[brief] (Responds to Appellant’s Point I.C.)  [...] also argues that [...] failed to meet the peak flow requirements of N.J.A.C. 7:8-5.6.  [...] is incorrect.  To satisfy the requirements of N.J.A.C. 7:8-5.6(b), an applicant must complete one of four listed methodologies to demonstrate control of stormwater runoff quantity impacts.  Here, [...] opted to use the methodology detailed at N.J.A.C. 7:8-5.6(b)(3), which requires an applicant to design stormwater management measures so that the post-construction peak stormwater runoff rates for the two, 10- and 100-year storm events are 50, 75 and 80% of the pre-construction runoff rates.  These percentages apply only to the post-construction stormwater runoff attributable to the part of the site on which the project is to be constructed.  Ibid.  After analyzing all of the data [...] provided in its permit application and responses to [...]’s information requests, [...] determined [...]’s proposed project met the water quantity requirements.  First, [...] found [...] used two points of analysis on the Property (one before the existing Lake Basin and the other discharging from the Lake Basin to Indian Run) to show compliance with this rule.  (Aa90; Aa829).  [...] further determined that each point of analysis satisfied this rule’s requirement that the post-construction peak runoff rates for the two, 10- and 100-year storm events be 50, 75 and 80% of the pre-construction runoff rates.  (Aa90; Aa830).  Indeed, the charts compiling the data from the permit application demonstrate that the runoff rates were all below the regulatory maximum percentages.  Ibid.  [...] questions the approach [...]’s engineer used to analyze the peak flow rate, opining that the “more traditional” methodology is to use the area-weighted approach instead of the peak reduction approach.  (Ab14).  The area weighted approach uses the total area of the Property to calculate the peak flow rate whereas the peak reduction approach analyzes the disturbed areas of the Property to calculate the peak flow rate.  (Aa2527); N.J.A.C. 7:8-5.6(b)(3).  [...]’s contention amounts to mere quibbling over which model is more appropriate.  Notably, [...] does not contend that the peak flow weighted approach is not viable; rather, it argues that its expert thinks the area weighted method is “more traditional. ”  (Ab14).  But the Stormwater Management Rules explicitly allow an applicant to use the peak flow weighted approach.  N.J.A.C. 7:8-5.6(b)(3).  If the record supports more than one result, a court should not second guess the selected methodology, particularly as the decision to accept this method is a technical matter within [...]’s engineering expertise.  Pinelands Preservation Alliance v. N.J. Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 436 N.J. Super. 510, 524 (App. Div. 2014); In re N.J. Pinelands Comm’n Resolution, 356 N.J. Super. at 372.  [...]’s attempt to substitute its expert’s judgment for [...]’s does not demonstrate [...] acted arbitrarily or capriciously here.  In sum, the substantial evidence in the record shows [...] exercised its engineering and technical expertise in finding the Project met the Stormwater Rules’ regulatory requirements.  As such, this court should affirm the grant of the FHACA permit.