The Issue The issue is whether Hernando County's application for an environmental resource permit authorizing the construction of a new surface water management system to serve a 7.85 acre drainage system improvement three miles southeast of Brooksville, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Petitioners, Richard J. Silvani, Dick W. Thompson, James E. and Marilyn Bates, Joyce Menzie, James M. Gibson, Claudia C. Munsell, Mr. and Mrs. Phillip E. Durst, Donald R. Sosnoski, Mr. and Mrs. Robert L. Nelson, and Mr. and Mrs. Richard Ladow (Petitioners), are property owners in central Hernando County, Florida. Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Managment District (District), is the state agency charged with the responsibility of issuing Environmental Resource Permits (ERP) within its jurisdictional boundaries. Respondent, Hernando County (County), is a local government seeking the issuance of a permit for the purpose of alleviating drainage and flooding problems in a subdivision known as High Point Gardens in the central part of the County. On June 11, 1997, the County filed an application with the District seeking authorization to construct a low earthen berm to help control flooding in High Point Gardens, an eighty- five unit residential subdivision. On September 29, 1997, the District gave notice of its intention to issue ERP No. 449342.01 authorizing the "construction of a new surface water management system to serve a 7.85 acre drainage system improvement known as the Hernando County - High Point Gardens Drainage Improvements." The project is located off Sun Hill Lane, three miles southeast of Brooksville, Florida, in central Hernando County. On an undisclosed date, but in a timely fashion, Petitioners filed their Petition for Informal Hearing challenging the issuance of the permit. As grounds, Petitioners alleged that the permit application contained "possible miscalculations of design" which would "alter the natural water flow route"; "adversely affect several acres of natural wetlands by changing hydrology of surface area"; "adversely affect adjacent uplands by innundating forest areas never before flooded by heavy rainfall"; "not guarantee 100% flood protection to the few affected homes"; and "create flood problems to adjacent homes and property by diverting stormwater from natural flow (north) to area east of 'proposed' retention area." The petition further alleged that the "'proposed' area should not be normal recepient [sic] of excess water from Cedar Falls subdivision" and that "all affected properties are not owned or easements acquired by Hernando County for surface water storage." The filing of the petition prompted the initiation of this proceeding. The Permit The High Point Gardens subdivision, which lies within the Bystre Lake Basin, is a "relatively old subdivision," having been built around the 1970's. There is a low area in the middle of the subdivision, and it has "[s]everal sinks with a natural drainage within the area." Because the thirty-square-mile basin is a closed drainage basin, with no natural outflows, "significant" flooding problems have been present throughout the basin since at least the 1980's. In an effort to resolve flooding problems within the basin, the County and District jointly sanctioned a study by a consulting firm, Dames and Moore, to provide suggested alternative actions to correct the problem. The firm's first interim report was rendered on August 5, 1988, and a final report known as the Bystre Lake Stormwater Management Master Plan was rendered in August 1989. Among other things, the consultant's report recommended that a berm be constructed to relieve the flooding in the High Point Gardens' area. Acting on the report, the County obtained a construction permit from the District in August 1991 in accordance with the consultant's recommendation, but construction on the project was not commenced prior to the permit expiring in 1994. Although the consultant's report was the genesis for the first permit, the plans and specifications for the new berm have been modified by engineers after further study and review. It is noted that the total land area of the project will be less than 100 acres. The High Point Gardens subdivision lies within sub-basin 304 of the basin. Under the new proposal, water which now comes into sub-basins 304 and 406 from sub-basins 305 and 306 will be stored in those latter sub-basins. The requested permit would authorize the County to construct a low earthen berm along the western side of sub-basin 406 and the southern boundary of sub- basin 304 to help control flooding in the subdivision. The proposed berm will range from one to five feet in height and extend some 3,250 feet, or approximately six-tenths of a mile. It will range from eight to ten feet in width with a side slope of 4 to 1. The berm will impound water upstream of the berm to an elevation of 90.5 NGVD, which is 1.5 feet higher than the water would rise in the area under natural conditions. The water will be stored in two natural ponds which are now located in the project area. Once the water reaches an elevation of 90.5 NGVD, which will occur only during an event exceeding a 25-year storm event, three overflow structures will become operative and are designed to mimic the natural water flows of the area. After the berm is constructed, all basins "downstream" of the berm, including sub-basins 304, 405, and 406, will have "significantly lower flood elevations than the 10, 25 and 100- year storm event." That is to say, existing flooding to the north and east of the proposed berm will be lessened. To the extent that additional impoundment of water behind the berm will occur, or flooding beyond the berm may occur during a 100-year storm event, the County will acquire easements from local property owners to store the additional water. Until the aquisition of land occurs, construction cannot begin. There is one already disturbed wetland area near the proposed construction area. No mitigation is required, however, since the impact will be temporary and the area is expected to naturally revegetate itself. There will be no adverse impacts to fish, wildlife, or adjacent wetlands. Neither will the project create any other environmental concerns. While there will be some impact to upland trees caused by the impounded water, under existing District rules, that impact cannot be used as a basis to deny the permit. Based on generally accepted engineering principles, the project is capable of being effectively performed and can function as proposed. Also, the project can be effectively operated and maintained. The County has the resources to undertake the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit. The greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence supports a finding that the County has given reasonable assurances that all applicable criteria for the issuance of a permit have been met. Petitioners' Objections At hearing, Petitioners contended that the overflow structures for the berm would alter the natural flow of water, and increase the flow of water to the east of the proposed project, where several Petitioners reside. As previously noted, however, the more credible evidence shows that the project will not increase the natural flow of water to the east of the berm. More specifically, expert testimony demonstrated that the regular flow through each weir in the post-development condition will not be adversely greater than what occurred during the pre- development condition. Petitioners also contended that the wetlands will be negatively impacted by the project. Contrary expert testimony by witness Defoe established, however, that there will be no permanent adverse impacts to wetlands, fish, or wildlife if the permit is approved. Petitioners next contended that the process was flawed because very few on-site inspections of the project area were made by District and County personnel, especially during the rainy season, before the application was preliminarily approved. There were, however, on-site inspections by District and County staff and consultants, and it was not shown that the lack of additional inspections affected the validity of their studies. A further contention was made at hearing that the information supporting the application was insufficient and that more study, including soil boring tests, should have been made. As to additional soil boring tests, the evidence shows that it is not a common engineering practice to perform soil testing throughout the entire area that will be submerged. Therefore, the existing tests were adequate to support the engineering assumptions. Further, even if there were some infirmities in the data and assumptions used and made in the 1989 Dames and Moore report, as alleged by Petitioners, the errors or omissions were minor, they were subject to later refinement by professional engineers, and they did not materially affect the overall validity of the current application. Finally, the application file contains uncontradicted technical information supporting the issuance of the permit. Petitioners' other concerns, while sincere and well- intended, are not relevant to the permitting process. For example, a concern that the construction of a berm will decrease nearby property values, even if true, is not a consideration in the permitting process. Similarly, Petitioners' valid concern that some nearby upland trees will be damaged if water levels rise for a prolonged period of time is not a basis under existing District rules to deny the permit. At the same time, whether the project is cost-effective and the best alternative for alleviating flooding conditions in the area are political decisions for the County, and thus they are not in issue in this proceeding. Finally, Petitioners have pointed out that the County has not completed acquisition of the necessary easements for the project, and that until this is done, a permit should not issue. However, the District has specifically provided as a condition precedent to any construction work that the County finalize ownership or control for all property where water levels will be raised by the project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order granting Hernando County's application for Standard General Environmental Resource Permit No. 449342.01. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675, SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: E. D. "Sonny" Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Chester Bradshaw 18520 Bradshaw Road Dade City, Florida 33523 Richard L. Silvani 24419 Lanark Road Brooksville, Florida 34601 Margaret M. Lytle, Esquire 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Robert Bruce Snow, Esquire 20 North Main Street, Room 462 Brooksville, Florida 34601
The Issue The issue to be decided in these cases is whether Petitioner, A. Wayne Lujan (Petitioner), was entitled to issuance of five environmental resource permits (ERPs) that Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), intended to deny as stated in notices of denial dated October 25, 2019.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. Parties and Background Petitioner Lujan is the president and a director of Kay Haven Associated Enterprises, Inc. (Key Haven), that owns the five parcels, which are the subject matter of this hearing. Although Key Haven owns numerous lots, it chose to submit ERP applications for the Subject Lots within the Key Haven Tenth Addition plat dated September 1966 (Plat). See Joint Exhibit 84. Joint Exhibit 84 The Subject Lots are located in an unincorporated part of the County on the northwestern edge of a body of land lying north of State Road A1A, identified on the Plat as Raccoon Key. The Subject Lots are approximately half a mile east of the city limits of Key West, Florida. The Subject Lots are all characterized by a small upland portion adjacent to Floral Avenue. The majority of the Subject Lots transition into a mangrove fringe of varying depth and submerged lands containing marine seagrasses and sponges. See Joint Exhibits 81 and 82. Joint Exhibit 81 Joint Exhibit 82 DEP is the administrative agency of the state having the power and duty to protect Florida's air and water resources, and to administer and enforce the provisions of part II of chapter 380, part IV of chapter 373, and chapter 403, Florida Statutes. DEP also administers the provisions of Florida Administrative Code chapters 62-312 and 62-330 regarding activities in wetlands and other surface waters of the state. DEO is the state land planning agency and reviews certain permit applications for consistency with its statutory responsibilities under the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP), which includes part II of chapter 163, and part I of chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Relevant to this proceeding, DEO exercises authority over the ACSC program. See § 380.05, Fla. Stat. On July 26, 2018, Petitioner filed five applications for ERPs with DEP. Although certain details within each application differed, the applications all sought to authorize construction of a seawall in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and in unnamed wetlands within the landward extent of the Gulf of Mexico, a Class III OFW, to remove the entirety of the existing mangrove fringe, and to place fill within wetlands and other surface waters for the construction of single-family residences (Project). The minor differences in each application relate to the length of the seawall and the amount of fill necessary for each lot. Although some testimony was provided concerning the differences, no party argued that the differences were material to the determinations necessary in this proceeding. Accordingly, the factual and legal analysis for the Subject Lots and ERP applications were addressed without distinction herein. DEP forwarded a copy of the applications to DEO for its recommendation. On August 24, 2018, DEO issued objections to approval of the permits citing inconsistency with the Florida Keys ACSC Principles for Guiding Development (PGDs) in section 380.0552(7). DEO also objected based on inconsistencies between the Project and the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and Land Development Code (LDC), which implement the PGDs. DEP's first RAI dated August 24, 2018, included DEO's objections. The first RAI notified Petitioner that DEP had concerns with the Project that included: (1) installation of the vertical seawall; (2) placement of fill within an OFW; (3) direct impacts to marine seagrass bed community without adequate mitigation; and (4) failure to provide stormwater management plans since the Project was a common plan of development. The first RAI contained 19 specific requests for additional information. On October 23, 2018, Petitioner responded to DEP's first RAI by submitting slightly revised plans. The revised Project proposed less of a vertical seawall footprint by adding rip-rap to the side seawalls as a means of containing fill. Petitioner's responses to the 19 specific requests for information can generally be categorized as follows: (1) elimination of some vertical seawalls, but not the ones on the waterward edge of the Subject Lots; (2) no change in the placement of fill; (3) Petitioner would attempt to find appropriate compensatory mitigation for the seagrass impacts; and (4) Petitioner did not consider the Project to be a common plan of development. Regarding DEO's objections, Petitioner stated that "[w]e acknowledge that the project has been forwarded to FWC [Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission] and DEO and that additional comments and information may be requested by those agencies in order to fully evaluate the application." Petitioner did not substantively address DEO's objections. DEP issued a second RAI on November 21, 2018. DEO again objected in a letter dated November 26, 2018. DEP's second RAI raised the same concerns as the first RAI and acknowledged that four of the 19 specific items were adequately addressed. On January 11, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's second RAI by again submitting slightly revised site plans. However, the Project remained generally unchanged, with a proposed vertical seawall on the waterward edge of the lots, rip-rap along the sides, removal of the entire mangrove fringe, and fill of the entire lots eliminating the existing marine seagrasses. DEP issued a third RAI to Petitioner on February 8, 2019. DEO reiterated its objections by letter dated February 8, 2019. The third RAI raised the same concerns as the first and second RAIs, although DEP acknowledged that six of the 19 specific items were adequately addressed. By letter dated April 8, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's third RAI. The response again proposed slightly altered site plans from the January 2019 submissions. Petitioner essentially stated that mitigation opportunities were scarce, but had contacted the County and was looking into derelict vessel removal. However, the proposed Project remained generally unchanged, with a proposed vertical seawall on the waterward edge of the lots, rip-rap along the sides, removal of the entire mangrove fringe, and fill of the entire lots eliminating the existing marine seagrasses. As it relates to DEO's objections, Petitioner responded that "[a]fter review of the comments outlined in the [DEO] revised letter, it seems that the DEO objections are related to compliance with the provision[s] of the [Monroe] County [Comp Plan]. We will deal with those issues at the time of local permitting." Petitioner again failed to substantively address DEO's objections. DEP issued its final RAI on May 8, 2019. DEO again objected by letter dated May 6, 2019. This final RAI raised the same concerns as the first, second, and third RAIs. DEP stated that seven of the 19 specific items were not addressed by Petitioner, and that failure to provide a complete response to the prior RAI may result in denial of the ERP applications. On August 29, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's final RAI by once again submitting slightly revised plans, and additional information concerning mitigation proposals. However, the Project did not change and Petitioner again failed to substantively address DEO's objections. DEO’s objection letter identified that the ERP applications were inconsistent with the Florida Keys ACSC PGDs, seven Comp Plan policies, and six regulatory provisions of the County's LDC. DEP denied the ERP applications on October 25, 2019. The grounds for denial reiterated the issues not addressed by Petitioner's RAI responses. Specifically: (1) the failure of the Project to provide reasonable assurances concerning direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts to the marine seagrass bed community; (2) continued reliance upon construction of a vertical seawall; (3) failure to provide stormwater management information necessary given the determination that the Project constituted a common plan of development; (4) inconsistency with the FCMP as identified by DEO in its objection letters; and (5) failure to provide reasonable assurances that the Project was clearly in the public interest. Direct Impacts The Project proposed to entirely fill the Subject Lots, contain the fill with vertical seawalls and rip-rap, and construct pile-supported single-family residences. The Project would remove the entire mangrove fringe that aerials and site inspections show is a healthy mix of red, black, and white mangroves along with some green buttonwood. The shallow, open surface waters are dominated by marine seagrasses that vary in density. Petitioner did not make any design modifications to the Project that sought to reduce or eliminate direct impacts to the mangrove fringe and marine seagrasses. Petitioner's resource inventory was done using GIS aerial photography so that the aerial benthic resource surveys submitted to DEP were not ground- truthed. DEP staff conducted physical site inspections and ground-truthing inspections that included swimming in the open surface waters. DEP staff found significant marine seagrasses and sponges that were not mentioned in Petitioner's resource surveys. Depending on the lot, the Project would fill approximately 6,000 square feet of wetlands and other surface waters, i.e., 900 to 2,500 square feet of mangrove habitat and 4,000 to 4,800 square feet of marine seagrass bed habitat. The seawalls depicted in the final version of Petitioner's site plans were "vertical seawalls" because the rip-rap would not face the seawalls to the mean high water line (MHWL). The rip-rap would be placed on submerged resources inside the property lines of the Subject Lots. Also, Petitioner's final plans did not include the mooring of vessels. Vertical seawalls are prohibited in the OFW of the County. Petitioner did not affirmatively demonstrate that fill or shoreline stabilization could be accomplished by using native vegetation instead of vertical seawalls. Secondary Impacts DEP's expert witness, Ms. Mills, testified that Petitioner's ERP applications did not identify any potential secondary impacts. Ms. Mills testified that the expected secondary impacts from the Project included stormwater runoff, shading, and erosion or shoaling. Although the Project plans showed that stormwater would be collected and directed to Floral Avenue, DEP's investigation established that there is no stormwater management system on the side of Floral Avenue abutting the Subject Lots. Thus, the collected and directed stormwater would end up flowing back into the mangrove fringe and surface waters at the lot locations that were not proposed for development, e.g., Lots 36 and 38. The proposed single-family homes are piling-supported structures. Ms. Mills testified that the piling-supported structure would cause shading of the immediate adjacent resources on either side. She identified potential shading impacts to the resources of the undeveloped Lots 36 and 38. In addition, Ms. Mills identified potential erosion or shoaling impacts to the undeveloped Lots 36, 38, and unnamed lots to the left of Lot 40 since they would be surrounded by developed fill on either side. Although Mr. Swakon testified that tidal velocity is low in this area, other aspects, such as effects from wind-driven circulation, were not adequately addressed. Mitigation Petitioner was required to propose mitigation to offset remaining direct and secondary impacts after going through a reduction and elimination exercise. However, Petitioner did not propose any revisions to the Project to reduce or eliminate the direct and secondary impacts identified above. Ms. Mills explained that appropriate mitigation usually provides benefits to the same type of ecological community as the one being impacted. Petitioner's ultimate mitigation proposal was to purchase saltwater credit at a mitigation bank, the Florida Power and Light Everglades Mitigation Bank (FPL EMB). The FPL EMB is located on the mainland of Florida approximately a hundred miles away from the Subject Lots. Ms. Mills testified that saltwater credit would be appropriate to offset and replace the same ecological function of mangroves, but not to offset the submerged benthic communities that would be impacted by the Project. Mr. Swakon testified that calculation of the amount of mitigation credits included a multiplier to address secondary and cumulative impacts, the out-of-kind mitigation, and the dissimilarities in the communities. However, Ms. Mills persuasively testified that the proposed multiplier was not sufficient to justify the three aspects of impact that needed to be offset. Whether to justify dissimilarities between the ecological communities, secondary and cumulative impacts, or the distance of the mitigation site from the Project, the multiplier was not sufficient. Cumulative Impacts The Project is not within a recognized cumulative impact basin of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) for mitigation of impacts purposes. Accordingly, Ms. Mills testified that the plain language of a cumulative impacts analysis is considered. Contiguous lots to the Subject Lots owned by Petitioner could be developed through similar requests in the future. Also, each ERP application's cumulative impact analysis would consider the other four ERP applications as in-house examples of potential future projects. Common Plan of Development Petitioner contested DEP's conclusion that the Project was a common plan of development subject to section 2.0 of the Applicant's Handbook Volume 1 and associated stormwater management requirements. The Project would facilitate the advancement of land uses such as multiple residences, a residential subdivision, or phased site development. The Project comprised a total land area divided into multiple lots or parcels that are under common ownership or control. In total, Petitioner owns 648 lots under common ownership within the Key Haven Tenth and Eleventh Addition. The Subject Lots are all part of a residential subdivision. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project was a common plan of development. For this common plan of development, Petitioner's proposed stormwater management consisted of a cap on the proposed seawalls directing stormwater to swales on each lot. The swales would then direct stormwater to Floral Avenue with no additional treatment or management. During site inspections, DEP staff did not find any evidence of stormwater management along Floral Avenue. Seawalls and Rip-rap The seawalls depicted in the final version of Petitioner's ERP applications would be vertical seawalls because the rip-rap facing the seawall did not come above the MHWL. In addition, the final plans did not include the mooring of vessels. As found above, the Project would place fill, seawalls, and rip-rap on marine seagrasses and sponges. Petitioner failed to affirmatively demonstrate that native vegetation was not sufficient to prevent erosion. The evidence established that Petitioner did not apply for any waiver or variance of applicable ERP rule criteria. FCMP Consistency The evidence demonstrated that Petitioner refused to address DEO's objections based on a mistaken view of the criteria governing ERP applications in the County and the Florida Keys ACSC. Relevant to this proceeding, DEO exercises authority over the ACSC program. See § 380.05, Fla. Stat.; see also § 380.23(6), Fla. Stat. (Each agency charged with implementing statutes and rules that are part of the FCMP, shall be afforded an opportunity to provide DEP with its comments and determination regarding consistency of the activity with those statutes and rules.). Section 380.05(16) prohibits persons from undertaking any development within the Florida Keys ACSC, except in accordance with the PGDs. Thus DEO, as the administrator of the ACSC program, reviewed the ERP applications for consistency with applicable regulatory requirements. DEO issued objections to approval of the permits citing inconsistency with the Florida Keys ACSC PGDs; and inconsistencies between the Project and the County's Comp Plan and LDC which implement the PGDs. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with four PGDs. DEO's expert witness, Ms. Powell, testified that the Project was inconsistent with the PGD, which provides for strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that the local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the ACSC designation. See § 380.0552(7)(a), Fla. Stat. Ms. Powell persuasively testified that the ERP applications were inconsistent with this PGD because the Project would impair the local government's ability to have the ACSC designation removed. Allowing development inconsistent with its regulations would hurt the local government's ability to pursue de-designation. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The second PGD cited by DEO provides for protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. See § 380.0552(7)(b), Fla. Stat. It was undisputed that the Project would result in total removal of the mangrove and buttonwood fringe on each lot and 100% destruction of existing submerged marine resources. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The third PGD cited by DEO provides for limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. See § 380.0552(7)(e), Fla. Stat. Ms. Powell testified that degradation to nearshore water quality from prior dredge and fill activity was one of the reasons for the designation of the Florida Keys as an ACSC. Additionally, as further discussed below, the Project would be inconsistent with the County's Comp Plan policies and LDC regulations that further the goal of protecting the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys ACSC. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The fourth PGD cited by DEO provides for protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys, and maintaining the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. See § 380.0552(7)(n), Fla. Stat. As further discussed below, the Project would be inconsistent with the County's Comp Plan and LDC regulations that prohibit the use of structural fill within velocity zones. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. Ms. Powell testified that DEO considered the remaining statutory PGDs, and determined they were not particularly applicable to these ERP applications. In accordance with its duties, DEO had also reviewed and approved the County's Comp Plan and LDC as consistent with the statutory PGDs. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with seven Comp Plan policies. They are Policies 102.1.1, 101.5.25, 203.1.1, 204.2.2, 204.2.3, 204.2.4, and 212.5.3. Policy 102.1.1 provides: The County shall protect submerged lands and wetlands. The open space requirement shall be one hundred (100) percent of the following types of wetlands: submerged lands mangroves salt ponds fresh water wetlands fresh water ponds undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands only for use as transferable development rights (TDRs) away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Policy 101.5.25 provides that "[t]he allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available." Policy 203.1.1 provides that "[t]he open space requirement for mangrove wetlands shall be one hundred (100) percent. No fill or structures shall be permitted in mangrove wetlands except for elevated, pile-supported walkways, docks, piers and utility pilings." Policy 204.2.2 provides: To protect submerged lands and wetlands, the open space requirement shall be 100 percent of the following types of wetlands: submerged lands; mangroves; salt ponds; freshwater wetlands; freshwater ponds; and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands. Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetland only for use as transferable development rights away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Within one (1) year after the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the County shall revise the LDC to include a prohibition of development in salt ponds. Policy 204.2.3 provides: No structures shall be permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands, except for elevated, pile-supported walkways, docks, piers, and utility pilings. No fill shall be permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands except: as specifically allowed by Objective 212.5 and subsequent Policies; to fill a manmade excavated water body, such as a canal, boat ramp, or swimming pool if the Director of Environmental Resources determines that such filling will not have a significant adverse impact on marine or wetland communities; or as needed for shoreline stabilization or beach renourishment projects with a valid public purpose that furthers the goals of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, as determined by the County. Policy 204.2.4 provides: No fill or structures shall be permitted in mangroves or wetlands except as allowed by Policy 204.2.3 (as amended) and for bridges extending over mangroves or wetlands that are required to provide automobile or pedestrian access to dwelling units located on upland areas within the same property for which there is no alternative means of access. Such bridges shall be elevated on pilings such that the natural movement of water, including volume, rate, and direction of flow shall not be disrupted or altered. Upland areas shall include disturbed wetlands that have been lawfully converted into uplands through filling. Policy 212.5.3 provides: Bulkheads, seawalls or other hardened vertical shoreline structures shall be permitted on residential canals and altered shorelines only in the following situations: to replace an existing deteriorated bulkhead or seawall; or to stabilize a severely eroding shoreline area. DEO's expert witness, Ms. Powell, persuasively testified that the Project was inconsistent with all seven policies, because it did not protect the submerged lands and wetlands, did not provide for 100% open space within the submerged lands and wetlands, and provided for the construction of a seawall not excepted from the general prohibition. Petitioner did not present any evidence that the Project was consistent with the cited policies. Instead, Petitioner's witness, Mr. Nelson, testified that he felt certain County regulations would militate in favor of allowing the development. The main factor cited by Mr. Nelson was that the Subject Lots were designated as Tier III parcels under the County's LDC. However, designation of a parcel as Tier III did not conflict with the policies cited by DEO. The more credible and persuasive evidence concerning the Project's compliance with the Comp Plan policies was provided by Ms. Powell, who concluded that the Project was not consistent with those policies. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with six sections of the County's LDC regulations. Those are sections 118-4, 118-10(e), 118-12(k)(2), 122-4(b)(5), 130-157, and 130-162. The LDC regulations are more specific methods for implementing the Comp Plan policies outlined above. Section 118-4 provides: No development activities, except as provided for in this chapter, are permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, freshwater wetlands, freshwater ponds, or in undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands; the open space requirement is 100 percent. Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands only for use as transferable development rights away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Section 118-10(e), in relevant part, provides: Mangroves, wetlands, and submerged lands. All structures developed, used or occupied on land classified as mangroves, wetlands or submerged lands (all types and all levels of quality) shall be designed, located and constructed such that: Generally. Only docks and docking facilities, boat ramps, walkways, water access walkways, water observation platforms, boat shelters, nonenclosed gazebos, riprap, seawalls, bulkheads, and utility pilings shall be permitted on or over mangroves, wetlands, and submerged lands, subject to the specific restrictions of this subsection. Trimming and/or removal of mangroves shall meet Florida Department of Environmental Protection requirements. * * * (4) Placement of fill. No fill shall be permitted in any mangroves, wetlands, or submerged lands except: As specifically allowed by this Section or by Section 118- 12(k) (Bulkheads, Seawalls, Riprap) and 118-12(l) (Boat Ramps); To fill a manmade, excavated water body such as a canal, boat ramp, boat slip, boat basin or swimming pool if the County Biologist determines that such filling will not have a significant adverse impact on marine or wetland communities; As needed for shoreline stabilization or beach renourishment projects with a valid public purpose that furthers the goals of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, as determined by the County Biologist; For bridges extending over salt marsh and/or buttonwood association wetlands that are required to provide automobile or pedestrian access to lawfully established dwelling units located on upland areas within the same property for which there is no alternate means of access. Such bridges shall be elevated on pilings so that the natural movement of water, including volume, rate and direction of flow shall not be disrupted or altered; or As approved for Disturbed Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Association Wetlands with appropriate mitigation as defined by the wetland regulations of subsection (e)(6) of this Section. Section 118-12(k)(2) provides: (2) Vertical type seawalls or bulkheads shall be permitted only to stabilize severely eroding shorelines and only on manmade canals, channels, or basins. Such seawalls or bulkheads shall be permitted only if native vegetation and/or riprap and filter cloth is not a feasible means to control erosion. No new seawalls, bulkheads, or other hardened vertical structures shall be permitted on open water. Section 122-4(b)(5), in relevant part, provides: Coastal high-hazard areas (V zones). Within the areas of special flood hazard are areas designated as coastal high- hazard areas, which have special flood hazards associated with wave wash. The following provisions shall apply in these areas: * * * e. There shall be no fill used as structural support. Section 130-157, Maximum Permanent Residential Density and Minimum Required Open Space, provides at note (a): (a) The allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available. Section 130-162, Maximum Densities for Hotel/Motel, Campground, Recreational Vehicle, Seasonal and Institutional Residential Uses, and Minimum Open Space, proves at note (a): (a) The allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available. Ms. Powell persuasively testified that the Project was not consistent with the County's LDC regulations in sections 118-4, 118-10(e), 118-12(k)(2), 122- 4(b)(5), 130-157, and 130-162. The Project was inconsistent with the cited LDC regulations because it sought to construct seawall in submerged land, fill portions of the lots subject to a 100% open space requirement, remove the entirety of the existing mangrove fringe, impair 100% of the marine seagrass resources within the Subject Lots, and utilize structural fill within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated Velocity Zone. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project did not meet the criteria of part IV of chapter 62-312 and section 380.0552. The testimony also demonstrated that Petitioner did not apply for a variance or waiver of the County's LDC regulations. Conditions for Issuance Petitioner generally argued that the five applications provided reasonable assurance for issuance of individual ERPs. However, the persuasive and credible evidence established that the Project did not satisfy a majority of the conditions for issuance under rule 62-330.301. Petitioner failed to provide adequate information regarding stormwater management, the impacts of runoff to Floral Avenue, and runoff flowing back into the Gulf of Mexico OFW. This failure resulted in a lack of reasonable assurance that the Project would not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; would not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; and would not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Those functions would be 100% impacted and the impacts would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. As found above, the Project would cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, adverse impacts to surface water conveyance, and the adverse impacts would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. Additional Conditions for Issuance Petitioner generally contended that the five applications provided reasonable assurance that the Project was clearly in the public interest under rule 62-330.302. However, the persuasive and credible evidence established that the Project did not satisfy a majority of the applicable additional conditions for issuance. The Project would adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others because Petitioner failed to provide adequate information regarding stormwater management. DEP's site inspection found no stormwater management or treatment system on the side of Floral Avenue adjacent to the Subject Lots. Thus, the collected and directed stormwater would end up flowing back into the mangrove fringe and the OFW. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, or their habitat, as a result of the 100% impact to benthic communities, which would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely affect marine productivity, the current condition, and the relative value of functions being performed by the impacted areas. Also, the Project would be permanent in nature. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that Petitioner failed to provide reasonable assurance that there would not be harmful erosion or shoaling. The Project would not adversely affect or enhance any significant historical and archaeological resources. The Project would not be within a recognized cumulative impact basin of the SFWMD for mitigation of impacts purposes. Contiguous lots to the Subject Lots owned by Petitioner could be developed through similar requests in the future. Each ERP application's cumulative impact analysis would consider the other four ERP applications as in-house examples of potential future projects. Thus, Petitioner did not provide reasonable assurance that each ERP application would not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order denying Petitioner's five ERP applications. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathryn E.D. Lewis, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jay Patrick Reynolds, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Moore, Esquire Moore Bowman & Reese, P.A. Suite 100 551 North Cattlemen Road Sarasota, Florida 34232 Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Mail Station 35 Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jon F. Morris, Esquire Brandon W. White, Esquire Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street, Mail Station 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Valerie A. Wright, Esquire Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted No Notice General Environmental Resource Permits for Lots 61, 245, and 247 within Unit of Development 11 of the Indian Trail Improvement District, pursuant to permitting criteria of Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, Chapters 40E-40 and 40E-400, Florida Administrative Code, and the South Florida Water Management District's "Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District--November 1996."
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Royal Palm Beach Colony (Royal Palm), is a limited partnership registered and authorized to do business in the State of Florida. Respondent, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), is a public corporation existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, as a water management district, with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida. Intervenor, 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc., is a not- for-profit, tax exempt membership corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. Intervenor, Indian Trail Improvement District (ITID), is a special district of the State of Florida established by special act of the Legislature, Chapter 57-646, Laws of Florida, and operating pursuant to applicable provisions of Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, as well as special acts of the Legislature. Royal Palm owns approximately 171 lots within Unit of Development 11 of ITID (Unit 11) in Palm Beach County, Florida. Each lot is approximately 1.25 acres. Not all of the lots owned by Royal Palm in Unit 11 are contiguous. Unit 11 is a rural subdivision within ITID, in which there are numerous private property owners. The property of Royal Palm that is the subject of dispute is comprised of three lots, Lots 61, 245, and 247. Unit 11 is within the C-18 Basin. Prior to the construction of the C-18 Canal, the area was typically drained by sheet flow to the north. Because of the flat topography, the drainage in the C-18 Basin is poor; therefore, following periods of heavy rainfall much of the land is inundated. Unit 11 contains an extensive amount of wetlands. There are currently no habitable structures within Unit 11. It consists of vacant lots with an interconnected network of roads, canals, and roadside swales. On August 15, 1975, SFWMD's predecessor, The Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, issued ITID a surface water management permit, Permit No. 50-00136-S (the 1975 permit) for construction and operation of a surface water management system serving Unit 11. The permit authorizes discharge from Unit 11 to the west leg of the C-18 canal via three culverts. In 1988, SFWMD undertook a comprehensive examination of the C-18 Basin, which resulted in a publication entitled "Technical Publication 88-11, Flood Management Study of the C- 18 Basin, August, 1988." The study documented that the western leg of the C-18 canal lacked capacity to accept the permitted discharge from Unit 11. SFWMD determined that the development of Unit 11's flood control and water quantity management system according to Permit No. 50-00136-S would be inconsistent with the overall objectives of SFWMD, harmful to the water resources and the public's health, safety, and welfare, and to the policies and purposes of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and not in the best interest of future residents of Unit 11. SFWMD and ITID entered into a consent agreement concerning Unit 11 on July 7, 1989 (the Consent Agreement). SFWMD and ITID agreed that ITID would apply for, process, and obtain a modification of Permit No. 50-00136-S to address and resolve SFWMD's flooding and water quality concerns. In addition, ITID was to construct the surface water management system authorized in the permit modification in accordance with the terms of the permit. ITID received a permit from SFWMD in 1990 authorizing modifications to the surface water management system in order to address the issues identified in the Consent Agreement, namely potential flooding of homes constructed for future residents of Unit 11. The improvements approved in the 1990 permit were never implemented, and the permit expired. In 1992, ITID proposed a different modification to the surface water management system that proposed an impoundment for retention of stormwater. The permit application was recommended for denial by SFWMD staff, but has never been presented to the SFWMD Governing Board for final agency action. The problems regarding the water quality and flooding problems set forth in the Consent Agreement have not been remedied. On December 4, 1997, Royal Palm obtained variances from the Palm Beach County Health Department (the Health Department), granting Royal Palm the right under certain specified conditions to construct on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems (OSTD Systems) on Lots 61, 245, and 247. Originally, the Health Department had denied Royal Palm's request for permission to construct the OSTD Systems on lots 61, 245, and 247 on the grounds that the lots were located in an area subject to frequent flooding and the drainage in the subdivision had not been constructed in accordance with SFWMD's requirements. Subsequent to the granting of the variance, Royal Palm revised its site plans for the three lots, and those revised plans have not been reviewed by the Health Department for compliance with applicable rules. On March 19, 1998, Royal Palm notified SFWMD that Royal Palm was entitled to a No Notice General Permit (NNGP) for Lots 61, 245, and 247 for activities in uplands pursuant to Rule 40E-400.315, Florida Administrative Code. On April 9, 1998, SFWMD issued its agency action by letter that informed Royal Palm that SFWMD staff had determined that the three lots did not qualify for a NNGP. The letter stated the reasons for denial as follows: Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that the proposed system or project is not part of a larger common plan of development. See Rule 40E- 400.315(1)(f), Fla. Admin. Code. Royal Palm Colony is the owner of approximately 170 lots within Unit 11 of the Indian Trail Improvement District, and the three proposed lots appear to be merely part of this large common plan of development. Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system with use of septic systems and the associated lack of water quality treatment will not cause pollution in violation of water quality standards. See Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e), and 40E-400.215(11), Fla. Admin. Code. There is not a viable or functioning stormwater management system in place or proposed to provide reasonable assurance that the septic systems would properly function. Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, including, but not limited to, significant interference with the construction and operation of a regional stormwater system needed for adequate flood protection and stormwater treatment in the Unit 11 area. See Rule 40E-400.301(1)(f), Fla. Admin. Code. Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system will not cause water quality impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands. See Rule 40E- 4.301(1)(a), Fla. Admin. Code. The proposed project adds impervious area and eliminates water storage. This consideration is especially relevant when considering the larger common plan of development. Reasonable assurance has not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system will not cause adverse flooding to on-site and or/or (sic) off-site properties. See Rule 40E- 4.301(10)(b), Fla. Admin. Code. The proposed project adds impervious area and eliminates water storage. This consideration is especially relevant when considering the larger common plan of development. Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. See Rule 40E-4.301(10)(c), Fla. Admin. Code. The proposed project adds impervious area and eliminates water storage. This consideration is especially relevant when considering the larger common plan of development. Reasonable assurance has not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species and other surface waters. See Rule 40-4.301(1)(d), Fla. Admin. Code. This consideration is especially relevant when considering the larger common plan of development. Reasonable assurance has not been provided to show that the proposed system or project is capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed. See Rule 40E- 4.301(1)(i), Fla. Admin. Code. On April 23, 1998, Royal Palm filed its Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with the clerk of SFWMD, initiating this proceeding. Rule 40E-400.315(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, is intended to authorize only very minor activities that have no potential to cause harm to water resources. Because the NNGP is issued by rule, SFWMD does not typically review projects that are conducted pursuant to a NNGP. A NNGP does not authorize projects that are part of a common plan of development or sale. In determining whether an activity is within a larger common plan of development, SFWMD staff look to see whether the project has shared infrastructure that facilitates development, such as canals, swales, and roads. A surface water management is in place in Unit 11. It consists of roads, swales, and drainage canals. The system drains to the C-18 canal via three culverts. The system was put into place as a result of the issuance of the 1975 permit, but there have been no modifications to the system as required by the Consent Agreement. During the last ten years ITID has done minimal maintenance to the system. A common road network within Unit 11 provides access to each of the three lots. The lots will depend on the swales and drainage canals as part of overall stormwater management system that serves Unit 11. Unit 11 is a common plan of development. Accordingly, the activities proposed by Royal Palm, filling in order to construct three single family houses with driveways, mounded septic tank systems, and wells within Unit 11 are not authorized pursuant to a NNGP. Royal Palm's predecessor company originally owned all the lots in Unit 11. Royal Palm is presently liquidating its assets. Royal Palm selected the three lots at issue in this case for permitting for individual homes because the lots represented a good overview of the different types of Royal Palm's holdings in the area. If Royal Palm is able to build homes on the three lots and depending on the market conditions and other outside factors, Royal Palm will make a decision on how to liquidate the other 168 lots in Unit 11. It is anticipated that the construction of the homes on the lots at issue will involve placement of fill. Land development, including the placement of fill, displaces stormwater that would, on a property in its natural condition, pond on the surface or soak into the ground. In order to determine whether a project complies with the flood protection criteria, SFWMD staff must consider the effect the proposed land development has off-site, and the effects surrounding lands may have on the lot to be developed. The flood routing calculations provided by Royal Palm in its application did not provide any analysis of how discharges from surrounding properties would affect the performance of the surface water management systems constructed on the lots at issue. Nor did Royal Palm address the potential for flooding of off-site properties by stormwater displaced by fill and impervious areas that are contemplated on Lots 61, 245, and 247. The three lots are not hydrologically separate from the remainder of Unit 11. Royal Palm's failure to include a detailed analysis of the surrounding area also precluded SFWMD from making a determination as to the impacts of the proposed activities upon existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. The proposed projects are single family houses. It is reasonable to expect that some discharge of untreated stormwater runoff from the system directly into wetlands and other surface water will occur. For Lots 245, 247, and 61, the proposed stormwater management system includes a dry detention area. Considering the topographic information for this site, part of the runoff from the fill area will not flow into the dry detention area but will flow untreated directly into wetlands and other surface waters. The runoff could reasonably be expected to include oils, grease, and petroleum from the driveway area and herbicide and pesticides from the yard area. The untreated runoff could pose an adverse impact. Development adjacent to wetlands has the potential to disrupt the usage of those wetlands by wildlife. Section 4.2.7 of the Basis of Review provides that secondary impacts to the habitat functions of wetlands associated with adjacent upland activities are not considered adverse if buffers with a minimum width of 15 feet and an average width of 25 feet are provided abutting those wetlands. In certain circumstances, additional measures are necessary. The Basis of Review provides that buffers must be in undisturbed condition, except that drainage features can be located in the buffer if their construction and operation will not negatively impact the wetlands. The design drawings for Lots 245 and 247 demonstrate that the buffers are not undisturbed because fill will be placed in the buffer areas. There is no treatment system in place for the roads in Unit 11; thus, there is a potential for untreated runoff from the roads, which could contain oils, grease, and petroleum constituents, to reach wetlands or surface waters. The roads in Unit 11 are sometimes under water and will require increased maintenance to correct erosion from increased vehicular traffic. Road maintenance and grading present the potential to discharge sediment laden water into adjacent wetlands. This threat is particularly great in Unit 11 because many of the roads go directly through wetlands. The engineering calculations submitted by Royal Palm anticipate that the elevation of the roads will be raised. Raising the elevations will require additional fill, and because several roads in Unit 11 go through wetlands, additional filling of wetlands can be anticipated. Section 6.9(a) of the Basis of Review, requires that residential projects must have the calculated ability to discharge a sufficient volume of stormwater such that the system can return to the control elevation within 12 days of a design storm event. Royal Palm failed to provide information demonstrating that the storage volume provided by the systems proposed for the three lots can be recovered and therefore available for subsequent storm events. Without an adequate understanding of the functioning of the overall surface stormwater management system in Unit 11, it is impossible to determine the amount of time necessary for the systems on the three lots to bleed down to control elevation. In order to allow access to the three lots from the roads, fill must be placed in the roadside swales. Because the elevation of the roadside swales is below the seasonal high water table, they are defined as other surface waters. The swales are depressional areas that support an abundance of obligate wetland vegetation; thus, they are encompassed within the definition of jurisdictional wetlands. Thus, the project will involve direct impacts to wetlands.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Royal Palm Beach Colony, L.P.'s application for No Notice General Permits for Lots 61, 245, and 237. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Samuel H. Poole, III, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Alfred J. Malefatto, Esquire Teresa J. Moore, Esquire Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel, P.A. 777 South Flagler Drive Suite 300 East West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Terrell K. Arline, Esquire 1000 Friends of Florida Post Office Box 5948 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles F. Schoesch, Esquire Caldwell & Pacetti 234 Royal Palm Way, Suite 300 Palm Beach, Florida 33480
The Issue Whether a consumptive use permit for the quantities of water as applied for should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Application No. 7500112 requested water from three (3) wells for the purpose of industrial use. This application is for a new use. The center of withdrawals will be located at Latitude 27 degrees 38' 58" North, Longitude 81 degrees 48' 21" West, in Hardee County, Florida. The application is for the use of not more than 470 million gallons of water per year and not more than 2,592,000 gallons of water during any single day to be withdrawn from the Florida Aquifer. Application received as Exhibit 1. Notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation, to-wit: The Herald Advocate, published weekly in Wauchula, Florida, on August 7 and 14, 1975, pursuant to Section 373.146, Florida Statutes. Notices of said public hearing were duly sent by certified mail as required by law. The affidavit of publication was received without objection and entered into evidence as Exhibit 2. Letters of objection were received from the following: Mr. Joseph F. Smith, Route 1, Box 238, Wauchula, Florida 33273. Mr. Smith states that in his opinion such withdrawal of water will severely damage his property. He is developing a mobile home park on eight (8) acres and is fearful that the amount of water requested in this application will diminish his supply of water for his project. A letter from Mr. and Mrs. A. H. Van Dyck, written on August 16, 1975, Route 2, Box 657, Wauchula, Florida 33873. They are fearful that the large amount of water American Orange Corporation proposes to pump each day will affect their shallow well which provides water for their home. They would like to see some type of agreement whereby American Orange Corporation would be willing to pay for replacement of the well if the corporation should cause their well to go dry. Mr. Stanley H. Beck, Counselor at Law, wrote a letter in behalf of his client, Harold Beck, requesting information as to the applicable statutes and regulations which affect the matter of the consumptive use permit. A telegram was sent by Harold Beck of Suite 1021, Rivergate Plaza, Miami 33131, stating that he objected to the application of American Orange Corporation's withdrawal of water or the reason that it would reduce the property value. The witness for the permittee is Barbara Boatwright, hydrologist, who was duly sworn and agreement was reached on each point enumerated as required by Rule 16J-2.11, Rules of the Southwest Florida Water Management District and Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. The staff hydrologist recommended that the permit be granted with two (2) conditions. One was that each of the wells be metered and two, that the District receive monthly reports from each meter. The applicant has consented.
Findings Of Fact By application number 21312, the applicant seeks a ten year water use permit for a total annual diversion of 3,831 million gallons to provide water and sewer services to an area containing approximately 7,300 acres. In September of 1969, the Florida Public Service Commission granted the applicant certificates of convenience and necessity. The existing facilities of the applicant include nine wells and an average capacity of 700 gallons per minute each. Based upon historical data and taking into accourt the reduction of construction in the service area, the projected 1984 water demand is 375 gallons per day per unit. This is equivalent to an average of 150 gallons per day per person, using a figure of 2.5 persons per living unit. The ultimate estimated population is to be 70,000 to 80,000 people with 28,000 to 32,000 living units. Based upon the average capacities of the wells, in order to meet the projected demand a total number of 22 or 23 wells will be required. This includes the nine existing wells, eleven proposed wells with the same 700 gallon per minute average and a fifteen percent standby capability of two or three additional wells. Rather than the total number of wells utilized -- 22 or 23, -- what is important is the total gallon per minute capacity of 15,400. An allocation based on this data would be equal to the applicant's requested annual maximum diversion of 3,831 million gallons and a daily maximum diversion of 18.37 million gallons. The requested diversion presents no threat of salt water intrusion. The proposed well sites will create no adverse impact upon the Fort Lauderdale well fields. While there is evidence of recharge to the aquifer from runoff waters, there is insufficient data to determine the exact amount which will be returned. For this reason, the staff report's water budget calculations are conservative.
Recommendation Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a ten year permit be issued to the applicant for a maximum annual diversion of 3,831 million gallons; a maximum daily diversion of 18.37 million gallons and a maximum installed field capacity of 15,400 gallons per minute, utilizing 22 or 23 wells with a capacity of 700 gallons per minute each. It is further recommended that the applicant be subject to the conditions set forth on page 5 of the staff report (Exhibit 8) concerning the submission of monthly reports of daily pumpage and actual connections or population served, conformance with health department standards of the water quality of all wells, and the installation and maintenance of an observation well and monthly reports of the data obtained therefrom. Respectively submitted and entered this 10th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. John R. Maloy Executive Director Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District P.O. Box V West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Mr. Edward B. Deutsch 350 Southern Federal Building 400 North State Road 7 Margate, Florida 33063 Mr. John Wheeler P.O. Box V West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Attorney for the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District
Findings Of Fact The petitioners Petitioners are special taxing districts and political subdivisions of the State of Florida, which were created pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes. The petitioners and their pertinent structures and operations were authorized by Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of providing irrigation, drainage and flood protection for the landowners within their respective boundaries. In order to effect this purpose, the petitioners designed and operate their water control structures to pump excess stormwater and surface water directly to Lake Okeechobee (the "Lake") in the case of East Beach Water Control District (East Beach) and directly to the Rim Canal at the southern end of the Lake in the case of South Shore Drainage District (South Shore), East Shore Water Control District (East Shore), and South Florida Conservancy District (South Florida). East Beach covers a total area of approximately 6,542 acres located along the southeast shore of the Lake. Approximately 75-80 percent of the lands contained within the District are used for agriculture, with most of those lands planted in sugarcane. The remaining 20-25 percent of the drainage area is urbanized. The urban area includes the City of Pahokee. South Shore covers a total area of approximately 4,230 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake. Approximately 80-85 percent of the lands contained within the District are used for agriculture, with most of those lands planted in sugarcane. The remaining 15-20 percent of the drainage area is urban and industrial. The urban area includes a portion of the cities in South Bay, Lake Harbor, Bean City, South Shore Village, and sparsely scattered home sites throughout the District. East Shore covers a total area of approximately 8,136 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake. With the exception of lands developed as canals, levees, roads, and other service-related systems, the entire district is used for agricultural purposes. South Florida covers a total area of approximately 32,754 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake with 28,649 acres located in Palm Beach County and 4,105 acres located in Hendry County. Approximately 85-90 percent of the land is used for agricultural purposes and the remaining 10-15 percent is used for urban or industrial purposes. The City of Belle Glade constitutes a major part of the urban land with the remainder situated around the cities of South Bay, Lake Harbor and other scattered home sites. Here, the parties have stipulated that petitioners have standing to maintain this challenge. Background Before 1986, petitioners' discharges into the Lake had not been regulated by the respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (Department). In 1985 the Governor of the State of Florida issued Executive Order Number 86-150. This executive order observed that the Lake Okeechobee Technical Committee, formed to study water quality and water supply conditions in the Lake, had found the Lake to be in danger of becoming hypereutrophic because of the excessive amounts of nutrients, especially phosphorus, it was receiving, and had recommended corrective actions to substantially reduce the nutrient load and provide for long-term monitoring, research and management needs for the Lake. To protect and preserve the Lake, the executive order directed, inter alia, that the Department "bring all private and publically controlled backpumping sources into the lake under permit review or under enforcement for operating without a permit." Pursuant to that executive order, the Department, in concert with petitioners, began the process of regulating petitioners' discharges into the Lake. The Department initially attempted to have the petitioners enter into consent orders; however, the petitioners objected to that concept. Ultimately, both the Department and petitioners agreed to the issuance of short-term operating permits (TOPs) containing specific conditions aimed at determining the composition of the discharges from petitioners' systems and at reducing the pollution loading into the Lake. The TOPs, issued December 30, 1986, and effective until September 23, 1988, were issued pursuant to the Department's regulatory authority over pollution sources contained in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. 2/ Pertinent to this case, Section 403.088, Florida Statutes, provided, and continues to provide, as follows: 403.088 Water pollution operation permits; temporary permits; conditions-- (1) No person, without written authorization of the department, shall discharge into waters within the state any waste which by itself or in combination with the wastes or other sources, reduces the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them . . . (2)(a) Any person intending to discharge wastes into the waters of the state shall make application to the department for an operation permit. Application shall be made on a form prescribed by the department and shall contain such information as the department requires. If the department finds that the proposed discharge will reduce the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them, it shall deny the application and refuse to issue a permit. . . (3)(a) A person who does not qualify for an operation permit or has been denied an operation permit under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) may apply to the department for a temporary operation permit . . . After consideration of the application, any additional information furnished, and all written objections submitted, the department shall grant or deny a temporary operation permit. No temporary permit shall be granted by the department unless it affirmatively finds: The proposed discharge does not qualify for an operation permit; The applicant is constructing, installing, or placing into operation, or has submitted plans and reasonable schedules of constructing, installing or placing into operation, an approved pollution abatement facility or alternate waste disposal system, or that the applicant has a waste for which no feasible and acceptable method of treatment or disposal is known or recognized but is making a bona fide effort through research and other means to discover and implement such a method; The applicant needs permission to pollute the waters within the state for a period of time necessary to complete research, planning, construction, installation, or operation of an approved and acceptable pollution abatement facility or alternate waste disposal system; There is no present, reasonable, alternative means of disposing of the waste other than by discharging it into the waters of the state; The denial of a temporary operation permit would work an extreme hardship upon the applicant; The granting of a temporary operation permit will be in the public interest; or The discharge will not be unreasonably destructive to the quality of the receiving waters. A temporary operation permit issued shall: Specify the manner, nature, volume, and frequency of the discharge permitted; Require the proper operation and maintenance of any interim or temporary pollution abatement facility or system required by the department as a condition of the permit; Require the permitholder to maintain such monitoring equipment and make and file such records and reports as the department deems necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of the permit and to evaluate the effect of the discharge upon the receiving waters; Be valid only for the period of time necessary for the permit holder to place into operation the facility, system, or method contemplated in his application as determined by the department; and Contain other requirements and restrictions which the department deems necessary and desirable to protect the quality of the receiving waters and promote the public interest. And, Section 403.927, Florida Statutes, provided, and continues to provide, as follows: 403.927 Use of water in farming and forestry activities.-- . . . it is the intent of the Legislature to provide for the construction and operation of agricultural water management systems under authority granted to water management districts and to control, by the department or by delegation of authority to water management districts, the ultimate discharge from agricultural water management systems. . . . The department may require a stormwater permit or appropriate discharge permit at the ultimate point of discharge from an agricultural water management system or a group of connected agricultural water management systems. . . (4) As used in this section, the term: * * * (b) "Agricultural water management systems" means farming and forestry water management or irrigation systems and farm ponds which are permitted pursuant to chapter 373 or which are exempt from the permitting provisions of that chapter. The agricultural water management systems owned and operated by petitioners fall within the definition of "agricultural water management systems" set forth in Section 403.927(4)(b), Florida Statutes. Consistent with the provisions of Section 403.088, Florida Statutes, Rule 17-4.070(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides: A permit shall be issued to the applicant upon such conditions as the Department may direct, only if the applicant affirmatively provides the Department with reasonable assurance based on plans, test results, installation of pollution control equipment, or other information, that the construction, expansion, modification, operation, or activity of the installation will not discharge, emit or cause pollution in contravention of Department standards or rules. However, for discharges of wastes to water, the Department may issue temporary operation permits under the criteria set forth in Section 403.088(3), F.S. Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, further delineates the specific procedures to obtain permits and the specific standards for issuing and denying permits. In July 1988, petitioners applied for an extension of their TOPs. The monthly water quality monitoring data petitioners had submitted to the Department reflected, however, that the discharges from petitioners' systems were in contravention of the Department's rules and standards. Accordingly, since petitioners had not met the obligations set forth in the TOPs, the Department advised petitioners that the TOPs would not be extended and that they were required to apply for new operating permits. The new permit applications Following the Department's refusal to extend the TOPs, petitioners filed applications for operating permits for their discharges, and the Department, consistent with its previous reviews, undertook its review pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Effective July 1, 1989, however, Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, was amended with regard to, inter alia, the definition of stormwater management systems so as to include pumped discharges such as petitioners. Further, pertinent to this case, Part IV of Chapter 373 provided: 373.416 Permits for maintenance or operation-- (1) . . . the governing board or department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the operation or maintenance of any stormwater management system, dam, impoundment, reservoir, appurtenant work, or works will comply with the provisions of this part and applicable rules promulgated thereto, will not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district, and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district. 373.418 Rulemaking; preservation of existing authority.-- It is the intent of the Legislature that stormwater management systems be regulated under this part incorporating all of existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403. Neither the department nor governing boards are limited or prohibited from amending any regulatory requirement applicable to stormwater management systems in accordance with the provisions of this part. It is further the intent of the Legislature that all current exemptions under chapters 373 and 403 shall remain in full force and effect and that this act shall not be construed to remove or alter these exemptions. In order to preserve existing requirements, all rules of the department or governing boards existing on July 1, 1989, . . . shall be applicable to stormwater management systems and continue in full force and effect unless amended or replaced by future rulemaking in accordance with this part. Upon the amendment of Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, petitioners amended their pending applications to reflect their desire that the applications be processed pursuant to the newly amended provisions of Part IV, Chapter 373, as they relate to stormwater management systems. The Department, acknowledging the amendments to chapter 373, processed the applications accordingly; however, in view of the provisions of section 373.418(1) which "incorporat[ed] all of the existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403," the Department did not in fact change the standards by which these applications were reviewed, to wit: Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. On March 14, 1991, the Department issued a notice of permit denial to each petitioner. In each of the denials, the Department noted the provisions of Section 373.416(1), Florida Statutes, ["the . . . department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the operation . . . of any stormwater system . . . will comply with the provisions of this part and applicable rules promulgated thereto . . . and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district"] and Section 373.418(1), Florida Statutes, ["incorporating all of existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403"], and concluded that the applications should be denied for the following reasons: The Department has completed its review of the subject application, supporting documents and the discharge monitoring reports submitted by the applicant as required by Department Permit NO. IT50- 125678. Based on this review the Department has made the determination that the applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the discharge from the agricultural stormwater management system proposed by the applicant will be in compliance with the aforementioned sections of Chapter 373, F.S. and the Class I Surface Water Quality Standards adopted by the Department pursuant to Chapter 403.061, F.S. and contained in Section 17-302.540, F.A.C. and the Antidegradation Policy for Surface Water Quality contained in Section 17-302.300(3), F.A.C. The Department's action is facially consistent with the provisions of chapter 373, and chapter 403 incorporated therein, as well as the existing rules adopted pursuant to such chapters which require, whether the system be exempt or not, that discharges comply with state water quality standards. See e.g., Sections 373.416, 373.418, 403.088 and 403.927, Florida Statutes, and Rules 17- 4.070(1), 17-25.060, 17-25.080, and Chapter 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code. Availing themselves of the point of entry accorded by the notice of permit denial, petitioners filed a request for administrative hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to contest the denial of their applications. Such proceedings are currently pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings, but distinct from this proceeding under Section 120.535, Florida Statutes. The Section 120.535 challenge The challenged policy, as alleged in paragraphs 19 of the petition, purports to be as follows: The Department has made a policy determination, which draws a distinction between "agricultural stormwater discharges" and other stormwater discharges regulated by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Department has identified the Petitioners' discharge as "agricultural stormwater discharges" and has subjected the petitioners to a set of rules and criteria that the Department has not adopted but which are apparently different from the general stormwater regulations adopted pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Such articulation of the challenged policy is substantially identical to petitioner's statement of the issue identified in their proposed final order, as follows: The issue for determination in this case is whether the Department's policy to apply criteria different from that contained in its "Regulation of Stormwater Discharge" Rule 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, and/or Rule 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code, of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), when seeking to regulate an agricultural stormwater management system, as defined in Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, constitutes a rule . . . . The premises for the petitioners' challenge are their contention that the Department has drawn a distinction between the agricultural stormwater discharges of petitioners and other stormwater discharges, which is not supported by statutory or duly promulgated rules, and that the Department has applied criteria, which are not supported by statutory or duly promulgated rules, to evaluate petitioners' applications. The credible proof fails, however, to support petitioners' premises. Contrary to the assertions raised by petitioners, the statutory and duly promulgated rules heretofore discussed provide ample authority for the Department's action, and there is no credible proof that the Department is applying any criteria that is not apparent from an application or reading of such statutes and existing rules. Indeed, Rule 17-25.060(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides: The permit requirements of Chapter 17-4 or other applicable rules, rather than those of this chapter, shall apply to discharges which are a combination of stormwater and industrial or domestic wastewater or which are otherwise contaminated by non-stormwater sources unless: (a) the stormwater discharge facility is capable of providing treatment of the non- stormwater component sufficient to meet state water quality standards . . . . Here, the proof is compelling that the Department's decision was predicated on existing statutory and rule authority, and that it did not apply any criteria not promulgated as a rule or not contained within existing statutory authority to evaluate petitioners' applications, or treat petitioners' discharges differently than any other stormwater discharge contaminated by non-stormwater sources.
The Issue Whether Rules 40B-1.702(4); 40B-4.1020(12) and (30); 40B-4.1030; 40B-4.1040(1)(b) and (c); 40B-4.2030(4); 40B-4.3000(1)(a); 40B-4.3010; 40B-4.3020; 40B-4.3030; 40B- 4.3040; and 40B-400.103(1)(h), Florida Administrative Code, of the Suwannee River Water Management District, are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority for reasons described in the Second Amended Petition to Determine Validity of Rules.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Angelo's is a Florida Limited Partnership, whose address is 26400 Sherwood, Warren, Michigan 48091. The District is an agency of the State of Florida established under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, with its address at 9225 County Road 49, Live Oak, Florida 32060. Angelo's owns property in Hamilton County approximately four miles to the east of Interstate 75 and to the north of U.S. Highway 41, immediately to the east of the Alapaha River. Angelo's conducts commercial sand mining operations on a portion of its property pursuant to various agency authorizations, including an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department), Permit No. 158176-001, and a Special Permit issued by Hamilton County, SP 98-3. The ERP was issued by the Department pursuant to its authority under Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes. Angelo's mining operations constitute a "mining project" as that term is used in Section II.A.1.e of an Operating Agreement Concerning Regulation under Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Aquaculture General Permits under Section 403.814, Florida Statutes, between the District and the Department (Operating Agreement). The Operating Agreement has been adopted as a District rule pursuant to Rule 40B-400.091, Florida Administrative Code. Angelo's has filed with the Department an application to modify its ERP to expand its sand mining operations into an area of its property immediately to the west of its current operations (the "proposed expanded area"). Angelo's application is being processed by the Department at this time. Angelo's ERP modification application is being processed by the Department under the Operating Agreement. The District has asserted permitting jurisdiction over the proposed expanded area because the proposed sand mining activities would occur in what the District asserts to be the floodway of the Alapaha. The District asserts that an ERP would be required from the District so that the District can address the work of the district (WOD) impacts. Petitioner has not filed a permit application with the District regarding the project. It is Petitioner's position that to do so would be futile. The Challenged Rules The rules or portions thereof which are challenged in this proceeding are as follows: Rule 40B-1.702(4), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: (4) A works of the district permit under Chapter 40B-4, F.A.C., must be obtained prior to initiating any project as outlined in (3) above within a regulatory floodway as defined by the District. Rule 40B-4.1020(12) and (30), Florida Administrative Code, read as follows: (12) "Floodway" or 'regulatory floodway" means the channel of a river, stream, or other watercourse and adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the 100-year flood without cumulatively increasing the 100-year flood elevation more than a designated height. Unless otherwise noted, all regulatory floodways in the Suwannee River Water Management District provide for no more then one-foot rise in surface water. * * * (30) "Work of the district" means those projects and works including, but not limited to, structures, impoundments, wells, streams, and other watercourses, together with the appurtenant facilities and accompanying lands, which have been officially adopted by the governing board as works of the district. Works of the district officially adopted by the board are adopted by rule in Rule 40B-4.3000 of this chapter. Rule 40B-4.1030, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: The implementation dates of this chapter are as follows: January 1, 1986 for Rule 40B- 4.1040(1)(a) which requires persons to obtain surfacewater management permits. April 1, 1986 for Rule 40B- 4.1040(1)(b) and Rule 40B-4.3040 which require persons to obtain works of the district development permit if the proposed development is in one of the following areas adopted as a work of the district. The Alapaha River and its floodway in Hamilton County, Florida; The Aucilla River and its floodway in Jefferson, Madison, or Taylor counties, Florida; The Suwannee River or its floodway in Columbia, Hamilton, Lafayette, Madison, or Suwannee counties, Florida; or The Withlacoochee River and its floodway in Hamilton or Madison counties, Florida. (c) July 1, 1986 for Rule 40B-4.1040(1)(b) or 40B-4.3040 which require persons to obtain work of the district development permit if the proposed development is in one of the following areas adopted as a work of the district. The Santa Fe River and its floodway in Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Gilchrist, Suwannee, or Union counties, Florida; or The Suwannee River and its floodway in Dixie, Gilchrist, or Levy counties, Florida. Rule 40B-4.1040(1)(b) and (c), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: (1) Permits are required as follows: * * * Works of the district development permit prior to connecting with, placing structures or works in or across, discharging to, or other development within a work of the district. When the need to obtain a works of the district development permit is in conjunction with the requirements for obtaining a surfacewater management permit, application shall be made and shall be considered by the district as part of the request for a surfacewater management permit application. Otherwise, a separate works of the district development permit must be obtained. Rule 40B-4.2030(4), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: (4) The new surfacewater management systems or individual works shall not facilitate development in a work of the district if such developments will have the potential of reducing floodway conveyance. (emphasis supplied) Rule 40B-4.3000(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: The governing board is authorized to adopt and prescribe the manner in which persons may connect with or make use of works of the district pursuant to Section 373.085, Florida Statutes. Further, Section 373.019(15) provides that works of the district may include streams and accompanying lands as adopted by the governing board. In order to implement the non-structural flood control policy of the district, the governing board finds it is necessary to prevent any obstruction of the free flow of water of rivers and streams within the district. Therefore, the governing board does hereby adopt the following rivers and their accompanying floodways as works of the district: The Alapaha River and its floodway in Hamilton County, Florida; . . . . Rule 40B-4.3010, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: A general works of the district development permit may be granted pursuant to the procedures in Rule 40B-1.703 to any person for the development described below: Construction of a structure for single-family residential or agricultural use including the leveling of land for the foundation and associated private water supply, wastewater disposal, and driveway access which is in compliance with all applicable ordinances or rules of local government, state, and federal agencies, and which meets the requirements of this chapter. A general permit issued pursuant to this rule shall be subject to the conditions in Rule 40B-4.3030. Rule 40B-4.3020, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: Content of Works of the District Development Permit Applications. Applications for a general work of the district development permit shall be filed with the district and shall contain the following: Form 40B-4-5, "Application for General Work of the District Development Permit," Suwannee River Water Management District, 4-1-86, hereby incorporated by reference and which contains the following: The applicant's name and complete address including zip code; The owner's name and complete address if applicant is other than the owner; If applicable, the name, complete address, phone number, and contact person of the applicant or owner; Copies of all permits received from local units of government, state, or federal agencies, specifically a copy of the building or development permit issued by the appropriate unit of local government, including any variances issued thereto, and a copy of the onsite sewage disposal system permit issued by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services under Chapter 10D- 6, Florida Administrative Code; A site plan to scale showing all improvements, work, or works with any conditions or limitations placed thereon; and Any supporting calculations, designs, surveys, or applicable documents, which in the applicant's opinion, may support the application. Applications for individual or conceptual approval works of the district development permits shall be filed with the district and shall contain the following: Form 40B-4-4, "Application for Surfacewater Management System Construction, Alteration, Operation, Maintenance, and/or Works of the District Development", Suwannee River Water Management District, 10-1-85, hereby adopted by reference and which contains the following: The applicant's name and complete address including zip code; The owner's name and complete address if applicant is other than the owner; If applicable, the name, complete address, phone number, and contact person of the owner. General project information including: The applicant's project name or identification number; The project location relative to county, section, township, and range, or a metes and bounds description; The total project area in acres; The total land area owned or controlled by the applicant or owner which is contiguous with the project area; A description of the scope of the proposed project including the land uses to be served; A description of the proposed surfacewater management system or work; A description of the water body or area which will receive any proposed discharges from the system; and Anticipated beginning and ending date of construction or alteration. Copies of all permits received from, or applications made to, local units of government, state, or federal agencies. A site plan to scale showing all improvements, work, or works with any conditions or limitations placed thereon. Any supporting calculations, designs, surveys, or applicable legal documents, which in the applicant's opinion, support the application. Copies of engineer or surveyor certifications required by this chapter. Rule 40B-4.3030, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: Conditions for Issuance of Works of the District Development Permits. The district will not approve the issuance of separate permits for development in a work of the district for any proposed project that requires a district surfacewater management permit pursuant to Part II of this chapter. For such projects, development in a work of the district may be authorized as part of any surfacewater management permit issued. The district will not approve the issuance of a works of the district development permit for any work, structures, road, or other facilities which have the potential of individually or cumulatively reducing floodway conveyance or increasing water-surface elevations above the 100-year flood elevation, or increasing soil erosion. The district will presume such a facility will not reduce conveyance or increase water-surface elevations above the 100-year flood elevation or increase soil erosion if: Roads with public access are constructed and laid out in conformance with the minimum standards of local government. Where roads are not required to be paved, the applicant must provide design specifications for erosion and sediment control. Where roads are required to be paved, swales will generally be considered adequate for erosion and sediment control; Buildings in the floodway are elevated on piles without the use of fill such that the lowest structural member of the first floor of the building is at an elevation at least one foot above the 100-year flood elevation; The area below the first floor of elevated buildings is left clear and unobstructed except for the piles or stairways; A permanent elevation monument is established on the property to be developed by a surveyor. The monument shall be adequate to establish land surface and minimum buildup elevations to the nearest 1/100 of a foot; No permanent fill or other obstructions are placed above the natural grade of the ground except for minor obstructions which are less than or equal to 100 square feet of the cross-sectional area of the floodway on any building or other similar structure provided that all such obstruction developed on any single parcel of land after the implementation date of this chapter is considered cumulatively; No activities are proposed which would result in the filling or conversion of wetlands. For any structure placed within a floodway which, because of its proposed design and method of construction, may, in the opinion of the district, result in obstruction of flows or increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood, the district may require as a condition for issuance of a work of the district development permit that an engineer certify that such a structure will not obstruct flows or increase 100-year flood elevations. The following conditions shall apply to all works of the district development permits issued for development on lands subdivided after January 1, 1985: Clearing of land shall be limited [except as provided in (b) and (c) below] to that necessary to remove diseased vegetation, construct structures, associated water supply, wastewater disposal, and private driveway access facilities, and no construction, additions or reconstruction shall occur in the front 75 feet of an area immediately adjacent to a water. Clearing of vegetation within the front 75 feet immediately adjacent to a water shall be limited to that necessary to gain access or remove diseased vegetation. Harvest or regeneration of timber or agricultural crops shall not be limited provided the erosion of disturbed soils can be controlled through the use of appropriate best management practices, the seasonal scheduling of such activities will avoid work during times of high-flood hazard, and the 75 feet immediately adjacent to and including the normally recognized bank of a water is left in its natural state as a buffer strip. As to those lands subdivided prior to January 1, 1985, the governing board shall, in cases of extreme hardship, issue works of the district development permits with exceptions to the conditions listed in Rule 40B-4.3030(4)(a) through (c). The 75-foot setback in paragraphs (a) through (d) above shall be considered a minimum depth for an undisturbed buffer. The limitations on disturbance and clearing within the buffer as set out in paragraphs through (d) above shall apply, and any runoff through the buffer shall be maintained as unchannelized sheet flow. The actual depth of the setback and buffer for any land use other than single-family residential development, agriculture, or forestry shall be calculated in accordance with the methodology in: "Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds", U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Engineering Division, Technical Release 55, June 1986; and, "Buffer Zone Study for Suwannee River Water Management District", Dames and Moore, September 8, 1988, such that the post-development composite curve number for any one-acre area within the encroachment line does not exceed; a value of 46 for areas within the encroachment line with predominantly Class A soils; a value of 65 for areas within the encroachment line with predominantly Class B soils; a value of 77 for areas within the encroachment line with predominantly Class C soils; or a value of 82 for areas within the encroachment line with predominantly Class D soils. (emphasis supplied) Rule 40B-4.3040, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: Unlawful Use of Works of the District. It shall be unlawful to connect with, place a structure in or across, or otherwise cause development to occur in a work of the district without a works of the district development permit. The district may use any remedy available to it under Chapter 120 or 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40B-1, Florida Administrative Code, to cause an unpermitted development to be removed or permitted. It shall be unlawful for any permitted use to violate the provisions of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, or this chapter, or the limiting conditions of a works of the district development permit. The district may use any remedy available to it under Chapter 120 or 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40B-1, Florida Administrative Code, to cause the unpermitted use to be removed or brought into compliance with Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and this chapter. Damage to works of the district resulting from violations specified in Rule 40B-4.3040(1) and (2) above shall be repaired by the violator to the satisfaction of the district. In lieu of making repairs, the violator may deposit with the district a sufficient sum to insure such repair. Rule 40B-400.103(1)(h), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: (1) In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter or chapter 40B-4, F.A.C., an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * (h) Will not cause adverse impacts to a work of the District established pursuant to s. 373.086. . . . Facts Based Upon the Evidence of Record History of the rules Mr. David Fisk is Assistant Director of the District. At the time of the hearing, he had been employed there for 26 and one-half years. He played a significant role in the rule adoption process of the rules that are the subject of this dispute. As part of that process, the District entered into a consulting contract with an engineering, planning, and consulting firm and consulted with the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to conduct what are described as the FEMA flood studies. Additionally, the district commissioned an aerial photography consultant who provided a series of rectified ortho photographs of the entire floodplain of the rivers within the District, and a surveying subcontractor who provided vertical control and survey cross sections and hydrographic surveys of the rivers. The District also worked in conjunction with the United States Geological Survey to accumulate all of the hydrologic record available on flooding. The information was given to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who, operating under FEMA guidelines for conducting flood insurance rate studies, performed the analytical and computer modeling work to identify the flood plains and floodway boundaries. The District used the amassed knowledge of maps, cross sections and surveys that were developed as part of the FEMA flood studies as technical evidence or support for the adoption of the works of the district rules. Following a series of public workshops and public hearings in 1985, the rules were adopted and became effective in 1986. None of the rules were challenged in their proposed state. The District adopted the floodways of the Suwannee, Santa Fe, Alapaha, Aucilla, and Withlacoochee Rivers as works of the district. According to Mr. Fisk, the District adopted the rules pursuant to Section 373.086, Florida Statutes, which provided authority to the District to adopt district works and Section 373.085, Florida Statutes, which provided authority to regulate activities within those works. The Floodway Line Petitioner hired Mr. John Barnard, a professional civil engineer, with extensive environmental permitting experience, to look at the floodway and floodplain issues associated with Petitioner's site and project. Mr. Barnard conducted an engineering study entitled, "Floodplain Evaluation." It was Mr. Barnard's opinion that FEMA's determination of the floodway line was less than precise. Mr. Barnard used FEMA's data regarding the base flood elevation but manually changed the encroachment factor resulting in his placement of the floodway line in a different location than determined by FEMA. Mr. Barnard acknowledged that different engineers using different encroachment factors would reach different conclusions.1/ Respondent's expert in hydrology and hydraulic engineering, Brett Cunningham, noted that the definition of floodway in Rule 40B-4.1020(12), Florida Administrative Code, is essentially the same definition that used is in the FEMA regulations and which also is commonly used across the country in environmental rules and regulations. Mr. Barnard also acknowledged that the District's definition of "floodway", as found in Rule 40B-4.1020(12), Florida Administrative Code, is fairly commonly used by environmental regulatory agencies. Moreover, it was Mr. Cunningham's opinion that the Alapaha River is a stream or watercourse within the meaning of the rule and its floodway an accompanying land. In Mr. Cunningham's opinion, the FEMA flood insurance studies are widely used across the country for a variety of reasons and are typically relied upon by hydrologists and engineers to locate floodways. The definition of "works of the district" in Rule 40B-1020(30), Florida Administrative Code, is taken directly from the language found in Section 373.019(23), Florida Statutes. The statutory definition includes express references to streams and other watercourses, together with the appurtenant facilities and accompanying lands. Petitioner alleges that the phrase "will not cause adverse impact to a work of the SRWMD" as found in Rule 40B- 400.103(1)(h) is not clear because it does not identify what specific adverse impacts are being reviewed. While Petitioner's expert, Mr. Price, was not clear as to what the phrase means, Respondent's expert, Mr. Cunningham, understood the meaning of the phrase and noted that "adverse impact" is a phrase which is very commonplace in the rules and regulations of environmental agencies and is attributed a commonsense definition. The expert engineers differed in their opinions as to the meaning of the term "potential for reducing floodway conveyance" as used in Rule 40B-4.2030(4), Florida Administrative Code. According to Petitioner's expert engineer, Mr. Barnard, "potential for reducing floodway conveyance" is not a specific term that is open to interpretation as an engineer, and that he cannot quantify what constitutes "potential." Respondent's expert, Mr. Cunningham, understood the meaning of the phrase to be any increase in floodway conveyance. It was his opinion that there was nothing about that phrase to cause confusion. Rule 40B-4.3030, Florida Administrative Code, addresses conditions for issuance of works of the district development permits. Petitioner's expert Mr. Price testified that there is no quantification to what constitutes an "increase in soil erosion" as referenced in subsection (2) and linked the reference of soil erosion to a 100-year flood event referenced in the same subsection. Mr. Cunningham was of the opinion that there is no need to quantify an increase in soil erosion in the rule. He noted that soil erosion is used in a common sense manner and that attempting to put a numerical limit on it is not practical and "it's not something that's done anywhere throughout the country. It's just not something that lends itself to easy quantification like flood stages do". Mr. Cunningham's opinion that the words and phrases which Petitioner asserts are vague are words of common usage and understanding to persons in the field is the more persuasive testimony. This opinion is also consistent with statutory construction used by courts which will be addressed in the conclusions of law.
