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
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.
Findings Of Fact The petitioners Petitioners are special taxing districts and political subdivisions of the State of Florida, which were created pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes. The petitioners and their pertinent structures and operations were authorized by Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of providing irrigation, drainage and flood protection for the landowners within their respective boundaries. In order to effect this purpose, the petitioners designed and operate their water control structures to pump excess stormwater and surface water directly to Lake Okeechobee (the "Lake") in the case of East Beach Water Control District (East Beach) and directly to the Rim Canal at the southern end of the Lake in the case of South Shore Drainage District (South Shore), East Shore Water Control District (East Shore), and South Florida Conservancy District (South Florida). East Beach covers a total area of approximately 6,542 acres located along the southeast shore of the Lake. Approximately 75-80 percent of the lands contained within the District are used for agriculture, with most of those lands planted in sugarcane. The remaining 20-25 percent of the drainage area is urbanized. The urban area includes the City of Pahokee. South Shore covers a total area of approximately 4,230 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake. Approximately 80-85 percent of the lands contained within the District are used for agriculture, with most of those lands planted in sugarcane. The remaining 15-20 percent of the drainage area is urban and industrial. The urban area includes a portion of the cities in South Bay, Lake Harbor, Bean City, South Shore Village, and sparsely scattered home sites throughout the District. East Shore covers a total area of approximately 8,136 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake. With the exception of lands developed as canals, levees, roads, and other service-related systems, the entire district is used for agricultural purposes. South Florida covers a total area of approximately 32,754 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake with 28,649 acres located in Palm Beach County and 4,105 acres located in Hendry County. Approximately 85-90 percent of the land is used for agricultural purposes and the remaining 10-15 percent is used for urban or industrial purposes. The City of Belle Glade constitutes a major part of the urban land with the remainder situated around the cities of South Bay, Lake Harbor and other scattered home sites. Here, the parties have stipulated that petitioners have standing to maintain this challenge. Background Before 1986, petitioners' discharges into the Lake had not been regulated by the respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (Department). In 1985 the Governor of the State of Florida issued Executive Order Number 86-150. This executive order observed that the Lake Okeechobee Technical Committee, formed to study water quality and water supply conditions in the Lake, had found the Lake to be in danger of becoming hypereutrophic because of the excessive amounts of nutrients, especially phosphorus, it was receiving, and had recommended corrective actions to substantially reduce the nutrient load and provide for long-term monitoring, research and management needs for the Lake. To protect and preserve the Lake, the executive order directed, inter alia, that the Department "bring all private and publically controlled backpumping sources into the lake under permit review or under enforcement for operating without a permit." Pursuant to that executive order, the Department, in concert with petitioners, began the process of regulating petitioners' discharges into the Lake. The Department initially attempted to have the petitioners enter into consent orders; however, the petitioners objected to that concept. Ultimately, both the Department and petitioners agreed to the issuance of short-term operating permits (TOPs) containing specific conditions aimed at determining the composition of the discharges from petitioners' systems and at reducing the pollution loading into the Lake. The TOPs, issued December 30, 1986, and effective until September 23, 1988, were issued pursuant to the Department's regulatory authority over pollution sources contained in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. 2/ Pertinent to this case, Section 403.088, Florida Statutes, provided, and continues to provide, as follows: 403.088 Water pollution operation permits; temporary permits; conditions-- (1) No person, without written authorization of the department, shall discharge into waters within the state any waste which by itself or in combination with the wastes or other sources, reduces the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them . . . (2)(a) Any person intending to discharge wastes into the waters of the state shall make application to the department for an operation permit. Application shall be made on a form prescribed by the department and shall contain such information as the department requires. If the department finds that the proposed discharge will reduce the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them, it shall deny the application and refuse to issue a permit. . . (3)(a) A person who does not qualify for an operation permit or has been denied an operation permit under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) may apply to the department for a temporary operation permit . . . After consideration of the application, any additional information furnished, and all written objections submitted, the department shall grant or deny a temporary operation permit. No temporary permit shall be granted by the department unless it affirmatively finds: The proposed discharge does not qualify for an operation permit; The applicant is constructing, installing, or placing into operation, or has submitted plans and reasonable schedules of constructing, installing or placing into operation, an approved pollution abatement facility or alternate waste disposal system, or that the applicant has a waste for which no feasible and acceptable method of treatment or disposal is known or recognized but is making a bona fide effort through research and other means to discover and implement such a method; The applicant needs permission to pollute the waters within the state for a period of time necessary to complete research, planning, construction, installation, or operation of an approved and acceptable pollution abatement facility or alternate waste disposal system; There is no present, reasonable, alternative means of disposing of the waste other than by discharging it into the waters of the state; The denial of a temporary operation permit would work an extreme hardship upon the applicant; The granting of a temporary operation permit will be in the public interest; or The discharge will not be unreasonably destructive to the quality of the receiving waters. A temporary operation permit issued shall: Specify the manner, nature, volume, and frequency of the discharge permitted; Require the proper operation and maintenance of any interim or temporary pollution abatement facility or system required by the department as a condition of the permit; Require the permitholder to maintain such monitoring equipment and make and file such records and reports as the department deems necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of the permit and to evaluate the effect of the discharge upon the receiving waters; Be valid only for the period of time necessary for the permit holder to place into operation the facility, system, or method contemplated in his application as determined by the department; and Contain other requirements and restrictions which the department deems necessary and desirable to protect the quality of the receiving waters and promote the public interest. And, Section 403.927, Florida Statutes, provided, and continues to provide, as follows: 403.927 Use of water in farming and forestry activities.-- . . . it is the intent of the Legislature to provide for the construction and operation of agricultural water management systems under authority granted to water management districts and to control, by the department or by delegation of authority to water management districts, the ultimate discharge from agricultural water management systems. . . . The department may require a stormwater permit or appropriate discharge permit at the ultimate point of discharge from an agricultural water management system or a group of connected agricultural water management systems. . . (4) As used in this section, the term: * * * (b) "Agricultural water management systems" means farming and forestry water management or irrigation systems and farm ponds which are permitted pursuant to chapter 373 or which are exempt from the permitting provisions of that chapter. The agricultural water management systems owned and operated by petitioners fall within the definition of "agricultural water management systems" set forth in Section 403.927(4)(b), Florida Statutes. Consistent with the provisions of Section 403.088, Florida Statutes, Rule 17-4.070(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides: A permit shall be issued to the applicant upon such conditions as the Department may direct, only if the applicant affirmatively provides the Department with reasonable assurance based on plans, test results, installation of pollution control equipment, or other information, that the construction, expansion, modification, operation, or activity of the installation will not discharge, emit or cause pollution in contravention of Department standards or rules. However, for discharges of wastes to water, the Department may issue temporary operation permits under the criteria set forth in Section 403.088(3), F.S. Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, further delineates the specific procedures to obtain permits and the specific standards for issuing and denying permits. In July 1988, petitioners applied for an extension of their TOPs. The monthly water quality monitoring data petitioners had submitted to the Department reflected, however, that the discharges from petitioners' systems were in contravention of the Department's rules and standards. Accordingly, since petitioners had not met the obligations set forth in the TOPs, the Department advised petitioners that the TOPs would not be extended and that they were required to apply for new operating permits. The new permit applications Following the Department's refusal to extend the TOPs, petitioners filed applications for operating permits for their discharges, and the Department, consistent with its previous reviews, undertook its review pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Effective July 1, 1989, however, Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, was amended with regard to, inter alia, the definition of stormwater management systems so as to include pumped discharges such as petitioners. Further, pertinent to this case, Part IV of Chapter 373 provided: 373.416 Permits for maintenance or operation-- (1) . . . the governing board or department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the operation or maintenance 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, will not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district, and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district. 373.418 Rulemaking; preservation of existing authority.-- It is the intent of the Legislature that stormwater management systems be regulated under this part incorporating all of existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403. Neither the department nor governing boards are limited or prohibited from amending any regulatory requirement applicable to stormwater management systems in accordance with the provisions of this part. It is further the intent of the Legislature that all current exemptions under chapters 373 and 403 shall remain in full force and effect and that this act shall not be construed to remove or alter these exemptions. In order to preserve existing requirements, all rules of the department or governing boards existing on July 1, 1989, . . . shall be applicable to stormwater management systems and continue in full force and effect unless amended or replaced by future rulemaking in accordance with this part. Upon the amendment of Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, petitioners amended their pending applications to reflect their desire that the applications be processed pursuant to the newly amended provisions of Part IV, Chapter 373, as they relate to stormwater management systems. The Department, acknowledging the amendments to chapter 373, processed the applications accordingly; however, in view of the provisions of section 373.418(1) which "incorporat[ed] all of the existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403," the Department did not in fact change the standards by which these applications were reviewed, to wit: Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. On March 14, 1991, the Department issued a notice of permit denial to each petitioner. In each of the denials, the Department noted the provisions of Section 373.416(1), Florida Statutes, ["the . . . department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the operation . . . of any stormwater system . . . 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"] and Section 373.418(1), Florida Statutes, ["incorporating all of existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403"], and concluded that the applications should be denied for the following reasons: The Department has completed its review of the subject application, supporting documents and the discharge monitoring reports submitted by the applicant as required by Department Permit NO. IT50- 125678. Based on this review the Department has made the determination that the applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the discharge from the agricultural stormwater management system proposed by the applicant will be in compliance with the aforementioned sections of Chapter 373, F.S. and the Class I Surface Water Quality Standards adopted by the Department pursuant to Chapter 403.061, F.S. and contained in Section 17-302.540, F.A.C. and the Antidegradation Policy for Surface Water Quality contained in Section 17-302.300(3), F.A.C. The Department's action is facially consistent with the provisions of chapter 373, and chapter 403 incorporated therein, as well as the existing rules adopted pursuant to such chapters which require, whether the system be exempt or not, that discharges comply with state water quality standards. See e.g., Sections 373.416, 373.418, 403.088 and 403.927, Florida Statutes, and Rules 17- 4.070(1), 17-25.060, 17-25.080, and Chapter 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code. Availing themselves of the point of entry accorded by the notice of permit denial, petitioners filed a request for administrative hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to contest the denial of their applications. Such proceedings are currently pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings, but distinct from this proceeding under Section 120.535, Florida Statutes. The Section 120.535 challenge The challenged policy, as alleged in paragraphs 19 of the petition, purports to be as follows: The Department has made a policy determination, which draws a distinction between "agricultural stormwater discharges" and other stormwater discharges regulated by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Department has identified the Petitioners' discharge as "agricultural stormwater discharges" and has subjected the petitioners to a set of rules and criteria that the Department has not adopted but which are apparently different from the general stormwater regulations adopted pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Such articulation of the challenged policy is substantially identical to petitioner's statement of the issue identified in their proposed final order, as follows: The issue for determination in this case is whether the Department's policy to apply criteria different from that contained in its "Regulation of Stormwater Discharge" Rule 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, and/or Rule 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code, of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), when seeking to regulate an agricultural stormwater management system, as defined in Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, constitutes a rule . . . . The premises for the petitioners' challenge are their contention that the Department has drawn a distinction between the agricultural stormwater discharges of petitioners and other stormwater discharges, which is not supported by statutory or duly promulgated rules, and that the Department has applied criteria, which are not supported by statutory or duly promulgated rules, to evaluate petitioners' applications. The credible proof fails, however, to support petitioners' premises. Contrary to the assertions raised by petitioners, the statutory and duly promulgated rules heretofore discussed provide ample authority for the Department's action, and there is no credible proof that the Department is applying any criteria that is not apparent from an application or reading of such statutes and existing rules. Indeed, Rule 17-25.060(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides: The permit requirements of Chapter 17-4 or other applicable rules, rather than those of this chapter, shall apply to discharges which are a combination of stormwater and industrial or domestic wastewater or which are otherwise contaminated by non-stormwater sources unless: (a) the stormwater discharge facility is capable of providing treatment of the non- stormwater component sufficient to meet state water quality standards . . . . Here, the proof is compelling that the Department's decision was predicated on existing statutory and rule authority, and that it did not apply any criteria not promulgated as a rule or not contained within existing statutory authority to evaluate petitioners' applications, or treat petitioners' discharges differently than any other stormwater discharge contaminated by non-stormwater sources.
Findings Of Fact This application is a request for a consumptive use permit for two wells located in Pasco County, Florida, within the Pithlachascotee Basin. The subject wells are also located in that area wherein the Board of Governors of the Southwest Florida Water Management District declared a water shortage in Order No. 76-3D, Southwest Florida Water Management District. The application seeks an average daily withdrawal of 95,000 gallons with a maximum daily withdrawal of 360,000 gallons. The use of this water is for public supply involving effluent disposal by on-site percolation and ponding. This-use was existing prior to January 1, 1975 with am average daily withdrawal for 1974 of 74,000 gallons. The testimony presented by staff members of the Southwest Florida Water Management District establishes that the consumptive use for which a permit is sought will not violate any of the criteria set forth in Subsections 163- 2.11(2)(3) or (4), Florida Administrative Code, except that the use may significantly induce salt water encroachment. No evidence was presented showing that the sought for consumptive use will, in fact, significantly induce salt water encroachment. In the twelve month period ending October, 1975, applicant's highest average daily withdrawal was 81,000 gallons. This time frame corresponds to that time frame referred to in paragraph 1 of Water Shortage Order No. 76-3D, Southwest Florida Water Management District. In view of Water Shortage Order No. 76-3D, Southwest Florida Water Management District, the staff recommends granting of the permit for an average daily withdrawal of 81,000 gallons and a maximum daily withdrawal of four times that figure or 234,000 gallons. The staff further recommends imposition of the following conditions: That the permittee shall install totalizer flow meters of the propeller driven type on all withdrawal points covered by the permit with the exception of those wells which are currently ganged together using a single meter. That the permittee shall submit to the District a record of his pumpage for each meter, said pumpage to be read on a monthly basis and submitted quarterly to the District on April 15, July 15, October 15, and January 15 for each preceding calendar quarter. That all individual connections to the system be metered. That the permittee have water samples from all wells permitted analyzed for chloride on a monthly basis and results submitted to the District by April 15, July 15, October 15, and January 15 for each preceding calendar year.
The Issue The issue is whether an Environmental Resource Permit should be issued to Conquest Developments USA, L.C., authorizing the modification of an existing stormwater management system serving a residential development known as Silver Lakes in Collier County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this environmental permitting dispute, Respondent, South Florida Water Management District (District), proposes to issue an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) to Respondent, Conquest Developments USA, L.C. (Applicant), authorizing the modification of an existing stormwater management system serving a private, gated residential community known as Silver Lakes RV and Golf Club, Inc. (Silver Lakes) in unincorporated Collier County, Florida. As the agency responsible for the administration of the ERP program, the District has the authority to grant or deny the requested permit. Preliminary action approving the application was taken by the District on August 15, 2001. Silver Lakes is a 146-acre residential development located adjacent to, and on the east side of, County Road 951 approximately 1.5 miles south of the intersection of U.S. Highway 41 and County Road 951 in southwestern Collier County, Florida. The project site is a part of the larger development and consists of approximately forty undeveloped acres (40-acre site) just north of, and adjacent to, the residential community. If the application is approved, the Applicant would be allowed to construct an open storage facility on a 7.02-acre tract of land in the western part of the 40-acre site on which trailers, boats, motor homes, tow dollies, and similar items will be stored. It would also allow the Applicant to relocate previously permitted lots along the southeastern boundary of the 40-acre site which border the Silver Lakes development. Petitioners, Jerome and Susan Strauss, own Lots 14, 15, and 16 within Silver Lakes. Petitioners, Joseph H. and Patricia Belanger, own Lot 26 within Silver Lakes, which is adjacent to the proposed storage facility. For obvious reasons, the Belangers do not wish to have a storage facility next to their property. Rather, they and the other Petitioners have suggested that the storage facility be reduced in size and moved to a 3.0-acre site in the northeastern portion of the 40-acre site. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners have standing to bring this action. As reflected in the parties' Prehearing Stipulation, Petitioners contend that the proposed construction of the storage area will cause flooding, adverse secondary impacts, and adverse water quantity impacts; that the proposed activity will result in a violation of state water quality standards; that the proposed system will cause adverse impacts to surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters, and the conservation of fish and wildlife; that the Applicant has failed to minimize or avoid impact to jurisdictional wetlands to the greatest extent practicable; that the proposed site provides a wildlife corridor connected to protected lands directly to the west; that the proposed site is jurisdictional wetlands; that the Applicant has engaged in District activities without a permit; and that the proposed site is subject to a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These objections, where relevant, have been grouped into five categories - wetlands, wildlife, secondary and cumulative impacts, water quality and quantity, and prior enforcement activities - and they are addressed separately below. Wetlands The District has adopted and incorporated by reference in Rule 40E-4.091(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, a document known as the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District (Basis of Review). The standards and criteria found in the Basis of Review are used to determine whether an applicant has given reasonable assurances that the conditions for issuance of an ERP have been satisfied. Compliance with the criteria in the Basis of Review creates a presumption that the standard and additional conditions for issuance of an ERP in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E- 4.302, Florida Administrative Code, respectively, have been met. See Section 1.3, Basis of Review. Section 4.2.1 of the Basis of Review generally requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that wetland impacts be eliminated or reduced to the greatest extent practicable. This can be done through the implementation of "practicable design modifications" to the project, or where adverse impacts still remain after such modifications, through mitigation. There are 36.82 acres of wetlands throughout the 40- acre site. If the application is approved, there will be adverse impacts to 9.9 acres of wetlands in the western portion of the site (where the storage facility will be located) and to 3.37 acres in the southeastern portion of the site. To avoid and minimize wetland impacts, the Applicant has been required to reduce the number of acres impacted from its original proposal, and to place the storage area on the western part of the 40-acre site near County Road 951. In the original application, the Applicant proposed to place the storage area in the eastern part of the site and to create a larger storage area. Although the western part of the 40-acre site contains higher quality wetlands than the central or eastern parts, the western area is not pristine, and it is substantially impacted by exotic species, such as wax myrtle and Brazilian pepper. In addition, the western area is adjacent to County Road 951, which reduces wetland functions and values, reduces habitat values because of increased light and noise encroachment, and increases risk to wildlife because of passing vehicles. Further, the central and eastern areas are adjacent to other undeveloped lands, and this creates the potential for larger tracts of preserved and enhanced wetlands and maximizes wetland functions and values. Impacts to wetlands will be adequately mitigated by the Applicant preserving and enhancing 26.92 acres within the 40-acre site in a recorded conservation easement; by monitoring and reporting on the on-site mitigation (easement) for a five-year period and by maintaining the property in perpetuity; by purchasing 3.66 mitigation credits of similar wetland habitat from the Panther Island Mitigation Bank; and by adhering to a remediation plan (found in the Special Conditions in the permit) to address any future deficiencies in the mitigation. Given these considerations, it is found that the Applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the wetland impacts from the proposed activities will be eliminated or reduced as required by Section 4.2.1 of the Basis of Review. Impact on Wildlife Section 4.2.2 of the Basis of Review requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the activity will not impact the values of wetlands and other surface water functions so as to cause adverse impacts to the abundance, diversity, or habitat of fish, wildlife, and listed species. The primary agency responsible for the protection of wildlife is the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (Commission), and not the District. Therefore, Section 4.2.2 of the Basis of Review requires that the District provide the Commission with a copy of all ERP applications for its review and comment as to wildlife issues. In this case, the Commission offered no comments or objections regarding wildlife on the property in question. The evidence shows that listed and endangered species such as Florida panthers, wood storks, and Big Cypress fox squirrels have been spotted on infrequent occasions on the 40-acre site by residents of Silver Lake. However, the parties stipulated that there was no evidence of any nesting, denning, or breeding activity on the same site. Based on the evidence of record, including the Applicant's Protected Species Survey, it is fair to infer that there is limited or no use of the property by protected wildlife species. Indeed, Petitioners' own expert found no evidence of endangered or threatened species on the 40-acre site during his two inspections. Two Special Conditions have been incorporated into the permit to protect endangered, threatened, or other listed species. First, in the event that Big Cypress fox squirrels are observed on or near the property, Special Condition 24 requires that the Applicant prepare a habitat management plan, in consultation with the Commission, to address issues related to nesting habitat. Second, if any endangered or threatened species are ever found on the property, Special Condition 25 requires that the Applicant coordinate with the Commission or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Commission for guidance or recommendations. Given the above, the evidence supports a finding that the Applicant has given reasonable assurances that the requirements of Section 4.2.2 of the Basis of Review have been satisfied. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Section 4.2.7 of the Basis of Review requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that the proposed activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. At the same time, Section 4.2.8 requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that a regulated activity will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters within the same drainage basin as the regulated activity for which the permit is being sought. In providing the necessary reasonable assurances regarding cumulative impacts, Section 4.2.8.2 authorizes an applicant to use preservation and mitigation measures to prevent cumulative impacts. The more persuasive evidence shows that the project will not cause secondary impacts to wetlands. This is because a water quality berm system surrounds the wetlands, isolating the wetland system from the surface water management system; a 50-foot preserved area lies between the storage area and the adjacent property boundary to the north; the storage area is being placed in an area already secondarily impacted by County Road 951; and the wetland preservation area will be placed in the conservation easement. Further, the project will not cause secondary impacts to wildlife. This is because structural buffers will prevent future encroachment into the wetlands and distance any wildlife away from the more dense residential functions. These buffers include a 50-foot wide natural preserve on the north side of the storage area (Special Condition 26), an already-erected structural buffer to the south of the storage area (Special Condition 26), and a 17 to 21-foot structural buffer (planted with native vegetation or vegetated buffers) on the eastern side of the 40-acre site where the new lots are proposed. Except for two conclusionary opinion statements by Petitioners' expert, without further facts or explanation, no other evidence on secondary impacts was offered. The project will not cause cumulative impacts to the wetlands. This is because the proposed mitigation for the project adequately offsets the impacts of the 40-acre site, and the impacts from other permitted projects in the basin area have been sufficiently offset. In addition, very little property in the area remains to be developed, and there are no new applications before the District involving the same basin. In the event a new application may be filed, however, the District will require the applicant to offset any impacts associated with its project with buffers and conservation easements, like the Applicant in the instant case. Water Quantity and Quality Section 5.0 et. seq. of the Basis of Review contains water quality criteria that must be satisfied in order for an ERP to be issued, while Section 6.0 et. seq. addresses water quantity criteria for an ERP. Given the limited nature of changes to the existing system and the lack of a hydrologic connection to the wetlands, and for the following additional reasons, the Applicant has given reasonable assurances that the project complies with the water quality and quantity criteria. The project as designed includes a grass swale near the storage area on the western part of the 40-acre site. The rainfall and run-off from the storage area flows into an internal road, through the grass swale, into a storm drain, and then into the pre-existing water management system associated with the original permit for Silver Lake. The project also allows rainfall and run-off from the proposed lots on the southeastern border of the 40-acre site to sheetflow onto an internal road, where waters are collected in existing catch basins and conveyed into the previously permitted water management system associated with the original permit. Since the rainfall and run-off from the storage area and lots drain into the existing lakes (Lakes 1 and 2) that are part of the Silver Lakes water management system, those waters will be treated for water quality through wet detention before their eventual discharge to McIlvane Bay, which lies to the southwest of Silver Lake. The basin discharge rates, minimum floor elevations, road designs, parking lot designs, structure control elevations, and structure sizes are specified in the the District's Staff Report, and were set at or above the calculated design limitations to meet water quality and quantity requirements. Section 5.2.1(a)1. of the Basis of Review specifies that wet detention volume shall be provided for the first inch of runoff from the developed project. The evidence shows that the proposed system captures one inch of run-off over the entire site, which drains into the existing lake system to provide water quality treatment. The system is also designed to meet the relevant discharge rate requirements for a 25-year, 3-day storm event, and the minimum floor elevations were based on a 100-year, 3- day storm event. The wetland preserve area is outside the area served by the surface water management system, is not hydrologically connected to that system, and will not be affected by run-off from the storage area or lots. Just prior to the final hearing, the District added Special Condition 23 to create a 50-foot buffer zone along the southern boundary of the storage area for aesthetic purposes and to reduce secondary impacts. Implementation of that buffer must be in accordance with the staff report, will not change the surface water management system, will have no impact on water quality or flood control, and will be implemented after additional consultation with the District. Past Enforcement Rule 40E-4.302(2), Florida Administrative Code, requires that the District take into consideration past violations of various rules adopted by the District. No enforcement action relating to the property has ever been taken by the District against the Applicant for any violation of ERP requirements. Although Petitioners suggested that unpermitted fill activities have taken place on the southeastern part of the 40-acre site, an inspection by District personnel revealed that unpermitted activities were "not significant." Further, Special Condition 23 requires that the Applicant restore "that portion of the disturbed wetland area located in the southeast corner of the site which is to be included in the wetland preserve area." Therefore, any impacts to the 40-acre site resulting from past unpermitted activities have been considered and remedied.
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 Permit Application No. 010223-5 of Conquest Developments USA, L.C., for an Environmental Resource Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 Anthony P. Pires, Jr., Esquire Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, P.A. 3200 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34103-4105 Robert E. Murrell, Esquire Samouce, Murrell & Francoeur, P.A. 800 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34108-2713 Keith W. Rizzardi, Esquire South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 Kenneth B. Cuyler, Esquire Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103-3556
Findings Of Fact Application No. 76-00408 is for an existing water use from six wells. The application seeks a total average annual withdrawal of 3.298 million gallons per day and a maximum daily withdrawal of 9.801 million gallons per day. The wells will be located in the Peace River basin in Polk County. Ninety-nine percent of the water will be used for industrial purposes and one percent of the water will be used for irrigation purposes. The applied for consumptive use will not violate any of the conditions set forth in Subsection 16J-2.11(2), (3) or (4), Florida Administrative Code. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff recommends granting of the subject permit in the amounts requested with the following conditions: That the applicant shall install totalizing flowmeters of the propeller-driven type on all withdrawal points with the exception of the well to be used for agriculture located at , Latitude 27 degrees 45 minutes 39 seconds, Longitude 81 degrees 37 minutes 07 seconds and the fire well located at Latitude 270 54 minutes 39 seconds, Longitude 81 degrees 36 minutes 00 seconds. The applicant shall submit to the district a record of pumpage for each meter installed in (a) above on a quarterly basis beginning January 15, 1977, with the pumpage recorded on a weekly basis.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that a consumptive use permit in accordance with Application No. 76-00408 be issued with the conditions set forth in paragraph 3 above. ENTERED this 13th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Citrus World, Inc. Staff Attorney Post Office Box 1111 Southwest Florida Water Lake Wales, Florida 33853 Management District Post Office Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512
The Issue Whether the Mosquito Ditch Exemption of Section 373.4211(25), Florida Statutes, applies so as to exclude Petitioners' property adjacent to Miguel Bay in Manatee County from the permitting authority of the Department of Environmental Protection? If not, whether Petitioners are entitled to an Environmental Resources Permit from the Department?
Findings Of Fact The Property Not far from the southern terminus of the Sunshine Skyway Bridge spanning the waters where Tampa Bay and the Gulf of Mexico meet is a subdivision known as San Miguel Estates. On the western shore of Terra Ceia Island in Manatee County, it takes its name from an adjacent body of water: Miguel Bay. Miguel Bay is classified by rule of the Department of Environmental Protection as Class II surface waters meaning it has been designated usable for "Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting," Rule 62.302-400(1), Florida Administrative Code. The classification is the highest available to surface waters which are not fresh. As a part of the Terra Ceia Aquatic Preserve, Miguel Bay also enjoys the status of an Outstanding Florida Water, so designated by the Environmental Regulation Commission to confirm its worthiness to receive special protection because of natural attributes. See Rules 62- 302.200(17) and 62-302.700(9)(h)39., Florida Administrative Code. The bay surrounds the subdivision together with two bayous, Custer to the northwest and Tillette to the southeast. The mouth of Tillette Bayou is formed by Boots Point, also a part of Terra Ceia Island and the subdivision jutting into the bay directly north of the point. The bay surrounds or washes onto the shores of a number of keys: Sister, Skeet, Ed's, and Rattlesnake. Through the middle of the subdivision runs a county- maintained road: Miguel Bay Drive. It provides access to a cul- de-sac containing seven lots. Lots 2, 6, 7, and 8 are fully improved with residential structures, boat docks and elevated walkways. Lots 3 and 4 are undeveloped. An application for a permit to construct a house on Lot 3 was denied in the early part of this decade. It is uncertain whether Lot 4 is permitted for a residential structure but an application for a permit to construct a boardwalk on the property is pending. The lot owned by the petitioner and his wife, also undeveloped, is Lot 5. Consisting of approximately 5.5 acres on the south side of Miguel Bay Drive, Lot 5 is within the geographical jurisdiction of the Southwest Florida Water Management District. It contains wetlands contiguous to the bay. The wetlands have suffered various disruptions over the years. In addition, to mosquito ditches dug more than 30 years ago, a dike was built around the same time to prevent the gulf tide from flowing onto the property. Furthermore, part of the property was cleared at one time as part of an agricultural venture. On its northern side, adjacent to Miguel Bay Drive, is the property’s approximate 0.9 acres of uplands. On the opposite side of the lot, where the wetlands meet the bay, the Petitioners plan a boat basin. A section of the proposed boat channel serving the basin, where it connects to the bay, is located within the Outstanding Florida Waters boundary of the bay. The boat basin will be part of a residential project planned by Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis. In addition to an access drive and the boat basin and channel, the Petitioners plan to build a house in the middle of the lot. In the mid-1960’s, Lot 5 was ditched for mosquito control. The mosquito control ditches transect the property along two lines running roughly east-west: one, just to the south of the uplands, not too far from the road; the other, just to the north of the dike and a mean high-water line approximated by Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis’ engineer, John Benson. Valuable Mangroves Mangroves cover the bulk of the property south of the uplands. Most are normal-sized. For example, “[a]ll the mangroves up . . . at the mosquito ditch going toward the . . . street [are] huge, . . . 10, 15, 20 feet.” (Tr. 41.) The mangroves closer to San Miguel Bay, too, are normal-sized. But in a basin in the center of the property there is an acre or so of “stunted mangroves that [are] only . . . three to four feet tall." (Tr. 39.) "And that [is] very unusual . . . there [is] obviously something wrong with them.” (Tr. 40-41.) The problem for the stunted mangroves is stress in their root zone due to "anoxia in the soil, that is, lack of oxygen." (Tr. 318). The anoxia is most likely a function of location: the stunted mangroves are in a basin surrounded by the mosquito ditches. The normal-sized mangroves are not experiencing anoxia because they are better irrigated. Those alongside or in the mosquito ditches are irrigated by the water which collects in the ditches while those in the southernmost part of the property are irrigated by tidal froth from the bay. Although the property has been ditched, diked and bermed (and may have even been tilled at one time for agricultural purposes after it was cleared), the mangroves on the property serve a valuable ecological function, particularly to the bay. The height of the mangroves does not alter their ecological value because the value is largely in their root system. The entire root system of the mangroves covering over four-fifths of the property serves as a filtration base for water running off the uplands. It provides, moreover, critical habitat for commercially important species such as redfish and snook. Building a residence in the middle of this mangrove swamp, even were it to disrupt only the stunted mangroves, would cause adverse ecological impact. The adverse impact would fall heavily on the bay because it needs the natural flushing action allowed by the uninterrupted tangle of mangroves covering more than four acres of the five and one-half acre plot. At the same time, wildlife enjoy orderly habitat in the mangroves on the property. The presence of a residence and the alterations to the property, particularly the loss of well over an acre of a mangrove root-system caused by dredging and filling to support the residence, would render the remaining mangrove wetlands on the property much less supportive of the wildlife inhabiting it now and the wildlife that would otherwise inhabit it in the future. The Parties Petitioners moved to Florida from Illinois in 1991. Mel McGinnis is a double above-the-knee amputee who walks with the aid of prosthetic devices. Pamela McGinnis is a licensed real estate broker. Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis live in Palmetto where Mrs. McGinnis conducts her real estate business. The Department of Environmental Protection is the state administrative agency with permitting authority under Part IV of the Florida Water Resources Act of 1972, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes and Chapters 62-330, 62-341 and 62-343, Florida Administrative Code, as well as Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Pursuant to operating agreements executed between the Department and the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) via the authority of Chapter 62-113, Florida Administrative Code, the Department is responsible in this case for reviewing the permit application of the Petitioners. Manasota-88, Inc., filed a petition to intervene which was granted subject to proof of standing at hearing. No proof of standing was offered, however; Manasota-88's status as an Intervenor has been rescinded and it has been dismissed as a party to the proceeding. See Paragraphs 78 - 81, below in the Conclusions of Law section of this order. Acquisition of the Property In 1993, Mel and Pamela McGinnis purchased Lot 5 in San Miguel Estates. They were attracted to the lot because of the more than 500 feet of waterfront it enjoyed on Miguel Bay. The seller of the property was the federal government. The sale was arranged through the United States Marshall’s office as part of a forfeiture proceeding. The property had been seized by federal authorities because of the illegal involvement in drug activity of its owner at the time of the seizure. Prior to a decision to make the purchase, Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis were concerned about clear title because of the property's shadowy history. They researched the matter at the county offices. Their concerns were allayed when they found no liens and discovered the property was part of a platted subdivision. They inquired whether there would be water or sewer services provided by local government. The county reported plans to put water lines in soon, a promise made good in 1994. In testimony, Mrs. McGinnis summed up the results of the pre- purchase investigation: “We really didn’t perceive [there] to be a problem.” (Tr. 22.) Plans to Develop and an Application for an ERP In 1995, the McGinnises began planning the construction of the residential structure and boat dock on Lot 5. Accompanied by their engineer, John Benson, they met on the site in August of 1995 with Ken Huntington, an environmental manager in the Environmental Resources Permitting Section of the Department. Before the meeting, the McGinnises believed the mosquito ditches to be creeks. After John Benson corrected the misimpression, Mr. Huntington indicated there was a possibility the property might qualify for a mosquito ditch exemption from environmental resource permitting. Mr. Huntington did not make a commitment, however, at this early stage of the case's development that the Department would determine the exemption applied. In fact, the Department insisted that an application for an Environmental Resources Permit be filed before a decision could be made on the exemption. Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis, on October 5, 1995, applied for the Environmental Resource Permit. The application sought authority to dredge and fill in waters of the state for the purpose of constructing a single-family residence, driveway, swimming pool and boat channel and basin. It showed the construction to have impact upon approximately 1.61 acres of wetlands. About 1.39 acres of the affected area would be cleared and filled for the construction of the home, pool, and driveway. The remainder of the area under impact (about .22 acres) would be excavated for the construction of the boat basin and channel. Two months later, in December of 1995, Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis submitted additional application materials. The submission consisted of several parts: a written statement from Larry Rhodes, the Mosquito Control Director for Manatee County from 1961-94; a proposed work order of the mosquito control district from 1966; information from their engineers; and, aerial photographs from 1960 and 1965. These materials were intended to support the assertion that Lot 5 was eligible for a mosquito control exemption from Environmental Resource Permitting. Preliminary DEP Action On April 1, 1996, a Preliminary Evaluation Letter was sent to Petitioners by the Department. The letter stated that based on site inspection, "it appears that the project cannot be recommended for approval." Petitioners' Exhibit 1-h. Cautioning that the preliminary evaluation did not represent final agency action, the letter went on to provide modifications which would reduce or compensate for the project's negative impacts. Among them, was "relocation of the proposed structure to a more landward location." Id. The letter was not preliminary in one way. It explained the Department’s final position that the project site did not qualify for the mosquito ditch exemption: As indicated in previous Department correspondence of January 19, 1996, the Department does not believe that the project meets the . . . exemption. Pursuant to 40D- 4.051(14), Florida Administrative Code, the subject exemption applies only to 'lands that have become surface waters or wetlands solely because of a mosquito control program, and which lands were neither wetlands nor other surface waters before such activities . . .' Historical aerial photographs do not support that the parcel was not previously wetlands. Id., at pg. 2. Ten days later, Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis, through their attorneys, requested a one-week extension to submit revised plans "which attempt[] to reduce the impacts in response to the issues . . . raised [by the April 1 correspondence]." Petitioners' Exhibit 1-i. In a letter dated April 17, 1996, Mr. McGinnis submitted the revised plans in the form of proposals designed by Benson Engineering and CCI Environmental Services. As a prelude to the proposed modifications it had designed, Benson Engineering wrote, We have spent considerable effort to reduce the negative impacts with out (sic) placing the development in the unacceptable upland. The location of the residence has been chosen due to the nature of the stressed mangroves. This area (approximately 1.6 acres) is characterized in a report by H. Clayton Roberson, Environmental Scientist with CCI Environmental Services, Inc. dated 29 January, 1996. The majority of the mangroves to be impacted are less than 3 feet in height, with atypical stunted growth. The current proposal reduces the impacts to only 45% of the stressed area, and only 24% impact to the total site. This 24% development ratio is also being mitigated with enhanced water circulation to the entire site, . . . Petitioners' Exhibit 1-j. In the cover letter submitting the proposed modifications, Mr. McGinnis' frustration at this point with the process was evident. At least two of the items in the letter demonstrate its depth: Property was purchased by us from the government with no disclosure by anyone or any recorded documentation that would have given us even a hint that building our home would become such a nightmare. This property is in a long established recorded subdivision, and all adjacent property owners are either built, under construction or permitted to build. Our property as submitted to you under the revised design is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Placement of any dwelling on the road will have a major negative impact on this parcel. I cannot stress enough the negative economic impact that would be incurred by this action. Petitioners' Exhibit 1-j. Denial On May 1, 1996, the Department issued its Notice of Denial. The notice contained five parts: I. Description of the Proposed Activity; II. Authority for Review; III. Reasons for Denial; IV. Proposed Changes; and V. Rights of Affected Parties. Part III of the notice (Reasons for Denial) cited a June 1995 site inspection. It included a description of the site: 5.5 acres, the majority of which, according to a 1952 Soil Conservation Service survey, is Tidal Swamp, and according to a 1983 Soil Survey is classified as Wulfert-Kesson Association soils. The site had been found during the inspection to be dominated by mangroves, red, black and white. Other vegetation associated with wetlands had been observed "within the subject system at the time of inspection" (Petitioners' Exhibit 1-k) as well as Marsh periwinkle, Fiddler crabs, tricolered heron, greenback heron, and snowy egret. The project was found, moreover, to result in 1.61 acres of impact to a mangrove community with wetlands in a Class II waterbody directly contiguous to an aquatic preserve. After detailing the value and significance of mangroves to habitat and water quality functions and the applicant's failure to provide reasonable assurance that the construction and operation of the activity, considering direct, secondary and cumulative impacts, would comply with the provisions of Part IV of Chapter 373 and the rules adopted thereunder, Part III of the notice recited two primary bases for the denial. First, the immediate and long-term impacts of the activity were expected to cause violations of water quality standards. Second, the project was found to be contrary to the public interest for those portions of the activity located in, on or over wetlands or other surface waters. With regard to water quality, the Department found the project did not meet standards applicable to biological integrity, transparency, and turbidity. The project was expected, furthermore, to cause: adverse water quality impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; adverse impacts to the value of functions provided fish, wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters; and adverse secondary impacts to water resources. With regard to the public interest test for those portions of the activity located in, on or over wetlands or other surface waters, the Department expected the project to adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species and their habitats; adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; adversely affect the fishing or recreational value or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project, among other adverse impacts; and fail to meet standards imposed by law. Despite the existence in the Department's opinion of numerous substantial bases for denial, the Department offered hope to Petitioners that they might yet be able to build a residential structure on Lot 5. The first of changes to the project listed in the notice that might "enable the Department to grant a permit," Petitioners' Exhibit 1-k, was for Petitioners to "[r]elocate the proposed residence to a landward location-in proximity to the existing road which would result in a significantly minimized wetland impacts." Id. Other modifications included submission of an acceptable mitigation plan and addressing cumulative impacts, perhaps by way of granting a conservation easement. In response, the McGinnises modified their proposal. But the modifications did not include moving the residence into the uplands at the northern end of the property. The Department considered the changes to the proposal but the changes did not, in the Department's view, make the project permittable. (See Tr. 155). Environmental Dispute Resolution On May 15, 1996, a few weeks from the issuance of the Department's Notice of Denial, Mel and Pamela McGinnis filed a Request for Relief under the Florida Land Use and Environmental Resolution Act, Section 70.51, et seq., Florida Statutes. The Department filed a response to the request and parties participated in a hearing and mediation in accordance with the Act. A hearing was held on September 18 and 19, 1996, before Special Master Raymond M. McLarney who referred to the event as the "first Special Master Proceeding in Property Rights with the FDEP and a landowner." Petitioners' No. 4, Special Master Summary Report, Ex. 1a, p. 1. 36. Paragraph 4 of the Report Summary, bearing the heading, "Special Master's Initial Observation," states: Following completion of the hearings . . ., the Special Master concluded and communicated to the parties that the FDEP's Notice of Denial unreasonably and/or unfairly burdens use of the McGinnises['] real property. The Special Master's initial observation and conclusion was provided to the parties to serve as an indication of sufficient hardship to support modification, variances or special exceptions to applicable statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances of FDEP as applicable to the subject property, all as authorized by Section 70.51(25) of the Florida Statutes. The Special Master encouraged the parties to mediate their differences and attempt to seek a mutually- acceptable solution through the process of mediation. The parties agreed. Id., at 4. The Special Master's Report Summary reports that the result of the mediation was that "the McGinnises and FDEP reached a mutually-acceptable solution evidenced by an [attached] agreement . . . incorporated herein. The . . . solution . . . was initialed/signed on each page by authorized representatives of the parties and was accomplished in accordance with Section 70.51(19)(c) of the Act." Id., at 5. The “Initial Observation” section of the Report Summary appears to contain what would have been the Special Master’s Recommendation (that is, the conclusion that the Department’s actions “unfairly burdened the Petitioners’ use of the property”) had the Special Master not thought that the Department and the McGinnises had reached a mediated agreement. Whatever the appropriate characterization of this section of the report, the Department treated it as a recommendation. It did so when it declared the Special Master’s Report Summary null and void several months after receiving it. Null and Void On January 29, 1997, the Department received the Special Master's Report Summary. By order dated March 14, 1997, the Department rejected its "recommendations." Petitioners' Exhibit 4, Order, p. 1. Under an overarching declaration that the report summary was null and void (amounting to a declaration that the entire proceeding was null and void) the order detailed essentially four bases for the rejection: a. the hearing that led to it was not open to the public as required by the Act; the report was not timely submitted; c. the proceeding had not satisfied other requirements of the Act besides public openness and therefore was inadequate; and d. the report incorrectly concluded that the Department and the McGinnises had reached a mutually-acceptable solution. Allegations of the Petition In the body of the petition which initiated this case, Petitioners refer to the Special Master proceeding as one which led to a mediated agreement. They also make reference to the Department’s rejection of the Special Master’s recommendation. See Petition, paragraph 11, p. 3. But although they seek “[s]uch other relief as may be just and appropriate under the circumstances [of the case],” Petition, paragraph 12.c., p. 5, they do not plead in the petition that the rejection was either wrong as matter of law or action for which they specifically seek relief. Instead of challenging the Department’s rejection of a recommendation by the Special Master or the Department’s declaration that his Report Summary was null and void, the petition challenges only two decisions of the department. One is the Notice of Denial determining the Petitioners not entitled to an Environmental Resource Permit. The other is the decision that the project is not exempt from permitting because of effects caused by the mosquito control ditches. The Days of Mosquito Ditching Long before the Legislature enacted the Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act to address unreasonable burdens placed on land owners by governmental regulation, local governments were confronted by issues less abstruse. The Manatee County Commission, for example, was striving to eradicate mosquito infestation along its coastline. One of the tools the county used in its efforts was ditching. Mosquito ditches were installed in uplands and fresh waters throughout Manatee County but they were excavated mainly in the salt marshes along the county’s coastline because "the biggest [mosquito] problem in Florida is coastal mosquitoes." (Tr. 105). Larry Rhodes, presently a resident of Terra Ceia and a long-time resident of the area, was the Director of Manatee County Mosquito Control at the time the mosquito ditches were dug across the McGinnis property. His tenure as director ended in 1994. It spanned a period of more than 33 years, having begun in 1961. Shortly after the commencement of Mr. Rhodes’ tenure, but prior to some of the canal construction by the developers of nearby Terra Ceia Estates, the McGinnis property was cleared almost entirely. Except for a small wet area of black mangroves, the property had been dominated by wax myrtle, guava and Brazilian Pepper, an invasive exotic in the process of pushing out the other dominant species. The clearing by the developers of Terra Ceia Estates, personally observed by Mr. Rhodes, was done at the time of installation of a system of canals. Around the canals a waterward dike was placed in order to keep the tides from Miguel Bay from inundating the property. The clearing shows up in an aerial photograph taken in 1965. Soon after the aerial was taken and developed, the mosquito ditches were excavated. Approved by the State Board of Health in 1966, the ditches were dug through the McGinnis property during that year or the next, when the mosquito ditch system in the area of San Miguel Estates was completed in 1967. As the result of the ditching, with the exception of the spoil banks where Brazilian Pepper took over, mangroves proliferated over the formerly-cleared land. Red mangroves grew "up [in] all the ditches and then black and white mangroves in other areas." (Tr.122). Maps, Aerial Photographs, and Soil Surveys The status of the property as cleared thirty-odd years ago and the subsequent generation of mangroves produced in the intervening years over most of the property, including alongside and in the mosquito ditches, did not mean necessarily that the cleared area had not been wetlands prior to the clearing activity. The Department, therefore, confronted with the Petitioners’ claim of a mosquito control exemption, set out to investigate. The investigation was necessary because entitlement to the exemption turns on whether the nature of the property as wetlands after the clearing was due solely to the excavation of the ditches. The investigation consisted of reviewing aerial photographs, maps and soil surveys and later required resort to expert opinion from outside the department. After an initial review conducted by Ken Huntington and Rose Poyner, another Department staff member, the Department contacted GIS analyst Robert P. Evans of the Southwest Florida Water Management District. As a GIS analyst, Mr. Evans’ primary functions (conducted for more than 25 years for the district) are GIS mapping and interpretation of aerial photographs. Mr. Evans reviewed a series of aerial photographs beginning with 1940 black and white photographs and ending with infrared photos from 1990. A 1940 Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) photograph showed that the site of the McGinnis' proposed project consisted of mangroves that year. A copy of a 1951 NRCS aerial photo showed mangroves on the site as did a copy of a 1957 aerial photo. After review of the photos, Mr. Evans was of the opinion that the site of the proposed project was wetlands and had been so historically, that is, before the ditches approved and excavated in the mid-sixties. Rick Cantrell, the Administrator of the Wetlands Evaluation and Delineation Section of the Department, the "Administrator [of wetlands delineation] for the whole Department in the whole State of Florida," (Tr. 306), and an expert in aerial photo interpretation for purposes of wetlands delineation, also reviewed aerial photos of the site. Mr. Cantrell reached the opinion that the property had been historical wetlands, just as had Mr. Evans. In the meantime, Mr. Evans was hard at work seeking independent confirmation of his opinion. First, he reviewed United States geological surveys of the site. The 1969 revision of the 1964 edition of the Palmetto USGS Quad map of the area, based on an aerial photograph taken in 1951, shows the McGinnis project site was wetlands prior to the ditching. Not content to rely on the authoritative evidence of aerials and official federal geological survey maps, Mr. Evans sought out another source: soil surveys. These, too, confirmed the historic existence of wetlands on the site. Favored with Mr. Evans’ opinion, the Department contacted Juan Vega, a soil scientist, and asked him to use his expertise in both soil survey review and site testing to assist the inquiry. Mr. Vega agreed to look into the issues. He examined two soil surveys: a survey of Manatee County soils issued in December of 1958 by the United States Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with a Florida Agricultural Experiment Station (Respondent's Exhibit 8) and a subsequent Soil Survey of Manatee County conducted by the federal Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with the University of Florida and other state entities (Petitioner's No. 9). The second survey, "done in '79 or '80," (Tr. 286) was a recorrelation of the first. The first survey shows the site to be tidal swamp as is all of Lot 5 with the exception of the less than one acre of uplands on the property's northern border. Vegetation in tidal swamps is usually mangroves in abundance. As one would expect from their denomination, tidal swamps are influenced by salt water tides, contain tidal soils and are generally wet. The 1979-80 survey indicated that the soil found on the site is Wulfert-Kesson Association. This soil is characterized by an accumulation of organic materials and ore black minerals on the surface, a process known as gleying. Gleying is caused by saltwater inundation and tidal effects and therefore, of course, is indicative of the presence of hydric soils in a wet area. The soil surveys led Mr. Vega to conclude that the site of the project was composed of historic wetlands. Field Testing The Department's interest in having Mr. Vega conduct soil testing on the site of the project was not fruitful. Access to the site was denied. In lieu of on-site testing, therefore, Mr. Vega conducted soil analysis nearby, a few hundred feet to the east of the proposed site. In March of 1996, he dug several holes, one near the road and others adjacent to the mangrove area of Lot 5. The soil near the road was Bradenton, "pretty much natural native soil." (Tr. 289). The soil from the other areas, buried under approximately two feet of fill, was Wulfert and Kesson, both hydric soils. There was also present a layer of muck, that is, decomposed organic material. It indicated that the soil had not been converted from uplands to wetlands but rather that the soil had been wetlands historically. The field testing conducted by Mr. Vega on the adjacent site confirmed his opinion that the site of the proposed McGinnis project was wetlands and had been so historically. Historic Wetlands The evidence on the issue of the property's status is summarized as follows: United States Geographical Survey maps indicate the area of Lot 5 in San Miguel Estates to be historic wetlands; federal soil surveys confirmed by nearby soil testing and conducted with the cooperation of the State of Florida indicate the presence of hydric soils on the lot; and aerial photographs show that mangroves existed on the site both before the clearing in the sixties and after the mosquito ditches were excavated in 1966-67. Although the proposed site contains mangroves stunted and suffering from the stress of anoxia today, and there are mangroves in and alongside the mosquito ditches dug as part of a governmental program in the 1960s which grew after the land had been cleared, Lot 5 in San Miguel Estates, with the exception of the approximate .9 of an acre alongside the road at the north end of the property, is comprised of wetlands that existed prior to the mosquito ditching activity. In short, Lot 5 is comprised of historic wetlands. The Permit Application Sovereign submerged lands would be affected by the project, a project permanent in nature. "[D]irect impact would be the excavation of the access channel from the boat basin to the water. So that last [scoop] of dirt, if you will, or piece of land separating the basin from Miguel Bay, that cut would be into the bottom of Miguel Bay, [an Outstanding Florida Water and part of the Terra Ceia Aquatic Preserve]." (Tr. 156). The proposed project would cause adverse impact to the quality of the receiving waters. The filtration function of the mangrove forest would be diminished and the boat basin would cut into the bottom of the bay within the aquatic preserve. Petitioners offered no evidence that water quality standards listed in Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, including those for biological integrity, transparency and turbidity would be met, all concerns listed by the Department in its Notice of Denial as a basis for its action on the permit application. Nor did Petitioners demonstrate that the dredging of the boat access channel in Miguel Bay would not violate ambient water quality standards, another basis for the Department's notice of denial. Any mitigation offered by Petitioners for the impacts of fill associated with construction of the access road and fill pad for the house were not adequate. "That fill will eliminate over half an acre . . . of mangroves and wetlands that are crucial to the eco system (sic) in Miguel Bay." (Tr. 157). In addition to the filtration these lost mangroves would have provided, "mangrove wetlands are vital for habitat, for fish and wildlife services." Id. Petitioners have not provided reasonable assurance that the boat basin would not create water quality violations, including dissolved oxygen concentrations falling below standards. Petitioners have not provided reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts that result from construction activities on the site. Secondary impacts include the establishment of nuisance species in disturbed areas. The property contains sufficient uplands upon which to construct the residential structure or at least enough of it to greatly minimize impact to wetlands. Siting a dock on the bay would obviate the need for the boat basin and channel. An associated boardwalk would eliminate the need to dredge wetlands populated by mangroves. Utilizing a dock and a boardwalk would save almost a quarter of an acre of wetlands from dredging. Mr. McGinnis' status as a double above-the-knee amputee may certainly be expected to create special needs, but other than to mention his disability, Petitioners made no showing that such a modification was not practicable in light of his condition. The proposed project would also present cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. There is significant development already in San Miguel Estates and there are other applications for development pending: for example, a permit application for construction of a boardwalk through wetlands submitted for the adjacent Lot 4. In sum, the project will have adverse water quality impacts, impacts to sovereignty submerged lands, secondary impacts, and cumulative impacts. Ways proposed by the Department of dramatically minimizing, reducing or preventing these impacts have not been accepted by Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying both the mosquito ditch exemption and the Environmental Resource Permit applied for by Petitioners, Mel and Pamela McGinnis, for the project in DEP Permit File No. 412783533. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank E. Matthews, Esquire Kimberly A. Grippa, Esquire Hopping, Green, Sams and Smith, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire T. Andrew Zodrow, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
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.
