10-009292 Gibby Family Trust vs. Blueprint 2000 And Department Of Environmental Protection Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, April 11, 2011.

Summary: Intergovernment agency met statute and rule criteria for WRP for Capital Circle widening.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

GIBBY FAMILY TRUST, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 10 - 9292

)

BLUEPRINT 2000 AND DEPARTMENT )

OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, )

)

Respondents. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

On March 1 - 2 , 2011 , the final administrative hearing in

this case was held in Tallahassee before J. Lawrence Johnston,

Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Sidney L. Matthew, Esquire

Post Office Box 1754

Tallahassee, Florida 32302

For Respondent Department of Environmental Protection :

Ronald Woodrow Hoenstine, III, Esquire

Department of Environmental Protection

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Mail Station 35

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

For Respondent Blueprint 2000 :

Edwin A. Steinmeyer, Esquire

Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A.

2600 Centennial Place, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

F. Joseph Ullo, Esquire

Lewis, L ongman & Walker, P.A.

245 Riverside Avenue, Suite 150

Jacksonville, Florida 32202

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether the Department of

Environmental Protection (DEP) should issue a Wetland Resource

Permit (WRP), number 37 - 0281978 - 002 - DF, to Blueprint 2000 for a

project to widen Capital Circle (SR 263) in Tallahassee from

just south of Orange Avenue to just south of Tenn essee Street

(US 90) .

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On April 29, 2010, DEP gave notice of its intent to issue

WRP 37 - 0281978 - 002 - DF. Petitioner requested an administrative

hearing. On September 23, 2010, DEP referred PetitionerÓs First

Amended Petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings

(DOAH).

On December 14, 2010, Petitioner moved to amend its Amended

Petition to add the issue of whether Blueprint provided evidence

of financial resources necessary to conduct mitigation

activities, monitoring, and co rrective action, as required by

Florida Administrative Code Rule 62 - 312.390(1)(a) . The motion

was denied on the ground that, as an intergovernmental agency of

Leon County and the City of Tallahassee, Blueprint is exempt

from the requirement of that rul e under section 163.01(9)(c),

Florida Statutes .

On February 22, 2011 , the parties filed a Prehearing

Stipulation that narrowed the issues. At the final hearing,

Blueprint called: Hugh Williams, P.E., a transportation

engineer; Natalie Betz Zierden , P.E., a stormwater engineer; and

Kevin Connor, a wetlands and wildlife ecologist. DEP called:

Tom Franklin, an environmental specialist with DEP; and

Richard Musgrove, P.E., a stormwater engineer with DEP.

Petitioner called: Michael Dalton, an enviro nmental specialist

with DEP; and David Tillman, P.E., a stormwater engineer. The

following exhibits were received in evidence: RespondentsÓ

Joint Exhibits 1 - 12; Blueprint Ós Exhibits 1 - 9; DEP Exhibits 2 - 7,

10, 11, 14, and 15 ; and PetitionerÓs Exhibits 123 , 220, and 228 .

A Transcript was filed, and the parties filed proposed

recommended orders, which have been considered.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Blueprint 2000 is an intergovernmental agency created

by Leon County and the City of Tallahassee under c hapter 163,

Part 1, Florida Statutes.

2. Blueprint has undertaken a project to widen a segment

of Capital Circle in Tallahassee between Interstate 10 and the

Tallahassee Regional Airport, specifically from just south

of Orange Avenue to just south of Tenne ssee Street (US 90), from

two to six travel lanes.

3. Gum Swamp is near the north end of BlueprintÓs proposed

project. It is divided by Capital Circle, with most of the

swamp located east of the road.

4. Petitioner, the Gibby Family Trust, owns property in

the smaller part of Gum Swamp west of Capital Circle,

specifically in the southwest corner of the intersection of

Capital Circle and Gum Road . Petitioner also owns a larger

parcel of property a little farther west and north of Gum Swamp,

north of Gum Road , that has frontage on the south side of

Tennessee Street. PetitionerÓs primary concern about the

project is that it will cause flooding and worsen water quality

in the part of Gum Swamp where Petitioner owns property.

5. On August 28, 2007, Blueprint 2000 applied to DEP for a

WRP for the p roposed project .

6. On September 18, 2007 , Blueprint applied to DEP to be

approved to use General Permit for New S tormwater Discharge

Facilities (the SWGP) for the treatment of stormwater runoff

from the proposed project. On October 18, 2007, DEP approved

BlueprintÓs use of the SWGP for the project .

7. The SWGP approved the water quality treatment of

stormwater from the project area at the existing Martha Wellman

Pond, which was constructed as part of the previous improvements

to Capital Circle from Interstate 10 south to U.S. 90, and at

the following stormwater treatment ponds to be constructed:

Broadmoor pond; the four Delta ponds; Nina pond; and Orange

pond.

8. During the process of DEPÓs requests for additional

information on BlueprintÓs WRP application and BlueprintÓs

responses , Leon County asked Blueprint to add two stormwater

ponds to the project -- the Gum Road pond, which is just north of

Gum Road near the Gum Road floodplain compensation area, and the

Swamp Fox pond at the intersection of Capital Circle and Swamp

Fox Road, which is south of Gum Swamp -- to meet Leon CountyÓs

stormwate r permitting requirements. Blueprint asked DEP whether

these additions would require a modification of the stormwater

permit. DEP staff determined that no modification to

BlueprintÓs SWGP was possible (since it was a general permit) or

necessary ( since t he two ponds would not increase stormwater

runoff and added to the water quality treatment already

determined to be suffic ient for the project). BlueprintÓs WRP

application was modified to add the Gum Road and Swamp Fox

pond s .

9. On April 29, 2010, DEP iss ued its notice of intent to

approve BlueprintÓs WRP application . Petitioner requested a

hearing, to include consideration of PetitionerÓs opposition to

proposed wetland impact mitigation at a site just north of Gum

Road , near PetitionerÓs larger parcel of property north of Gum

Road and south of Tennessee Street, because the proposed

mitigation would require the imposi tion of a conservation

easement, which would not allow the use of the area for

floodplain compensation for development on PetitionerÓs larger

parcel. In response to PetitionerÓs opposition to the Gum Road

mitigation site , Blueprint informed DEP on September 15, 2010,

that Blueprint would provide wetland impact mitigation at the

Broadmoor mitigation area in lieu of the Gum Road mitigation

area .

10. BlueprintÓs WRP application, as amended, indicated

that the project would directly impact 6.22 acres of

jurisdictional wetl ands in six different locations -- 0.58 from

dredging, 0.02 acres from shading, and 5.62 acres from filling.

These impacts were t o be offset by mitiga tion in the same

drainage basin -- the Lake Munson basin. The m itigation proposed

by Blueprint would include the creation of approximately 25.42

acres of forested and transitional wetland habitat at the

Broadmoor and Delta mitigation ar eas. Further, to compensate

for impacts to a 1.1 - acre conservation area adjacent to the

roadway in the western Gum Swamp (the Zenz mitigation area) ,

Blueprint will record a conservation easement over an 8.6 - acre

tract of forested wetlands adjacent to the roadway. In all , the

mitigation plan will provide 6.79 functional units of gain

within the Lake Munson drainage basin and would more than offset

the 4.53 units of functional loss in the same drainage basin, as

calculated using the Uniform Mitigation Asses sment Methodology

(UMAM).

11. Blueprint provided reasonable assurances that its

proposed project will not result in water quality violations

but, rather, will improve water quality . As indicated, t he Gum

Road and Swamp Fox stormwater treatment ponds add to the water

quality treatment provided and already approved in the SWGP. In

addition, the WRP provides for four ÐstormceptorsÑ in the

segment of the project in Gum Swamp. A stormceptor collects

runoff from the road way and filters it by use of a chambe r

system that removes pollutants by allowing metals and sediments

to settle to the bottom and oils to float to the top of the

system and discharges the filtered water through the middle of

the chamber, free of most light oils, heavy metals, and

sediment. The existing roadway does not have stormceptors, and

they were not included in BlueprintÓs SWGP application, which

was approved without them.

12. Blueprint proved that the proposed project will not

adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or t he

property of others -- specifically, with respect to water

quantity, flooding, and transportation .

13. Blueprint proved that the quantity of water

discharging from the project will not increase and that the

project will not cause floo ding . Detailed analysis in

accordance with Florida Department of Transportation regulations

demonstrate that post - development discharges of stormwater

during design storm events will not exceed pre - development

discharges. As for flooding, Blueprint proposes to compensate

for all fill required for the project by removing an equal

amount of soil from the Gum Road floodplain compensation area.

In addition, detailed modeling using regional and site - specific

data showed that there will be no change in flood elevatio ns as

a result of the project.

14. Adding travel lanes to Capital Circle, as proposed,

will improve traffic flow and make driving in the project area

safer. It also will improve an intermodal link between

Interstate 10 and the Tallahassee Regional Airport.

15. Blueprint proved that the proposed project will not

adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife,

including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats.

Loss of existing opportunities for wading birds, including wood

storks, to forag e in road side ditches will be replaced by new ,

comparable foraging opportunities . Loss of existing habitat

will be mitigated by creation of four times as much habitat.

Appropriate measures will be taken to protect and conserve the

eastern indigo snake. In addition, a single large box culvert

under Capital Circle in Gum Swamp near PetitionerÓs smaller

parcel will be replaced by three culvert/wildlife crossing s, one

in the location of the existing box culvert, and the other two

spaced out along the road to the south. The new

culverts/wildlife crossings will help conserve wildlife

utilizing habitat in the vicinity of Gum Swamp.

16. Blueprint proved that the proposed project will not

adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause

harmful erosion or shoaling. Post - development discharge rates

will not exceed pre - development discharge rates. Appropriate

measures will be taken to prevent erosion during construction.

Bridging Gum Creek in lieu of the existing culverts will improve

the creekÓs flow. T he new culverts/wildlife crossings in Gum

Swamp will maintain or improve flow between the eastern and

western parts of the swamp. In general, the f low of water in

the project area will be maintained.

17. The proposed project is permanent in nature. Some

impacts due to construction would be temporary, and these would

be minimized by use of best management practices.

18. The proposed project will not adversely affect

significant historical or archaeological resources under the

provisions of sect ion 267.061.

19. BlueprintÓs UMAM analysis demonstrated that t he

current condition and relative value of the functions being

performed by areas affected by the proposed project will be

maintained or improved .

20. Blueprint provided reasonable assurances that its

propose d project will not be contrary to the public interest.

21. Because Blueprint proposes to mitigate for wetland

impacts in the same drainage basin as the impacts, and the

proposed mitigation offsets the impacts, there will be no

cumulative impacts to wetlands .

22. Petitioner contends that the project will flood and

adversely affect water quality on its property because runoff

from Capital Circle will be directed to the west of the roadway

into Gum Swamp. Actually, runoff from the northernmost

stormceptor will be directed to the east of Capital Circle.

Runoff from the other three stormceptors will discharge to the

west of Capital Circle but will enter Gum Swamp to the south and

down - gradient of PetitionerÓs property and will flow away from

PetitionerÓs property. In addition, the proposed

culvert s /wildlife crossings will allow the water from both sides

of the road to mix and equalize . Blueprint proved that water

quality in the vicinity of PetitionerÓs property will n ot worsen

but, rather, will improve.

23. Petitioner presented the testimony of a stormwater

engineer who questioned whether flooding of PetitionerÓs

property will occur notwithstanding BlueprintÓs floodplain

compensation. During the review process, Petiti onerÓs engineer

took the position that detailed modeling would be needed to

answer the question. He was told that modeling was being

undertaken and that the results would be presented to him after

review by BlueprintÓs engineers. U ntil shortly before the final

hearing , PetitionerÓs engineer was not aware that the necessary

modeling had been done and that showed no flooding would occur.

24. P eriodic flooding occurs on PetitionerÓs smaller

parcel in the Gum Swamp in its current and pre - existing

condition because it is in the 100 - year floodplain. In

addition, a ÐbackwaterÑ condition has been created in the past

by improper maintenance of a Leon County control structure that

is supposed to allow excess water to flow o ut of Gum Swamp into

flow - ways leading south , eventually to Lake Munson. Proper

maintenance of the control structure will help alleviate

flooding. In addition, the project would alleviate flooding by

bridging Gum Creek, which flows around the southern edge of Gum

Swamp and into a canal system leading to Lake Munson . More

water would be able to flow through the bridge openings than can

flow through the existing culverts under Capital Circle at Gum

Creek.

25. Petitioner contends that the WRP cannot be iss ue d as

proposed because it conflicts with engineering drawings

submitted by Blueprint in support of its use of the SWGP, which

indicate that (untreated) stormwater from Capital Circle in the

Gum Swamp will run off to the east. The SWGP is a separate

permi t that addresses water quality, not water quantity .

Regardless of the conflicts in the engineering drawings, t he

SWGP provides some of the water quality assurances for the WRP.

The SWGP does not require the WRP to provide that all runoff

from Capital Cir cle in the vicinity of Gum Swamp be discharged

to the east ( into the larger part of Gum Swamp to the east of

the road) , as indicated in the SWGP engineering drawings .

I ssues as to whether construction in accordance with BlueprintÓs

WRP will result in comp liance with the SWGP are not part of this

WRP proceeding.

26. Petitioner contends that BlueprintÓs WRP application

is void because it revises a void o riginal application.

Actually, DEP stamped BlueprintÓs original application ÐvoidÑ to

avoid confusion when it was replaced by an amended application

that updated wetland impact acreages and changed the name of the

applicantÓs agent. The original application was not void .

27. Petitioner contends that the SWGP and WRP had to be

considered together as an appl ication for an ERP. However,

BlueprintÓs WRP application was deemed complete on July 18,

2008 , before ERPs became mandatory . Blueprint did not request

that its applications be reviewed together , either as an

application for an ERP or , under rule 62 - 25.06 0(1), as an

application for the Ð construction of a new stormwater discharge

facility [that] requires . . . a dredge or fill permit . . . . Ñ

DEP staff ÐconsolidatedÑ (or ÐmergedÑ) the SWGP and WRP

application files for purposes of review of the WRP applica tion

as to water quality issues.

28. In its proposed recommended order , Petitioner

requested the a ddition of a condition to BlueprintÓs WRP

providing essentially that all construction approved by both the

SWGP and the WRP must be performed Ð simultaneously , concurrently

and not in phases or segments.Ñ Petitioner also requests strict

compliance with the added condition and no future modification.

It is clear that BlueprintÓs WRP does not approve a phased or

segmented project and that Blueprint must comply wi th its WRP.

There is no need for an additional condition as to those

matters . However, it is appropriate to add a condition to the

WRP to make it clear that all new stormwater facilities approved

by BlueprintÓs SWGP, together with the additional Gum Road and

Swamp Fox stormwater ponds, and the stormceptors in the Gum

Swamp segment directing runoff away from PetitionerÓs property,

must be constructed simultaneously with the rest of the project.

29. DEPÓs engineer testified that there should be a

condition that Ðwould not allow any other changes to occur.Ñ

But the evidence does not support the need for a condition that

would prohibit any future modification of the WRP, however

minor. Any major modification would give Petitioner a point of

entry to initiate a separate proceeding to challenge the

modification.

30. Blueprint contends that Petitioner did not prove

ownership of the property alleged to be affected by BlueprintÓs

WRP and did not prove an injury - in - fact. Although ownership

deeds were not introduced in evidence, witnesses for Blueprint

and DEP conceded PetitionerÓs ownership interest s . There also

was ample evidence that BlueprintÓs WRP reasonably could be

expected to affect PetitionerÓs substantial interests even if an

adverse effect on them was not proven.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

31. In addition to administrative agencies (in this case,

DEP) and "specifically named" persons whose substantial

interests are determined in a proceeding (in this case,

Blueprint), section 120.52(13)(b), provides that the term

"party" includes "[a]ny other person . . . whose substantial

interests will be affected by proposed agency action . . . ."

32. For years, standing to be a party in a proceeding

under section 120.57 was determined under the standard set out

in Agrico Chem ica l Co. v. Dep artment of Env ironmental

Regulation , 406 So. 2d 478 , 482 (Fl a. 2d DCA 1981) :

[B]efore one can be considered to have a

substantial interest in the outcome of the

proceeding he must show 1) that he will

suffer injury in fact which is of sufficien t

immediacy to entitle him to a section 120.57

hearing, and 2) that his substantial injury

is of a type or nature which the proceeding

is designed to protect. The first aspect of

the test deals with the degree of injury.

The second deals with the nature of the

injury.

Although Agrico was decided on the second prong of the test, its

first prong also has been applied to make standing

determinations.

33. More recent appellate decisions have clarified the

first prong of the Agrico test. I n order for a third party to

have standing as a petitioner to challenge agency action in an

administrative proceeding, the evidence must prove that the

petitioner has substantial rights or interests that reasonably

could be affected by the agency's action. See St. Johns

Riverkeeper, Inc. , et al. v. St. Johns River Water M gmt. Dist . ,

et al. , Fla. 5th DCA Case No. 5D09 - 16 44, Op. Filed February 18,

2011; Palm Beach Cnty . Envtl. Coal. v. Fla. Dep't of Envtl.

Prot. , 14 So. 3d 1076, 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) ; Pea ce

River/Manasota Reg'l Water Supply Auth. v . IMC Phosphates Co. ,

18 So. 3d 1079, 1082 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ; Reily Enters., LLC v.

Fla. Dep't of Envtl. Prot. , 990 So. 2d 1248, 1251 (Fla. 4th DCA

2008) . See also § 403.412(5), Fla. Stat. (Ð A citizen's

substantial interests will be considered to be determined or

affected if the party demonstrates it may suffer an injury in

fact which is of sufficient immediacy and is of the type and

nature intended t o be protected by this chapter . Ñ)

34. As the owner of pr operty adjacent to BlueprintÓs

proposed project, Petitioner has substantial interests that

could be affected by BlueprintÓs WRP so as to enable Petitioner

to contest BlueprintÓs WRP application and raise its issues

regarding flooding and water quality . In addition, Petitioner

had substantial interests in not having a conservation easement

placed on land it wanted to keep available for use for

floodplain compensation for development on its property fronting

Tennessee Street. For these reasons, Petitioner h as standing.

35. As applicant, Blueprint has the burden to prove

entitlement to the WRP . Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. J.W.C. Co.,

Inc. , 396 So. 2d 778, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Once an

applicant presents evidence and mak e s a preliminary showing of

entitlement, the permit will be granted unless "contrary

evidence of equivalent quality" is presented by the Petitioner ,

in which case entitlement is decided by a preponderance of the

evidence. J.W.C. , supra , at 789.

36. Entitleme nt to a permit is based solely upon

compliance with applicable permit criteria. Council of the

Lower Keys v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc. , 429 So. 67 (Fla. 3d

DCA 1983).

37. Section 373.4145(1) (a) , requires DEP to adopt rules to

regulate the construction, operation, alteration, maintenance,

abandonment, and removal of stormwater management systems within

the geographical jurisdiction of the Northwest Florida Water

Management District (NWFWMD), which includes BlueprintÓs projec t

area . It also provides that, until those Ð stormwater management

system rules take effect, chapter 62 - 25, Florida Administrative

Code, shall remain in full force and effect .Ñ Those rules

regulate stormwater discharges and include rule 62 - 25.801, which

c onstitutes a SWGP for facilities meeting certain criteria,

including the provision of storage volume deemed necessary for

the treatment of stormwater runoff prior to discharge into the

waters of the State.

38. Section 373.4145(1)(b), requires DEP to adopt r ules

for the management and storage of surface waters within the

geographical jurisdiction of the NWFWMD. It also provides that,

until those rules Ð take effect, rules adopted pursuant to the

authority of ss. 403.91 - 403.929, 1984 Supplement to the Florida

Statutes 1983, as amended, in effect prior to July 1, 1994,

shall remain in full force and effect . . . .Ñ Those rules

included rule chapter 62 - 312, which sets out the

requirements and procedures for obtaining a WRP for dredging and

filling activities.

39. New ERP rules for the geographical jurisdiction of the

NWFWMD are set out in rule chapter 62 - 346, which took effect on

November 1, 2010. Because Blueprint had a SWGP for its project

and had a complete application for a WRP pending prior to

November 1, 2010, it was not required to apply for an ERP. See

§ 373.4145(6), Fla. Stat. Instead , Blueprint exercised its

right to apply for a WRP.

40. DEPÓs ÐconsolidationÑ or ÐmergerÑ of BlueprintÓs WRP

and SWGP application files for ease of review of the WRP

appl ication did not convert the WRP application into an ERP, or

require the engineering drawings supporting the WRP application

to match the engineering drawings supporting the SWGP

application.

41. Rule 62 - 312.300(3) requires DEP to Ð first explore

project modifications that would reduce or eliminate the adverse

environmental impacts of the project . . . .Ñ Petitioners do

not contend that this criterion was not met. Blueprint proposes

to reduce impacts to Gum Swamp by minimizing the width of the

new road b y use of retaining walls instead of should er side

slopes, a minimal median, and wildlife crossings on the segment

of roadway that divides Gum Swamp.

42. Rule 62 - 312.060(10) requires that DEP determine

whether a WRP application meets the criteria in s ections

403.918(1) and (2)(a)1. - 7., Florida Statutes (Supp.1992). Those

statutes require that an applicant for a WRP provide reasonable

assurance that water quality standards will not be violated and,

for a project like BlueprintÓs that is not in an OFW, that the

proposed project is not contrary to the public interest.

43. "Reasonable assurance" means a substantial likelihood

of compliance with standards, or "a substantial likelihood that

the project will be successfully implemented," not an absolute

guaran tee. Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Coscan Fl a. , Inc. , 609 So. 2d

644, 648 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1992).

44. Blueprint provided reasonable assurances that its

project will comply with water quality standards, will improve

water quality, and will not be contrary to the public interest.

Wetland impacts will be offset by mitigation.

45. Under rule 62 - 312.060(10), D EP must consider

cumulative impacts to wetlands under section 403.919, Florida

Statutes (1991). Since the proposed mitigation offsets the

proposed impacts, and all mitigation is proposed to occur in the

same drainage basin as the impacts, cumulative impac ts are not

an issue. See § 373.414(8)(b), Fla. Stat.

46. Petitioner contends in its PRO that ÐBlueprint could

have requested initially that the Stormwater Permit application

be considered at the same time in a dual fashion with the [WRP]

under rule 62 - 25.0 60,Ñ but chose not to, and now BlueprintÓs WRP

modifies its SWGP.

47. The SWGP was issued under rule 62 - 25.801, which grants

a general permit for the construction and operation of

qualifying stormwater discharge facilities, including those that

provide trea tment for a specified volume of stormwater runoff.

As such, the SWGP cannot be modified. Issues as to compliance

with the SWGP are not part of this WRP proceeding.

48. Rule 62 - 25.060(1) provides:

Whenever the construction of a new

stormwater discharge facility requires that

a dredge or fill permit be secured pursuant

to Rule 62 - 312.150 or 62 - 312.160, or Chapter

62 - 312, F.A.C., or whenever other rules of

the Department require that a permit,

Section 401 Federal Clean Water Act

certification or other certification be

secured, all applicable stormwater

requirements under this chapter shall be

reviewed as part of those permit

applications. A separate permit application

under this chapter shall not be required.

If the applicant requests a separat e

stormwater permit, the applicant must notify

the Department of any other Department

permits, exemptions, or certifications which

have or will be requested for the project.

By its terms, this rule seems to apply when Ð the construction of

a new stormwat er discharge facility requires that a dredge or

fill permit be secured . . . .Ñ In addition, when that is the

case, it just requires that applicable rule chapter 62 - 25

stormwater requirements be Ðreviewed as part of [the dredge and

fill] permit applicati ons.Ñ That has been done in this case.

49. Notwithstanding differences between the engineering

drawings supporting the SWGP application and the engineering

drawings supporting the WRP application, BlueprintÓs SWGP

supports a finding that BlueprintÓs WRP meets water quality

requirements. The addition of the Gum Road and Swamp Fox

facilities in the WRP does not increase the volume of stormwater

runoff require d to be treated and does not modify the SWGP.

Likewise, the addition of stormceptors discharging to the west

of the road does not modify the SWGP. Both additions will

improve water quality. Discharging some runoff to the west of

the roadway does not mod ify the SWGP because the

culvert/wildlife crossings mix the surface water on either side

of the road, and there is no change in where the system

permitted by the SWGP discharges treated water.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that BlueprintÓs WRP application , number 37 -

0281978 - 002 - DF, be granted and the WRP issued with the

additional condition that all new stormwater facilities approved

by BlueprintÓs SWGP, together with the additional G um Road and

Swamp Fox stormwater ponds and the stormceptors in the Gum Swamp

segment directing runoff away from PetitionerÓs property , be

constructed simultaneously with the r est of the project .

DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2011, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 11th day of April, 2011.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary

Department of Environmental Protection

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

Thomas Beason, General Counsel

Department of Environmental Protection

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk

Department of Environmental Pr otection

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

Sidney L. Matthew, Esquire

Post Office Box 1754

Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Debra Schiro

Blue Print 2000

1311 Executive Center Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

F. Joseph Ullo, Esquire

Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A.

245 Riverside Avenue, Suite 150

Jacksonville, Florida 32202

Edwin A. Steinmeyer, Esquire

Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A.

2600 Centennial Place, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Ronald Woodrow Hoen stine, III, Esquire

Department of Environmental Protection

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15

days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to

this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will

issue the final order in this case.