The Issue The issue is whether the District should approve Environmental Resource Permit No. 43024788.002 for the construction of a surface water management system to serve the proposed residential subdivision on Westfield’s property in southern Pasco County, and based upon the prior litigation between the parties in DOAH Case No. 04-0003 and the pre-hearing rulings in this case, the issue turns on whether Westfield has provided “reasonable assurances” in relation to the proposed development's potential impacts on Wetland A3 and fish and wildlife.
Findings Of Fact Parties Dr. Blanco is a veterinarian. He grew up on, and has some sort of ownership interest in the property (hereafter “the Blanco property”) immediately to the west of the property on which the proposed development at issue in this case will occur. Dr. Blanco is particularly concerned about the impacts of the proposed development on the ecological health of Wetland A3, a significant portion of which is on the Blanco property. He has spent considerable time over the years observing and enjoying that wetland. Westfield is the applicant for the ERP at issue in this case, and it owns the property (hereafter “the Westfield property”) on which the development authorized by the ERP will occur. The District is the administrative agency responsible for the conservation, protection, management, and control of the water resources within its geographic boundaries pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40D. Among other things, the District is responsible for reviewing and taking final agency action on ERP applications for projects within its boundaries. The District includes all or part of 16 counties in southwest Florida, including Pasco County. The Proposed Development (1) Generally The Westfield property consists of 266.36 acres.3 It is located in southern Pasco County on the north side of State Road 54, approximately three miles west of U.S. Highway 41 and less than one-half mile east of the intersection of State Road 54 and the Suncoast Parkway. The Westfield property is bordered on the south by State Road 54,4 on the north by an abandoned railroad right-of- way and undeveloped woodland property, on the east by pastureland and property that has been cleared for development, and on the west by the Blanco property. The development proposed for the Westfield property is a residential subdivision with 437 single-family lots and related infrastructure (hereafter “the Project” or “the proposed development”). The ERP at issue in this proceeding is for the surface water management system necessary to serve the Project. There are 19 isolated and contiguous wetlands on the Westfield property, including Wetland A3, which is partially on the Westfield property and partially on the Blanco property. Wetlands cover 72.69 acres (or 27.3 percent) of the Westfield property. The proposed development will result in 1.61 acres of the existing wetlands -- Wetlands B4 and C4, and a portion of Wetland B12 -- being permanently destroyed. The remaining 71.08 acres of existing wetlands will be preserved. Wetlands B4 and C4 are small (each less than 0.75 acres), shallow, wet depressions in a pasture that have been significantly impacted by livestock grazing and periodic mowing. Wetland B12 is a low-quality, small (0.58 acres), isolated, forested wetland that has been impacted by livestock grazing and the intrusion of exotic species. The proposed development will create 2.89 acres of new wetlands, which means that the Project will result in a net gain of 1.28 acres of wetlands. The created wetlands, referred to as Wetland B2 or the “mitigation area,” are in the northern portion of the property along the abandoned railroad right-of-way and to the east of Wetland A3. The proposed ERP includes a number of special conditions, Nos. 6 through 11, related to the mitigation area. Among other things, the conditions require monitoring of the mitigation area to ensure that it develops into the type of forested wetland proposed in the ERP application. (2) Prior ERP Application The ERP at issue in this case is the second ERP sought by Westfield for the Project. The first ERP, No. 43024788.000, was ultimately denied by the District through the Final Order in Blanco-I. Blanco-I, like this case, was initiated by Dr. Blanco in response to the District’s preliminary approval of Westfield’s ERP application. Administrative Law Judge David Maloney held a three- day final hearing in Blanco-I at which the parties, through counsel, fully litigated the issue of whether Westfield satisfied the regulatory criteria for the issuance of an ERP for the proposed development. On December 17, 2004, Judge Maloney issued a comprehensive, 64-page Recommended Order in which he recommended that Westfield’s ERP application be denied. Judge Maloney determined in his Recommended Order that Westfield failed to provide reasonable assurances as required by the applicable statutes and rules because “[1] it omitted an adequate wildlife survey from the submission of information to the District and [2] it failed to account for seepage from Pond P11 and its effect on Wetland A3 and the Cypress-forested Wetland.”5 In all other respects, Judge Maloney determined that the applicable permit requirements had been satisfied. Dr. Blanco did not file any exceptions to the Recommended Order in Blanco-I. Westfield’s exceptions to the Recommended Order in Blanco-I were rejected by the District, and the Recommended Order was adopted “in its entirety” in the District’s Final Order. The Final Order in Blanco-I was rendered on January 27, 2005, and was not appealed. (3) Current ERP Application On April 29, 2005, approximately three months after the Final Order in Blanco-I, Westfield submitted a new ERP application for the Project. The current ERP application, No. 43024788.002, is identical to the application at issue in Blanco-I, except that the depth of Pond P11 was reduced in certain areas from a maximum of approximately 25 feet to a maximum of approximately 12 feet, an analysis of the potential impact of Pond P11 on Wetland A3 resulting from “seepage” was included with the application, and additional wildlife surveys were included with the application. On July 29, 2005, the District gave notice of its preliminarily approval of the current ERP application. The notice was accompanied by a proposed ERP, which contained a description of the Project as well as the general and special conditions imposed by the District. On August 24, 2005, Dr. Blanco timely challenged the District’s preliminary approval of the current ERP application. The Request for Administrative Hearing filed by Dr. Blanco in this case is identical to the request that he filed in Blanco-I. Disputed Issues Related to the Current ERP Application Impact of Pond P11 on Wetland A3 Dr. Blanco’s primary objection to the Project is the excavation of Pond P11 adjacent to Wetland A3. Wetland A3 is on the western border of the Westfield property and, as noted above, the wetland extends onto the Blanco property. The portion of Wetland A3 that is on the Westfield property is approximately 30 acres, and the portion of the wetland on the Blanco property appears to be slightly larger. Wetland A3 is a large, mature, Cypress-forested wetland. It has been impacted by nearby development and is not a pristine wetland, but it is still a mid to high quality wetland for the area.6 Wetland A3 is part of a larger wetland system that extends northward and westward beyond the abandoned railroad right-of-way that serves as the northern boundary of the Westfield and Blanco properties. Cypress-forested wetlands, such as Wetland A3, are very tolerant of prolonged periods of drought and inundation. The seasonal high groundwater level in Wetland A3 is approximately one foot below the surface in most areas of the wetland. There are, however, areas in Wetland A3 in which water is frequently a foot or two above the surface. The groundwater levels in Wetland A3 have, in the past, been significantly impacted by drawdowns in the aquifer caused by pumping in nearby wellfields. The impact has been less significant in recent years as a result of the reductions in pumping mandated by the Tampa Bay Consolidated Water Use Permit. The planned interconnection of several nearby wellfields is also expected to minimize the drawdowns in the aquifer and should further stabilize the groundwater levels in Wetland A3. Pond P11 will be located adjacent to Wetland A3. There will be a 25-foot buffer between the pond and the wetland. The location of Pond P11 is unchanged from the first ERP application. Pond P11 will have a surface area of approximately 37 acres. The surface area of Pond P11 is unchanged from the first ERP application. Pond P11 is a necessary component of the surface water management system for the Project. It also serves as a “borrow pit” because the soil excavated from the pond will be used on- site as fill for the proposed development. The excavation of Pond P11 to the depth proposed in the current ERP application is not necessary for water storage. The pond could be excavated to the seasonal high water level -- approximately 2.5 feet deep -- and still function as intended as part of the proposed surface water management system. Pond P11 will be used for attenuation, but the pond is also expected to provide at least some amount of water quality treatment, which is an added benefit to Wetland A3 into which the proposed surface water management system will ultimately discharge through Pond P11. The only change made to Pond P11 between the first and current ERP applications was a reduction in the pond’s maximum depth. The pond, which had a maximum depth of approximately 25 feet in the first ERP application, was “shallowed up” in the current ERP application. Pond P11 will now be approximately 12-feet deep at its deepest point, unless the District authorizes excavation to a greater depth in accordance with special condition No. 28. The shallowest area of Pond P11 will be along the western edge of the pond adjacent to Wetland A3 where there will be an expansive “littoral shelf” that will have almost no slope and that will be excavated only to the seasonal high water level.7 There was no change in the design of the surface water management system between the first ERP application and the current ERP application. The reduction in the depth of Pond P11 will have no impact on the operation of the system, which was described in detail in Blanco-I.8 Pond P11 will have a control structure to allow water to be discharged into Wetland A3 near its southern end, which is a more upstream location than water is currently discharged as a result of the ditches that intercept surface water flowing across the Westfield property. This design feature of the surface water management system is intended to mimic historic hydrologic conditions and is expected to increase the hydration of Wetland A3. The ERP includes a special condition, No. 28, relating to the excavation of Pond P11. The condition provides: Maximum depth of excavation will be +38 feet NGVD[9] unless additional field observations and data are provided that support excavation to greater depth, subject to review and approval by District staff. Proposed maximum depths of excavation . . . may be exceeded based upon field observations and approval as specified. Due to the potentially irregular depths to limestone, excavation will be stopped at a shallower depth if confining soils are encountered before reaching the maximum depth specified in Subcondition A, above. A geotechnical field technician will be present on site during the entire excavation process in order to monitor excavated soils. The field technician will be under the supervision of a Professional Geologist or Professional Engineer. For the purposes of the specific project, confining soils are defined as soils with more then 20 percent fines passing a No. 200 sieve. The field technician will be authorized to halt depth of excavation when confining soils are encountered. Excavation may proceed deeper than soils containing 20 percent or more fines if the soils are shown to be an isolated lens of material significantly above underlying confining soils or limestone, as determined by field observations and data subject to approval by District staff. Confining soils do not uniformly overlie the limestone; therefore it is possible that the underlying limestone could be encountered in spite of precautions in Subconditions A and B above. If the underlying limestone is encountered, excavation will be halted in the area of exposed underlying limestone. The area of exposed limestone will be backfilled to a minimum depth of two feet with compacted material meeting the specification of confining soils, having more than 20 percent fines passing a No. 200 sieve. The geotechnical field technician must certify that the backfill material meets this specification. One of the reasons that the ERP application was denied in Blanco-I was that Westfield failed to take into account the potential hydrologic impacts on Wetland A3 caused by “seepage” of water from Pond P11 due to the depth to which the pond was to be excavated and the corresponding removal of the confining layer of soils between the bottom of the pond and the aquifer. After Blanco-I, Westfield retained Marty Sullivan, a professional engineer and an expert in geotechnical engineering and groundwater and surface water modeling, to evaluate the seepage issue and the potential hydrologic impacts of Pond P11 on Wetland A3. Mr. Sullivan developed an integrated or “coupled” groundwater/surface water model to assess these issues. The model was designed to project the change in groundwater levels caused by the proposed development more so than absolute groundwater levels. The model utilized a widely-accepted computer program and incorporated data from topographic and soil survey information maintained by the U.S. Geologic Service; data from soil borings performed on the Westfield property in the vicinity of Wetland A3 in the area where Pond P11 will be located; data from groundwater monitoring wells and piezometers installed around the Westfield property; data from soil permeability tests performed on-site and in the laboratory; data from a rain gauge installed on the Westfield property; and data from the District’s groundwater monitoring wells in the vicinity of the Westfield property. Mr. Sullivan “calibrated” the model based upon known pre-development conditions. He then “ran” the model with the data from the Interconnected Pond Routing (ICPR) model10 used to design of the surface water management system in order to project the post-development groundwater conditions over a simulated ten-year period. Mr. Sullivan’s coupled groundwater/surface water model addresses the shortcoming of the ICPR model set forth in Blanco- I.11 The model projects that the post-development groundwater levels at the western boundary of the Westfield property in Wetland A3 adjacent to Pond P11 will be the same as the pre-development levels during the “wet season” of June to September, and that, on average and during the “dry season” of October to May, the post-development groundwater levels will be 0.3 feet higher than the pre-development levels. Mr. Sullivan summarized his conclusions based upon these projections in a report provided to the District with the current ERP application. The report states that: no adverse hydrologic effects will result from the excavation of Pond P11 and the development of the surrounding area. Particularly, Wetland A3 will be essentially unaffected and will be slightly enhanced by this development. Some additional hydration of wetland A3 will occur due to eliminating the north-south drainage ditch and instead routing runoff to Pond P11, which is adjacent to Wetland A3. The relative differences in the pre- and post- development levels are more important than the absolute levels projected by the model and, in this case, there is almost no difference in the levels. The minimal change in the water levels expected in Wetland A3 will not affect the wetland’s ecological functioning or its viability. A 0.3-foot change in the water level is well within the normal range of hydroperiod fluctuation for Wetland A3. The rate at which water increases and decreases in a wetland can impact wetland ecology and wetland-dependent species. The proposed surface water management system will not increase the surface water discharges from the Westfield property, and in compliance with Section 4.2 of the Basis of Review (BOR),12 the post-development discharge rates will not exceed the pre-development peak discharge rates. There is no credible evidence that there will be an adverse impact on Wetland A3 caused by changes in the discharge rate from the Westfield property through Pond P11 into Wetland A3. The range of error, if any, in Mr. Sullivan’s model is unknown. He has never performed a post-development review to determine how accurately the model predicts the post-development conditions that are actually observed. Nevertheless, the more persuasive evidence establishes that Mr. Sullivan’s model is reasonable, as are his ultimate conclusions based upon the model’s projections. Mr. Sullivan recommended in his report that Pond P11 be excavated no deeper than two feet above the limestone to avoid potential breaches of the confining soils above the aquifer. That recommendation led to the pond being “shallowed up,” and it was incorporated by the District into special condition No. 28. The provisions of special condition No. 28 are reasonable to ensure that excavation of Pond P11 will not breach the confining layer. The standards in special condition No. 28 pursuant to which a geotechnical field technician will monitor the excavation of Pond P11, and pursuant to which the District will determine whether to authorize deeper excavation of the pond, are generally accepted and can be adequately monitored by professionals in the field and the District. There is a potential for the loss of “significant volumes of water” from Pond P11 through evaporation “[d]ue to the sheer size of P11’s open surface area.”13 It is not entirely clear how the evaporation of water from Pond P11 was taken into account in Mr. Sullivan’s model, but it appears to have been considered.14 Dr. Mark Rains, Petitioner’s expert in hydrogeology, ecohydrology, and geomorphology, testified that evaporation from open water is generally about 12 inches more per year than evaporation from a wet meadow or Cypress forest, but he did not offer any specific criticism of the projections in Mr. Sullivan’s model related to the issue of evaporation. In sum, the more persuasive evidence establishes that Wetland A3 is not likely to suffer any adverse ecological or hydrological impacts from the proposed surface water management system and, more particularly, from Pond P11. Westfield has provided reasonable assurances in that regard. (2) Adequacy of the Wildlife Surveys The other reason why the first ERP application for the Project was denied in Blanco-I was that the wildlife surveys submitted with that application were found to be inadequate. Wildlife surveys are not required with every ERP application and, in that regard, Section 3.2.2 of the BOR provides that: [t]he need for a wildlife survey will depend on the likelihood that the site is used by listed species, considering site characteristics and the range and habitat needs of such species, and whether the proposed system will impact that use such that the criteria in subsection 3.2.2 through 3.2.2.3 and subsection 3.2.7 will not be met. Westfield conducted a “preliminary” wildlife assessment in 2001. No listed species were observed, nor was any evidence of their presence on the Westfield property. Nevertheless, as detailed in Blanco-I,15 the District requested that Westfield perform a wildlife survey of Wetlands B4, C4, and B12, because all or part of those wetlands will be permanently destroyed by the proposed development. In an effort to comply with the District’s requests, Westfield conducted additional field visits in 2003 and also performed specific surveys for Southeastern Kestrels and Gopher Tortoises. The field visits “confirmed” the findings from the preliminary wildlife assessment, and no evidence of Southeastern Kestrels and Gopher Tortoises was observed during the surveys for those species. Judge Maloney found in Blanco-I that the wildlife surveys conducted by Westfield were inadequate because they “did not employ the methodology recommended by the District: the FWCC methodology.”16 However, the wildlife surveys were not found to be inadequate in Blanco-I because they focused on Wetlands B4, C4, and B12, instead of evaluating the entire Westfield property and/or all of the potentially impacted wetlands, including Wetland A3. After Blanco-I, a team of qualified professionals led by Brian Skidmore, an expert in wetlands, Florida wetlands ecology, and listed species assessment, conducted additional wildlife surveys of the Westfield property. Mr. Skidmore and his team had performed the preliminary wildlife assessment and the supplemental surveys submitted with Westfield’s first ERP application. The “FWCC methodology” referenced in Blanco-I is a methodology developed by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) to evaluate potential impacts to listed species from large-scale projects, such as developments-of- regional impact and new highways. It is not specifically designed for use in the ERP process, which focuses only on wetland-dependent species. Mr. Skidmore adapted the FWCC methodology for use in the ERP process. The methodology used by Mr. Skidmore was reviewed and accepted by the District’s environmental regulation manager, Leonard Bartos, who is an expert in wetland ecology and ERP rules. The surveys performed by Mr. Skidmore and his team of professionals occurred over a five-day period in February 2005. The surveys focused on Wetlands B4, C4, and B12, and were performed at dawn and dusk when wildlife is typically most active. Additional wildlife surveys of the entire site were performed on five separate days between October 2005 and January 2006. Those surveys were also performed at dawn and dusk, and they included observations along the perimeter of Wetland A3 and into portions of the interior of that wetland on the Westfield property. Mr. Skidmore reviewed databases maintained by FWCC to determine whether there are any documented waterbird colonies or Bald Eagle nests in the vicinity of the Project. There are none. Mr. Skidmore contacted the Florida Natural Area Inventory to determine whether there are any documented rare plant or animal species on the Westfield property or in the vicinity of the Project. There are none. The post-Blanco-I wildlife surveys did not evaluate the usage of the Westfield property by listed species during the wetter spring and summer months of March through October even though, as Mr. Skidmore acknowledged in his testimony, it is possible that different species may use the property during the wet season. The post-Blanco-I wildlife surveys, like the original wildlife surveys, focused primarily on the species contained in Appendix 5 to the BOR -- i.e., wetland-dependent species that use uplands for nesting, foraging, or denning -- but Mr. Skidmore testified that he and his surveyors “were observant for any species,” including wetland-dependent species that do not utilize uplands. No listed wetland-dependent species were observed nesting or denning on the Westfield property. Several listed wetland-dependent birds -- i.e., snowy egret, sandhill crane, wood stork, and white ibis -- were observed foraging and/or resting on the property. Those birds were not observed in Wetlands B4, C4, or B12. The parties stipulated at the final hearing that the determination as to whether Westfield provided reasonable assurances with respect to the statutory and rule criteria related to fish and wildlife turns on whether the wildlife surveys submitted by Westfield are adequate.17 BOR Section 3.2.2 provides that “[s]urvey methodologies employed to inventory the site must provide reasonable assurance regarding the presence or absence of the subject listed species.” The wildlife surveys conducted by Westfield subsequent to Blanco-I in accordance with the FWCC methodology meet this standard. Although the surveys could have been more extensive in terms of the species assessed and the period of time over which they were conducted, the more persuasive evidence establishes that the wildlife surveys are adequate to document the presence or, more accurately the absence of listed wetland- dependent species on the Westfield property. The wetlands that will be directly impacted by the proposed development -- Wetlands B4, C4, and B12 -- do not provide suitable habitat for listed species. Those wetlands are small, low-quality wetlands, and Wetland B12 is technically exempt from the District’s fish and wildlife review because it is a small isolated wetland. There is no credible evidence that there will be any other adverse impacts to fish and wildlife from the proposed surface water management system. For example, even if there are undocumented listed species -- e.g., frogs, snakes, snails, etc. -- in Wetland A3, Mr. Skidmore credibly testified that the expected 0.3-foot increase in groundwater levels in that wetland during the dry season is not likely to adversely affect those species or their habitat because the water will still be below the surface. In sum, Westfield has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed development will not adversely affect fish and wildlife.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District issue a final order approving Environmental Resource Permit No. 43024788.002, subject to the general and special conditions set forth in the proposed ERP dated July 29, 2005. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 2006.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondents, Kelly Endres and Ifrain Lima (Endres/Lima), are entitled to an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) that would allow use of 0.535 acres of previously impacted wetlands for the construction of a single-family residence and associated structures, a 30' x 30' private dock with a 4' access walkway, and a 12' wide boat ramp (Project) at 160 Long Acres Lane, Oviedo, Florida (Property).
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. The Parties The Department is the administrative agency of the state statutorily charged with, among other things, protecting Florida's air and water resources. The Department administers and enforces certain provisions of chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated, thereunder, in the Florida Administrative Code. Under that authority, the Department determines whether to issue or deny applications for ERPs. Respondents Endres/Lima own the Property and are the applicants for the ERP at issue in this consolidated proceeding. Petitioner Meier is a neighboring property owner to the south of the Property. Petitioner Meier's property includes a single-family residence with accessory structures and is located on Long Lake. Petitioner Meier is concerned that the NOI provides inadequate environmental protections and that there will be flooding on adjacent properties from the Project. Petitioner Hacker is the neighboring property owner adjacent to the south of the Property. Petitioner Hacker's property includes a single-family residence with accessory structures and is located on Long Lake. He is concerned with the completeness of the application for the Project, the calculation of wetland impacts, that reasonable assurances were provided, and that the Department's NOI ignores willful negligence and allows disparate treatment of Respondents Endres/Lima. Petitioner Kochmann is a property owner with a single-family residence and accessory structures located on Long Lake. She is concerned that the NOI is based on a misleading application and provides no evidence that the Respondents Endres/Lima made reasonable efforts to eliminate and reduce impacts detrimental to the environment. History of the Project and Application On April 12, 2018, Respondents Endres/Lima applied for an ERP for proposed wetland impacts associated with a planned single-family home on the Property. This was the first ERP application for the Property. The Department sent a Request for Additional Information (RAI) on April 24, 2018, and a second RAI on November 2, 2018. Respondents Endres/Lima provided a Mitigation Service Area Rule Analysis for "As If In-Basin" for the Lake X Mitigation Bank for the St. Johns River Water Management District Basins to the Department via email on May 10, 2018. Respondents Endres/Lima submitted revised plans to the Department on September 19, and October 30, 2018. On January 7, 2019, the Department denied the ERP application. The Department and Respondents Endres/Lima, on July 18, 2019, entered into a Consent Order (CO). The Department found, and Respondents Endres/Lima admitted, that approximately 0.80 acres of jurisdictional wetlands were dredged and filled without a valid ERP from the Department; and was done with improperly installed erosion and sedimentation controls. On August 22, 2019, Respondents Endres/Lima submitted a second ERP application. The Department sent an RAI on September 20, 2019, to which Respondents Endres/Lima responded on December 19, 2019. In addition, Respondents Endres/Lima reserved 0.60 of forested Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) wetland credits from the Lake X Mitigation Bank and provided the Department with an updated site plan and Lake X Mitigation Bank credit reservation letter. The Department issued an NOI on February 7, 2020, which was timely published in the Sanford Herald on February 9, 2020. Respondents Endres/Lima provided timely proof of publication to the Department on February 13, 2020. Consent Order and Compliance A warning letter was issued to Respondents Endres/Lima on January 30, 2019, for the dredging and filling of approximately 0.80 acres of forested wetlands and improper installation of erosion and sedimentation control. The CO, executed on July 18, 2019, required Respondents Endres/Lima to cease any dredging, filling, or construction activities on the Property, submit an application for an Individual ERP within 30 days, and pay $5,599.00 in penalties and the Department's costs and expenses. After the issuance of an ERP, Respondents Endres/Lima were also required to implement the restoration actions outlined in the CO. Respondents’ Endres/Lima’s application, dated August 19, 2020, was submitted to the Department on August 22, 2020. Respondents Endres/Lima paid the CO's penalties and costs, and had multiple meetings with the Department to complete the requirements of the CO. Respondents Endres/Lima’s expert, Mr. Exner, testified that he began working on a restoration plan for the Property, which will be provided to the Department once an ERP is issued. Permitting Criteria The Department reviewed the complete application and determined that it satisfied the conditions for issuance under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-330.301, and the applicable sections of the ERP Applicant's Handbook Volume I (AH Vol. I). The Department also considered the seven criteria in rule 62-330.302 and section 373.414(1)(a), and determined that implementing the Project would not be contrary to the public interest. Water Quantity, Flooding, Surface Water Storage and Conveyance Respondents’ Endres/Lima's civil engineering expert, Mr. Herbert, testified that according to the drainage design, the Property would have swales on either side of the proposed residence to slope water away from the residence. There would also be a conveyance swale on the north property boundary to convey water from the street area and front yard toward the restoration and wetland areas with ultimate discharge to Long Lake. He stated that the elevation of the road at the front of the Property would be at 47.4 feet, and the elevation at the terminus of the swale would be at 45 feet. This would allow a 2.4-foot vertical fall for the swales to convey water to the lake. The design would preserve pre-development surface water flow over the Property to Long Lake, which is the lowest elevation in the area, and will ensure that storm water does not flood adjacent properties. Mr. Herbert also testified that the Project design would maintain pre-development water storage capacity. The imported fill that is currently on the Property in the flood plain would be removed and reshaped so that the lake elevation would be maintained and water can flow correctly. Elimination or Reduction of Impacts and Mitigation Respondents Endres/Lima provided the Department with design modifications to reduce impacts associated with the Project. These included a 15-foot restoration buffer along the lake front's northern shoreline, an elevated access walkway five feet above the wetland restoration area to the proposed dock, limiting the width of the access walk to four feet, and limiting the boat ramp width to a single-lane. In June 2015, an informal wetlands determination was conducted for the Property. The informal determination concluded that the entirety of the Property were wetlands. However, this was an informal determination and was not binding. In October 2016, before the first permit application was submitted, Mr. Exner did a wetlands delineation flagging prior to the Property being cleared or disturbed. Mr. Exner testified that, in his opinion, the Property was not all wetlands because large pines near the road had no high water marks, adventitious growth around the bases, or evidence of pine borer beetles along with other indicators of upland habitat. This wetland delineation was part of the permit submittal, was shown on the plans, was accepted by the Department, and was used for the preparation of the UMAM scoring. Mr. Exner's wetland delineation line was used by the Department to help determine and map the wetland impacts identified in the CO. The direct impact area was assessed at 0.54 acres with a secondary impact area of 0.02 acres for a total impact of 0.56 acres, and a functional loss score of 0.364. Respondents Endres/Lima reserved 0.6 forested UMAM mitigation credits, almost double the amount of functional loss under the UMAM assessment, agreed to purchase 0.46 credits. The excess mitigation bank credits implement part of a plan that provides regional ecological value and greater long-term ecological value than the area of wetland adversely affected. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts The Project's UMAM analysis assessed 0.02 acres, or 870 square feet, of secondary impacts. These impacts would be fully offset by the mitigation proposed for the Project. Petitioners' expert, Mr. Mahnken, noted three areas where he thought the application was incomplete. The first was that the site plan did not call out the location of the secondary impacts. However, Part III: Plans of Section B of the application, does not require that the site plan show the location of the secondary impacts. The application requirements for "plans" requires only the boundaries and size of the wetlands on the Property and provide the acreages of the upland areas, wetland impact areas, and the remaining untouched area. Second, Mr. Mahnken questioned the calculation performed to determine the secondary impact acreage. However, Mr. Mahnken read the information incorrectly and stated that the secondary impact area was 0.002 acres, or 87 square feet, when the UMAM score sheet clearly showed that the secondary impact area is 0.02 acres, or 870 square feet. In addition, the Department's witness, Ms. Warr, testified that even if the Department were to use Mr. Mahnken's analysis, the result would have been the same, i.e., the requirement to purchase 0.46 mitigation credits. Thus, Petitioners failed to support their claim that the Project would have adverse secondary impacts. Third, Mr. Mahnken asserted that cumulative impacts were not adequately addressed. He testified that the assessment for the Property using spill over benefits, in his opinion, was not enough to fully offset the impacts of the Project. Mr. Mahnken acknowledged, however, that his opinion was open to debate, and that he had not conducted any rigorous hydrologic evaluation in reaching his opinion. Respondents Endres/Lima had submitted a report prepared by Breedlove, Dennis & Associates (BDA Report) with their application in order to demonstrate compliance with section 10.2.8, ERP AH Vol. I, regarding cumulative impacts. The BDA Report utilized peer-reviewed hydrologic data that was reviewed and approved by the South Florida Water Management District, and was accepted by the Department pursuant to section 373.4136(6)(c). This was consistent with the Property's location within the mitigation service area for the Lake X Mitigation Bank. The Project is located within the Econlockhatchee River drainage basin, which is a nested basin within the larger St. Johns River [Canaveral Marshes to Wekiva] drainage basin. The Lake X Mitigation Bank is located outside of the Econlockhatchee River drainage basin, but the Project is located within the Lake X Mitigation Bank service area. The BDA report determined that: In summary, the Lake X Mitigation Bank is a regionally significant mitigation bank site that has direct hydrological and ecological connections to the SJRWMD basins, to include the cumulative impacts basin in which the subject property is located (i.e., SJRWMD Basin 19). The size, biodiversity, and proximity of the mitigation bank site to the SJRWMD basins, and the regionally significant hydrological connection between the mitigation bank site and the contiguous SJRWMD mitigation basins, supports the use of this mitigation bank site “as if in basin” mitigation for the Lima/Endres Wetland Fill Project. Additionally, the evaluation of factors, to include connectivity of waters, hydrology, habitat range of affected species, and water quality, demonstrates the spillover benefits that the Lake X Mitigation Bank has on the St. Johns River (Canaveral Marshes to Wekiva) mitigation basin, which includes the Econlockhatchee River Nested basin, and demonstrated that the proposed mitigation will fully offset the impacts proposed as part of the Lima/Endres Wetland Fill Project “as if in-basin” mitigation. The Lake X Mitigation Bank will protect and maintain the headwaters of two regionally significant drainage basins [i.e., the Northern Everglades Kissimmee River Watershed and the Upper St. Johns River Watershed (to include the nested Econlockhatchee River basin)], and will provide resource protection to both river systems (SFWMD Technical Staff Report, November 29, 2016). Furthermore, the permanent protection and management of the Lake X Mitigation Bank will provide spillover benefits to the SJRWMD basins located within the permitted MSA. Mr. Mahnken stated that his review of the Project did not include a hydrologic study and only looked at basic flow patterns for Long Lake. By contrast, the BDA Report included an extensive hydrologic study, looked at all required factors in section 10.2.8(b), ERP AH, Vol. I, and determined that the Project would be fully offset with the proposed mitigation. Thus, Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts. Water Quality Rule 62-330.302(1)(e) requires that Respondents Endres/Lima provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the state water quality standards will be violated. The conditions of the ERP would require the use of best management practices including a floating turbidity curtain/barrier, soil stabilization with grass seed or sod, and a silt fence. Respondent Endres/Lima's experts, Mr. Herbert and Mr. Exner, testified that there is an existing turbidity barrier in the lake around the property and a silt fence around the east half of the Property. While these items are not required by the Department until construction of the Project, part of the silt fence and the turbidity barrier are already installed on the Property and will be required to be repaired and properly maintained in accordance with the conditions of the ERP and Site Plan SP-2. Mr. Herbert testified that the Property will be graded in a manner that will result in a gentle sloping of the lake bank in the littoral zone, which would allow revegetation of the lake bank. Outside of the restoration area and the undisturbed wetlands, the backyard would be covered with grass to prevent migration of sand and soil discharging into the lake. Mr. Exner testified that the grass swales proposed for the Project would provide a considerable amount of nutrient uptake and filtration of surface water on the Property. Also, in the restoration area next to the lake, the restoration plan includes a dense planting plan with native species that have good nutrient uptake capability. Impacts to Fish and Wildlife Rule 62-330.301(1)(d) requires that Respondents Endres/Lima provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Mr. Exner testified that, in his review of the Property, he did not identify any critical wildlife habitat. He visited the Property multiple times and he did not see any osprey nests, deer tracks, animal scat, gopher tortoises, or sand hill cranes. The Department's Ms. Warr testified that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission database was reviewed, and did not show any listed species in the area. Publication of Notice Petitioners argued that the notice published in the Sanford Herald on February 9, 2020, did not meet the requirements of section 373.413(4). Despite the notice having no effect on their ability to timely challenge the proposed ERP, Petitioners argued that the published notice was insufficient because the notice itself did not provide the name of the applicants or the address of the Project, only a link to the Department's permit file. Unlike the notice required in section 373.413(3), where a person has filed a written request for notification of any pending application affecting a particular designated area, section 373.413(4) does not specify the contents of the published notice. Section 373.413(4) does not require the published notice to include the name and address of the applicant; a brief description of the proposed activity, including any mitigation; the location of the proposed activity, including whether it is located within an Outstanding Florida Water or aquatic preserve; a map identifying the location of the proposed activity subject to the application; a depiction of the proposed activity subject to the application; or a name or number identifying the application and the office where the application can be inspected. In response to the published notice, the Department received approximately ten petitions challenging the NOI, including the petitions timely filed by Petitioners. Therefore, Petitioners were not harmed by any information alleged to have been left out of the published notice. Ultimate Findings Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; and will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project complied with elimination and reduction of impacts, and proposed more than adequate mitigation. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water resources; and unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters within the same drainage basin. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse water quality impacts to receiving water bodies. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife, and listed species by wetlands, or other surface waters. Petitioners failed to prove lack of reasonable assurance by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order granting Respondents’ Endres/Lima's ERP application. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 2020. Jay Patrick Reynolds, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Neysa Borkert, Esquire Garganese, Weiss, D'Agresta and Salzman 111 North Orange Avenue Post Office Box 398 Orlando, Florida 32802 (eServed) Tracy L. Kochmann 249 Carolyn Drive Oviedo, Florida 32765 (eServed) Shelley M. Meier 208 Long Acres Lane Oviedo, Florida 32765 (eServed) Brian Hacker 170 Long Acres Lane Oviedo, Florida 32765 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether CF Industries, Inc. (CF), has provided reasonable assurance that its proposed mining and reclamation of the South Pasture Extension (SPE) mine in Hardee County can be conducted in a manner that complies with applicable statutes and rules so that an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP), SPE conceptual reclamation plan (CRP), South Pasture Wetland Resource Permit (WRP) Modification, and South Pasture Conceptual Reclamation Plan Modification should be issued by the Department of Environmental Protection (Department).
Findings Of Fact The Parties CF is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida and is the applicant in these proceedings. CF has applied for permits to conduct phosphate mining, reclamation, and associated activities on property in Hardee County known as the South Pasture Extension tract. These activities are referred to as the "Project," and the South Pasture Extension tract property is referred to as the "Project site." The Department is a state agency with jurisdiction over ERP permitting under Part IV, chapter 373, for phosphate mining activities, and jurisdiction over phosphate mining reclamation under Part II, chapter 378. Pursuant to that authority, the Department reviewed the ERP, CRP, WRP Modification, and CRP Modification applications for the Project. Petitioner is a Florida corporation in good standing, doing business in the State of Florida. Petitioner owns approximately 875 acres of land east of County Road 663 and immediately south of and adjacent to the Project site, which it leases to two affiliated companies, Florida Institute of Neurological Rehabilitation, Inc. (FINR I, Inc.) and FINR III, LLC. FINR I, Inc., operates the Florida Institute of Neurological Rehabilitation, which is a post-acute, state- licensed inpatient rehabilitation facility accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities. It specializes in the treatment of children and adults who have sustained brain injury or some other form of neurologic trauma. The facility currently consists of 238 beds offering three levels of care and has approximately 135 to 140 inpatient clients, of which 115 reside on the property. The property has been used as a neurological rehabilitation center since 1986. Among other things, patients participate in organized and individual recreational activities on the property, including fishing, nature walks, baseball, and basketball games. Outdoor activities are critical to patient care, especially those with frontal lobe damage. The facility is only accessible by Vandolah Road (from the south) and that roadway serves as its only evacuation route. If the Project were to cause flooding on its property, as Petitioner alleges, it could reasonably be expected to prevent Petitioner from leasing its land to the related companies because the facility's employees or outside medical personnel could not enter the facility or evacuate the patients; it could interfere with the generators or electrical components required for patient care; it could deny the patients use of outdoor areas; and it could impede FINR I, Inc.'s ability to develop and expand facilities on the undeveloped part of the property. General Background Phosphorus is an essential element for plant and animal nutrition and is one of the primary nutrients necessary for plant growth. Phosphate rock is one, if not the only, known significant source of phosphorus, and there are no synthetic substitutes. Continued mining of phosphate rock is therefore critical to the agriculture industry as well as to the general population, both in the United States and globally. See § 378.202(1), Fla. Stat.("[t]he extraction of phosphate is important to the continued economic well-being of the state and to the needs of society"). CF has been mining in northwest Hardee County for decades. CF first began mining for phosphate in 1978 at what was then known as the North Pasture mine. Mining operations at the North Pasture mine concluded in the mid 1990s, and the lands associated with that mine have been completely reclaimed. Pursuant to local, state, and federal permits, CF relocated its beneficiation plant (which separates the phosphate ore matrix into phosphate rock, waste clay, and sand) to its present location south of State Road 62 in 1993, and began operation of its South Pasture mine in 1995. The South Pasture mine encompasses about 15,390 acres. After the startup of the South Pasture mine, CF acquired three additional land parcels totaling approximately 7,512.8 acres with mineable reserves contiguous to and immediately south of the South Pasture mine. These parcels are collectively referred to as the South Pasture Extension tract or the Project site. The Project site is bisected by County Road 663, which runs north and south through the Project site, generally in a southeasterly direction. Immediately to the west is Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC's (Mosaic's) permitted Ona Fort Green Extension and to the south is Mosaic's Ona mine, for which applications for mining approvals are currently pending regulatory approval. CF currently extracts phosphate rock at its South Pasture mine at a rate of 3.6 million tons per year. If the applications are approved, the Project will extend the life of the current South Pasture mine and beneficiation plant by ten years, permitting mining to continue at this same average rate through 2035. CF has an excellent record of compliance with respect to permits issued under chapters 373 and 378. Petitioner has raised no enforcement or compliance issues relative to CF's operation of its mining activities. In 1986, New Medico, Petitioner's predecessor in interest, established the neurological rehabilitation center on a 298-acre campus at the center of Petitioner's property and began accepting patients that same year. Petitioner actually acquired the Hardee County property in 1996, after mining activities began on the South Pasture mine. CF and Petitioner share a common boundary on three sides. The historic headwaters of Troublesome Creek are located within the Project site and along this common boundary, as well as within Petitioner's property, and they have been heavily ditched and degraded by agricultural activities. Troublesome Creek itself (as opposed to its headwaters) begins on the southeastern portion of the Project site, east of Petitioner's property, and has been reduced to a narrow, fairly incised conveyance flowing intermittently south-southeast to the Peace River. Since 1995, when CF began mining operations at its South Pasture mine, and until the present time when Petitioner filed its Petition challenging CF's Project, the parties' respective operations have co-existed and are currently approximately a half mile apart. Project Logistics Over the last five years CF has relied upon a team of experts from several different consulting firms and disciplines to assist it with preparing and supporting its application. CF will integrate materials handling on both the existing South Pasture mine and the Project site. Specifically, mining and reclamation operations at the Project site will employ the same methods currently approved by the Department for use at the South Pasture mine, and will utilize the existing operational facilities and workforce. The existing beneficiation plant at the South Pasture mine will separate the phosphate ore matrix mined at the Project site into phosphate rock, sand, and clay. Waste clays from the Project will be disposed of within existing clay settling areas (CSAs) at the South Pasture mine and new CSAs proposed for the Project site. The Project's mine water recirculation system will also be integrated with the South Pasture mine's recirculation system. As it has done at the South Pasture mine, which is located only one-half mile north of Petitioner's property, CF must install a perimeter ditch and berm system (which includes a recharge ditch system) along the Project site's boundaries prior to any clearing to contain Project water within the CF site and to protect adjacent properties during mining operations. The ditch and berm system is installed approximately six months to one year prior to the extraction of material within a particular mine block. Pursuant to Specific Condition 14 of the ERP, the recharge ditch system, which serves to provide groundwater recharge to preserved and off-site wetlands and surface waters during mining to avoid potential adverse impacts, must be constructed before mining activities can occur within 1,800 feet of any preserve or property boundary. The recharge ditch systems in each mine block adjacent to such boundaries will be designed based upon additional site-specific hydrogeologic testing and analysis and installed prior to mining after the Department has approved the final design. Specific Condition 14 also requires development and implementation of an Environmental Management Plan consistent with the requirements of that condition and with Appendix 14 of the ERP at least four years prior to mining of the Project site. Pursuant to this condition, CF must also conduct detailed baseline monitoring for at least four years prior to mining and conduct continuous during-mining monitoring, visual inspections, water table and stream flow analysis, and if necessary, implement hydrologic mitigative or remedial measures, to ensure that the recharge systems function as intended to protect unmined wetlands and other surface waters from adverse impacts by mining operations. These activities must continue until the area within 1,800 feet of the preserve or property boundary is backfilled and CF has documented that subsurface flows have achieved conditions hydrologically equivalent to those described in the Integrated Modeling Report (IMR) prepared for the Project. CF's mine plan indicates the sequence of mining on the Project site. Preparatory mining activities are scheduled to begin in 2017, with actual mining scheduled to begin in 2019, but are not scheduled to begin adjacent to Petitioner's property until 2027, progressing along CF's shared property boundary with Petitioner in a counterclockwise fashion, and west of County Road 663 through 2031. Piezometer wells and rainfall gauges must be installed along all preserves and property boundaries at least four years prior to initiating mining of the Project site, allowing for collection of an ample amount of baseline reference data before mining begins adjacent to Petitioner's property. As mining progresses within each mine block, backfilling with sand tailings and initial revegetation will follow mining almost immediately (three months) after mining, including in the vicinity of Petitioner's property. As each mine block is backfilled, within approximately three to five years after mining, the entire area will be completely backfilled, contoured, and revegetated. Within the same approximate timeframe, once the entire area is stabilized and following one year of water quality monitoring, the ditch and berm system will be dismantled and the area reconnected to its watershed. CF has sufficient water available from multiple water inputs, including very clean water from its Aquifer Recharge and Recovery Project (ARRP) on the South Pasture mine to support the proposed mining and reclamation activities on the Project site. CF will also construct a reroute ditch adjacent to Petitioner's property. The purpose of the reroute ditch is to reroute existing surface water flow in the Troublesome Creek headwater ditches off of Petitioner's property, around active mining operations, and then into Troublesome Creek as it exits the Project site to the southeast. To specifically address Petitioner's concerns regarding flooding, CF submitted conceptual designs for a reroute ditch to the Department prior to final hearing in this matter, and the Department modified its ERP accordingly. Like the recharge system, the final design of the reroute must be based on an additional site-specific assessment conducted pursuant to the ERP, prior to actually severing flow. CF's South Pasture mine has two permitted National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) outfalls located on Shirttail Branch and Doe Branch, both of which flow into Payne Creek, which is a tributary to the Peace River. While these existing NPDES outfalls will continue to meet all of CF's discharge needs for Project mining operations due to integration of the mine recirculation system, CF may obtain additional outfalls on the Project site to provide flexibility to supplement stream flows during mining in preserved and off-site streams. One such potential discharge point was identified on the northern boundary at Petitioner's property, as "S-1." Petitioner's Allegations Conflicting testimony was presented by the parties on the issues raised by Petitioner. These conflicts have been resolved in Respondents' favor, who submitted the more credible and persuasive evidence. Where a specific allegation is not addressed in this Recommended Order, it has been considered and found to be without merit. Petitioner alleges, on the one hand, that the Project will either cause flooding on its property so as to adversely impact its and its lessees' use and enjoyment of the property, and, on the other, will cause dewatering of its property so as to adversely affect its wetlands and other water resources. While the undersigned did grant CF's Motion to Strike, Petitioner was permitted to pursue its water resource and environmental impact issues and expressed its concerns regarding the Project's impact on Petitioner's property and development potential as well as on the health, safety, and welfare of residents or inhabitants of Petitioner's property. These concerns were addressed by Steve Freeley, FINR II, Inc.'s former director of marketing and now a Vice President, and Dr. Jorge Villalba, FINR I, Inc.'s medical director. Mr. Freeley, a fact witness, summarized Petitioner's concerns, as he understood them, to be the Project's potential for flooding, dewatering, and well contamination on Petitioner's property, particularly how these events might affect Petitioner's pocketbook and the future development potential of Petitioner's property. However, Mr. Freeley admitted that he had no knowledge of the Project application or supporting materials, had never been to the South Pasture mine, and had no familiarity with phosphate mining. Dr. Villalba testified primarily on behalf of FINR I, Inc., patients at the rehabilitation facility, in particular his concerns regarding his patients' specific sensitivity to environmental stimuli. Dr. Villalba has no legal affiliation or association with Petitioner, being solely an employee of, and the medical director for, FINR I, Inc. Dr. Villalba also testified regarding the need to internally relocate some patients due to flooding caused by hurricanes in 2004. More specifically, Dr. Villalba testified that in 2004 residential cabins on-site experienced water levels rising up to the steps of the elevated residential facilities. Like Mr. Freeley, he admitted he had no knowledge of the application materials, phosphate mining, CF's South Pasture mine operations, or the materials submitted in support of the proposed agency action. For all of the following reasons, the adverse environmental and water resource-related concerns of Petitioner are determined to be without merit and are therefore not credited. Analysis of Hydrology CF and the Department thoroughly investigated the Project's potential for causing adverse flooding and dewatering impacts on adjacent properties. Event-based stormwater runoff modeling provided reasonable assurance that peak discharge rates and outflow volumes at exit points from the Project site under post- reclamation conditions would not cause adverse offsite flood impacts. The results of CF's flood modeling are summarized in a flood modeling report (FMR). The FMR demonstrated that the proposed post-reclamation land use, topography, and soil distributions will not result in any adverse changes in the peak discharge comparison to pre-mining conditions for flood flows; peak flood values will be maintained or improved by the reclamation design; and post-reclamation peak flood values along Petitioner's shared property boundary with CF will be lower than pre-mining conditions. Three standard rainfall events were evaluated: (a) the mean annual 2.33-year, 24-hour event, (b) the 25-year, 24-hour event, and (c) the 100-year, 24-hour event. These storm events are part of a standard suite of engineering design storms that the Department commonly relies upon to assess pre-mining versus post-reclamation flooding. CF utilized a one-dimensional surface water computer model, MIKE 11, to prepare the flood modeling report. MIKE 11 uses the Natural Resources Conservation Service's (formerly the United States Soil Conservation Service's) TR-55 based approach and applies a 1-D hydraulics component that represents Florida landscape conditions well. This modeling, and the resultant FMR, which is a part of the application, were not contested. It demonstrated that the proposed post-reclamation condition will not result in any adverse flooding. In fact, local flood hazards will likely be reduced due to the lowering of peak flood values. CF also developed an integrated surface and groundwater model for the Project. Integrated modeling assesses long-term hydrologic conditions to ensure that the Project will result in hydropatterns that restore and sustain reclaimed wetlands and waterbodies on the Project site. The MIKE SHE model was used to perform the hydrologic simulations; the modeling results are contained in CF's IMR, as part of the application. It was also used to establish the normal seasonal high and seasonal low ranges for wetlands and surface waters that were used in other portions of the application, such as the Recharge Modeling Report (RMR). There was no objection to the use of this model or its results. The IMR indicates that the proposed reclamation will restore on-site wetland functions, promote the maturation of on-site wetlands, and result in an overall water balance that maintains or improves regional hydrology. Off-site stream flows to Troublesome Creek will be enhanced, which will improve that system's capacity to support aquatic fauna. During-Mining Hydrologic Analysis In addition to performing pre-mining and post- reclamation condition hydrologic analyses, CF and the Department evaluated the Project's potential for causing adverse flooding and dewatering impacts on adjacent properties during mining. The existence of several factors inherent to the mining process, discussed below, typically makes during-mining flood event modeling unnecessary to provide reasonable assurances. See Lee Cnty. v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, Case No. 08-3886, 2008 Fla. ENV LEXIS 171 (Fla. DOAH Dec. 18, 2008), adopted, OGC Case No. 08- 1852, 2009 Fla. ENV LEXIS 14 (Fla. DEP Jan. 30, 2009). The application contains during-mining water balance analyses that specifically evaluated the biological integrity of on-site and off-site preserved areas, streams, and wetlands during mining and after reclamation. CF prepared a mine and production plan (MPP) describing general mine planning and scheduling, as well as its proposed integration with the South Pasture mine, that contained an operational during-mining water balance showing recirculation system inputs and outflows. The primary sources of water input into the mine recirculation system for the Project will continue to be direct rainfall capture, groundwater from existing permitted wells, water content of the mined matrix and overburden, and reclaimed water from the City of Wauchula. The primary sources of water consumption will be evapotranspiration and net waste clay entrainment; CF recycles and reuses 95 percent of its water. As described in the MPP, the primary sources of water discharge will be through its existing two (and possibly additional) permitted NPDES outfalls. There will be no substantial change in the during- mining water balance as a result of the extension of mining into the Project site. Moreover, the application, past practices and experience, and evidence presented at hearing all indicate that CF has more than sufficient amount of water available to conduct the Project while simultaneously maintaining or improving the biological integrity of downstream systems. CF has the demonstrated ability to manage large amounts of water within its mine recirculation system and store or discharge water as required to maintain downstream flows or reduce flooding potential. During mining, CF can either discharge stormwater treated to meet state water quality standards, or store it in its recirculation system, depending on downstream conditions. Thus, even without a reroute ditch, the risk of adverse flooding during mining is minimal. CF has never caused any flooding of neighboring property in over 30 years of mining. As noted earlier, upon construction of the perimeter ditch and berm system along its shared property boundary with Petitioner, CF will reroute existing water flow around active mining operations and the berm system to reconnect flow with Troublesome Creek. CF's expert witness testified that, from an engineering perspective, a reroute ditch is not difficult to design or construct, and that CF has successfully constructed similar reroutes in the past and without causing flooding. Nevertheless, in light of Petitioner's concerns, CF directed its consultants to model the potential impacts from a reroute ditch to assist in sizing the reroute ditch and associated structures. The design objective was to ensure that no off-site increases in peak flows or stages would occur during mining as compared to existing conditions as a result of the Project during high rainfall events. CF and Petitioner's consultants used the Interconnected Pond Routing (ICPR) model to evaluate the reroute ditch. CF analyzed the 25-year, 24-hour and the 100-year, 24-hour storm events. The model indicated that in many areas, where the presence or absence of a reroute ditch would not make a significant difference, water levels would remain unchanged, and that in some areas closest to the proposed reroute ditch, potential flood levels would actually be decreased by two-tenths of a foot. This would actually reduce the likelihood of localized flooding during significant storms over existing conditions, which has posed a concern to Dr. Villalba for his patients' safety during prior hurricane events. The modeling results were summarized in a Troublesome Creek Reroute Ditch Modeling and Conceptual Design Report (RDMR). Dr. John Kiefer, the co-author of the RDMR, as well as Dr. Owete, a Department expert, opined that the Project, including implementation of the proposed reroute ditch, would not cause adverse flooding or water quantity impacts on Petitioner's property during mining. Dr. Kiefer subsequently identified and corrected some minor errors in the RDMR. These changes had no effect on his ultimate opinion or this finding. According to Dr. Owete, the modeling was not necessary to provide the requisite reasonable assurances. In fact, the reroute ditch design drawings themselves were not requested by the Department to provide reasonable assurances, but were offered by CF as additional assurances in light of the concerns raised by Petitioner during these proceedings. This testimony was echoed by Dr. Kiefer, who testified regarding the various intrinsic protections against during-mining flooding that are inherent to the Project. Further, the record establishes that the design and the model are very conservative. The 100-year event, for which the reroute ditch was designed, has only a one percent likelihood of occurring in any given year within a 100-year period. The RDMR recommends that additional modeling be conducted immediately prior to implementation to confirm the design. The ERP specifically requires that the RDMR be implemented. This is similar to conditions throughout the ERP that require additional data gathering modeling or other analysis and revised designs based on this additional analysis. The ERP can provide for post-permit activities to be performed as part of reasonable assurances. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 4.070(3). Petitioner's expert, Mr. Robert Burleson, opined that the Project will cause flooding of Petitioner's property during mining due to the construction of the perimeter berm. However, Mr. Burleson used a starting water elevation on Petitioner's property to run his model that was already commensurate with a 100-year flood elevation and then added a 100-year event to that elevation. Mr. Burleson's model also assumed that no reroute ditch would be constructed, and additionally assumed artificially high surface water conditions caused by the recharge system which, conversely, Petitioner's expert, Mr. Davis, opined would not prevent dewatering. Therefore, his opinion on flooding is not credited. Mr. Burleson also opined that flooding would nonetheless occur because of the construction of the perimeter berm across Lettis Creek headwater wetlands, notwithstanding the fact that there is no "stream" at this location, the landscape is relatively flat, and County Road 663 and the railroad line would lie between Petitioner's property and the perimeter berm. However, Mr. Burleson's modeling assumed that County-maintained culverts between the properties would be blocked during mining. Even under this assumed condition, his modeling showed only a slight increase in stage durations during significant 25-year and 100-year events. However, CF has committed to maintain flow from Petitioner's property onto the Project site at Lettis Creek through existing culverts under County Road 663. Mr. Burleson also testified that in his view flooding occurs "if there's an increase in water levels above what has historically or naturally [occurred] for a given condition." Tr. 522. However, Mr. Burleson did not know whether the FINR property had ever been inundated in the way inundation was depicted in the figures he provided and did not know whether the inundation in the figures he provided could be a natural condition for the property. Thus, Mr. Burleson could not testify, whether historically or naturally, the amount of water depicted on his figures would occur. It was established that the historic headwaters in this area have been heavily ditched and altered from their historic or natural condition. CF assessed the potential that the reroute ditch could result in dewatering during non-flood events. To address this concern, CF designed the reroute ditch with a bottom elevation that would match the bottom elevation of the existing ditch, meaning the water table will intersect the reroute ditch in the same manner it currently intersects the Troublesome Creek ditch. Adjacent to Wetland 10E-40 in the southeast corner between Petitioner's property and the Project property, however, the reroute ditch received special design consideration because the reroute ditch bottom will be below the bottom of the wetland at that location. There, the reroute ditch will be armored, an overland weir will regulate flow, and an impermeable geotextile liner will be installed. Several intrinsic factors, relating to both the reroute ditch design and the overall Project design, provide further assurances that adverse flooding will not occur on Petitioner's property during mining. Once CF constructs the perimeter ditch and berm system, the area of the drainage basin contributing flow to Petitioner's property will be reduced by approximately one-half, resulting in significantly less water flowing onto Petitioner's property during flood events because the ditch and berm system will divert stormwater that normally reports to Troublesome Creek into CF's recirculation system. The conveyance capacity of the reroute ditch will be equivalent to or greater than that of the existing ditch that it would replace. The reroute ditch will be installed in concert with the ditch and berm system, which as noted above will reduce peak flood flows in Troublesome Creek, meaning a lower tailwater condition can be expected in Troublesome Creek downstream of its confluence with the reroute ditch. CF thoroughly assessed the ability of the recharge ditch to maintain recharge to wetlands and adjacent properties during active mining of the Project. Specifically, CF evaluated the seepage characteristics of the areas scheduled to be mined and provided site-specific recommendations regarding recharge system design in variable subsurface conditions. CF evaluated the efficacy of treatment options that might be necessary to incorporate in the recharge ditch design in certain subsurface conditions to prevent potential adverse impacts. The goal of the recharge ditch design was to maintain the water table during mining operations, within the normal range of seasonal high and seasonal low water table elevations along preserve and property boundaries, including Petitioner's property. The normal seasonal range used to develop the RMR was obtained from the IMR analysis. In order to appropriately evaluate subsurface permeabilities at the Project site, CF's consultants first engaged in a rigorous geotechnical exploration program: they reviewed available prospect borings and design reports; they developed subsurface profiles along wetland and property boundaries within the study areas based on prospect boring data; they completed four Standard Penetration Test borings at locations selected based on the subsurface profiles; they installed a deep, intermediate, and shallow piezometer at each of the borehole locations; and they completed in-situ hydraulic conductivity tests in each of them. This information resulted in a detailed subsurface profile that ran along the entire border of the mining areas and identified a range of subsurface conditions site-wide, with both low and high permeability values, consistent with regional data and Petitioner's findings. Next, CF's consultant developed 14 design sections, including cross sections at each of the locations specifically requested by the Department, two adjacent to Petitioner's property, and conducted seepage analyses for each. For the two design sections nearest to Petitioner's property, no continuous layer of highly-permeable limestone or other high permeability strata were encountered that were reasonably likely to affect performance of the recharge ditch, and thus no particular "add on" hydrologic mitigative measures to the recharge ditch appear reasonably likely to be needed. Nonetheless, the efficacy of those additional measures in higher permeability soils was fully evaluated. Results of the seepage analyses on the 14 design cross sections are summarized in the RMR. The RMR concludes that, in most mine areas, sufficient recharge will be provided to preserved wetlands and adjacent properties during mining using a recharge ditch designed as proposed in the RMR. Nine of the 14 cross sections did not have a continuous highly permeable limestone layer, including the two near Petitioner's property; and a recharge ditch with the water level maintained at ground level was sufficient to maintain an adequate groundwater level in off-site and preserved wetlands at these nine cross sections, to the center of the wetland. Only five of the 14 design cross sections contained a continuous, permeable limestone layer within the matrix layer. For areas where such high permeability layers do exist, additional hydrologic mitigative measures were recommended in addition to the recharge ditch, such as recharge wells, permeable trenches, localized grouting, and soil-bentonite cutoff walls, in order to maintain groundwater levels. In the event a permeable limestone layer is encountered within the matrix layer, the RMR concludes that the utilization of recharge wells, sand trenches, or other treatment options will be effective in maintaining the normal range of seasonal groundwater levels. Pursuant to the RMR recommendations, decisions regarding which specific mitigative measure is appropriate to use to address a specific subsurface condition will be made based upon more detailed, site-specific data and design modifications determined through field investigations, to include additional test borings, piezometers, field measurements of hydraulic conductivities, and additional seepage analyses. These additional measures are required by the ERP conditions and the final design must be approved by the Department. While the RMR did not assume the existence of a reroute ditch, Mr. Beriswill, a professional engineer, subsequently evaluated the potential impact of a reroute ditch on the RMR's recommendations and conclusions. Based upon this subsequent evaluation, Mr. Beriswill concluded that no significant changes in the design of the recharge ditch were necessary to account for the ditch, although he and other consultants did agree that addition of an impermeable geotextile liner to a portion of the reroute ditch would reduce the potential for dewatering adjacent to Wetland 10E-40 and should be implemented. The RMR also evaluated the stability of the mine cut face seal embankment (construction of which is common in the industry) and provided recommendations to maintain adequate and stable slopes during mining activities. Based upon these analyses, CF's consultants recommended a one-foot (vertical) to five-foot (horizontal) (1:5) slope to ensure a 1.3 factor of safety for slope stability, which is within industry standards. Water Quality Impacts In addition to the above analyses, CF and the Department also thoroughly evaluated potential on-site and off- site water quality issues associated with the Project. As noted earlier, discharges will occur only through permitted NPDES outfalls. Additional water quality protection for adjacent undisturbed surface waters and wetlands will be provided by the perimeter ditch and berm systems and other proposed best management practices (BMPs), such as silt fences and stormwater collection systems. During mining and reclamation, these practices will preclude uncontrolled releases of water to adjacent unmined and downstream areas. There are also detailed requirements in the ERP for monitoring water quality during mining and reclamation activities. All of these measures will be effective in preventing violations of water quality standards, and will ensure that the water quality of preserved on-site systems will be protected during mining activities at the Project site. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SPPP) was prepared to identify BMPs and controls for the Project during land preparation, mining, backfilling, and reclamation. The SPPP also incorporates by reference other documents already in place on the South Pasture mine pursuant to CF's NPDES permit for the South Pasture mine. Among these documents are a Best Management Practices/Pollution/Prevention (BMP3) Plan that generally describes BMPs for waste management, spill reporting and response, and other specific measures to prevent pollution, and a memorandum of agreement (MOA) between CF and the Department that describes general design and construction BMPs. The MOA has also been attached to the ERP. The BMP3 Plan, which is updated annually, must be maintained on-site during mining operations. Using these measures at the South Pasture mine, CF has never had any issues with stormwater discharges causing water quality violations. Petitioner failed to present any competent substantial evidence that the Project will cause adverse water quality impacts during mining. Its expert, Mr. Robert Burleson, opined only that certain requirements specified for generic stormwater permits associated with construction activities were missing from the SPPP. However, it is unclear whether he reviewed or considered the sufficiency of the MOA or BMP3 Plan, and these contain specific BMPs to be utilized for the Project's stormwater. Additionally, Mr. Burleson admitted that he had no familiarity with preparing SPPPs for industrial facilities with NPDES permits. Dr. Durbin, a CF expert, who has such experience and reviewed all of these materials as well as South Pasture mine water quality data, opined that implementation of these practices and the existence of the NPDES permit ensure that water quality of downstream systems will be protected during mining and that no adverse water quality impacts will occur. The application is therefore consistent with applicable ERP permitting requirements. The generic stormwater permit proffered by Petitioner does not apply, and is not available, to facilities like CF that are required to obtain individual NPDES permits that address stormwater discharges. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-620.100(2). Ecological Issues The level of detail and analysis provided by CF in its application to the Department for the ERP, CRP, and WRP and CRP Modifications is more than adequate. Indeed, CF provided substantially more baseline information in terms of existing site conditions, wetland conditions, and wildlife information than is provided in typical ERPs. CF expert witnesses Dr. Kiefer and Dr. Durbin both testified as to the local and regional ecological, hydrological, and wildlife benefits expected to result from the proposed reclamation. This testimony was not disputed. Pursuant to section 373.414(6)(b), wetlands reclamation activities for phosphate mining undertaken pursuant to chapter 378 are considered appropriate mitigation 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. CF's reclamation achieves that mitigation goal. It provides for an acre-for-acre, type-for-type, and foot-for-foot restoration, as appropriate, of the wetlands and other surface waters proposed for impact on the Project site. The application indicates that the proposed reclamation will restore on-site wetland functions and promote the maturation of on-site wetlands. Specifically, CF is proposing to enhance 126 acres of wetlands and 57 acres of uplands, create approximately 1,711 acres of wetlands and other surface waters, and grant perpetual conservation easements to permanently preserve 1,095 acres of unmined (avoided) and 1,789 acres of reclaimed habitat, including wetlands, streams, and associated native upland habitat in the Brushy Creek, Lettis Creek, and Troublesome Creek corridors on the Project. In addition, CF will grant a perpetual conservation easement to permanently preserve an additional 915 acres of unmined wetland and native upland habitat associated with the Horse Creek and Payne Creek corridors in the South Pasture mine. Ultimately, the Project will represent a substantial improvement in the Troublesome Creek headwater system, which has been degraded by ditching. Based upon the uniform mitigation assessment method analysis, the proposed mitigation plan will more than offset proposed impacts, resulting in a net increase in wetland functions on the Project site. While mining activity is temporary, this "surplus" improvement will be permanent. CF considered the potential impacts to off-site wetlands from the Project both during mining and after reclamation, particularly those wetlands that straddle CF's shared property boundary with Petitioner. Wetlands on Petitioner's property are similar to nearby wetlands on the Project site, in that historically they have been impacted by agricultural activities, including ditching. None of Petitioner's experts provided testimony of adverse impacts to wetlands or surface waters that would be reasonably likely to occur as a result of the Project. In contrast, Dr. Durbin testified that the wetlands on Petitioner's property are degraded and dehydrated due to the prevalence of agricultural alterations and that a modicum of additional water might actually benefit them. The application indicates that the proposed reclamation will result in an overall water balance that is consistent and compatible with the region's surface and sub- surface hydrology, and the combined groundwater and surface water outflow volumes from the Project site will be similar to pre-mining conditions. As noted earlier, the proposed recharge ditch system will maintain off-site water table levels within the normal range of seasonal high and seasonal low values, which is the range of fluctuation the water table level currently experiences pursuant to the IMR. Therefore, no dewatering will occur that will have an adverse ecological effect on Petitioner's wetlands. Dr. Durbin and Dr. Kiefer opined that the improvement in ecological conditions post-reclamation on the Project site can reasonably be expected to improve the ecological condition of the immediately adjacent wetlands on Petitioner's property. Petitioner's expert, Mr. Davis, opined that CF failed to provide reasonable assurances that the Project would not cause dewatering of wetlands on Petitioner's property. He presented model results using those high permeabilities that purported to show that, at some distance proximate to the property boundary, some drawdown would occur with maximum predicted drawdown approximately 80 feet or less from the property boundary. However, Mr. Davis selected the high end of the range of the subsurface permeabilities estimated in the RMR and assumed they were present continuously along the property boundary. Although the highly permeable conditions are not continuously present along the boundary line of Petitioner's property, measures to address those conditions have been identified and recommended, should they occur. Moreover, Mr. Davis' modeling did not use the existing conditions established in the IMR as a baseline and did not evaluate any of the mitigative options recommended in the RMR for use if high permeability layers are encountered. Rather, his modeling looked at only two scenarios that were not recommended in the RMR in such cases, namely, the recharge ditch alone, and charging the recharge ditch five feet above ground surface. He admitted that the options recommended in the RMR for high permeability subsurface conditions were all widely-used options capable of being implemented. Mr. Davis' assertions regarding the potential for a half-foot of drawdown near the property line are based on a series of assumptions and conditions which are not supported by competent substantial evidence. Therefore, his testimony does not rebut the prima facie case of CF and the Department regarding reasonable assurances and is not credited. Mr. Palmer criticized the adequacy of the monitoring contained in Specific Condition 14. However, he admitted that monitoring of the proposed piezometers would detect any water table changes, and the ERP requires comparison against the baseline data as well as long-term rainfall records. He also acknowledged that he reviewed only a portion of the condition. Thus, Mr. Palmer's criticisms are not credited. CF's reclamation also consists of a Stream Restoration Plan (SRP). Implementation of the SRP will result in replacing lower-functioning streams and lotic systems, like the ditched headwaters of Troublesome Creek, with higher quality systems post-mining pursuant to state reclamation requirements. Dr. Kiefer opined that this is reasonably likely to result in both localized and regional improvements to Troublesome Creek by restoring its headwaters to a more natural condition. This evidence was not refuted. Petitioner provided no testimony regarding the ecological effect of the Project on Petitioner's wetlands and water resources. FINR witnesses Burleson, Davis, and Palmer claimed no expertise as ecologists. In fact, Mr. Davis admitted that he normally provides his modeling reports to others with expertise regarding whether a modeled water level drop could actually be expected to cause harm. This was not done here. There was no credible testimony that adverse environmental or water resource impacts would result to Petitioner's property from the Project. Materials CF has analyzed whether it will have sufficient materials available to it to accomplish the objectives within the CRP, and sufficient capacity in existing South Pasture mine and proposed Project site CSAs to dispose of waste clays generated by the phosphate matrix processing. For this purpose CF prepared a Life of Mine Backfill Plan (LOMBP). The LOMBP describes how on-site materials will be utilized by CF, during both mining and reclamation activities, over the life of the mine. Based upon CF's calculations as reflected in the LOMBP, information contained in the MPP, and testimony from CF's expert witness, CF will have sufficient materials to achieve its mining and reclamation objectives, and sufficient capacity to dispose of waste clays in existing CSAs located on the South Pasture mine and proposed CSAs on the Project site. CF will be able to accomplish the mining and reclamation as proposed. Petitioner's expert, Mr. Palmer, opined that CF had not provided reasonable assurances of sufficient overburden to create the overburden soil slopes on mine faces discussed in the RMR. For the following reasons, his testimony is not credited. He admitted no experience with mining, dragline booms, how draglines cast overburden, or how cast overburden slopes are created, and he mistakenly assumed CF was limited in the transport of overburden to a distance of 330 feet, a figure not supported by the record. Additionally, Mr. Palmer incorrectly assumed that CF would be mining to an average depth of 73.3 feet, when in fact as reflected in the MPP, CF will be mining to an average depth of 40.4 feet, which means the average overburden thickness will be 18.9 feet, far greater than the 11.5 feet he assumed in his calculations. On the other hand, CF witness Wuitschick testified that there would be sufficient overburden to create the overburden seals called for in the RMR. Mr. Blitch, a CF employee with extensive mining experience and familiarity with the Project, testified that transportation of overburden is not limited to 330 feet and confirmed that CF will have more than enough overburden to create the overburden slopes, which are needed only along preserve and property boundaries and the ability to move it where it is required. Rules Requirements With respect to the ERP criteria contained in section 373.413 and rule 40D-4.301, CF has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, reasonable assurances that the Project: Will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands. Will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property. Will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife, and listed species including aquatic and wetland dependent species, by wetlands, other surface waters and other water related resources. Will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the water quality standards will be violated. Will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. Will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows. Is capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being effectively performed and of functioning as proposed. Will be conducted by an entity with financial, legal, and administrative capability of ensuring that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, if issued. For the reasons expressed in Finding of Fact 64, a contention by Petitioner that the SPE mine application must be denied because CF failed to submit at hearing a separate document entitled "Construction Surface Water Management Plan" is rejected. This is because this requirement does not apply to facilities like CF that are required to obtain individual NPDES permits that address stormwater discharges. Assuming arguendo that it did apply, the Southwest Florida Water Management District Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications (BOR) criteria are designed to be flexible, and other methods can be used to meet the rule objectives. Here, CF submitted numerous reports and studies which have been accepted as being the most persuasive on these issues, and collectively they show that reasonable assurances have been provided that all rule criteria have been satisfied. With respect to the additional public interest and other criteria contained in section 373.414 and rule 40D-4.302 for the protection of water resources and which are applicable to projects located "in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters," CF has provided, by a preponderance of the evidence, reasonable assurances that the Project will: Not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. Not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Not adversely affect the flow of water. Not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity. Be temporary in nature. Not adversely affect the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the Project. Not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts. Will maintain or improve the water quality and the function of the biological systems present at the Project site prior to the commencement of mining activities. The primary goal of the BOR is to meet District water resource objectives of ensuring that the permit will not authorize activities that are harmful to water resources or inconsistent with the public interest. As noted above, however, the criteria are designed to be flexible, and other methods of meeting those objectives will be considered. See BOR §§ 1.1 and 1.3. With respect to phosphate mining reclamation criteria contained in chapter 378 and rule 62C-16.0051, CF has provided, by a preponderance of the evidence, reasonable assurances that the Project will meet the reclamation criteria contained in the rule. The prima facie case provided by CF and the Department at hearing of CF's entitlement to the ERP for the Project was not successfully refuted, as discussed in the foregoing Findings of Fact. The prima facie case provided by CF and the Department at hearing of CF's entitlement to the CRP for the Project was unrefuted. No evidence concerning the reclamation criteria was presented by Petitioner. As set forth in the Order Granting the Motion to Strike and Motion in Limine issued on February 16, 2012, the Petition contained no factual allegations relative to the compliance with applicable regulatory requirements regarding, or potential for harm resulting from, the South Pasture Modifications (as opposed to the ERP or CRP for the Project). Therefore, the allegations relating to the South Pasture Modifications were stricken. The prima facie case provided by CF and the Department at hearing of CF's entitlement to the associated WRP and CRP Modifications for the South Pasture mine (South Pasture Modifications) was not refuted, and Petitioner made no proffer relative to the South Pasture Modifications prior to the close of the evidentiary proceedings. The ruling at hearing to receive in evidence the permit application and the Department's proposed agency action on these two items is reaffirmed.
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 approving the applications of CF Industries, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 30th day of April, 2012.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of Lot 28, Hidden Bay Subdivision, Martin County, Florida. On July 19, 1990, Petitioner filed an application with the Respondent for a dredge and fill permit to construct on the wetland portion of his lot a single family dwelling on stilts, a garage, and a connecting driveway to an existing roadway. The application also seeks a permit to retain a roadway that was constructed on the property before the Respondent asserted jurisdiction over the property. The existing roadway is 25 feet wide and 510 feet long and remained in existence at the time of the formal hearing. The connecting driveway on the wetlands portion of the property would require 40 cubic yards of fill. The following, taken from the Notice of Permit Denial entered by Respondent, accurately describes the proposed project: The proposed project will entail the temporary placement of 500 cubit yards of clean fill in order to set piles for a proposed stilt house. Additional fill (40 cubic yards) is proposed for a driveway to access a proposed garage. Riprap is proposed along the east slope of the driveway and along the northwest slope under the proposed stilt house. In addition, 186 cubic yards of the existing unauthorized fill road is proposed to remain. Total acreage to be impacted by this project is .092 acres. Petitioner's lot fronts Bessey Creek and is located in Section 1, Township 38 South, Range 40 East, in Palm City. Petitioner's lot is located approximately 2,200 feet south of the C-23 Canal on Bessey Creek. Bessey Creek is designated a Class III water. Bessey Creek combines with other tributaries and ultimately discharges into the North Fork of the St. Lucie River, which is designated an Outstanding Florida Water. Petitioner's lot consists of 1.82 acres. Respondent has asserted jurisdiction over approximately 1.3 acres of Petitioner's lot on the grounds that it is a fresh water wetland. Petitioner does not challenge Respondent's asserted jurisdiction in this proceeding. The Respondent has jurisdiction over dredge and fill activities conducted on the portion of Petitioner's lot that is at issue in this proceeding. This project is not exempt from permitting procedures. A dredge and fill permit is required for the proposed construction. Prior to applying for this permit, Petitioner contacted James McElheny, a landscape architect, who assisted Petitioner in drawing up the plans for the house, the driveway, and the garage that Petitioner desired to construct on the property. Without being aware that a permit from the Respondent would be required, Petitioner constructed a driveway on a portion of his property that was within the permitting jurisdiction of Respondent. This driveway extended to the landward end of a boardwalk that terminated as a dock in Bessey Creek. After Petitioner became aware of the need for a permit, he removed the filled driveway to a point that Martin County and Respondent agreed was appropriate. A portion of the driveway remained on property within the permitting jurisdiction of the Respondent at the time of the formal hearing. The plan prepared by Mr. McElheny also depicted this existing, unauthorized roadway. Petitioner's application seeks, in part, a permit to retain this driveway. On June 10, 1991, Respondent issued its Notice of Permit Denial based on the Respondent's conclusion that the Petitioner had failed to provide the required assurances in Sections 403.918(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. The Notice of Permit Denial provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The Department hereby denies the permit for the following reasons: This project is expected to have both short and long term impacts to biological resources and water quality. The total acreage to be impacted by this project is .092 acres. In addition, the applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest pursuant to Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to 403.919, F.S. which gives the Department the authority to examine secondary impacts, the Department has concerns about additional wetland resource and water quality impacts that may result from this project. Floodplain areas are essential to the river system and provide important functions for the environment. The floodplain serves as a buffer system in high tide and storm events. It also serves as a source of detrital input which supports the freshwater and estuarine food chains. In addition, these areas act to improve water quality by stabilizing sediment and filtering upland runoff. Long-term effects of the proposed project would include a decrease in the productivity of the system, as well as a decrease in the filtering and stabilizing capabilities of the system. Water quality degradation is also expected to occur with upland runoff from pesticides, fertilizers, sewerage and petroleum products. Floodplain wetlands also provide a habitat for a wide variety of reptiles, amphibians, birds, crustaceans and mammals. This would eliminate this wetland habitat. This project is expected to be in violation of the following Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code Rules: 403.918 Criteria for granting or denying permits 17-312.080 Standards for Issuance or Denial of Permit 17-312.300(3) Mitigation Intent 17-302.560 Criteria: Class III waters The Department has determined that the following changes to the project make the project permittable. Modify the project to reduce or eliminate adverse environmental impact by: Removing the unauthorized fill road from water of the state. Relocate the proposed house to utilize as much upland area on the property as possible. Relocate the garage and access driveway to an upland area [and] eliminate or modify the garage and access road to reduce impacts. Section 403.918, Florida Statutes, provides the following permitting criteria pertinent to this proceeding: A permit may not be issued . . . unless the applicant provides the department with reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. . . . A permit may not be issued . . . unless the applicant provides the department with reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest. . . . (a) In determining whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others . . . the department shall consider and balance the following criteria: Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered species, or their habitat; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The Respondent is entitled to consider the cumulative impact of the proposed project pursuant to Section 403.919, Florida Statutes, which provides as follows: The department, in deciding whether to grant or deny a permit for an activity which will affect waters, shall consider: The impact of the project for which the permit is sought. The impact of projects which are existing or under construction or for which permits or jurisdictional determinations have been sought. The impact of projects which are under review, approved, or vested pursuant to s. 380.06, or other projects which may reasonably be expected to be located within the jurisdictional extent of waters, based upon land use restrictions and regulations. The residence that Petitioner proposes to build on the wetland portion of the property will be constructed on pilings so that the underside of the house will be 12 feet above the ground. There will be a total of 12 pilings, with each piling being 10 inches square. The "footprint" of the house will be 1,654 square feet. If the project is permitted, best management practice will require that a silt screen be erected around the construction site during construction to prevent silt runoff. The proposed site for the house is located in a natural clearing that would require minimal clearing. If the project is to be permitted in this wetland, the site selected by Petitioner is the best site with the least impact on the wetland. Petitioner would be required to remove up to two laurel oaks and seven red maple trees. These are relatively small trees, and both species are common. Petitioner would also be required to remove shrub of no particular unique value. Petitioner proposes to mitigate the removal of the trees by replanting on the property trees that were removed in a 2-1 ratio, so that 6 laurel oaks and 14 red maples would be replanted. Petitioner also proposes to revegetate the area beneath the residence, with the exception of the area required by the pilings. There are invasive, exotic plants on the property, such as Brazilian pepper, that would be removed by Petitioner and replaced by native plants. Ms. Jacqueline Kelly, the environmental specialist who reviewed this project for Respondent, visited the property approximately four times for a total of eight hours. Ms. Kelly is of the opinion that no dredge and fill activity should be permitted on jurisdictional wetlands. Ms. Kelly testified that she observed several species of birds while she was on the property, including a wood stork, a great blue heron, a little blue heron, a tricolored heron, an osprey, bluejays, woodpeckers, and grackles. The wood stork is an endangered species and the little blue heron, the tricolored heron, and the osprey are species of special concern. These birds do not nest on the subject property, and they were not observed in the area of the wetland on which the proposed construction would occur. There was no testimony upon which it can be concluded that the proposed construction will stop these species from coming on to the property. Because of the slope of the terrain, the upland portion of the Petitioner's property drains away from the wetland while the portion on which the proposed construction would occur drains toward the wetland. At the formal hearing, Petitioner suggested that any concerns as to drainage from the roof of the proposed residence could be discharged onto the upland portion of the lot by gutters. In his post-hearing submittal, Petitioner proposes that a condition of the permit be that "[a] roof drainage system be installed that allows the roof to drain to the upland portion of the project." The permitting requirement contained in Section 403.918(6), Florida Statutes, pertaining to historical or archaeological resources was not at issue in this proceeding. Ms. Kelly concluded that Petitioner has not provided reasonable assurances required by Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, as to each of the remaining permitting criteria. The rationale given by Ms. Kelly for her conclusions is not persuasive. The greater weight of the evidence is that all reasonable assurances required by Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, that were at issue in this proceeding have been provided as it pertains to the construction of the residence. The existing roadway was filled using shell rock which has stabilized. The mere existence of the roadway on the wetland property was not shown to violate any permitting criteria since this roadway does not violate water quality standards and is not contrary to the public interest. Petitioner did not, however, provide reasonable assurances that the utilization of this existing roadway as either a driveway or a parking area would not violate water quality standards as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(1), Florida Statutes, or that such use would not be contrary to the public interest or that those parts of the project would not be contrary to the public interest as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. Petitioner did not provide reasonable assurances that the construction of the garage or the extension of the driveway on these wetlands would not violate water quality standards as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(1), Florida Statutes, or that those parts of the project would not be contrary to the public interest as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. John Meyer was of the opinion that the project should be denied because of the possible precedent that the permitting of this project may establish for other owners of wetland properties. There was no factual or legal basis established for this opinion. The permitting of this project has no value as a precedent for other projects. There was no evidence that there were other permit applications pending for other projects in wetlands, and Mr. Meyer could only recall one or two such applications ever having been filed. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that speculative cumulative impacts of this project does not prohibit the permit pursuant to the provisions of Section 409.919(3), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order which permits Petitioner to construct the residence on stilts with the following conditions: That silt screens be erected during the actual construction to prevent silt runoff from the construction from reaching Bessey Creek. That a roof drainage system be installed that allows the roof to drain to the upland portion of the project. That Petitioner be required to mitigate for the removal of laurel oaks and red maple by replanting on the property two laurel oaks for each laurel oak removed and by replanting on the property two red maples for each red maple removed. That Petitioner be required to revegetate with native plants the area under the house except for the areas required for the stilts. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Respondent deny a permit to construct a garage or extend the existing roadway. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Respondent permit Petitioner to retain the existing roadway on the condition that the roadway not be utilized as either a driveway or as a parking area for motor vehicles. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 12th day of January 1994.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent Lennar Homes, Inc., is entitled to an environmental resource permit to construct a 516- acre residential development in Miami-Dade County known as Lakes by the Bay South Commons Project and, if so, under what conditions.
Findings Of Fact On May 18, 2001, Respondent Lennar Homes, Inc. (Lennar Homes), filed an application with Respondent South Florida Water Management District (District) for an environmental resource permit (ERP) for a 516-acre residential development in Miami- Dade County known as Lakes By The Bay (Project). On June 12, 2002, Lennar Homes filed a revised ERP application for the Project. The application, as revised, is for an ERP conceptually approving the construction of a surface water management system to serve the Project and authorizing the construction to clear the site, excavate the wet retention areas, and expand an existing lake. Providing 3300 single- family residences, the Project is the last phase of a master planned residential development, which presently contains over 1500 residences north and west of the Project. The Project is bordered by Southwest 97th Avenue to the west, Southwest 87th Avenue to the east, Southwest 216th Street to the north, and Southwest 232nd Street to the south. Immediately south of the Project are a regional wastewater treatment plant and county solid waste landfill. These facilities occupy opposing banks of the C-1 Canal, which runs a short distance from the southwest corner of the Project. The Project site is drained, cleared, and infested with Brazilian pepper and melaleuca. The Project will impact 135 acres of wetlands, but these wetlands are severely degraded due to the construction of roads, berms, and canals. No evidence suggests that the site is presently used by any listed species. At present, drainage across the site is from west to east, where stormwater is intercepted by the L-31E levy and canal running along the west side of Southwest 87th Avenue. At its nearest point (the southeast corner), the Project is about one mile from the southern part of Biscayne Bay. Biscayne Bay is an Outstanding Florida Water. Much of its central and southern parts, including the area closest to the Project site, are within Biscayne National Park. In contrast to the northern part of Biscayne Bay, the central and southern parts contain significant mangrove-lined coastal wetlands. The bay bottom in southern Biscayne Bay hosts dense seagrass beds, and coral reefs within Biscayne National Park support a diverse community of marine life. The L-31E levy and canal redirect stormwater from the Project site south to the C-1 Canal, which runs, in this area, in a northwest-to-southeast direction before emptying into Biscayne Bay. The C-1 Canal drains an extensive area to the north and northwest of the Project. The landfill and water treatment plant are a short distance downstream of the Proposed Project. The parties have stipulated that the Project meets the following ERP criteria (with minor rephrasing from the stipulation): The Project will not adversely affect significant historical and archaeological resources. The Project is not located within an Outstanding Florida Water and will not result in the direct discharge of surface water into an Outstanding Florida Water. Lennar has proposed mitigation to offset the adverse impacts of the Project, and the mitigation is in the same drainage basin as the adverse impacts. Therefore, the Project will not generate unlawful cumulative impacts, in violation of Section 373.414(8)(a)-(b), Florida Statutes. The Project will not cause adverse water quality impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands, in violation of Rule 40E-4.301(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Project will not cause adverse flooding to onsite or offsite property, in violation of Rule 40E-4.301(b), Florida Administrative Code. The Project will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, in violation of Rule 40E-4.301(c), Florida Administrative Code. The Project will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows established pursuant to Section 373.042, Florida Statutes, in violation of Rule 40E-4.301(g), Florida Administrative Code. The Project will not cause adverse impacts to a work of the District established pursuant to Section 373.086, Florida Statutes, in violation of Rule 40E-4.301(h), Florida Administrative Code. The Project will be conducted by an entity with sufficient financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, as required by Rule 40E-4.301(j), Florida Administrative Code. No special basin or geographic area criteria established in Chapter 40E-41, Florida Administrative Code, are applicable to the Project. The Project will not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling, as prohibited by Section 373.414(1)(a)3, Florida Statutes. The Project will be permanent, as addressed by Section 373.414(1)(a)5, Florida Statutes. The District issued its Staff Report on March 13, 2002. The Staff Report approves the proposed mitigation plan, which would enhance or create and preserve 135 acres of onsite wetlands by creating an upland buffer, emergent marsh and transitional herbaceous shrub areas, and tree island areas. Much of the proposed mitigation area will occupy the southern half of the perimeter of the Project site. As proposed in the mitigation plan, Lennar Homes will grant the District a conservation easement over the mitigation area and will be required to meet certain mitigation performance conditions. Shortly prior to the commencement of the final hearing in this case, the District decided to change the proposed permit regarding mitigation. The purpose of the change was to require Lennar Homes to allow the mitigation area to be used as a flowway between the C-1 Canal, upstream of the nutrient loads deposited by the landfill and water treatment plant, and an area to the east of the Project site. The receiving area consists of vestigial tidal creeks leading to presently remaining tidal creeks that empty into small embayments within Biscayne Bay. The general purpose of the change was to remediate the loss of freshwater flows into these tidal creeks, the embayments, and Biscayne Bay that resulted from the construction of drainage canals and levies, such as C-1 and L31-E. Accordingly, the District issued an Addendum to Staff Report on August 9, 2002. The Addendum adds an easement to the original mitigation plan by adding Special Condition #24, which states: No later than 30 days after permit issuance and prior to commencement of construction resulting in wetland impacts, the permittee shall submit two certified copies of the recorded flowage easement for the mitigation area and associated buffers and a GIS disk of the recorded easement area The recorded easement shall be in substantial compliance with Exhibit 41. Any proposed modifications to the approved form must receive prior written consent from the District. The easement must be free of encumbrances or interests in the easement which the District determines are contrary to the intent of the easement. . . . Exhibit 41 (actually Exhibit 41A) is entitled, "Perpetual Flowage, Inundation, Construction, and Access Easement." Representing a grant from Lennar Homes to the District, the easement (Flowage Easement) is for any and all purposes deemed by [the District] to be necessary, convenient, or incident to, or in connection with, the unrestricted right to regularly, or at any time, and for any length of time[,] overflow, flood, inundate, flow water on, across, and through, store water on, and submerge the [encumbered property], together with the unrestricted right at any time to enter upon and access the [encumbered property], with any and all vehicles and equipment, including but not limited to the right to move, transport, store, operate, and stage equipment, materials and supplies, in order to construct, operate, and maintain any and all structures, improvements, equipment, pumps, ditches and berms upon the [encumbered property] deemed by [the District] to be necessary, convenient, incident to or in connection with the implementation of the BBCW Project on the [encumbered property], or in connection with any project in the interest of flood control, water management, conservation, environmental restoration, water storage, or reclamation, and allied purposes, that may be conducted now or in the future by the [District], or to carry out the purposes and intent of the statutory authority of the [District], presently existing or that may be enacted in the future, together with all right, title, and interest in and to the [BBCW] Project Structures. * * * This Easement shall at no time be construed to alleviate or release [Lennar Home's] responsibilities and require [sic] under ERP Permit No. to construct and maintain an on-site mitigation area as described and authorized in the ERP Permit. Other provisions of the Flowage Easement impose all risk of loss in connection with the flowway upon Lennar Homes, which indemnifies the District from all losses, costs, damages, and liability in connection with the flowway. On September 5, 2002, after the hearing, but a few days before the taking of the post-hearing testimony, the District issued a Revised Addendum to Staff Report. The Revised Addendum restates Special Condition #24 with a few relatively minor changes and adds Special Conditions ##25 and 26. Special Condition #25 attempts to harmonize the Flowage Easement with the original mitigation plan contemplated by the Staff Report. Special Condition #25 provides that when the District exercises its rights under the Flowage Easement, other special conditions shall be deleted, so as, for example, to relieve Lennar Homes of its obligations to maintain the mitigation area (except for a 25-foot buffer) and post a mitigation-performance bond. Special Condition #26 changes the language in the conservation easement, which was contemplated by the original Staff Report and mitigation plan, to harmonize this easement with the Flowage Easement. Lennar Homes has submitted a version of the Revised Addendum to Staff Report that would satisfy its concerns. The Lennar Homes version would require the District, within 30 days after issuing the ERP to Lennar Homes, to obtain permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the local environmental regulatory agency, although not the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, which, under state law, would have to issue an ERP to the District before it could construct the flowway. The Lennar Homes version would also give the District only 90 days after issuing the ERP to Lennar Homes within which to exercise its right to construct the flowway and would sequence events so that Lennar Homes would not spend the estimated $2 million on wetland enhancement and creation and then lose the investment due to the inundation of the mitigation site with water, as authorized by the Flowage Easement. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan plays a crucial role in this case. But for this plan, the District would not have attached the additional conditions contained in the Addendum to Staff Report and Revised Addendum to Staff Report--without which conditions, the District now contends that Lennar Homes is not entitled to the ERP. Congress initially authorized the Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project in 1948. Objectives of the C&SF Project included flood control, water supply for municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses, prevention of saltwater intrusion, and protection of fish and wildlife. The C&SF Project attained these objectives, in part, through a primary system of 1000 miles each of levees and canals, 150 water-control structures, and 16 major pump stations. Unintended consequences of the C&SF Project have included the irreversible loss of vast areas of wetlands, including half of the original Everglades; the alteration in the water storage, timing, and flow capacities of natural drainage systems; and the degradation of water quality and habitat due to over-drainage or extreme fluctuations in the timing and delivery of freshwater into the coastal wetlands and estuaries. In 1992, Congress authorized the C&SF Project Comprehensive Review Study (Restudy). The objective of the Restudy was to reexamine the C&SF Project to determine the feasibility of modifying the project to restore the South Florida ecosystem and provide for the other water-related needs of the region. Completed in April 1999, the Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Restudy Report) notes that, among the unintended consequences of the C&SF Project, was "unsuitable freshwater flows to Florida and Biscayne bays and Lake Worth Lagoon [that] adversely impact salinity and physically alter fish and wildlife habitat." The Restudy Report states that, absent comprehensive, new restoration projects, the "overall health of the [South Florida] ecosystem will have substantially deteriorated" by 2050. The Restudy Report recommends a comprehensive plan for the restoration, protection, and preservation of the water resources of Central and South Florida. This plan is known as the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). Acknowledging the complex dynamics of the restoration goals identified in CERP, the Restudy Report establishes Project Implementation Reports to tie together CERP and the detailed design necessary for the construction of individual restoration projects and adaptive assessments to monitor the performance of individual components, incorporate new data, and refine future components. The Restudy Report is, among other things, a programmatic environmental impact statement. The Restudy Report states: "Due to the conceptual nature of [CERP] and the associated uncertainties, many subsequent site-specific environmental documents will be required for the individual separable project elements." In May 2002, the District and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed a draft of the Project Management Plan for the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (BBCW PMP). Noting that a "major goal of [CERP] is to improve freshwater deliveries to Biscayne Bay," the BBCW PMP identifies the BBCW project as the means by which to restore some of the coastal wetlands and tributaries in south Dade County. The BBCW PMP states that the primary purpose of the BBCW project, which is one of sixty projects contained in CERP, is to "redistribute freshwater runoff from the watershed into Biscayne Bay, away from the canal discharges that exist today and provide a more natural and historic overland flow through existing and or improved coastal wetlands." The Cutler Wetlands subcomponent of the BBCW project encompasses the Project site. One of the objectives of the Cutler Wetlands subcomponent is to divert water from the C-1 Canal upstream of the landfill and water treatment plant to the east of the L-31E levy and canal. In connection with the Cutler Wetlands subcomponent and the possible role of the flowway identified in this case, the District retained Dr. John Meeder, a Biscayne Bay ecologist associated with the Southeast Environmental Resource Center at Florida International University, to perform an abbreviated study and issue a report concerning the conditions required for the restoration of the coastal wetlands in the vicinity of the coastal wetlands to the north of the C-1 canal and east of the Project site (Meeder Report). The Meeder Report studies two feasible freshwater delivery options and prefers a bypass flowway along Southwest 224th Street, across roughly the middle of the Project site and north of most of the proposed mitigation area, to the L-31E levy and canal. The distribution system resulting from the preferred route would use the natural grade of the land to divert the water to the coastal wetlands and tidal creeks to the east and south that are targeted for rehydration. The alternative flowway route would run along Southwest 232nd Street, in the approximate area of the Flowage Easement, but would require pumping to distribute the water north along the L-31E levy and canal for release to the targeted coastal wetlands and tidal creeks. Obviously, the District has chosen the less-preferred route to minimize the impact on the Project. The Meeder Report considers the amount of freshwater required for two rehydration options. In the first option, water diverted from the C-1 Canal and passing through the flowway would rehydrate only the tidal creeks, which then empty into the embayments that lead to Biscayne Bay. In the second option, water diverted from the C-1 Canal and passing through the flowway would rehydrate the tidal creeks and the surrounding coastal wetlands. To maintain an appropriate salinity range and rehydrate only the tidal creeks, the flowway would need to deliver 70 acre/feet per day in the dry season and 95 acre/feet per day in the wet season. To maintain an appropriate salinity range and rehydrate the tidal creeks and surrounding coastal wetlands, the flowway would need to deliver 209 acre/feet per day in the dry season and 1139 acre/feet per day in the wet season. Several factors militate against an attempt to rehydrate the coastal wetlands surrounding the targeted tidal creeks. Potential errors in data and analysis increase in magnitude with the larger freshwater diversions needed to rehydrate the tidal creeks and surrounding coastal wetlands, and Dr. Meeder admitted that the largest value was very approximate. Potentially serious impacts upon salinity and associated vegetative communities increase in likelihood with the larger freshwater diversions needed to rehydrate the tidal creeks and surrounding coastal wetlands. Also, the diversion of larger volumes of water from the C-1 Canal may have adverse impacts on downstream conditions. At the point of the C-1 Canal where it first enters the landfill and wastewater treatment plant (just downstream from the flowway), the average flow of the C-1 Canal is 350 acre/feet per day, but the median flow is only 160 acre/feet per day. (The average flow rate is skewed by occasional, very high daily flows of 4000 acre/feet during large storm events.) The larger volumes diverted to rehydrate the tidal creeks and surrounding coastal wetlands would, at times, withdraw a relatively large portion of the water from the C-1 Canal. For these reasons, the District justifiably elected to seek a flowway that would rehydrate only the tidal creeks, including the vestigial tidal creeks, but not the surrounding coastal wetlands. Petitioners and Lennar Homes have raised numerous other issues about the flowway that the District seeks to obtain. The District requires a 200-acre flowway to rehydrate adequately the vestigial tidal creeks, the presently remaining tidal creeks, the small embayment, and then the subject area of Biscayne Bay, but the mitigation area potentially available on the Project site is limited to about 135 acres, and some uncertainty exists as to whether the District can obtain control of the remaining land necessary to assemble a 200-acre flowway. Even the 200-acre flowway is probably insufficient to accommodate significant water treatment, so water quality issues remain outstanding, notwithstanding the better water quality upstream of the landfill and water treatment plant. Other issues arise from the requirement that the District obtain an ERP from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, as well as one or more federal agencies, before it could construct the flowway. To the extent that this requirement delays and possibly precludes the construction of the flowway, this requirement militates against the inclusion of the Flowage Easement and new special conditions in the ERP. To the extent that this requirement insures that the flowway will not cause flooding or adverse water quality in the tidal creeks, embayment, and ultimately Biscayne Bay, this requirement militates in favor of the inclusion of the Flowage Easement and new special conditions in the ERP; the absence of detailed specifications for the design and construction of the flowway precludes any assurance that the flowway would not flood or otherwise damage the upland portion of the Project site, so subsequent permit-review is essential to the present inclusion of the Flowage Easement and new special conditions in the ERP. It is impossible to credit the District's evidence that various transition-zone wetland species would survive inundation under unknown flow rates, of variable depths, and of unknown and possibly indefinite duration. Lennar Homes legitimately is concerned that its substantial investment in mitigation, pursuant to the original mitigation plan, would be wasted if the District constructs the flowway. As presently drafted, the Flowage Easement and new special conditions contemplate that Lennar Homes would construct the original mitigation, at a substantial cost, and the District would later construct and inundate the flowway through largely the same area. Marketing of parcels in close proximity to the flowway might be complicated by the uncertainty concerning what will occupy the area beyond a resident's backyard--a benign passive mitigation area or a flowway that may range from a intermittently wet slough or glade to a placid lake to a raging swollen river--and by the probability that the District would not construct the flowway until 2009. The District justifies the Flowage Easement and new special conditions on two grounds. First, the District contends that the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions is harmful to the District's water resources. Second, the District contends that the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions is inconsistent with the overall objectives of the District. The first argument misses the mark. A project that is otherwise permittable, except for the fact that it interferes with the establishment of a restoration project, does not harm the water resources of the District; such a Project interferes with the improvement of the water resources of the District. In this case, the parties have stipulated that the Project will not cause adverse impacts due to the original mitigation plan. If adverse impacts means anything, it means harm to the water resources of the District. The second argument requires the identification of the District's objectives. The Florida Legislature has declared at Section 373.1502(2)(a), Florida Statutes, that CERP implementation is "in the public interest and is necessary for restoring, preserving and protecting the South Florida ecosystem . . .." In May 2000, the Florida Legislature enacted the Everglades Restoration Investment Act, which commits Florida to contribute over $2 billion for the implementation of CERP-- Florida's share for the first ten years of implementation. The Florida Legislature has made the implementation of CERP an overall objective of the District. Several factors are important in determining whether the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions would be inconsistent with the overall objective of the District to implement CERP. These factors require consideration of the purpose of the proposed restoration project; the extent of completion of the project's design, permitting, and construction; if the project has not yet been designed or permitted, the likelihood of construction; when the project would be constructed; the impact of the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions upon the proposed restoration project; and the existence of feasible alternatives to accomplish the same objectives as those achieved by the proposed restoration project. These factors generally favor the issuance of the ERP, but only with the Flowage Easement and new special conditions. The flowway project would rehydrate a portion of the estuarine waters of southern Biscayne Bay that are sufficiently healthy to respond vigorously to the new freshwater infusions, so the project is important. The C-1 Canal appears to be the only readily available source of sufficient volumes of freshwater to achieve the rehydration of the tidal creeks, and the proposed path through the Lennar Homes mitigation area appears to be the only readily available means by which to divert the freshwater to the targeted tidal creeks. If the flowway project is limited to the tidal creeks and does not extend to the surrounding coastal wetlands, the likely environmental impacts appear to be positive on the receiving areas and the downstream portion of the C-1 Canal. For these reasons, even though the project is at an early conceptual stage and construction would not start for six years, it seems likely to be constructed. The apparent difficulty in securing the necessary additional 65 acres may yet be overcome through property acquisition, and, if not, the District may be able to increase the capacity of the flowway without jeopardizing the adjacent uplands. For the reasons stated in the Conclusions of Law below, other factors in determining whether the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions would be inconsistent with the overall objective of the District to implement CERP require consideration of the impact upon Lennar Homes in accommodating the Flowage Easement and new special conditions. With two exceptions, the Flowage Easement and new special conditions do not impose an inordinate burden upon Lennar Homes. The flowway would occupy the portion of the Project site that would have been subject to the conservation easement that was part of the original mitigation plan. Lennar Homes' responsibility for maintenance is considerably lessened if the District constructs the flowway, whose special maintenance needs can only be met by the District or its contractors. Although Lennar Homes may experience some sales resistance due to the uncertainty of the use of the mitigation area, the assurances gained from the subsequent permitting process, during which the District will seek an ERP from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for the construction of the flowway, should allay reasonable concerns about flooding and other damage to the adjacent uplands. In three respects, though, the District has abused its discretion in preparing the Flowage Easement and new special conditions. First, the District abused its discretion in requiring Lennar Homes to perform mitigation work in the mitigation area, pursuant to the original mitigation plan, to the extent that the products of such work will likely be destroyed or substantially harmed by the construction and operation of the flowway. The value of mitigation rests largely in the functions that it can support through longterm viability. The construction and operation of the surface water management system, the posting of a sufficient bond to guarantee future performance under either mitigation scenario, the execution and delivery into escrow of deeds and other legal instruments sufficient to meet the requirements of the Flowage Easement and new special conditions (subject to the two matters discussed in this and the two following paragraphs), and the construction of the portion of the original mitigation that would not be impacted by the flowway sufficiently respond to the need for mitigation, until the District finally determines the need for it to exercise its rights under the Flowage Easement. Second, the District abused its discretion by omitting any timeframe for the District to exercise its rights under the Flowage Easement and new special conditions. The timeframe proposed by Lennar Homes for the District to make this final determination of whether to proceed with the flowway is unreasonable and ignores the substantial period of time required to design, fund, and permit the flowway. But a timeframe may be especially important if Lennar Homes encounters more marketing resistance than might be reasonably anticipated. Therefore, the new conditions should provide that if construction of the flowway is not substantially completed by 2011, then the Flowage Easement shall be released and returned to Lennar Homes, upon its commencement, without delay, of the construction of any of the original mitigation that it did not already complete. Third, the District also abused its discretion in the Flowage Easement and new special conditions in the allocation of liability for the flowway, including apparently its construction, maintenance, and operation. The District would impose this liability upon Lennar Homes, which would have to indemnify the District for construction damage or any malfunctions in the operation of the flowway, such as damage to adjacent uplands by flooding, erosion, or contamination. The District has imposed this restoration project on Lennar Homes and has done so, not to avoid harm to the District's water resources, but to achieve the overall objective of the District to implement CERP. The District and its contractors, not Lennar Homes, will construct, maintain, and operate the flowway. The District, not Lennar Homes, has the expertise in the design, construction, and operation of water-control facilities of this type. This record does not disclose a single legitimate reason to impose upon Lennar Homes the liability for any aspect of the flowway that does not result from the acts or omissions of Lennar Homes or its assignees as owners of the adjacent uplands. Although, as stated in its proposed recommended order, the District does not object to the standing of Petitioners, Respondents did not stipulate to the standing of any Petitioners. Petitioners The Everglades Trust, Inc., and The Everglades Foundation, Inc., offered no witnesses concerning their standing, and no exhibits address the standing of these parties. The record thus fails to demonstrate that Petitioners The Everglades Trust, Inc., and The Everglades Foundation, Inc., are substantially affected by the proposed agency action. Petitioner National Parks Conservation Association, Inc., (National Parks) is a not-for-profit corporation registered in Florida as a foreign corporation. The corporate purpose of National Parks is to protect and enhance America's national parks, including Biscayne National Park, for present and future generations. National Parks seeks the protection and enhancement of the Biscayne National Park through the successful implementation of CERP. National Parks has 350,000 members, including 19,900 in Florida. Members of National Parks use Biscayne National Park for recreational boating, fishing, snorkeling, fish watching, scuba diving, and camping (on the barrier islands). Members of National Parks are actively monitoring the implementation of CERP. Petitioner Florida Audubon Society, Inc. (Florida Audubon), is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that was originally incorporated in Florida in 1900. The corporate purpose of Florida Audubon is to protect, conserve, and restore Florida's heritage through the preservation of the state's natural resources. Florida Audubon has adopted as its highest priority the design and implementation of CERP. Florida Audubon has 32,000 members in Florida, including over 2100 members in Dade County. Numerous of these members engage in bird watching, recreation, and scientific research in Biscayne National Park. Florida Audubon organizes membership trips to Biscayne Bay, conducts its annual Bird-athon and Christmas Bird Count in the vicinity of Biscayne Bay, and conducts various environment educational programs in and concerning Biscayne Bay. The issuance of the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions would substantially impact the ability of the District to restore this part of Biscayne Bay. Without such restoration, the functions of Biscayne Bay will slowly decline until eventually the overall health of the entire South Florida ecosystem will be substantially deteriorated. Thus, National Parks and Florida Audubon would be substantially affected by the issuance of the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the District issue the environmental resource permit with the Flowage Easement and new special conditions, as modified in accordance with the matters presented in paragraphs 39-41. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 Richard Grosso Louise Caro, Certified Legal Intern Environmental & Land Use Law Center, Inc. Shepard Broad Law Center 3305 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314 Marcy I. LaHart Marcy I. LaHart, P.A. 711 Talladaga Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33405 Erin L. Deady Environmental Counsel 444 Brickell Avenue, Suite 850 Miami, Florida 33131 E. Thom Rumberger Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.A. 403 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Luna Ergas Phillips Douglas H. MacLaughlin Office of Counsel South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Frank E. Matthews Gary V. Perko Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314
The Issue Whether Petitioner's dredging and filling on his property in Center Hill, Florida, qualifies for an agricultural exemption under section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes,1/ from the requirement to obtain an environmental resource permit from the Southwest Florida Water Management District.
Findings Of Fact The Property is comprised of 118 acres of contiguous parcels located within Section 23, Township 21 South, Range 23 East, in Sumter County, at the intersection of County Road 469 and County Road 710 in Center Hill, Florida. Title to the Property is held by Petitioner and his wife under various entities that they control.2/ The District is an administrative agency charged with the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage, and control water resources within its geographic boundaries, and to administer and enforce chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and related rules under chapter 40D of the Florida Administrative Code. The Department is the state agency authorized under section 373.407, Florida Statutes, to make binding determinations at the request of a water management district or landowner as to whether an existing or proposed activity qualifies for an agricultural-related exemption under section 373.406(2). Petitioner uses the Property for raising cattle, an agricultural use. The activities at the Property are operated under the name "Serenity Ridge Farms." Petitioner has had up to 65 head of cattle on the Property, but since 2011, has kept only approximately 30 head. The Property is classified as agricultural pursuant to section 193.461, Florida Statutes. At the time Petitioner acquired the Property, there was an approximately 2.5-acre, more or less triangular, wetland at the southern end of the western parcel at the intersection of State Road (SR) 469 and County Road (CR) 710, Center Hill, Florida (the Site).3/ This wetland was originally the northern part of a much larger wetland system but, years before, had been severed from the larger system by the construction of the two roads which form a “V” at the southern boundary of Petitioner’s property. Due to its severance from the larger system, the condition of the wetland on the Site was adversely affected. In addition, the Site had been used by others for dumping various types of debris over the years, including tires, appliances, and concrete. In approximately 2007, Petitioner decided to clean up the Site and build a pond. Although the primary water needs for his cattle had been met with water troughs serviced by a four- inch well on the Property, he intended to use the pond as a supplemental source of water supply for his cattle. In deciding to build the pond, Petitioner did not consult with the District. Nor did he confer with an engineer regarding the amount of water the pond should hold to meet the needs of his cattle. Rather, his decision as to the size and configuration of the pond was driven by the footprint of the area in the Site that Petitioner perceived as "full of garbage" and a "landfill." In March 2007, Petitioner began cleaning up the Site. He noticed a stench from the garbage as the area was cleaned. During cleanup, 26 old tires, 14-cubic yards of old appliances, and pieces of concrete and steel were removed from the Site. While there were no accurate wetland surveys of the Site prior to the initiation of Petitioner's clean-up efforts, historical photographs of the Site and remnant plants indicate that, at the time Petitioner undertook the cleanup, the wetland had been significantly impacted. The construction of roads SR 469 and CR 710, which occurred prior to 1973, severed and excluded the Site from the larger wetland area, preventing the free flow of water beyond the Site. Although remaining a wetland, the severance adversely impacted the wetland even before the dumping. The likely dominant species in the wetland were Carolina Willow (Salix spp.) and Primrose Willow (Ludwigia spp.). While both Carolina Willow and Primrose Willow are obligate wetland indicator species,4/ Primrose willow can be a nuisance species and Carolina willow can form a monoculture. In June 2007, the District became aware of Petitioner's activities on the Site. The District opened a complaint file and advised Petitioner that he should not proceed without a permit. Petitioner met with District staff on a number of occasions during his activities in an attempt to find a resolution with the District, but a resolution was never reached. As a result of Petitioner's dredging and filling, a 1.12-acre pond was created and an area of approximately 1.3 acres of wetland was filled. There is no remaining wetland function at the Site. In July 2008, the City of Center Hill sent a letter to the District's Environmental Regulation Manager. The letter, dated July 2, 2008, was signed by the City of Center Hill's Mayor, Chairman of the City Council, and City Clerk, and stated in pertinent part: As community leaders we have many responsibilities that include the stabilization and revitalization of the City of Center Hill. We are fortunate to have citizens who are concerned and active regarding the quality of life in the neighborhoods they reside in. The upkeep of our neighborhoods remains a critical element to the success of our community. Code enforcement cannot be successful without the support of our local citizens. It is the responsibility of each of us to keep our properties code compliant. This will ensure a safe and healthy City. As part of a large voluntary effort, we are pleased that Serenity Ridge Farms in eastern Center Hill implemented a clean-up on property adjacent to the intersection of SR 469 and CR 710 (E. Jefferson Street). The community has increased traffic visibility at this location after the removal of nuisance overgrowth. Additionally, the hauling of debris from the site eliminated a public health hazard that existed as a common dumping-ground for many years. In fact, the work at this location far exceeds any code compliance among the nearly 60 cases that have come to our attention in recent years. Property owners like Serenity Farms are what make our City in Sumter County a great place to live. Hence we ask that our correspondence be included in your files and distributed to members of your staff as you see fit. The subject property has no code deficiencies in the City of Center Hill. Despite the City's letter and efforts between Petitioner and the District, negotiations to settle the District's complaint by restoration or mitigation of the alleged adverse impacts of Petitioner's dredge-and-fill activities have been unsuccessful. The District’s governing board authorized initiation of litigation against Petitioner on December 14, 2010. On January 4, 2011, Petitioner submitted an after-the- fact application to the District for an environmental resource permit for the pond, along with an approximately $1,500 permit application fee. After conducting a site meeting to review the impact of Petitioner's activities, District staff made a request for additional information. The request for additional information (RAI) requested an amount of engineering that, according to Petitioner, would make compliance cost prohibitive. As Petitioner explained in his testimony: My quick estimate, and what the engineering, required all of that, surveys[,] to[p]ographic surveys, could have been anywhere from 50 to [$]75,000, maybe more. While the actual costs to comply with the Districts RAI have not been determined, Petitioner's testimony that the RAI requirements were cost prohibitive is credited. On November 14, 2011, the District wrote a letter to the Department formally requesting a binding determination from the Department as to whether the activities on the Property qualify for the agricultural exemption afforded by section 373.406(2). After receiving the District’s request, Department staff conducted a site visit of the Property on December 28, 2011. The approximately 1.12-acre open water area resulting from Petitioner’s dredging and filling ranges from 4 to 6 feet deep at the center, depending on the groundwater level. At the time of the District’s site visit, the central pond depth was approximately four feet. December is the dry season in this area of Florida and in 2011 there was a drought. The Department’s survey of the Site shows a water depth of six feet. There has been some recruitment of wetland vegetation in the shallower areas of the pond. In fact, some of the emergent vegetation is of higher quality than that which existed prior to the dredging and filling, and there is evidence that wildlife is utilizing it. In addition, Petitioner’s activities included the construction of berms below the bisecting roadways that help filter direct road run-off that previously washed into the Site. The Site, however, has not been restored to a wetland in any significant way. No regeneration is expected at sustained depths of greater than two feet. The maximum recommended depth for planting is one-and-one-half feet. The pond is fenced off, preventing the cattle from direct pond access. Petitioner has spent over $12,000 landscaping and putting in an irrigation system around the pond area. The irrigation system is designed to water the landscaping, including sapling live oaks and sod. Neither landscaping a pond nor irrigating landscaping around a pond is typical for cattle ponds. Petitioner has stated that he would someday like to build a retirement home overlooking the pond. The irrigation system, like the watering troughs on the upland portions of the Property, is serviced by a four-inch diameter well. Generally, a four-inch well can produce 60-100 gallons per minute. The pond as constructed contains approximately 100,000 gallons in the first four inches of water alone. The District’s standard permitting allocation for water withdrawal for cattle is 12 gallons of water per day. Under the Department’s best management practices rule,5/ the allocation is up to 30 gallons per head of cattle per day. On February 10, 2012, the Department rendered its Preliminary Determination which concluded that Petitioner’s activities did not meet the requirements for an agricultural exemption. Under the heading "Application of Statutory Criteria,” the Preliminary Determination stated: Pursuant to Section 373.406(2) F.S., all of the following criteria must be met in order for the permitting exemption to apply. "Is the landowner engaged in the occupation of agriculture, silviculture, floriculture, or horticulture?" YES. The [Department's Office of Agricultural Water Policy] finds that [Petitioner] is engaged in the practice of agriculture on 118 acres of agricultural land in Sumter County, as evidenced by their current agricultural land use classification, the ongoing agricultural production activities observed on site, and the aforementioned cattle sale receipts. "Are the alterations (or proposed alterations) to the topography of the land for purposes consistent with the normal and customary practice of such occupation in the area?" NO. [The Department] finds that the construction of a cattle watering pond within the footprint of a wetland is not a normal and customary practice for the area because: Cattle watering ponds are not normally constructed within wetlands; and Cattle watering troughs were observed in other upland locations throughout the property, precluding the need for a cattle pond in this location. "Are the alterations (or proposed alterations) for the sole or predominant purpose of impeding or diverting the flow of surface waters or adversely impacting wetlands?" NO. (As to impeding or diverting surface waters.) [The Department] finds that the construction of a pond in the wetland was not for the sole or predominant purpose of impeding or diverting surface waters. During the December 28, 2011 site visit, [the Department's Office of Agricultural Water Policy] staff verified that the post-development drainage patterns are consistent with the pre-development drainage patterns. Secondly, the wetland is not connected to offsite drainage systems, as it was severed in its entirety by the construction of SR 469 and CR 710. This occurred prior to [Petitioner] taking ownership of the property. Lastly, the entire farm's drainage system is gravity driven, and is devoid of discharge pumps. YES. (As to adversely impacting wetlands.) [The Department] is aware that the wetland was already of questionable quality (see letter from the City of Center Hill) when the pond was constructed, given that the wetland was severed and excluded from the larger wetland system by the construction of SR 469 and CR 710. Nevertheless, [the Department] finds that the activity was for the sole or predominant purpose of adversely impacting the wetland, as the character of the wetland was destroyed. In sum, the Preliminary Determination concluded that Petitioner’s dredging and filling activities did not qualify for the agricultural exemption provided under section 373.406(2) because the activities are not normal and customary and they adversely impacted wetlands. At the final hearing, however, the evidence indicated that Petitioner’s activities were normal and customary for cattle operations in the area. While the water needs of Petitioner’s cattle are usually served by a four-inch well, the pond constructed at the Site has been an effective supplemental source of water for Petitioner’s cattle operations. When the well ran dry, Petitioner used pump trucks to siphon water from the pond and fill the upland troughs. Petitioner plans to put a pump in the pond to supply water to his cattle, but has not yet done so. Man-made, belowground cattle-watering ponds are very typical in Florida, especially in south and southwest Florida because of the high water tables in the southern part of the peninsula.6/ Further, “[i]t is not uncommon practice for Florida cattle ranchers to excavate cattle ponds, remove muck from existing cattle ponds, and/or grade side slopes of ponds in low lying depressional areas to provide a safe and reliable water source for their cattle.”7/ The fact that it is common for cattle ponds to be built in low-lying areas was further demonstrated by aerial photographs presented by Petitioner’s witness, Mr. Modica, of areas near the Property, including an approximately six-acre pond off Palm Avenue (the Sanchez property), a pond at a site labeled Emory Lane, and a pond off CR 48. While the ponds are considered by the District to be out of compliance on the grounds that they may have adversely affected wetlands, their existence shows that dredging and filling in low areas for cattle ponds is common practice in the area.8/ Although the pond is larger than needed because the footprint of the dumping area was large, and Petitioner may have some non-agricultural plans for the Site in the future, under the facts and evidence as outlined herein, it is found that the pond constructed by Petitioner was for purposes consistent with common practices for cattle operations in the area. On the issue of whether there was adverse impact to a wetland, the evidence showed that Department changed its position several times while drafting the Preliminary Determination. Of the five drafts of the Preliminary Determination, on the question (c) "[a]re the alterations (or proposed alterations) for the sole or predominant purpose of . . . adversely impacting wetlands?” one draft stated: UNSURE. (As to adversely impacting wetlands.) Documentation shows a 2.47 acre wetland impact area. This dredge and fill activity was for the purpose of converting the wetland to an open water and pasture area. However, this remnant wetland area was severed and excluded from the larger wetland system, as it was originally impacted by the construction of SR 469 and CR 710. Although wetland conditions prior to Zagame’s actions cannot be determined with certainty, a letter from the City of Center Hill indicates questionable wetland condition, which obfuscates remaining quality and function. Another draft, in answering the same question, stated: NO. (As to adversely impacting wetlands.) In the opinion of the [Department], the impacted remnant wetland was of questionable quality (see letter from the City of Center Hill) having been previously severed and excluded from the larger wetland system, by the construction of SR 469 and CR 710. Considering those factors addressed in the above- quoted drafts of the Department’s drafts of the Preliminary Determination, as well as the evidence of the condition of the wetland when Petitioner began his cleanup operations, it is found that the predominant purpose and effect of Petitioner’s activities was to construct a cattle pond and clean up a dumping ground, not to adversely impact a wetland.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order finding that the activities on Petitioner’s property addressed in this case are exempt pursuant to section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 1st day of February, 2013.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, John Jozsa, should have a $6,000.00 administrative penalty imposed, take corrective action, and pay investigative costs for allegedly dredging 0.91 acres of wetlands and filling 0.52 acres of wetlands without a permit on his property located in unincorporated Sumter County, Florida, as alleged in a Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Administrative Penalty Assessment (Notice) issued by Petitioner, Department of Environmental Protection (Department), on March 13, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The charges Respondent owns an approximate 4.5-acre parcel of land located at 1978 County Road 652A in unincorporated Sumter County, Florida. The parcel identification number is N29A003. The property is generally located east of Interstate 75, west of U.S. Highway 301, and just south of the City of Bushnell. According to aerial photographs, County Road 652A appears to begin at U.S Highway 301 and runs in a westerly direction where it forms the southern boundary of Respondent's parcel and terminates a short distance later. Southwest 80th Street also runs west from U.S. Highway 301 and forms the northern boundary of the property, while Southwest 20th Terrace runs in a north- south direction adjacent to its western boundary. Respondent purchased the parcel on September 27, 1993, and constructed a home on the site several years later. The property is contiguous to Mud Lake, a Class III waterbody lying to the southeast of Respondent's property. According to Respondent's Exhibit 2.b., at least a portion of the property is in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) 100-year flood zone. While conducting a site inspection near Respondent's property on September 27, 2006, Brian Brown, an Environmental Specialist III in the Department's Tampa District Office, heard "heavy equipment" operating nearby and drove to Respondent's home. There he observed a "tracked vehicle" resembling a bulldozer "knocking down trees" and grading an area that appeared to be wetlands. Mr. Brown took photographs of the cleared land and the tracked vehicle to confirm his observations. See Department's Exhibits 2a. through d. At hearing, Respondent acknowledged that he had borrowed the equipment from a friend, Leo, to "level and smooth" the "uplands" and "other areas." After returning to his office, Mr. Brown first confirmed through information from the Sumter County Appraiser's Office that Respondent owned the property in question. He then reviewed aerial photographs of Respondent's property taken in 1993, 1997, 2002, and 2006 to determine the condition of the property in earlier years. These photographs reflected that before 2006, the parcel had no large cleared area like the one that he had observed on the northern half of the property. Mr. Brown also studied a soil survey of the area to determine the type of soils on Respondent's property, and he reviewed the Florida Wetlands Delineation Manual which is used to determine if property is wetlands or uplands. Finally, information in the Department's database revealed that Respondent had not applied for a permit to conduct the observed activities. Based on this preliminary information, Mr. Brown generated a request for a formal inspection of Respondent's property by filling out a complaint form. (Respondent continues to believe that Mr. Brown was not conducting a "routine" inspection in the area but rather was in the area because a neighbor had filed a complaint; however, the complaint was triggered by Mr. Brown, who filed a complaint form himself based on the observations he made on September 27, 2006.) Mr. Brown then contacted Respondent by letter to set up a date on which the property could be formally inspected to verify "that Wetlands and or Surface Waters of the State are not being impacted." In response to Mr. Brown's letter, Respondent advised the Department that it could inspect his property. Around 1:30 p.m. on November 14, 2006, Mr. Brown and Lee W. Hughes, another Department employee, inspected Respondent's property to determine whether Respondent's activities were conducted within wetlands and to what extent wetlands were impacted. Respondent was present during the inspection. The employees' observations are memorialized in photographs received in evidence as Department's Exhibits 11A through 11N. The two observed a "large" area north of Respondent's home that had been totally cleared and deforested. The center of the cleared property had been dredged or scraped to create a pond-like area several feet lower than the adjoining land, while the soils removed from the pond-like area had been used to create sculptured white side-casting perhaps ten inches high on the edges of the pond, filling additional wetlands. However, the pond was empty because of drought conditions. The Department's inspection revealed that the cleared area was wetlands because of the presence of various plant species which are indicative of wetlands, including Swamp Tupelo, Red Maple, American Elm, Swamp Dogwood, Dahoon Holly, Buttonbush, Swamp Laurel Oak, Carolina Willow, Elderberry, Soft Rush, Smartweed, and Dayflower. Also, there were hydrologic indicators such as water stain lines, elevated lichen lines, and hypertrophied lenticels. Finally, there were hydric soils found on the property. This was confirmed by ground-truthing (an on- site evaluation of the wetlands and their parameters to verify the on-site conditions), which revealed dark top soil at least four inches thick and the presence of muck. Collectively, these indicators are sufficient to make a finding that the impacted area was wetlands. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-340.200 and Department's Exhibit 9. The fact that the "home-site ha[d] [not] been delineated [as wetlands] by any other governmental agency," as asserted by Respondent in his Proposed Recommended Order, is not dispositive of the issue. Respondent's assertion that no dredged materials were taken off-site, and no fill was brought onto the property, was not challenged. A second inspection was conducted by Mr. Brown and Lindsay L. Brock, then a Department employee, on December 19, 2006, for the purpose of mapping the actual size of the impacted area with Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) equipment.6 The second inspection was necessary since the Department's GPS equipment was inoperative during the first inspection. Based on Ms. Brock's GPS calculations, which have been received in evidence as Department's Exhibit 19, the Department determined that the total area dredged was 0.91 acres, while the filled area was 0.52 acres. The total impacted area was 1.4 acres of wetlands. This amount was calculated by measuring the size of the pond, 0.91 acres, with the side-casting accounting for the remaining 0.52 acres. During the inspection, the area was also photographed a second time, and these photographs have been received in evidence as Department's Exhibits 12A through 12K. An Enforcement Inspection Report (Report) was later prepared by Mr. Brown summarizing the findings of the two inspections. That Report has been received in evidence as Department's Exhibit 10 and Respondent's Exhibit 1.e. At hearing, Mr. Brown reaffirmed that the findings in the Report were correct. Specifically, the wetlands in the disturbed area were characterized as having a dominance of Obligate and Facultative Wet species and numerous hydrologic indicators, as well as soils typically found in wetlands. A jurisdictional determination established that the impacted property was wetlands; that there were adverse impacts caused by the violations, i.e., impacts described in Sections 3.2.3.2, 3.2.3.3, 3.2.3.4(a), and 3.2.3.7 of the Basis of Review of the Southwest Florida Water Management District; and that there were cumulative and secondary impacts associated with the violations, i.e., the actual loss of 1.4 acres of forested hardwood wetlands (Gum Swamp-613), habitat loss, the alteration in the normal flow of detrital material to Mud Lake, and the reduction in the system's ability to cycle and control nutrient and pollutant levels. Because the impacted lands were wetlands, a permit is required in order to perform any dredging and filling. See Fla. Admin. Code 62-343.050. The Report recommended that a Notice be issued. On February 13, 2007, the Department's Tampa District Office sent Respondent a Warning Letter advising him "of possible violations of law for which [he] may be responsible, and to seek [his] cooperation in resolving the matter." Department's Exhibit 22 and Respondent's Exhibit 1.h. The letter also requested that Respondent meet with Mr. Brown to discuss the alleged violations. A meeting was held at the District Office on March 12, 2007, but efforts to resolve the matter were unsuccessful. During the informal discussions between the parties, and prior to the issuance of a Notice, Respondent requested an exemption under Section 373.406(1) and (6), Florida Statutes.7 The first subsection provides that no Department rule, regulation, or order affects the right of any person to capture, discharge, and use water "for purposes permitted by law." The second subsection provides that the Department may exempt "those activities that the . . . department determines will have only minimal or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the water resources of the district." At hearing, Mr. Brown indicated that he did not respond to the exemption request because Respondent did not qualify. This is because dredging and filling of wetlands is not "permitted by law" without first obtaining a permit, and because, for the reasons cited in its Report, the Department construed the activities as having more than "minimal or insignificant" impacts. Given these circumstances, the statutory exemptions do not apply. The Notice was not issued until a year later on March 13, 2008. The reason for the delay is not of record. Besides contending that Mr. Brown's testimony was not credible, through examination of witnesses and the submission of various exhibits, Respondent raised numerous points to support his contentions that (a) the property is not wetlands, (b) no dredging or filling occurred, and (c) the activities are exempt from Department permitting requirements under several statutes.8 He also argued that the Department's decision to initiate an enforcement action against him was flawed or biased. The latter argument has been considered and rejected. Respondent first asserts that the wetlands on his property were already stressed and in bad condition, and that clearing the area and replanting vegetation in and around the pond area created a healthier environment for the vegetation and plants. While Mr. Brown conceded that the wetlands may have been stressed, that in itself does not cause the impacted property to lose its wetlands character, and a permit to dredge and fill the site is still required. Respondent also pointed out that the impacted area was dry before and after the activities occurred, and therefore the wetlands determination was incorrect. He further points out that the Department's representatives agreed that no water or moisture on the ground surface were observed during their two inspections. Given the number of wetland indicators found on the site even during drought conditions, the argument that the property is not wetlands has been rejected. See Finding of Fact 6, supra. Respondent also argued that an authoritative source (Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook) indicates that the soils in that area of the County are not the type typically found on wetlands. Specifically, the predominant soil on his property is identified as "Kanapaha sand, bouldery subsurface (25)," which is not considered a hydric soil. Mr. Brown explained, however, that notwithstanding what another source may state, it is necessary to verify the type of soil by performing field tests at the site. Ground-truthing performed during the first inspection confirmed the presence of soils typically found in wetlands. See Finding of Fact 7, supra. Respondent also questioned the accuracy of the Department's Exhibit 18, which is an aerial of Respondent's property created by Mr. Brown in February 2008 depicting a pond filled with water in the middle of the cleared area. Respondent contended that the map could not be accurate since the pond area was dry in February 2008 due to drought conditions. In response to this criticism, Mr. Brown noted that the map was not supposed to represent an actual aerial photograph taken in 2008. Rather, it was created for the purpose of superimposing on the property the pond-like area (with water added) observed during the 2006 inspections and was intended only to demonstrate the pond's size in relation to the size of the entire parcel. The exhibit was not tendered for the purpose of proving that the dredging and filling had occurred. Through examination of Mr. Brown, Respondent attempted to show that he qualified for a stormwater exemption under Section 403.813(2)(q), Florida Statutes, on the theory that his activities fell within the purview of that law. The statute exempts from permitting requirements the construction, operation, and maintenance of a stormwater management facility which is designed to "serve single-family residential projects, including duplexes, triplexes, and quadruplexes, if they are less than 10 acres total land and have less than 2 acres of impervious surface and if the facilities" satisfy three conditions. One condition is that the facility must "discharge into a stormwater discharge facility exempted or permitted by the department under this chapter which has sufficient capacity and treatment capability as specified in this chapter and is owned, maintained, or operated by a city, county, special district with drainage responsibility, or water management district . . . ." Id. Therefore, even if the pond-like area could be characterized as a stormwater facility, Respondent still does not meet the requirements of the statute since his "facility" does not discharge into another exempt or permitted facility as defined in the statute. In this case, the waters eventually discharge into Mud Lake, which was not shown to be an exempt or permitted stormwater facility. Respondent also questioned the manner in which the Department calculated the size of the impacted area for purposes of assessing an administrative penalty. See Department's Exhibit 21 and Respondent's Exhibit 1.j., in which penalties are assessed based on the dredged and filled areas each being "greater than one-half acre but less than or equal to one acre." Specifically, he argues that the combined dredged and filled areas exceed one acre in size, and under the terms of Section 403.121(3)(c), Florida Statutes, the administrative penalty schedule in the cited statute does not apply. To support this contention, Respondent noted that in responding to discovery, the Department acknowledged that the total impacted area was 1.4 acres. Section 403.121(3)(c), Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part that "the administrative penalty schedule shall not apply to a dredge and fill violation if the area dredged or filled exceeds one acre." In assessing penalties under the statute, the Department considers the dredging and filling as two separate violations. See Counts I and II, Notice. Therefore, it did not combine the two impacted areas for purposes of calculating a penalty under the administrative penalty schedule. While the statute is inartfully drawn and is arguably susceptible to more than one interpretation, the Department's interpretation is a reasonable and permissible one, and its computation is hereby accepted. (If Respondent's construction of the statute was approved, and the two impacted areas were combined, this would not mean that the Department could not assess a penalty. Rather, it appears the Department would then have the choice of (a) filing an action in circuit court seeking the imposition of civil (rather than administrative) penalties, or (b) assessing an administrative penalty under Section 403.121(9), Florida Statutes, which did not exceed $5,000.00 per violation or $10,000.00 for all violations.) Respondent also contended that he was simply performing landscaping and gardening activities with a tracked vehicle, and that no "excavation" within the meaning of Section 373.403(13), Florida Statutes, occurred. That statute defines dredging as "excavation, by any means, in surface waters or wetlands."9 On the other hand, "filling" is defined in Section 373.403(14), Florida Statutes, as "the deposition, by any means, of materials in surface waters or wetlands." On this issue, the evidence shows that Respondent used a tracked vehicle to remove, scrape, and/or push soils from the wetlands to create the pond-like area and then deposited those materials in other wetlands around the sides of the pond to create the side casting. This activity constituted dredging and filling, as defined above. The remaining arguments of Respondent have been carefully considered and rejected. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Respondent engaged in dredging and filling in wetlands without a permit, as alleged in the Notice, and that the charges have been sustained. Mitigation In its Proposed Final Order, the Department contends that Respondent presented no mitigation and therefore the administrative penalties should not be reduced. Mitigating circumstances include, among other things, "good faith efforts [by the violator] to comply prior to or after discovery of the violations by the department." § 403.121(10), Fla. Stat. After the area was dredged and filled, Respondent replanted some trees and plants while landscaping his back yard. Also, prior to hearing, he engaged the services of two experts to prepare an evaluation of the charges in the Notice, inspect the property, and submit suggested corrective actions for restoring the impacted area to its original condition. Although the two experts did not appear at hearing, they did render reports which contained proposed corrective actions, and their work should arguably be construed as a good faith effort by Respondent to comply with the Department's requirement that the property be restored to its original condition. Corrective Actions The Department has proposed extremely lengthy and detailed corrective actions which are contained in paragraphs 17 through 31 of the Notice and are designed to restore the property to its original condition. (Presumably, these are standard corrective actions imposed in cases such as this for restoring dredged and filled wetlands.) At hearing, Mr. Brown described the nature and purpose of these conditions, which can generally be summarized as (a) requiring that the entire 1.43-acre area be filled and/or regraded to its original contour elevation so that the replanting efforts will be successful, and (b) requiring a rigorous replanting and five-year monitoring schedule. Paragraphs 17 through 31 are set forth below: Respondents [sic] shall forthwith comply with all Department rules regarding dredging and filling within a surface water or wetland. Respondent shall correct and redress all violations in the time periods required below and shall comply with all applicable rules in Fla. Admin. Code Chapter 62-343 and 62-340. Within 30 days of the effective date of this Notice of Violation, the Respondent shall attend a pre-construction conference with a representative of the Department's Environmental Resources staff to review the work authorized by this Notice of Violation. Prior to the commencement of any earthmoving authorized in this Notice of Violation, the Respondent shall properly install and maintain Erosion and Sedimentation Control devices around the impacted area to prevent siltation and turbid discharge in to adjacent wetlands and surface waters (See Figure 2 attached hereto and incorporated herein). The Erosion and Sedimentation Control devices (i.e. staked silt screen) shall be installed no further than one-foot from the toe of the impacted area and shall remain in place until the restoration actions are completed to the Department's satisfaction. The Respondent shall re-grade the approximate 1.43 acres of impacted wetland to a grade consistent with the adjacent, unaltered wetlands, as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 attached hereto and incorporated herein. (a) Only fill material excavated from the impacted area shall be used in the restoration of the site. If it is determined that there is an insufficient amount of the fill to obtain the required grade, the Respondent shall cease all work and notify the Department so an alternative restoration plan can be developed, if necessary. During and after re-grading, Respondent shall stabilize all side slopes as soon as possible to prevent erosion, siltation, or turbid run-off into waters of the State, but, in any event, no later than 72 hours after attaining final grade. Any re-grading or filling of the restoration areas shall be conducted so as not to affect wetlands and surface waters outside the restoration area. Within 30 days of completing the requirements outlined in paragraph 20 above and prior to planting, the Respondent shall submit a certified topographic survey of the 1.43 acres of restored wetlands to the Department for review and approval. The Department shall notify the Respondent if the re-grading is acceptable and whether the re- grading is at the correct elevation to ensure that the restoration area will function as a wetland as defined in Chapter 62-340, Florida Administrative Codes (sic). If the re- grading is unacceptable to the Department, Respondent shall have 21 days in which to correct the problems identified by the Department and shall submit a new survey upon completion of the required work. The survey shall include the following information for the restoration area: The boundary lines of the Respondent's property. Restoration area on the Respondent's Property (in total square footage or acres of restored wetlands)[.] Topographic survey of the restoration area completed by a certified land surveyor. The survey shall illustrate one-foot interval on 25 foot transects throughout the restoration area. The transects shall commence and terminate 30 feet beyond the limits of the restoration area. Once grading has been approved by the Department, the Respondent shall plant 270 of the following species in any combination throughout the 1.43-acres of restored wetlands: Swamp Tupelo (Nyssa syvatica), Red Maples (Acer rubrum), American Elm (Ulmus Americana L.), Swamp Dogwood (Cornus amomum Mill.), [and] Dahoon Holly (Ilex cassine L.). The tree species shall be planted on 15 foot- centers throughout the restoration area and shall be 3-gallon, well-rooted, nursery grown stock. Within 30 days of completion of the planting outlined in paragraph 24 above, the Respondent shall submit a "Time Zero" Monitoring Report, which includes the following information: Respondent's name, address, and OGC Case number; Date the Corrective Actions were completed; Enough color photographs to accurately depict the completion of the wetland restoration actions outlined in paragraphs 20 through 24 above. The photographs shall be taken from fixed reference points shown on a plan-view drawing; Nursery receipts for all plants used in the Restoration Action; Number, size and spacing of each species planted; and Description of any exotic vegetation removal or control conducted to date including the acreage of exotic vegetation removal and how vegetation removal or control was conducted. Subsequent monitoring reports shall be submitted for a period of 5 years following completion of the Corrective Actions: semi- annually for the first year and annually for year two through five. The purpose of the monitoring shall be to determine the "success of the restoration." The monitoring reports shall include the following information: Respondent's name, address, and OGC Case number; Date the inspection was completed; Color photographs taken from the same fixed reference points previously established during the Time-Zero monitoring report so Department personnel can observe the current site conditions and evaluate the success of the restoration plan; The percentage of each planted tree species within the restoration area that has survived; The average height of the planted tree species; The percent canopy cover by planted tree species within the restoration area; a tree shall be defined as a woody species that has a diameter at breast height (DBH) of at least 1.5 inches and a vertical height of 10 feet as measured from the substrate; The percent cover within the restoration area by planted and naturally recruiting native, "non-nuisance," wetland species, as defined in Chapter 62-340, Florida Administrative Code; The percent cover of Brazilian Pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), Water Primrose (Ludwigia peruviana) and other nuisance species including those species listed or not listed in Chapter 62-340, Florida Administrative Code; and A written summary describing the success of the restoration area including steps needed and/or taken to promote future success such as replanting and/or nuisance or exotic species removal. Description should also include water levels observed within the restoration area. "Success of the Restoration" means at the end of the monitoring schedule the following success criteria are met in the restoration area: The total percent cover within the restoration area by native wetland vegetation exceeds 85 percent; Average height of the planted tree species exceeds 10-feet; The total percent canopy cover by planted and naturally recruited native wetland trees exceeds 30 percent; The total contribution to percent cover by nuisance, non-wetland or species not listed in Rule 62-340, Florida Administrative Code is less than 10 percent; and The Department has inspected the restoration area and the Department has informed the Respondent in writing that the restoration area meets the definition of a wetland as defined in Rule 62-340.200, Florida Administrative Code. If it is determined by the Department, based on visual inspection and/or review of the monitoring reports, that the restoration area is not meeting the above specified success criteria, an alternative Restoration Plan shall be submitted to the Southwest District Office and shall meet the following requirements: Shall submit the plan within 30 days of notification by the Department of failure to meet the success criteria. Shall implement the alternative plan no later than 90 days after receiving Department approval. Shall restart monitoring and maintenance program. Should the property be sold during the monitoring period, the Respondent shall remain responsible for the monitoring and notify the new owners of the Respondent's obligation to continue the monitoring and maintenance until the Department has determined that the success criteria has been met. The Respondent shall notify the new owner(s) of this in writing and shall provide the Department with a copy of the notification document within 15 days of the sale of the property. Prior to the submittal of each required monitoring report, the Respondent shall remove all exotic and nuisance vegetation from the restored wetland area. Nuisance and exotic vegetation removal shall include but not be limited to Brazilian Pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) and Water Primrose (Ludwigia peruviana). All exotic vegetation shall be removed from the restoration area using hand-held equipment in a manner that will minimize impacts to the existing wetland plants and will not cause ruts in the wetland soils, which will impede or divert the flow of surface waters. More than any other aspect of this case, Respondent questions the nature and extent of the corrective actions being proposed by the Department on the ground they are too extensive, complex, and unnecessary and will cost tens of thousands of dollars. When asked to quantify or estimate the cost of the corrective actions, Mr. Brown could not. It is fair to infer, however, that the cost of the restoration work will be expensive and probably far exceed the amount of the proposed penalties. The two experts' reports, which are hearsay and cannot be used as a basis for a finding of fact, essentially corroborate Respondent's argument that the corrective actions may be onerous and too far-reaching. The difficulty, however, in evaluating Respondent's claim is that the record is limited to Mr. Brown's testimony justifying the conditions, the hearsay reports of the two experts, and a few exhibits tendered by Respondent. A precise description of the impacted area before the work was undertaken is not a part of the record at hearing. Therefore, the original condition is not known. Through the submission of exhibits and the questioning of Mr. Brown, Respondent contended that a natural depression existed in the area where the pond now sits, that he was merely leveling off the depression while removing dead trees and plants, and that very little soil was actually removed from the pond area. Given these circumstances, he contends that there are insufficient fill materials on site to bring the pond to grade. In his Exhibit 3, Respondent estimates that just to fill the pond area and bring it to the grade of the surrounding land, he would be required to haul in approximately 4,200 cubic yards of sand or fill material. Also, Respondent's Exhibit 2.c. purports to be a copy of an elevation survey of the property containing elevations at different points on the property. The handwritten numbers on the exhibit, which Respondent represents were taken from a certified survey (which is not otherwise identified), reflect the property (presumably before the work was undertaken) gradually sloping from a higher elevation on the southern boundary (around 67 feet) to the road on the northern boundary (around 66 feet), with a lower elevation of around 64 feet in the middle of the parcel, indicating a slightly lower elevation in the middle of the property. Also, a part of the property lies within the FEMA 100- year flood zone. Thus, it is fair to infer that the pond area replaced an area with a slight depression and on which water would accumulate during heavy storm events. This circumstance would logically reduce the amount of fill necessary to restore the pond area to its original contour elevation. Therefore, in implementing the corrective actions, the Department should give consideration, in the manner it deems appropriate, to the fact that the area contained a natural depression before the illicit activities occurred. The evidence supports a finding that the proposed corrective actions, although extensive and costly, should be approved. To the extent Respondent has replanted the impacted area with trees and plants that fit within the Department's restoration scheme, he should also be credited for this work. Reasonable costs and expenses The Department established at hearing that its Tampa District Office employees incurred expenses of more than $500.00 while investigating this matter. This is based upon the number of hours devoted to the case times the hourly salary rate of the employees. Therefore, the Department is entitled to be reimbursed in the amount of $500.00 for reasonable investigative expenses and costs. Respondent has not disputed the amount of time expended by the employees or their hourly compensation but contends in his Proposed Recommended Order that the matter could have been cleared up by a "simple phone call and a few minutes of effort." Respondent's argument is hereby rejected.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) should grant the application of Daniel Borislow, LLC, for an after-the-fact Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and issue ERP 50-09272-P.
Findings Of Fact In 2007, Borislow bought 6.2 acres of land near the corner of Congress Avenue and Summit Boulevard in West Palm Beach. Borislow proceeded to create a soccer field on the property. The project required the addition of fill, the grading and leveling of the field and a shellrock driveway/parking area, and the installation of sod, an irrigation system, an exfiltration trench for water quality treatment, and lighting. Later in 2007, Borislow's activities came to the attention of SFWMD, which cited Borislow for conducting activities requiring an ERP without applying for and obtaining one. To resolve the enforcement action, Borislow agreed to apply for an after-the-fact ERP. Initially, SFWMD estimated primarily from aerial photography that 0.71 acres of wetlands were filled and impacted. During the permitting process, SFWMD's estimate of direct wetland impacts was reduced to 0.50 acres, and the mitigation required for direct and secondary2 wetland impacts was determined using the Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP).3 It was determined that Borislow's purchase of 0.2 of a freshwater herbaceous wetland credit in the Loxahatchee Mitigation Bank would offset the project's wetland impacts. SFWMD staff determined that all ERP criteria were met.4 Spots stipulated that there are no water quality issues, that no wetland-dependent endangered or threatened species of special concern have been observed at or in the area of the project site, and that the potential use of the site by such species is minimal.5 Spots contends: SFWMD underestimated the extent of impacted wetlands (and, therefore, the amount of mitigation did not offset the wetland impacts); reasonable assurance was not given that the project will not flood the Spots property to the north, in violation of permitting criteria in Florida Administrative Code6 Chapter 40E-4 and SFWMD's Basis of Review for ERPs (BOR); and reasonable assurance was not given that water storage and conveyance capabilities would not be adversely impacted, in violation of the permitting criteria in Rule Chapter 40E-4 and the C-51 basin compensating water storage requirements of Rule Chapter 40E-41, Part III. In normal permitting, existing wetlands are delineated in accordance with Rule Chapter 62-340. In this after-the-fact permit application, former wetlands had to be estimated. Spots reasonably contends that Borislow should not benefit from having filled wetlands without an ERP. But the evidence proved that the former wetlands on the Borislow property were properly estimated. Contrary to the contention of Spots, the wetlands were not estimated on the basis of a single aerial photograph. There were numerous aerial photographs over several years, which the experts could interpret and use to make a reasonable estimate of the extent of the former wetlands on the site. Ironically, while criticizing SFWMD's alleged reliance on a single aerial photograph to determine the extent of the former wetlands, Spots relied on a single aerial photograph to claim that the former wetlands on the Borislow property were deep and larger than 0.5. acres. The photograph appeared to show standing water only on the Borislow property, but it is possible that standing water on the Spots property was obscured by vegetation. In addition, it is impossible to determine the depth of the water from the aerial photograph, and there was no evidence as to the rainfall preceding the aerial photograph. Spots provided no other evidence to support its claim that more mitigation is needed to offset the wetland impacts. On the issue of flooding the Spots property, the evidence was clear that, contrary to the drawings in the ERP, the highest elevations in the northwest corner of the Borislow property are several feet south of the Borislow/Spots property line,7 and several feet higher than the elevation at the property line,8 causing surface water to flow down this slope from the Borislow property onto the Spots property. The evidence proved that no such "back-flow" existed in that location before the project. This "back-flow" can be prevented from crossing the property line by placing a swale or railroad tie or some other similar vertical retaining wall near or on the property line. Borislow has agreed to an additional ERP condition that this be done. The Borislow property is in sub-basin 30 of the C-51 basin. Spots and its engineering expert criticized the engineering calculations used by the experts for Borislow and SFWMD to provide reasonable assurance that the project did not result in a net decrease in water storage capacity in the basin. Spots contended that the calculations incorporated pre- development elevations taken from a 2005 aerial photograph. However, the more persuasive evidence was that the elevations used in the calculations actually came from survey information on surrounding properties, including the Spots property and Summit Boulevard, plus the control elevation in nearby Lake Worth Drainage District L-5 Canal. Elevations for the former wetlands on the Borislow property were assumed to be 10 feet NGVD9 based on the actual elevations of the existing wetlands on the Spots property. The testimony of the experts for Borislow and SFWMD as to the source of the elevations used in the calculations is accepted. The engineering calculations developed by Borislow's expert and accepted by SFWMD indicated a net increase in water storage capacity as a result of grading and leveling the property.10 The calculations compared pre-development and post- development storage capacity between the water table11 and the 100-year storm elevation, which was calculated to be 14.1 feet NGVD. The evidence did not adequately explain how grading and leveling the Borislow property would increase water storage; it would seem that no change in water storage would result. The engineering calculations assumed that no fill was deposited on the property. However, the evidence was that 150 to 300 truckloads of fill, each with 17 to 18 cubic yards, for a total of 2,625 to 5,250 cubic yards, were delivered to and placed on the property. If 300 truckloads were used, this would represent as much as an acre-foot of fill.12 Although the fill would have some water storage capacity, adding that much fill to the property logically would result in a net decrease in water storage capacity in the C-51 basin. This loss was not quantified, or compensated.13 Borislow testified that the fill was used to construct a 13-foot high, 330-foot long, 30-foot wide berm along the western perimeter of the property and another large berm along the northern and southern perimeters of the soccer field.14 But other evidence does not support Borislow's testimony. According to the drawings in the ERP, there are a total of 370 feet of berms, which are required to be a minimum of six inches high to maintain elevation 13.4 feet NGVD to contain the peak stage of a 10-year, 3-day design storm.15 Based on the ground level photographs in evidence, the berms do not appear to be anywhere near 13 feet high or 30 feet wide. In any event, the evidence does not prove that the fill deposited on the property was higher than 14.1 feet NGVD. Regardless of the exact dimension of the berms, it appears that the fill was deposited in a way that would result in a net decrease in water storage capacity in the C-51 basin. SFWMD seems to suggest in its PRO that the fill should be disregarded because there were no records to confirm the dates it was delivered, or the amounts delivered, and because it might have been delivered to an adjacent property.16 But the burden of proof was on Borislow. See Conclusion of Law 16, infra. There was no evidence to prove that Borislow had the fill deposited on an adjacent property. It is more likely that the fill was deposited on the Borislow property in large part to fill the former wetland, which probably was lower than 10 feet NGVD. Spots also charged that Borislow's project essentially obstructs the previous flow of surface water from the wetlands on the Spots property into the wetlands on the Borislow property, such that surface water now backs up on the Spots property. This appears to be true. Since it appears that the wetlands on the Borislow property were lower than the wetlands on the Spots property, grading and leveling would have that effect; adding fill would exacerbate the effect. Spots also argued that the evidence did not provide reasonable assurance on the ability of Borislow's system to recover from a 10-year, three-day storm event, so as to be able to again retain the surface water runoff from a successive storm of that magnitude and duration 12 days later. But the persuasive evidence was to the contrary, primarily due to the major drainage features in the vicinity--namely, the C-51 and the L-5 canals.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that SFWMD deny Borislow's after-the-fact ERP. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2010, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 2010.
