06-004157 National Audubon Society, Inc.; Collier County Audubon Society, Inc.; Florida Wildlife Federation; Conservancy Of Southwest Florida; And Franklin Adams vs. I.M. Collier J.V. And South Florida Water Management District Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, July 24, 2007.

Summary: The application to modify a surface water management system in a residential devlopment in Collier County is approved.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, INC.; )

COLLIER COUNTY AUDUBON SOCIETY, )

INC.; FLORIDA WILDLIFE )

FEDERATION; CONSERVANCY OF )

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA; and )

FRANKLIN ADAMS, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. ) C ase No. 06 - 4157

)

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )

DISTRICT and I.M. COLLIER, J.V., )

)

Respondents. )

________________________________ )

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, this matter was heard before the

Division of Administrative Hearings by its assigned

Administrative Law Judge, Donald R. Alexander, on April 24 - 27

and May 1 and 2, 2007, in Naples, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioners: Thomas W. Reese , Esquire

2951 61st Avenue South

St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 - 0649

Gary A. Davis, Esquire

Post Office Box 649

Hot Springs, North Carolina 28743 - 0649

For Respondent: Susan Roeder Martin, Esquire

(District) South Florida Water Management District

3301 Gun Club Road

Mail Stop 1410

West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 - 3007

J. Stephen Menton, Esquire

Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A.

Post Office Box 561

Tallahassee, Florida 32302 - 0561

For Respondent: Andrew J. Baumann, Esquire

(Collier) Lewis, Longman & Walker, P. A.

1700 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard

Suite 1000

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 - 2006

Edwin A. Steinmeyer, Esquire

Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A.

Post Office Box 10788

Tallahassee, Florida 32302 - 2788

ISSUE

The issue is whether to approve an application by

Respondent, I.M. Collier, J.V. (Collier), to modify its

Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 11 - 02031P (2002 Permit)

by changing the surface water management system (SWMS) for a

proposed residential and golf course development in Collier

County (County), Florida, known as Mirasol.

BACKGROUND

In February 2002, Respondent, South Florida Water

Management District (District), i ssued the 2002 Permit

authorizing Collier to construct and operate a SWMS for a

project known as Mirasol. Among other things, that ERP

contained a flow - way and conveyance channel along the northern

and western development boundaries and associated control

structures. In May 2006, Collier filed an application to modify

the 2002 Permit by removing the flow - way and associated control

structures and proposing an alternative SWMS. It also proposed

to revise the wetland preservation, wetlands impacts, and

wetl and mitigation areas contained within the internal preserve

areas of the development site and to modify the proposal for the

flow - way within the external preserve site. On October 12,

2006, the District's Governing Board issued its notice of intent

to gra nt the application.

On October 20, 2006, Petitioners, National Audubon Society,

Inc., Collier County Audubon Society, Inc., Florida Wildlife

Federation, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and Franklin

Adams, filed their Petition for Hearing (Petition) cha llenging

the District's proposed agency action on numerous grounds.

The Petition was forwarded by the District to the Division

of Administrative Hearings on October 26, 2006, with a request

that an administrative law judge be assigned to conduct a

hearin g.

By Notice of Hearing dated November 14, 2006, the matter

was scheduled for final hearing on February 13 - 16 and

February 26 - March 2, 2007, in Fort Myers, Florida. At the

request of the parties, venue was changed to Collier County and

the hearing wa s continued to April 24 - 27, May 1 - 4, and May 8 - 11,

2007, in Naples, Florida. However, the hearing was completed on

May 2, 2007.

By Order dated December 26, 2006, the undersigned granted

in part Collier's Motion to Strike and/or Motion to Dismiss

(supporte d in part by the District), which struck the following

paragraphs in the Petition: 36(C) and (D), which sought to

invalidate a statute and rule on constitutional grounds; those

portions of paragraphs 1, 3, 20, 23, 26 - 30, 32, 35A.5, 36A and

E, and 37, whic h were based on the application of federal law;

paragraphs 35A(7) and 36K, which sought to use this proceeding

as a means of revoking the 2002 Permit; and those portions of

paragraphs 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, and 8B, in which reference to

Section 403.412(7), Flori da Statutes (2006) 1 , was made. By Order

dated April 10, 2007, Petitioners were authorized to file an

Amended Petition asserting an "as applied" challenge to the

constitionality of the public interest balancing test in

Section 373.414(1)(a), Florida Statu tes, and a related standard

(Section 4.2.3) found in the Basis of Review for Environmental

Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District

(BOR).

By Order dated April 19, 2007, Collier's Motion for a View

was denied. In addition, other pro cedural rulings are found in

various preliminary Orders entered prior to the hearing.

At the final hearing, Petitioners presented the testimony

of Jason Lauritsen, a science coordinator with the National

Audubon Society and accepted as an expert; Robert B . Boler,

project manager/ecologist with the United States National Park

Service and accepted as an expert; Dr. Thomas Van Lent, a senior

scientist with the Everglades Foundation and accepted as an

expert; and Dr. Thomas L. Crisman, a professor of environme nt at

the University of South Florida and accepted as an expert.

Also, they offered Petitioners' Exhibits 1 - 4, 7, 10 - 18, 30 - 32,

34, 37 - 41, 44, 46, 47, 55, 60, 62, 63, 69, and 72, and 73. All

were received except Exhibits 30, 31, 34, 37 - 41, 44, 60, 62, an d

63, which were proffered by Petitioners. In addition, Exhibits

11 - 18 were conditionally received subject to a relevancy

objection by Respondents. To the extent they are relevant, they

have been considered. Finally, Petitioners' Exhibits 6A - O and

Q - U ( a power point presentation by witness Lauritsen) were

marked for identification purposes but were never formally moved

in evidence. However, to the extent his testimony concerning

those documents is relevant, that testimony has been considered.

The Distr ict presented the testimony of Anthony M. Waterhouse,

Director of the District's Surface Water Management Division and

accepted as an expert, and Anita R. Bain, Director of the

District's Natural Resource Management Division and accepted as

an expert. Als o, it offered District Exhibits 6 and 7, which

were received in evidence. Collier presented the testimony of

Frederick T. Barber, III, a professional engineer and accepted

as an expert; Richard S. Tomasello, a professional engineer and

accepted as an expe rt; Timothy C. Hall, an environmental

consultant and accepted as an expert; Dr. Harvey H. Harper, III,

a professional engineer and accepted as an expert; and Dr. Mark

A. Ross, a professor with the University of South Florida and

accepted as an expert. Als o, it offered Collier's Exhibits 1 - 9,

12, 19, 22 - 27, and 38; all were received in evidence except

Exhibit 38, upon which a ruling was reserved. That exhibit is

received in evidence. In addition, the District and Collier

offered Respondents' Joint Exhibit s 1 - 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and

13, which were received in evidence. Finally, at the request of

the District, the undersigned took official recognition of

portions of Parts I and IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes;

Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapters 40E - 1 and 40E - 4; and

the BOR.

The Transcript of the hearing (six volumes) was filed on

May 10, 2007. By agreement of the parties, Proposed Findings of

Fact and Conclusions of Law were filed by Petitioners, the

District, and Collier on June 11, 2007, and they have been

considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the

following findings of fact are made:

I. The Parties

1. National Audubon Society, Inc. is a not - for - profit

corpora tion (incorporated outside the State of Florida) while

Collier County Audubon Society, Inc., Florida Wildlife

Federation, and Conservancy of Southwest Florida are Florida

not - for - profit corporations. All are environmental

organizations. Franklin Adams is a resident of the County and a

member of each of the above organizations. Respondents have not

contested Petitioners' standing based upon the stipulated facts

set forth in the parties' Pre - Hearing Stipulation.

2. The District is a water management d istrict with the

power and duty to exercise regulatory jurisdiction over the

administration and enforcement of ERP criteria pursuant to

Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code

Title 40E.

3. Collier is the holder of the 2002 Permit authorizing

the construction of a SWMS to serve the Mirasol project, a large

development located in the County. The parties have stipulated

that Collier has the administrative, legal, and financial

capabilities to undertake the proposed activity. Fla. A dmin.

Code R. 40E - 4.301(1)(j).

II. The Project Site

4. The Mirasol project consists of approximately 1,713.45

acres located on the north side of Immokalee Road and the

Cocohatchee Canal (Canal) in the northern half of the County,

approximately three mi les east of the intersection with

Interstate 75. The property spans three sections of land, the

northern third of the property encompassing Section 10, the

middle third encompassing Section 15, and the southern third

encompassing most of Section 22. The site also includes a

peninsula of land extending east of Section 10, encompassing the

northernmost quarter of Section 11.

5. The site is bounded on the south by the Canal and

Immokalee Road and on the east by an existing residential

development known as Heritage Bay, which was previously a rock -

mining quarry. To the west of the site, running north to south,

are two other proposed residential developments known as

Parklands Collier and Terafina/Saturnia Falls and an existing

residential and golf course c ommunity known as Olde Cypress.

There are other existing and proposed residential developments

and farm fields to the north of the site.

6. The site is located southwest of the Corkscrew Swamp

Sanctuary (Corkscrew Swamp), which is owned by the National

A udubon Society, Inc., and appears to stretch from Immokalee (in

the northeastern part of the County) south and southwestward

through parts of the County. Corkscrew Swamp sits roughly at

the center of a 315 - mile watershed, much of which is comprised

of sho rt hydroperiod wetlands which dry down completely during

the late winter and spring and become inundated again in the

late summer and fall during the wet season. This water

gradually sheet flows down a very slight downhill gradient

toward the south and we st. A portion of the sheet flow travels

southwest in the vicinity of the site.

7. The region has experienced occasional floods, the most

severe of which occurred in 1995. At the direction of the

District, the cause of the flooding was investigated in the

South Lee County Watershed Study (Study), which concluded that

the watershed discharges through a variety of outfalls, but that

historic connections to downstream conveyances like the Canal

were severed by the construction. While downstream conveyance s

exist, the Study concluded that connections between upstream

flows and downstream conveyances should be enhanced or restored.

8. In the late 1990s, the Canal was improved to increase

its conveyance capacity. A berm was constructed by the Big

Cypress Ba sin Board (Basin Board), a legislatively - created

entity which manages water resources in the County, on the

northern bank in the vicinity of, and across from, the Mirasol

site. This berm prevented historic wet season sheet flow from

reaching the Canal thr ough the project site, except for a few

culverts located along that water body. The Basin Board also

built a 1,000 - foot - long hardened concrete weir on the north side

of the Canal a few thousand yards west of the project site.

This weir provides the prima ry outlet for sheet flow in and

around the Mirasol site.

9. Currently, upstream drainage flows in a southwesterly

direction across Section 10. As the water moves south to the

Canal, the flow becomes constricted down to a 580 - foot wide gap

between the Old e Cypress residential development and commercial

developments along Immokalee Road to the east. This constricted

area further narrows to a 270 - foot wide opening before the sheet

flow reaches the 1,000 - foot weir and discharges into the Canal.

10. During a 3 - day, 25 - year storm event, a combined peak

flow of 553 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water is discharged

into the Canal through the 1,000 - foot weir, but the Mirasol

property only conveys a small portion of this water (around

20 cfs) through culverts in the Canal berm. Most of the water

flows to the west of Mirasol where it passes through the narrow

gap and over the 1,000 - foot weir.

11. Around 1,431 acres of the 1,714 - acre site are

jurisdictional wetlands. However, these wetlands are in poor

conditi on due to existing impediments to sheet flow,

artificially high water levels during the wet season, and heavy

infestation of exotic species, principally melaleuca.

III. Permit History

12. In February 2002, the District issued the 2002 Permit

approving th e construction of a SWMS to serve two 18 - hole golf

courses, a single - family residential community, a golf course

clubhouse and parking area, golf course maintenance facilities,

sales facility, and parking area. The issuance of the 2002

Permit was not chal lenged.

13. The SWMS included a 36.5 - acre flow - way (Flow - Way) that

encircled the northern boundary of the development in Section 15

and extended off - site and across adjacent properties to the

west. (If constructed, the Flow - Way would be a 200 - foot wide,

4 - foot deep, 89 - acre channel, more than half of which would have

been located on the Saturnia Falls/Terafina and Olde Cypress

properties.) Besides providing a conveyance function for the

Mirasol site, the Flow - Way also enhanced flood protection for

other properties by accelerating conveyance of floodwaters to

the Canal and reducing peak flood stages by 0.4 feet during a

three - day, 25 - year storm event. The District included Special

Condition 26 in the 2002 Permit, which required construction of

the Flow - Wa y before the remainder of the project could be

constructed.

14. The 2002 Permit authorized Collier to directly impact

(fill or excavate) 568.66 acres of wetlands within the footprint

of the development. Additionally, 39.5 acres of wetlands, which

were isolated remnant strips along the golf courses within the

development, were considered secondarily impacted and assessed a

thirty - three percent reduction in functional value.

15. Mitigation for the project consisted of preservation

and enhancement of we tlands and uplands on site. Enhancement of

the preserve areas was primarily credited to the eradication of

malaleuca and other exotic species and replanting with

appropriate native vegetation. Permit conditions required

management of the preserve areas t o prevent a recurrence of

exotic species.

16. The preserve areas included an 846.95 - acre external

preserve area to the north and northeast of the area to be

developed. It was anticipated that this northern preserve area

would ultimately be donated to a n existing mitigation area known

as the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed, along with an

interest - bearing fund to ensure perpetual management.

17. In December 2005, the United States Army Corps of

Engineers (Corps) denied Collier's federal wetlands p ermit

application for the project and the Flow - Way.

18. Because of this denial, in May 2006 Collier submitted

an ERP application with the District seeking to modify the 2002

Permit by revising the SWMS and removing the Flow - Way.

19. On October 12, 20 06, the District Governing Board

approved a modification to the 2002 Permit, which authorized an

alternate SWMS to serve the golf course and residential

development (2006 Permit). Petitioners' challenge to the

proposed modification followed.

IV. The 2006 Modification

20. Because of the Corps' denial of its application,

Collier was required to remove the Flow - Way and redesign the

project's SWMS. The most substantial change in the project was

the removal of the Flow - Way and associated control structures

a nd its replacement with a series of interconnected lakes

running from north to south through the property allowing for

the pass - through of surface waters from the area north of the

development site into the Canal.

21. The modification does not alter the boundaries and

location of the development. However, the revised SWMS

includes: five controlled basins with a total area of

718.43 acres, each of which provides treatment of stormwater

prior to discharging into the pass - through system; 45.16 acres

o f interconnected lakes serving as a pass - through for surface

waters from the north; 2.12 acres of perimeter berm backslope/

buffers/spreader swales; and 7.27 acres along the Canal for the

existing 100 - foot wide canal easement and proposed canal

contouring.

22. These changes also required elimination of the

39.5 acres of remnant wetlands inside the development that had

previously been assessed as secondarily impacted. Also, there

were 0.68 acres of additional impacts resulting from slight

changes in th e internal site design due to the SWMS. To

partially offset these impacts, the internal wetland preserves

were enlarged by 13.32 acres. The remaining impacts were

mitigated with mitigation credits from the Panther Island

Mitigation Bank (PIMB). (The PIM B holds a mitigation bank

permit issued by the District for a wetland restoration project

in Southwest Florida.)

23. The main preserve was left unchanged, except that

36.5 acres previously dedicated to construction of the Flow - Way

will be added to the ma in preserve and similarly enhanced and

preserved.

24. In summary, as modified under the 2006 Permit, the

total onsite mitigation consists of the preservation and

enhancement of 830.89 acres of wetlands, preservation of 109.58

acres of uplands, and the p urchase of a total of 5.68 credits

from the PIMB. At hearing, Collier also agreed to purchase from

the PIMB an additional 5.68 credits within the Basin for a total

of 11.36 credits.

V. The ERP Permitting Criteria

25. To obtain an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the

conditions in Florida Administrative Code Rules 40E - 4.301 and

40E - 4.302. The first rule focuses primarily on water quantity,

environmental impacts, and water quality, while the second rule

generally requires that a public interest balancing te st be

made, that cumulative impacts, if any, be considered, and that

the District consider past violations, if any, by the applicant

of District or Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)

rules. (The parties have cited no prior violations by the

appl icant that should be considered.) Besides these two rules,

a number of BOR provisions which implement the rule criteria

must also be taken into account.

26. If an applicant proposes to modify an existing ERP, as

it does here, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E - 4.331(2)(a)

comes into play and requires that the District review the

application to modify the ERP "using the same criteria as new

applications for those portions of the project proposed for, or

affected by, the modifi cation." Under this rule, those portions

of the project altered or affected by the modification are

reviewed under the current ERP criteria, but otherwise the 2002

Permit is not the subject of review in this case. Therefore,

the District's review include s only that portion of the existing

permit that is proposed to be modified or affected by the

modification. In this case, the 2006 design is very similar to

the 2002 design, and the project's footprint, control

elevations, roadway network, southern outfal l, and main preserve

are unchanged. However, as pointed out below, since most of the

engineering - related components of the SWMS were affected by the

Flow - Way's removal, the District reassessed the hydrologic

components of the internal water management sys tem and the pass -

through lake system for levels of flood protection and water

quality treatment.

27. Because most of the engineering - related components of

the SWMS for the project were modified as a result of the

removal of the Flow - Way, the District st aff reassessed the

project's hydrologic calculations associated with levels of

flood protection and reassessed the project's water quality

treatment volumes applying the currently existing ERP criteria.

As to wetland impacts and mitigation, review of the wetland

impacts for the 2006 Permit was limited to an analysis of

additional wetlands impacts associated with the modification.

This was primarily the elimination of the previously permitted,

secondarily impacted wetlands. Thus, only the additional

wetla nds impacts due to the revised SWMS are considered under

the currently existing ERP criteria.

28. The 2006 Permit made only slight changes to the

project's wetland impacts and mitigation components authorized

under the 2002 Permit. The project's footpr int was not changed

and the main mitigation area (the Northern Preserve) was

unaffected by the changes except that 36.50 acres were actually

added to that preserve as a result of the removal of the Flow -

Way. Collier did not receive any credit in its mitig ation

analysis for the additional acreage that will become part of the

preserve due to the removal of the Flow - Way.

A. Surface Water Management Criteria

29. As noted above, the ERP criteria in Florida

Administrative Code Rule 40E - 4.301 focus primarily on three

areas of concern: water quantity, environmental impacts, and

water quality. Related BOR provisions must also be considered.

These areas of concern are discussed below.

a. Water Quantity

30. Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E - 4.301(1)(a)

requ ires that an applicant provide reasonable assurance that the

construction of a SWMS "[w]ill not cause adverse water quantity

impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands." BOR Section

6.2 implements that provision and requires that a project be

designed so that it is consistent with the downstream carrying

capacity of the receiving waters. In other words, it must not

exceed the capacity of downstream receiving waters, which in

this case is the Canal. In making this determination,

Section 6.3 of the BOR requires that the 25 - year, 3 - day design

storm event be used.

31. Collier complied with this requirement through an

extensive hydrologic study conducted by its expert, Richard S.

Tomasello, a former District employee. Applying a hydrologic

model sim ulation known as S2DMM, the witness determined the

appropriate amount of upstream sheet flow that would need to be

routed through the project to avoid adverse water quantity and

flooding impacts and calculated the correct dimensions of the

intake weir to a dmit that flow into the project's pass - through

system. The S2DMM model is a combination of other accepted

models including the Sheet 2d, Massmod, and MBR models, which

were developed by Mr. Tomasello, and they have been evaluated

and used by the District on numerous occasions. In addition,

the S2DMM model has been used for other flood studies in Collier

and Lee Counties, and it will be used on a restoration project

in Martin County.

32. Based upon Mr. Tomasello's analysis, Collier

incorporated a 100 - foot - long intake weir with a crest elevation

of 14.95 NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum) along the

northern boundary of the project to maintain existing upstream

water elevations. Collier also complied with BOR Section 6.3,

which requires the use of a 25 - year, 3 - day storm event to be

used when computing the discharge rate for the project.

33. The modified intake weir on the northern boundary

includes two 3.5 - foot wide rectangular notches set at an

elevation of 14.00 NGVD, which will provide a "base flo w" of up

to 20 cfs into the pass - through lakes to mimic the current flow

through the property. The determination of this base flow was

made through an analysis of the existing culverts at the southern

end of the property.

34. While not required by the ERP criteria, Collier also

performed a long - term analysis (using a four - year period of

record) of the SWMS's effect upon water levels. This analysis

demonstrated that the modified system would leave water levels in

the wetland areas upstream of the projec t unchanged during normal

rainfall and low - flow periods. This analysis provides additional

assurances that the modifications to the SWMS will not affect the

Northern Preserve.

35. While Petitioners questioned the accuracy and

reliability of the hydrolog ic study, and its specific application

to this project, the criticisms are considered to be vague and

unsubstantiated. As noted above, the model has been previously

accepted for use in South Florida, and Petitioners' expert

conceded he did not have enough information to determine the

model's accuracy. The more persuasive evidence established that

the hydrologic study submitted by Collier included the relevant

available data and was prepared by competent professionals

knowledgeable in the field. The claim of Petitioners' experts

that they lacked sufficient information to form an opinion on the

accuracy of the modeling is not a sufficient basis to overcome

the evidence submitted by Collier to meet this criterion.

36. The project's discharge rate in 2006 w ill not exceed

what was permitted in the 2002 Permit. During the 25 - year, 3 - day

storm event, the existing discharge from the project site and

the natural area west of the project site into the Canal is

553 cfs. Based on modeling of the modified SWMS, the total

discharge from the pass - through system will be 529 cfs, or

24 cfs less than the project's existing pre - development

discharge . The discharges resulting from the project as modified

in 2006 wil l not exceed the capacity of the Canal as required by

Section 6.3 of the BOR. Accordingly, Collier has provided

reasonable assurance that the discharge rate allowed for its

project would not be exceeded, as required in Section 6.2 of the

BOR.

37. Secti on 6.8 of the BOR requires that a project allow

the passage of drainage from offsite areas to downstream areas,

which is necessary to demonstrate that off - site receiving water

bodies are not being adversely affected. Collier complied with

this provision b y conducting the hydrologic analysis using the

25 - year, 3 - day design storm event, which demonstrated that the

discharge rate would be directed to the southern discharge point

allowing for the passage of drainage from offsite areas to the

downstream areas. The evidence also shows that the current

predominant sheetflow from areas outside the project passes

through a narrowly constricted area west of the project and

discharges into the Canal over an existing concrete weir. See

Finding of Fact 9, supra . Only a small portion of the upstream

waters currently discharge through the Mirasol site.

Petitioners' allegation that the construction of the project

will further constrict the sheetflow area is rejected, as the

constriction of sheetflow will continue to exi st whether the

project is built or not. The evidence also shows that the

project will not further constrict the flow because it will

allow for the pass - through of water from outside the project

area.

38. Under the 2002 Permit, the Flow - Way was designed t o

aid in the diversion of upstream flows around the project.

Under the 2006 modifications, the pass - through lake system will

convey up to forty percent of the upstream flow through the

development which complies with the provisions of Section 6.8 of

the B OR. As indicated above, during periods of lower water

levels, the notches in the weir along the northern boundary will

allow for the flow to pass onto the project site consistent with

existing conditions. During major storm events, water will pass

over t he weir into the pass - through lake system to be conveyed

to the Canal. Therefore, Collier has provided reasonable

assurance that the criteria in Section 6.8 have been met.

39. Section 6.10 of the BOR requires that the project be

designed to conserve wa ter and site environmental values and not

lower the water table or groundwater or over - drain wetlands.

Section 6.11 of the BOR provides that the control and detention

elevations for the project must be established at elevations to

accomplish the objective s of Section 6.10. The latter section

is adhered to when the control elevations proposed for a project

are established consistent with the onsite wetland conditions.

In this case, the control elevations for the wetlands and

surface water management lakes are essentially the same as the

design in the 2002 Permit. Collier has set the control

elevations above the average wet season water table (WSWT) for

the area, thereby ensuring that the SWMS will not over - drain and

will conserve fresh water.

40. Section 6.11 of the BOR addresses Detention and

Control Elevations which are intended to assist in complying

with the provisions of Section 6.10. The SWMS design control

elevation maintains the detention component and the control

(wetland protection) elevations in the previously approved SWMS.

41. The control elevations were set by the design

engineers in consultation with Collier's wetland ecologist

taking into account the ground elevations and biological

indicators. The control elevation for the pass - throug h system

and internal drainage basins work in conjunction with the

control elevation along the northern boundary of the project and

the control elevation for the discharge point along the southern

boundary to ensure that the project does not overdrain the

wetlands and to preserve the project site's environmental

values. By setting the control elevation above the WSWT, the

design ensures that the wetlands will not be drawn down below

the average WSWT and the SWMS will not over - drain them.

42. Section 6.1 0 also requires that a project not lower

water tables so that the existing rights of others would be

adversely affected. Again, based on the control elevations, the

water table is not expected to be lowered so there should be no

effect on the existing rig hts of others.

43. Collier must further demonstrate that the site's

groundwater recharge characteristics will be preserved through

the design of the SWMS. Collier complied with this requirement

by setting the control elevations above the average WSWT,

allowing standing water in the wetland preserves to recharge the

groundwater. The ability of the SWMS to accept flows from the

Northern Preserve conserves freshwater by preventing that water

from being discharged downstream.

44. The SWMS leaves water e levations in the Northern

Preserve unchanged. Consequently, water will remain in the

wetlands for the same duration and elevations as in the existing

conditions, thereby preserving groundwater recharge

characteristics.

45. Section 6.12 of the BOR proh ibits lake designs that

create an adverse gradient between the control elevations of the

lakes and the adjacent wetlands. To satisfy this requirement,

Collier set all control elevations at 13.4 - 13.5 NGVD while

controlling the internal wetland preserves at a slightly higher

elevation. Consequently, there is no adverse gradient and no

potential for an adverse effect upon the internal preserves from

adjacent lakes.

46. Petitioners argued that the pass - through system would

quickly lower water levels in t he internal wetland preserves.

However, the internal wetlands are still protected from drawdown

because there are control structures set at or above the wet

season elevation between the pass - through lakes and internal

wetlands. They also argued that the internal wetlands would be

overdrained during the dry season by the deep lakes. However,

no witness presented any real analysis to back up this

contention. Indeed, the pass - through lakes are only twelve feet

deep, and the wetlands are separated from all the lakes by

protective berms to avoid any drawdown.

47. In summary, Collier has provided reasonable assurances

that the proposed modification in the 2006 Permit will not cause

adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters or adjacent

lands and will not exceed the capacity of the downstream

receiving waters (the Canal).

b. Flooding

48. Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E - 4.301(1)(b)

requires Collier to demonstrate that the project "[w]ill not

cause adverse flooding to on - site or off - site property." BOR

Section 6.4 sets forth criteria and standards for implementing

this requirement and provides that building floors be designed

to be protected from a 100 - year, 3 - day storm event. BOR

Section 6.5 provides criteria and standards for flood protection

for the project's roads and parking lots. Collier complied with

these provisions by providing construction plans demonstrating

that the building floors and roa ds will be built higher than the

100 - year, 3 - day storm event.

49. BOR Section 6.6 provides that a project may not result

in any net encroachment into the 100 - year floodplain. Collier

was also required to comply with the historic basin provision in

Sectio n 6.7 of the BOR, which requires the project to replace or

otherwise mitigate the loss of historic basin storage provided

by the site. The level of encroachment into the 100 - year flood

plain and loss of historic basin storage attributed to the

project are essentially unchanged from the 2002 design. The

only difference between the 2002 Permit and the 2006 Permit is

how the conveyance of flood water is provided. In 2002, the

Flow - Way served this function, while the pass - through system

provides it in the 20 06 Permit.

50. Collier's flood simulations demonstrated that the

project will not alter flood stages during the 25 - year and 100 -

year design storms, while the testimony of witnesses Tomasello

and Waterhouse established that the project will not have

adve rse flooding impacts on adjacent properties, either alone or

in conjunction with neighboring developments.

c. Storage and Conveyance

51. Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E - 4.301(1)(c)

requires that an applicant demonstrate that the proposed

developme nt "[w]ill not cause adverse impacts to existing

surface water storage and conveyance capabilities." This

criterion is closely related to paragraph (1)(b) of the same

rule, which prohibits adverse flooding to onsite or offsite

property.

52. Section 6.6 o f the BOR implements this provision and

specifies the parameters for applying this criterion and

prohibits a net encroachment between the WSWT and the 100 - year

event which will adversely affect the existing rights of others.

Collier addressed this criteri on through the hydrologic analysis

submitted. As previously found, that model is the appropriate

model to determine flood stages and to calculate the floodplain.

d. Engineering Design Principles

53. Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E - 4.301(1)(i)

requi res an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the

SWMS "[w]ill be capable, based on generally accepted engineering

and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning

as proposed." Section 7.0 of the BOR contains the specific

standar ds and criteria to implement this rule. The evidence

demonstrates that the SWMS is based on generally accepted

engineering and scientific principles and is capable of

performing and functioning as proposed.

54. Section 8.0 of the BOR includes various a ssumptions

and information regarding the design of the SWMS. By

incorporating these assumptions into the design, Collier

complied with Section 8.0.

e. Water Quality Impacts

55. Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E - 4.301(1)(e)

requires that the proposed modification "[w]ill not adversely

affect the quality of the receiving waters such that the water

quality standards set forth in Chapters 62 - 4, 62 - 302, 62 - 520,

62 - 522 and 62 - 550, F.A.C., including any antidegradation

provisions of paragraphs 62 - 4.242(1)(a ) and (b), subsections 62 -

4.242(2) and (3), and Rule 62 - 302.300, F.A.C., and any special

standards for Outstanding Florida Waters and Outstanding

National Resource Waters set forth in subsections 62 - 4.242(2)

and (3), F.A.C., will be violated." Stated more plainly, the

proposed modifications must not adversely affect the quality of

the Canal's waters such that State water quality standards will

be violated.

56. Section 5.2 of the BOR describes the District's

standard water quality criteria. This provisio n, which requires

a minimum of one - inch detention of stormwater, is referred to as

a "presumptive criteria" because it is presumed that if an

applicant provides the required one inch of detention, it meets

Class III water quality standards, thereby satisfy ing the rule.

As it did under the 2002 Permit, Collier satisfies the

presumptive criteria with the 2006 design by providing the one -

inch wet detention in its lake system. In fact, the system is

designed to provide one and a half inches of treatment in th e

lake system thereby providing additional treatment.

57. The receiving body of water for the project is the

Canal. When the 2002 Permit was issued, the Canal was

classified as a Class III water body. It is now classified by

DEP as impaired for iron a nd dissolved oxygen. Because of this

new classification, Collier must now comply with Section 4.2.4.5

of the BOR, which reads as follows:

If the site of the proposed activity

currently does not meet water quality

standards, the applicant must demonstrate

compliance with the water quality standards

by meeting the provisions in 4.2.4.1,

4.2.4.2, and 4.2.4.3, as applicable, and for

the parameters which do not meet water

quality standards, the applicant must

demonstrate that the proposed activity will

not cont ribute to the existing violation.

If the proposed activity will contribute to

the existing violation, mitigation may be

proposed as described in subsection 4.3.1.4.

58. Collier demonstrated that neither short - term (during

construction) nor long - term (du ring operation) water quality

impacts will occur. It complied with the short - term

requirements by submitting a Construction Pollution Prevention

Plan detailing how water quality will be protected during the

construction process. As to long - term impacts, the Terrie Bates

Water Quality Memorandum (Bates Memo) prepared by District staff

on June 11, 2004, provides guidance on the implementation of

Section 4.2.4.5 for projects which discharge into an impaired

water body. The document sets forth a number of de sign and

operational criteria for the types of additional measures that

can be incorporated into a project design to provide the

necessary reasonable assurance.

59. The Bates Memo suggests that an additional fifty

percent of treatment be incorporated into a SWMS. Collier

complied with this suggestion by designing the treatment lakes

to provide an additional one - half inch of treatment for the

additional fifty percent treatment.

60. In addition to the one and one - half inch treatment,

Collier is implement ing six of the seven items the Bates Memo

lists as potential options to consider. The long - term water

quality requirement is addressed by Collier, in part, through an

Urban Stormwater Management Plan, which details various source

controls or best manageme nt practices to be implemented once the

project is built and operating. Best management practices

assist in ensuring that pollutants will not enter into the lake

system.

61. Collier is also implementing a stormwater pollution

prevention plan and will u tilize the lake system for additional

treatment downstream.

62. Collier has further agreed to planting the littoral

zones as part of its design of the treatment lakes to provide

additional pollutant removal. The design calls for an amount of

littoral zo nes equal to twenty percent of the surface area of

the treatment lakes. Collier has agreed to make a Water Quality

Monitoring Plan a permit condition, even though such a condition

was not included in the staff report. See Collier Exhibit 25.

63. The B ates Memo includes as an option for meeting the

long - term requirement a site - specific water quality evaluation

of pre vs. post - development pollutant loadings. Collier has

presented several such analyses, all of which indicate the post -

development pollutan t discharges from the site will be less than

the pre - development. Mr. Barber prepared a pre vs. post -

analysis using a 2003 methodology developed by Dr. Harper. The

2003 version of the Harper methodology is currently accepted by

the Corps. (Although Peti tioners' witness, a former Corps

employee, suggested that the Corps' acceptance of the study was

a "political" rather than a scientific decision, there is

insufficient evidence to support this contention.) Besides his

first analysis, at the direction of t he District staff,

Mr. Barber prepared a second analysis using the 2003 methodology

with certain conservative assumptions that limited the pollutant

residents time to fifty days and utilized lower starting

concentrations for phosphorous and nitrogen than were recorded

in the nearby monitoring stations. Based upon those reports,

the District's staff concluded that Collier had provided

reasonable assurances that the project met the criteria in BOR

Sections 5.2 and 4.2.4.5.

64. At the hearing, Mr. Barber presented a third analysis

utilizing an updated methodology developed by Dr. Harper in

February 2006. The 2006 methodology was developed after

Dr. Harper conducted a study of water management district

criteria throughout the state for DEP. Al l three of the

analyses prepared by Mr. Barber concluded that the project would

discharge less nitrogen and phosphorous into the receiving body

in the post - development condition than is currently being

discharged in the pre - development condition.

65. I n addition to the three water quality submittals from

Mr. Barber, Collier provided an additional water quality

analysis specific to the project prepared by Dr. Harper. See

Collier Exhibit 26, which is commonly referred to as the Harper

Report. The analys is evaluated the project's pre vs. post -

development water quality loads and also concluded the project

would not contribute to the impairment of the Canal. In

preparing his analysis, Dr. Harper relied solely on the lakes

for estimating removal of pollutan ts without accounting for any

of the additional treatment expected to occur from the source

control best management practices contained in the Urban

Stormwater Management Plan, which means his report errs on the

conservative side.

66. The Harper Report concluded that iron discharges from

the SWMS would be extremely low and substantially less than the

Class III standard of 1 mg/L. Petitioners presented no specific

evidence to counter these conclusions. Petitioners questioned

the Harper Report's use of w etlands as part of the loading

calculations and attacked his underlying methodology. However,

the evidence is clear that wetlands contribute to the water

quality constituents in the pre - development condition. This

finding is based on data from monitoring stations located in the

middle of Corkscrew Swamp, a statewide study on stormwater

treatment and wetlands, and the United States Environmental

Protection Agency's (EPA) assignment of nutrient loading rates

to wetlands in its regional pollutant loading mod el. Ignoring

the actual water quality in pre - development conditions would not

be a true pre vs. post - development analysis. Finally,

Petitioners' contention that the Harper methodology should not

be considered as admissible evidence because it constitutes

"novel" (and therefore unreliable) scientific evidence under the

rationale of Frye v. United States , 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir.

1923), has been rejected. To begin with, the Frye test has not

been accepted in Florida administrative proceedings. Moreover,

the methodology is the basis for a new statewide rulemaking

effort, has been accepted by the EPA, the Corps, and by the

Division of Administrative Hearings in at least two proceedings,

and has been subjected to two peer reviews.

67. Petitioners also alleged that Collier failed to show

that it complied with Florida Administrative Code Rule 62 -

40.432(2)(a)1., a rule administered by DEP which requires that a

new SWMS "[a]chieve at least 80 percent reduction of the average

annual load of pollutants that w ould cause or contribute to

violations of state water quality standards." However, this is

a broad overstatement of DEP's rule. Also, there is no eighty

percent removal efficiency requirement adopted or incorporated

into any District rule or BOR criteria . See , e.g. , Conservancy

of Southwest Florida, Inc. v. G.L. Homes of Naples Associates

II, LTD et al. , DOAH Case No. 06 - 4922 (DOAH May 15, 2007, SFWMD

July 11, 2007). Instead, the District's "presumptive criteria"

is that one inch of volumetric treatment required in Section 5.2

of the BOR meets the Class III standards. If, as in this case,

additional assurances are required, those assurances are met

through implementation of the BOR Section 4.2.4.5.

68. Finally, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62 - 40.11 0(2)

provides that Rule Chapter 62 - 40 is "intended to provide water

resource implementation goals, objectives, and guidance for the

development and review of programs, rules, and plans relating to

water resources." Also, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6 2 -

40.110(4) states that "[t]his chapter, in and of itself, shall

not constitute standards or criteria for decisions on individual

permits. This chapter also does not constitute legislative

authority to the Districts for the adoption of rules if such

rules are not otherwise authorized by statute." Even if an

eighty percent reduction standard applied, Collier has

demonstrated that the project very likely will remove eighty

percent or more of pollutants when additional low - impact

development techniques, poll utant source reduction practices,

and additional uncredited wet and dry detention capacity are

considered.

69. Based upon the evidence presented, Section 4.2.8 of

the BOR regarding cumulative impacts for water quality is not

applicable in this case. Coll ier's submittals provide

reasonable assurances that the project will not be contributing

to the water quality impairment of the Canal or contribute to

any other water quality violation. Indeed, the information

submitted indicates there will be an incremen tal improvement in

the post - development condition as compared to existing. Since

no contribution or impacts to water quality are expected, a

cumulative impact analysis is not necessary to assess the extent

of the impacts.

70. The combination of all the se water quality measures,

when taken together, demonstrates that the 2006 Permit will not

adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that state

water quality standards will be violated. Therefore, reasonable

assurance has been given that Flori da Administrative Code Rule

40E - 4.301(1)(e) will be satisfied.

f. Wetland Impacts

71. Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E - 4.301(1)(d)

requires Collier to provide reasonable assurance that the

modification of the SWMS "[w]ill not adversely impact the value

of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by

wetlands and other surface waters." In determining whether this

criterion has been satisfied, it is also necessary to determine

whether any 2002 permitted impacts should be subject to a second

review in this case.

72. Mitigation is a method by which an applicant can

propose to impact certain wetlands on the project site in

exchange for providing compensation in the form of preserving,

enhancing, restoring, or creating wetlands or upl ands to offset

those impacts. As noted earlier, there has been no change to

the wetland impacts or mitigation proposal as it relates to the

Northern Preserve. See Findings of Fact 27 and 28, supra . As a

result of the modified SWMS, there has been some a dditional

impact to wetlands within the development area of the project.

An additional 40.18 acres will be impacted under the 2006 Permit

mostly due to the modified SWMS system. However, 39.5 acres of

those wetlands were already considered secondarily im pacted

under the 2002 Permit. In addition, the preserve areas were

expanded by 13.32 acres in the 2006 design. Thus, a portion of

the impacts to those wetlands was already factored into the

mitigation plan that was developed and approved for the 2002

Per mit. As a result, there are 26 acres for which mitigation is

necessary under the 2006 Permit.

73. Section 4.3 of the BOR specifies criteria for

mitigation proposed as part of an ERP application. Collier has

proposed an acceptable mitigation plan for t he new wetland

impacts that will result from the project due to the proposed

modifications incorporated in the 2006 Permit.

74. Except for the mitigation for the additional wetland

impacts, the mitigation plan for the 2006 Permit remains

essentially unc hanged from the 2002 Permit, including the

Grading and Planting Plan, Monitoring Plan, and Mitigation,

Monitoring, and Maintenance Plan. The onsite mitigation

proposal includes preservation and restoration of wetlands

through the removal of melaleuca and other exotic plants and

replanting in areas of dense exotic species coverage.

75. Significantly, Collier has not proposed any

modifications that would change the effectiveness of the

Northern Preserve in providing mitigation for the wetland

impacts prop osed and approved in the 2002 Permit. While

Petitioners claim that the wetlands in the Northern Preserve may

be subject to some changes in the level and seasonality of

inundation as a result of the SWMS modifications, the evidence

does not support those a ssertions. The revised SWMS will

continue to allow water to flow through the Northern Preserve in

a manner consistent with existing conditions while providing

some flood control protection for extreme rainfall events.

76. Petitioners also suggest that additional analysis

regarding the timing and levels of inundation in the wetland

preserves is necessary to fully determine the impacts of the

modified SWMS on the wetlands. However, the more persuasive

testimony indicates that the timing and levels within the

wetlands will not be affected by the revised SWMS. The control

elevations within the development area have not changed from the

2002 Permit, and these protect the onsite wetlands and ensure

that those wetlands will function as expected.

77. With respect to the internal wetlands within the

development area, the control elevations have not changed from

the 2002 Permit and the evidence establishes that the internal

wetlands will continue to function and operate as contemplated

in the 2002 Permit. Th ere has been some relocation and

reconfiguration of the internal wetland preserve areas that will

actually enhance the value of the mitigation by connecting those

wetland areas to other preserve areas.

78. Petitioners further suggested that the wetland

mitigation within the development area would not function as

permitted in the 2002 Permit due to the spill over from the

lakes to the wetlands. However, when the water reaches those

internal wetland preserves, it has been treated to Class III

water qualit y standards. Therefore, the mitigation values of

those wetlands preserves will not be changed or affected due to

water quality.

79. Petitioners' objections to the wetland impacts and

mitigation were primarily directed at the overall impacts rather

than t o the 2006 modifications. However, their witness was

unaware of the values provided by the additional acres that will

be impacted through the 2006 Permit. Therefore, a challenge to

2002 permitted wetlands impacts and mitigation is inappropriate

in this proceeding.

g. Functions To Fish and Wildlife and Listed Species

80. Section 4.2.2 of the BOR implements Florida

Administrative Code Rule 40E - 4.301(1)(d) and provides that an

applicant must provide reasonable assurances that a project will

not cause a dverse impact to the abundance and diversity of fish,

wildlife, and listed species or their habitat. With respect to

the 586.66 acres of wetland impacts permitted in the 2002

Permit, the 2006 Permit does not modify or affect the values

that the wetlands p rovide to either the abundance or diversity

of fish and wildlife. Review of the wetlands criteria as to

those acres was finally determined in the 2002 Permit and should

not be reopened. By relocating thirteen of the previously

impacted acres so they are most closely connected to other

wetlands, their value to fish and wildlife will increase.

81. As explained by the District's witness Bain, if

Collier had moved the preserve area and changed its functional

value, the District would have been required to reevaluate the

mitigation that had been accepted for the wetland impacts in the

2002 permit. In this case, however, because the Northern

Preserve area did not change, the District's review is limited

to the newly impacted wetlands internal to the developm ent for

which mitigation was not provided in the 2002 Permit.

82. Section 4.2.2.3 of the BOR addresses the functional

assessment of the values provided by the project's wetlands.

The only wetland values assessed in the 2006 Permit were the

additional we tland impacts that were not mitigated in the 2002

Permit. The evidence establishes that the current value of the

wetlands is low due to the heavy melaleuca infestation, which is

greater than fifty percent coverage in most locations and

seventy - five percen t or more in much of the area. Melaleuca has

the effect of draining short hydroperiod wetlands. While

Petitioners may disagree with how the wetlands were previously

evaluated, nothing in the 2006 modification allows or requires a

reassessment of their va lue.

83. Section 4.2.2.4 of the BOR requires that a regulated

activity not adversely impact the hydroperiod (the depth,

duration, or frequency of inundation) of wetlands or other

surface waters. Subsection (a) of this standard applies if the

project is expected to reduce the hydroperiod in any of the

project's wetlands. Conversely, subsection (b) applies if the

project is expected to increase the hydroperiod through changing

the rate or method of discharge of water to wetlands or other

surface waters. Subsection (c) requires monitoring of the

wetlands to determine the effects of the hydrological changes.

Again, there is no basis for the District to reopen and

reevaluate the wetlands for which mitigation has already been

permitted. No evidence was pre sented to indicate that there

would be any obstacles or problems to accomplishing the

mitigation that was proposed and accepted in 2002. In any

event, the engineering and biological testimony demonstrated

that no change (neither a reduction nor an increas e) in the

hydrology on the preserved wetlands or the Northern Preserve

will occur from what was permitted in the 2002 Permit. By

analyzing the various biological indicators onsite and setting

the control elevations within the SWMS and the wetlands (both

t he Northern Preserve and onsite preserve wetlands) above the

WSWT, the project ensures that the appropriate hydrology will

be maintained. Though the fish and wildlife are not expected

to be adversely affected by the 2006 Permit, Collier will be

conducti ng monitoring of plants and animals on the site as

an extra measure of assurance as contemplated under BOR

Section 4.2.3.4(c).

84. Focusing on just the changes from 2002 to 2006,

Petitioners' two experts conceded that the hydrology in the

North ern Preserve and its value to wildlife and listed species

(including the wood stork) would be benefited in the 2006 Permit

over that contemplated in the 2002 Permit due to the removal of

the Flow - Way.

h. Secondary Impacts to Water Resources

85. Flori da Administrative Code Rule 40E - 4.301(1)(f)

requires a demonstration that the proposed activities "[w]ill

not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources." A

similar demonstration is required by Sections 4.1.1(f) and 4.2.7

of the BOR. In this case, the secondary impacts considered by

the District were potential impacts due to the relocation and

expansion of the buffer preserve areas to the perimeter of the

project site. In conducting a secondary impact analysis, BOR

Section 4.2.7 requires that the District consider only those

future projects or activities which would not occur "but for"

the proposed system. Here, the evidence demonstrated that no

wetlands or other surface waters will be secondarily impacted by

the modifications to the SWMS as part of the 2006 Permit.

86. The undersigned has rejected Petitioners' contention

that a proposed extension of County Road 951 through the

development site should be considered a secondary impact in

evaluating this project. This extension has been propos ed for

at least fifteen years and its precise configuration is unclear.

It is not required to be built as a result of the project and

there are no firm plans or contracts in place to construct the

road. Although the road is listed on the County's

transpo rtation plan, it remains speculative as to if and when it

will be built. Additionally, there is no evidence the County

has any ownership interest in property for a road in the area

identified by Petitioners. Witness Bain testified that the

District exami ned the Collier County Public Records and an

easement had not been granted to the County to build the road.

i. Elimination and Reduction

87. Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E - 4.301((3)

provides in part that "the provisions for elimination or

reductio n of impacts contained in the [BOR] shall determine

whether the reasonable assurances required by subsection 40E -

4.301(1) and Rule 40E - 4.302, F.A.C., have been provided."

Section 4.2.1.1 of the BOR implements that provision and

provides that elimination a nd reduction of impacts is not

required when:

The ecological value of the function

provided by the area of wetland or other

surface water to be adversely affected is

low based on site specific analysis using

the factors in subsection 4.2.2.3 and the

proposed mitigation will provide greater

long term ecological value than the area of

wetl and or other surface water to be

adversely affected; . . .

In accordance with that section, Collier was not required to

implement practicable design modifications to reduce or

eliminate impacts.

88. The District did a site - specific analysis of the

qua lity of the 39.5 acres of adversely affected wetlands, taking

into consideration the condition of the wetlands, hydrologic

connection, uniqueness, location, and fish and wildlife

utilization. The unrebutted testimony is that the quality of

the 39.5 acres of wetlands to be impacted by the 2006 Permit is

low and these wetlands were already previously authorized to be

secondarily impacted. The low quality wetlands are melaleuca

dominated making them not unique.

89. The mitigation will provide greater long - term

ecological value than the impacted wetlands. As noted on page

10 of the Staff Report, there will be a larger, contiguous

mitigation area to offset direct impacts to previously

preserved, but secondarily impacted wetlands and the

preservation/enhance ment of the external preserve area.

90. The 2006 Permit provides that 5.68 credits are

required to be purchased in the PIMB. Collier has advised the

District that 27.68 credits are being purchased pursuant to its

Corps permit. Thus, Collier will be pu rchasing more credits

than required by the District. Witness Bain took this

additional mitigation into account in determining whether the

proposed mitigation will provide greater long term ecological

value than the area impacted. While the Corps permit i s an

entirely separate permit action, Collier has agreed to include

an additional 5.68 credits within the Basin beyond what is

required in the Staff Report as a condition to this 2006 Permit.

Therefore, the mitigation is clearly of greater long - term

ecol ogical value than the area impacted.

B. Additional Requirements

91. Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E - 4.302 imposes

additional requirements on an ERP applicant, including a

cumulative impact assessment, if appropriate, and satisfaction

of a public in terest test.

a. Cumulative Impacts

92. Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E - 4.302(1)(b)

requires that an applicant demonstrate the project "[w]ill not

cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other

surface waters as set forth in subsecti ons 4.2.8 through 4.2.8.2

of the [BOR]." Cumulative impacts are the summation of

unmitigated wetland impacts within a drainage basin, and a

cumulative impact analysis is geographically based upon the

drainage basins described in Figure 4.2.8 - 1 of the BOR. See

Florida Wildlife Federation et al. v. South Florida Water

Management District et al. , 2006 Fla. ENV LEXIS 49 at *49, DOAH

Case Nos. 04 - 3064 and 04 - 3084 (DOAH Dec. 3, 2006, SFWMD Dec. 8,

2006). Also, Section 373.414(8)(a), Florida Statutes, requires

the District to consider the cumulative impacts upon surface

water and wetlands within the same drainage basin. Thus, the

cumulative impact analysis applies only when mitigation is

proposed outside of the drainage basin within which the impacts

are to occur. Broward County v. Weiss et al. , 2002 Fla. ENV

LEXIS 298 at *29, DOAH Case No. 01 - 3373 (DOAH Aug. 27, 2002,

SFWMD Nov. 14, 2002).

93. In this case, all of the proposed mitigation

associated with the 2006 Permit modifications is located within

the West Collier Basin. The evidence shows that the mitigation

will offset the impacts to wetlands proposed in the 2006 Permit.

Therefore, since the mitigation will be performed in the same

Basin as the impacts and will offset the adverse impacts, the

District must "consider the regulated activity to meet the

cumulative impact requirements" of Section 373.414(8)(a),

Florida Statutes.

94. A new cumulative impacts analysis based on removal of

the Flow - Way is not necessary because the modification does not

change the cumulative impacts analysis conducted in the 2002

Permit. Since the Flow - Way was not considered a wetland impact

or contributing to the mitigation in the 2002 Permit, its

removal does not affect the adequacy of the previously conducted

cumulative impacts analysis or the mitigation. Accordingly,

there is no need for a new cumulative impact analysis with

regards to the Northern Preserve . Finally, contrary to

Petitioners' assertion, there is no rule or BOR provision which

requires Collier to mitigate for the alleged prior impacts of

other projects.

b. Public Interest Test

95. In addition to complying with the above criteria,

because t he project is located in, on, or over wetlands or other

surface waters, Collier must also address the criteria contained

in the Public Interest Test in Florida Administrative Code

Rule 40E - 4.302(1) and Section 4.2.3 of the BOR by demonstrating

that the p roject is not contrary to the public interest. See

also § 373.414(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Since the project does not

discharge into an OFW or significantly degrade an OFW, the

higher standard of "clearly in the public interest" does not

apply.

96. In determ ining compliance with the test, Florida

Administrative Code Rule 40E - 4.302(1)(a) requires that the

District do so by "balancing the [seven] criteria [in the

rule]." Findings with respect to each of the seven criteria are

set out below. (Except for pointi ng out that the District does

not have an adopted rule which provides more specific detail on

how to perform the balancing test than is now found in paragraph

(1)(a), and a contention that witness Bain's testimony was

insufficient to explain how the staff balanced those factors,

Petitioners did not present any evidence at hearing or argument

in their Proposed Recommended Order in support of their

contention that the above rule, BOR section, or the associated

statute have been applied by the District in an unconstitutional

manner.)

(i) Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect

the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others

(40E - 4.302(1)(a)1.)

97. Collier provided reasonable assurances that the

project will not cause any onsit e or offsite flooding nor cause

any adverse impacts to adjacent lands because the SWMS is

designed in accordance with District criteria. Also, the post -

development peak rate of discharge does not exceed the allowable

discharge rate. Further, the project will not cause any

environmental hazards affecting public health, safety, or

welfare. The project is considered neutral as to this factor.

(ii) Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect

the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endanger ed or

threatened species, or their habitats (40E - 4.302(1)(a)2.)

98. For the direct wetland impacts under the 2006 Permit,

Collier proposes mitig ation which has not changed from the 2002

Permit. The mitigation proposed was previously determined to

offset potential impacts to fish and wildlife and particularly

wood stork habitats. The evidence indicates that the mitigation

plan for the Northern Pr eserve will improve wood stork habitat

from its current melaleuca infested condition. For the

additional 40.18 acres of wetland impacts authorized in 2006,

the mitigation is of greater long - term value. Thus, the project

should be considered positive as t o this factor.

(iii) Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect

navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or

shoaling (40E - 4.302(1)(a)3.)

99. The parties have stipulated that the project will not

adversely affect navigation. In addition, no evidence was

introduced to suggest that the project's construction would

result in harmful erosion or shoaling.

(iv) Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect

the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the

vici nity of the activity (40E - 4.302(1)(a)4.)

100. The project does not provide any fishing,

recreational values, or marine productivity. Therefore, the

project is neutral as to this factor.

(v) Whether the regulated activity will be of a temporary

or perma nent nature (40E - 4.302(1)(a)5.)

101. It is undisputed that the project is permanent in

nature. Even though the project is permanent, it is considered

neutral as to this factor because mitigation will offset the

permanent wetland impacts.

(vi) Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect

or will enhance significant historical and archaeological

resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, F.S. (40E -

4.302(1)(a)6.)

102. T he parties have stipulated that no significant

archeological or hist orical resources have been identified on

this site. Therefore, the project is considered neutral as to

this factor.

(vii) The current condition and relative value of

functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed

regulated activity (40E - 4.30 2(1)(a)7.)

103. T he current condition and relative value of functions

being performed by the areas affected by the project is low due

to the melaleuca infestation. Project mitigation will restore

940 acres of poor quality wetlands and uplands, greatly

e nhancing their function and value. Therefore, the project

should be considered positive as to this factor because the

implementation of the mitigation offsets the wetland impacts and

improves the current value .

(viii) Summary of Public Interest Factors

104. Overall, the project is no worse than neutral

measured against any one of the criteria individually.

Therefore, the project is not contrary to the public interest.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

105. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction ov er this matter pursuant to Sections 120.569 and

120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

106. The burden of proof is on the party asserting the

affirmative of an issue before an administrative tribunal.

Balino v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. , 348 So.

2d 349, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Therefore, Collier has the

burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it is

entitled to the proposed modification of its 2002 Permit.

107. By stipulation of the parties, Petitioners have

standing to file their Amended Petition.

108. District rules and statutory provisions require that

an applicant give reasonable assurance that the conditions for

the issuance of a permit have been met. §§ 373.413 and 373.414,

Fla. Stat .; Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E - 4.301 and 40E - 4.302.

Reasonable assurance contemplates a substantial likelihood that

the project will be successfully implemented. Metropolitan Dade

County v. Coscan Florida, Inc. et al. , 609 So. 2d 644, 648 (Fla.

3d DCA 1992). However, this does not require an absolute

guarantee of compliance with environmental standards. See ,

e.g. , Save Our Suwannee, Inc. v. Department of Environmental

Protection et al. , 1996 Fla. ENV LEXIS 37 at *17 - 18, DOAH Case

Nos. 95 - 3899 and 95 - 3900 (D OAH Dec. 22, 1995, DEP Feb. 5, 1996).

Indeed, "[a] party seeking a regulatory permit from DEP or a

water management district is not required to disprove all

'possibilities,' 'theoretical impacts,' or 'worst case

scenarios' by a permit challenger in order to be entitled to a

permit." Charlotte County et al. v. IMC - Phosphates Company et

al. , 2003 Fla. ENV LEXIS 169 at *46, DOAH Case No. 02 - 4134 (DOAH

Aug. 1, 2003, DEP Sept. 15, 2003).

109. By a preponderance of the evidence, Collier has

established its e ntitlement to the requested modification.

While there is conflicting evidence regarding many of the

findings which support this conclusion, the more credible and

persuasive evidence has been accepted in favor of the applicant.

Therefore, the application to modify the 2002 Permit should be

approved.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management

District enter a final order granting the application of I. M.

Collier, J.V. for a modification to Environmental Resource

Permit No. 11 - 02031P.

DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2007, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

DONALD R. ALEXANDER

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Admin istrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 24th day of July, 2007.

ENDNOTE

1/ All references are to the 2006 version of the Florida

Statutes.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Carol Ann Wehle, Executive Director

South Florida Water Management District

3301 Gun Club Road

West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 - 3007

Thomas W. Reese, Esquire

2951 61st Avenue South

St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 - 4539

Gary A. Davis, Esquire

Post Office Box 649

Hot Springs, North Carolina 28743 - 0649

Susan Roeder Martin, Esquire

South Florida Water Management District

3301 Gun Club Road

Mail Stop 1410

West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 - 3007

J. Stephen Menton, Esquire

Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A.

Post Office Box 561

Tallahassee, Florida 32302 - 0561

Andrew J. Baumann, Esquire

Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A.

1700 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard

Suite 1000

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 - 2006

Edwin A. Steinmeyer, Esquire

Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A.

Post Office Box 10788

Tallahassee, Florida 32302 - 2788

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days of the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will render a final order in this matter.