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 Whether a consumptive use permit for the quantities of water requested in the application should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Application 7500137 seeks an average daily withdrawal of 2.4 million gallons of water with maximum daily withdrawal not more than 2.88 million gallons from an existing well in order to process phosphate and reclaim land. This is an existing use for mining operations located southwest of Lakeland, Florida, on land consisting of 1531 acres. Notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation, to wit: The Lakeland Ledger, on November 11 & 18, 1975, pursuant to Section 373.146, Florida Statutes. The application and affidavit of publication were admitted into evidence without objection as Composite Exhibit 1, together with correspondence from James R. Brown, Vice President, Dagus Engineers, Inc., dated November 19, 1975 to the Southwest Florida Water Management District. No objections were received by the Water Management District as to the application. Mr. George Szell, hydrologist of the Water Management District testified that the application met the conditions for a consumptive use permit as set forth in Chapter 16J-2.11, Florida Administrative Code, except that the quantity of water requested to be withdrawn is 41.06 per cent over the maximum average daily withdrawal permitted under the water crop theory as set forth in Section 16J-2.11(3), F.A.C. However, the Water Management District witness recommended waiver of that provision since the mining operations will be concluded in several years and thereafter the water table and hydrologic conditions will return to normal. The Water District staff recommended approval of the application with the condition that a meter be installed on the well and that the applicant be required to take monthly readings thereof and submit quarterly reports of the readings to the District. The applicant's representative agreed to these conditions at the hearing.
Recommendation It is recommended that Application No. 7500137 submitted by Poseidon Mines, Inc., for a consumptive water use permit be granted on the condition that a meter be installed on the applicant's well and that monthly readings be taken and submitted quarterly by the applicant to the Southwest Florida Water Management District. It is further recommended that the Board of Governors of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, pursuant to Rule 16J-2.11(5), for good cause, grant an exception to the provisions of Rule 16J-2.11(3), as being consistent with the public interest. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of January, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J.T. Ahern, Staff Attorney Southwest Florida Water Management District P.O. Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Poseidon Mines, Inc. P.O. Box 5172 Bartow, Florida
The Issue The issue is whether to approve an application by Respondent, I.M. Collier, J.V. (Collier), to modify its Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 11-02031P (2002 Permit) by changing the surface water management system (SWMS) for a proposed residential and golf course development in Collier County (County), Florida, known as Mirasol.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties National Audubon Society, Inc. is a not-for-profit corporation (incorporated outside the State of Florida) while Collier County Audubon Society, Inc., Florida Wildlife Federation, and Conservancy of Southwest Florida are Florida not-for-profit corporations. All are environmental organizations. Franklin Adams is a resident of the County and a member of each of the above organizations. Respondents have not contested Petitioners' standing based upon the stipulated facts set forth in the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation. The District is a water management district with the power and duty to exercise regulatory jurisdiction over the administration and enforcement of ERP criteria pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Title 40E. Collier is the holder of the 2002 Permit authorizing the construction of a SWMS to serve the Mirasol project, a large development located in the County. The parties have stipulated that Collier has the administrative, legal, and financial capabilities to undertake the proposed activity. Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.301(1)(j). The Project Site The Mirasol project consists of approximately 1,713.45 acres located on the north side of Immokalee Road and the Cocohatchee Canal (Canal) in the northern half of the County, approximately three miles east of the intersection with Interstate 75. The property spans three sections of land, the northern third of the property encompassing Section 10, the middle third encompassing Section 15, and the southern third encompassing most of Section 22. The site also includes a peninsula of land extending east of Section 10, encompassing the northernmost quarter of Section 11. The site is bounded on the south by the Canal and Immokalee Road and on the east by an existing residential development known as Heritage Bay, which was previously a rock- mining quarry. To the west of the site, running north to south, are two other proposed residential developments known as Parklands Collier and Terafina/Saturnia Falls and an existing residential and golf course community known as Olde Cypress. There are other existing and proposed residential developments and farm fields to the north of the site. The site is located southwest of the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary (Corkscrew Swamp), which is owned by the National Audubon Society, Inc., and appears to stretch from Immokalee (in the northeastern part of the County) south and southwestward through parts of the County. Corkscrew Swamp sits roughly at the center of a 315-mile watershed, much of which is comprised of short hydroperiod wetlands which dry down completely during the late winter and spring and become inundated again in the late summer and fall during the wet season. This water gradually sheet flows down a very slight downhill gradient toward the south and west. A portion of the sheet flow travels southwest in the vicinity of the site. The region has experienced occasional floods, the most severe of which occurred in 1995. At the direction of the District, the cause of the flooding was investigated in the South Lee County Watershed Study (Study), which concluded that the watershed discharges through a variety of outfalls, but that historic connections to downstream conveyances like the Canal were severed by the construction. While downstream conveyances exist, the Study concluded that connections between upstream flows and downstream conveyances should be enhanced or restored. In the late 1990s, the Canal was improved to increase its conveyance capacity. A berm was constructed by the Big Cypress Basin Board (Basin Board), a legislatively-created entity which manages water resources in the County, on the northern bank in the vicinity of, and across from, the Mirasol site. This berm prevented historic wet season sheet flow from reaching the Canal through the project site, except for a few culverts located along that water body. The Basin Board also built a 1,000-foot-long hardened concrete weir on the north side of the Canal a few thousand yards west of the project site. This weir provides the primary outlet for sheet flow in and around the Mirasol site. Currently, upstream drainage flows in a southwesterly direction across Section 10. As the water moves south to the Canal, the flow becomes constricted down to a 580-foot wide gap between the Olde Cypress residential development and commercial developments along Immokalee Road to the east. This constricted area further narrows to a 270-foot wide opening before the sheet flow reaches the 1,000-foot weir and discharges into the Canal. During a 3-day, 25-year storm event, a combined peak flow of 553 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water is discharged into the Canal through the 1,000-foot weir, but the Mirasol property only conveys a small portion of this water (around 20 cfs) through culverts in the Canal berm. Most of the water flows to the west of Mirasol where it passes through the narrow gap and over the 1,000-foot weir. Around 1,431 acres of the 1,714-acre site are jurisdictional wetlands. However, these wetlands are in poor condition due to existing impediments to sheet flow, artificially high water levels during the wet season, and heavy infestation of exotic species, principally melaleuca. Permit History In February 2002, the District issued the 2002 Permit approving the construction of a SWMS to serve two 18-hole golf courses, a single-family residential community, a golf course clubhouse and parking area, golf course maintenance facilities, sales facility, and parking area. The issuance of the 2002 Permit was not challenged. The SWMS included a 36.5-acre flow-way (Flow-Way) that encircled the northern boundary of the development in Section 15 and extended off-site and across adjacent properties to the west. (If constructed, the Flow-Way would be a 200-foot wide, 4-foot deep, 89-acre channel, more than half of which would have been located on the Saturnia Falls/Terafina and Olde Cypress properties.) Besides providing a conveyance function for the Mirasol site, the Flow-Way also enhanced flood protection for other properties by accelerating conveyance of floodwaters to the Canal and reducing peak flood stages by 0.4 feet during a three-day, 25-year storm event. The District included Special Condition 26 in the 2002 Permit, which required construction of the Flow-Way before the remainder of the project could be constructed. The 2002 Permit authorized Collier to directly impact (fill or excavate) 568.66 acres of wetlands within the footprint of the development. Additionally, 39.5 acres of wetlands, which were isolated remnant strips along the golf courses within the development, were considered secondarily impacted and assessed a thirty-three percent reduction in functional value. Mitigation for the project consisted of preservation and enhancement of wetlands and uplands on site. Enhancement of the preserve areas was primarily credited to the eradication of malaleuca and other exotic species and replanting with appropriate native vegetation. Permit conditions required management of the preserve areas to prevent a recurrence of exotic species. The preserve areas included an 846.95-acre external preserve area to the north and northeast of the area to be developed. It was anticipated that this northern preserve area would ultimately be donated to an existing mitigation area known as the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed, along with an interest-bearing fund to ensure perpetual management. In December 2005, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) denied Collier's federal wetlands permit application for the project and the Flow-Way. Because of this denial, in May 2006 Collier submitted an ERP application with the District seeking to modify the 2002 Permit by revising the SWMS and removing the Flow-Way. On October 12, 2006, the District Governing Board approved a modification to the 2002 Permit, which authorized an alternate SWMS to serve the golf course and residential development (2006 Permit). Petitioners' challenge to the proposed modification followed. The 2006 Modification Because of the Corps' denial of its application, Collier was required to remove the Flow-Way and redesign the project's SWMS. The most substantial change in the project was the removal of the Flow-Way and associated control structures and its replacement with a series of interconnected lakes running from north to south through the property allowing for the pass-through of surface waters from the area north of the development site into the Canal. The modification does not alter the boundaries and location of the development. However, the revised SWMS includes: five controlled basins with a total area of 718.43 acres, each of which provides treatment of stormwater prior to discharging into the pass-through system; 45.16 acres of interconnected lakes serving as a pass-through for surface waters from the north; 2.12 acres of perimeter berm backslope/ buffers/spreader swales; and 7.27 acres along the Canal for the existing 100-foot wide canal easement and proposed canal contouring. These changes also required elimination of the 39.5 acres of remnant wetlands inside the development that had previously been assessed as secondarily impacted. Also, there were 0.68 acres of additional impacts resulting from slight changes in the internal site design due to the SWMS. To partially offset these impacts, the internal wetland preserves were enlarged by 13.32 acres. The remaining impacts were mitigated with mitigation credits from the Panther Island Mitigation Bank (PIMB). (The PIMB holds a mitigation bank permit issued by the District for a wetland restoration project in Southwest Florida.) The main preserve was left unchanged, except that 36.5 acres previously dedicated to construction of the Flow-Way will be added to the main preserve and similarly enhanced and preserved. In summary, as modified under the 2006 Permit, the total onsite mitigation consists of the preservation and enhancement of 830.89 acres of wetlands, preservation of 109.58 acres of uplands, and the purchase of a total of 5.68 credits from the PIMB. At hearing, Collier also agreed to purchase from the PIMB an additional 5.68 credits within the Basin for a total of 11.36 credits. The ERP Permitting Criteria To obtain an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions in Florida Administrative Code Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. The first rule focuses primarily on water quantity, environmental impacts, and water quality, while the second rule generally requires that a public interest balancing test be made, that cumulative impacts, if any, be considered, and that the District consider past violations, if any, by the applicant of District or Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) rules. (The parties have cited no prior violations by the applicant that should be considered.) Besides these two rules, a number of BOR provisions which implement the rule criteria must also be taken into account. If an applicant proposes to modify an existing ERP, as it does here, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.331(2)(a) comes into play and requires that the District review the application to modify the ERP "using the same criteria as new applications for those portions of the project proposed for, or affected by, the modification." Under this rule, those portions of the project altered or affected by the modification are reviewed under the current ERP criteria, but otherwise the 2002 Permit is not the subject of review in this case. Therefore, the District's review includes only that portion of the existing permit that is proposed to be modified or affected by the modification. In this case, the 2006 design is very similar to the 2002 design, and the project's footprint, control elevations, roadway network, southern outfall, and main preserve are unchanged. However, as pointed out below, since most of the engineering-related components of the SWMS were affected by the Flow-Way's removal, the District reassessed the hydrologic components of the internal water management system and the pass- through lake system for levels of flood protection and water quality treatment. Because most of the engineering-related components of the SWMS for the project were modified as a result of the removal of the Flow-Way, the District staff reassessed the project's hydrologic calculations associated with levels of flood protection and reassessed the project's water quality treatment volumes applying the currently existing ERP criteria. As to wetland impacts and mitigation, review of the wetland impacts for the 2006 Permit was limited to an analysis of additional wetlands impacts associated with the modification. This was primarily the elimination of the previously permitted, secondarily impacted wetlands. Thus, only the additional wetlands impacts due to the revised SWMS are considered under the currently existing ERP criteria. The 2006 Permit made only slight changes to the project's wetland impacts and mitigation components authorized under the 2002 Permit. The project's footprint was not changed and the main mitigation area (the Northern Preserve) was unaffected by the changes except that 36.50 acres were actually added to that preserve as a result of the removal of the Flow- Way. Collier did not receive any credit in its mitigation analysis for the additional acreage that will become part of the preserve due to the removal of the Flow-Way. Surface Water Management Criteria As noted above, the ERP criteria in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301 focus primarily on three areas of concern: water quantity, environmental impacts, and water quality. Related BOR provisions must also be considered. These areas of concern are discussed below. Water Quantity Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a) requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurance that the construction of a SWMS "[w]ill not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands." BOR Section 6.2 implements that provision and requires that a project be designed so that it is consistent with the downstream carrying capacity of the receiving waters. In other words, it must not exceed the capacity of downstream receiving waters, which in this case is the Canal. In making this determination, Section 6.3 of the BOR requires that the 25-year, 3-day design storm event be used. Collier complied with this requirement through an extensive hydrologic study conducted by its expert, Richard S. Tomasello, a former District employee. Applying a hydrologic model simulation known as S2DMM, the witness determined the appropriate amount of upstream sheet flow that would need to be routed through the project to avoid adverse water quantity and flooding impacts and calculated the correct dimensions of the intake weir to admit that flow into the project's pass-through system. The S2DMM model is a combination of other accepted models including the Sheet 2d, Massmod, and MBR models, which were developed by Mr. Tomasello, and they have been evaluated and used by the District on numerous occasions. In addition, the S2DMM model has been used for other flood studies in Collier and Lee Counties, and it will be used on a restoration project in Martin County. Based upon Mr. Tomasello's analysis, Collier incorporated a 100-foot-long intake weir with a crest elevation of 14.95 NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum) along the northern boundary of the project to maintain existing upstream water elevations. Collier also complied with BOR Section 6.3, which requires the use of a 25-year, 3-day storm event to be used when computing the discharge rate for the project. The modified intake weir on the northern boundary includes two 3.5-foot wide rectangular notches set at an elevation of 14.00 NGVD, which will provide a "base flow" of up to 20 cfs into the pass-through lakes to mimic the current flow through the property. The determination of this base flow was made through an analysis of the existing culverts at the southern end of the property. While not required by the ERP criteria, Collier also performed a long-term analysis (using a four-year period of record) of the SWMS's effect upon water levels. This analysis demonstrated that the modified system would leave water levels in the wetland areas upstream of the project unchanged during normal rainfall and low-flow periods. This analysis provides additional assurances that the modifications to the SWMS will not affect the Northern Preserve. While Petitioners questioned the accuracy and reliability of the hydrologic study, and its specific application to this project, the criticisms are considered to be vague and unsubstantiated. As noted above, the model has been previously accepted for use in South Florida, and Petitioners' expert conceded he did not have enough information to determine the model's accuracy. The more persuasive evidence established that the hydrologic study submitted by Collier included the relevant available data and was prepared by competent professionals knowledgeable in the field. The claim of Petitioners' experts that they lacked sufficient information to form an opinion on the accuracy of the modeling is not a sufficient basis to overcome the evidence submitted by Collier to meet this criterion. The project's discharge rate in 2006 will not exceed what was permitted in the 2002 Permit. During the 25-year, 3-day storm event, the existing discharge from the project site and the natural area west of the project site into the Canal is 553 cfs. Based on modeling of the modified SWMS, the total discharge from the pass-through system will be 529 cfs, or 24 cfs less than the project's existing pre-development discharge. The discharges resulting from the project as modified in 2006 will not exceed the capacity of the Canal as required by Section 6.3 of the BOR. Accordingly, Collier has provided reasonable assurance that the discharge rate allowed for its project would not be exceeded, as required in Section 6.2 of the BOR. Section 6.8 of the BOR requires that a project allow the passage of drainage from offsite areas to downstream areas, which is necessary to demonstrate that off-site receiving water bodies are not being adversely affected. Collier complied with this provision by conducting the hydrologic analysis using the 25-year, 3-day design storm event, which demonstrated that the discharge rate would be directed to the southern discharge point allowing for the passage of drainage from offsite areas to the downstream areas. The evidence also shows that the current predominant sheetflow from areas outside the project passes through a narrowly constricted area west of the project and discharges into the Canal over an existing concrete weir. See Finding of Fact 9, supra. Only a small portion of the upstream waters currently discharge through the Mirasol site. Petitioners' allegation that the construction of the project will further constrict the sheetflow area is rejected, as the constriction of sheetflow will continue to exist whether the project is built or not. The evidence also shows that the project will not further constrict the flow because it will allow for the pass-through of water from outside the project area. Under the 2002 Permit, the Flow-Way was designed to aid in the diversion of upstream flows around the project. Under the 2006 modifications, the pass-through lake system will convey up to forty percent of the upstream flow through the development which complies with the provisions of Section 6.8 of the BOR. As indicated above, during periods of lower water levels, the notches in the weir along the northern boundary will allow for the flow to pass onto the project site consistent with existing conditions. During major storm events, water will pass over the weir into the pass-through lake system to be conveyed to the Canal. Therefore, Collier has provided reasonable assurance that the criteria in Section 6.8 have been met. Section 6.10 of the BOR requires that the project be designed to conserve water and site environmental values and not lower the water table or groundwater or over-drain wetlands. Section 6.11 of the BOR provides that the control and detention elevations for the project must be established at elevations to accomplish the objectives of Section 6.10. The latter section is adhered to when the control elevations proposed for a project are established consistent with the onsite wetland conditions. In this case, the control elevations for the wetlands and surface water management lakes are essentially the same as the design in the 2002 Permit. Collier has set the control elevations above the average wet season water table (WSWT) for the area, thereby ensuring that the SWMS will not over-drain and will conserve fresh water. Section 6.11 of the BOR addresses Detention and Control Elevations which are intended to assist in complying with the provisions of Section 6.10. The SWMS design control elevation maintains the detention component and the control (wetland protection) elevations in the previously approved SWMS. The control elevations were set by the design engineers in consultation with Collier's wetland ecologist taking into account the ground elevations and biological indicators. The control elevation for the pass-through system and internal drainage basins work in conjunction with the control elevation along the northern boundary of the project and the control elevation for the discharge point along the southern boundary to ensure that the project does not overdrain the wetlands and to preserve the project site's environmental values. By setting the control elevation above the WSWT, the design ensures that the wetlands will not be drawn down below the average WSWT and the SWMS will not over-drain them. Section 6.10 also requires that a project not lower water tables so that the existing rights of others would be adversely affected. Again, based on the control elevations, the water table is not expected to be lowered so there should be no effect on the existing rights of others. Collier must further demonstrate that the site's groundwater recharge characteristics will be preserved through the design of the SWMS. Collier complied with this requirement by setting the control elevations above the average WSWT, allowing standing water in the wetland preserves to recharge the groundwater. The ability of the SWMS to accept flows from the Northern Preserve conserves freshwater by preventing that water from being discharged downstream. The SWMS leaves water elevations in the Northern Preserve unchanged. Consequently, water will remain in the wetlands for the same duration and elevations as in the existing conditions, thereby preserving groundwater recharge characteristics. Section 6.12 of the BOR prohibits lake designs that create an adverse gradient between the control elevations of the lakes and the adjacent wetlands. To satisfy this requirement, Collier set all control elevations at 13.4 - 13.5 NGVD while controlling the internal wetland preserves at a slightly higher elevation. Consequently, there is no adverse gradient and no potential for an adverse effect upon the internal preserves from adjacent lakes. Petitioners argued that the pass-through system would quickly lower water levels in the internal wetland preserves. However, the internal wetlands are still protected from drawdown because there are control structures set at or above the wet season elevation between the pass-through lakes and internal wetlands. They also argued that the internal wetlands would be overdrained during the dry season by the deep lakes. However, no witness presented any real analysis to back up this contention. Indeed, the pass-through lakes are only twelve feet deep, and the wetlands are separated from all the lakes by protective berms to avoid any drawdown. In summary, Collier has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed modification in the 2006 Permit will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters or adjacent lands and will not exceed the capacity of the downstream receiving waters (the Canal). Flooding Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(b) requires Collier to demonstrate that the project "[w]ill not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property." BOR Section 6.4 sets forth criteria and standards for implementing this requirement and provides that building floors be designed to be protected from a 100-year, 3-day storm event. BOR Section 6.5 provides criteria and standards for flood protection for the project's roads and parking lots. Collier complied with these provisions by providing construction plans demonstrating that the building floors and roads will be built higher than the 100-year, 3-day storm event. BOR Section 6.6 provides that a project may not result in any net encroachment into the 100-year floodplain. Collier was also required to comply with the historic basin provision in Section 6.7 of the BOR, which requires the project to replace or otherwise mitigate the loss of historic basin storage provided by the site. The level of encroachment into the 100-year flood plain and loss of historic basin storage attributed to the project are essentially unchanged from the 2002 design. The only difference between the 2002 Permit and the 2006 Permit is how the conveyance of flood water is provided. In 2002, the Flow-Way served this function, while the pass-through system provides it in the 2006 Permit. Collier's flood simulations demonstrated that the project will not alter flood stages during the 25-year and 100- year design storms, while the testimony of witnesses Tomasello and Waterhouse established that the project will not have adverse flooding impacts on adjacent properties, either alone or in conjunction with neighboring developments. Storage and Conveyance Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c) requires that an applicant demonstrate that the proposed development "[w]ill not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities." This criterion is closely related to paragraph (1)(b) of the same rule, which prohibits adverse flooding to onsite or offsite property. Section 6.6 of the BOR implements this provision and specifies the parameters for applying this criterion and prohibits a net encroachment between the WSWT and the 100-year event which will adversely affect the existing rights of others. Collier addressed this criterion through the hydrologic analysis submitted. As previously found, that model is the appropriate model to determine flood stages and to calculate the floodplain. Engineering Design Principles Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the SWMS "[w]ill be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed." Section 7.0 of the BOR contains the specific standards and criteria to implement this rule. The evidence demonstrates that the SWMS is based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles and is capable of performing and functioning as proposed. Section 8.0 of the BOR includes various assumptions and information regarding the design of the SWMS. By incorporating these assumptions into the design, Collier complied with Section 8.0. Water Quality Impacts Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) requires that the proposed modification "[w]ill not adversely affect the quality of the receiving waters such that the water quality standards set forth in Chapters 62-4, 62-302, 62-520, 62-522 and 62-550, F.A.C., including any antidegradation provisions of paragraphs 62-4.242(1)(a) and (b), subsections 62- 4.242(2) and (3), and Rule 62-302.300, F.A.C., and any special standards for Outstanding Florida Waters and Outstanding National Resource Waters set forth in subsections 62-4.242(2) and (3), F.A.C., will be violated." Stated more plainly, the proposed modifications must not adversely affect the quality of the Canal's waters such that State water quality standards will be violated. Section 5.2 of the BOR describes the District's standard water quality criteria. This provision, which requires a minimum of one-inch detention of stormwater, is referred to as a "presumptive criteria" because it is presumed that if an applicant provides the required one inch of detention, it meets Class III water quality standards, thereby satisfying the rule. As it did under the 2002 Permit, Collier satisfies the presumptive criteria with the 2006 design by providing the one- inch wet detention in its lake system. In fact, the system is designed to provide one and a half inches of treatment in the lake system thereby providing additional treatment. The receiving body of water for the project is the Canal. When the 2002 Permit was issued, the Canal was classified as a Class III water body. It is now classified by DEP as impaired for iron and dissolved oxygen. Because of this new classification, Collier must now comply with Section 4.2.4.5 of the BOR, which reads as follows: If the site of the proposed activity currently does not meet water quality standards, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the water quality standards by meeting the provisions in 4.2.4.1, 4.2.4.2, and 4.2.4.3, as applicable, and for the parameters which do not meet water quality standards, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed activity will not contribute to the existing violation. If the proposed activity will contribute to the existing violation, mitigation may be proposed as described in subsection 4.3.1.4. Collier demonstrated that neither short-term (during construction) nor long-term (during operation) water quality impacts will occur. It complied with the short-term requirements by submitting a Construction Pollution Prevention Plan detailing how water quality will be protected during the construction process. As to long-term impacts, the Terrie Bates Water Quality Memorandum (Bates Memo) prepared by District staff on June 11, 2004, provides guidance on the implementation of Section 4.2.4.5 for projects which discharge into an impaired water body. The document sets forth a number of design and operational criteria for the types of additional measures that can be incorporated into a project design to provide the necessary reasonable assurance. The Bates Memo suggests that an additional fifty percent of treatment be incorporated into a SWMS. Collier complied with this suggestion by designing the treatment lakes to provide an additional one-half inch of treatment for the additional fifty percent treatment. In addition to the one and one-half inch treatment, Collier is implementing six of the seven items the Bates Memo lists as potential options to consider. The long-term water quality requirement is addressed by Collier, in part, through an Urban Stormwater Management Plan, which details various source controls or best management practices to be implemented once the project is built and operating. Best management practices assist in ensuring that pollutants will not enter into the lake system. Collier is also implementing a stormwater pollution prevention plan and will utilize the lake system for additional treatment downstream. Collier has further agreed to planting the littoral zones as part of its design of the treatment lakes to provide additional pollutant removal. The design calls for an amount of littoral zones equal to twenty percent of the surface area of the treatment lakes. Collier has agreed to make a Water Quality Monitoring Plan a permit condition, even though such a condition was not included in the staff report. See Collier Exhibit 25. The Bates Memo includes as an option for meeting the long-term requirement a site-specific water quality evaluation of pre vs. post-development pollutant loadings. Collier has presented several such analyses, all of which indicate the post- development pollutant discharges from the site will be less than the pre-development. Mr. Barber prepared a pre vs. post- analysis using a 2003 methodology developed by Dr. Harper. The 2003 version of the Harper methodology is currently accepted by the Corps. (Although Petitioners' witness, a former Corps employee, suggested that the Corps' acceptance of the study was a "political" rather than a scientific decision, there is insufficient evidence to support this contention.) Besides his first analysis, at the direction of the District staff, Mr. Barber prepared a second analysis using the 2003 methodology with certain conservative assumptions that limited the pollutant residents time to fifty days and utilized lower starting concentrations for phosphorous and nitrogen than were recorded in the nearby monitoring stations. Based upon those reports, the District's staff concluded that Collier had provided reasonable assurances that the project met the criteria in BOR Sections 5.2 and 4.2.4.5. At the hearing, Mr. Barber presented a third analysis utilizing an updated methodology developed by Dr. Harper in February 2006. The 2006 methodology was developed after Dr. Harper conducted a study of water management district criteria throughout the state for DEP. All three of the analyses prepared by Mr. Barber concluded that the project would discharge less nitrogen and phosphorous into the receiving body in the post-development condition than is currently being discharged in the pre-development condition. In addition to the three water quality submittals from Mr. Barber, Collier provided an additional water quality analysis specific to the project prepared by Dr. Harper. See Collier Exhibit 26, which is commonly referred to as the Harper Report. The analysis evaluated the project's pre vs. post- development water quality loads and also concluded the project would not contribute to the impairment of the Canal. In preparing his analysis, Dr. Harper relied solely on the lakes for estimating removal of pollutants without accounting for any of the additional treatment expected to occur from the source control best management practices contained in the Urban Stormwater Management Plan, which means his report errs on the conservative side. The Harper Report concluded that iron discharges from the SWMS would be extremely low and substantially less than the Class III standard of 1 mg/L. Petitioners presented no specific evidence to counter these conclusions. Petitioners questioned the Harper Report's use of wetlands as part of the loading calculations and attacked his underlying methodology. However, the evidence is clear that wetlands contribute to the water quality constituents in the pre-development condition. This finding is based on data from monitoring stations located in the middle of Corkscrew Swamp, a statewide study on stormwater treatment and wetlands, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) assignment of nutrient loading rates to wetlands in its regional pollutant loading model. Ignoring the actual water quality in pre-development conditions would not be a true pre vs. post-development analysis. Finally, Petitioners' contention that the Harper methodology should not be considered as admissible evidence because it constitutes "novel" (and therefore unreliable) scientific evidence under the rationale of Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), has been rejected. To begin with, the Frye test has not been accepted in Florida administrative proceedings. Moreover, the methodology is the basis for a new statewide rulemaking effort, has been accepted by the EPA, the Corps, and by the Division of Administrative Hearings in at least two proceedings, and has been subjected to two peer reviews. Petitioners also alleged that Collier failed to show that it complied with Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 40.432(2)(a)1., a rule administered by DEP which requires that a new SWMS "[a]chieve at least 80 percent reduction of the average annual load of pollutants that would cause or contribute to violations of state water quality standards." However, this is a broad overstatement of DEP's rule. Also, there is no eighty percent removal efficiency requirement adopted or incorporated into any District rule or BOR criteria. See, e.g., Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Inc. v. G.L. Homes of Naples Associates II, LTD et al., DOAH Case No. 06-4922 (DOAH May 15, 2007, SFWMD July 11, 2007). Instead, the District's "presumptive criteria" is that one inch of volumetric treatment required in Section 5.2 of the BOR meets the Class III standards. If, as in this case, additional assurances are required, those assurances are met through implementation of the BOR Section 4.2.4.5. Finally, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-40.110(2) provides that Rule Chapter 62-40 is "intended to provide water resource implementation goals, objectives, and guidance for the development and review of programs, rules, and plans relating to water resources." Also, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 40.110(4) states that "[t]his chapter, in and of itself, shall not constitute standards or criteria for decisions on individual permits. This chapter also does not constitute legislative authority to the Districts for the adoption of rules if such rules are not otherwise authorized by statute." Even if an eighty percent reduction standard applied, Collier has demonstrated that the project very likely will remove eighty percent or more of pollutants when additional low-impact development techniques, pollutant source reduction practices, and additional uncredited wet and dry detention capacity are considered. Based upon the evidence presented, Section 4.2.8 of the BOR regarding cumulative impacts for water quality is not applicable in this case. Collier's submittals provide reasonable assurances that the project will not be contributing to the water quality impairment of the Canal or contribute to any other water quality violation. Indeed, the information submitted indicates there will be an incremental improvement in the post-development condition as compared to existing. Since no contribution or impacts to water quality are expected, a cumulative impact analysis is not necessary to assess the extent of the impacts. The combination of all these water quality measures, when taken together, demonstrates that the 2006 Permit will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that state water quality standards will be violated. Therefore, reasonable assurance has been given that Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) will be satisfied. Wetland Impacts Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d) requires Collier to provide reasonable assurance that the modification of the SWMS "[w]ill not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters." In determining whether this criterion has been satisfied, it is also necessary to determine whether any 2002 permitted impacts should be subject to a second review in this case. Mitigation is a method by which an applicant can propose to impact certain wetlands on the project site in exchange for providing compensation in the form of preserving, enhancing, restoring, or creating wetlands or uplands to offset those impacts. As noted earlier, there has been no change to the wetland impacts or mitigation proposal as it relates to the Northern Preserve. See Findings of Fact 27 and 28, supra. As a result of the modified SWMS, there has been some additional impact to wetlands within the development area of the project. An additional 40.18 acres will be impacted under the 2006 Permit mostly due to the modified SWMS system. However, 39.5 acres of those wetlands were already considered secondarily impacted under the 2002 Permit. In addition, the preserve areas were expanded by 13.32 acres in the 2006 design. Thus, a portion of the impacts to those wetlands was already factored into the mitigation plan that was developed and approved for the 2002 Permit. As a result, there are 26 acres for which mitigation is necessary under the 2006 Permit. Section 4.3 of the BOR specifies criteria for mitigation proposed as part of an ERP application. Collier has proposed an acceptable mitigation plan for the new wetland impacts that will result from the project due to the proposed modifications incorporated in the 2006 Permit. Except for the mitigation for the additional wetland impacts, the mitigation plan for the 2006 Permit remains essentially unchanged from the 2002 Permit, including the Grading and Planting Plan, Monitoring Plan, and Mitigation, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plan. The onsite mitigation proposal includes preservation and restoration of wetlands through the removal of melaleuca and other exotic plants and replanting in areas of dense exotic species coverage. Significantly, Collier has not proposed any modifications that would change the effectiveness of the Northern Preserve in providing mitigation for the wetland impacts proposed and approved in the 2002 Permit. While Petitioners claim that the wetlands in the Northern Preserve may be subject to some changes in the level and seasonality of inundation as a result of the SWMS modifications, the evidence does not support those assertions. The revised SWMS will continue to allow water to flow through the Northern Preserve in a manner consistent with existing conditions while providing some flood control protection for extreme rainfall events. Petitioners also suggest that additional analysis regarding the timing and levels of inundation in the wetland preserves is necessary to fully determine the impacts of the modified SWMS on the wetlands. However, the more persuasive testimony indicates that the timing and levels within the wetlands will not be affected by the revised SWMS. The control elevations within the development area have not changed from the 2002 Permit, and these protect the onsite wetlands and ensure that those wetlands will function as expected. With respect to the internal wetlands within the development area, the control elevations have not changed from the 2002 Permit and the evidence establishes that the internal wetlands will continue to function and operate as contemplated in the 2002 Permit. There has been some relocation and reconfiguration of the internal wetland preserve areas that will actually enhance the value of the mitigation by connecting those wetland areas to other preserve areas. Petitioners further suggested that the wetland mitigation within the development area would not function as permitted in the 2002 Permit due to the spill over from the lakes to the wetlands. However, when the water reaches those internal wetland preserves, it has been treated to Class III water quality standards. Therefore, the mitigation values of those wetlands preserves will not be changed or affected due to water quality. Petitioners' objections to the wetland impacts and mitigation were primarily directed at the overall impacts rather than to the 2006 modifications. However, their witness was unaware of the values provided by the additional acres that will be impacted through the 2006 Permit. Therefore, a challenge to 2002 permitted wetlands impacts and mitigation is inappropriate in this proceeding. Functions To Fish and Wildlife and Listed Species Section 4.2.2 of the BOR implements Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d) and provides that an applicant must provide reasonable assurances that a project will not cause adverse impact to the abundance and diversity of fish, wildlife, and listed species or their habitat. With respect to the 586.66 acres of wetland impacts permitted in the 2002 Permit, the 2006 Permit does not modify or affect the values that the wetlands provide to either the abundance or diversity of fish and wildlife. Review of the wetlands criteria as to those acres was finally determined in the 2002 Permit and should not be reopened. By relocating thirteen of the previously impacted acres so they are most closely connected to other wetlands, their value to fish and wildlife will increase. As explained by the District's witness Bain, if Collier had moved the preserve area and changed its functional value, the District would have been required to reevaluate the mitigation that had been accepted for the wetland impacts in the 2002 permit. In this case, however, because the Northern Preserve area did not change, the District's review is limited to the newly impacted wetlands internal to the development for which mitigation was not provided in the 2002 Permit. Section 4.2.2.3 of the BOR addresses the functional assessment of the values provided by the project's wetlands. The only wetland values assessed in the 2006 Permit were the additional wetland impacts that were not mitigated in the 2002 Permit. The evidence establishes that the current value of the wetlands is low due to the heavy melaleuca infestation, which is greater than fifty percent coverage in most locations and seventy-five percent or more in much of the area. Melaleuca has the effect of draining short hydroperiod wetlands. While Petitioners may disagree with how the wetlands were previously evaluated, nothing in the 2006 modification allows or requires a reassessment of their value. Section 4.2.2.4 of the BOR requires that a regulated activity not adversely impact the hydroperiod (the depth, duration, or frequency of inundation) of wetlands or other surface waters. Subsection (a) of this standard applies if the project is expected to reduce the hydroperiod in any of the project's wetlands. Conversely, subsection (b) applies if the project is expected to increase the hydroperiod through changing the rate or method of discharge of water to wetlands or other surface waters. Subsection (c) requires monitoring of the wetlands to determine the effects of the hydrological changes. Again, there is no basis for the District to reopen and reevaluate the wetlands for which mitigation has already been permitted. No evidence was presented to indicate that there would be any obstacles or problems to accomplishing the mitigation that was proposed and accepted in 2002. In any event, the engineering and biological testimony demonstrated that no change (neither a reduction nor an increase) in the hydrology on the preserved wetlands or the Northern Preserve will occur from what was permitted in the 2002 Permit. By analyzing the various biological indicators onsite and setting the control elevations within the SWMS and the wetlands (both the Northern Preserve and onsite preserve wetlands) above the WSWT, the project ensures that the appropriate hydrology will be maintained. Though the fish and wildlife are not expected to be adversely affected by the 2006 Permit, Collier will be conducting monitoring of plants and animals on the site as an extra measure of assurance as contemplated under BOR Section 4.2.3.4(c). Focusing on just the changes from 2002 to 2006, Petitioners' two experts conceded that the hydrology in the Northern Preserve and its value to wildlife and listed species (including the wood stork) would be benefited in the 2006 Permit over that contemplated in the 2002 Permit due to the removal of the Flow-Way. Secondary Impacts to Water Resources Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f) requires a demonstration that the proposed activities "[w]ill not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources." A similar demonstration is required by Sections 4.1.1(f) and 4.2.7 of the BOR. In this case, the secondary impacts considered by the District were potential impacts due to the relocation and expansion of the buffer preserve areas to the perimeter of the project site. In conducting a secondary impact analysis, BOR Section 4.2.7 requires that the District consider only those future projects or activities which would not occur "but for" the proposed system. Here, the evidence demonstrated that no wetlands or other surface waters will be secondarily impacted by the modifications to the SWMS as part of the 2006 Permit. The undersigned has rejected Petitioners' contention that a proposed extension of County Road 951 through the development site should be considered a secondary impact in evaluating this project. This extension has been proposed for at least fifteen years and its precise configuration is unclear. It is not required to be built as a result of the project and there are no firm plans or contracts in place to construct the road. Although the road is listed on the County's transportation plan, it remains speculative as to if and when it will be built. Additionally, there is no evidence the County has any ownership interest in property for a road in the area identified by Petitioners. Witness Bain testified that the District examined the Collier County Public Records and an easement had not been granted to the County to build the road. i. Elimination and Reduction Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301((3) provides in part that "the provisions for elimination or reduction of impacts contained in the [BOR] shall determine whether the reasonable assurances required by subsection 40E- 4.301(1) and Rule 40E-4.302, F.A.C., have been provided." Section 4.2.1.1 of the BOR implements that provision and provides that elimination and reduction of impacts is not required when: The ecological value of the function provided by the area of wetland or other surface water to be adversely affected is low based on site specific analysis using the factors in subsection 4.2.2.3 and the proposed mitigation will provide greater long term ecological value than the area of wetland or other surface water to be adversely affected; . . . In accordance with that section, Collier was not required to implement practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate impacts. The District did a site-specific analysis of the quality of the 39.5 acres of adversely affected wetlands, taking into consideration the condition of the wetlands, hydrologic connection, uniqueness, location, and fish and wildlife utilization. The unrebutted testimony is that the quality of the 39.5 acres of wetlands to be impacted by the 2006 Permit is low and these wetlands were already previously authorized to be secondarily impacted. The low quality wetlands are melaleuca dominated making them not unique. The mitigation will provide greater long-term ecological value than the impacted wetlands. As noted on page 10 of the Staff Report, there will be a larger, contiguous mitigation area to offset direct impacts to previously preserved, but secondarily impacted wetlands and the preservation/enhancement of the external preserve area. The 2006 Permit provides that 5.68 credits are required to be purchased in the PIMB. Collier has advised the District that 27.68 credits are being purchased pursuant to its Corps permit. Thus, Collier will be purchasing more credits than required by the District. Witness Bain took this additional mitigation into account in determining whether the proposed mitigation will provide greater long term ecological value than the area impacted. While the Corps permit is an entirely separate permit action, Collier has agreed to include an additional 5.68 credits within the Basin beyond what is required in the Staff Report as a condition to this 2006 Permit. Therefore, the mitigation is clearly of greater long-term ecological value than the area impacted. Additional Requirements Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302 imposes additional requirements on an ERP applicant, including a cumulative impact assessment, if appropriate, and satisfaction of a public interest test. Cumulative Impacts Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302(1)(b) requires that an applicant demonstrate the project "[w]ill not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters as set forth in subsections 4.2.8 through 4.2.8.2 of the [BOR]." Cumulative impacts are the summation of unmitigated wetland impacts within a drainage basin, and a cumulative impact analysis is geographically based upon the drainage basins described in Figure 4.2.8-1 of the BOR. See Florida Wildlife Federation et al. v. South Florida Water Management District et al., 2006 Fla. ENV LEXIS 49 at *49, DOAH Case Nos. 04-3064 and 04-3084 (DOAH Dec. 3, 2006, SFWMD Dec. 8, 2006). Also, Section 373.414(8)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the District to consider the cumulative impacts upon surface water and wetlands within the same drainage basin. Thus, the cumulative impact analysis applies only when mitigation is proposed outside of the drainage basin within which the impacts are to occur. Broward County v. Weiss et al., 2002 Fla. ENV LEXIS 298 at *29, DOAH Case No. 01-3373 (DOAH Aug. 27, 2002, SFWMD Nov. 14, 2002). In this case, all of the proposed mitigation associated with the 2006 Permit modifications is located within the West Collier Basin. The evidence shows that the mitigation will offset the impacts to wetlands proposed in the 2006 Permit. Therefore, since the mitigation will be performed in the same Basin as the impacts and will offset the adverse impacts, the District must "consider the regulated activity to meet the cumulative impact requirements" of Section 373.414(8)(a), Florida Statutes. A new cumulative impacts analysis based on removal of the Flow-Way is not necessary because the modification does not change the cumulative impacts analysis conducted in the 2002 Permit. Since the Flow-Way was not considered a wetland impact or contributing to the mitigation in the 2002 Permit, its removal does not affect the adequacy of the previously conducted cumulative impacts analysis or the mitigation. Accordingly, there is no need for a new cumulative impact analysis with regards to the Northern Preserve. Finally, contrary to Petitioners' assertion, there is no rule or BOR provision which requires Collier to mitigate for the alleged prior impacts of other projects. Public Interest Test In addition to complying with the above criteria, because the project is located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters, Collier must also address the criteria contained in the Public Interest Test in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302(1) and Section 4.2.3 of the BOR by demonstrating that the project is not contrary to the public interest. See also § 373.414(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Since the project does not discharge into an OFW or significantly degrade an OFW, the higher standard of "clearly in the public interest" does not apply. In determining compliance with the test, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302(1)(a) requires that the District do so by "balancing the [seven] criteria [in the rule]." Findings with respect to each of the seven criteria are set out below. (Except for pointing out that the District does not have an adopted rule which provides more specific detail on how to perform the balancing test than is now found in paragraph (1)(a), and a contention that witness Bain's testimony was insufficient to explain how the staff balanced those factors, Petitioners did not present any evidence at hearing or argument in their Proposed Recommended Order in support of their contention that the above rule, BOR section, or the associated statute have been applied by the District in an unconstitutional manner.) Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others (40E-4.302(1)(a)1.) Collier provided reasonable assurances that the project will not cause any onsite or offsite flooding nor cause any adverse impacts to adjacent lands because the SWMS is designed in accordance with District criteria. Also, the post- development peak rate of discharge does not exceed the allowable discharge rate. Further, the project will not cause any environmental hazards affecting public health, safety, or welfare. The project is considered neutral as to this factor. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats (40E-4.302(1)(a)2.) For the direct wetland impacts under the 2006 Permit, Collier proposes mitigation which has not changed from the 2002 Permit. The mitigation proposed was previously determined to offset potential impacts to fish and wildlife and particularly wood stork habitats. The evidence indicates that the mitigation plan for the Northern Preserve will improve wood stork habitat from its current melaleuca infested condition. For the additional 40.18 acres of wetland impacts authorized in 2006, the mitigation is of greater long-term value. Thus, the project should be considered positive as to this factor. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling (40E-4.302(1)(a)3.) The parties have stipulated that the project will not adversely affect navigation. In addition, no evidence was introduced to suggest that the project's construction would result in harmful erosion or shoaling. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity (40E-4.302(1)(a)4.) The project does not provide any fishing, recreational values, or marine productivity. Therefore, the project is neutral as to this factor. Whether the regulated activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature (40E-4.302(1)(a)5.) It is undisputed that the project is permanent in nature. Even though the project is permanent, it is considered neutral as to this factor because mitigation will offset the permanent wetland impacts. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, F.S. (40E- 4.302(1)(a)6.) The parties have stipulated that no significant archeological or historical resources have been identified on this site. Therefore, the project is considered neutral as to this factor. The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed regulated activity (40E-4.302(1)(a)7.) The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by the areas affected by the project is low due to the melaleuca infestation. Project mitigation will restore 940 acres of poor quality wetlands and uplands, greatly enhancing their function and value. Therefore, the project should be considered positive as to this factor because the implementation of the mitigation offsets the wetland impacts and improves the current value. Summary of Public Interest Factors Overall, the project is no worse than neutral measured against any one of the criteria individually. Therefore, the project is not contrary to the public interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order granting the application of I. M. Collier, J.V. for a modification to Environmental Resource Permit No. 11-02031P. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 2007.
The Issue The ultimate legal and factual issue in this matter is whether Engle Homes, Inc., and Lake Bernadette, Inc. (Permittees), have provided the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) with reasonable assurances that the activities they propose to conduct pursuant to Management and Storage of Surface Water (MSSW) General Construction Permit No. 49005837.017 (the Permit) meet the conditions for issuance of permits established in Rules 40D-4.301, 40D-4.302, and 40D- 40.302, Florida Administrative Code. In particular, the issues of fact to be litigated are whether the Project will cause adverse water quality impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; whether the Project will cause adverse flooding of on-site or off-site property; whether the Project will cause impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; and whether the Project will adversely affect the property of others.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Engle Homes, Inc., and Lake Bernadette, Inc., are corporations licensed to operate in the State of Florida. The District is the administrative agency charged with the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage, and control water resources within its boundaries pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder as Chapter 40D, Florida Administrative Code. Driscoll resides at 35716 Welby Court, Zephyrhills, Florida 33541, Lot 14, within the Timber Creek 2 Subdivision (Subdivision). Driscoll requested this hearing to show the District that there is a drainage problem on Lots 13 and 14, and the adjacent Geiger property to the south, which should be fixed at this time and as part of the Project. Driscoll wants "Engle Homes to propose a new solution to fix the entire Welby Court Geiger property problem," i.e., from Lots 4 through 14, and not a piecemeal solution as proposed in the Permit modification. The Subdivision Engle Homes, Inc., and Lake Bernadette, Inc., developed the Timber Creek 2 Subdivision. Lots 15 through 25 run east to west and are north of Welby Court. Lots 15 and 16 are located north of the cul-de-sac, on the eastern portion of Welby Court. Lots 3 through 14 run west to east, south of Welby Court. Lots 13 and 14 are south of the cul-de-sac on the eastern portion of Welby Court and are across the street and the cul-de-sac from Lots 16 and 15, respectively. Residences exist on Lots 5, and 7 through 14. Driscoll owns Lot 14, a corner lot, which is the southeastern most lot of the Subdivision. Don Geiger (Geiger) owns the land (approximately five acres) south of the property lines of Subdivision Lots 5 through Geiger's northern driveway, essentially a dirt road, runs parallel to Lots 5 through 14. Subsequent to the original construction activity involving the Subdivision, the developer realized that there was an "existing depression" (referenced on Engle Exhibit number 1), south of Lots 7 and 8, and on Geiger's property. Geiger complained to the District about standing water in this area. This depression area is approximately 90 feet long and 30 feet wide which needed to be "drained off" according to Geiger. The depressed area on Geiger's property was most likely caused when Lots 7 through 14 were graded and sodded, which raised the "lots up a few inches" above Geiger's driveway/property. Water is trapped during a storm event between the back yards and the depressed area. As a result, the southern end of the back yards, particularly Lots 7 and 8, and the driveway remain constantly wet. The Project On January 16, 2001, Engle Homes, Inc., and Lake Bernadette, Inc., filed MSSW Permit Application No. 49005837.017 with the District, to address the problems with the rear lot grading and the adjacent property. The actual Project area for the permit modification1 includes the southern portions of Lots 4 through 9 and south of the property lot line including Geiger's property. See Finding of Fact 5. The modified permit does not address the drainage area including the back yards of Lot 13 and Driscoll's Lot 14, and the other portion of Geiger's property/driveway to the south. On April 5, 2001, the District issued MSSW Permit No. 49005837.017 to Engle Homes, Inc., and Lake Bernadette, Inc., under the provisions of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40D-40, Florida Administrative Code, for the modification of a surface water management system to serve the Project area. The proposed Project will involve the construction of a concrete inlet box with a safety grate, storm sewers, and grass swales. Specifically, the project is intended to solve the drainage problems associated with the "existing depression" south of the boundary line for Lots 7 and 8 on Geiger's property (although Lots 4 through 9 ("area 1") are included within the Project area), and the back yards of Lots 7 and 8. A catch basin is proposed to be located south and on the lot line between Lots 8 and 9, which is expected to drain off the water in the depression area to the modified surface water management system. The inlet box will be placed in the corner between Lots 8 and 9. The collected water in the inlet box will be routed underground through a series of 18-inch storm sewer pipe straight north through a drainage easement between Lots 8 and 9 to Welby Court. The underground pipe ties into an existing pipe in front of Lot 9 on the street, then runs east along the Welby Court right-of-way and then north between Lots 19 and 20, and eventually north into a large permitted retention pond, located to the north of the Subdivision which will handle the stormwater. Driscoll's Alleged Drainage Problem There is another distinct drainage area, i.e., "area 2," which includes Geiger's property and the southern portions of Lots 13 and 14, where water drains from south to north into a roadside ditch to Geiger Cemetery Road ("area 3"), which runs south to north and east of Lots 14 and 15. During a September 2001 tropical storm, there was standing water on Geiger's driveway, directly south of Lots 13 and 14, which was present for more than 3 days. This was referred to by Mr. Barrett as a "small drainage problem that could easily be corrected." On the other hand, Geiger says that there is standing water on his driveway, south of Lots 13 and 14, "all the time." This caused Geiger to move his driveway "50 or 60 feet" south. According to Geiger, the berm, which runs across Lots 10 through 14, should be lowered and the backyards reconfigured. But this would be quite disturbing to the neighbors. Therefore, Geiger recommends the placement of drains south of Lots 13 and 14, which would direct the water out to the ditch at Geiger Cemetery Road and away from Driscoll's Lot 14. The modified Permit is not intended to solve this problem, although Driscoll wants this problem fixed. It is not necessary to resolve Driscoll's issue regarding whether there is a drainage problem in and around Driscoll's lot. The two drainage areas 1 and 2 discussed herein are not connected, although they are close in proximity. The solution to the first problem has no impact on the second, and there is no cited statutory or rule requirement that both issues must be addressed in this Permit application. This is Driscoll's quandary. Compliance with Rules 40D-4.301 and 40D-4.302, Florida Administrative Code The Project will not impact wetlands or surface waters. The Project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife, and listed species, including aquatic and wetland-dependent species, by wetlands or other surface waters and other water-related resources. The Project will not adversely impact the quality of receiving waters such that the water quality standards will be violated. The Project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. The Project will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or groundwater levels or surface water flows established pursuant to Section 373.042, Florida Statutes. The Project will not cause adverse impacts to a work of the District. The Project is capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being effectively performed and of functioning as proposed. The Project 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. The Project will comply with any applicable special basin or geographic area criteria established pursuant to Chapter 40D, Florida Administrative Code, by the District. The Project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare. The Project will not adversely impact the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. The Project will not adversely affect navigation. The Project will not cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The Project will not adversely affect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the Project. The Project will not adversely affect significant historical and archeological resources. The Project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters. The Project area is less than 100 acres. The Project does not require dredging or filling of wetlands, or construction of boat slips. The Project is not contrary to the public interest. The Project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands, and will not adversely affect or impact the property of others, including Driscoll's property, Lot 14. "Area 1," between Lots 4 and 9, is a separate drainage area, and the water from this area does not drain to Lot 14. Driscoll's property is not within the Project area, and the Project was not intended to resolve his alleged drainage problem. The Project will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property. The Project will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Rather, the project is expected to improve the conveyance of water and drainage for "area 1" and the Project area.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order issuing Management and Storage of Surface Water General Construction Permit No. 49005837.017. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 2001.
The Issue Whether Save the Manatee Club has standing in this proceeding? Whether the exemptions in paragraphs (3), (5) and (6) of Rule 40D-4.051, Florida Administrative Code, (the Exemptions) are "invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority" as defined in paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes? Whether the Exemptions violate the prohibitions and restrictions on agency rulemaking contained in the last four sentences of Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The parties Petitioner, Save the Manatee Club, Inc., is a not-for- profit corporation dedicated to protecting the manatee. Respondent, The Southwest Florida Water Management District, is one of five water management districts in the State of Florida. A public corporation created pursuant to Chapter 61- 691, Laws of Florida, the District's geographic boundaries encompass a number of counties or some part of them including the three counties on the shores of Tampa Bay: Hillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee. See Section 373.069(2)(d), Florida Statutes. Within this boundary, the District is generally charged with the protection of water resources and with the management and storage of surface waters of the State pursuant to Part IV, Section 373.403 et seq., Florida Statutes. Intervenor, South Shores Properties Partners, Ltd., is a limited partnership composed of a subsidiary of Tampa Electric Company (TECO) and another business organization, Shimberg Cross Company, referred to by its President Glen Cross as "actually SCSS" (Tr. 133), apparently an acronym for Shimberg Cross Company. Mr. Cross' company is the general partner in the South Shores partnership. South Shores was formed in anticipation of closing on a contract entered by Shimberg Cross to purchase a parcel of real estate in Hillsborough County. The closing proceeded in January of 1998. On January 23, 1998, eight days or so before the closing, South Shores was formed as "a limited partnership organized under the laws of the State of Florida." (Petitioner's Exhibit no. 15). It succeeded to the contract rights of Shimberg Cross and then, pursuant to the closing, became the owner of the real estate subject to the contract. South Shores hopes to sell the property to Atlantic Gulf Communities, an organization that will actually develop it. If the arrangement with Atlantic Gulf Communities is not consummated, South Shores will look for another developer or develop the property itself. No matter what party (if any) is the actual developer, South Shores, as the present owner, now seeks the benefit of the Exemptions in support of a District- issued conceptual permit for development of the parcel in Hillsborough County (the Parcel). The Parcel and Its Proposed Development The Parcel is 720 acres in southwestern Hillsborough County. South Shores proposes to use it for a multi-phase, mixed-use project. The development project is denominated "Apollo Beach aka (sic) Bay Side" (Petitioner's Exhibit 13) on the draft of the conceptual permit attached to the District's Notice of Proposed Agency Action. Atlantic Gulf Communities calls it "Harbor Bay". (Petitioner's Exhibits 3 and 4). (It will be referred to in this order as Apollo Beach/Bay Side). If all goes as planned by South Shores, the Parcel's developer (whether South Shores, Atlantic Gulf Communities, or some other party) will be able to provide the residential portion of Apollo Beach/Bay Side with direct access by boat to Tampa Bay through an existing canal system on the Parcel. For now access to the bay is blocked by an earthen berm or "plug." With the plug in place, boat access to the bay from the canals can only be achieved by means of a boat lift. A lagoon is also part of South Shores' development plans for Apollo Beach/Bayside. Not yet excavated, the lagoon will allow residents to harbor boats close to their residences. If the lagoon is dug, a boat lift (different from the one necessary to allow boats to cross the plug if left in place) will be constructed to give the boats access to the canal system. With access to the canal system established, once the plug is removed, the boats will have unrestricted access to Tampa Bay. In the "Abstract" section of the conceptual permit proposed for issuance by the District, the project was described as follows: Apollo Beach (a.k.a. Bay Side) is a proposed multi-phase, mixed use development on approximately 720.0 acres in . . . Southwestern Hillsborough County. The project will include single-family and multi- family residential areas and commercial sites. The property is in close proximity to Tampa Bay, West of U.S. Highway 41 and immediately south of the existing Apollo Beach development. The site is presently undeveloped but does contain an existing manmade canal system that is tidally connected to Tampa Bay. The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed project has an Environmental Resource Permit exemption pursuant to Chapters 40D-4.051(3)(5) and (6), F.A.C. and will only require Standard General Permits for Minor Surface Water Management Systems for the future construction in accordance with Chapter 40D-4.041(4), F.A.C. Because of this exemption, this Conceptual Permit will only review the storm water quality aspects of the project in accordance with 40D-301(2) and will not address storm water quantity issues or impacts to wetland/fish and wildlife habitats. The project will include the realignment of existing Leisley Road and the construction of a roadway system to serve the proposed residential and commercial areas. The project will also include the excavation of a "fresh water Lagoon" approximately 136 acres in size. Most of the proposed single-family residential lots will be constructed on the "Lagoon" or existing canal system. Surface water runoff from the upland portions of the project will be treated in 25 proposed ponds or isolated wetlands prior to discharge to the "Lagoon" or existing canal system. (Petitioner's Exhibit no. 13.) The ultimate effects to manatees of the proposed development project, if completed, were described by Ms. Thompson, the Club's witness: A typical project such as this one will introduce a good number of powerboats into the system, in this case, Tampa Bay. And manatees are impacted by powerboats either through propeller injuries or through collision with the hull of a fast-moving boat and the results are either death or in some cases sublethal injuries that may have other consequences such as inability to reproduce, et cetera. . . . [T]he very same boats can affect manatee habitat by prop scarring, boats going over sea grass beds and destroying the grasses. They also, in shallow water, kick up . . . turbidity which can affect light attenuation reaching the sea grass beds. And then there are the water quality issues which have secondary impacts to the sea grass beds . . . (Tr. 96). The Exemptions preliminarily afforded South Shore by the District will allow the removal of the plug in the canal system. Because removal of the plug will facilitate access to Tampa Bay by power boats harbored in the lagoon, it is the issue about the development of the Parcel that most concerns the Club in its efforts to protect manatees in Tampa Bay and elsewhere. Standing of Save the Manatee Club (i). The Manatee The manatee is the "Florida State marine mammal." Section 370.12(2)(b), Florida Statutes. Designated an endangered species under both federal and state law, 50 CFR s. 17.11 and Rule 39-27.003, Florida Administrative Code, the manatee is protected by the federal Endangered Species Act and by the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act. In Florida, the manatee enjoys, too, the protection of the Florida Endangered Species Act and the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act. The State of Florida has been declared to be "a refuge and sanctuary for the manatee." Id. The Club's Purpose and Activities The Club's primary purpose is to protect the manatee and its habitat through public awareness, research support and advocacy. Long active in efforts to protect the manatee, the Club has achieved special status in manatee protection in Florida. In 1996, it was the recipient of a resolution by the Florida Legislature's House of Representative recognizing its endeavors on behalf of the manatee. The Club has been designated a member of the Manatee Technical Advisory Council provided by the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act. See sub-sections (2)(p) and (4)(a) of section 370.12(2)(p) and (4)(a), Florida Statutes. The Department of Environmental Protection annually solicits recommendations from the Club regarding the use of Save the Manatee Trust Fund monies. In furtherance of its efforts, the Club has frequently participated before the Division of Administrative Hearings in administrative litigation involving manatees and manatee habitat on behalf of itself and its members. (iii). The Club's Membership The Club has approximately 40,000 members. The number of individual persons who are members of the Club, however, is far in excess of this number because many members are groups that receive membership at discounted fees. For example, a family may be one member or, as is quite common, an entire elementary school classroom may be one member. One-quarter of the Club's membership resides in Florida. Approximately 2,200 of the members are on the west coast of Florida with 439 in Hillsborough County, 584 in Pinellas and 165 in Manatee. The total number of members is therefore about 1,188 in the three counties whose shores are washed by Tampa Bay. (iv). Tampa Bay Tampa Bay is "prime essential manatee habitat." (Tr. 65). At least two factors make this so: the Bay's sea grass beds (manatee feeding areas) and warm water sources, particularly in winter, three of which are "power plant effluence." (Tr. 77). Not surprisingly, therefore, the Club has funded long- term research on the manatee in Tampa Bay. It has "provided about ten years of financial support for aerial surveys to count manatees in Tampa Bay and determine their distribution and the health of the sea grass beds . . ." (Tr. 75), a research project which finished last year. This research has contributed to other manatee research in the Bay leading the Club's witness at hearing to conclude, "[t]here's no other place in the state of Florida that has as long a term, as comprehensive a [manatee] database as Tampa Bay." (Tr. 76). Other activities in Tampa Bay conducted by the Club include the placement of manatee awareness signs. And the Club's staff biologist sits on the Tampa Bay Manatee Awareness Coalition established by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. In sum, the quality of manatee habitat in Tampa Bay is enough to make it especially important to the Club. But, its importance to the Club takes on added significance because it is the site of one of only three adoption programs the Club sponsors in Florida. The Tampa Bay Adoption Program The Tampa Bay Adopt-a-Manatee Program was established in April of 1999. The six manatees subject to the Tampa Bay Manatee Adoption Program (as of October 7, 1999) have been adopted by 1,229 members, 284 of which have been schools. (Petitioner's Exhibit 9). Those adopting receive a photo of the manatee, a biography, a scar pattern sheet, and a map showing their manatees' favorite habitat areas along the west coast of Florida. Of the six "Tampa Bay Adoption" program manatees, five have been seen in Tampa Bay and one south of Tampa Bay in the Marco Island area. Of the five seen in the bay, four "winter at the warm water discharge area of Tampa Electric Company's power plant" (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5, Tr. 67) where they can be observed by members of the Club and the Tampa Bay adoption program as well as by the public. The TECO Power Plant The TECO power plant area is the major warm water refuge for manatees known to frequent Tampa Bay, particularly during the winter. The waters near the plant have been observed to be the host of more than 100 manatees at one time, following the movement of cold fronts through the area. The plant has a manatee-viewing center, one of the two principal places in the state for viewing manatees in the wild. The Club's membership handbook gives detailed information about how to see manatees at the TECO viewing center. During the winter months, the Club frequently directs its members to the TECO viewing center. Precisely how many individuals, either as members of the Club through a group membership or as members, themselves, actually have viewed manatees at the TECO viewing center or elsewhere in Tampa Bay was not established. Nor was any competent estimate made of how many might visit the TECO viewing center in the future. The viewing center and the power plant are in the vicinity of Apollo Beach/Bay Side, the development project South Shores seeks to have approved for an Environmental Resource Permit (the ERP). The SWFWMD ERP Program Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, governs water resources in the state and sets out the powers and duties of the water management districts, including their permitting powers. Part IV of the chapter covers the management and storage of surface waters. According to SWFWMD rules, "'Environmental Resource Permit' means a conceptual, individual, or general permit for a surface water management system issued pursuant to Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes." Rule 40D-4.021, Florida Administrative Code. The permit issued to South Shores in this case through the application of the challenged Exemptions, is a conceptual Environmental Resource Permit. See Petitioner's Exhibit no. 13 and Rule 40D-4.021(2), Florida Administrative Code. The conceptual permit preliminarily issued South Shores is one that was reviewed by the Club's staff, just as it reviews many permit applications for potential effects to manatees. Because of use of the Exemptions as proposed by the District to South Shores, however, any review the Club conducted to assure that the permit met all general permitting criteria was of no use. Much of those criteria were not applied by the District to the application. If the Exemptions were not available to South Shores, the District would have to employ ERP permitting criteria to the surface water management activities associated with the development project, including removal of the plug, lagoon construction, and boat lift installation. The Exemptions, therefore, keep the Club from participating in what otherwise would be the process for the District's administrative decision on the application of those criteria. In sum, the Exemptions preempt the Club's participation in the state mechanism provided by ERP permitting criteria for assessing, inter alia, threats to the manatee and its habitat from harms associated with the proposed development project. The District recognized this effect of the permit in the draft of the permit. The draft states: "Because of this Exemption, this Conceptual Permit will . . . not address . . . impacts to . . . wildlife habitat." (Petitioner's Exhibit no. 13). The Exemptions, therefore, prevent the Club from carrying out functions useful to protection of manatee habitat, that is, participation in the District's application of wildlife habitat protection criteria. The non-application by the District of permit criteria related to wildlife habitat protection and the Club's inability to assure itself that the criteria are correctly applied poses the danger that manatee habitat will be lost, diminished or damaged. If the Club is ultimately proved right in its assertion that the manatee and its habitat will be damaged by the South Shores development without application of permitting criteria related to wildlife habitat, then the approved application increases the threat that Club members will encounter greater difficulty in observing, studying and enjoying manatees in the wild and in Tampa Bay in particular. Standing of South Shores to Intervene The District has no opposition to South Shores' intervention. As for the Club's position with regard to South Shores intervention, the Club stipulated to South Shores' standing to intervene in a notice filed with its proposed order. South Shores benefits, moreover, from the application of the Exemptions to its proposed project. In light of not having to show compliance with permitting criteria otherwise applicable, South Shores will escape some permitting costs and therefore, enjoys economic benefit. Furthermore, by allowing South Shores to avoid the requirements of compliance with ERP permitting criteria, the Exemptions facilitate fulfillment of the obligation of South Shores to obtain a permit to develop. The District's Rule-making Authority The District governing board has been granted general authority by the Legislature to adopt rules to implement the provisions of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, the Florida Water Resources Act of 1972: The governing board of the district is authorized to adopt rules . . . to implement the provisions of law conferring powers or duties upon it. Section 373.113, Florida Statutes. The Legislature has framed this authority in relationship to the District's power to administer the Chapter and its Part IV: In administering the provisions of this chapter the governing board has authority to adopt rules . . . to implement provisions of law conferring powers or duties upon it. Section 373.113, Florida Statutes. In another provision in Chapter 373, the district has been given rule-making authority that exceeds the authority to implement specific provisions granted typically to most administrative agencies in Florida. This authority is broad indeed. Tied to water use in general, it is bound only by unspecified conditions as warranted: . . . governing boards, . . . may: Adopt rules . . . affecting the use of water, as conditions warrant, . . . Section 373.171, Florida Statutes. The Exemptions; Specific Authority and Laws Implemented The Exemptions are as follows: 40D-4.051 Exemptions. The following activities are exempt from [ERP] permitting under this chapter: * * * (3) Any project, work or activity which has received all governmental approvals necessary to begin construction and is under construction prior to October 1, 1984. *(4) Any project, work or activity which received a surface water management permit from the District prior to October 1, 1984. * * * Any phased or long term buildout project, including a development of regional impact, planned unit development, development with a master plan or master site plan, or similar project, which has received local or regional approval prior to October 1, 1984, if: The approval process requires a specific site plan and provides for a master drainage plan approved prior to the issuance of a building permit, and The Developer has notified the District of its intention to rely upon this exemption prior to April 1, 1985. Projects exempt under this subsection shall continue to be subject to the District's surface water management rules in effect prior to October 1, 1984. As specific authority, the Rule containing the Exemptions references 373.044, 373.113, 373.149, 373.171, and 373.414(9), Florida Statutes. For "Law Implemented", the Rule lists Sections 373.406, 373.413 and 373.414(9), Florida Statutes. Section 373.414(9) is cited by the Rule both as specific authority and as one of the laws implemented. The first of the statutory provisions cited by the Rule as a law implemented is Section 373.406, Florida Statutes. It reads: 373.406 Exemptions.- The following exemptions shall apply: Nothing herein, or in any rule, regulation, or order adopted pursuant hereto, shall be construed to affect the right of any natural person to capture, discharge, and use water for purposes permitted by law. Nothing herein, or in any rule, regulation, or order adopted pursuant hereto, shall be construed to affect the right of any person engaged in the occupation of agriculture, silviculture, floriculture, or horticulture to alter the topography of any tract of land for purposes consistent with the practice of such occupation. However, such alteration may not be for the sole or predominant purpose of impounding or obstructing surface waters. Nothing herein, or in any rule, regulation, or order adopted pursuant hereto, shall be construed to be applicable to construction, operation, or maintenance of any agricultural closed system. However, part II of this chapter shall be applicable as to the taking and discharging of water for filling, replenishing, and maintaining the water level in any such agricultural closed system. This subsection shall not be construed to eliminate the necessity to meet generally accepted engineering practices for construction, operation, and maintenance of dams, dikes, or levees. All rights and restrictions set forth in this section shall be enforced by the governing board or the Department of Environmental Protection or its successor agency, and nothing contained herein shall be construed to establish a basis for a cause of action for private litigants. The department or the governing board may by rule establish general permits for stormwater management systems which have, either singularly or cumulatively, minimal environmental impact. The department or the governing board also may establish by rule exemptions or general permits that implement interagency agreements entered into pursuant to s. 373.046, s. 378.202, s. 378.205, or s. 378.402. Any district or the department may exempt from regulation under this part those activities that the district or department determines will have only minimal or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the water resources of the district. The district and the department are authorized to determine, on a case-by- case basis, whether a specific activity comes within this exemption. Requests to qualify for this exemption shall be submitted in writing to the district or department, and such activities shall not be commenced without a written determination from the district or department confirming that the activity qualifies for the exemption. Nothing in this part, or in any rule or order adopted under this part, may be construed to require a permit for mining activities for which an operator receives a life-of-the-mine permit under s. 378.901. Certified aquaculture activities which apply appropriate best management practices adopted pursuant to s. 597.004 are exempt from this part. For the most part, this section sets out general classes of exemptions. And it allows the District to consider whether an activity comes within an exemption on a "case-by-case" basis. See Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes. But, none of these "exemptions" appear to have anything to do with the grandfather protections provided by the Exemptions at issue in this proceeding. See paragraphs 93-96, below. Section 373.413, Florida Statutes, in pertinent part, reads: (1) Except for the exemptions set forth herein, the governing board or the department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the construction or alteration of any stormwater management system, dam, impoundment, reservoir, appurtenant work, or works will comply with the provisions of this part and applicable rules promulgated thereto and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district. The department or the governing board may delineate areas within the district wherein permits may be required. Other than to make reference in subsection (1)to the existence of exemptions under Part IV of Chapter 373: "Except for the exemptions set forth herein . . .", Section 373.413 does not deal at all with exemptions. Certainly, it does not make reference with any specificity to the subject matter of the Exemptions at issue in this proceeding. Cited both as "specific authority" and "law implemented" is paragraph (9) of Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. Unlike Sections 373.406 and 373.413, it has a connection to the Exemptions at issue in this proceeding as is seen from perusal of the underscored language, below: (9) The department and the governing boards, on or before July 1, 1994, shall adopt rules to incorporate the provision of this section, relying primarily on the existing rules of the department and the water management districts, into the rules governing the management and storage of surface waters. Such rules shall seek to achieve a statewide, coordinated and consistent permitting approach to activities regulated under this part. Variations in permitting criteria in the rules of individual water management districts or the department shall only be provided to address differing physical or natural characteristics. Such rules adopted pursuant to this subsection shall include the special criteria adopted pursuant to s. 403.061(29) and may include the special criteria adopted pursuant to s. 403.061(35). Such rules shall include a provision requiring that a notice of intent to deny or a permit denial based upon this section shall contain an explanation of the reasons for such denial and an explanation, in general terms, of what changes, if any, are necessary to address such reasons for denial. Such rules may establish exemptions and general permits, if such exemptions and general permits do not allow significant adverse impacts to occur individually or cumulatively . . . (emphasis supplied.) History of the Exemptions The Exemptions have been adopted twice and amended several times. One of the amendments and the second adoption followed omnibus legislation in the environmental permitting arena: the amendment in the wake of the passage of the Warren S. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act of 1984, and the second adoption in the aftermath of the Florida Environmental Reorganization Act of 1993. (i). Amendment after the Henderson Act The Warren S. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act of 1984, (the "Henderson Act", later codified as Part VII of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes) was enacted through Chapter 84-79, Laws of Florida. Approved by the Governor on June 1, 1984 and filed in the Office of the Secretary of State on the same day, (see Laws of Florida, 1984, General Acts, Vol.1, Part One, p. 224) the Act had an effective date of October 1, 1984. The Henderson Act does not amend any provision in Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, the part of the Water Resources Act which delineates water management district authority over the program for permitting related to the management and storage of surface waters ("MSSW"). Nonetheless, between the adoption of the Henderson Act and its effective date, the District amended and adopted rules in Chapters 40D-4 and 40D-40 of the Florida Administrative Code because of the Act's passage. Rule 40D-4.011 set out the policy for the amendments and adoptions: (2) The rules in this chapter implement the comprehensive surface water management permit system contemplated in part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. As a result of the passage of Chapter 84-79, Laws of Florida, the Warren G. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act of 1984, the District has adopted the rules in this Chapter and Chapter 40D-40 to ensure continued protection of the water resources of the District including wetlands and other natural resources. (Exhibit OR 4, See the page containing paragraph (2) of Rule 40D- 4.011 in the exhibit.) /1 Exhibit OR 4, a document officially recognized during this proceeding, is denominated "SWFWMD's Rule Amendment No. 116." The exhibit contains a letter on SWFWMD letterhead, signed by Dianne M. Lee for "J. Edward Curren, Attorney - Regulation" dated September 5, 1984. Under cover of the letter is a rule package filed by the District with the Secretary of State on September 11, 1984. Included in the package is the newly amended Rule 40D-4.051. The amended 40D-4.051 contains subparagraphs (3), (5) and (6), the Exemptions challenged in this proceeding. They are worded precisely as they remain worded today. Consistent with the policy expressed in Rule 40D-4.011, Florida Administrative Code as filed in September of 1984, the effective date of the amendment to the Rule containing the Exemptions was the effective date of the Henderson Act: October 1, 1984. The Exemptions contained in the amendment filed in September of 1984 are "grandfather provisions." The first two are designed to protect certain projects, work or activities from the requirements of the Henderson Act if they had governmental approvals on October 1, 1984. The third is designed to protect from the Act "phased or long term buildout project[s]" that meet certain requirements, among them receipt of governmental approvals by October 1, 1984. At the time of the 1984 amendments, the Rule cited to Sections 373.044, 373.113, 373.149 and 373.171 for "Specific Authority," that is, the statutory source for the district's authority to make rules. For "Law Implemented" the Rule cited to Section 373.406, Florida Statutes. At that time, Section 373.406 contained only four subsections. These four are worded substantially the same as the first four subsections of the section today. Although Section 373.406 was the only law implemented by the Rule in 1984, the section is neither mentioned in nor part of the Henderson Act. The section, itself, does not make mention of the Henderson Act or of protection from it based on government approvals obtained by October 1, 1984. Section 373.406, Florida Statutes, in its form both immediately before and after the Henderson Act provided exemptions that appear to have nothing to do with the Exemptions challenged in this proceeding. The only connection between Section 373.406, Florida Statutes, in 1984 and the Exemptions at issue in this proceeding when amended into the Rule in 1984 appears to be the use of the term "exemptions." The exemptions set out in the Section 373.406, Florida Statutes, as it existed in 1984, are not related to grandfather protection from the effects the Henderson Act had on the District's permitting considerations. Following the amendment to the Rule containing the Exemptions, the Rule was amended further. It was amended on October 1, 1986, March 1, 1988, and January 24, 1990. None of these amendments appear to have affected the Exemptions under consideration in this proceeding. The Rule became the subject of rule promulgation by the District again, however, as a result of a second omnibus act of the Legislature in the environmental permitting arena, the Florida Environmental Reorganization Act of 1993. (ii). The Reorganization Act of 1993 Nine years after the passage of the Henderson Act, the Legislature enacted the Florida Environmental Reorganization Act of 1993 (the "Reorganization Act"). Passed as Chapter 93-213, Laws of Florida, the Session Law declares its underlying policy: Declaration of Policy.-- The protection, preservation, and restoration of air, water, and other natural resources of this state are vital to the social and economic well-being and the quality of life of the citizens of this state and visitors to this state. It is the policy of the Legislature: To develop a consistent state policy for the protection and management of the environment and natural resources. To provide efficient governmental services to the public. To protect the functions of entire ecological systems through enhanced co- ordination of public land acquisition, regulatory, and planning programs. To maintain and enhance the powers, duties, and responsibilities of the environmental agencies of the state in the most efficient and effective manner. To streamline governmental services, providing for delivery of such services to the public in a timely, cost-efficient manner. Section 2., Ch. 93-213, Laws of Florida. The Reorganization Act carried out this policy in a number of ways. Among these, it merged the Departments of Environmental Regulation (DER) and Natural Resources into the Department of Environmental Protection. In so doing and at the same time, it incorporated DER's dredge and fill permitting program instituted by the Henderson Act into the programs of the water management districts for the Management and Storage of Surface Waters (MSSW). The permitting program that resulted from the consolidation of DER's dredge and fill permitting program with the District's MSSW permitting program is what has been referred to in this order as the Environmental Resource Permitting or ERP program. With regard to rules under the new ERP program, the Reorganization Act amended Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. Two sentences in subsection (9) of the amended section bear repeating: The department and the governing boards [of the water management districts], on or before July 1, 1994, shall adopt rules to incorporate the provisions of this section, relying primarily on the existing rules of the department and the water management districts, into the rules governing the management and storage of surface waters. * * * Such rules may establish exemptions . . . if such exemptions . . . do not allow significant adverse impacts to occur individually or cumulatively. . . . As discussed earlier in this order, the Henderson Act did not directly create exemptions in the District's MSSW permitting program. Nonetheless, the District through the Exemptions of Rule 40D-4.051, Florida Administrative Code, provided "grandfather" protections in the wake of the Act effective October 1, 1984. Whereas grandfather concerns were raised in front of the District after the Henderson Act, grandfather concerns and concerns about other situation that should be entitled to exemptions were raised to the Legislature during the advent of the Reorganization Act. These concerns were addressed in the Florida Environmental Reorganization Act, itself. The Act provided specific exemptions that were self- executing. Included were ones providing grandfather protection for certain activities approved under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, (DER's dredge and fill program) from imposition of new ERP permitting criteria expected to be promulgated in the wake of the Reorganization Act. The are contained in subsections (11) through (16) of Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. None of these exemptions make reference to the Exemptions at issue in this case. Of these provisions, only one addresses activities subject to rules adopted pursuant to Part IV of Chapter 373 prior to the anticipated ERP permitting criteria: An application under this part for dredging and filling or other activity, which is submitted and complete prior to the effective date of [the anticipated ERP rules] shall be reviewed under the rules adopted pursuant to this part [including the Exemptions in Rule 40D-4.051] and part VIII of chapter 403 in existence prior to the effective date of the [anticipated ERP rules] and shall be acted upon by the agency which received the application, unless the applicant elects to have such activities reviewed under the [anticipated ERP rules]. Chapter 93-213, Section 30, p. 2149 of Laws of Florida, 1993, General Acts, Vol. 1, Part Two, now Section 373.414(14), Florida Statutes. 2/ Rule Activity in 1995 In observance of the mandate in the first section of Section 373.414(9), Florida Statutes, the District undertook adoption of rules "to incorporate the provisions of [Section 373.414] . . . into the rules governing the management and storage of surface waters." These rules were the ERP rules anticipated by the Reorganization Act. They included the rules necessary for the District to administer under its ERP program its newfound authority over much of the dredge and fill permitting program formerly administered by DER and now consolidated with its permitting authority in its MSSW rules. Among the rules passed under the authority of the Reorganization Act's Section 373.414(9) is Rule 40D-4.051, the Rule containing the Exemptions subject to this proceeding. Filed with the Secretary of State on September 13, 1995, the adoption package for the new readopted states the following, in pertinent part: 40D-4.051 Exemptions The following activities are exempt from permitting under this chapter [Individual ERPs]: (1) - (7) - No change. (Exhibit OR 6, p. 14). The result of this adoption is that the Exemptions became part of the District's ERP Rules. They now apply to both the MSSW authority under Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, which existed prior to the Reorganization Act, and, in a consolidated fashion, the District's authority conferred by the Reorganization Act to regulate certain dredge and fill activity formerly regulated by DER.
The Issue Whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District should issue the Individual Environmental Resource Permit (the "Individual ERP," the "ERP" or the "Permit") applied for by Entryway Developers, LLC ("Entryway")? The ERP was preliminarily issued by the District as Draft Permit No. 43024788.000 (the "Draft Permit"). If it becomes final, it will allow Entryway's successor in interest, Westfield Homes of Florida ("Westfield") both to construct a new surface water management system in service of a proposed subdivision, known as Ashley Glen, in southern Pasco County, and to conduct dredge and fill activities on site.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Petitioner in this proceeding is Dr. Octavio Blanco. A veterinarian, citizen of Florida and a resident of Pasco County, he holds a property interest (described below) in property immediately adjacent to Ashley Glen. One of the three Co-Respondents, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (the "District" or "SWFWMD") is a public entity created by Chapter 61-691, Laws of Florida. It exists and operates under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (the "Florida Water Resources Act of 1972" or the "Act"). The District is the administrative agency charged with the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage and control the water resources within its geographic boundaries. It does so through administration and enforcement of the Act and the rules promulgated to implement the Act in Chapter 40D, Florida Administrative Code. Entryway, the second of the three Co-Respondents, is a limited liability company and the original applicant for the Permit. Westfield, the third of the Co-Respondents, is a Florida general partnership and the current owner of the Ashley Glen Project. If the Permit is issued by way of a final order, Westfield will be the permit-holder. An application for an Individual ERP must be signed by the owner of the property or the owner's authorized agent. If signed by an agent, a letter of authority must be submitted by the owner. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D-4.101(2). Westfield was not the owner of the property on the site of the Project at the time of the filing of the application. Entryway was the owner. Westfield filed with DOAH a letter of authority received from Entryway.2 The letter authorized Westfield to sign the Individual ERP application. Ashley Glen and the Blanco Property "Ashley Glen-Villages 2-5" ("Ashley Glen" or as it is referred to in the Draft Permit, the "Project") is a 266.36-acre residential subdivision planned to be divided into more than 400 lots. Located in southern Pasco County, the subdivision is on the north side of State Road 54, approximately three miles west of US 41 and less than 1000 feet east of the Suncoast Parkway. To the north, Ashley Glen is bounded along an abandoned railroad right-of-way. The right-of-way extends beyond the northwest and northeast corners of the property in both easterly and westerly directions. There are 72.69 acres of surface waters and wetlands on the Ashley Glen site. Among the 19 isolated and contiguous wetlands on the property is a portion of a Cypress-forested wetland system (the "Cypress-forested Wetland"). The Cypress-forested Wetland was described at hearing by one of Westfield's experts as "a large wetland" (tr. 41) that is typical of the area. As with similar wetland systems throughout the state, the Cypress-forested Wetland undergoes "seasonal drawdowns and dry-outs, and in the wet season . . . flood[s] out to the edges and even beyond in certain storm events." (Tr. 43). The portion of the Cypress-forested Wetland that is on the Ashley Glen site is identified by the Permit as "Wetland A3." Wetland A3 is 29.94 acres. The entire Cypress-forested Wetland system south of the railroad bed of which Wetland A3 is a part is at least twice as large. Most of the remainder of the Cypress Wetland south of the railroad right-of-way is on the Blanco Property. It appears from exhibits used during the hearing that the Cypress Wetland originally extended north of where the railroad right-of-way now lies in its abandoned state. The connection was indicated also in the testimony of Mr. Courtney (Westfield's "wetlands" and "ERP" expert3) when he stated that there was potential for contiguity with systems to the north. Aerial photographs used at hearing indicated that the Cypress- forested wetland system was, indeed, part of the contiguous wetland system to the north of the railroad bed. The contiguity between the Cypress-forested Wetland and the system to the north was confirmed by Dr. Baca, Petitioner's wetland ecologist, on the basis of on-site examinations. Dr. Baca believes the Cypress-forested Wetland to be part of a much larger system that extends northward and to the west and that is contiguous with the Gulf of Mexico. He determined that despite the establishment of the railroad bed, the Cypress-forested Wetland remains connected to the contiguous wetland system to the north by way of pipes under and through the bed. Drainage on the Ashley Glen site is primarily from south to north with significant contribution from a drainage basin to the east. Drainage from the south is channelized by a ditch that runs nearly the length of the property from Wetland C12 at the southeastern tip to Wetland A3 near the site's northern boundary. Drainage from the eastern basin toward Wetland A3 is intercepted by the ditch. The result is that the drainage from the east is captured before it reaches Wetland A3 and drainage from the south bypasses Wetland A3 to be discharged northward at the railroad bed so that all of the drainage is "short-circuited by [the] ditch to the actual discharge location of [Wetland] A3." (Tr. 41). The discharge location from Wetland A3 was more precisely described at hearing by Mr. Courtney as "the confluence of [Wetland] A3 and the railroad bed where [the ditch] discharges off-site flows and [the] easterly to westerly flows into pipes that go under [the] old railroad bed " (Tr. 40-41). This testimony supports Dr. Baca's confirmation of the connection between the Cypress-forested Wetland and the contiguous wetland system north of the railroad bed. To the west of the ditch and the Ashley Glen site is the Blanco property. It has been held by Dr. Blanco's family for a period spanning six decades. Its boundaries roughly form an elongated narrow rectangle. From the eastern and western ends of 400 feet of frontage on State Road 54 (the southern boundary of the Blanco Property) the eastern and western boundaries run parallel of each other approximately 8000 feet to the north where the northernmost boundary of the Blanco Property meets the abandoned railroad right-of-way. The majority of the northern half of the Blanco Property is in the Cypress-forested Wetland. In addition to the drainage from the south and the east received prior to the digging of the ditch, the wetland receives drainage from the west which traverses the property between the Blanco Property and the Suncoast Parkway. With the exception of one acre on which sits the house in which Dr. Blanco's mother lives, the Blanco Property is presently the subject of a Land Trust Agreement. Through this unrecorded instrument, dated December 19, 1996, Dr. Blanco has an ownership interest in the property. Dr. Blanco's concern for the property pre-dates his ownership interest conferred by the trust agreement. He lived on the property from the age of three until he left for college. During that time, he "constantly" (tr. 374) observed many species of wildlife in the Cypress-forested Wetland, as he explained at hearing: Starting with mammals, I observed many deer, foxes, coons, coyotes, squirrels, ground squirrels, fox squirrels. And then numerous bird species . . . from the sandhill cranes to various storks and herons and egrets and . . . [m]ostly aquatic birds . . . many hawks [and] an occasional eagle [as well]. A lot of animals, such as frogs and snails. The apple snails particularly I've noticed. I've always admired them and the way they lay their eggs up on the water line. So, I've noticed them for years out there [along with] [m]any snakes [and], alligators. Id. Over the years, Dr. Blanco has observed changes, especially among the wading birds and the aquatic species: You see less and less of them. The periods where there's consistent water to support their life has grown shorter as time goes by. And this time of year where there's water, the life is pretty abundant. But then, in recent years, I've noticed that the time period seems to be getting shorter and shorter. And then . . . when I go out there, I use all my senses, not just my eyes, and the place just sounds different when it's full of life versus when it's, essentially, dried up. (Tr. 374-375). Just as in any typical cypress-forested wetland, during wet periods, the cypress trees in the Cypress-forested Wetland "will be inundated and the ground will be saturated to the edge of the uplands." (Tr. 45). During these times, the majority of the storms that deliver rain are considered small, that is, rainstorms of below half an inch. Much bigger storms, of course, also contribute to the water that stands in the wetland from time to time. "By the same token, in droughts or dry seasons, the water levels . . . typically drop to at or below the ground level." (Tr. 46). The dry periods, if part of the natural cycles between hydro-periods, contribute to the health of the system. For example, during dry periods nutrients are oxidized, one of the functions of a wetland. In 2002, the Cypress-forested Wetland was dried out from mid-March at the end of the dry season until the end of July, a period of drought. The dry season and the occasional drought contribute, of course, to a lowering of the water table below the surface of the wetland. But the water table may also be lowered by the pumping of water from wellfields in the area, one to the northwest of the site, another to the southeast. That pumping is monitored by the District. The District takes action to minimize damage from any lowering of the water table caused by pumping water from the wellfields. Apple snails have been recently observed in the Cypress-forested Wetland. "Apple snails are unique in that they're the sole food of the snail kite, an endangered species." (Vol. III, p. 61). There are snags and dead trees in the Cypress-forested Wetland as well. Used by many birds and mammals, they provide particularly good habitat for woodpeckers. The Cypress-forested Wetland is not a pristine wetland. The establishment of the railroad bed had an impact. In its abandoned state, the railroad bed continues to have an influence on its discharge to the north. The Suncoast Parkway "might have had some impact." (Tr. 53). Cattle grazing on both the Blanco Property and the Ashley Glen site has had an impact on the herbaceous ground cover layer and on the wetland's water quality although it is unlikely that the cows grazed in the Cypress-forested Wetland. ("Generally, [cows] don't graze on . . . wetland plants, because they're either bitter tasting or [have] poor textures . . . .") (Vol. III, p. 58). The well- fields in the area have had historic impacts mitigated, as mentioned, through implementation of an area-wide hydrology restoration plan by SWFWMD. The most significant impact to the Cypress-forested Wetland resulted from the combination of the construction of State Road 54 and the ditch's channelization of stormwater runoff migrating through the center of the Ashley Glen site. Had the property not been ditched, the stormwater runoff and any other migrating water would have been conveyed by sheet flow into the Cypress-forested Wetland. Despite the varied impacts over the years, the Cypress-forested wetland remains ratable today "as a mid to higher level quality wetland for the area." (Tr. 43). The Draft Permit Application for the permit was submitted on February 7, 2003. After eight formal submittals of information in response to questions by the District, a Draft Permit was issued on December 16, 2003. The Draft Permit lists the "Project Name as Ashley Glen - Villages 2-5" and otherwise refers to Ashley Glen as the "Project." The Permit allows the Project to fill 43.75 acre-feet of the 100-year flood plain on the Ashley Glen site. At the same time, the Permit allows 51.98 acre-feet of excavation on- site. Project construction will result in the filling of 1.61 acres of forested and non-forested wetlands and secondary impacts to at least one of the isolated wetlands. The permit speaks to secondary impacts to another of the wetlands and surface waters on-site and finds that there are none: "[O]ne isolated wetland, 0.37 acre in size, and 2.81 acres of surface waters will be impacted, however, since these areas provide no significant habitat functions, no habitat mitigation will be required." District Ex. 5, pgs. 3-4. The mitigation for the impacts that require mitigation, in the District's view, includes creation of 2.89 acres of wetlands and preservation of 65.32 acres of wetlands. The Permit also authorizes the construction of a new surface water management system (the "SWM System") to serve Ashley Glen. The Surface Water Management System The SWM System consists of six wet detention ponds, four isolated wetland treatment systems, an attenuation pond, and an associated conveyance and discharge structure. The wet detention ponds and the isolated wetland treatment systems were designed in accordance with Section 5.2 of the District's Basis of Review. Westfield Ex. 6 depicts the "generalities of the [SWS] [S]ystem in [Ashley Glen's] built environment." (Tr. 56). Key pipe areas are shown in white on the exhibit. For example, the existing ditch is re-located slightly to the east; the exhibit shows in white where water is piped from the northern terminus of the new, re-located ditch into Pond P11. This piped water will consist of drainage from the south that is now conveyed by the existing ditch and drainage from the east that passes through Wetland W2 and Wetland W1. In keeping with the historical drainage pattern that preceded the existence of the ditch, drainage from the basin on the eastern part of the property that passes through Wetland F4, Wetland E4, and Wetland D5 will also be discharged westward into P11 to be discharged at a point toward the southernmost part of Wetland A3, the wetland's headwaters. The discharge from P11 was described by Mr. Courtney at hearing: The discharge of P11 was placed up in the headwaters of A3 [where] . . . the [existing] ditch short-circuited the discharge of . . . waters to the discharge point of A3. [An SWM System] . . . control structure is placed at the headwaters of A3, a much better situation for A3, given that the quantities and quality of water is going to be the same or better, because water is now going to be reintroduced to the headwaters of A3 as opposed to short- circuiting it. (Tr. 57). Mr. Courtney estimated that one-fourth to one-half of the surface water flows on the property coming from the south and the east were routed unnaturally by the ditch to Wetland A3's discharge point at the railroad right-of-way at the northernmost point of the wetland. The project re-routes these waters to a point near the headwaters of Wetland A3 (in its southernmost part). Surficial flow, therefore, that had by- passed Wetland A3 because of ditching will be routed by the SWM System to the headwaters of Wetland A3 after treatment and attenuation provided that the attenuation pond reaches a high enough elevation. Any water discharged to Wetland A3 from the attenuation pond will flow in a northerly direction (the historical flow pattern) through the wetland to the point of discharge at the railroad bed. Provided that the restored flow is of good quality, restoration of the hydrology is a benefit to the system. On this point, Dr. Baca agreed with Mr. Courtney. The Cypress-forested Wetland on the Blanco Property and the wetland system that extends north of the railroad bed "are dependent upon the treatment, the care and the protection afforded the wetland on the Ashley Glen property." (Vol. III, pg. 60). Wetlands B8 and D3, surrounded by developed lots, are served by detention ponds. Internal drainage from the lots is collected from street systems. Pop-off from the systems goes either directly to a detention pond and then a wetland or to a sump and then to a wetland. After treatment, the drainage is conveyed to Pond P11. Pond P10, a relatively small detention pond, is situated at the headwaters of Wetland A3. The pond treats runoff and flows into Wetland A3. Pond P11, although not a stormwater detention pond and for which the applicant receives no treatment credit, is nonetheless "a good backup treatment mechanism for stormwater that is meeting state water quality standards as discharged from all of the drainage systems in the uplands." (Tr. 59). Through the attenuation process, moreover, it will perform some treatment that meets or exceeds the minimal requirements of ERP permitting. After attenuation and whenever the pond reaches a certain elevation, waters are discharged into Wetland A3. A major point of focus of Dr. Blanco's case is the excavation of the attenuation pond and its interaction with Wetland A3. The attenuation pond is designated in the Draft Permit as Pond P11 ("P11"). P11 If excavated according to present plans, P11 will be 25 feet deep at its deepest point (less than one percent of the pond). "[T]he deepest areas run along the corridor that goes between [Wetlands] B6 and D5." (Tr. 166). The shallowest areas of P11 are along the western edge of the pond where a shelf will be constructed. The surface area of the pond will take up approximately 40 acres. (See endnote 4). The Respondents refers to P11 as a "100 year flood plain compensation area." (Tr. 116). The Permit's "Water Quantity/Quality list of ponds denominates P11's "treatment type" as "[a]ttenuation" which would make it an attenuation pond. Dr. Blanco prefers to call P11 a borrow pit asserting that one reason for its excavation is to obtain fill for the development. Dr. Blanco's labeling of P11 as a borrow pit appears to be correct since the District referred to it as a borrow pit and since significant dredging on site is allowed by the Draft Permit. Whether Dr. Blanco's and the District's nomenclature for P11 is accurate or not, there is no dispute that P11 is part of the stormwater management system. The Draft Permit ascribes to it the function of attenuation: the process by which flow is slowed that allows compounds to be reduced in concentration over time. It is a significant component of the SWM System. Conveyance of water of sufficient quality that has undergone attenuation from the pond into a point near the headwaters of Wetland A3, moreover, poses the potential to improve the wetland's hydrology. Dr. Blanco asserts that fill needed by the Project could be obtained off-site. In other words, P11 does not need to be excavated to obtain the fill. But obtaining fill material is not the only purpose of P11 since it also provides retention and attenuation functions. Dr. Blanco's main concern with P11, however, is not its status as a borrow pit. His concern is based on three of its characteristics, the latter two of which relate to its nature as a borrow pit: 1) its placement, excavated directly adjacent to Wetland A-3; 2) its depth, at its deepest point, 25 feet; and 3) its size; close to 40 acres in open surface area.4 Due to sheer size of P11's open surface area, significant volumes of water in P11 will be lost routinely to evapo-transpiration. When the water level in P11 is below the water level in Wetland A3, moreover, the pond will draw water out of the Cypress-forested Wetland. Whenever the water is below its control elevation, it will take a considerable volume of water to raise it to the elevation appropriate to protect Wetland A3 and the rest of the Cypress-forested Wetland. Reaching the control elevation will occur only when all available storage has been filled and contributions of water (from rainfall, stormwater run-off, or by way of conveyance through the SWM System or otherwise) exceed loss through evaporation and seepage, downward and lateral. The parties disagree as to whether the applicant has provided the assurances necessary to justify issuance of the Permit. The most contentious point is about the effect P11 will have on Wetland A3 and the extended Cypress-forested Wetland. Westfield (with the support and concurrence of the District) bases its case for assurances, in the main, on a type of computer modeling. Dr. Blanco, on the other hand, presented testimony that criticized the computer modeling that was done in this case in support of the application. That computer modeling is known as "Interconnected Pond Routing" or "ICPR." ICPR Interconnected Pond Routing ("ICPR") is a type of hydrological computer model that takes into account surface water flows. It does not take into account groundwater flows, downward or lateral seepage or the lowering of the water table by well-field pumping. It models the surface water hydrology of a site as it might be affected, for example, by detention basins and channel pipes. It models pre-design of a site to be developed and then post-design of a site prior to actual development to provide comparative analysis. It is also a predictive tool. As with any predictive tool, its accuracy can only be definitively determined by observation and collection of data after-the-fact, in this case, after development. ICPR modeling is used in particular for stormwater and surface water management systems. For that reason, it was used by Westfield to support the ERP application in this case. Before ICPR modeling of the Ashley Glen site and the surrounding area was conducted, topographic information was collected by survey. The results of the survey and the modeling that followed resulted in several of the exhibits used by Westfield at hearing. For example, the topographic information and ICPR were used to produce a post-development map (Westfield Exhibit 12). In addition to sub-basins reflected in Westfield Exhibit 11 that relate to the hydrology of the site the map shows two pods (a "Southern Pod" and a "Northern Pod") of development. Approximately 400 feet of the Southern Pod will abut Wetland A3 on the pod's western edge. The location of the Southern Pod will necessitate re-location of the existing ditch. The Northern Pod, in contrast, will be separated from Wetland A3 by both P11 and the proposed road. The Northern Pod, the larger of the two proposed pods of development, is farther from Wetland A3 although it is separated from Wetland C2 solely by the proposed road. The sub-basins on Westfield Ex. 12 are reflected in Westfield Ex. 11, the result of pre-design modeling that revealed three off-site basins composed of 218, 544 and 908 acres. Each sub-basin corresponds to a detention pond designed to assist in enhancing the site's post-development hydrology. The modeling was also used to introduce P11, Westfield's proposed 100-year flood compensation area that would act as a detention pond for attenuation. Each sub-basin used in the modeling exercises covers an area for which there is information relative to size, curve number and time of concentration, all of which was entered into the modeling. Kyle Cyr, a registered P.E. in the State of Florida, and an expert in ICPR and stormwater modeling, described at hearing what happened next: The input is then directed towards a node, which we call the wetlands of the node or detention ponds. And then each node is interlinked by either channels, pipes or weirs, swells, drop structures. * * * [W]e check the models for pre and post to make sure there's no adverse impacts to off- site properties. No additional flows are allowed to leave the site. * * * We end up with flows, staging elevations for each node. . . . [The result is] [a] drainage report. [The] drainage report has a pre- and post- analysis in it. * * * [The] drainage report [is used] to design the site, to design the elevations and grading of the roads and [then] the lot and culvert sizes. (Tr. 147, 148). The drainage report and the information with regard to the design was then submitted by Westfield to the District together with a "pond wetland hydrology interaction report" and modeling with regard to "several minor storm events, a one-inch, a two-inch and a mean-annual event run . . . like a normal rainfall in the area." (Tr. 150). Various hydrographs for storm events were prepared by Westfield. In general, storm events should assist the hydrology of Wetland A3. The SWM System poses the potential that in storm events, P11 will discharge water to Wetland A3. The discharge pre-supposes that P11 will be at an appropriate elevation to allow the discharge with the addition of the surface water conveyed by the system into the pond. Hydrographs of the time versus inflow into Wetland A3 for pre-development and post-development conditions for the storm events were prepared by Westfield. For the one-inch storm and the mean-annual events, provided the pond is at an appropriate elevation prior to the storm (a proviso applicable to all of the hydrograph information), it is reasonably expected that there will be slight increases in peak flow after the development than before. For the two-inch storm, it is reasonably expected that there will be a slight drop in peak flow. None of the changes should have a negative effect on Wetland A3 so long as P11 maintains appropriate water elevations so that water has not been drawn out of the wetland that would have sustained the wetland had P11 not been excavated.5 Hydrographs that depict expected volume over a 72-hour time frame were also prepared based on the same storm events. During the applicable time frame for two-inch and mean-annual events, it is reasonably expected that there will be a slight increase in the volume of water entering Wetland A3 after development. As the result of a one-inch storm event, it is reasonable to expect there to be a slight decrease in volume over the 72 hours. None of the changes are expected to have a negative effect on Wetland A3, again, provided that appropriate water elevations are maintained in P11. Finally, hydrographs were prepared for time-versus- inflow for 25-year and 100-year storm events both pre- development and post-development. The modeling showed that, after development, "[a]djacent properties will not experience the higher flood level [that] they have in the past." (Tr. 156). The decrease is due to the holding back of water in detention ponds after development that will flow off at a slower rate than under pre-development conditions. The hydrographs show the difference in water flowing onto the site and Wetland A3 after the development under typical conditions in comparison to before development is slight. Water levels in Wetland A3 at times of typical storm events, after development, therefore will not be affected in any meaningful way by the SWM System so long as P11's water level is maintained at an appropriate elevation. In accordance with Section 4.2 of the District's Basis of Review, the SWM System is designed so that "[o]ff-site discharge is limited to amounts that will not cause adverse off- site impacts." Section 4.2 of the Basis of Review. See District Ex. 4, CHAPTER FOUR, pg. 1. The allowable discharges from the Project were established as a pre-development peak discharge rate from a 25-year, 24-hour storm. The modeling showed that the post-development discharge rates do not exceed the pre-development peak discharge rate. The ICPR modeling did not consider the outfall from Wetland A3 that occurs at the abandoned railroad right-of-way on the northern end of Wetland A3. As explained by Mr. Cyr, "Wetland A3 is . . . [a] boundary condition. That's where our model stops." (Tr. 198). The structure at the outfall at the northern end of Wetland A3 consists of three 42-inch pipes. Had the outfall been considered, Mr. Cyr testified, it would have had no effect on the results of the modeling. The understanding of the effect on the hydrology of the site provided by ICPR modeling conducted by Mr. Cyr, the drainage report and the other aspects of the information (such as the hydrographs and the design and information related to water quality) gathered and produced by Westfield support the District in its decision to issue the Permit. But there is a criticism of the modeling. It was presented by Dr. Blanco's witness: Mr. Vecchioli, an expert in hydrology as it relates to groundwater. The Site's Hydrogeology The area in which Ashley Glen, the Blanco Property and the Cypress-forested Wetland sit was described by John Vecchioli, a licensed geologist in Florida and an expert in hydrogeology, as: a low-lying plain of limited altitude . . . underlain by some 20 to 50 feet of . . . fine to very fine sand, sometimes silty, sometimes containing a clay layer or two. And then beneath that blanket of sand is . . . the upper Floridan [A]quifer, . . . a thick deposit of limestone, which also constitutes the primary source of drinking water for the area. (Tr. 93). Connected with the surface waters of the area so that the aquifer and the surface waters function as a single system, the Floridan Aquifer in Pasco County is known as a "leaky- confined aquifer." Id. Its "leaky-confined" nature means that: [The Floridan is] not firmly capped by thick layers of clay, but rather by sand deposits that although . . . more pervious than the layers of clay, still impede the exchange of water between the two systems. Id. The source of the water in the upper Florida Aquifer is mainly rainfall because the Aquifer "intercept[s] waters from the surface." (Vol. III, Tr. 95). Much of the water in the upper Floridan is recharged, "very young water . . . indicating that it has a good connection with the surface." Id. The interaction between the surface water and ground water was shown by a study that "showed . . . 93% of the water derived from . . . public supply wells [was] primarily from capture of water from the surface environment." (Vol. III, Tr. 94). Furthermore, "[t]here's some 133 million gallons per day pumped from a combination of wellfields in [the] area [of Ashley Glen and the Blanco Property]." Id. The documented adverse impacts of the pumping in the area has been limited to "drying up the surface, capturing water from streams, pulling down . . . wetlands." Id. The interaction between the surface waters and groundwater in and around Ashley Glen leads to Mr. Vecchioli's opinion that the effects of the SWM System on groundwater, and in particular the effect of Pond P11, "is a very important aspect . . . almost totally ignored [by Westfield and the District.]" Id. In other words, ICPR, because it does not account for effects on groundwater, is a flawed model for determining the impact on all water resources in the area. It did not consider "downward leakage as a means for water to escape from the pond [P11]." (Vol. III, p. 96). The omission is critical because the Floridan aquifer system has a potentiometric surface that's some 10 to 20 feet lower than the water table or surface environment most times during the year. The meaning of this was explained at hearing by Mr. Vecchioli: [T]here's a downward gradient where water will flow from the land surface in the vicinity of Pond 11 [Pll] down into the Floridan. When [Westfield's consultants] did the evaluation of the wetland-pond interaction, they ignored this. They essentially said that because we don't intend to penetrate the confining layer, which SWFWMD does not want done, that there won't be any leakage out of the pond vertically. This is not correct . . . . [I]n creating the pond . . . 25 feet or roughly half of the confining bed, or a greater amount, [will be removed], so this makes it much easier for water to move from the water table at land surface down into the Floridan . . . . Id. The failure to account for downward leakage or "vertical seepage" is significant. "[I]t . . . creates the uncertainty as to whether P11 is going to receive enough water to stay saturated to the top for much of the year." (Vol. III, Tr. 96- 97). If the water level in P11 does not stay at the control elevation, "there will be a downward gradient that prevails from the adjacent wetland [Wetland A3] into the pond and part of this will leak out into the Floridan aquifer, in addition to additional water lost by evaporation from the open surface of the pond. [This] . . . will create a deficiency in storage for the pond." (Vol. III, Tr. 97). Furthermore, with the removal of the sand during excavation and the replacement of it with water, "the material the water [that is contributing to seepage] has to move through is less, so you have much less energy lost to frictional forces." (Vol. III, Tr. 115). The result is that vertical seepage will be more likely to occur after the pond is excavated than before. In other words, it will be much easier for water to move from the surface into the Floridan. The seepage, moreover poses difficulties in maintaining elevation in P11. Evaporation from the pond will be greater than evaporation from the wetland. If water in the pond is not at the appropriate elevation, water will be drawn from Wetland A3. The wetland will be drier than under natural conditions. Mr. Vecchioli stopped short of predicting that downward leakage would damage the wetland; he stated only that damage would occur if P11 functions as he thought it "might." (Vol. III, Tr. 106). In essence, Mr. Vecchioli's opinion does not stand as a projection of certainty that the wetland will be damaged. Instead, it presents a factor that was not considered by Westfield in its analysis and by the District in its review. The District counters Mr. Vecchioli's opinion with the fact that the depth of the excavation is in compliance with the District's Basis of Review and that it will not remove what SWFWMD considers to be a "primary retarding material or section," that is, a layer of clay. But it will remove much of the sand. Sand, while it inhibits downward seepage from the surface into the aquifer, is nonetheless not impermeable; it is not an aquitard. Seepage, therefore, will occur despite compliance with the Basis of Review (as explained, below) with regard to depth of excavation and aquitards. Depths of Excavation and Aquitards Subsection 6.4.1.b of the Basis of Review addresses depths of excavation: 6.4.1 Dimensional Criteria (as measured at or from the control elevation). * * * b. Depth - The detention or retention area shall not be excavated to a depth that breaches an aquitard such that it would allow for lesser quality water to pass, either way, between the two systems. In those geographical areas of the District where there is not an aquitard present, the depth of the pond shall not be excavated to within two (2) feet of the underlying limestone which is part of a drinking water aquifer. District Ex. 4, CHAPTER SIX, Pg. 2 The term "aquitard" is not a term that appears in the "Explanation of Terms" section of the Basis of Review. See District Ex. 4, Section 1.7, CHAPTER ONE, pgs. 2-6. The District does not consider sand to be an aquitard. Clay, on the other hand, is an aquitard. As explained by Mr. Ritter at hearing, the term aquitard is "defined as a somewhat impermeable layer that if you were to cut through that, that would be considered a breach." (Vol. III, Tr. 128). If the District were to consider sand an aquitard, there is nowhere in the District that a pond could be excavated in compliance with subsection 6.4.1.b of the Basis of Review. The Ashley Glen proposal for the excavation of Pond P11 to a depth of 25 feet complies with the Basis of Review. The depth of excavation of the pond does not come within two feet of the underlying limestone. Nor does it breach a clay layer or any other aquitard. Compliance with the "depth of excavation" and "aquitard" provisions of the Basis of Review does not cure the problem with the placement of Pond P11: adjacent to Wetland A3. The problem was addressed (although not resolved) by a post- Draft Permit correction that showed more water reaching Wetland A3 by way of the SWM System than had been shown in the original modeling. Post-Draft Permit Correction The modeling described at hearing included a correction after the issuance of the Draft Permit. The correction was made because of "an additional off-site contributing area east of the project that was not considered in the original flood study prepared by the [applicant's] consultant . . . ." (Tr. 222). The model was updated to incorporate the additional contributions that had not been considered prior to the issuance of the Draft Permit. After the additional data was introduced, the modeling suggested changes that Westfield made to its proposal. On the north end of the Project, a conveyance channel had to be enlarged. Additional culverts were proposed beneath the proposed roadway to reduce flood impacts from the additional flows entering from the east that had been overlooked. Further evaluation by the District ensued in the wake of the additional modeling. Ultimately, in the process that preceded the final administrative hearing, the application was determined by the District to "still me[e]t the conditions for issuance and [staff, therefore] recommended approval." Id. In other words, this additional water would not cause too much water to flow into Wetland A3 and cause adverse impacts from flooding. The additional data demonstrates that there will be more water flowing through the SWM System and into Wetland A3 then originally projected but not too much so as to cause adverse flooding impacts. The additional water, however, does not cure the problem that Pond P11 poses for Wetland A3 as explained by Mr. Vecchioli due to the wetland's location, depth and open surface area. Location, Depth and Open Surface Area In the final analysis, while there may be nothing out of compliance technically with the depth of P11 and the size of its open surface area, when these factors are combined with the location of P11, adjacent to Wetland A3, there is a problem: the potential for adverse impact to Wetland A3 and the extended Cypress-forested Wetland of which it is a part. Seepage and evaporation will make it difficult to maintain the water levels in P11 necessary for the pond to discharge into the wetland. Furthermore, when the water table is down, whether due to drought, pumping activities in the region or for some other reason, and P11 is not at an appropriate elevation, it will draw water out of Wetland A3. Seepage and evaporation have the potential to exacerbate the drawdown. Seepage promoted by the presence of Pond P11 was not taken into account in the modeling done for the project. Without consideration of all the factors material to the site that should enter an appropriate calculation, there is not reasonable assurance that Wetland A3 and the Cypress-forested Wetland will not suffer adverse impacts from the SWM System. Monitoring Water Quantity Section 3.2.2.4(c) of the Basis of Review states: Whenever portions of a system could have the effect of altering water levels in wetlands or other surface waters, applicants shall be required to monitor the wetlands or other surface waters to demonstrate that such alteration has not resulted in adverse impacts, or to calibrate the system to prevent adverse impacts. Monitoring parameters, methods, schedules, and reporting requirements shall be specified in permit conditions. District Ex. 4, Chapter Three, P. 6. The District determined that the routing analysis and volume calculations with regard to the hydrology on-site and the hydrology of the wetlands provided by Westfield show that there will not be significant or frequent negative changes in wetland hydrology on site. The District concluded, therefore, there is no necessity to require monitoring of wetland water levels in the Permit. The District's determination, based as it is on the ICPR modeling provided by Westfield, does not withstand the criticism by Mr. Vecchioli. If the District, in the face of the evidence of record and Mr. Vecchioli's criticism, nonetheless decides that reasonable assurances have been made by Westfield, the District should require monitoring pursuant to the subsection 3.2.2.4(c) of the Basin of Review; without doubt, the excavation of Pond P11 adjacent to Wetland A3 has at least the potential to affect water levels in the wetland system. Water Quality The depth of P11 poses some dangers to water quality. Generally, the deeper a Florida lake, the more anoxic and "the more likely you have . . . nutrients such as phosphorus, binding up in the [waterbody] and then being released later" (vol. III, p. 64) to affect the waterbodies negatively. Wetlands surrounding P11, acting like "sponges" would provide treatment that removes nutrients and locks up chemicals to reduce their toxicity would improve water quality. But the District's rules do not require biological treatment for nutrients as part of the design of a surface water system. Given its nature as an attenuation pond, P11 will act like a secondary sediment sump. This aspect of P11 contributes no treatment credit to the application, as mentioned earlier, but any water entering Wetland A3 from P11 will have been treated by an SWM System so as to meet the District's requirements. Other measures will improve water quality on- site. One of such measures, for example, is that cattle on-site will be removed. Other measures related to water quality were examined by District staff. As he testified on behalf of the District, Mr. Sauskojus "checked to see whether or not . . . erosion control was located between any construction in the wetlands and/or buffers provided." (Tr. 288). He also checked to see that structures through which stormwater flowed into wetlands were equipped with skimmers. The inquiries led him to conclude as an expert in environmental resource permitting that water quality would not be adversely affected by the SWM System. Monitoring of water quality by the District may be done after the Permit has been finally issued and the SWM System is constructed. The District so provides in the Basis of Review. Section 5.13 of the District's Basis of Review states: Staff reports and permits for projects not requiring monitoring at the time of permit issuance will include a statement that water quality monitoring will be required in the future if necessary to ensure that state water quality standards are being met. This should not be construed as an indication that the District is contemplating the implementation of a program of intensive water quality monitoring by all permittees. District Ex. 4, Chapter Five, P. 6. Assurances Other than ICPR P11's Shelf Westfield proposes creation of a shelf along the western boundary of P11. It is approximately 150 feet wide with a slope of "a hundred to one . . . a flat area . . . right around the seasonal high elevation of [the] pond." (Tr. 158). Just as it does not claim treatment credit for P11, Westfield does not claim treatment credit for the shelf. There will not be any planting on the shelf; nor is it designed to serve as a littoral zone. A "shelf is . . . in some cases the final location for . . . the filtration [and] the protection for the wetland[;] . . . it acts as a wetland buffer for the mature forested wetland." (Vol. III, p. 59). But the shelf to be provided by Westfield is "just . . . a secondary shelf to help the interaction between the wetland and the pond." (Tr. 159). Without vegetation, the shelf provided will be of insignificant benefit. Dewatering During Construction To prevent dewatering of Wetland A3 during construction, a dewatering plan must be provided the District before excavation of P11 begins. The Permit contains a general condition that if the contractor "decides to use dewatering" (tr. 223) of a wetland, the District must be notified so that an assessment of adverse effects on the wetland can be made.6 Wetland Impacts: Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation Direct impacts to wetlands include excavation or filling: events that entail physical construction in the wetland. The Project proposes direct wetland impacts to 1.61 acres of wetlands and 2.81 acres of surface waters or wet ditches. With regard to impacts, an applicant must first attempt to avoid them. If that fails, the applicant must minimize the impact. Finally, the applicant must propose mitigation for impacts. Direct Impacts to Wetlands In addition to the secondary impacts caused by the Project's upland activities to the many wetlands on-site that are buffered or that were not buffered and that have to be offset by mitigation, Wetland B12, a wetland little more than one-half acre in size, will receive both direct and secondary impacts. The direct impact is caused by the proposed road. The direct impact is unavoidable because of road alignment required by the Department of Transportation, "a human health and safety issue [that relates] to State Road 54." (Tr. 64). The direct impact to Wetland B12 takes up .15 acres, leaving .43 acres of the wetland without direct impact. (At the same time, Wetland B9 is avoided by the curve in the proposed road and the road is aligned to avoid direct impact to Wetlands B6 and D5.) Wetland B12 is exempt from fish and wildlife review because it "is not connected by a ditch or overland flow to a larger than half-acre wetland at seasonal high " (Tr. 283). The value of Wetland B12, as an isolated wetland, is not as high as the value of Wetland A3. It has also suffered de-watering and encroachment by exotic species. Wetland C12, just down the proposed road from Wetland B12, will incur direct impact to 0.05 acres. The remainder of the wetland on site, 1.80 acres will be preserved under a conservation easement. Wetland B4 is a small, herbaceous wetland. In the middle of what is now cow pasture slated for excavation if the Project is approved, Wetland B4 will suffer permanent destruction by the creation of Pond P11. The direct impact will cover 0.75 of an acre, the size of the wetland as it now exits. Wetland C4, 0.60 acres in size, will also be permanently destroyed by the establishment of several lots in the Northern Pod of development and excavation of P4, a wet detention pond. The justification offered by Westfield for the permanent destruction of these two relatively small isolated wetlands is economic. Saving them would cost $215,000. Mitigation of the Direct Impacts The project preserves wetlands on site with conservation easements. If the wetland is a good candidate for wetland stormwater treatment, the project attempts to augment its hydrology. The direct impacts of Westfield's planned activities are proposed to be mitigated by the construction of 2.89 acres of non-forested wetlands and by the preservation of 65.32 acres of wetlands on site. Section 3.3.2 in the Basis of Review provides: Subsections 3.3.2[.1] through 3.3.2.2 [of the Basis of Review] establish ratios for the acreage of mitigation required compared to the acreage which is adversely impacted by regulated activity. District Ex. 4, CHAPTER THREE, P. 21. When preservation of wetland and other surface waters is the vehicle of mitigation, it also provides: The ratio guideline for wetland and other surface water preservation will be 10:1 to 60:1 (acreage wetlands and other surface waters preserved to acreage impacted). District Ex. 4, CHAPTER THREE, P. 24. The ratio of wetlands and other surface waters proposed for preservation (65.32 acres) to wetlands proposed to be permanently destroyed (1.61 acres) by Westfield is more than 40 to 1, well within the guideline. The wetland area to be created is designated as Wetland B2. Adjacent to two wetland systems, Wetland A3 and Wetland C2, and lying between them, Wetland B2 will also serve as a wetland habitat wildlife corridor. The 2.89 acres of created non-forested wetlands that will constitute Wetland B2 offset 1.36 of non-forested impact, a ratio of 2.13 to 1. The ratio is within the guidelines for created wetlands in Section 3.3.2.1.1. of the Basis of Review. In the District's view, the applicant's wetland mitigation proposal provides the District with reasonable assurances that impacts to wetland functions will be offset. Put slightly differently by Mr.Sauskojus, in the view of District staff, "weighing the proposed direct impacts, the secondary impacts and the mitigation provided, . . . there will not be adverse impacts on site or offsite . . . ." (Tr. 293). Since downward and lateral seepage from Pond P11 was not taken into account, however, the mitigation plan offered by Westfield is not designed to offset any impacts from the seepage to Wetland A3 and the Cypress-forested Wetland. These impacts are secondary impacts. Secondary Impacts A secondary impact is an impact that follows a direct impact to a water resource. An example of a secondary impact is boat traffic increase because of the installation of a boat ramp or a marina that poses an increased threat of collision with manatees. The construction of the boat ramp or the marina would entail direct impacts to the water resource. The increased boat traffic would constitute impacts secondary to the construction of the ramp or marina. A way to minimize secondary impacts is through buffers. Just as the Cypress-forested Wetland should be buffered from development, so should the isolated wetlands on-site. Isolated wetlands are important for several reasons. They accept the brunt of the discharges from the developed uplands and so are responsible for filtering nutrients, pesticides and chemicals from stormwater and other run off. They also are spots where wildlife congregate. Birds, in particular, will be under siege from the cats that inevitably accompany development. Buffers, particularly vegetated buffers, assist in protection of wetlands whether contiguous or isolated. Section 3.3.7 of the Basis of Review provides: Secondary impacts to habitat functions of wetlands associated with upland activities will not be considered adverse if buffers, with a minimum width of 15' and an average width of 25' are provided abutting those wetlands that will remain under the permitted design, unless additional measures are needed for protection of wetlands used by listed species for nesting, denning, or critically important feeding habitat. District Ex. 4, CHAPTER THREE, Pg. 16. The upland activities of the Project have an average 25-foot buffer. For the bulk of the Project, the buffer is at least 15 feet, a minimum buffer that is normally required. Close to the headwaters of Wetland A3, however, the Southern Pod of development does not have a buffer that is equal to or more than 15 feet. In this area and other areas where there are less than 15 feet of buffer (such as around isolated Wetlands B8 and D3), the Project calls for a double silt fence, that is, a two- rowed fence to hold back silt. The silt fence will protect the wetland from damage during grading of the lots and construction of the residences. But it will not protect the wetland from secondary impacts caused by upland activities after the Project is developed. The buffers are made up of bahaia grass primarily. The import of the buffer's composition was explained at hearing by David Sauskojus, a District employee: If a buffer is made up of pasture grass, it is definitely much less effective relative to protecting habitat functions than . . . an undisturbed upland. . . . [I]n this case, . . . in the past before they made it pasture, [the undisturbed upland would have] consisted of palmettos, bryonia, bushes, [and] shrubs, that would have provided some kind of habitat value to the wetland itself. (Tr. 282). Despite the low quality of the composition of the buffers, the additional width of buffers in other areas that allow the average of the buffers to exceed 25 feet was reasonable assurance in the view of District personnel that the encroachment of development closer than 15 feet in certain areas would not have secondary habitat impacts to Wetland A3. Because of this "offset," the District did not request the applicant to mitigate for the encroachments into the minimum 15 feet of buffer normally required. Cumulative Impacts Section 3.2.8.1 of the Basis of Review provides: Cumulative impacts are considered unacceptable when the proposed system, considered in conjunction with the past, present, and future activities as described in 3.2.8 would then result in a violation of state water quality standards as set forth in subsection 3.1.1(c) or significant adverse impacts to functions of wetlands or other surface waters identified in subsection 3.2.2 within the same drainage basin when considering the basin as a whole. District Ex. 4, CHAPTER THREE, P. 19. The Project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts on the wetlands and other surface waters on site. Fish, Wildlife and Listed Species Under the Basin of Review, when a party applies for an ERP, "[g]enerally, wildlife surveys will not be required." District Ex. 4, Basin of Review, Section 3.2.2, CHAPTER THREE, page 4. The Basin of Review details when a wildlife survey is required: The need for a wildlife survey will depend upon 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 criteria in subsection 3.2.2 through 3.2.2.3 and subsection 3.2.7 will not be met. Survey methodologies employed to inventory the site must provide reasonable assurance regarding the presence or absence of the subject listed species. Id. It is apparent from the record that District staff initially believed that a wildlife survey was needed. The file of record contains a document prepared by District staff entitled "Project Information Review List," (the "First Request for Additional Information" or "1st RAI"). Dated March 7, 2003, it refers to the Application's receipt one month earlier. Under the heading "SITE INFORMATION," the following appears: Has any current wildlife survey been performed on site? In particular, what recent observations have been made of wildlife usage within Wetlands B4, C4 and B12? The submitted wildlife survey not only is almost three years old, but it represents a preliminary effort. (emphasis supplied), Westfield Ex. 19, File of Record,(1st Volume), p. 104. The staff request for additional information continues with recommendations not only to cure the outdated nature of the survey but also for the methodology that should be used: Id. Staff would recommend, for the above three wetlands, that a survey be performed which is consistent with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's methodology, documented within; Standardized State Listed Animal Species Survey Procedures for FDOT Projects by Jim Beaver, revised in 1996, and Wildlife Methodology Guidelines by Mike Alan, 1988. Reference Rules 40D-4.101(1)(c) and (e) and 40D-4.301, F.A.C. and Section 3.2.2, Basis of Review (B.O.R.). The file of record reflects a response to the 1st RAI. With regard to the question as to whether a current wildlife survey has been performed, the criticism of the submitted survey and the recommended methodology to be used in a subsequent survey, Westfield's ERP consultant, King Engineering Associates, Inc., ("King") responds: Site conditions have not changed since King conducted the original preliminary listed species survey. During more recent site visits, King staff have not observed any additional listed species, or evidence of their breeding/nesting activity on the subject property. Onsite wetlands B4 and C4 are essentially shallow, wet depressional areas in the pasture. While these herbaceous wetlands could potentially provide occasional foraging habitat for wading birds, they do not represent suitable habitat for breeding/nesting of any listed species. Wetland B12, a forested wetland, likewise does not represent suitable habitat for breeding/nesting of listed species, and no listed species have been documented in this wetland. As a follow-up effort to King's preliminary listed species survey, and following recommendations made in that report, King has performed additional wildlife surveys. Specifically, a Southeastern Kestrel Survey and Gopher Tortoise Burrow Survey were conducted by King. The results of these follow-up surveys, which were included with Attachment 7 of the original submittal, revealed that neither of these two listed species is currently present on, or breeding/denning on, the subject property. Westfield Ex. 19, File of Record, (1st Volume), p. 123. On May 7, 2003, the District responded by letter to the additional information provided by King with a second Request for Additional Information (the "2nd RAI"). The letter states, "[y]our permit application still lacks some of the components necessary for us to complete our review; the enclosed checklist describes the missing information." District Ex. 19, File of Record, (1st Volume), p. 184). The checklist attached, under the heading "SITE INFORMATION" states: The response to Request for Additional Information (RAI) Comment No. 3, regarding wildlife surveys, does not give the District reasonable assurance that threatened or endangered species do not use the wetlands proposed to be impacted. Many changes have taken place in the vicinity of the project since King performed the preliminary survey three years ago. The construction of the Suncoast Parkway and several nearby residential developments have re-shaped habitat availability within this area. The District strongly recommends performing a wildlife survey to evaluate the usage by threatened or endangered species of Wetlands B4, C4 and B12. The survey should be performed using the previously noted Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) methodology. Additionally, when/if the survey is performed, please provide details regarding the actual survey, including but not limited to, dates, times of day, location and methods used. Westfield Ex. 19, File of Record (1st Volume), p. 185. On June 20, 2003, King responded in writing to the 2nd RAI. With regard to the strong recommendation of a wildlife survey that uses the FFWCC methodology, King wrote: The applicant is confident based on the results of the existing Preliminary Listed Species survey and the extended amount of property contact time by field scientists and District staff in the intervening months when hydro-period, wetlands delineation, and permit application work were on-going, that no wetland dependent species are present. Westfield Ex. 19, File of Record, (1st Volume), p. 198. In addition to the time spent on the preliminary survey, the response lists 64 hours of time when the site was visited for purposes of "[w]etland delineation, wetland delineation & [h]ydro-periods," "h]ydro-periods," "[h]ydro-period [r]eview with SWFWMD," "[f]ollow-up Gopher Tortoise/Kestrel [s]urvey" and "[f]ield [v]isit with ACOE staff." Id. On July 18, 2003, a third RAI ("3rd RAI") was issued by staff. Satisfied with the June 20, 2003, response with regard to the earlier inquiries about a wildlife survey, the 3rd RAI makes no reference to the earlier requests with regard to site information or the need for wildlife survey. Dr. Baca, Dr. Blanco's wetlands ecologist, criticized the wetland information provided by Westfield along the same lines as did District staff in the documents in the file of record. For example, Dr. Baca testified with regard to endangered species that a survey should be conducted over several seasons. A great deal of time must be spent studying the particular habitat and looking for particular organisms. "It cannot be an aside to other work . . . with wetlands or soil studies . . . [i]t has to be a focus of [a wildlife survey]." (Vol. III, tr. 33). A survey for endangered or threatened species requires time and focus precisely because of the nature of listed species; in Dr. Baca's words, "they're not around very much and sometimes they're not around very long." (Vol. III, tr. 32). Time of day that a survey is conducted, moreover, has an impact on the likelihood that wildlife will be found on site. As Dr. Baca testified, Most of the time, you'll find more wildlife on-site around the hours of dusk and dawn . . . Other times, especially during cold weather, wildlife will come out during the hottest part of the day, which is around noon . . . [a]ll of these add to the amount of time that would be required to do a proper study. (Vol. III, Tr. 33). There is no evidence of record as to time of day of the visits used by Westfield for credit toward wildlife observation. Finally, it is apparent that the on-site visits following the preliminary species survey three years prior to the submission of the application did not employ the methodology recommended by the District: the FWWCC methodology. Perhaps an equivalent methodology could be employed, but there is no evidence of an attempt to conduct a survey with an acceptable methodology, either that of FWWCC or an equivalent. The District's acceptance of the Kestrel Survey may have been appropriate.7 But the hours spent visiting the site for wetland delineation and purposes other than to survey wildlife were not shown to have employed the FWWCC methodology or its equivalent and do not supplant the need for a wildlife survey that employs an appropriate methodology. The Mitigation Plan When the impacts of a project that requires an ERP permit are such that an applicant is unable to meet the criteria for approval (the "public interest test"), the applicant may propose or accept measures that mitigate the adverse impacts of the regulated activity so that the Project in its entirety can be demonstrated to be "not contrary to the public interest." In other words, "[t]he mitigation must offset the adverse effects caused by the regulated activity." § 373.414(1)(b), Fla. Stat. It is "the responsibility of the applicant to choose the form of mitigation." Id. As explained by the testimony, all of the mitigation proposed by Westfield is on-site.8 The Respondents' Joint Proposed Recommended Order addresses mitigation for the adverse impacts caused by the Project. The proposed findings that relate to mitigation are summed up in paragraph 16 of the proposed order: 16. The mitigation for the project is appropriate and adequately compens[]ates for the unavoidable direct and secondary wetland impacts from the Project. Respondents' Joint Proposed Recommended Order, p. 6. In support of this finding, the proposed order cites to the File of Record, Westfield Ex. 19, testimony from Mr. Courtney at Tr. 66-76 and 120-121 and testimony from Mr. Sauskojus at Tr. 284-286. Mr. Sauskojus' testimony explains how the mitigation plan adequately mitigates for the direct impacts to wetlands on site. But that explanation does not demonstrate mitigation for all of the potential impacts. No effort was offered for how the plan was designed to mitigate for the impact of draw-down from Wetland A3 caused by low elevation of Pond P11 due to seepage, for example, because seepage was not accounted for in the ICPR modeling. Mr. Courtney's testimony is no different with regard to the same critical omission. Westfield, quite simply, did not take into account, as Mr. Vecchioli testified, the effect of seepage in the information it provided the District. Nor was the mitigation plan designed to mitigate for secondary impacts that might have been indicated by a wildlife survey since an appropriate wildlife survey was not conducted. At bottom, Westfield did not provide reasonable assurances as required by the statutes and rules; it omitted an adequate wildlife survey from the submission of information to the District and it failed to account for seepage from Pond P11 and its effect on Wetland A3 and the Cypress-forested Wetland. Its mitigation plan does not make up for Westfield's failure to demonstrate that the Project is otherwise "not contrary to the public interest."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Individual Environmental Resource Permit sought by Entryway and Westfield be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 2004.
The Issue Petitioners challenge the South Florida Water Management District’s (the District) proposed action to issue Individual Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) 50-06558-P to authorize conceptual approval of a surface water management (SWM) system to serve 1,919 acres of a phased, multiple-use development referred to as the Palm Beach County Biotechnolgy Research Park (BRP) and to authorize construction and operation of Phase 1A of that proposed project. The ultimate issue is whether the Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed activities will not be harmful to the water resources of the District; will not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the District; and will comply with the water quantity, environmental, and water quality criteria of the District’s ERP regulations, which are set forth in Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40E-4, et. seq.; and the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District – September 2003 (BOR).1
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES The Florida Wildlife Federation, Audubon Society of the Everglades, and Jupiter Farms Environmental Council, Inc. (d/b/a Loxahatchee River Coalition) are not-for-profit corporations in existence prior to 2003 with more than 25 members in Palm Beach County. Palm Beach County Environmental Coalition was formed in 1997 and is a private, county-wide, non-profit citizen’s organization. Ms. Ketter, Mr. Bell, Ms. Larson, and Mr. Christensen are individuals affected by the proposed BRP. The Respondents stipulated that the parties who remained Petitioners after Mr. Silver’s withdrawal as a Petitioner have standing to bring this proceeding. The District, a public corporation existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, operates pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, as a multipurpose water management district with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida. The County is a duly-constituted governmental entity. THE PROJECT SITE AND ADJACENT LANDS The site of the project is generally referred to as the Mecca Farms, which is a contiguous tract of 1,919 acres of land. At present, the Mecca Farms is used for farming and mining operations. There presently exists a permitted, SWM system on the Mecca Farms that was first permitted in 1979, and has been modified from time to time since then. The existing SWM system includes 73 acres of ditches and a 272-acre above-ground impoundment area. The Mecca Farms site is located within the C-18 Basin. There are no jurisdictional wetlands or delineated surface waters on the Mecca Farms. The following, which is taken from the Staff Report (SFWMD Ex. 1), accurately describes the project site and its adjacent lands: The project site consists of 1,919 acres presently supporting an active orange grove with approximately 73 acres of associated drainage and irrigation ditches/canals and a 30-acre active sand mining operation. The ditches/canals are presently maintained at an elevation of approximately 17 feet NGVD.[3] These ditches/canals provide drainage conveyance to a 272-acre above- ground impoundment located in the northeast corner of the site utilizing four (4) 22,000 gpm pumps. The above-ground impoundment discharges to the west leg of the C-18 Canal via gravity discharge. Project site ditches and canals also connect directly to the C-18 Canal through an 18,000 gpm pump. An additional 224-acre agricultural area east of the 1,919 acres of orange groves is connected to and drains into the canal/ditch system on the project site. This adjacent area was leased from the adjacent land owner by the grove owner for use as row crops and was connected to the grove canal/ditch system for better control of drainage and irrigation. The area is no longer used for row crops. There is also a small area on the site that contains caretaker housing and an equipment maintenance building for the orange groves. These facilities were originally permitted in 1979 under Surface Water Management Permit No. 50-00689-S and subsequent modifications. The citrus grove and primary drainage facilities have been in existence since the 1960s. The Hungryland Slough is located north of the project site, separated from the project site by the C-18 Canal. This area is comprised primarily of publicly-owned natural areas, including an area referred to as Unit 11, which is owned in the majority by Palm Beach County. To the west is the J.W. Corbett Wildlife Management Area (CWMA) owned and managed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). To the east, a large area of low-intensity agricultural land exists under the ownership of Charles Vavrus and within the City of Palm Beach Gardens. These lands contain extensive wetlands that are adjacent to the Loxahatchee Slough to the east. The Acreage, a low-density residential area, is located directly to the south of the project site. The only access to the site at this time is an unpaved extension of Seminole Pratt-Whitney Road (SPW), connecting the site at its southwestern corner to the Acreage. THE PROPOSED PROJECT The subject application is for conceptual approval of the SWM system for the BRP and for construction and operation of Phase 1A of the project. All of the proposed Phase 1A construction will occur on the Mecca Farms site. The following, taken from the Staff Report, accurately describes the proposed project: The [BRP] is a phased multiple use development planned for approximately 1,919 acres and will consist of land uses related to science and technology, biotechnology, biomedical, and other related research and development industries and manufacturing. Additionally, proposed support and complementary land uses include educational, institutional, residential, commercial, and recreational facilities, along with utilities and a large created natural area. THE PROPOSED SWM SYSTEM The proposed SWM system will consist of several interconnected lakes that will provide wet detention for storm water runoff from the property site and from 39 acres of off- site flows from SPW Road and a proposed Florida Power and Light (FPL) Substation. The lakes will collect, store, and treat the runoff. The storm water will pass through the lakes, through a 247-acre area referred to as the “Natural Area” (which will be created as part of the mitigation plan), and discharged to the C-18 Canal. To provide additional water quality treatment, these lakes will include planted littoral zones and the southern lake will include a filter marsh. The Natural Area will, in subsequent construction phases, be constructed on the western boundary of the Mecca site with discharge to the C-18 canal, which is adjacent to the northern boundary of the Mecca Farms. The southern boundary of the Natural Area will be the north boundary of the lake that is to be constructed on the southern end of the property. This is the area that is available for use as a flow-way (which will be discussed in greater detail in a subsequent section of this Recommended Order). The Natural Area will be a wetland type system that will move water slowly through that system providing additional storage and water quality benefits prior to discharging through a gravity control structure into the C-18 Canal. The C-18 Canal discharges to either the Northwest or Southwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River, depending on how structures are operated downstream. Discharges travel in the C-18 Canal for approximately nine miles before reaching the Loxahatchee River. The existing SWM system for the Mecca Farms currently discharges to the C-18 Canal, as will the proposed SWM system. The proposed project will not discharge to the CWMA or the Hungryland Slough. The Grassy Waters Preserve and the Loxahatchee Slough are several miles from the project site and will not be affected by the project’s proposed activities. The following, which is taken from the Staff Report, accurately describes the proposed SWM system. The proposed conceptual surface water management system which will serve the 1,919-acre site will consist of site grading, storm water inlets and culverts which will direct all runoff to a series of interconnected lakes for water quality treatment and attenuation of the peak runoff rate. Pumps will control the runoff rate from the developed site into the adjacent onsite BRP natural area. The BRP natural area will discharge into the C-18 canal via a gravity control structure. The system has been designed to accommodate 39 acres of off-site flows from SPW [Road] and a proposed Florida Power and Light (FPL) Substation. The existing control elevation of the citrus grove is 17.0’ NGVD. The proposed control elevations are 18.0’ NGVD for the developed area and 19.0’ NGVD for the natural area. The control elevations are being raised to provide a “step down” of water elevations from wetlands to the north, west and east of the site (20.5’ to 21.0’) to lower elevations to the south (17.0’). PHASE 1A CONSTRUCTION The following, which is taken from the Staff Report, accurately describes the proposed Phase 1A construction: The Phase 1A construction activities will allow the applicant to proceed with lake excavation, clearing and site grading of 536 acres in the southern portion of the site. No permanent buildings or parking areas are proposed at this time. Stormwater from Phase 1A and the remainder of the site, to remain in agricultural use, will be treated in the Phase 1A lakes and then pumped into the existing impoundment for additional water quality treatment and attenuation prior to discharging to the west leg of the C-18 Canal via the existing weir structures. The existing 18,000 gpm pump that connects the on-site ditches and canals directly to the C-18 Canal will remain, but will only be used if the impoundment is full. (See Special Condition No. 21). Approval of Phase 1A authorizes the use of the existing, previously permitted surface water management facilities, therefore, the previous permit no. 50-00689-S is superceded by this permit. The 224 acre agricultural area east of the existing grove that is connected to the grove canal/ditch system will be severed as part of Phase 1A. The pipe connecting this area will be removed and portions of the berm around this area will be regraded so the area will sheetflow into the adjacent pasture land’s canal/ditch system as it did previously [sic] to being connected to the grove system. Of the 536 acres involved in the Phase 1A construction, 87 acres will become lake bottom and 449 acres will remain pervious area, subject only to grading. CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL Pertinent to this proceeding, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.021(5) defines the term “conceptual approval” to mean an ERP issued by the District which approves a conceptual master plan for a surface water management system or a mitigation bank. Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.305, pertains to conceptual approvals and provides, in relevant part, as follows: Conceptual approvals constitute final District action and are binding to the extent that adequate data has been submitted for review by the applicant during the review process. A conceptual approval does not authorize construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, or abandonment of a surface water management system or the establishment and operation of a mitigation bank. * * * For phased projects, the approval process must begin with an application for a conceptual approval which shall be the first permit issued for the project. An application for construction authorization of the first phase(s) may also be included as a part of the initial application. As the permittee desires to construct additional phases, new applications shall be processed as individual or standard general environmental resource permit applications pursuant to the conceptual approval. The conceptual approval, individual and standard general permits shall be modified in accordance with conditions contained in Chapters 40E-4 and 40E-40, F.A.C. Issuance of a conceptual approval permit pursuant to Chapter 40E-4, F.A.C., shall not relieve the applicant of any requirements for obtaining a permit to construct, alter, operate, maintain, remove, or abandon a surface water management system or establish or operate a mitigation bank, nor shall the conceptual approval permit applicant be relieved of the District’s informational requirements or the need to meet the standards of issuance of permits pursuant to Chapters 40E-4 or 40E-40, F.A.C. . . . PERMITTING CRITERIA In order to obtain an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions for issuance set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. The conditions for issuance focus on water quantity criteria, environmental criteria, and water quality criteria. Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301 contains the following permitting conditions applicable to this proceeding: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit ... an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, or abandonment of a surface water management system: will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters; will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters ...; will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources; will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows ...; will not cause adverse impacts to a work of the District ...; will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed; will be conducted by an entity with the sufficient financial, legal and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, if issued; and will comply with any applicable special basin or geographic area criteria established in Chapter 40E-41 F.A.C. Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302 provides the following Additional Conditions for Issuance of Permits applicable to this proceeding: In addition to the conditions set forth in section 40E-4.301, F.A.C., in order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter or Chapter 40E-40, F.A.C., an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, and abandonment of a system: Located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters will not be contrary to the public interest, or if such an activity significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding Florida Water, that the activity will be clearly in the public interest, as determined by balancing the following criteria as set forth in subsections 4.2.3 through 4.2.3.7 of the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District: Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, F.S.; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. Will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters as set forth in subsections 4.2.8 through 4.2.8.2 of the Basis of Review. . . . THE BASIS OF REVIEW The District has adopted the BOR and incorporated it by reference by Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E- 4.091(1)(a). The standards and criteria found in the BOR are used to determine whether an applicant has given reasonable assurances that the conditions for issuance of an ERP have been satisfied. Section 1.3 of the BOR provides, in part, as follows: . . . Compliance with the criteria established herein [the BOR] constitutes a presumption that the project proposal is in conformance with the conditions for issuance set forth in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302, F.A.C. WATER QUANTITY The term “control elevation” describes the level of freshwater water bodies established by a SWM system. The existing SWM system has a control elevation of 17’ NGVD. The control elevation for the proposed lake system will be raised to 18’ NGVD, and the control elevation for the proposed Natural Area will be raised to 19’ NGVD. Raising the control elevations will permit more treatment of storm water prior to discharge and will permit a more controlled discharge. In addition, raising the control elevation will lessen seepage onto the project site from adjacent wetlands. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands, thereby satisfying the criteria set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E- 4.301(a). The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, thereby satisfying the criteria set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(b). The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, thereby satisfying the criteria set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(c). VALUE OF FUNCTIONS OF WETLANDS AND SURFACE WATERS Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(d), requires the Applicants to establish that “. . . the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, or abandonment of a surface water management system . . .” “. . . will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters.” The District established that the term “value of functions,” as used in the rule, refers to habitat and life support functions. Because there are no wetlands or delineated surface waters on the Mecca Farms site, there are no direct adverse impacts to the functions that wetlands provide to fish and wildlife. The Applicants have provided reasonable assurances to demonstrate that the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters will not be adversely affected. The existing project site does not contain nesting areas for wetland-dependent endangered or threatened wildlife species or species of special concern. The potential for use of the existing project site for nesting by such species is minimal. The existing project site does contain habitat for the American Alligator and foraging habitat for wading birds and birds of prey. The primary foraging habitat on the existing site is around the perimeter of the existing 272-acre impoundment area in the northeast portion of the site. The existing impoundment will be replaced by on-site storm water treatment lakes and the BRP Natural Area that will have shallow banks planted with wetland plant species common to the area. Wildlife is opportunistic; and wading birds commonly feed in areas where there is water, wetland vegetation and wetland plants. The end result will be that the proposed project will have more and better foraging habitat acreage than the existing site. The Natural Area will provide a wetland buffer between the developed area and CWMA that will prevent any adverse impacts both to the wetlands and other surface waters in CWMA and to the value of the functions those wetlands and other surface waters provide to fish, wildlife, and listed species. The Natural Area will provide a wetland buffer between the developed area and Unit 11 that will prevent any adverse impacts both to the wetlands and other surface waters in Unit 11 and to the value of the functions those wetlands and other surface waters provide to fish, wildlife, and listed species. There was no competent evidence that the proposed project would impact the ability of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to manage the CWMA through control burns or otherwise, thereby adversely affecting the diversity or abundance of fish and wildlife (including endangered species and their habitats). Petitioners attempted to raise the issue of mosquito control in their Petitions and at the Final Hearing. The allegations pertaining to mosquito control were struck by the District and Special Condition Number 26 was added before the Petitions were referred to DOAH. Petitioners made no attempt to amend their Petitions and have not challenged Special Condition 26. The Addendum to Staff Report (SFWMD Ex. 2) contains the following Special Condition Number 26: “Upon submittal of an application for construction of any buildings, the permittee shall submit a mosquito control plan for review and approval by District Staff.” Since there will be no buildings containing people or other facilities which would encourage the use of mosquito spraying, it is appropriate for the mosquito control condition to apply to only future phases of construction. There was no competent evidence of impacts attributable to pesticides associated with the application for the SWM system or for Phase 1A construction and operation that would adversely affect the diversity or abundance of fish and wildlife including endangered species and their habitats. The Applicants have satisfied the criteria set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(d). WATER QUALITY The primary concern during Phase 1A construction will be erosion control. Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) are operational and design elements used to either eliminate or reduce the amount of pollutants at the source so they do not get into a SWM system or move downstream. To contain erosion in Phase 1A, the Applicants will use the following BMPs: Silt screens and turbidity barriers within existing ditches and around the perimeter of property. Planned construction sequencing to reduce movement and stock piling of material; Slope stabilization and seeding or sodding of graded areas; and Containment of construction materials with berms. All erosion and turbidity control measures will remain in place until the completion of the on-site construction and approval by the District’s post-permit compliance staff. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed Phase 1A construction activities will not adversely impact the quality of receiving waters and that those activities will not violate State water quality standards. Section 5.2.1, BOR, requires that a SWM system provide wet detention for the first one inch of runoff. The proposed SWM system will provide wet detention for one and one-half inches of runoff. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances to demonstrate that the technical criteria in the BOR will be met. Under Section 1.3 of the BOR, compliance with the criteria in the BOR constitutes a presumption that the Proposed Project is in conformance with the conditions for issuance. This presumption was not rebutted by the Petitioners. The lake system will include planted littoral zones to provide additional uptake of pollutants. A filter marsh is also included in the southern lake. All of the storm water runoff from the lakes will pass through the filter marsh, which will be planted with wetland plants. The filter marsh will provide additional polishing of pollutants, uptake, and filtering through the plants. The discharge will then go into the BRP, which will provide the discharge additional uptake and filtering. BMPs utilized during the Operations and Maintenance phase will include regular maintenance inspections and cleaning of the SWM system, street-sweeping, litter control programs, roadway maintenance inspections and repair schedule, municipal waste collection, pollution prevention education programs, pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer storage, and application training and education. The littoral zones, filter marsh, BRP natural area, and BMPs were not included in the water quality calculations and are over and above rule requirements. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances to demonstrate that the proposed project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. Therefore, Rule 40E- 4.301(1)(e), F.A.C., will be satisfied and water quality standards will not be violated. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES Pursuant to Section 5.5.5 of the BOR, commercial or industrial zoned projects shall provide at least one-half inch of dry detention or retention pretreatment as part of the required retention/detention, unless reasonable assurances can be offered that hazardous materials will not enter the project's SWM system. The Addendum to Staff Report reflects the following Special Condition 25 pertaining to hazardous materials: Upon submittal of an application for construction of commercial or industrial uses the permittee shall submit a plan that provides reasonable assurances that hazardous materials will not enter the surface water management system pursuant to the requirements of section 5.2.2(a) of the Basis of Review. Applicable permitting criteria does not require the Applicants to present a hazardous substances plan at this point because no facilities that will contain hazardous materials are part of the Phase 1A construction. SECONDARY IMPACTS Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f) and Section 4.1.1(f) of the BOR, require an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed activities will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. A secondary impact is an indirect effect of a project resulting in adverse effects to wetlands or other surface waters. The District considers those adverse effects that would not occur "but for" the activities that are closely linked and causally related to the activity under review. This standard is discussed further in the Conclusions of Law section of this Recommended Order. The County’s Exhibit 3 is a secondary impact analysis identifying the secondary impacts that may potentially result from the proposed project. These impacts are: 1) the widening of SPW Road; 2) the construction of an FPL substation; 3) the extension of PGA Boulevard; and 4) the potential relocation of a runway at North County Airport. The secondary impact analysis performed pursuant to the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) contained in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-345 reflects that up to 153.3 acres of wetlands may be partially or completely impacted by these secondary impacts, resulting in approximately 71.21 units of functional loss. Where future activities are expected to directly impact wetlands, secondary impacts were assessed based on the loss of all current functional value within the direct footprint of that activity. Additionally, an assessment was conducted to determine the degree of partial functional loss where impacts beyond the footprint of these activities are anticipated. SPW Road is an existing dirt road which is in the County's five-year road plan to widen as a four-lane paved road. Because the widening of the existing dirt road to a four-lane paved road is part of the five-year road plan, the impacts of that widening are not attributable to the subject project. However, as part of the proposed project, it is proposed to widen SPW Road to a six-lane paved road. The additional impacts associated with the widening from four to six lanes will be caused by, and are linked to, the proposed project. These impacts amount to approximately 2.2 acres. The FPL substation, which is proposed to service the proposed project, may result in 1.6 acres of potential direct impacts to wetlands. In addition, 1.0 acre of potential indirect secondary impacts may occur to wetlands that are not going to be dredged and filled. Those indirect secondary impacts may have some adverse impact on the functional value to those wetlands for wildlife utilization. The extension of PGA Boulevard to the Mecca Farms site has the potential to result in 45.6 acres of direct impacts to wetlands and 56.6 acres of indirect secondary wetland impacts which will not be dredged or filled, but will be in close proximity to the road. The secondary impact assessment for PGA Boulevard assumed the incorporation of wildlife crossings to minimize habitat fragmentation. If the airport runway needs to be shifted, potential direct wetland impacts to an additional 22.7 acres may occur. Indirect impacts to 23.6 acres of wetlands in close proximity could also occur. Runway relocation may or may not be necessary due to the PGA Boulevard extension; however, the analysis assumed the need for the relocation. Each of the projects listed above as potential secondary impacts will require a separate construction and operation permit from the District. The issuance of this permit does not in any way guarantee the issuance of permits for any of these identified potential secondary impacts. MITIGATION PLAN The Applicants provided a conceptual mitigation plan using UMAM to demonstrate how potential secondary impacts could be offset. Mitigation options have the potential to provide more than twice the functional gain than the functional loss from the identified secondary impacts. The conceptual mitigation options include: 194 acres of the land that had been acquired for future mitigation needs in Unit 11. 227 acres of the BRP natural area. 32.6 acres in the southern lake wetland along with proposed upland habitat. Sufficient mitigation is available in these options to offset the potential secondary impacts. The mitigation for the four potential secondary impacts is not required to be implemented now because the impacts are not occurring now. Section 4.2.7 of the BOR requires that the District consider those future impacts now and that a conceptual mitigation plan be provided to demonstrate and provide reasonable assurances that those impacts, in fact, can be offset in the future. The Governor and Cabinet sitting as the Board of Trustees considered and approved a request for public easement of approximately 30 acres to use a portion of CWMA for SPW Road, an FPL substation, and the land area that may be needed by District in the future for the connection to the flow-way. As consideration in exchange for the public easement over 30 acres, the County will transfer fee simple title of 60 acres to the State. This public easement also provides a benefit for CERP as it includes the small portion that the District is going to need for its future CERP project to connect to the flow-way on the proposed project site. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that mitigation will offset secondary impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. UNIDENTIFIED SECONDARY IMPACTS Testimony at the final hearing raised a question as to whether there is nesting or roosting by listed wading bird species in adjacent off-site wetlands outside the eastern boundary of the project site. Evidence was inconclusive on nesting or roosting in these areas. Because the status of adjacent listed wading bird nesting or roosting is uncertain, the District suggested in its Proposed Recommended Order that a special condition requiring a wildlife survey prior to construction near the eastern project boundary be added to the permit as follows: Prior to application for construction within 1000 feet of the eastern boundary of the above-ground impoundment, the applicant shall conduct a wildlife survey to identify any nesting or roosting areas in the adjoining off-site wetlands utilized by listed species of wading birds. If such nesting or roosting areas are found the permittee shall, if determined necessary by the District, incorporate additional buffers or other appropriate measures to ensure protection of these wetland functions. The District represented in its Proposed Recommended Order that the County has no objection to adding the foregoing condition. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 373.414(8), Florida Statutes, the District is required to consider cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters delineated in Section 373.421(1), Florida Statutes, within the same drainage basin. Cumulative impacts are the summation of unmitigated wetland impacts within a drainage basin. The cumulative impact analysis is geographically based upon the drainage basins described in Figure 4.2.8-1 of the BOR. Cumulative impacts are unacceptable when they would result in unacceptable adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands and surface waters within a drainage basin. There are no wetlands or other surface waters delineated pursuant to Section 373.421(1), Florida Statutes, on the Mecca Farms site. Therefore, no cumulative impacts are created by the direct impacts of the project. Cumulative impacts may be created by a project's secondary impacts. If a wetland impact has been appropriately mitigated on-site within the drainage basin, there is no residual impact, and therefore no cumulative impact. The PGA Boulevard extension, a portion of the SPW Road widening, and the airport runway relocation are located within the C-18 Basin. The proposed mitigation options are all located in the C-18 Basin and will offset those impacts. Those potential secondary impacts are considered to meet the cumulative impact requirements of Section 373.414(8), Florida Statutes. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not result in cumulative impacts to the C-18 Basin. The FPL substation is located within the L-8 Drainage Basin. The majority of the SPW Road expansion is located within the C-18 Basin, but a portion is located on the basin line between the C-18 Basin and the L-8 Basin. Because the mitigation for the L-8 impacts are proposed in a different basin, the Applicants were required to conduct a cumulative impact analysis for the L-8 Basin impacts. Based on the Florida Land Use Cover Classification System, there are 43,457 acres of freshwater wetlands within the L-8 Basin. Approximately 41,000 acres of the wetlands in L-8 Basin are in public ownership. This total constitutes approximately 95 percent of all the wetlands in the L-8 Basin. Public ownership of these wetlands provide a high level of assurance that these lands will be protected in perpetuity. The Respondents established that proposed mitigation can fully offset the potential impacts from the SPW Road expansion and the FPL substation and the approximately four acres of impacted wetlands in the L-8 Basin. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that there are no unacceptable adverse cumulative impacts on the L-8 Basin.4 GROUND WATER FLOWS, SURFACE WATER FLOWS, AND MINIMUM FLOWS AND LEVELS Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(g) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed activity will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows established pursuant to Section 373.042, Florida Statutes. The term "maintenance of surface and groundwater levels or surface water flows" in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(g) means that a project will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface water flows that contribute to meeting the minimum flow for the water body. An adverse impact to the maintenance of surface or groundwater levels or surface water flows may occur when a project discharging to a water body with a designated minimum flow level is proposed to be diverted. An analysis was done to compare the peak discharge rate from the existing SWM system on the Mecca Farms site with the projected peak discharge rate from the proposed SWM system. The analysis showed that the peak discharge rate under the proposed system will be less than that of the existing system. That result was expected since the proposed system will have higher control elevations, which, as noted above, will provide better treatment and permit a better control of the discharge into the C-18 Canal. Under the existing SWM system, storm event water in a dry period is frequently stored in the existing impoundment for future irrigation purposes. Under the proposed SWM system such storm event water will be discharged downstream, which will benefit those downstream areas during dry periods. The proposed system will also provide better control over pulse discharges during heavy storm events. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed activities will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground levels or surface water flows as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(g). THE DISTRICT’S OBJECTIVES Sections 373.414 and 373.416, Florida Statutes, require an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that a regulated activity will not be harmful to the water resources and will not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the District. Congress initially authorized the Central and Southern Florida (“C&SF”) Project in 1948. Thereafter extensive work was undertaken pertaining to flood control; water supply for municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses; prevention of saltwater intrusion; and protection of fish and wildlife. The work included construction of a primary system of 1000 miles each of levees and canals, 150 water-control structures, and 16 major pump stations. Unintended consequences of the C&SF Project have included the irreversible loss of vast areas of wetlands, including half of the original Everglades; the alteration in the water storage, timing, and flow capacities of natural drainage systems; and the degradation of water quality and habitat due to over-drainage or extreme fluctuations in the timing and delivery of fresh water into the coastal wetlands and estuaries. In 1992, Congress authorized the C&SF Project Comprehensive Review Study, which is generally referred to as the “Restudy.” The objective of the Restudy was to reexamine the C&SF Project to determine the feasibility of modifying the project to restore the South Florida ecosystem and provide for the other water-related needs of the region, such as water supply and flood protection. In April 1999, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued the Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (“Restudy Report”). The Restudy Report recommends a comprehensive plan for the restoration, protection, and preservation of the water resources of Central and South Florida. The resulting plan is known as CERP. The North Palm Beach County Part I project, which includes restoration of the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River (“NWFLR”), is a component of CERP. The successful completion of CERP and the successful restoration of the NWFLR are high-priority objectives of the District. The Loxahatchee River is an important feature of the South Florida ecosystem, nationally and internationally unique, and an important natural and economic resource. Rules pertaining to MFL for the NWFLR and for the recovery of the NWFLR are found at Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-8.011; 40E-8.221(4); and 40E-8.421. Recovery goals, which are not presently being met, have been established; and strategies to meet those goals have been identified. The Mecca Farms site is located within the boundaries of the CERP North Palm Beach County Part I project and has the potential to affect CERP and the restoration of the NWFLR. Projects that potentially would affect or would be within or adjacent to a CERP project are evaluated on a case-by- case basis to determine whether a proposed project would not be inconsistent with CERP and other District objectives. There was a dispute between Respondents and Petitioners as to whether the proposed project was inconsistent with the District’s objectives, including CERP and its goals pertaining to the restoration of the NWFLR. Petitioners contend that the District has insufficient evidence that the Mecca Farms will not be needed for the construction of a reservoir. That contention is rejected. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that sufficient storage is available at a superior site known as the Palm Beach Aggregates (PBA) site in the L-8 Basin, which is a unique geological site that will provide in-ground storage of water.5 Water from the PBA storage site can be conveyed to the NWFLR to increase dry season flows. Water can be stored at the PBA site in the wet season to prevent potentially damaging high flows. The L-8 Basin, which is adjacent to the C-18 Basin, receives more water during the wet season than it uses. This means that at present a significant amount of water must be discharged to tide (lost) during the wet season to provide for flood protection in this area. As envisioned, the water currently lost to tide could be stored at the PBA site for use during the dry season. By combining the water storage in the L-8 Basin with connective flow-ways to the C-18 Canal, water demands within the C-18 Basin, including the NWFLR, can also be met by the PBA storage site.6 An increase in freshwater flows to the NWFLR will further the District’s restoration goals for the NWFLR. Storage at PBA has regional benefits for other significant natural areas because it will provide additional flows to the Loxahatchee Slough and Grassy Waters Preserve. Those additional flows will further the District’s CERP goals. Since October of 2003, County staff and the District’s ERP staff have coordinated review of the subject project with the District’s CERP Planning and Federal Projects Division and other District staff working on projects in this region. The County asked the District to determine if the Mecca Farms’ site could in some way accommodate CERP objectives, and three alternatives were considered: 1) no action; 2) a reservoir; and 3) a flow-way. As opposed to a reservoir, the more valuable and the more practical, use of the Mecca Farms site would be as part of the system to convey the stored water to the areas that would most benefit from its discharge. The proposed flow-way in the BRP Natural Area would be an integral part of that conveyance system and would provide the District with greater flexibility in managing and directing the discharge of the water stored at the PBA site. Prior to the development of the flow-way concept as part of the proposed development, CERP identified a single route to take water from PBA to the NWFLR. The flow-way will provide an additional route from PBA to the NWFLR. That additional route will provide the District with greater operational flexibility. The flow-way will complement the L-8 Basin flow- way and help reduce peak flows to the NWFLR and the Estuary. The flow-way also provides a potential route allowing excess water to be brought back from the C-18 Basin to the PBA site for storage. There are no other potential routes that allow water to be directed from the C-18 Basin in the wet season to the PBA site. The flow-way provides a feature that was not part of the CERP original plan and is therefore an unanticipated benefit for CERP. The Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project is not inconsistent with the District’s objectives.7
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District issue the subject ERP for the conceptual approval of the SWM system for the BRP and the Phase 1A construction and operation subject to the general and special conditions set forth in the Staff Report and the Amended Staff Report. It is further RECOMMENDED that the District add the following special condition: Prior to application for construction within 1000 feet of the eastern boundary of the above-ground impoundment, the applicants shall conduct a wildlife survey to identify any nesting or roosting areas in the adjoining off-site wetlands utilized by listed species of wading birds. If such nesting or roosting areas are found the permittee shall, if determined necessary by the District, incorporate additional buffers or other appropriate measures to ensure protection of these wetland functions. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 2004.
The Issue The issue to be decided in these cases is whether Petitioner, A. Wayne Lujan (Petitioner), was entitled to issuance of five environmental resource permits (ERPs) that Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), intended to deny as stated in notices of denial dated October 25, 2019.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. Parties and Background Petitioner Lujan is the president and a director of Kay Haven Associated Enterprises, Inc. (Key Haven), that owns the five parcels, which are the subject matter of this hearing. Although Key Haven owns numerous lots, it chose to submit ERP applications for the Subject Lots within the Key Haven Tenth Addition plat dated September 1966 (Plat). See Joint Exhibit 84. Joint Exhibit 84 The Subject Lots are located in an unincorporated part of the County on the northwestern edge of a body of land lying north of State Road A1A, identified on the Plat as Raccoon Key. The Subject Lots are approximately half a mile east of the city limits of Key West, Florida. The Subject Lots are all characterized by a small upland portion adjacent to Floral Avenue. The majority of the Subject Lots transition into a mangrove fringe of varying depth and submerged lands containing marine seagrasses and sponges. See Joint Exhibits 81 and 82. Joint Exhibit 81 Joint Exhibit 82 DEP is the administrative agency of the state having the power and duty to protect Florida's air and water resources, and to administer and enforce the provisions of part II of chapter 380, part IV of chapter 373, and chapter 403, Florida Statutes. DEP also administers the provisions of Florida Administrative Code chapters 62-312 and 62-330 regarding activities in wetlands and other surface waters of the state. DEO is the state land planning agency and reviews certain permit applications for consistency with its statutory responsibilities under the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP), which includes part II of chapter 163, and part I of chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Relevant to this proceeding, DEO exercises authority over the ACSC program. See § 380.05, Fla. Stat. On July 26, 2018, Petitioner filed five applications for ERPs with DEP. Although certain details within each application differed, the applications all sought to authorize construction of a seawall in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and in unnamed wetlands within the landward extent of the Gulf of Mexico, a Class III OFW, to remove the entirety of the existing mangrove fringe, and to place fill within wetlands and other surface waters for the construction of single-family residences (Project). The minor differences in each application relate to the length of the seawall and the amount of fill necessary for each lot. Although some testimony was provided concerning the differences, no party argued that the differences were material to the determinations necessary in this proceeding. Accordingly, the factual and legal analysis for the Subject Lots and ERP applications were addressed without distinction herein. DEP forwarded a copy of the applications to DEO for its recommendation. On August 24, 2018, DEO issued objections to approval of the permits citing inconsistency with the Florida Keys ACSC Principles for Guiding Development (PGDs) in section 380.0552(7). DEO also objected based on inconsistencies between the Project and the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and Land Development Code (LDC), which implement the PGDs. DEP's first RAI dated August 24, 2018, included DEO's objections. The first RAI notified Petitioner that DEP had concerns with the Project that included: (1) installation of the vertical seawall; (2) placement of fill within an OFW; (3) direct impacts to marine seagrass bed community without adequate mitigation; and (4) failure to provide stormwater management plans since the Project was a common plan of development. The first RAI contained 19 specific requests for additional information. On October 23, 2018, Petitioner responded to DEP's first RAI by submitting slightly revised plans. The revised Project proposed less of a vertical seawall footprint by adding rip-rap to the side seawalls as a means of containing fill. Petitioner's responses to the 19 specific requests for information can generally be categorized as follows: (1) elimination of some vertical seawalls, but not the ones on the waterward edge of the Subject Lots; (2) no change in the placement of fill; (3) Petitioner would attempt to find appropriate compensatory mitigation for the seagrass impacts; and (4) Petitioner did not consider the Project to be a common plan of development. Regarding DEO's objections, Petitioner stated that "[w]e acknowledge that the project has been forwarded to FWC [Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission] and DEO and that additional comments and information may be requested by those agencies in order to fully evaluate the application." Petitioner did not substantively address DEO's objections. DEP issued a second RAI on November 21, 2018. DEO again objected in a letter dated November 26, 2018. DEP's second RAI raised the same concerns as the first RAI and acknowledged that four of the 19 specific items were adequately addressed. On January 11, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's second RAI by again submitting slightly revised site plans. However, the Project remained generally unchanged, with a proposed vertical seawall on the waterward edge of the lots, rip-rap along the sides, removal of the entire mangrove fringe, and fill of the entire lots eliminating the existing marine seagrasses. DEP issued a third RAI to Petitioner on February 8, 2019. DEO reiterated its objections by letter dated February 8, 2019. The third RAI raised the same concerns as the first and second RAIs, although DEP acknowledged that six of the 19 specific items were adequately addressed. By letter dated April 8, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's third RAI. The response again proposed slightly altered site plans from the January 2019 submissions. Petitioner essentially stated that mitigation opportunities were scarce, but had contacted the County and was looking into derelict vessel removal. However, the proposed Project remained generally unchanged, with a proposed vertical seawall on the waterward edge of the lots, rip-rap along the sides, removal of the entire mangrove fringe, and fill of the entire lots eliminating the existing marine seagrasses. As it relates to DEO's objections, Petitioner responded that "[a]fter review of the comments outlined in the [DEO] revised letter, it seems that the DEO objections are related to compliance with the provision[s] of the [Monroe] County [Comp Plan]. We will deal with those issues at the time of local permitting." Petitioner again failed to substantively address DEO's objections. DEP issued its final RAI on May 8, 2019. DEO again objected by letter dated May 6, 2019. This final RAI raised the same concerns as the first, second, and third RAIs. DEP stated that seven of the 19 specific items were not addressed by Petitioner, and that failure to provide a complete response to the prior RAI may result in denial of the ERP applications. On August 29, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's final RAI by once again submitting slightly revised plans, and additional information concerning mitigation proposals. However, the Project did not change and Petitioner again failed to substantively address DEO's objections. DEO’s objection letter identified that the ERP applications were inconsistent with the Florida Keys ACSC PGDs, seven Comp Plan policies, and six regulatory provisions of the County's LDC. DEP denied the ERP applications on October 25, 2019. The grounds for denial reiterated the issues not addressed by Petitioner's RAI responses. Specifically: (1) the failure of the Project to provide reasonable assurances concerning direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts to the marine seagrass bed community; (2) continued reliance upon construction of a vertical seawall; (3) failure to provide stormwater management information necessary given the determination that the Project constituted a common plan of development; (4) inconsistency with the FCMP as identified by DEO in its objection letters; and (5) failure to provide reasonable assurances that the Project was clearly in the public interest. Direct Impacts The Project proposed to entirely fill the Subject Lots, contain the fill with vertical seawalls and rip-rap, and construct pile-supported single-family residences. The Project would remove the entire mangrove fringe that aerials and site inspections show is a healthy mix of red, black, and white mangroves along with some green buttonwood. The shallow, open surface waters are dominated by marine seagrasses that vary in density. Petitioner did not make any design modifications to the Project that sought to reduce or eliminate direct impacts to the mangrove fringe and marine seagrasses. Petitioner's resource inventory was done using GIS aerial photography so that the aerial benthic resource surveys submitted to DEP were not ground- truthed. DEP staff conducted physical site inspections and ground-truthing inspections that included swimming in the open surface waters. DEP staff found significant marine seagrasses and sponges that were not mentioned in Petitioner's resource surveys. Depending on the lot, the Project would fill approximately 6,000 square feet of wetlands and other surface waters, i.e., 900 to 2,500 square feet of mangrove habitat and 4,000 to 4,800 square feet of marine seagrass bed habitat. The seawalls depicted in the final version of Petitioner's site plans were "vertical seawalls" because the rip-rap would not face the seawalls to the mean high water line (MHWL). The rip-rap would be placed on submerged resources inside the property lines of the Subject Lots. Also, Petitioner's final plans did not include the mooring of vessels. Vertical seawalls are prohibited in the OFW of the County. Petitioner did not affirmatively demonstrate that fill or shoreline stabilization could be accomplished by using native vegetation instead of vertical seawalls. Secondary Impacts DEP's expert witness, Ms. Mills, testified that Petitioner's ERP applications did not identify any potential secondary impacts. Ms. Mills testified that the expected secondary impacts from the Project included stormwater runoff, shading, and erosion or shoaling. Although the Project plans showed that stormwater would be collected and directed to Floral Avenue, DEP's investigation established that there is no stormwater management system on the side of Floral Avenue abutting the Subject Lots. Thus, the collected and directed stormwater would end up flowing back into the mangrove fringe and surface waters at the lot locations that were not proposed for development, e.g., Lots 36 and 38. The proposed single-family homes are piling-supported structures. Ms. Mills testified that the piling-supported structure would cause shading of the immediate adjacent resources on either side. She identified potential shading impacts to the resources of the undeveloped Lots 36 and 38. In addition, Ms. Mills identified potential erosion or shoaling impacts to the undeveloped Lots 36, 38, and unnamed lots to the left of Lot 40 since they would be surrounded by developed fill on either side. Although Mr. Swakon testified that tidal velocity is low in this area, other aspects, such as effects from wind-driven circulation, were not adequately addressed. Mitigation Petitioner was required to propose mitigation to offset remaining direct and secondary impacts after going through a reduction and elimination exercise. However, Petitioner did not propose any revisions to the Project to reduce or eliminate the direct and secondary impacts identified above. Ms. Mills explained that appropriate mitigation usually provides benefits to the same type of ecological community as the one being impacted. Petitioner's ultimate mitigation proposal was to purchase saltwater credit at a mitigation bank, the Florida Power and Light Everglades Mitigation Bank (FPL EMB). The FPL EMB is located on the mainland of Florida approximately a hundred miles away from the Subject Lots. Ms. Mills testified that saltwater credit would be appropriate to offset and replace the same ecological function of mangroves, but not to offset the submerged benthic communities that would be impacted by the Project. Mr. Swakon testified that calculation of the amount of mitigation credits included a multiplier to address secondary and cumulative impacts, the out-of-kind mitigation, and the dissimilarities in the communities. However, Ms. Mills persuasively testified that the proposed multiplier was not sufficient to justify the three aspects of impact that needed to be offset. Whether to justify dissimilarities between the ecological communities, secondary and cumulative impacts, or the distance of the mitigation site from the Project, the multiplier was not sufficient. Cumulative Impacts The Project is not within a recognized cumulative impact basin of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) for mitigation of impacts purposes. Accordingly, Ms. Mills testified that the plain language of a cumulative impacts analysis is considered. Contiguous lots to the Subject Lots owned by Petitioner could be developed through similar requests in the future. Also, each ERP application's cumulative impact analysis would consider the other four ERP applications as in-house examples of potential future projects. Common Plan of Development Petitioner contested DEP's conclusion that the Project was a common plan of development subject to section 2.0 of the Applicant's Handbook Volume 1 and associated stormwater management requirements. The Project would facilitate the advancement of land uses such as multiple residences, a residential subdivision, or phased site development. The Project comprised a total land area divided into multiple lots or parcels that are under common ownership or control. In total, Petitioner owns 648 lots under common ownership within the Key Haven Tenth and Eleventh Addition. The Subject Lots are all part of a residential subdivision. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project was a common plan of development. For this common plan of development, Petitioner's proposed stormwater management consisted of a cap on the proposed seawalls directing stormwater to swales on each lot. The swales would then direct stormwater to Floral Avenue with no additional treatment or management. During site inspections, DEP staff did not find any evidence of stormwater management along Floral Avenue. Seawalls and Rip-rap The seawalls depicted in the final version of Petitioner's ERP applications would be vertical seawalls because the rip-rap facing the seawall did not come above the MHWL. In addition, the final plans did not include the mooring of vessels. As found above, the Project would place fill, seawalls, and rip-rap on marine seagrasses and sponges. Petitioner failed to affirmatively demonstrate that native vegetation was not sufficient to prevent erosion. The evidence established that Petitioner did not apply for any waiver or variance of applicable ERP rule criteria. FCMP Consistency The evidence demonstrated that Petitioner refused to address DEO's objections based on a mistaken view of the criteria governing ERP applications in the County and the Florida Keys ACSC. Relevant to this proceeding, DEO exercises authority over the ACSC program. See § 380.05, Fla. Stat.; see also § 380.23(6), Fla. Stat. (Each agency charged with implementing statutes and rules that are part of the FCMP, shall be afforded an opportunity to provide DEP with its comments and determination regarding consistency of the activity with those statutes and rules.). Section 380.05(16) prohibits persons from undertaking any development within the Florida Keys ACSC, except in accordance with the PGDs. Thus DEO, as the administrator of the ACSC program, reviewed the ERP applications for consistency with applicable regulatory requirements. DEO issued objections to approval of the permits citing inconsistency with the Florida Keys ACSC PGDs; and inconsistencies between the Project and the County's Comp Plan and LDC which implement the PGDs. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with four PGDs. DEO's expert witness, Ms. Powell, testified that the Project was inconsistent with the PGD, which provides for strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that the local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the ACSC designation. See § 380.0552(7)(a), Fla. Stat. Ms. Powell persuasively testified that the ERP applications were inconsistent with this PGD because the Project would impair the local government's ability to have the ACSC designation removed. Allowing development inconsistent with its regulations would hurt the local government's ability to pursue de-designation. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The second PGD cited by DEO provides for protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. See § 380.0552(7)(b), Fla. Stat. It was undisputed that the Project would result in total removal of the mangrove and buttonwood fringe on each lot and 100% destruction of existing submerged marine resources. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The third PGD cited by DEO provides for limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. See § 380.0552(7)(e), Fla. Stat. Ms. Powell testified that degradation to nearshore water quality from prior dredge and fill activity was one of the reasons for the designation of the Florida Keys as an ACSC. Additionally, as further discussed below, the Project would be inconsistent with the County's Comp Plan policies and LDC regulations that further the goal of protecting the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys ACSC. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The fourth PGD cited by DEO provides for protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys, and maintaining the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. See § 380.0552(7)(n), Fla. Stat. As further discussed below, the Project would be inconsistent with the County's Comp Plan and LDC regulations that prohibit the use of structural fill within velocity zones. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. Ms. Powell testified that DEO considered the remaining statutory PGDs, and determined they were not particularly applicable to these ERP applications. In accordance with its duties, DEO had also reviewed and approved the County's Comp Plan and LDC as consistent with the statutory PGDs. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with seven Comp Plan policies. They are Policies 102.1.1, 101.5.25, 203.1.1, 204.2.2, 204.2.3, 204.2.4, and 212.5.3. Policy 102.1.1 provides: The County shall protect submerged lands and wetlands. The open space requirement shall be one hundred (100) percent of the following types of wetlands: submerged lands mangroves salt ponds fresh water wetlands fresh water ponds undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands only for use as transferable development rights (TDRs) away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Policy 101.5.25 provides that "[t]he allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available." Policy 203.1.1 provides that "[t]he open space requirement for mangrove wetlands shall be one hundred (100) percent. No fill or structures shall be permitted in mangrove wetlands except for elevated, pile-supported walkways, docks, piers and utility pilings." Policy 204.2.2 provides: To protect submerged lands and wetlands, the open space requirement shall be 100 percent of the following types of wetlands: submerged lands; mangroves; salt ponds; freshwater wetlands; freshwater ponds; and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands. Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetland only for use as transferable development rights away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Within one (1) year after the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the County shall revise the LDC to include a prohibition of development in salt ponds. Policy 204.2.3 provides: No structures shall be permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands, except for elevated, pile-supported walkways, docks, piers, and utility pilings. No fill shall be permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands except: as specifically allowed by Objective 212.5 and subsequent Policies; to fill a manmade excavated water body, such as a canal, boat ramp, or swimming pool if the Director of Environmental Resources determines that such filling will not have a significant adverse impact on marine or wetland communities; or as needed for shoreline stabilization or beach renourishment projects with a valid public purpose that furthers the goals of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, as determined by the County. Policy 204.2.4 provides: No fill or structures shall be permitted in mangroves or wetlands except as allowed by Policy 204.2.3 (as amended) and for bridges extending over mangroves or wetlands that are required to provide automobile or pedestrian access to dwelling units located on upland areas within the same property for which there is no alternative means of access. Such bridges shall be elevated on pilings such that the natural movement of water, including volume, rate, and direction of flow shall not be disrupted or altered. Upland areas shall include disturbed wetlands that have been lawfully converted into uplands through filling. Policy 212.5.3 provides: Bulkheads, seawalls or other hardened vertical shoreline structures shall be permitted on residential canals and altered shorelines only in the following situations: to replace an existing deteriorated bulkhead or seawall; or to stabilize a severely eroding shoreline area. DEO's expert witness, Ms. Powell, persuasively testified that the Project was inconsistent with all seven policies, because it did not protect the submerged lands and wetlands, did not provide for 100% open space within the submerged lands and wetlands, and provided for the construction of a seawall not excepted from the general prohibition. Petitioner did not present any evidence that the Project was consistent with the cited policies. Instead, Petitioner's witness, Mr. Nelson, testified that he felt certain County regulations would militate in favor of allowing the development. The main factor cited by Mr. Nelson was that the Subject Lots were designated as Tier III parcels under the County's LDC. However, designation of a parcel as Tier III did not conflict with the policies cited by DEO. The more credible and persuasive evidence concerning the Project's compliance with the Comp Plan policies was provided by Ms. Powell, who concluded that the Project was not consistent with those policies. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with six sections of the County's LDC regulations. Those are sections 118-4, 118-10(e), 118-12(k)(2), 122-4(b)(5), 130-157, and 130-162. The LDC regulations are more specific methods for implementing the Comp Plan policies outlined above. Section 118-4 provides: No development activities, except as provided for in this chapter, are permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, freshwater wetlands, freshwater ponds, or in undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands; the open space requirement is 100 percent. Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands only for use as transferable development rights away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Section 118-10(e), in relevant part, provides: Mangroves, wetlands, and submerged lands. All structures developed, used or occupied on land classified as mangroves, wetlands or submerged lands (all types and all levels of quality) shall be designed, located and constructed such that: Generally. Only docks and docking facilities, boat ramps, walkways, water access walkways, water observation platforms, boat shelters, nonenclosed gazebos, riprap, seawalls, bulkheads, and utility pilings shall be permitted on or over mangroves, wetlands, and submerged lands, subject to the specific restrictions of this subsection. Trimming and/or removal of mangroves shall meet Florida Department of Environmental Protection requirements. * * * (4) Placement of fill. No fill shall be permitted in any mangroves, wetlands, or submerged lands except: As specifically allowed by this Section or by Section 118- 12(k) (Bulkheads, Seawalls, Riprap) and 118-12(l) (Boat Ramps); To fill a manmade, excavated water body such as a canal, boat ramp, boat slip, boat basin or swimming pool if the County Biologist determines that such filling will not have a significant adverse impact on marine or wetland communities; As needed for shoreline stabilization or beach renourishment projects with a valid public purpose that furthers the goals of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, as determined by the County Biologist; For bridges extending over salt marsh and/or buttonwood association wetlands that are required to provide automobile or pedestrian access to lawfully established dwelling units located on upland areas within the same property for which there is no alternate means of access. Such bridges shall be elevated on pilings so that the natural movement of water, including volume, rate and direction of flow shall not be disrupted or altered; or As approved for Disturbed Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Association Wetlands with appropriate mitigation as defined by the wetland regulations of subsection (e)(6) of this Section. Section 118-12(k)(2) provides: (2) Vertical type seawalls or bulkheads shall be permitted only to stabilize severely eroding shorelines and only on manmade canals, channels, or basins. Such seawalls or bulkheads shall be permitted only if native vegetation and/or riprap and filter cloth is not a feasible means to control erosion. No new seawalls, bulkheads, or other hardened vertical structures shall be permitted on open water. Section 122-4(b)(5), in relevant part, provides: Coastal high-hazard areas (V zones). Within the areas of special flood hazard are areas designated as coastal high- hazard areas, which have special flood hazards associated with wave wash. The following provisions shall apply in these areas: * * * e. There shall be no fill used as structural support. Section 130-157, Maximum Permanent Residential Density and Minimum Required Open Space, provides at note (a): (a) The allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available. Section 130-162, Maximum Densities for Hotel/Motel, Campground, Recreational Vehicle, Seasonal and Institutional Residential Uses, and Minimum Open Space, proves at note (a): (a) The allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available. Ms. Powell persuasively testified that the Project was not consistent with the County's LDC regulations in sections 118-4, 118-10(e), 118-12(k)(2), 122- 4(b)(5), 130-157, and 130-162. The Project was inconsistent with the cited LDC regulations because it sought to construct seawall in submerged land, fill portions of the lots subject to a 100% open space requirement, remove the entirety of the existing mangrove fringe, impair 100% of the marine seagrass resources within the Subject Lots, and utilize structural fill within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated Velocity Zone. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project did not meet the criteria of part IV of chapter 62-312 and section 380.0552. The testimony also demonstrated that Petitioner did not apply for a variance or waiver of the County's LDC regulations. Conditions for Issuance Petitioner generally argued that the five applications provided reasonable assurance for issuance of individual ERPs. However, the persuasive and credible evidence established that the Project did not satisfy a majority of the conditions for issuance under rule 62-330.301. Petitioner failed to provide adequate information regarding stormwater management, the impacts of runoff to Floral Avenue, and runoff flowing back into the Gulf of Mexico OFW. This failure resulted in a lack of reasonable assurance that the Project would not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; would not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; and would not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Those functions would be 100% impacted and the impacts would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. As found above, the Project would cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, adverse impacts to surface water conveyance, and the adverse impacts would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. Additional Conditions for Issuance Petitioner generally contended that the five applications provided reasonable assurance that the Project was clearly in the public interest under rule 62-330.302. However, the persuasive and credible evidence established that the Project did not satisfy a majority of the applicable additional conditions for issuance. The Project would adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others because Petitioner failed to provide adequate information regarding stormwater management. DEP's site inspection found no stormwater management or treatment system on the side of Floral Avenue adjacent to the Subject Lots. Thus, the collected and directed stormwater would end up flowing back into the mangrove fringe and the OFW. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, or their habitat, as a result of the 100% impact to benthic communities, which would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely affect marine productivity, the current condition, and the relative value of functions being performed by the impacted areas. Also, the Project would be permanent in nature. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that Petitioner failed to provide reasonable assurance that there would not be harmful erosion or shoaling. The Project would not adversely affect or enhance any significant historical and archaeological resources. The Project would not be within a recognized cumulative impact basin of the SFWMD for mitigation of impacts purposes. Contiguous lots to the Subject Lots owned by Petitioner could be developed through similar requests in the future. Each ERP application's cumulative impact analysis would consider the other four ERP applications as in-house examples of potential future projects. Thus, Petitioner did not provide reasonable assurance that each ERP application would not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order denying Petitioner's five ERP applications. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathryn E.D. Lewis, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jay Patrick Reynolds, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Moore, Esquire Moore Bowman & Reese, P.A. Suite 100 551 North Cattlemen Road Sarasota, Florida 34232 Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Mail Station 35 Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jon F. Morris, Esquire Brandon W. White, Esquire Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street, Mail Station 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Valerie A. Wright, Esquire Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner in this matter is Capeletti Brothers, Inc., a Florida corporation. .The Respondent is the State of Florida, Department: of Environmental Regulation, an agency of the State of Florida with regulatory authority granted pursuant to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and those rules attendant thereto. Through its Petition as received by the State of Florida, Department: of Environmental Regulation, the present: Petitioner has filed a formal proceeding pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, and through this Petition has challenged the Department's assertion of jurisdiction to require an-environmental permit and in the alternative has requested that the permit be granted if it is determined that a permit is necessary. (The jurisdictional question was ruled on by order dated December 7, 1979.) The Petitioner's activity which fostered the current dispute between the parties involved the Petitioner's intention to excavate certain property in Broward County, Florida, and through such excavation remove rock fill material constituted primarily of limestone and leave in place a quarry containing water. The Petitioner holds an option to purchase the property in question subject to the granting of necessary environmental permits to conduct the excavation. The terms and conditions of that option to sell may be found in the Petitioner's Exhibits 10 and 11, admitted into evidence. The Petitioner had intended to use the fill material in the furtherance of a road building project by contract entered into between the Petitioner and the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, the contract award being made on February 23, 1977. The parties to that contract terminated the contract prior to any permit for dredging having been granted; however, Petitioner still desires to excavate at the site for the purpose of obtaining fill material for future building projects and the nature of the option to purchase would allow the Petitioner to continue to pursue its efforts at obtaining a permit, notwithstanding the termination of the original agreement between Capeletti Brothers, Inc., and the State of Florida, Department of Transportation. The Respondent has issued a Notice of Intent to Deny the permit by a letter dated March 26, 1979, and a copy of the Notice of Intent to Deny may be found as Exhibit "A" to the Petition. This Notice of Intent to Deny followed the receipt and review of Capeletti Brothers, Inc.'s application for permit dated October 18, 1978. In addition, the Respondent has asserted permit jurisdiction based upon grounds not set forth in the Notice of Intent to Deny. This claim for jurisdiction is a claim for jurisdiction under the provisions of Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and their associated rules. A copy of the application for permit may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence and this application contains sketches showing the location of the proposed project with reference to the surrounding terrain and other features. The proposed project site consists of approximately forty-four acres of land located south of Andytown, Florida, and west of State Road 25 (U.S. 27). The site is surrounded by Alligator Alley to the north; State Road 25 to the east, with a contemplated borrow canal to be constructed between State Road 25 and the project location, immediately adjacent to State Road 25; to the west by Florida Power and Light patrol road, with a borrow canal running north and south located west of the patrol road and Levee 37 further west of the borrow canal, this levee being maintained by the South Florida Water Management District. To the south of the project is an access road which grants access to the Florida Power and Light patrol road. The quarry which is to be dug on the acreage in question will not intersect either of the borrow canals referred to above. Upon completion, the pit area will consist of approximately twenty-two acres of open excavation approximately forty feet deep with a littoral zone constituted of sawgrass. At the conclusion of the project, all fill material that has been excavated will have been removed from the project site and the access road to the project site destroyed. The pit will be left full of water that has entered the pit at the excavation during the dredging. That water will be constituted primarily of groundwater located immediately below the surface in pockets found in the limestone fill material. The displacement of limerock will allow the groundwater to fill the void. Although the water which enters the excavation site will be primarily groundwater, the waters within its boundaries will eventually have the characteristics of surface waters due to the design of the activity being much like a natural pond. Approximately four thousand feet south of the project site is an abandoned rock quarry with an access road from State Road 25 and approximately two miles south of the project site is an active rock quarry operated by Rosen, Rosen and Tupler. The nature of the Rosen, Rosen and Tupler quarry is similar to that as contemplated by the Petitioner's plan. There are other rock quarries of similar nature located in the vicinity of the project site. The project site does not receive surface flows or sheet flows from adjacent properties due to the fact that the project site is surrounded by dykes and borrow canals which block surface flows or sheet flows from any adjacent properties. The surface water flow on the property is in a more or less southeasterly direction. The rainfall that occurs at the project site causes the project site to be inundated at times with standing water as deep as six or eight inches. This water will not exit the property except in times of high incidence of rain, when the water may overflow the Florida Power and Light access road and make entry into the borrow canal adjacent to State Road 25, gaining such access at the southeast of the project site. At present, part of the borrow canal east of the project site and adjacent to State Road 25 has been filled in. As stated before, this area will be replaced by a future excavation of a borrow canal in the area now covered. The surface water which stands on the project site normally percolates into the ground or evaporates into the atmosphere. The primary vegetation at the project site is sawgrass. The project: as contemplated would remove some of these grasses and attached heavy muck soils, but there would remain a sawgrass zone between the contemplated borrow canal located east of the project and the Levee 37 borrow canal located west of the project. The borrow canals located to the east and west of the project site flow south to the South New River Canal, which runs generally east and west. The waters collected in the South New River Canal are subject to being pumped through the pumping station S-9 which distributes water to the west or the water may be carried through the South New River Canal in an easterly direction, eventually entering the South New River, a natural waterway subject to navigation. The South New River is approximately twenty miles from the project site. The South New River empties into the Atlantic Ocean. Those waters which are pumped westerly through pumping station S-9 may enter other natural waterways and eventually the Gulf of Nexico by transportation through a series of artificial canals and natural water connections. Although the Petitioner does not intend to introduce contaminants at the proposed project site during the preparation stage; stage of excavation and stage of evacuation, the testimony concerning the project site and an active quarry of similar nature in the immediate vicinity, and other similar quarries, establishes that it could be reasonably expected that oils, greases and lead would be dispersed in the area of the quarry pit, the immediately adjacent wetlands and at times of high incidence of rainfall, into the borrow canals adjacent to the property. However, before the contaminants reach the borrow canals by overland sheet flow, they will be filtered out by the wetlands. The contamination into the pit would find its way into the Biscayne Aquifer, the Aquifer at the project site being only a foot or so beneath the surface., The introduction of contaminants into the Biscayne Aquifer at the project site will eventually lead to the direct mixing of those contaminants with portions of the Biscayne Aquifer adjacent to the project site, in particular west of the project site in the containment area which is part of the system of submerged lands of the state and to the borrow canal east of the project site. There is also the possibility of copper, zinc, iron, chromium, manganese, dieldrin and polychlorinated biphenyls contaminants being introduced into the pit (quarry). in association with the project, though this possibility is more remote than in the case of the substances previously mentioned and the possibility is so remote that it is not reasonably expected to occur. Therefore, these are not substances for which the Petitioner must do actual testing to show that they do not exceed water quality standards in order to establish necessary reasonable assurances. The facts presented did not give rise to even a potentiality for the presence of other regulated substances that might exceed applicable water quality standards, with the exception of phenols which are reported next. Phenolic-type compounds were found in the active and inactive quarry pits similar to the proposed installation These compounds as detected in the sample and reasonably expected at the project are naturally occurring phenomena and not the direct product of the mining activity. The mining will create turbid conditions and there will be fluctuations in dissolved oxygen concentrations and BOD values and changes in pH values in the pit. The above-referenced contamination and variations in values would be injurious to human health or welfare, animal and plant life and property and, as a consequence, interfere with the enjoyment of life and property, if found to exceed the Respondent's applicable water quality standards. The Petitioner, if allowed to carry out the project, has given specific reasonable assurance that it will not violate the Respondent's applicable water quality standards related to the turbidity, dissolved oxygen, BOD, lead, oils and greases, and pnenols. See Rule 17-3.05(2), Florida Administrative Code. Other substances-and conditions found in that subsection of the rule not being reasonably expected to occur, necessary reasonable assurance has been established for those. There will be no discharges of heated water. See Rule 17-3.05(3), Florida Administrative Code. The project site does not involve outstanding Florida waters within the meaning of Rules 17-3.041 and 17-4.242(1), Florida Administrative Code. Testimony offered in the course of the hearing shoes that in similar projects in terms of their location and purpose, the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, has at times disclaimed its jurisdiction to require a permit and at other times granted permits.
