|
The State Road 7 Administrative Final Hearing resumed on Friday, May 17, with the last day of Respondents’ rebuttal testimony, which was held virtually. FDOT recalled Dr. Steven Peene, a Principal with Water Resources Applied Technology & Management. He testified that the calculations associated with the SR-7 discharge runoff are contrary to the testimony of WPB experts Dr.’s Perez & Janicki. Dr. Peene also testified that he did not believe City’s model constructed by Dr. Janicki was realistic and consistent with to how the wetlands behave. Dr. Peene also discussed the expected total phosphorus and total nitrogen concentrations in the discharge leaving the stormwater system outfall north of Northlake Blvd.
Barbara Conmy of South Florida Water Management District (District), testified regarding the environmental portion of ERP review. Conmy testified that DuPuis Reserve, Pine Glades West Mitigation Area, and Loxahatchee Mitigation Area are not required to provide greater long-term ecological value than the areas proposed to be adversely affected, but that the District required offset mitigation to be done pursuant to the Applicant handbook requirement. She also testified that the Respondent’s (FDOT and County) went above what was required to implement practical measures for long term ecological value, and that the applicants were not required to consider design modifications because they met the requirement of the Opt-Out provision.
Jesse Markle of the District testified regarding the engineering stormwater system of the ERP, including the Public Interest Test. Markle emphasized that project would also provide additional hurricane preparedness and cleanup efforts, and will widen the 2-lane road and create a 4-lane road where there isn’t one, which will help hurricane preparedness. He also testified that there are a myriad of ways to design stormwater system and as far as method, the requirement is to meet ERP criteria, not how criteria should be met. Markle further testified that the applicants provided reasonable assurances regarding conditions of issuance for stormwater management design.
On Monday May 20, the City of WPB commenced its Sur-Rebuttal testimony and re-called Elizabeth Perez as a witness. Perez was the sole witness called for the day and gave her opinions as a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analyst and an expert on surface water models. As Perez had previously testified, her current opinions were limited to rebutting FDOT’s rebuttal testimony (sur-rebuttal). Perez’s testimony was focused primarily on the credibility of the work and testimony of FDOT’s expert Dr. King. Perez testified that Dr. King had a flawed analysis in his flood assessment model that did not support his conclusions regarding stormwater flow associated with SR-7.
.
A significant portion the City’s sur-rebuttal case resulted in the judge ruling on objections, lengthy Motions in Limine, and the judge rulings and instructions to ensure that the City’s witnesses’ testimony were limited to sur-rebuttal testimony only.
WPB’s Geologist Steven Memberg testified on the issues he disagreed with in Dr. King’s testimony, specifically the issue of flow net as a graphical representation, indicating where water discharges, recharges and moves through the ground. He emphasized that Dr. Kings flow chart was not drawn correctly, which resulted in a false conclusion that only one-seventh of the water in the dry retention swale will infiltrate into the wet conveyance channel, and in Memberg’s opinion the number should be 50%.
Laura Kuebler, a Modeler, testified for the City and emphasized that she disagreed with Dr. King’s opinion in which he attributed the reduction in Grassy Waters Preserve water levels to the City’s water managers who stopped pumping in water June 2016, but kept withdrawing water from Control 4 through June, July and the beginning of August. Kuebler said the City pumps water into the M-Canal portion of the Grassy Waters Preserve as opposed to directly into the Grassy Water Preserve. Kuebler also testified that Dr. King’s groundwater model did not express surface waters accurately.
Another of City’s expert Dr. Harvey Harper, an Engineer, testified on the history of stormwater treatment to enhance the overall effectiveness of treatment systems via treatment trains. He testified that he was given a contract by The DEP to evaluate design criteria in Florida in 2007, as there was a wide range of calculation types and assumptions being made in applications submitted for ERP permits. Dr. Harper testified that the Respondents’ treatment train methodology is inappropriate and concluded Respondents’ expert Dr. Peene’s calculations re pollutant removal efficiencies were based erroneously on offline systems. Dr. Harvey also questioned the methodology used by the District in issuing the ERP permit. However, Dr. Harvey later retracted some of his prior opinions in cross-examination regarding Dr. Peene’s use of offline systems.
Dr. Evelyn Gaiser testified for the city regarding the uptake of Total Phosphorus in the primary wetland area compared to the data from the everglades, to rebut the testimony presented by Respondents’ expert as to the uptake of phosphorus sediments in the water catchment area.
Another of the City’s expert Dr. Anthony Janicki testified as to the calculation of the total phosphorus aerial loadings to primary wetlands based on Dr. Harper’s calculations. He also asserted that the Dr. Peene’s estimate of what critical loading should be for the primary wetland, was incorrect.
At the conclusion of the hearing the parties were given ninety (90) days after the official transcript is filed with DOAH, to submit Proposed Recommended Orders for the judge’s consideration, after which the judge will issue her Recommended Order on the case.
| 
