching. There appeared to be disagreement about whether the Project ROW is located in Grassy Waters or adjacent to it. The ROW is not within Grassy Waters, it is adjacent. However, the wetlands and other surface waters within the ROW are hydrologically connected to Grassy Waters. In the western part of Grassy Waters, which ends at the Project ROW, there are hammock islands and hydric pine flatwoods. The City contends these areas and the rest of the ROW were historically open water marsh, but were changed by human activities. The more persuasive evidence is that this western area was not all open marsh, historically. It was an area of natural transition from open water marsh to other habitat types. Ibis Impacts to Grassy Waters The parties disputed whether the Ibis system is a “failed system.” This is not a technical or defined term. The relevant issue is whether the Ibis system is operating in conformance with the requirements of its permit. The City contends the Ibis lakes are eutrophic and that sediment accumulation in the lakes is releasing phosphorus back into the water, which ends up in Grassy Waters. However, the City’s expert witness, Dr. Harper, admitted that the phosphorus concentration being discharged from the Ibis system, about 40 ppb, is typical for surface water management systems serving large residential developments, although that concentration is at the high end of the range. The phosphorus concentration is closer to 30 ppb in discharges from Ibis Preserve into Grassy Waters, showing that Ibis Preserve provides additional treatment to the waters coming out of Ibis. The characterization of the nutrient loading from the Ibis system as “typical” did not address the additional nutrients in the drainage that the Ibis system is required to accept from the SR 7 ROW. The record does not show that the nutrient concentrations from the Ibis system would still be typical if all of the ROW drainage were added without pre-treatment, as was contemplated by the 1989 Ibis permit. Because Grassy Waters is an oligotrophic ecosystem, it can be adversely affected by phosphorus levels above 10 ppb. When phosphorus is introduced into an oligotrophic system in concentrations over 10 ppb, the system begins to change to denser wetland vegetation, which can include invasive and nuisance species, such as cattail. There is denser vegetation and cattails in Grassy Waters near the Ibis Preserve outfall. There is also more phosphorus in sediments near the outfall. These effects decrease with distance from the outfall, but some effects were detected as far as a half mile from the outfall. The City’s expert witness, Dr. Gaiser, testified that periphyton is dissolved by high nutrient levels and replaced by weedy algae. She found adverse effects on periphyton near the outfall. Dr. Gaiser also found microcystis near the outfall. Microcystis is a toxic algae caused by high elevations of phosphorous. Microcystis comprised over 10 percent of the cell density of the algal community near the outfall. The District’s witness, Mr. Waterhouse, conceded that there is a problem with nuisance vegetation at the discharge point into Grassy Waters. He said the District was not aware of the problem before information was developed for this case. No evidence was presented about what consideration the District gave in 1989, when Ibis was permitted, to the potential adverse impacts of discharging phosphorus into the oligotrophic ecosystem of Grassy Waters. Based on the evidence that a phosphorus concentration of 30 ppb is expected for this kind of surface water management system, it must be concluded that the Ibis system was not designed to prevent harm to oligotrophic receiving waters. Respondents presented evidence to show that phosphorus loadings from the M-Canal could be the cause of the adverse impacts found near the Ibis Preserve outfall. The M-Canal was constructed by the City for the primary purpose of delivering water from Lake Okeechobee, via connection to the L-8 Canal, to the Water Catchment Area for public water supply. For most of its length, the M-Canal runs through Grassy Waters. The City generally maintains the water level in the M-Canal below the elevation of Grassy Waters so water in the canal will not flow into Grassy Waters. However, on some occasions, water flows from the M-Canal into Grassy Waters. High phosphorus concentrations have been recorded in the M-Canal; as high as 300 ppb. Nuisance vegetation is growing in the area where the M-Canal connects to the Water Catchment Area. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the adverse impacts described by the City’s experts in the area of the Ibis Preserve outfall are caused primarily by discharges from Ibis Preserve. There are three other developments adjacent to Grassy Waters that occasionally discharge to Grassy Waters. These discharges are likely to contain some nutrients, but the amount of nutrients and their effects, if any, on Grassy Waters were not described in the record. The Water Catchment Area is a Class I waterbody because it is used for public water supply. The water quality standard for phosphorus and other nutrients in a Class I waterbody is set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.530(48)(b): In no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna. Grassy Waters was designated by the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) as a stream. Rule 62-302.531(2)(c) states that the narrative criterion “shall be interpreted as being achieved in a stream segment where information on chlorophyll a levels, algal mats or blooms, nuisance macrophyte growth, and changes in algal species composition indicates there are no imbalances in flora or fauna.” The City presented some evidence regarding nuisance macrophyte growth and changes in algal species composition in Grassy Waters near the Ibis Preserve outfall. Little evidence was presented regarding the practice of DEP or the District in the application of the narrative nutrient standard, but the preponderance of the evidence indicates the agency practice is to consider a stream segment as a whole to determine whether it exhibits an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna.2/ During the course of this proceeding, the District issued administrative complaints against the Improvement District and the City, which include Orders for Corrective Action. The complaints were issued pursuant to section 373.119, Florida Statutes, which authorizes such action when a water management district believes that a violation of any provision of chapter 373 or district rule has occurred. However, at the final hearing, the District was reluctant to say the Improvement District had violated any law or permit condition. The Improvement District did not challenge the enforcement action against it and, therefore, the District’s enforcement order became final. The Improvement District is required to address the accumulation of sediment in the Ibis Lakes, develop a nutrient source control plan, eliminate and reduce the use of herbicides containing copper sulfate, and reassess pumping schedules. There is no target nutrient limit specified in the District’s Orders for Corrective Action. The District’s enforcement action against the City seeks to require the City to increase secondary treatment and retention in Ibis Preserve, provide a plan to remove the exotic/invasive vegetation at the outfall, provide a vegetation monitoring plan, and develop source control measures for residential developments that discharge into Grassy Waters. The City challenged the enforcement action and it remains pending. Snail Kites The Everglades snail kite gets its name from its primary food, the apple snail. In the Everglades, snail kites also feed on an exotic island snail, which occurs there in about equal numbers as apple snails. There was no evidence presented that there are exotic island snails in Grassy Waters. Snail kite habitat is dependent on conditions conducive to apple snails, which are the open marsh and oligotrophic conditions where periphyton flourish. If a sufficient number of apple snails are present, snail kites will find suitable nesting nearby. Dense wetland vegetation is not good forage for snail kites because, even if apple snails are present, the apple snails will be difficult or impossible for the snail kites to see. Dr. Welch, who was the state snail kite conservation coordinator at the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and wrote the snail kite management plan for Florida, testified for the District, where he is now employed as a senior scientist. He said field surveys of snail kite nests in Grassy Waters indicate their numbers are relatively low compared to other areas where snail kites are found. There were only ten successful nests (eggs laid) observed from 2000 to 2016. The City’s Everglades expert, Dr. Lodge, speculated that the low nest counts could be due to difficulty in seeing the nests, but he was not familiar with the survey techniques used and, therefore, his opinion that the numbers could be materially underestimated is not credited. Snail kites nest throughout the Water Catchment Area, but primarily in the open marsh areas of the central and eastern portions of the Water Catchment Area. Over 90 percent of snail kite nests are more than a mile from the Project ROW. Dr. Lodge said there are four snail kite nests within 800 feet of the Project, but he was not more specific about their locations. Most nests are closer to Northlake Boulevard, State Road 710, and the Florida Turnpike. The major factor that adversely affects successful nesting by snail kites and production of offspring is predation, usually by raccoons and rat snakes. “Cold snaps” and drought are also factors. Impacts of The Proposed Project Water Quantity Impacts Water storage for the Project, which was going to be handled in the Ibis system under the 1989 Ibis permit, would be provided in the roadside swales. The Project is designed to retain water volumes greater than typically required for roadways. Stormwater would not flow out of the Project into the Ibis system except in unusually large storm events, in excess of six inches of rainfall. The City did not dispute the Project’s compliance with the applicable water quantity criteria in the District rules. Water Quality Impacts To address the City’s concerns about adverse impacts caused by the Ibis system, the Applicants expanded the roadside swales by ten feet and raised the outfall elevation by 0.05 feet. With these modifications, the Project would provide water quality treatment for its stormwater and no longer rely on the Ibis system for treatment. The swales would provide treatment in excess of the treatment required by District rules. Respondents contend that, when the treatment provided by the Ibis system is added, the total treatment provided for the Project stormwater is more than twice as much as required by District rules. The City, on the other hand, claims that no additional water quality treatment can be provided by the Ibis system because the Ibis Lakes are eutrophic. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Project runoff to the Ibis system would receive additional water quality treatment in the Ibis system and in Ibis Preserve before flowing to Grassy Waters. The effect of the Project’s on-site treatment of its stormwater is that the amount of nutrients that would otherwise flow into the Ibis system from SR 7 would be reduced. Therefore, the effect of the Project is to reduce the nutrient load that the Improvement District was permitted to discharge to Ibis Preserve and Grassy Waters. The City did not dispute the Applicants’ evidence that the Project exceeds the District’s design criteria for water quality. The City focused instead on its contention that, despite its compliance with water quality design criteria, the Project would result in additional nutrient loading to Grassy Waters, which would cause additional adverse impacts to its flora and fauna. The Applicants and the City performed nutrient loading analyses even though such analyses are only required by the District when the receiving waters have been designated by the Department as “impaired” by nutrients or in the case of certain other specially designated waters. Grassy Waters does not have any of these special designations. The Applicants’ nutrient loading analysis concluded that the post-development loading of phosphorus and nitrogen from the Ibis system would be less than the pre-development condition, so there would be a net decrease in nutrients discharged into Grassy Waters. Petitioner’s expert witness, Dr. Harper, believes the Project would increase nutrient loading to Grassy Waters, even if stormwater from the Project did not carry additional nutrients, because the increased volume of water moving through the Ibis system would entrain more nutrients from sediments in the Ibis lakes. Dr. Harper believes the Project would also cause nutrient loading via groundwater seepage through the roadway swales into Grassy Waters. The preponderance of the evidence does not support his opinion that groundwater seepage would cause additional nutrient loading.3/ Dr. Harper believes another source of nutrient loading from the Project would be from surface flow down the roadway embankments. On the eastern embankment, this flow would enter the mitigation area 150 feet from Grassy Waters. Dr. Harper’s estimated total loading from all sources is not persuasive. The estimate gives a false sense of precision. It is based on a number of variable assumptions, some of which are not widely known or in use by experts in the field. In addition, Dr. Harper’s opinion did not appear to appropriately account for the modifications to the Project’s storage capacity. Dr. Harper’s estimated loading was not translated into physical effects in Grassy Waters. The Applicants’ estimate of total nutrient loading also gives a false sense of precision, but it is based on a well-known and widely used methodology. The City failed to prove that the Project would result in more nutrient loading to Grassy Waters than is currently contributed by the ROW. Because the Project would not rely on the Ibis system for stormwater treatment, the Project would reduce the loading that the Improvement District was permitted to discharge to Grassy Waters. To address potential vehicular spills into Grassy Waters, FDOT produced a Spill Response Plan. The swales would capture and contain any material spilled on the roadway or swale. The curb and gutter, a guardrail, gravity wall, and fence also provide protection against spills. The bridge over the M-Canal would use a 54-inch traffic barrier, which is higher than FDOT specifications for the design speed for the bridge. The City did not present evidence to show that the protective measures proposed by the Applicants are less than what is usually considered adequate under similar circumstances, or fails to meet a relevant safety standard. Wetland Impacts Direct Impacts The Project would directly impact 52.37 acres of wetlands and 7.86 acres of surface waters. The impacted wetlands are fresh water marsh, mixed shrubs, and hydric pine flatwoods. The surface waters affected consist of vegetated ditches and un- vegetated channels or canals. The impacted wetlands include 11.77 acres of freshwater marsh. The impacted surface waters are ditches. Most of these wetlands are disturbed and their functional values have been reduced. Secondary Impacts District rules require an applicant to account for the secondary impacts caused by a project that could adversely affect the functions of adjacent wetlands or other surface waters. The Applicant’s Handbook defines secondary impacts to include impacts on wetland functions, water quality, and endangered species, including impacts on areas needed by endangered species for foraging. Part of the Applicants’ assessment of secondary impacts of the Project was made by reviewing the effects of the Acreage Reliever Road on Pond Cypress Preserve, a 1,737-acre conservation area managed by the County that is immediately south of the proposed Project. The County has been monitoring the effect of the Acreage Reliever Road on hydrology, vegetation, and species compensation ever since the road was built. The County found no adverse secondary impacts caused by the road. The species that use the wetlands near the road, including wading birds, appear to be unaffected by the road. The scoring of secondary impacts for the Projects, using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (“UMAM”), was conservative, meaning that assumptions were made at the high side of the potential range of impacts. This resulted in more mitigation being required. The Applicants claim the Project would “maintain a 300-foot buffer between the project’s construction boundary and [Grassy Waters].” This appears to be a misstatement. The Applicants’ combined ROW is only 320 feet wide. Going east from the limits of construction, it is 160 feet to Grassy Waters. The Project’s buffer is 160 feet wide. The District accounted for secondary impacts to wetland dependent species, including snail kites, from noise and lights that might discourage use of the area. The Project would provide a tree buffer that will reduce noise and light impacts to Grassy Waters. The roadway lighting plan is also intended to reduce light penetration into Grassy Waters. Most of the threatened and endangered bird species are tolerant of roadways for foraging and roosting, but not for nesting. Section 10.2.7 requires the Applicants to provide reasonable assurances that any future phase of a project or project-related activities will not result in adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or water quality violations. The Applicants satisfied this requirement by releasing of FDOT ROW north and south of the Project. Cumulative Impacts An applicant must provide reasonable assurance that a regulated activity will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters within the same drainage basin as the regulated activity for which a permit is sought. Some of the proposed mitigation for the Project is out- of-basin. If an applicant proposes to mitigate impacts in another drainage basin, District rules require consideration of factors such as “connectivity of waters, hydrology, habitat range of affected species, and water quality” to determine whether there are unacceptable cumulative impacts. The Project is located in the eastern Palm Beach County Basin, which has approximately 21,000 acres of wetlands. About 89 percent of the wetlands in the basin are publicly-owned conservation lands, which means their wetland functions will continue into the future. The cumulative impact analysis was conservative, meaning that the actual impacts are likely to be fewer. Petitioner contends that Respondents’ cumulative impact analysis did not account for the unique nature of the Grassy Waters ecosystem as the only remaining low nutrient oligotrophic wetland in the region. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the historical wetland types in the Project area were not all like the open marsh found in the central and eastern portion of Grassy Waters. Respondents accounted for the loss of open water marsh that would be caused by the Project. On-Site Mitigation There would be 52.4 acres of on-site mitigation within a 160-foot-wide strip of land along the eastern limits of proposed construction. This area of the ROW would be managed by removing or treating the exotic vegetation, such as Brazilian Pepper and Maleleuca. Removing the exotic vegetation seed source would prevent further spread of these nuisance species into Grassy Waters. Where native habitats have been altered with ditches and berms, the land would be graded to create a slope from the limits of construction eastward to the edge of the ROW. The eastern elevation would be similar to the adjacent marsh or hydric pine areas of Grassy Waters. Then, native vegetation would be planted. The habitats enhanced, restored, or created would include freshwater marsh, hydric pine flatwoods and mixed forested wetlands, including cypress. The planting of mixed, forested species would provide sound and light buffering for snail kites and other species in Grassy Waters. Two wildlife passages would be created underneath the Project with fencing designed to direct wildlife to use the wildlife passages. Slats would be placed in the roadway fencing to prevent small animals from going through the fence and onto the roadway. The on-site mitigation was scored using UMAM and determined to result in functional gain. The UMAM analysis was conservative, meaning that the actual functional gain is likely to be greater. The City did not contest the UMAM scoring. Off-site Mitigation FDOT is applying mitigation credits from 210 acres at the Pine Glades Natural Area (“Pine Glades”) to offset impacts to 15.7 acres of herbaceous marsh and 26.78 acres of forested wetland impacts. Pine Glades is a regional off-site mitigation area located in the Loxahatchee River Basin and is owned and operated by Palm Beach County. Pine Glades consists of a mix of wet prairie, depression marshes, hydric pine flatwoods, and mesic flatwoods. The restoration work in Pine Glades has already been completed. Pines Glades implements a detailed management plan that provides regional ecological value. Robbins testified that Pine Glades has similar habitats to Grassy Waters. Pine Glades has periphyton, apple snails, snail kites, wood storks, and sand hill cranes. Pine Glades has some areas with oligotrophic conditions. Additional off-site mitigation to offset 52 acres of wetland impacts caused by the Project would be provided at the DuPuis Reserve (“DuPuis”). DuPuis is a regional off-site mitigation area located between the L-8 Canal and the C-44 Canal in western Palm Beach and Martin Counties, and is owned and operated by the District. DuPuis would provide mitigation with 34.71 acres of herbaceous wetlands and 43.8 acres of forested wetlands. DuPuis is appropriate to offset the impacts associated with the Project because it provides similar habitats with similar values of functions for similar wildlife. DuPuis implements a detailed management plan that provides regional ecological value. The City argues that there is little similarity between the Grassy Waters ecosystem and Pine Glades or DuPuis, so the mitigation there cannot offset the unique assemblage of plants and animals that would be lost in Grassy Waters. It is unnecessary for Pine Glades and DuPuis to be dominated by open water marshes like Grassy Waters. It is only necessary that they have some of these areas to offset Project impacts to open water marsh. Proposed snail kite mitigation would provide 52.5 more acres of snail kite habitat than would be directly impacted by the Project. The mitigation for snail kites will be located in FDOT ROW adjacent to the Project, south of the M-Canal, and north of Northlake Blvd. Erwin expressed concern about fragmentation of the ecosystems that would be caused by the Project. The areas that would be affected by the Project have already been fragmented by berms, ditches, and fences. Grassy Waters is surrounded by berms, a canal, and highways. The Project would cause fragmentation, like all roads. However, the fragmentation was reduced where practicable, and the City did not show that the roadway would cause the loss of any significant “greenway” now used by wildlife. Snail Kite Impacts Section 10.2.2(a) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that a proposed activity would not impact wetlands and other surface waters so as to reduce the abundance and diversity of listed species. Snail kites, wood storks, sandhill cranes, white ibises, and little blue herons are listed species that have been observed within the Project corridor. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, the UMAM process is designed to mitigate for wetland functional losses, not snail kite functional losses. However, the potential impact to any listed species warrants close attention to the issue of whether function-for-function wetland mitigation would be provided. There will be 11.5 acres of direct impacts to snail kite habitat within the footprint of the Project area. Dr. Welch believes secondary impacts to wetland functions associated with snail kites could extend 800 feet east of the ROW. Mitigation for snail kites would be located in the Rangeline corridor south of the M-Canal and north of Northlake Boulevard. Dr. Welch estimated there were about 64 acres of snail kite habitat in the Rangeline corridor similar to the 11.5 acres of habitat located in the Project footprint. Dr. Welch conceded that he has no evidence that snail kites currently use the Rangeline, but he believes the habitat is suitable and is appropriate mitigation. Petitioner claims there are studies of “similar birds” indicating that snail kites avoid highways due to noise. However, the studies were not of similar birds. More weight is given to Dr. Welch’s testimony that snail kites are not particularly sensitive to roadway noise. Dr. Welch stated that Pine Glades would likely have value for snail kites because it is near the Hungryland Wildlife Management Area, which has the same number of successful snail kite nests as Grassy Waters. The City contends that Pine Glades is too far away from Grassy Waters to mitigate Project impacts to snail kites. However, snail kites range long distances to forage; several hundred miles in a few days. Satellite telemetry of snail kites shows snail kites from Grassy Waters are using Pine Glades for feeding. Dr. Welch reviewed snail kite nesting data to determine whether roads deterred nesting and found that snail kites frequently nested within 500 feet of major roadways. Dr. Welch refuted the idea that Grassy Waters provided snail kite refuge during drought conditions, because Grassy Waters is also subject to drought conditions that adversely affect snail kites. There are conditions in the permit to limit potential impacts to snail kites during construction of the Project. If snail kite nesting is observed within 1,640 feet of construction, all Project construction must cease. Thereafter, monitoring of the nest and notification of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required. Construction cannot resume until that nest has been considered finished. FDOT would place a conservation easement over 82.6 acres in the FDOT ROW between Okeechobee Boulevard and the M-Canal, south of the Project area that is the subject of this proceeding. The conservation easement would maintain connectivity between the Pond Cypress Natural Area and Grassy Waters and ensure that no future southern extension of the roadway will be constructed. A conservation easement would be placed on the FDOT ROW between Northlake Boulevard and SR 710, an area of approximately 43.5 acres. Preserving this area protects a hydrologic connection between Loxahatchee Slough Natural Area and Grassy Waters. It also ensures no future northern extension of the roadway. A conservation easement would be placed on a portion of the FDOT ROW between SR 710 and Jupiter Farms, an area of 44.5 acres. This section of ROW is in the Loxahatchee Slough and the release of the ROW would be a direct benefit to Loxahatchee Slough. The preservation of these areas would benefit fishing and recreational values in the Pond Cypress Natural Area, Grassy Waters, and the Loxahatchee Slough Natural Area. These conservation areas did not receive UMAM credits to reduce the wetland acreage needed to offset wetland functional losses, but they were included in the mitigation credit for benefits to snail kites and other wildlife. Summary The preponderance of the evidence established that the proposed mitigation offsets the impacts to wetlands and other surface waters that would be caused by the Project and exceeds the requirements of District rules. Practicable Design Modifications District rules require an applicant to consider alternatives that would avoid or reduce wetland impacts. The City claims the Applicants failed to comply with this rule because FDOT selected a roadway corridor that was expected to have greater environmental impacts than some of the other three corridors that were being considered. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, this argument is misplaced. The District’s review of the Applicants’ measures to avoid or minimize wetland impacts was appropriately confined to Corridor 3, the corridor selected by FDOT where the Project is proposed. The Applicants reduced and eliminated impacts of the Project in several ways. For example, the footprint of the road was narrowed from six lanes to four lanes, wildlife underpasses were provided, retaining walls were used to narrow stormwater features, the median was reduced in size, and the design speed limit was reduced for the bridge at the M-Canal crossing. Under two circumstances, District rules allow an applicant to avoid the requirement to implement practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate wetland impacts, which are referred to as the “opt-out” provisions. Section 10.2.1.2, Volume I, of the Applicant’s Handbook (“A.H.”) provides: The ecological value of the functions provided by the area of wetland or other surface water to be adversely affected is low, based on a site specific analysis using the factors in section 10.2.2.3, below, and the proposed mitigation will provide greater long term ecological value than the area of wetland or other surface water to be adversely affected, or The applicant proposes mitigation that implements all or part of a plan that provides regional ecological value and that provides greater long term ecological value than the area of wetland or other surface water to be adversely affected. The District determined that the Applicants meet both tests. The preponderance of the evidence supports the District’s determination. The ecological value of the functions provided by the affected wetlands and surface is low and the proposed mitigation would provide greater long-term ecological value than the area being impacted. Pine Glades and DuPuis are part of a plan to restore the ecological value of Northern Palm Beach County and create an “ocean to lake” system of preserves and natural areas.
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 approving Permit Number 50-05422-P on the terms and conditions set forth in the amended Staff Report, and the complete application for the Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 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 31st day of March, 2017.
Findings Of Fact During approximately 1961, the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County adopted the Orange County Conservation and Water Control Act. This act included a comprehensive drainage plan. Orange County is divided into several natural drainage basins. The Petitioner is presently actively seeking to implement the comprehensive drainage plan in what is known as the Upper Howell Branch drainage basin. The proposed Lateral H-15 forms a part of the drainage plan in the Upper Howell Branch drainage basin. The proposed Lateral H-l5 would begin at the outfall of Park Lake, and would extend approximately 1900 feet to Lake Maitland. Lateral H-l5 would allow the controlled lowering of Park Lake, with excess water flowing into Lake Maitland. Lateral H-15 as proposed would be a structure with a concrete paved bottom. It would be 18 feet wide, and would have vertical side walls constructed of aluminum siding. A weir would be constructed at the Park Lake outfall, and a new crossover would be constructed at the point where Highway 17-92 crosses over the project. The depth of the structure would be 5 feet. At peak flows water would flow at four foot depths leaving a one foot free area. The structure has been designed to allow passage of peak flows of water using as little land area as possible. Vertical side walls have been proposed in order to limit the amount of property which the Petitioner would need to obtain in order to construct the project. The Petitioner's comprehensive drainage plan is designed to ultimately prevent flooding which would result from a "25 year storm". The term "25 year storm" means that there is a 4 percent chance that such a storm would occur in any given year. The Petitioner's comprehensive plan for the Upper Howell Branch basin is depicted in an aerial photograph which was received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Generally, waters within the basin will flow from Lake Killarney through Lateral H-22, which is nearly completed, and from Lake Bell through the Lake Bell Lateral, which has been completed, into Park Lake. The Lake Bell Lateral and Lateral H-22 permit the controlled lowering of the water in Lake Bell and Lake Killarney into Park Lake. Lateral H-15 would permit the controlled lowering of the waters of Park Lake into Lake Maitland. Waters from Lake Maitland would then flow out of the drainage basin through Howell Creek which is now extremely swampy. Petitioner proposes ultimately to clear Howell Creek so that it can accept peak water loads from Lake Maitland. The proposed Lateral H-15 would follow the channel presently followed by a naturally occurring creek bed known as the Maitland Branch. Maitland Branch is a dried up waterway during dry weather periods. When waters in Park Lake rise during rainy seasons, overflow goes through the Maitland Branch into Lake Maitland. In addition storm runoff from areas surrounding the Maitland Branch drain into Maitland Branch and then into Lake Maitland. At its most Westward point, adjacent to Park Lake, the Maitland Brunch is approximately 40- 50 feet wide. A railroad crosses the branch near to the Park Lake outfall and the pipe and culvert under the railroad control the water level in the branch. The branch then extends under Highway 17-92, and into Lake Maitland. From the railroad, into Lake Maitland, Maitland Branch is confined to a narrow channel. The Maitland Branch is not a navigable water body. Lake Maitland is a navigable water body. Petitioner's proposed dredging activities would extend approximately 55 yards into Lake Maitland in order to permit the free flow of waters through the proposed Lateral H-15 into Lake Maitland. Maitland Branch is dominated by a variety of emergent and aquatic vegetation. Maitland Branch presently serves a significant function in preserving the waters of Lake Maitland. The water quality of Lake Maitland is presently good. Tests taken within the lake do not reveal violations of the Respondent's water quality rules and regulations. The lake is, however, dominated by hydrilla, and does not support a diverse aquatic plant population. The water quality in Lake Park is inferior to that of Lake Maitland. Lake Park is dominated by algal growths. During periods of high water, the waters of Park Lake flow through Maitland Branch. The aquatic vegetation in Maitland Branch serves to filter the waters and to assimilate nutrients contained in the water before the water enters Lake Maitland. Approximately 27 acres of impervious surfaces adjacent to the Maitland Branch drain directly into the branch. Storm water runs across the surfaces into Maitland Branch generally without the benefit of any filtration mechanism at all. Without the aquatic vegetation present in Maitland Branch, this storm water runoff would enter Lake Maitland without being filtered, and without nutrients being assimilated by vegetation. Aquatic vegetation in Maitland Branch does serve the filtration and assimilative functions outlined above. The degree of filtration and assimilation that is occurring is not subject to any finite measurement. No scientific means exists for accomplishing such a measurement. The very fact that the vegetation is flourishing, provides scientific evidence that the assimilation of nutrients is occurring. Furthermore, the large amounts of toxic substances which enter the Maitland Branch would cause a very rapid and provocative deterioration of the waters of Lake Maitland unless the runoff were filtered. The fact that the water of Lake Maitland is of fairly good quality evidences the fact that filtration and assimilation functions are occurring in Maitland Brunch. The Petitioner sought to demonstrate that the aquatic, vegetation in the Maitland Branch does not serve to filter the waters, or to assimilate nutrients. Petitioner's testimony tends to show that the water quality of waters at the Park Lake outfall and at the western extremes, of the Maitland Branch are of higher quality than waters at the end of Maitland Branch closest to Lake Maitland. This evidence is not creditable. In the first place the sampling techniques used by the Petitioner's agents were inadequate. Too few samples were taken to permit the drawing of any proper scientific conclusions. The samples were not taken simultaneously and in some cases samples taken at the Park Lake outfall were taken several days prior to the taking of samples at sampling stations closer to Lake Maitland. Furthermore, samples were taken at times when vegetation in the Maitland Branch was most sparse. One group of samples was taken just subsequent to a freeze which killed all of the vegetation. Another group of samples was taken shortly after the Petitioner had removed vegetation from the Maitland Branch in accordance with a temporary permit that had been issued by the Respondent (see discussion in paragraph 9 infra) Even if the Petitioner's samples had been taken in such a way that the conclusion could be drawn that the water quality in Maitland Branch is worse close to Lake Maitland that it is at the Park Lake outfall, it would still be clear that the aquatic vegetation in the branch is performing its important environmental function. Runoff from adjacent impervious surfaces into Lake Maitland constitutes water of the poorest possible quality. It is thus to be expected that the water quality of the branch would be worse at the points farthest from the Park Lake outfall where more runoff water can accumulate. This does not however permit the conclusion that no filtration and assimilation is occurring, but rather amplifies the necessity for such functions if the water quality of Lake Maitland is to be preserved. Petitioner's proposed Lateral H-15 would constitute a source of pollution for the waters of Lake Maitland. The concrete bottom of Lateral H-15 would reduce the PH level of water the branch and could result in violations of PH standards set out in the Respondent's rules and regulations. Emergent and attached aquatic vegetation could not exist in Lateral H-15. There would be no place for such vegetation to take root. The only sort of vegetation that could take hold would be water hyacinths. During peak water flows these hyacinths would be flushed out of the branch into Lake Maitland. While water hyacinths do serve to filter water that flows through them and to assimilate nutrients from the water, they are not attached, and do not serve that function as well as attached aquatic vegetation. Since water hyacinths would be washed out of the branch during periods of heavy storm runoff, when filtration and assimilation are most essential, they would not be likely to serve to maintain the water quality of Lake Maitland to the extent that the present vegetation in Maitland Branch serves this function. Lateral H-15, with the reduced ability to preserve water quality would permit water of inferior quality from Park Lake to enter Lake Maitland, and would permit storm runoff with high levels of pollutants to enter Lake Maitland. The amount of injury to water quality in Lake Maitland that would result from replacing Maitland Branch with Lateral H-15 cannot be measured finitely. It is, however, clear from the evidence that injury is certain. The frequency of water quality violations, the degree of degradation of the water, and the amount of consequent harm to fish and wildlife in Lake Maitland that will result from Petitioner's proposed project are matters for speculation. It does appear that violations will occur, that the water will be degraded, and that fish and wildlife will be harmed. The testimony will clearly not support a finding that Petitioner has given reasonable assurance that water quality violations will not occur, that the quality of water will not be degraded, and that fish and wildlife will not be harmed. The Respondent within recent months had issued a permit allowing the Petitioner to remove aquatic vegetation from the Maitland Branch between the railroad which crosses the branch near to the Park Lake outfall , and Highway 17-92 which crosses the branch approximately halfway between Park Lake and Lake Maitland. Issuance of this permit does not demonstrate that the Respondent sees no value in the aquatic vegetation of Maitland Branch. Aquatic vegetation will rapidly reestablish itself in the area, and it will be missing for only a temporary period. In addition, the Petitioner was permitted to remove vegetation from less than half of the length of Maitland Branch.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Harper Brothers, Inc., operates a farming and limestone mining operation in Lee County, Florida. It has filed a surface water management permit application for a project to be operated as an adjunct to the mining operation at Green Meadows Mine owned by Harper Brothers. The Respondent Harper Brothers retained consultants in the general fields of engineering, hydrology, surface water management and hydraulics to assist in the formulation of a surface water management plan for the development and operation of their mining site. As a culmination of this effort, Respondent Harper Brothers filed its application for a surface water management system, and permit therefor, with the district. The SFWMD (District), upon receiving applications for surface water management systems and related permits evaluates water quantity, quality and various environmental concerns related to water resources mandated by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, Chapter 40E, Florida Administrative Code and Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. Such an application must meet district criteria contained in the statutes and rules in order for the surface water management permit to be issued. The district's staff makes a recommendation to its governing board for approval or denial of such permits, and often with related conditions attached. In the instant case, after review of the various water quality and environmental criteria, the recommendation of the governing board of the agency was for approval of the permit with certain conditions. THE PROJECT The project which is the subject matter of this proceeding is a rock mining operation for the mining of limestone in Lee County, Florida. The application is for the construction and operation of a surface water management system to serve a 405-acre mining operation which, in essence, involves the management of the water produced by "de-watering," or pumping-out of the active rock pit, through use of a retention area, dykes, pumps, culverts and a weir structure; with a view toward keeping the water pumped from the pit (dewatering water), and stormwaters which fall on the site, contained in a retention area which has been designed to retain all the dewatering discharge. The only water discharge envisioned off the site represents the volume of stormwater which falls thereon. The stormwater which would be discharged off the site is that water which actually falls as rain onto the retention area as well as stormwater that is pumped into the retention area from the pit through the use of the two existing dewatering pumps. During excavation of the rock pit, water is discharged from the pit into the on-site retention area through use of these two pumps. An existing weir structure allows some water from the retention area to flow through a ditch to a small lake on the Respondent Harper Brothers' property. Water from the lake is used at the rock mine and some existing farmland of Harper Brothers is supplied irrigation water from it. At present, some farmland is supplied irrigation water through a pump from the retention area and some receives irrigation from the mine pit itself through another pump. The remaining water discharged from the mine pit is held in the retention area where it infiltrates into the ground. The retention area will be surrounded by 3.5-foot high by 12-foot wide dykes. Along the south side of the retention area a double dyke system is proposed. The outer dyke will also be utilized as a road and varies from three to four feet in height with a top width of 36 feet, which will be paved. Stormwater discharged from the retention area would flow through an outfall structure located at a crest elevation of 26.75 feet, National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The controlled elevation in the retention area is 26.3 feet NGVD which is maintained by a 3.83-foot wide "bleeder notch." Discharge from this structure would then be routed westward between double dykes under the Harper Brothers' "north-south road" down a swale on the north side of its entrance road to "no-name" slough, the ultimate "receiving waters." It was established by expert witness Missimer, for Respondent Harper Brothers, that the dewatering discharge which would be held in the retention area will infiltrate into the ground at a rate of approximately 43,000 gallons per day per acre per a one-foot elevation in water level. The rate of infiltration in the ground is directly proportional to the "head" increase so that for a two-foot water level with the resulting increased pressure or "head," the infiltration rate would be 86,000 gallons per day per acre. Based on the presently permitted maximum monthly withdrawal rate, at a point of equilibrium would be reached at a water depth in the retention area of 1.3 feet, whereby the rate of water pumped into the retention area equals the rate of infiltration into the ground without considering additionally any evaporation into the atmosphere. Thus, the bleeder notch would be set at the above elevation so that all dewatering discharges from the mine (which may contain rock and other sediments) are effectively retained on site. PRE-DEVELOPMENT VS. POST-DEVELOPMENT DISCHARGES The SF design criteria contained in Chapter 40E, Florida Administrative Code, the applicability of which is not in dispute in this proceeding, provides that the volume of stormwater discharged from such a project cannot exceed the volume of such discharges from the same surface area in its pre-development condition. The development referred to in this instance is, of course, the development of the mine and the related retention area and other water management installations or "improvements." Expert witnesses Glaubitz and Serra testifying for the Respondent Harper Brothers and SFWMD established that the quantity of pre-development discharge from the subject site or surface area, was calculated based upon a "design storm event." This means that the pre-development discharge from the Harper Brothers' mine site was calculated, based upon reviews of the watershed boundary, the slope, the vegetation types, and the hydrologic length of the watershed in the geographical area, as well as through the use of aerial photography and U.S. Geological Survey maps, to show the amounts of surface and stormwaters discharged from this site, or its pre-development surface area, during a 25-year, 3-day duration storm event, meaning a storm lasting for a duration of three days of rain of a severity that has been experienced, according to meteorological records, an average of once in 25 years in the subject geographical area. Based upon these calculations of pre-development discharge rate or volume during a 25-year, 3-day storm event, the pre- development discharge from the Harper Brothers' mine site was calculated to be a volume of 10 cubic feet of water per second (cfs). "Post-development discharge" is the rate of discharge taking into account the same 25-year, 3-day storm event, which is allowed to discharge off the project site after development is completed. The calculation of post- development discharge was computed by taking into account such factors as soil storage capability, stage discharge and calculation of the amount of retention or detention of storm water required on the site. Thus, the calculated post- development discharge of stormwater from the site as it is proposed to be designed, is nine cubic feet per second during such a 25-year, 3-day severe storm, which capability is designed into the proposed project. Thus, the post- development discharge of stormwater off the project site does not exceed, and in fact is less than, the pre-development discharge of stormwater from the site. Included within the calculations by these two experts, concerning post-development volume of stormwater to be discharged, is an analysis of the quantity of water to be retained in the retention area of the proposed project. The discharge from the retention area is controlled by the above-mentioned weir and bleeder notch. The retention area proposed by the applicant is to be used both for discharge of dewatering water from the mine pit (under the previously issued industrial water permit) as well as for retention of stormwater. This weir and bleeder notch is designed to be at an elevation which only allows discharge of a volume of water representing the volume of stormwater entering the retention area over a given period of time, and not the dewatering water from the site, which may contain rock, dust in suspension, and other sediments. The previous permit granted to the applicant, as well as the permit sought in this proceeding, would require (as all parties agree) that the dewatering volume of water, representing the water pumped from the mine pit, will totally remain on the site. The project as designed is reasonably assured to be capable of retaining all such dewatering mine pit water on-site. One critical factor considered in determining the design and site for the retention area (155 acres) and in setting the bleeder notch elevation for discharge of stormwater volume, is the infiltration rate from the retention area into the ground beneath it. The Respondent Harper Brothers established (through these uncontradicted expert witnesses) that the infiltration rate is 43,000 gallons per day per acre of the retention area for a one-foot elevation of water in that retention area. One of the factors computed into the infiltration rate calculation is the "transmissivity rate." The transmissivity rate is 200,000 gallons per day per foot in the shallow or surface aquifer at the project site. Petitioner's expert, Mr. Bruns, conceded that if that rate is correct, as it was established to be, that the post-development volume of discharge leaving the project site would not exceed the pre-development volume of discharge, if the maximum pumpage rate into the retention area from the pit did not exceed 8.5 million gallons per day, and it is so found. Parenthetically, it should be noted that the Petitioner presented no testimony of its own concerning infiltration rates or transmissivity rates. Neither did the Petitioner's expert Mr. Bruns make any calculations of quantity of discharge from the site in either a pre-development condition or post-development condition, nor was a water management or hydrologic study of the drainage basin (approximately 6 square miles) made by Petitioner's expert witness, to assist in analyzing quantity of discharge. Under certain hypothetical conditions it would be possible for dewatering discharge water from the mine, as a volume of water, to be discharged, commingled with stormwater discharge, from the retention area. Thomas Missimer, testifying as an expert witness in the fields of hydrology and water quality for Harper Brothers, was uncontradicted. His studies and calculatiops in evidence established that, with regard to the infiltration rate downward into the soil under the retention area, and the amount of water pumped into the retention area, that equilibrium is reached when pumping into the retention area reaches 8.5 million gallons per day. That is, approximately 8.5 million gallons per day infiltrate downward into the soil and thus leave the retention area and thus an 8.5 million gallon pumpage rate per day would result in a static water level in the retention area, aside from evaporation. If the Respondent pumped in excess of this figure, which might be possible under its present mine dewatering industrial use permit, then the pumpage figure might exceed the equilibrium figure and cause the volume of water discharged off the site to exceed that volume which only represents stormwater. Accordingly, the parties stipulated that the maximum daily pumpage rate of 8.5 million gallons per day would be included as a condition in the permit, if it were issued to the Respondent, such that, based upon the uncontradicted infiltration data, that the limitation to a maximum pumpage rate into the retention area of 8.5 million gallons per day from the mine pit, would be permissible. In view of this stipulation, Petitioner withdrew its contention that the post-development volume of discharge water leaving the site would exceed the pre-development volume of discharge. It was thus shown that at the maximum pumpage rate of 8.5 million gallons per day no mine dewatering discharge (as a volume of water) will leave the retention area. NON-ALTERATION OF HISTORICAL DRAINAGE PATTERNS The Petitioners also contend that the supposed alteration of historical drainage patterns by this development at the site will cause additional flooding to the Petitioner's access road to their property (residence and nursery) by the road known as Mallard Lane. In that connection, the historic pattern of stormwater discharge off the project site or its geographical area, is figured into the analysis of pre-development water volume discharge versus post-development discharge. This project, like others of its type, is mandated by the rules at issue to not alter the pre-development patterns of water discharge off the site area so as to adversely affect the property and landowners off the site. Although the pre-development discharge is generally observed and calculated by looking at a site before the development involved in a permit application takes place, in the instant case, Harper Brothers, Inc., by the authority of its previously issued dewatering and industrial water use permit had already initiated its mining operation and so pre-development conditions as they relate to this permit were not directly, physically observable. Accordingly, a hydrologic study of the drainage basin in which this project is located was performed, and, in conjunction with the use of aerial photography and U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps, the perimeter of the basin was determined and an analysis of the historical pattern of flow in the drainage basin was done. The general flow of water in the drainage basin historically is from northeast to southwest, with an ultimate discharge into the "no-name" slough, a "cypress head" or slough which generally flows in a westerly and southwesterly direction from the area immediately adjacent to the project site. Internally within this drainage basin, some old pre-development north/south dykes have blocked some of the westerly flow which historically existed at the site, thereby causing some of the water to flow in a northwesterly direction until it reaches the northern end of the north/south dykes, thence returning to the generally southwesterly drainage pattern, ultimately ending up in the slough system. A small area of farm fields was located north of the east/west access road to the site, and southerly of an existing east/west line of farm dykes, and may have drained in a southerly direction before development. There is currently no information and no evidence of record concerning how this farm field area was drained. The drainage from this area now, however, is insignificant and is calculated at approximately one cubic foot per second as a maximum rate. As the calculated post-development discharge from this project site is approximately 9 cubic feet per second, even if it be assumed that the drainage from the old farm field should be added to the post-development discharge rate from the project site itself, such an addition would only equal and not exceed the historic, pre-development discharge rate of ten cubic feet per second. The flows in a southerly direction are currently blocked by the east/west access road to the Harper Brothers' site, used by Harper Brothers. In a predevelopment condition however, the same situation existed since the southerly flow was similarly blocked by farm dykes which existed in the pre- development condition. The proposed facility is designed to have stormwater which falls on the entire project site to be pumped into the retention area. The volume of stormwater permitted to be discharged will discharge from the retention area via the above-mentioned outfall structure and will be routed westward through the double-dyke system down a drainage swale on the north side of the entrance road, and ultimately into the no-name slough. Thus, the historic drainage pattern of the basin from the northeast to the southwest will not be significantly altered by the project as designed and proposed. The project generally preserves this historic drainage pattern by discharging the drainage within the basin into the "no-name" slough as occurred in the pre-development condition which, when the above-described pre-development and post-development discharge rates are compared reveals that there will be no adverse alteration in terms of either a dearth of or excess of water supply to this natural slough system. The Petitioner's access road, North Mallard Lane, running from north to south, accessing Petitioner's property west of the project site, is indeed subject to inundation, but was subject to such inundation in the pre-development condition of the project site. This is because the slough crosses this access road. Since the post-development condition does not alter the historic patterns of drainage to any significant degree, and does not represent an alteration in the volume of discharge from the project site area over that in the historic, pre-development condition, no additional flooding to the Petitioner's access road will be caused as a result of the project installation and operation. The flooding being caused to the Petitioner's access road, indeed was shown to be related in part to culverts of insufficient size installed by Lee County, so that water tends to stand on the road surface as opposed to draining under and away from it. NON-ALTERATION OF THE pH OF RECEIVING WATERS It is undisputed that the subject project, like all such projects, under the permitting authority of SFWMD, must meet state water quality criteria contained in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. The design of such a surface water management system must include "best management practices" (BMP's) in order to satisfy the district's design criteria. BMP's are techniques which are incorporated into the design of such a system to enhance water quality such as the use of swales, retention ponds, and gravity structures. Given that the project will utilize a retention area, grassed swales and other well accepted water management structures, the design was shown to comport with "best management practices." Water quality measurements for the only water quality parameter in dispute, that of pH, were taken on the project site using standard, accepted scientific methods and U.S. Geological Survey Water Quality Standard sampling techniques. The tests revealed a pH in the retention area itself of 7.91 pH units. The pH in the pit area was 7.8 pH units and in the off-site water in the slough, the pH was 7.3 units. The water discharge from the retention area would be a combination of stormwater (rain water) which is approximately 6 pH units in the geographical area involved, and the retention area water at approximately 7.8 pH units. The precise pH of this discharge water would depend on the quantities of water from each source, but was shown to be almost neutral or approximately at a pH of 7. Thus, the discharge from the retention area of the commingled dewatering and stormwater, if such occurs, will not alter the receiving waters one full pH unit. Upon issuance of the permit, the applicant will still have to comply on a continuing basis with the water quality parameters of Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, and the staff of SFWMD will continue water quality monitoring after the permit is issued. There has thus been no showing that commingling of dewatering water and stormwater in the retention area and the discharge of such commingled waters to the receiving waters of "no-name" slough would affect the pH of that receiving water in a manner to exceed existing, permissible pH parameters and adversely affect water quality. Expert witness Serra testifying for the district as well as for Harper Brothers, has studied similar mining operations. Such operations, utilizing similar water management procedures, have not caused any water quality violations related to discharges of commingled dewatering and stormwater, including no violations of the pH parameters. Finally, near the conclusion of the proceeding, Petitioner, in effect, abandoned its dispute regarding the issue of compliance with the pH water quality parameter.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, the evidence of record and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the South Florida Water Management District authorizing issuance of a surface water management permit to the applicant herein for the proposed surface water management system, imposing upon the applicants the limiting and special conditions enumerated in the district staff report depicted in Exhibit 2 and incorporated by reference herein, and additionally, those two special conditions set forth immediately above. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of August 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of August 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: W. E. Connery Gulf Hydro-Farms, Inc. Post Office Boa 148 Estero, Florida 33928 John A. Noland, Esquire Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Michael S. Tammaro, Esquire South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box "V" West Palm Beach, Florida 33403-4238 John R. Maloy, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box "V" West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
The Issue Whether the Department of Environmental Regulation, upon all of the information presented before it, properly issued its Notice of Intent to Deny the request for a permit channelizing the subject streams within the Mills Creek Watershed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1/ It is the Petitioner's contention that the Petitionerhas failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, its entitlement toa permit for channelization of the Mills Creek Watershed initially because the project will entail an alleged loss of watershed and wildlife habitat "particularly since there are no restrictions on private drainage connection". As stated supra, in the Background section., one of the agencies that has commented on this project, the St. Johns River Water Management District, at its August 18, 1976, meeting endorsed the Mills Creek project with the recommendation that no direct connections of laterals, drainage ditches and/or secondary connections be allowed within the boundaries of the flood plain as they presently exist. There is at present a local ordinance pending to comply with this proviso which has been endorsed by the chairman of the Board of County Commissioners for Nassau County. And, aside from this fact, DER is authorized to incorporate finite limits into drainage permits to prevent excessive drainage into any project in which a permit is required. And, as stated, the county has acquiesced with the suggestion by Gerald Herting of DER that such constraints he placed in the permit provided favorable action is taken by DER. Testimony introduced during the hearing in the case reflects that provisional permits are not uncommon. (Testimony of Landon Ross and Douglas Bailey of DER and the Office of Environmental Protection, of FG&FWFC,respectively.) Stephen Gatewood, an environmental specialist, analyzedthe Mills Creek project plans and also visited the site. He testified that the subject project was well planned ecologically in terms of soundness and, based on the manner in which the plans are drawn and the construction will be implemented, the least amount of environmental damage will result. He compared the Taylor Creek channelization project with the subject project and while noting that there were differences, he testified that he was unable to give his blessings to the subject project, inasmuch as the Taylor Creek project had been "a bad experience". The similarity between the two projects is the fact that there are effluents flowing from dairies on both projects although Gatewood was unable to show what impact effluents flowing from the dairy situated in the Mills Creek area had on this project. Doctor Shireman, a professor of fishery sciences and a biologist with the University of Florida, sampled the fish population in both the channelized and non-channelized portions of the project streams for the last year. Doctor Shireman stated that the fish population was representative of the fish populations in lakes and streams throughout Florida and also indicated that if the county ordinance was passed and lateral inlets into the channel were controlled, the channelization project would have minimal impact on tie lower parts of the stream. Moreover,experts from the Department and the Petitioner agreed that thepotential water quality damage would be minimal at worst. Section 17-4.28, F.A.C., adopted pursuant to Chapter 403, F.S., places the burden upon the Petitioner to affirmatively show and demonstrate to DER that its channelization project will not result in violations of the water quality criteria, standards, requirements and provisions of Chapter 17-3, F.A.C., over the short and long term periods. Also, Section 17-4.29 F.A.C., adopted pursuant to Chapter 253, F.S., requires the applicant to affirmatively demonstrate to the Department that, based upon a biological and hydrographic survey, the project will not interfere with the conservation of fish, marine and wildlife, or natural resources. Finally, the project must be designed so as not to violate Section 403.161, F.S., which prevents the causing of pollution, harm or injury to human health or welfare, animal, plant or aquatic life or property. In this regard, the evidence introduced at the hearing revealed that essentially all of the water quality studies and the majority of the studies associated with the aquatic system were carried out by Doctor Shireman through a cooperative agreement between the University of Florida and SCS. Doctor Shireman, as stated, analyzed the fish population in the channelized and non-channelized areas of this project and found the fish and aquatic population to be representative of similar lakes and streams in this State and, further, that there was no measurable difference in the fish population in the channelized area, an area which had been completed approximately seven years ago, and the non-channelized areas. This study encompassed a period ofapproximately one year. It was also noted that for the most part, measured data indicated that the water quality in the channel system met the criteria for Class III waters. Also, as stated earlier, the channel supported good fish populations and samplings of the stations in the channelized portions conducted by Doctor Shireman provided no basis for a finding that the constructed channels were in any manner degrading water quality despite the fact that the channels had been constructed for approximately seven years. The studies also revealed that through an examination of the benthic organisms and fish life found in all channels and receiving waters, an acceptable quality free from detrimental levels of toxic materials was prevalent. The Department also expressed a concern that channelization would drastically reduce the number and size of fish due to increased sedimentation and the loss of stream bed niches and pits. The Department offered its position that dredging homogenizes the bed structure, reduces roughness and diversity and destroys diversity of the current pattern. Sampling of the subject project streams indicate that in the watershed 39 different species of fish were discovered, 30 of which were found in the channel sections. The data also revealed that there was little specie difference in the benthic organisms between channel and unchanneled portions of the watershed. There was no evidence introduced of any increased sedimentation taking place in the previously constructed channels. The Department also expressed concern over clear-cutting during construction, with resulting increases in the water temperatures, wetland reduction, streamside foliage destruction and turbidity. Respecting this concern, Jesse Livingston, a registered civil engineer involved in the design and implementation of the project, testified that the Mills Creek area was designed and redesigned to address and satisfy the concerns of the various commenting agencies and that the project was not designed to drain the swamp as the commenters feared. To the contrary, he testified that the hydrologic grade line of the channels was set two feet above the normal ground in the area and in fact the planners envisioned a design to flood the swamps to increase the wetlands. He testified that a detailed geological investigation was made of the channel by taking soil samples during field investigations to determine permeabilities and soil types to determine a safe velocity for the channel's design. Mr. Livingston testified without contradiction that the project was designed so "that the side slopes would remain essentially as planned; taking precautions to ensure that the channel bottoms do not degrade and by stabilizing the channel. In so doing he commented that the bed load would continue moving through the channel system which ultimately would fill the downstream channels". He testified that limited turbidity would occur during the process of construction but by use of proper construction techniques, the channel system would be stabilized and no significant amount of turbidity would result. He testified that pipe drops were designed and set along the channel to control the manner in which water entered the swamps and ultimately into the channel. Respecting the allegations and concerns expressed of clear-cutting and increasing water temperatures during construction, Livingston testified that the channels were designed to be constructed from one side and thereby eliminating the amount of clearing which was a sure way to control clearing and also minimize any temperature increases along the channel. This method, according to Livingston, also provides essentially the same cover to foliage due to the fact that the channelization would all occur on one side. Testimony introduced also revealed that the streamside foliage had begun to fully recover within the channelized area and that the streamside foliage which would be temporarily lost during the construction phases would fully recover to vegetation within one growing season. Finally, he testified that provisions would be made to curtail turbidity within allowable limits. His testimony reveals that the bottomland hardwoods would not be disturbed due to the graded side inlet pipes which was done at the request of FG&FWFC. He concluded that the ecological change in the swamp diversity would be temporary, lasting only temporarily beyond the construction phases.
Conclusions As the Petitioner (applicant) points out, the Department's reviewers seem to have taken a textbook approach in reviewing the available data in reaching its decision of its intent to deny the permit for the Mills Creek channelization project. While there were some shortcomings in data which largely stem from the difficulty in ascertaining the impact of the effluents of the dairy in the area, the weight of evidence tends to support a conclusion, by competent and substantial evidence, that the project would not degrade the air and waters of this State. The Petitioner, through various meetings with all of the State and Federal agencies commenting on the design of this project, addressed all issues and designed the project so as to meet and satisfy the concerns of interested parties. The available data also revealed that in those areas wherein potential problems may arise in the future,the agencies are armed with sufficient authority to remedy and correct such problems. The engineers for this project designed it based on the guidance and consultations of all agencies who were interested in the ecological welfare of this area and took great pains to see that air and water quality would not be degraded. The local county officials have also given their approval to limit lateral connections by upland owners and the overall project design appears to be in keeping with the letter and spirit of Chapters 403 and 253 and Sections 17-3 and 4, Florida Administrative Code. For all of these reasons, I am forced to conclude that the Petitioner (applicant) has met its burden of establishing that the requested permit for the channelization project herein will not result in a degradation of air and water quality and, therefore, the permit should be issued. In keeping with the recommendations by the St. Johns River Water Management Board, I shall recommend that the permit be issued with the proviso that no lateral connections be made to the channelization project by upland owners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation cause to be issued a permit authorizing the applicant herein to channelize the remaining section of the Mills Creek project as requested with the proviso that the channelization operations be stayed until the Board of County Commissioners of Nassau County pass an ordinance that provides that no direct connections of laterals, drainage ditches and/or secondary connectors be allowed within the boundaries of the flood plains as presently exist. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
