The Issue The issues are (1) whether Respondents, Frank H. and Linda M. Molica, dredged and filled wetlands on their property in Merritt Island, Brevard County (County), Florida, without a permit and should take certain corrective actions, and (2) whether Respondents' activities are exempt from permitting under Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In 1990, Respondents purchased a 3.47-acre, rectangular- shaped parcel at 2050 North Tropical Trail, Merritt Island, Florida, which is located within the regulatory jurisdiction of the District. See § 373.069, Fla. Stat. The parcel identification number is 24-36-15-00-00764-00000.00. The property is less than a mile south of State Road 528 (A1A), approximately one-half mile west of State Road 3 (North Courtney Parkway), and around one-half mile east of the Indian River. The property is bounded on its western side by a roadway known as North Tropical Trail, on the south side by a drainage ditch, and on the east side by another drainage ditch. Further to the east of the drainage ditch on the eastern side of the property are a holding pond and a subdivision known as Copperfield Subdivision developed in 1993, while a nursery is located just south of the drainage ditch on the southern side. The northern boundary of the parcel is five hundred twenty feet long and is adjoined by a vacant parcel of land similar in size to the Molica parcel and which is owned by the Lacanos. The Lacano property is largely a wetland. To the north of the Lacano property is a parcel owned by the Stricklands. Historically, the natural flow of water in the area was north to south, that is, from the Stricklands to the Lacanos to the Molica's property, and then to the drainage ditch on the south side of the Molica's property. When Respondents purchased the property in 1990, citrus trees were located "mostly in the front half," or western side of the property, "but they were also located in the rear scattered throughout." There was also "weed grass" or "mini grass" throughout the entire parcel. In 2002 or 2003, the citrus industry was economically hurt by a drop in prices due to various problems, and it became difficult to find fruit pickers or purchasers for the fruit. Because of these conditions, and pursuant to a recommendation by another citrus grower, Respondents state that they began to "transform their property to palm tree production." In late 2003, Respondents began removing orange trees and clearing the land; this continued throughout 2004. At the same time, they began to remove vegetation from the eastern half of the property, which included the excavation of the vegetation, soil, and roots. This was accomplished by the use of heavy equipment, including a tracked cab with hoe, a bobcat with front end loader bucket and root rake, and a wheeled tractor with front end root rake. This is confirmed by photographs taken of the property in April and December 2004. See District Exhibits 8 through 10. Also, a few cabbage palms were removed that were damaged during the clearing process, as well as trees damaged by hurricanes that struck the east coast of Florida in 2004. The vegetation and soil were trucked off-site for disposal, and new soil or fill was placed throughout the eastern half of the property in which vegetation and soil had been excavated. In some cases, the fill measured as high as thirty-three inches but averaged around one foot in height. There is no dispute that dredging (or excavation) and filling on the property occurred. Respondents did not obtain an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) before performing this work. On December 13, 2004, the County received a complaint (generated by Mrs. Strickland, the neighbor to the north) about "heavy machinery operating in a wetland" on the Molica property. Mr. Pinnick, who was charged with enforcement of County environmental ordinances, visited the subject property to determine whether a violation of an ordinance had occurred. He observed heavy machinery operating on the central and eastern sides of the property and took several photographs of the site. See District Exhibit 12. He also observed vegetation and muck soil in the disturbed area and standing water in the ditch to the south and concluded that wetlands were being impacted. It is fair to infer that he then notified the DEP about the incident. On December 15, 2004, Mr. Pinnick, accompanied by two DEP employees, Mr. West and his supervisor, Ms. Booker, visited the site and met Mr. Molica and his consultant. At that time, "clearing and [dredging and filling] of wetland at rear [or east end] of Molica's property [was observed]." See District Exhibit 49. The DEP requested that Respondents' consultant "flag a [wetland] line and then Molica have all fill within wetland area removed." The DEP also advised Mr. Molica that "[a]rea then needs to be restored to natural grade." Id. Notes taken by Mr. Pinnick confirm that Mr. Molica agreed to remove the fill "to restore the natural grade and the wetland boundary would be delineated [by Mr. Molica's consultant.]" See District Exhibit The conclusion of both the County and DEP was that wetlands were present in the central part of the property. No formal delineation of wetlands was performed by them since the parties reached an understanding that Mr. Molica's consultant would perform this task. Because Mr. Molica thereafter denied access to the property, this would be the last time regulatory personnel were able to make an on-site inspection of the property until October 2008, when the District obtained an Order authorizing them to inspect the property. The County later charged Respondents with violating the County Code ("prohibitions in functional wetlands"), and the matter was considered by a Special Magistrate. An Order of Dismissal was entered by the Special Magistrate on February 1, 2006, on the grounds the property was zoned agriculture and enjoyed an agricultural exemption, and Respondents agreed to use Best Management Practices, as prescribed by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs. See Respondents' Exhibit 4. However, neither the DEP nor the District was involved in that action, and the matter concerned an alleged violation of a local ordinance, and not a provision in Chapters 373 or 403, Florida Statutes. At some point in time, but presumably after the site visit in December 2004, Mr. Molica asserted to the DEP that he was conducting an agricultural operation. In early 2005, the DEP referred the matter to the District since the two agencies have an operating agreement concerning which agency will handle certain types of permitting and enforcement matters. By letter dated August 15, 2005, Mr. Molica advised the local District office in Palm Bay, Florida, that the owners of the property were engaging in agricultural activities and denied that any unauthorized fill and excavation activities had occurred. He also requested copies of any statutes, rules, or case law that supported the District's position. See Respondents' Exhibit 2A. On August 3, 2007, the District advised Mr. Molica by letter that it had received a complaint from DEP, that the matter had not yet been resolved, and that it wished to inspect his property to determine if unauthorized fill and excavation activities had occurred. See Respondents' Exhibit 2B. According to a District witness, the delay in responding to Mr. Molica's letter was caused by the building boom occurring in 2005 and 2006, which required action on numerous pending permits, and in-house confusion over whether the DEP or District had jurisdiction to handle the complaint. There is no evidence to suggest that at any time the District agreed that the activities were lawful, or that the delay in responding to Mr. Molica's letter prejudiced Respondents in any manner. After conducting a preliminary investigation, which included a review of aerial photographs of the area, wetland maps, and soil maps, a visual inspection taken from the Copperfield Subdivision to the east and North Tropical Trail from the west, and a flyover of the property, the District issued its Complaint on August 8, 2008. Are there wetlands on the property? To determine whether wetlands were present on the Molica property, the District made a site inspection on October 22, 28, 29, and 30, 2008. Besides making a visual inspection of the property, the staff took photographs, performed twenty-nine soil borings on both the Molica and Lacano properties, reviewed soil surveys for the area, completed one west-to-east transect and five north-to-south transects to determine locations of hydric soils and any fill materials, and observed lichen and water stain lines on trees. The locations of the various soil borings are depicted on District Exhibit 22. Finally, the staff examined a series of aerial photographs of the property. Under the wetland delineation rule, three different indicators are used to make that determination: vegetation; soils; and signs of hydrology. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 340.300(2)(a)-(d). In addition, where the vegetation and soil have been altered by man-induced factors so that the boundary between the uplands and wetlands cannot be delineated by use of Rule 62-340.300(2), such a determination shall be made by using the most reliable information and "reasonable scientific judgment." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-340.300(3)(a). The parties presented conflicting evidence on the wetland issue; the District's evidence has been accepted as being the more persuasive and credible and supports a finding that the areas where dredging and filling occurred in the eastern and central parts of the property meet the test for a wetland. Wetland Soils Muck presence is a hydric soil indicator and also a wetland indicator. The District's expert, Mr. Richardson, established that the soil on the property where the dredging and filling occurred was hydric in nature, and therefore indicative of a wetland. Although Respondent's soil expert disagreed with this conclusion, he generally agreed with Mr. Richardson's methodology, and he agreed that muck was present below the fill material. Wetland Vegetation The presence or absence of wetland vegetation is another factor to consider in deciding whether an area is or was a wetland. Wetland hardwood trees, and not grass planted on top of the fill, are more appropriate for evaluating whether the area in which the trees are located was a wetland. Large trees, estimated to be fifty to sixty years old, remain on the property in the vicinity of certain District soil borings. They include boring 20 (swamp tupelo); borings 3, 4, and 5 (red maple, American elm, and holly); and borings 9 and 10 (maple and American elm). These are all wetland canopy species and provide further support for the District's position. Hydrologic Indicators Algal matting is found on the surface of the property in the vicinity of borings 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9. Algal matting occurs because water has inundated the surface of the ground sufficiently long for algae to grow in the water and then remains on the ground surface after the water no longer covers the ground. Rainfall alone does not produce algal mats. Trees on the property provided evidence of being in saturated or inundated soil conditions through the morphological adaptation of buttressing and adventitious roots, particularly in the vicinity of District borings 20, 8, 9, and 10. Also, the trees had lichen lines on them, which are indicators of seasonal high water inundation elevations in wetlands. The presence of muck soils is a hydrologic indicator. As noted above, the District determined through soil borings that muck was under the fill that had been placed on the property. Reasonable Scientific Judgment The evidence established that there was significant alteration to the soils and vegetation across the central and eastern parts of the subject property due to man-induced factors of vegetation removal, dredging, and filling. Through consideration of the most reliable information available, including aerial photographs, the remaining trees on the site, hydrologic indicators, the presence of hydric soils, coupled with reasonable scientific judgment, the evidence established that the areas where the recent dredging and filling occurred met the wetland delineation test in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 340.300(3). Agricultural Exemption Mr. Molica is a full-time practicing attorney. His wife is his legal secretary. Respondents contend that since they purchased the property in 1990, they have been continuously engaged first in the occupation of citrus farming, and then beginning sometime in 2004 in the production of palm trees. Therefore, they assert they are entitled to the exemption provided under Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes. That provision states in relevant part that "[n]othing herein . . . shall be construed to affect the right of any person engaged in the occupation of . . . horticulture . . . to alter the topography of any tract of land consistent with the practice of such occupation. However, such alteration may not be for the sole or predominant purpose of impounding or obstructing surface waters." The parties agree that the burden of proving entitlement to this exemption rests on Respondents. When the property was purchased in 1990, there were citrus trees on the land, mainly in the western half. A few navel oranges were later added, and some citrus trees were removed at that time. Beginning at the end of 2003, and continuing in 2004, the citrus trees were removed. At the time of the DEP inspection in December 2004, no potted palm trees were observed on the property. The precise date when they were first placed on the property is not clear. Photographs taken in January 2006, more than a year after the dredging and filling and just before the County code violation charge was resolved, reflect around fifty or so small trees in pots located in a small, cleared section of the property. See Respondents' Exhibit Photographs taken three years later (January 2009), long after the dredging and filling occurred, show a comparable number of small palm trees in pots placed on what appears to be the same part of the property. See Respondents' Exhibit 21. Mr. Molica also submitted numerous documents (dated 2005 and later) downloaded from the internet by his wife which pertain to palm trees, see Respondents' Exhibit 20; and he stated that a marketing plan for the sale of palm trees has been developed, which was simply a goal of selling the trees after they were ten years old. He further stated that he intends to work the "farm" as a business full-time after retiring from his law practice. Finally, he presented the testimony of an agronomist who stated that clearing property, filling holes, smoothing land, and building an access road are normal agriculture activities. It is fair to infer from the record that Respondents' activities can be characterized as an avocation, not an occupation. Notably, there is no evidence that since they purchased the property in 1990, Respondents have sold any citrus fruit or a single palm tree. There is no evidence that dredging and filling in wetlands is a normal agriculture practice, or that it is consistent with the practice of horticulture, including the growing of exotic palm trees. Mr. Molica's agronomist acknowledged that he has never been associated with an application to conduct agricultural or horticultural activities that involve the filling of wetlands. Moreover, extensive dredging, filling, and removal of vegetation were not necessary to accommodate the small area on which the potted plants sit. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that the topographic alterations on the property are not consistent with the practice of agriculture. The evidence shows that the filling on the property has obstructed the natural flow of surface water. More than likely, the filling of the wetlands was for the predominant purpose of obstructing and diverting surface water that flowed south from the Lacano property, and not for the purpose of enhancing horticultural productivity. Corrective Actions At hearing, the District submitted certain revisions to the proposed corrective action, which are described in District Exhibit 73. The revisions provide greater specificity regarding the formulation of a restoration plan and who must be involved in formulating that plan. In general terms, the corrective action offers Respondents the option of seeking an after-the-fact permit or restoring the wetlands. Respondents offered no proof at hearing that the original or revised corrective action is unreasonable. The revised corrective action is found to be reasonable and designed to address the restoration needs of the property and is hereby approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered sustaining the charges in the Complaint, requiring Respondents to take the corrective actions described in District Exhibit 73, and determining that Respondents are not entitled to an agricultural exemption under Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 12th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2009.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for an environmental resource permit to remove two canal plugs in the Cahill canal system should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact The proposed project On March 19, 1998, Petitioner Cahill submitted a permit application to the Department to remove two canal plugs in the Cahill Pines and Palms subdivision on Big Pine key. A backhoe would be used to dredge and lower the plugs to a depth of minus five feet mean low water (-5 ft. MLW) for the purpose of providing boating access to the properties now isolated from open water. The Cahill canal system is located within class III waters of the state which open into Pine Channel, a natural waterbody designated as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). In 1991 and 1995 Petitioner Cahill submitted permit applications to the Department to remove the same two canal plugs. Those applications were initially denied and the denials were litigated in formal administrative hearings. Those hearings resulted in Department final orders denying both applications.3 Background4 In July, 1991, the Department received a permit application requesting the removal of two canal plugs down to a depth of minus five-and-a-half feet NGVD. A formal administrative hearing was conducted on March 3 and 4, 1994, in Key West, Florida, before Stuart M. Lerner, a duly designated Hearing Officer (now Administrative Law Judge) of the Division of Administrative Hearings. That initial permit application denial was based upon water quality considerations and the project's failure to meet the public interest test. On May 17, 1995, Petitioner submitted a permit application to the Department which was denied. The basis for the permit denial was that the project was substantially similar to the previously litigated project. On April 23, 1996, a second formal administrative hearing was held in Key West, Florida, before Administrative Law Judge Susan B. Kirkland. Judge Kirkland found that the 1995 permit application did not address the issues raised by the Department in the first administrative hearing. Judge Kirkland also concluded that the 1995 application should be denied on the basis of res judicata. The Department entered a Final Order on September 12, 1996, concluding that the doctrine of res judicata applied to support the denial of Petitioner's 1995 application. New facts/changed conditions In all material aspects, the proposed dredging activity in the current permit application is identical to the previously proposed dredging activity. Petitioner Cahill seeks to lower the two canal plugs to allow boat access. The documents submitted in support of the current application do not propose any significant changes to what was proposed in the two prior applications. Petitioner Cahill provided copies of provisions of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan and two Monroe County Ordinances, in support of the current permit application. This information does not constitute new facts or changed conditions sufficient to characterize the proposed project as substantially different from the previously denied applications. Petitioner Cahill provided a list of "enhancements" in the current permit application seeking to provide reasonable assurance for issuance of an environmental resource permit. These proposed "enhancements" are not binding on the Petitioner Cahill's members and do not constitute such new facts or changed conditions as to make the project substantially different from the previously denied applications. The differences between the current application and the two previously denied applications are primarily cosmetic differences. The substance of the matter is unchanged in any material detail.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case denying Petitioner's pending application for an environmental resource permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 15th day of March, 1998.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Crestwood Lakes Associates provided reasonable assurance that a modification to a conceptual surface water management permit complies with the permit criteria contained in statutes and rules.
Findings Of Fact Background This case involves a 900-acre parcel in the Loxahatchee Slough, west of the Florida Turnpike in Palm Beach County (County). Although the property occupies part of a slough, all of the wetlands in this case are isolated wetlands. Respondent Crestwood Lakes Associates (Applicant) owns the south 503 acres, Petitioner owns the north 287 acres, and the Village of Royal Palm Beach (Village) owns the remaining 115 acres, which abut the southwest boundary of the north parcel. The acreages do not total 900 acres because the numbers are approximate. The 900-acre parcel is generally bounded on the south by Okeechobee Boulevard and the north and east by the M-1 canal. The west boundary of the south part of the parcel adjoins a residential development known as Loxahatchee Groves, and the 115-acre parcel adjoins a County-owned preserve of at least 600 acres. Applicant’s land is undeveloped except for some landclearing. Petitioner’s land is partly developed, mostly in the south next to the boundary with Applicant’s land. The Village's 115 acres are a preserve, divided equally between wetlands and uplands. On February 11, 1988, Respondent South Florida Water Management District (District) issued surface water management (SWM) permit No. 50-00618-S-02 to Royal Palm Homes, Inc. for conceptual approval of a SWM system serving a residential development on the 900-acre parcel (1988 Permit). References to the Original Developer shall include Royal Palm Homes, Inc., its agents, lenders, and assigns, except for Petitioner and Applicant. The permitted development, which was known as the Royal Palm Homes PUD, comprises single-family and multifamily residences, wetland preserve areas, two 18-hole golf courses, and a park area. On August 3, 1994, Applicant filed SWM application number 940803-6 to modify the 1988 Permit to show the change in ownership and obtain conceptual approval of a modification to the permitted SWM system. The application was not complete when the new Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) rules replaced the old Management and Storage of Surface Water (MSSW) permit rules. On May 24, 1996, the District transmitted the staff report, which proposed the issuance of a permit modification. On June 13, 1996, the District approved the issuance of the proposed permit modification. On the same date, Petitioner filed its petition challenging the proposed agency action. Permits The first relevant SWM permit for the 900-acre parcel involved a larger parcel that includes the 900-acre parcel. On September 14, 1978, the District issued a two-page permit authorizing the “construction of a water management system serving 2073 acres of residential lands by waterways discharging into canal C-51.” This 1978 permit, which is identified as number 50-00618-S, contains a special condition calling for a minimum finished floor elevation of 18.0 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The next permit is the 1988 Permit, which is a substantial modification to the 1978 permit. The 1988 Permit covers only the previously described 900 acres and, as modified, currently remains in effect. The 1988 Permit requires the preservation of two large wetlands in the north parcel, just north of the 115-acre preserve; one wetland is about 30 acres and the other is about ten acres. The 1988 Permit requires the preservation of no other wetlands in the north parcel, but, in addition to the wetlands in the 115-acre preserve, the 1988 Permit requires the preservation of several much smaller wetlands in the south parcel. The staff report for the 1988 Permit divides into three basins the drainage area for the 900-acre parcel: a north basin of 98.9 acres, a central basin of 525.7 acres, and a south basin of 270.8 acres. The staff report states that basin runoff will pass through a system of inlets and culverts into a series of interconnected lakes, from which, through control structures, the runoff will pass into the M-1 canal and eventually into the C-51 canal. The staff report notes that the control elevations will be 17.25 feet NGVD for the north basin, 17.55 feet NGVD for the central basin, and 17.75 feet NGVD for the south basin. Under the discussion of environmental impacts, the staff report observes that the 1978 permit proposed for protection only 30 acres of wetlands among the 281 acres of isolated wetlands on the site. The staff report notes that “extensive” melaleuca invasion has taken place since the 1978 permit and only 160 acres of wetlands remain in “relatively good” condition, with much of this subject to melaleuca encroachment. Due to the “extensive seed source” and “seasonal drying of the wetlands,” the staff report predicts eventual melaleuca dominance of the “entire site.” The staff report asserts that the proposed development plan includes the protection of about 100 acres of the “best quality wetlands,” plus eight acres of wetlands created in conjunction with the golf courses and 15 acres of wetlands created as littoral zones in conjunction with the lakes to be constructed. The staff report calls a program “to eradicate all melaleuca from the site” “[t]he major environmental feature” of the proposed development plan. But this major environmental feature of the 1988 Permit is presently in jeopardy. One major component of the present case is that, following the conveyances of the three parcels by the Original Developer, the District has evidently concluded that no one is responsible to perform certain obligations under the 1988 Permit and no remedies are available for the nonperformance of these obligations. It appears that these conclusions are largely driven by the vagueness of the plan to eradicate the melaleuca. This plan is called the "Melaleuca Eradication Plan." The Melaleuca Eradication Plan is incorporated into the 1988 Permit. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan, which is dated December 11, 1987, recounts that the Original Developer and regulatory bodies agreed that the melaleuca should be “eradicated and a program for this should be developed and included as a part of the permit application.” The plan states that the eradication plan will cover the entire 900- acre site with the Original Developer performing the “initial . . . program” on the entire site, including the 115-acre preserve to be deeded to the Village. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan calls for the Original Developer to create a bonded authority to conduct the “ten-year melaleuca eradication program.” The program is phased to coincide with the projected 10-year buildout of the 3000-unit parcel. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan describes in detail the three phases of the program and exactly how the Original Developer will proceed to remove the melaleuca and restore wetlands by planting native wetland species in disturbed areas. The plan promises a yearly inspection followed by hand-removal of any seedlings discovered on the site. This last phase will terminate ten years after commencement of the first phase. A “Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program” is also incorporated into the 1988 Permit. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which is dated December 8, 1987, states that Dr. Dwight Goforth performed a wetlands survey of the 900-acre site in 1985 and divided wetlands into three categories based on their quality. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance promises the preservation of 112.71 acres of wetlands comprising 98.81 acres of “large wetlands totally preserved” and nine wetlands totaling 13.9 acres that will be “partially preserved.” Also, the program will create golf course wetlands of 6.93 acres and littoral-zone wetlands around the lakes of 15 acres. Thus, the program summarizes, the “total wetland acreage preserved, enhanced and created will [be] 134.64 acres.” The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program describes a three-year monitoring program using transects to assist in the vegetative mapping of the site. The program also promises semiannual observations of birds, small rodents, and larger mammals using the wetlands and adjacent preserved uplands, as well as semiannual sampling for fish, macroinvertebrates, and amphibians. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program outlines a plan to remove melaleuca and control algae buildup in the lakes. The program promises to contain algae through the use of “biological controls” and, when needed, hand-raking. The program also assures that the Original Developer will use a “conservative fertilization program” for the golf course and landscaped areas to reduce eutrophication in the created lakes. On February 18, 1988, the District issued its conceptual approval of the 1988 Permit. Among the special conditions of the 1988 Permit are Special Condition 15, which requires wetland monitoring and maintenance in accordance with the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, and Special Condition 16, which requires melaleuca removal in accordance with the Melaleuca Eradication Plan. Also, Special Condition 17 requires low berms around protected or created wetlands, including littoral zones, to protect against sheetflow runoff from the golf course or other areas of intense development. The references in the preceding paragraphs to the responsibilities of the "Original Developer" imply greater clarity than is present in the Melaleuca Eradication Plan or Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. The passive voice predominates in both these documents, so it is sometimes difficult to determine on whom a particular responsibility falls. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan states clearly that "[the Original Developer] will conduct the initial melaleuca eradication on the entire site including the dedicated park area [i.e., the 115 acres]." The next sentence of the plan contemplates the conveyance of the 115 acres to the County. But, after these clear provisions, the Melaleuca Eradication Plan lapses into the passive voice almost invariably. The next two sentences read, "A bonded authority will be created to conduct the ten-year melaleuca eradication program" and "The eradication program will be carried out through a bonded agreement with the [Original] Developer to remove the melaleuca . . .." Alluding to the several phases of melaleuca eradication, the plan states only "[t]he eradication program will be completed in stages " Only two other sentences establishing responsibility for melaleuca eradication identify the responsible party. The end of the plan states that the "bonded authority responsible for initial eradication clearance will likewise provide a yearly inspection." One of the final sentences of the plan adds: "the bonding authority's crew will hand remove entire seedlings found on site." The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program is similar except that it does not once name the entity responsible for the monitoring and maintenance duties or hiring the firm or individual to conduct the actual work. The two special conditions incorporating these two documents likewise are in the passive voice, implying only that the responsibility belongs to the Original Developer. Given the vagueness of the melaleuca-eradication and wetlands-maintenance documents, it is not surprising that they fail entirely to address the issue whether these responsibilities run with the land, remain the responsibility of the Original Developer, or, for the eradication of melaleuca, remain the duty of the "bonded authority," if the Original Developer ever created such an entity, which appears highly doubtful. The documents likewise do not disclose the penalties for noncompliance. On June 16, 1988, the District issued a modification to the 1988 Permit for the construction and operation of a 110.9-acre residential development in Phase I, which occupies the central basin. On October 1, 1988, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) issued the Original Developer a permit to destroy 164 acres of wetlands on the 900-acre parcel. Special conditions of the 1988 Army Corps permit require the preservation of "115 acres of high quality wetlands," the creation of 18 acres of wetlands and 15 acres of littoral shelf, and the implementation of a "Melaleuca Eradication Program," which is the same program as is incorporated in the 1988 Permit. The 1988 Army Corps permit contains an attachment dated October 24, 1987. This attachment identifies the protected wetlands as the two large wetlands in the north parcel totaling about 40 acres, 58 acres in the 115-acre preserve, and 53.5 acres in the south parcel. The 1988 Army Corps permit protects several wetlands in the south parcel, including wetland numbers 14 (3.04 acres), 16 (1.6 acres), 23 (0.53 acres), 30 (2.6 acres), 44 (0.8 acres), 29 (1.08 acres), and 46 (3.0 acres). These wetlands, which total 12.65 acres, are seven of the nine wetlands partially preserved in the 1988 Permit, although some of the acreages vary from those preserved in the 1988 Permit. Unlike the District's permits (except for the subject proposed permit modification), the 1988 Army Corps permit addresses conveyances by the developer. The 1988 Army Corps permit states: "If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the space provided and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization." Below the signature line of the 1988 Army Corps permit is language stating: When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below. On March 1, 1989, the Original Developer conveyed the 115-acre preserve to the Village, which later leased the preserve to the County. The Original Developer had not eradicated the melaleuca at the time of the conveyance, nor has anyone since done so. On August 17, 1990, water elevations in the wetlands in Phase I reached 19.4 feet NGVD, washing out construction pads, roads, and in-ground utilities. On September 7, 1990, the District issued a stop-work request because the SWM system was not working as required. On September 28, 1990, the District approved interim measures to preserve the wetland hydroperiod and allow for wetland overflow. These measures include berming the residential areas in Phase I/Plat I adjacent to wetlands. On June 13, 1991, the District approved additional modifications to the 1988 Permit and the construction and operations permit for Phase I and issued a conceptual approval for works in the north and central basins. The revisions to the conceptual approval include adding two control structures to the north wetland that connect to the water management system in the north basin and adding a berm around the smaller of the two preserved wetlands in the north parcel. The construction approval was for a perimeter berm along the south wetland and park areas. On June 24, 1992, the District issued a staff report recommending issuance of another modification of the 1988 Permit for the conceptual approval of a SWM system to serve the 900-acre parcel and approval of construction and operation of a SWM system to isolate and control the existing onsite wetlands and revise the control structure for the central basin. The staff report explains that this modification proposes berming the wetlands to the 100-year, three-day peak elevation. The staff report notes that the wetlands basin consists of 295.18 acres of wetlands, including 155.85 acres of “wetlands/uplands.” The staff report notes that the north basin contains 107.41 acres of “good quality wet prairie wetlands” with “minimal” melaleuca encroachment. The staff report restates that the purpose of the modification is to berm all of the wetlands and uplands not planned for development. Special Condition 19 requires the Original Developer to dedicate as conservation and common areas in deed restrictions the “wetland preservation/mitigation areas, upland buffer zones, and/or upland preservation areas," so that these areas are the “perpetual responsibility” of a named property owners’ association. Special Condition 22 states that “a wetland monitoring and maintenance program” and “a melaleuca eradication program” “shall be implemented,” but the condition does not expressly state by whom. Special Condition 22 requires that the work implementing these programs conform to these “approved environmental programs as outlined in the [1988 Permit].” Special Condition 25 provides that, on submittal of an application for construction approval in the south basin (Phase II), the "permittee shall submit a detailed wetland construction mitigation, monitoring and maintenance plan.” In evaluating the plan for approval, the District shall apply the “environmental criteria in effect at the time of construction permit application.” Although the approval of the District is not attached to the staff report, the District approved the June 24, 1992, staff report and proposed permit. The 1992 permit modification did not address the issue of who was responsible for melaleuca eradication after the sale of the property. On November 10, 1993, the staff report accompanying another request for a permit modification restates the special conditions of earlier permit modifications. Special Condition 23 restates the requirement that a melaleuca eradication program “shall be implemented,” again not stating by whom. Special Condition 23 now requires the completion of the melaleuca eradication program by February 25, 1994. The omission of a referenced exhibit to the permit from the exhibit filed in this case prevents a determination that this is the same as the Melaleuca Eradication Plan incorporated in the 1988 Permit and restated in the 1992 modification, although it probably is. In any event, Special Condition 23 concludes in another sentence lacking a stated or implied subject: “Maintenance of the preserved wetlands and berm planting areas shall be conducted in perpetuity to ensure that the conservation areas are maintained free from exotic vegetation (Brazilian pepper, Australian pine and melaleuca) . . ..” Although the record does not contain the written approval of the District to the staff report, the District approved the staff report dated November 10, 1993. On November 12, 1993, the Original Developer conveyed by special warranty deed the north to Petitioner. The deed is subject only to "easements, declarations, restrictions and reservations of record . . .." The record does not provide recording information for the deed. The Original Developer probably conveyed the south parcel to Applicant in the same fashion and at the same approximate time. Almost five months later, on March 29, 1994, the Army Corps issued another permit for the 900-acre parcel. Although the Original Developer had conveyed at least the north parcel, the Army Corps issued the 1994 permit to the Original Developer. The 1994 Army Corps permit authorizes the destruction of 158 acres. The general conditions governing transfers are the same as those in the 1988 Army Corps permit. The special conditions of the 1994 Army Corps permit require the permittee to preserve and enhance only 110 acres of high quality wetlands, instead of preserving 115 acres of such wetlands, as was required in the 1988 Army Corps permit. The 1994 Army Corps permit drops the requirement of creating eight acres of wetlands and 15 acres of littoral zone, as was required in the 1988 Army Corps permit, but requires the preservation of what appears to be the 39.5-acre preserve that is proposed by Applicant in the subject permit modification, as described below. Special Condition 3 of the 1994 Army Corps permit adds that all preserved areas "will be maintained in perpetuity free of Melaleuca. The permittee agrees to develop a bonded Melaleuca eradication program for the entire 906 acres. Copies of the bonded agreement will be provided to this office for approval before development can commence." The next permit activity affecting the 900-acre parcel is the subject application filed by Applicant on August 3, 1994, for its 503-acre parcel. On May 24, 1996, the District issued a staff report for conceptual approval of a SWM system proposed by Applicant for its 503-acre parcel. On June 13, 1996, the District issued an addendum to the staff report that contains another special condition that is not especially relevant to this case. In the background section, the staff report mentions the flooding of Phase I of the north parcel and states that the District had “assumed the adjacent wetlands would flow away from the development.” The staff report outlines the modifications implemented to eliminate the flooding; these modifications include connecting the M-1 canal, through inlets, with several wetlands located in the north and central basins. According to the staff report, Petitioner’s north parcel, which totals 287.34 acres, includes the Phase I/Plat 1 area, north basin, and part of central basin south of Phase I. Describing Applicant’s proposal, the staff report states that a preserve of 39.5 acres will be located in the northwest corner of the south parcel, adjoining the east boundary of the 115-acre parcel. The staff report states that the 39.5-acre preserve will sheetflow through cuts in the berm to wetlands in the 115-acre preserve. The 115-acre preserve is connected to the SWM system permitted on November 10, 1993, to eliminate flooding from these wetlands, whose control elevation is 19 feet NGVD. The staff report describes the south parcel as “dominated by flatwood habitat,” within which are stands of Australian pine and other exotic plant species that have recently been spreading across the site. The onsite wetlands are 4.93 acres of wet prairies, 18.4 acres of pond cypress strands, 1.56 acres of isolated marsh, 3.5 acres of cypress mixed with pine flatwood, and 163.91 acres of melaleuca. The staff report finds that only the 4.93 acres of wet prairies and 18.4 acres of cypress are in good condition, but melaleuca has become established in many of the wet prairies. The 1.56 acres of freshwater marshes and 163.91 acres of melaleuca are in poor condition. The 3.5 acres of cypress mixed with pine flatwoods are in fair condition. As for listed species, the staff report mentions only the possibility that herons might forage onsite during periods of standing water. Summarizing the impact of the proposed project on wetlands preservation, the staff report endorses the hydrologic reconnection of the 39.5-acre wetland/upland site with the 115-acre wetland. The staff report notes that water levels in the 115-acre preserve, which has been bermed to 21 feet NGVD, have stabilized at 19 feet NGVD. The staff report asserts that the “proposed wetland impacts (183.54 acres) were previously permitted under the conceptual permit application” for the original 1988 Permit. The staff report adds that this modification is to “change a portion of the original mitigation requirements . . . and includes impacts to a 6.78 acre wetland area that was previously permitted to be preserved.” But the staff report does not recommend the preservation of this wetland “[d]ue to the reduced hydrology and proximity to the proposed upland development” and the mitigation and compensation provided by the 39.5-acre preservation area. The staff report states that 8.76 acres of the 39.5- acre preserve are wetlands, and the remainder are uplands. As for the 8.76 acres of wetlands, the staff report lists 0.67 acres of mixed cypress and pine flatwoods, 4.93 acres of wet prairies, and 3.16 acres of cypress. Applicant would also restore 4.95 acres of pine flatwoods. As for the 183.54 acres of wetlands to be destroyed, the staff report lists 2.83 acres of mixed cypress and pine flatwoods in fair condition, 15.24 acres of cypress in fair condition, 1.56 acres of freshwater marshes in poor condition, and 163.91 acres of melaleuca in poor condition. Addressing the mitigation and monitoring elements of the current proposal, the staff report states that the modification would eliminate the creation of 15 acres of littoral wetlands around SWM lakes and 7.99 acres of marshes in golf courses in return for the creation of the 39.5-acre preservation area. The staff report assures that Applicant will perpetually manage and maintain the 115-acre preserve. Conceding that the 1988 Permit also required long-term maintenance of the 115-acre parcel, the staff report notes that the initial eradication effort was never completed. The staff report mentions an “access agreement” giving Applicant the authority to enter the 115-acre preserve for mitigation and monitoring, but “anticipat[es]” that Applicant will submit an application for another permit modification, on behalf of the two governmental entities, so that Applicant can “assume future maintenance responsibilities for this area.” As is clarified by the maintenance and monitoring plan, which is part of the proposed permit, Applicant's expectation is that the County and Village, not Applicant, will assume future maintenance responsibilities for the 115-acre preserve. The staff report concludes that the District should issue the permit subject to various conditions. Special Condition 1 is that the minimum building floor elevation is 20 feet NGVD. Special Condition 16 requires the implementation of a wetland mitigation program and requires Applicant to create 4.95 acres of marsh; restore 3.16 acres of cypress, 4.93 acres of marsh, and 0.67 acres of mixed forest; and protect 25.79 acres of uplands. Special Condition 17 sets performance criteria for the mitigation areas in terms of percentage and length of survival of vegetation. Special Condition 17 supplies completion dates for monitoring reports. Special Condition 21 addresses listed species. Noting that listed species have been seen onsite or the site contains suitable habitat for such species, Special Condition 21 requires Applicant to coordinate with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission or the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for guidance, recommendations, or permits to avoid impacts to such species. The monitoring and maintenance plan does not address direct and contingent liabilities for maintenance and generally is a poor candidate for enforcement. In addition to the vagueness of the passive voice, the plan is, at times, simply unreadable, as, for example, when it concludes boldly, but enigmatically: The site as a whole is evolving hydrologic trends which permits successional seres development toward communities with shorter hydroperiods and ultimately, toward more upland transitional and/or exotic species dominance of historically wetland habitats. Long-term prospectives infer that successional deflection has become a severe detriment for natural environmental control to alter the present scenario. Active management coupled with graduated balanced in hydrologic restoration and created habitat elements will become the processes engineered to obtain an infusion of probabilities fashioned to inscribe a regenerative adaptation to the present site condition while fostering in situ processes, to optimize derived functions, for the maintenance of both habitat and wildlife over the long-term existence of the Preserve. (Sic.) Water Quality Impacts Petitioner does not contend in its proposed recommended order that the proposed project fails to meet applicable requirements regarding water quality. Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed permit modification would not violate State water quality standards. Flooding Petitioner contends in its proposed recommended order that the proposed permit modification would not meet applicable requirements regarding water quantity and flooding. However, Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the project would not violate these requirements. There are several aspects to a SWM system. Undeveloped land stores and conveys rainfall through soil and surface storage. An artificial SWM system alters the undeveloped land’s storage capacity by the addition of a storage and drainage system, such as, in this case, conveying water through the soil into storm drains and then to lakes to store surface runoff prior to release, through an outfall structure, into a receiving body of water--in this case, the M-1 canal. The SWM system hastens the conveyance of stormwater runoff offsite. The control elevation of a SWM system is the height at which water in the lakes will flow through the outfall structure into the receiving body of water. Except during the dry season, the control elevation tends to establish not only the water level of the SWM lakes, but also of the nearby water table. The hastening of drainage offsite with the establishment of control elevations produce the drawdown effect of SWM systems. As to flooding, the basic underlying dispute between Petitioner and Respondents is whether to use the pre- or post- development depth to water table. In determining whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance as to the impact of a proposed development on wetlands, one would project the effect of any post-development drawdown on the wetlands themselves and their functions and inhabitants. It would be illogical not to do the same in determining whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance as to the impact of a proposed development on flooding. Pre-development, the average depth to water table on Applicant’s property is as little as two feet. Post- development, the average depth to water table on Applicant’s property will be five feet, which is the difference between the control elevation of 14 feet NGVD and ground elevation of 19 feet NGVD. Petitioner’s evidence concerning flooding is flawed because its expert witness based his calculations on an average depth to water table of two feet on Applicant’s property. He did not adjust for the considerable drawdown effect of the SWM system. The District table allows for no more than four feet between the water table and ground, so there is an added margin of safety in the ensuing flooding calculations. Another important factor in the flooding calculations is the soil type in terms of permeability. The District properly characterized the prevailing soils as flatwoods, and the soils onsite are in the category of “good drainage.” Applicant’s suggestion that flooding calculations use the post-development soils is rejected. Post-development depths to water table are used because they can be calculated to predict post-development conditions accurately. Applicant produced no proof that it would replace such massive amounts of soil from the site with more permeable soils so as to justify reclassifying the soil type. The District's flooding calculations probably overstate the risk of flooding in the three-day, 100-year design storm because they ignore lake bank storage, which is the additional amount of water that a lake can store in its sloped banks above the typical water elevation. The District could have relied on the effect of lake bank storage for additional assurance that the proposed project will not result in flooding. The proposed project contains a large number of long, narrow lakes, which will thus have a relatively high percentage of lake banks to lake area. Additionally, the District has raised the minimum floor elevation at this site by two feet over 18 years. Whatever other effects may follow from this trend, the higher floor elevation offers additional protection to onsite improvements. The flooding of Petitioner’s property seven years ago understandably is a matter of concern to Petitioner. Applicant proposes to change the configuration of drainage basins, but the District has adequately addressed the drainage issue, and this is not the first time in the 20-year permitting history of this property that the District has approved a reconfiguration of basins. Also, in the 1988 Permit, the District incorrectly projected the direction of runoff under certain conditions. However, the flooding was partly due to inadequate road- drainage facilities. Following the flooding, the Original Developer enlarged these features and bermed the flooding wetlands, so as to eliminate the flooding of developed areas due to design storm events. On balance, Applicant has proved that the proposed permit modification would not adversely affect flooding or water quantity. Environmental Impacts A. Wetlands Petitioner contends in its proposed recommended order that the proposed permit modification would not meet applicable requirements regarding environmental impacts to wetlands. Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed work would not violate these requirements. There are two major deficiencies in the District's analysis of wetland impacts and mitigation or compensation. First, the proposed permit modification includes mitigation or compensation in the form of melaleuca removal. But prior permits have already required the same work, no one has ever done the work, and the District does not know if these permit requirements are still enforceable. Second, the proposed permit modification ignores 13.9 acres of preserved wetlands in the 1988 Permit, allowing their destruction without mitigation or compensation. The permitting process requires the District to balance the impacts of development and mitigation or compensation on the natural resources under the District's jurisdiction. Balancing these impacts in issuing the 1988 Permit, the District required the complete eradication of melaleuca in return for permitting the residential, institutional, and recreational development proposed by the Original Developer. District staff, not the Original Developer or Petitioner, called the Melaleuca Eradication Plan “the major environmental feature” of the development plan approved by the 1988 Permit. The major environmental feature of the 1988 Permit clearly justified significant development impacts on natural resources. To justify additional development impacts on natural resources, the District now proposes to count again another developer’s promise to eradicate the melaleuca. The District claims that the term of the original melaleuca protection plan was only ten years, not perpetual as is presently proposed. However, the District's claim ignores Special Condition 23 in the 1993 permit modification. This condition set a deadline of February 25, 1994, for the eradication of melaleuca and made perpetual the requirement that one or more of the potentially responsible parties--the Original Developer, Petitioner, Applicant, the bonded authority, the property owners' association, or transferees-- maintain the wetlands free of melaleuca and other exotics. Unfortunately, this “major environmental feature” of the 1988 Permit, as well as subsequent permit modifications, was so poorly drafted as to leave potentially responsible parties unsure of their legal obligations. The District tacitly suggests that it cannot enforce the obligations imposed by the 1988 Permits and later modifications for the eradication of melaleuca. But there is presently no reason for the District to resort again to permitting without first reviewing carefully its enforcement options. The District should first determine whether anyone will voluntarily assume these obligations. As a business consideration, Petitioner may choose to eradicate the melaleuca from the north parcel and 115-acre preserve to prevent Applicant from providing this service and claiming that it should receive compensation credit against additional environmental impacts permitted by a modification of the 1988 Permit. Maybe the County or Village has already budgeted funds for this work. If no party offers to perform the necessary work, the District must next determine its legal rights and the legal obligations of these parties. Depending on the results of this research, the District may need to consider litigation and the cessation of the issuance of construction and operation permits on the 900-acre parcel or either the north or south parcel. At this point, the District should discuss joint litigation or permit revocation with the Army Corps, whose 1994 permit requires the permittee to develop a bonded melaleuca-eradication program and apparently imposes on the permittee the responsibility to maintain all preserved areas free of melaleuca. Only after having exhausted these options may the District legitimately conclude that melaleuca eradication on any part of the 900 acres represents fair compensation for the development impacts on jurisdictional natural resources. The second major problem as to wetlands impacts concerns the calculation of wetlands acreages to be destroyed by the proposed permit. The 1988 Permit expressly incorporates the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. This program, as an operative part of the 1988 Permit, represents that the developer will “partially preserve. . .” nine wetlands totaling 13.9 acres. The partial preservation of wetlands does not mean that a five-acre wetland will remain a five-acre wetland, except that its function will be impaired. Partial preservation means that, for instance, two acres of a five- acre wetland will be preserved. It is impossible for the District to have required mitigation to offset the destruction of these 13.9 acres of wetlands because the District denies that the 1988 Permit required the partial preservation of these nine wetlands. As noted below, neither the District nor Applicant can identify all of the wetlands that make up the 13.9 acres. Rather than account for these wetlands that were to have been partially preserved, the District instead contends that this undertaking by the Original Developer was ineffective or nonbinding because it was overriden by contrary statements in the staff report. Not so. The specific provisions delineating the preserved wetlands area in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which was prepared by the Original Developer, override more general statements contained in the staff report accompanying the permit. There is not necessarily a conflict between the staff report and the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. The staff report states that the plan “includes the protection of approximately 100 acres of the best quality wetlands,” together with the creation of eight acres of golf course wetlands and 15 acres of lake littoral zones. The plan “includes” these wetlands among those preserved or created; the word suggests that the list is not exhaustive, but only illustrative. Alternatively, if the list were exhaustive, the preservation of “approximately” 100 acres reasonably encompasses the 112.71 acres of partially or totally preserved wetlands cited in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. More to the point, on October 26, 1987, Donald Wisdom, the engineer handling the 1988 Permit, prepared a memorandum for the file stating that the total acreage of wetlands to be preserved or created was 134.45. This figure represents an insignificant deviation of 0.19 acres from the total listed in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which was dated six weeks later, on December 8, 1987. In the October 26 memorandum, Mr. Wisdom describes the preserved wetlands as 111.46 acres of A- and B-quality wetlands. This is 1.25 acres less than the acreage in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. These small discrepancies were eliminated by November 18, 1987, when Mr. Wisdom wrote a memorandum noting that the program called for the total preservation of 98.81 acres and partial preservation of 13.9 acres. Adding the created wetlands, the new total for preserved or created wetlands was 134.64 acres. A month later, a District employee wrote a memorandum to the file, expressing his “main concern” that the proposed development would protect only 99 acres of wetlands. It is unclear why the employee mentioned only the 98.81 acres slated for preservation. Perhaps he was confused or mistaken. But the misgivings of a single employee do not constitute the rejection by the District of a developer's proposal to preserve nearly 14 acres of high-quality wetlands. The staff report for the 1988 Permit notes that the 900-acre site contained about 281 acres of wetlands. If the 1988 Permit required the preservation, as an entire wetland or part of a larger wetland, of 112 acres of wetlands, then the 1988 Permit allowed the destruction of 169 acres, which is consistent with the 164 and 158 acres allowed to be destroyed by the 1988 and 1994 Army Corps permits. However, by the 1996 permit modification, the staff report refers, without explanation or justification, to the permitted destruction of 183.54 acres of wetlands--evidently adding the 13.9 acres to the 169 acres previously permitted to be destroyed. Tab 13 of the Wisdom bluebook identifies the nine wetlands constituting the 13.9 acres, which are entirely in Applicant's south parcel. Except for three, all of these wetlands were characterized as A-quality, meaning that they are in good to excellent condition and “have not been stressed significantly from the biological viewpoint.” B-quality wetlands are in disturbed condition and “are in various stages of biological stress caused primarily by a lowered water table and/or melaleuca invasion.” C-quality wetlands are highly disturbed and “are substantially degraded biologically.” The 13.9 acres of wetlands comprise wetland numbers 23 (0.5 acres), 46 (0.4 acres), 44 (0.6 acres), 37 (0.4 acres), 29 (1.1 acres), 20 [sometimes misreported as 21] (3.9 acres), 30 (2.6 acres), 16 (1.5 acres), and 14 (2.9 acres). Wetland numbers 46 and 29 are B-quality, and wetland number 20 is C-quality. The wetlands shown in District Exhibit 4 and Applicant Exhibit 3 inaccurately portray the wetlands constituting the missing 13.9 acres. A internal memorandum to the file notwithstanding, the District predicated the 1988 Permit in part on the preservation of 112.71 acres of functioning wetlands, including the 13.9 acres that the District now disclaims. The mitigation and compensation required of Applicant in the present case ignored the destruction of these wetlands. The District's analysis of mitigation and compensation in this case was fatally flawed by these two deficiencies. But more deficiencies exist in the District's analysis of wetland impacts. The District relied on faulty data in reviewing Applicant's request for a permit modification. Undercounting the extent of wetlands by at least 21 acres and their condition by an indeterminable amount, Applicant presented to the District a materially inaccurate picture of the wetland resources on the south parcel. Despite disclaimers to the contrary, the District relied on this inaccurate data in reviewing Applicant's request for a permit modification. There are possible problems with 39.5-acre preserve offered by Applicant. This parcel contains less than nine acres of wetlands, including two wetlands that Applicant may already be required to preserve under the 1994 Army Corps permit. At the same time, Applicant's proposal may include the destruction of a third wetland that is to be preserved under the 1994 Army Corps permit. The best rendering in the record of the 1994 Army Corps permit may be Applicant Exhibit 4, which shows eight large wetland areas to be “preserved/enhanced/created.” Two of these are the 10- and 30-acre wetlands on Petitioner’s property, which were preserved in the 1988 Permit. Three of the eight wetlands are in the 115-acre preserve; these were also preserved in the 1988 Permit. The remaining three wetlands to be preserved, enhanced, or created under the 1994 Army Corps permit are in the north end of Applicant’s property. It is difficult to estimate acreage given the scale of the drawing, but the two westerly wetlands are about 4-5 acres each and the easterly wetland is 3-3.5 acres. Subtracting the total preserved acreage of 110 from the acreage identified in the preceding paragraph, the total acreage of these remaining three wetlands is about 12. The two westerly wetlands are in the 39.5-acre preserve that Applicant offers as mitigation in the present case. According to Applicant Exhibit 6, the easterly wetland, or at least the most valuable part of it--the center--is slated for destruction if the District grants the subject permit modification. The proposed destruction of the third wetland is a matter of greater interest to the Army Corps than to the District, but the offer to preserve the other two wetlands really does not provide anything in return for the permitted development impacts because these two wetlands are already preserved under the 1994 Army Corps permit. As the District and Applicant contend, golf course marshes and littoral zones are typically of little environmental importance. Although the 1988 Permit addresses some of these problems, although without supplying any performance standards, golf courses themselves are often conduits of fertilizers and pesticides into the groundwater and nearby surface water. The District and Applicant justifiably question the value of the golf courses approved in the 1988 Permit as wildlife corridors. It is unclear what wildlife would use the corridor, which is surrounded by residential development and bounded by Okeechobee Boulevard. Other factors also militate in favor of Applicant's proposal. But, as the record presently stands, there is no way to find that Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed development and related mitigation and compensation, as described in the subject permit modification, meet the applicable criteria. The District substantially undervalued the environmental impacts of the proposed modification while substantially overvaluing the environmental impacts of Applicant's proposed contributions in the form of mitigation and compensation. To find adequate assurance as to wetland impacts in these circumstances, where the District did not perform an informed balancing of various impacts in a large-scale development, would permit the District to transform the unavoidably imprecise task of balancing wetland impacts into an act of pure, unreviewable discretion. Listed Species The only relevant listed species onsite is the gopher tortoise, which is a species of special concern. Gopher tortoises use the site to an undetermined extent. Applicant's suggestion that someone brought the tortoises to the site is rejected as improbable. However, due to the resolution of the wetlands issue, it is unnecessary to determine whether Applicant provided reasonable assurance as to the value of functions provided to wildlife and listed species by wetlands. Procedural Issues A. Standing Petitioner has standing due most obviously to flooding considerations. Additionally, the SWM system permitted in 1988 is for the entire 900-acre parcel, of which Petitioner’s parcel is a part. Applicability of ERP Rules The proposed permit modification would substantially affect water resources. The proposed permit modification would substantially increase the adverse effect on water resources. Requirement to Delineate Wetlands Due to the resolution of the wetlands issue, it is unnecessary to determine whether Applicant met applicable requirements concerning the delineation of wetlands. Improper Purpose Petitioner did not challenge the proposed permit modification for an improper purpose. Relevant Provisions of Basis of Review The District revised its Basis of Review after the adoption of ERP rules. Although the order concludes that the District should have applied the ERP rules, and thus the ERP Basis of Review, the order shall discuss both versions of the Basis of Review because the District ignored numerous provisions of both documents in approving Applicant's request for a permit modification. Section 4.6 MSSW Basis of Review requires the District to consider "actual impact" to the site by "considering the existing natural system as altered by the proposed project[,]" including "positive and negative environmental impacts." Section 4.6 requires the District to "balance" these impacts "to achieve a reasonable degree of protection for significant environmental features consistent with the overall protection of the water resources of the District." The proposed permit modification fails to comply with several provisions of Appendix 7 of the MSSW Basis of Review, such as Sections 4.2 requiring a detailed description of the isolated wetlands to be destroyed; 5.1.1(d) favoring the protection of isolated wetlands over their destruction, mitigation, and compensation, which are considered "only when there are no feasible project design alternatives"; and 5.1.6 prohibiting the alteration of water tables so as to affect adversely isolated wetlands. The proposed permit modification also violates various provisions of the ERP Basis of Review. Section 4.0 of the ERP Basis of Review sets the goal of permitting to be "no net loss in wetland . . . functions." Sections 4.2 and following generally require balancing. Section 4.2.1 predicates District approval on a showing that the SWM system does not cause a "net adverse impact on wetland functions . . . which is not offset by mitigation." The ERP provisions first require that the District "explore" with an applicant the minimization of impacts prior to considering mitigation. Section 4.2.2.4(c) specifically imposes monitoring requirements for SWM systems that "could have the effect of altering water levels in wetlands." Sections 4.3.2.2 and following discuss mitigation ratios under the ERP Basis of Review. If the District can explicate a policy to count as mitigation wetlands acreage already preserved under Army Corps permits, the ratios in this case might warrant further consideration, assuming Applicant resubmits an application for permit modification. But it would be premature to consider the ratios on the present record for several reasons. The District has not proved such a policy. If such a policy counts such wetland acreage, on the theory that the District protects function and the Army Corps protects merely the wetland, the record is insufficiently developed as to the functions of the wetlands proposed for protection, as well as the functions of the 13.9 acres of wetlands proposed for destruction. Also, the District has not sufficiently explored project minimization, as is now required under the ERP Basis of Review.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the District enter a final order denying Applicant's request for a permit modification. ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 13, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 13, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey D. Kneen John F. Mariani J. Barry Curtain Levy Kneen 1400 Centrepark Boulevard, Suite 1000 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Ronald K. Kolins Thomas A. Sheehan, III Moyle Flanigan Post Office Box 3888 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 John J. Fumero Marcy I. LaHart Office of Counsel South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Samuel E. Poole, III Executive Director Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
The Issue Whether or not the Petitioners, Guy T. Selander and Henry W. Harris, should be granted an "after the fact" construction permit in accordance with Section 253.124(7)(a), F.S., for the retaining wall which has been constructed on or near their property located on Beauclerc Point, Duval County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact This cause came on to be heard upon the Petitioners' request for an "after the fact" construction permit for a retaining wall which had been built on or near their property. The specific property spoken of is two lots located on Beauclerc Point, Duval County, Florida. These lots are shown as numbers 21 and 22 found on Petitioners' Exhibit No. 15, admitted into evidence. This is a replat based upon a survey of November 28, 1923. The exhibit shows the retaining wall superimposed on the survey. A more specific showing of the placement of the retaining wall on lots 21 and 22 may be found in Petitioners' Exhibit No. 16, admitted into evidence. Petitioner, Guy T. Selander is the owner of lot number 21, which lot contains his residence. Henry W. Harris is the owner of lot No. 22 and there are no permanent buildings located on that lot. Dr. Selander built a home on lot No. 21 in the years 1974 through 1975. Prior to building the home he was of the opinion that he needed to protect the front of the lot which faces the St. Johns River. Dr. Harris was also interested in protecting his lot. Between them it was determined that they would build a retaining wall to protect their lots. The two lots are located on a bluff which drops approximately 20 to 25 feet down to the level of the river. The St. Johns River is a navigable river. Prior to commencing the construction of the retaining wall, the Petitioners, upon the suggestion of a friend of Dr. Selanders, applied to the City of Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida for a building permit. The application for permit was made on January 19, 1973. The Petitioners were granted a permit on January 19, 1973, entitled "miscellaneous permit", No. 495. A copy of the permit is a part of Petitioners' Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. The Petitioners at that time did not seek further approval of the construction of their retaining wall, by the state authorities or the United States Corp of Engineers. In constructing the retaining wall the Petitioners contemplated the use of fill, some of which was to be placed in the river proper. Some fill was placed in the river at this point in time which constituted an obstruction or alteration of the natural flow of the St. Johns River. The apex of the retaining wall and the southwest section of the retaining wall, was constructed waterward of the existing bulkhead line found on the neighboring property located to the north and south of the subject two lots. The apex of the retaining wall, as can be seen in Petitioners' Exhibit No. 15, lies at the approximate center of the two lots. At the time the permit was requested of the City of Jacksonville and the retaining wall was constructed, which construction was between January, 1973 and September, 1973, Section 253.124(1)(2), F.S., required that the permit application be approved by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, prior to any construction. As indicated, this approval was not received prior to commencing construction and in September, 1973, officials of the State of Florida and the U.S. Corp of Engineers came to the property and discovered that the wall was being constructed. At this point in the construction, the bottom of the river where the retaining wall was being placed had been smoothed out and sand bags filled and laminated, such that the wall was in place. Then "riprap", broken concrete, was being placed landward of the retaining wall. The officials of the two governmental bodies told the Petitioner Selander that he would need approval of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund and of the U.S. Corp of Engineers to construct that wall. Prior to undertaking the project of constructing the retaining wall, the land along the toe of the bluff had been dry land, but as established before, some fill had been placed in the river, with the majority of that fill being placed at the southern most point of the two lots. This location is further described as being the point where the retaining wall makes an approximate right angle and comes back to the southern boundary line of lot No. 22. The retaining wall and the Selander residence may be seen in Petitioners' Photographic Exhibits No. 9 and 11, admitted into evidence. The condition of the shoreline on lots No. 21 and No. 22 prior to the construction of the retaining wall and placement of the fill may be seen in Petitioners' Photographic Exhibit No. 8, admitted into evidence. This photograph was taken somewhere in the time period of 1970 through 1971, and shows water of the St. Johns River at a place on the lot fronts that was later filled in. The photograph, Petitioners Exhibit No. 8, also shows that the retaining wall had been constructed waterward of the mean high waterline. Subsequent to the conversation with the state and federal officials, the Petitioners filed a request for an "after the fact" permit. This permit request was filed on November 1, 1973 and is found as Petitioners' Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. The Petitioners stopped working on the project and did not recommence until after receiving the recommended approval of the City of Jacksonville, which is found in Petitioners' Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence, an August 16, 1974, letter from the Director of Public Works of the City of Jacksonville. This permit letter is conditioned upon the approval of the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund and of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. From that point there were various requests made by the agencies of the state, which were complied with by the Petitioners. Additional work was done on the retaining wall based on receipt of a copy of a letter from Robert W. Hall, Administrator of the Dredge and Fill section of the State of Florida, Department of Pollution Control. This letter is Petitioners' Exhibit No. 6, admitted into evidence and is dated October 31, 1974. The letter indicates the recommended approval of the Department of Pollution Control of the project conditioned upon the installation of "riprap" material waterward of the retaining wall, and pending the Trustees' approval. The principal questions being addressed by the agencies were: Whether or not it would be more detrimental to the marine biological resources to remove the construction and fill. If the answer to the first question was yes, then what was the nature of the erosion of the bluff line, was it slow and imperceptible or was it avulsion or artificially induced. During the course of the investigation of the application for permit, review of the project was made by the Department of Natural Resources. In addition, a field inspector with the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, Jeremy Tyler, went to the project and examined the retaining wall and surrounding area on November 18, 1974. His inspection revealed that the water on the property located south of the Petitioners' property touched the bluff of the bank at high tide. The water on the property south of the Petitioners' property was lapping against the bulkhead at the base of the bluff. The witness noted that the point of the bluff in that general area was located on the Harris and Selander property. According to this witness's observation, the mean high waterline on November 18, 1974 would have been an approximate diagonal line going from the adjacent north bulkhead line to the adjacent south bulkhead line. On November 3, 1975, Jerome Kelly, a subdistrict biologist for the State of Florida, made an inspection of the property. He felt that the only adverse effect on the biological resources that would occur with the removal of the retaining wall would be removal of a stand of typha, also known as cattails, which was waterward of the north end of the retaining wall. A memorandum of his observations is found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 5, admitted into evidence. The Petitioners employed Dr. Joe A. Edmisten, an ecological consultant. The results of the examination of the property, which was made by Dr. Edmisten may be found as Petitioners' Composite Exhibit No. 17, admitted into evidence. Dr. Edmisten and his assistant took soil samples and cores in the general area and examined various aquatic and wetland plants in the area of the project. It was concluded by Dr. Edmisten that soil had washed from the bluff line before and this erosion was prohibiting the health of certain of these plants. Additionally, Dr. Edmisten felt that the retaining wall was assisting in the development of these plants and the development of periphyton and sessile animals. He felt that the removal of the retaining wall would cause the destruction of the aquatic plants, terrestial plants and animals, and aquatic animals and the substrate. The report does not speak to the issue of the long term effects of removing the retaining wall landward of its present placement and landward of the mean high waterline; however, his testimony at the hearing seemed to suggest that a properly constructed retaining wall in such a location would not be inappropriate. This is in keeping with the testimony of Jerome Kelly who didn't feel that removing the wall and placing it in a location landward of the mean high waterline would damage the ecological system. Additionally, it can be seen that if the wall was moved landward of its present location there would be a greater volume of water for marine life to exist in. The second consideration that was addressed in the discussion of the "after the fact" permit was the question of whether the erosion of the property found in the lots of the Petitioners had transpired through imperceptible erosion or by specific avulsion or artificially induced erosion. Testimony was offered by Petitioner Harris, which appears as a deposition in lieu of in hearing testimony. Affidavits were also submitted to the Respondent by persons living in the vicinity of the Petitioners' property. These affidavits may be found as part of the Edmisten report which is Petitioners' Exhibit No. 17, admitted into evidence. The Petitioners tried to demonstrate that the loss of land was caused by avulsion due to hurricane Dora which occurred in 1964 and through various northeastern storms. It is clear that the property line has receded since the replat of 1923 shown in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15, admitted into evidence. It is unclear however, whether this erosion was caused by avulsion, imperceptible erosion or artificially induced erosion. Therefore, the Petitioners have failed to demonstrate their entitlement to reclaim land beyond the mean high waterline. Based upon an examination of the facts it has been demonstrated that it would not be more damaging to the environment or the marine resources protected by Chapter 253, F.S., to cause the removal of the fill which has been placed waterward of the mean high waterline, as opposed to granting an "after the fact" permit.
Recommendation It is recommended that the "after the fact" construction permit sought by the Petitioners under authority of Section 253.124(7)(a) F.S., be denied. DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of June, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Almer W. Beale, II, Esquire South 1014, Barnett Bank Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Vance W. Kidder, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Arthur B. Lujan (Lujan) and his wife, Betty L. Lujan, are the owners of a 34.09-acre parcel of land which includes Enchanted Island and its surrounding submerged lands. 1/ Enchanted Island is a 3 1/2-acre island located in Florida Bay to the east of Key Haven and north of U.S. Highway 1, Monroe County, Florida. On January 15, 1986, Lujan applied to Monroe County for a land clearing permit and fill permit. The permits, as requested, would have permitted him to clear, after-the-fact, the island of vegetation, fill the island to +4' MHW (mean high water), and restore an access road to the island. Lujan's applications were approved, and the permits issued on February 4, 1986. The Department of Community Affairs (Department), pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes, filed a timely appeal with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Adjudicatory Commission). Background In 1970, Lujan and his wife purchased the subject property, which included Enchanted Island and its surrounding submerged lands. At that time, an access road connected the western tip of the island to U.S. Highway 1. 2/ In or about April 1972, Lujan constructed, by the deposit of fill over bay bottom, an access road from U.S. Highway 1 to the eastern tip of Enchanted Island. Since this work was being performed without a federal permit, the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps) on April 26, 1972, advised Lujan to cease and desist all unauthorized work in navigable waters of the United States. Lujan complied with the Corps' request, but did not remove the road. In late December 1972, Lujan began fill work on the western access road and on Enchanted Island itself. According to Lujan, his intention was to clearly define the boundary of Enchanted Island, raise its elevation from approximately +3' MSL (mean sea level) to +4' MSL, and restore the western access road, which had been subjected to erosion. Lujan was performing the work on the access road without a federal permit, and on January 4, 1973, the Corps advised Lujan to cease and desist all unauthorized work in navigable waters. 3/ In response to the cease and desist order, Lujan ceased activity on both the access road and Enchanted Island itself. 4/ At that time, the boundary of Enchanted Island had been defined by a perimeter road above MHW and the access road restored, but the elevation of the island had not been raised or its interior altered. Lujan further responded to the Corps' cease and desist order by filing suit in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida (District Court) to enjoin the Corps from any further interference with the use and enjoyment of Enchanted Island. That suit was dismissed without prejudice when Lujan agreed to submit an after-the-fact permit application to the Corps. That application, filed May 30, 1973, sought leave to restore the western access road, place three culverts through the road, and to remove the unauthorized eastern access road and place its material on the island to bring the final elevation of the island to +4' MLW (mean low water). Subsequently, on June 17, 1974, the Corps denied Lujan's permit. In February, 1975, Lujan again filed suit against the Corps in District Court seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and de novo review of the Corps' permit denial. The United States responded by instituting suit against Lujan for violation of the permit requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act of 1899, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. In their action, the government sought civil penalties, and an order that the unauthorized work be removed and the area restored to its pre-existing condition. These two actions (Case Nos. 75-150-CIV-EBD and 75-635-CIV-EBD) were ultimately consolidated. On December 5, 1975, the District Court ruled that the Corps' permit denial was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The court further ordered Lujan to remove the western access road and restore the area to the natural depth of the adjacent bottom, and to pay a civil penalty. 5/ Lujan appealed. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (Appellate Court) agreed with Lujan's assertion that, inter alia, the Corps had breached an agreement to only consider in their determination substantive objections from the state agencies who had to be notified. The Appellate Court found the state agencies' objections to lack substance, and reversed the decision of the District Court. On remand, the Corps was instructed not to consider any previously filed objections from the state agencies since they were not specific in nature. 6/ Following remand, the Corps notified Lujan that viewed from the context of its 1975 regulations, the interior of Enchanted Island was deemed a wetlands area which could not be filled absent a Corps permit. The District court found, however, that since the Corps acted improvidently in stopping Lujan's activities in January 1973, it would be inequitable for the Corps to retroactively apply its wetlands policy to Lujan's property. Succinctly, the court found in its order of April 26, 1985, that: In 1972, when Lujan initially was ordered to cease work on the road, Corps jurisdiction was not exercised above MHTL. Its 1975 regulations created a "wetlands policy" which asserted jurisdiction over activities above MHTL. Had the Corps not interfered capriciously with Lujan's activities, he would have completed his fill project prior to the change in regulations and the project would have been "grand fathered in" ... Retroactive application of the permitting requirement is not appropriate. Consequently, the court held: The Corps is directed to reopen the permit application only with respect to the western access strip and only so that the administrative process may effec- tuate a reasonable restoration plan. No permitting is required as to Enchanted Island above MHTL, and the Corps is enjoined from exercis- ing jurisdiction over the area (to the extent that Lujan's activities do not affect navigable waters, which would confer jurisdiction upon the Corps). The parties shall meet, formulate an agreed restoration order, and submit it to the court for evaluation within sixty (60) days of this order. (Emphasis added). Lujan and the Corps experienced no difficulty in formulating an agreed restoration plan for the western access road; however, they reached an impass when Lujan insisted that the plan include approval of his desire to fill the interior of Enchanted Island to +4' MHW. While it took no exception to the court's order that it not exercise jurisdiction over the interior of Enchanted Island, the Corps refused to agree that a provision directing the filling of the interior of the island was appropriate. According to the Corps, such matters were not a subject matter of the current litigation and could be an infringement upon county and state permitting requirements. At a hearing held November 15, 1985, at which Mr. Lujan was present, the court concurred with the Corps and directed that any language which referred to raising the existing uplands of Enchanted Island to +4' MHW be deleted. Notwithstanding the court's instruction that the restoration plan contain no reference to filling the uplands of the island, the plans attached to the consent agreement still contained such language, in brackets, when submitted to the court. By order of December 20, 1985, the court ratified the restoration plan, as submitted; however, by order of February 14, 1986, the court corrected its oversight by deleting the bracketed language which dealt with filling the uplands of the island. Current Development Activities On January 6, 1986, Lujan applied with the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) for a driveway permit which would allow him to connect the western access road through DOT right-of-way to U.S. Highway 1. Receipt of this permit was crucial to Lujan's plans, since at sometime subsequent to January 4, 1973, the portion of the western access road which occupied DOT right-of-way had been removed, creating a water gap in the road. On January 8, 1986, the requested permit was granted, with the following legend stamped conspicuously thereon: VALIDITY OF THIS PERMIT IS CONTINGENT UPON PERMITTEE OBTAINING NECESSARY PERMITS FROM ALL OTHER AGENCIES INVOLVED. On January 14, 1986, Lujan began to prepare the island to receive fill. On that day Lujan filled the "water gap" in the access road and began the process of leveling the high and low portions of the island by bulldozing on the southerly end of the island. It was Lujan's intention to level to the north end of the island and along the access road, and then fill and grade the island. At approximately 5:30 p.m., January 14, 1986, George Garrett, a Monroe County biologist, arrived on the job site with the announced intention of red tagging it since no county permits had been obtained. In response, Lujan exhibited a copy of the District Court's order. Mr. Garrett, at that point, elected not to red tag the job site and requested that Lujan with his supervisor the next day. 7/ Mr. Garrett's request that Lujan meet with his supervisor the next day regarding the project did nothing to deter Lujan's clearing efforts. The proof establishes that when Mr. Garrett left the island on January 14, 1986, there had been some scarification at the southerly end of the island, but the mangrove community which dominated the central portion of the island, discussed infra, had not been disturbed. At 8:30 a.m., January 16, 1986, when the island was again inspected, the island had been cleared of most vegetation and leveled, and the mangroves which had occupied the interior of the island were now resting in several large piles of debris. On January 15, 1986, Lujan met with Bob Herman, Mr. Garrett's supervisor, to discuss the activities which were occurring on the island. As a consequence of that meeting, the job site was red tagged pending Lujan's application for and receipt of Monroe County permits. On January 15, 1986, Lujan filed an application with Monroe County for a fill permit which would permit him to fill the island to +4' MHW and restore the western access road, as well as a land clearing permit which would permit him, after the fact, to clear the island of vegetation. Attached to the applications were copies of the District Court's order of December 20, 1985, and the consent agreement of December 16, 1985. On each application Lujan affixed the following legend: This application is without waiver of applicant's rights in Case Nos. 75-150-CIV-EBD and 75-635-CIV-EBD and position that no permits may be required and that such permits (if any) should be processed using 1972 county laws then in effect. Lujan's applications were not accompanied by a vegetation survey and plot plan as required by Chapters 4 and 18, Monroe County Code, infra. The applications were, however, accompanied by a copy of the December 16, 1985, consent agreement, which contained plans for the restoration of the westerly access road. These plans delineated the areas to be filled, the location of culverts, and the location and elevations of the proposed paved access road. On February 4, 1986, upon instructions from its County Attorney, Monroe County issued a fill permit and land clearing permit to Lujan despite his failure to provide a vegetation survey or disclose his development plans for the island. Each permit contained the following remarks: Said permit issued in accord with the Federal Court Orders entered by Judge Ned Davis on the 26th day of April, 1985, and on the 20th day of December, 1985. Immediately upon receipt of the county permits, Lujan began to fill the interior of the island and restore the westerly access road as rapidly as possible. According to Lujan, he had a contract to obtain fill on advantageous terms if he could promptly remove it from the Key West naval station. By February 14, 1986, auspiciously, Enchanted Island had been cleared of vegetation and its elevation raised to +4' MHW, and the access road restored. On February 20, 1986, the Department of Community affairs (Department) noticed its appeal of the Monroe County permits to the Adjudicatory Commissions. 8/ Enchanted Island At the time Lujan was stopped by the Corps on January 4, 1973, the topography of Enchanted Island had been altered by the establishment of a perimeter road around its boundaries above the MHW mark, and its westerly access road restored. Mangroves fringed the island waterward of the perimeter road, but none existed along the newly restored access road. The interior of the island, located upland of the perimeter road, was not shown to have been significantly altered at that time. On January 14, 1986, when Lujan began to clear and grade the island, its topography had not changed significantly from January 1973; the perimeter of the island was still defined by a roadway above MW and the fringing mangroves waterward of the road still stood. At the center of the island, upland from the perimeter road, a depression existed which covered approximately 15-25 percent of the island's lands and which was characterized by red, black and white mangroves, as well as some buttonwood. This depression was saturated by water at a frequency and duration adequate to support its wetlands species; however, since it was located upland of the MHW mark the Source of its waters was most probably from percolation and rainfall. Located elsewhere on the interior of the island were buttonwood, Bay Cedar and sea oxeye daisy. By January 16, 1986, Lujan had cleared the interior of the island of any significant vegetation, and leveled it. The mangroves, which now fringed portions of the access road, as well as those which fringed the island, were not, however, disturbed. Monroe County Regulations Chapter 4, Article II, of the Monroe County Code (MCC) establishes and regulates development within a shoreline protection zone. Pursuant to Section 4-18, MCC, the zone is established as follows: There is hereby established a shoreline protection zone in all that portion of the county defined in Section 22F-8.02, Florida Administrative Code, and generally known as the Florida Keys. The shoreline protection zone includes submerged lands covered by the waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico (Florida Bay) out to the seaward limit of the State's territorial boundaries, whether in sovereign or private ownership, including those lands contiguous to such waters where fringing mangrove communities occur. In order to maintain the functional integrity of these mangrove communities, the interior boundary of the shoreline protec- tion zone is hereby established at a line extending fifty (50) feet laterally upland from the landward limit of the shoreline mangroves. The shoreline mangroves shall include mangrove communities which contain red (Rhizophora mangle), black (Avicennia nitida) or white (Laguncularia racemosa) mangroves but excluding those mangrove communities which are isolated inland and separated from open water areas by nonmangrove natural vegetative communities. Consequently, all of the western access road and the portion of Enchanted Island lying within 50' upland from the landward limit of the shoreline mangroves are within the shoreline protection zone. The mangroves which occupied the depressed area in the central portion of the island were not, however, within the zone. Pemittable uses within the shoreline protection zone are delineated by sections 4-19 and 4-20, MCC, as follows: Sec. 4-19. Permitted uses in zone. Only the following uses are permitted within the shoreline protection zone established by this article: Access canals or channels; Docks; Elevated boardwalks; Other structures elevated on pilings; Utility lines, crossing or rights-of-way. Sec. 4-20. Uses permitted upon special approval; special exception uses. The following uses are permitted by special approval of the zoning board as provided by the provisions of chapter 19, article IV of this Code of Ordinances. Access driveways and turnarounds for single-family residences. [Additionally] ... the follow- ing standards shall also be met before the zoning board may grant approval for a special exceptions use within the shoreline protection zone: The principal structure shall be located as close as possible to the landward edge of site so as to reduce driveway length. All access driveways and turnarounds shall provide for piped culverts under the access driveway and/or turnaround at appropriate intervals so as to maintain tidal regime. To secure a permit for development within the shoreline protection zone, whether for a permitted use or special exception use, it is incumbent upon the applicant to comply with the provisions of section 4-21, MCC. That section provides: No development permit of any kind shall be issued to any person to undertake any development within the shoreline protection zone without first obtaining a zoning clearance from the zoning official. An application for any development permit within the shoreline protection zone shall be referred to the zoning official. The materials to be referred to the zoning official shall include the following, in duplicate: Proposed site plan A natural vegetation map Other information as may be appropriate to determine the impact of the development on the natural functions of the shoreline protection zone. The placement of landfill within the shoreline protection zone is hereby prohibited and no permit shall be issued authorizing the same, except as provided in section 4-20 of this article. No application for a zoning clearance shall be approved and no permit shall be issued except upon a written finding by the zoning board 9/ that the proposed development will not encroach upon or destroy the value of areas within the shoreline protection zone or otherwise adversely affect those conditions and characteristics which promote shoreline stabilization, storm surge abatement, water quality maintenance, wildlife and marine resource habitats, and marine productivity. Lujan's proof in support of his request for a fill permit within the shoreline protection zone was deficient. He offered no natural vegetation map or proposed site plan, and offered no proof that his proposed activity would not encroach upon or destroy the value of the shoreline protection zone or otherwise adversely affect shoreline stabilization, storm surge abatement, water quality maintenance, wildlife and marine habitats, and marine productivity. Significantly, Lujan also failed to disclose his plans for the development or use of the island. Absent proof that the fill activity is designed to create an access driveway or turnaround for single-family residences, the deposit of fill within the shoreline protection zone is prohibited. 10/ Section 4-21(c), MCC. Under the circumstances, it is concluded that Lujan has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to a special exception use which would permit the deposit of fill on the westerly access road or upon those lands lying within 50' upland from the landward limit of the shoreline mangroves (the shoreline protection zone). Lujan's failure to disclose the nature of his plans to develop the island also rendered it impossible to evaluate the criteria established by section 4-20(b)(1), MCC. The deposit of fill within those areas of Enchanted Island lying upland of the shoreline protection zone is governed by chapter 19, MCC. Pertinent to this proceeding, section 9-111, MCC, provides: (a) Deposit of Fill. No person shall engage in the deposit of fill within the unincorporated areas of Monroe County, without first having obtained a county permit for such activity. (1) Definitions. Deposit: The act of placing, discharging or spreading any fill material. Fill: Any material used or deposited to change elevation or contour in upland areas, create dry land from wetlands or marsh in an aquatic area, or material discharged into a body of water to change depth or benthic contour. * * * Uplands: Land areas upon which the dominant vegetative communities are other than species which require saturated soil for growth and propagation. Wetlands: Aarshes and shallow areas which may periodically be inundated by tidal waters and which are normally characterized by the prevalence of salt and brackish water vegetation capable of growth and reproduction in saturated soil, including but not limited to the following species: * * * Black mangrove Buttonwood Red mangrove White mangrove * * * * * * * * * * * * Upland permit application. In reviewing all applications for a permit in upland areas, consideration will be given to the nature of indigenous vegetation, and protection of same as defined in chapter 18 of the Monroe County Code, which set standards for the removal of endangered and protected vegetative species, and to drainage patterns and the possible effects the deposit of fill would have upon water and storm runoff. * * * Wetland permit application. In reviewing all applications for a permit in wetland areas, consideration will be given to the natural biological functions, including food chain production, general habitat, nesting, spawning, rearing and resting sites for aquatic or terrestrial species; the physical aspects of natural drainage, salinity and sedimenta- tion patterns, physical protection provided by wetland vegetation from storm and wave action. The proposal will also be reviewed in conjunction with chapter 4 of the Monroe County Code, which provides for the protection of wetland vegetative communities within Monroe County. When reviewing applications for fill permits, whether within or without the shoreline protection zone, the provisions of Chapter 18, MCC, and the Monroe County Comprehensive plan, which deal with land clearing, must also be evaluated. Pertinent to this case, chapter 18 provides: Sec. 18-18. Land clearing permit -- Required ... It shall be unlawful and an offense against the county for any person, either individually or through agents, employees or independent contractors, to clear, by mechanical or any other means, any land located within the unincorporated areas of the county without having first applied for and obtained a land clearing permit from the building department of the county. A land clearing permit shall be required for the removal of all or parts of naturally occurring vegetation in the county. * * * Sec. 18-19. Same -- Application (a) Any person requesting a land clearing permit shall file an application with the county building department on a form provided by such department. Such application shall contain the following information: * * * A map of the natural vegeta- tive communities found on and adjacent to the site, prepared by a qualified biologist, naturalist, landscape archi- tect or other professional with a working knowledge of the native vegetation of the Florida Keys ... With projects that are five (5) acres or more in size, the vegetation map does not have to identify the location of individual trees. For projects of this size, the vegetation map should identify the different vegetative communities, such as tropical hammock, mangrove and buttonwood transitional, and be accompanied by a descriptive narrative that identifies any significant trees or natural features of the side (sic). An overall site plan of the land for which the permit is requested, indicating - the shape and dimensions of said land, the purposes for which clearing is requested, and the steps taken to minimize effects of clearing on surrounding vegetation and water bodies. A site plan analysis prepared by a qualified individual, as described above in (3), shall be included. * * * Sec. 18-21. Same -- Approval. After an application for a land clearing permit has been filed and verified, the building department and the planning and zoning department shall review and consider what effects such removal of vegetation will have upon the natural resources, scenic amenities and water quality on and adjacent to the proposed site. Upon finding that such removal of natural vegetation will not adversely affect the natural resources, scenic amenities and water quality adjacent to the proposed site, the permit shall be approved, approved subject to modification or specified conditions, or denied. In the event a request is denied, the reasons for denial shall be noted on the application form and the applicant shall be so notified. Pertinent to this case, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, Coastal Zone Protection and Conservation Element, provides: NATURAL VEGETATION MANAGEMENT POLICIES In recognizing the need to preserve as much natural vegetation as possible, the County will direct its land use and development regulations to minimize destruction of natural vegetation and modification of landscape. Guidelines and performance stan- dards designed to protect natural vegetation from development will be developed and enforced. Clearing of native vegetation for development will be controlled. Land clearing will be restricted to site area being prepared for immediate construction. If the construction cannot begin within reasonable time, the cleared area will be replanted with ground cover. * * * 3. Regulations controlling development in areas characterized primarily by wetland vegetative species such as mangrove and associated vegetation will emphasize preservation of natural vegetation to the maximum degree possible. Local regulations in this regard will be consistent with the appropriate State and Federal regulations. 8. The existing County ordinances designed to protect and conserve natural vegetation will be strictly interpreted, rigidly enforced, and/or amended when necessary. Lujan violated the provisions of sections 9-111 and 18-18, MCC, when he, without benefit of a permit, leveled and cleared Enchanted Island of vegetation. Now, after the fact, he requests the appropriate fill and land clearing permits; however, he offers no vegetation map, no plan to mitigate the removal of endangered and protected species, and no proof as to the drainage patterns on the island and the probable effect the deposit of fill or the removal of vegetation would have upon storm runoff or water quality. While no vegetation map was submitted, the proof at hearing did establish the general nature of the vegetation existent on the island prior to clearing. That proof established that the mangrove community previously located at the center of the island reposed in relative isolation, and that its natural biological functions were nominal. Consequently, the removal of that vegetation was not counterindicated from the biological function perspective; however, the impact of such removal and the filling of that area on storm runoff and water quality was not addressed by Lujan. Further, Lujan offered no plan to mitigate the impact caused by his removal of Bay Cedart, and endangered species. With respect to the access road, Lujan offered no vegetation survey, and the proof was insufficient to assure that only minimal clearing would occur. Additionally, Lujan offered no proof concerning the impact that such removal, if any, and the deposit of fill would have on drainage patterns, storm runoff, or water quality. The premises considered, it is concluded that Lujan has failed to demonstrate his entitlement to a fill permit or land clearing permit for Enchanted Island and the access road. In addition to the reasons set forth in paragraphs 27-28, supra, Lujan has also failed to address the issues of storm runoff and water quality.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a Final Order reversing Monroe County's decision to issue the subject permits No. 14723A and 14724A, and deny Lujan's request for a land clearing and fill permit for Enchanted Island and the westerly access road. That such Final Order specify those items set forth in paragraph 10, Conclusions of Law, as the changes necessary that would make Lujan's proposal eligible to receive the requested permits. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of April, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1987.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Cole seeks to construct a weed barrier approximately 40 feet from the end of a dead-end canal. Petitioner Weitershausen's property begins approximately 48 feet from the end of the canal. The only two property owners whose access to the canal will be restricted by the weed barrier are Respondent Cole and Mr. Wheeler, both of whom consent to the placing of the barrier. Throughout most of the year weeds are not a problem in the canal. However, under certain conditions hydrilla is blown into the canal and backs up at the end adjacent to Mr. Cole's property. Without a weed barrier these weeds are blown to the end of the canal and remain there where they settle to the bottom, break down, and because of the decomposition smell and are otherwise objectionable. The weed barrier as proposed will keep the hydrilla floating longer and reduce this settling and decomposition. The weed barrier does not create a safety hazard. The weed barrier will not interfere with the conservation of fish, marine and wildlife or other natural resources, to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interest nor will it result in the destruction of oyster beds, clam beds, or marine productivity to such am extent as to be contrary to the public interest. The weed barrier will not create a navigational hazard, or a serious impediment to navigation, or substantially alter or impede the natural flow of navigable waters, so as to be contrary to the public interest. The 8 feet of distance between the weed barrier and Mr. Weitershausen's property provides a catch basin for the buildup of weeds short of Mr. Weitershausen's property. So long as the weeds are properly cleaned out this catch basin is sufficient to prevent weeds from building up along Mr. Weitershausen's property.
Recommendation It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the permit as applied for be issued with the condition that the applicant be required to remove the weeds from in front of the weed barrier at least once a month and at any time the weeds should back up to the extent that they substantially encroach on Mr. Weitershausen's waterfront. ENTERED this 17th day of September, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: R. L. Caleen, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Jerry E. Cole Route 6, Box 871Y Brooksville, Florida 33512 Mr. R. C. Weitershausen Route 6, Box 871X Brooksville, Florida 33512
Findings Of Fact Lake Skinner is a 48 acre rain (not spring) lake located in Putnam County, Florida. There is no exotic vegetation in the lake. It has excessive natural vegetation due to natural water level fluctuation in the area and a wide littoral zone. Prior applications by Respondent Homeowners Association for an aquatic plant control permit were denied by DNR since the activities proposed under these prior applications were considered to be excessive or because DNR did not find that the Lake Skinner aquatic vegetation was presenting sufficient problems to justify a permit. Nonetheless, in the summer of 1985, Mrs. Outlaw, a homeowner whose property abuts the lake, used the herbicide 2,4-D on her individual shoreline without first obtaining a permit as required by law. She did so out of ignorance that she must have such a permit, and then ceased herbicide use when the requirement of a permit and the nature of penalties without a permit were made known to her. Her unsupervised use has left a bare patch at her shoreline today, but the herbicide concentration used could not be determined. Also, at some time in the early 1980's, DNR permitted the use of other herbicides by another abutting homeowner, Mrs. Lloyd. The Homeowners Association filed its present application for an aquatic plant control permit with DNR on June 16, 1988. This application requested the control of seven acres of bladderwort and eight acres of milfoil in Lake Skinner through the use of the herbicide, 2,4-D. All members of the Homeowners Association acquiesced in this application, with the exception of the Petitioner. In the course of approving the permit, DNR conducted a survey of Lake Skinner on June 29, 1988, together with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, utilizing visual inspection, identification of plant species, and fathometer tracings. The June 29, 1988 survey revealed there were twenty acres of myriophyllum laxum, or milfoil, and thirteen acres of utricularia, spp., or bladderwort, in Skinner Lake, that most of these submersed aquatic plants were between two and five feet below the water's surface, and that navigational access was inhibited only over two to four percent of the open water. The June 29, 1988 survey also revealed that the abutting landowners were clearing and maintaining access from their respective shorelines to open water, but that without some type of maintenance or control program, this access could be blocked in the future by either submersed or immersed aquatic plants. The growth of the native aquatic vegetation is seasonal, but the vegetation is most dense during the summer months. This phenomenon accounts in part for DNR studies/surveys, introduced by DNR as exhibits but cited by Petitioner, which seem to show a decrease over time in the species sought to be controlled by the present permit application. Competition among, and fluctuation in, these species and other species of aquatic plants surveyed over time also obscures the homeowners' current problem, discussed infra. The native aquatic vegetation in Lake Skinner has interfered with the recreational use of the lake by the members of the Homeowners Association to some degree since 1984. The dense growth of aquatic vegetation in the lake during the summer months interferes with swimming, fishing, and boating activities by the members of the Homeowners Association. Motorboats break off pieces of submersed aquatic vegetation which float to the surface and are blown onto the shoreline. Some of these fragments take root near the shoreline. Those fragments of vegetation which wash off on the shore take time to be removed. Most homeowners who testified personally are regularly removing the debris by hand. Some witnesses spend the better part of one or two days a week (all weekend) removing the material from their respective shorelines; others work at it a little every day. Several members of the Homeowners Association expressed concerns for the safety of people, particularly children, swimming in the lake among the dense aquatic vegetation. In spite of legitimate concerns for future expansion of the problem and some anecdotal stories of past isolated situations, the current status of the lake's vegetation was not proved to be life-threatening but to be more in the nature of a nuisance which deprives the abutting homeowners of full enjoyment of their property and which diminishes the property's resale value. DNR considers abutting owners to be riparian owners. See, Conclusions of Law, infra. On August 4, 1988, DNR issued a permit to the Homeowners Association. The permit authorized the control of four acres of bladderwort through the use of the herbicide 2,4-D, mechanical harvest, or hand removal. It authorized control of four acres of milfoil through the use of 2,4-D, mechanical harvest, or hand removal. It also authorized control of one acre of southern cutgrass through the use of mechanical harvest or hand removal. The decision to issue the permit was based upon a finding, within the agency's expertise, that access for the abutting owners was impeded from the shore to open waters by southern cutgrass mixed with bladderwort and milfoil. Navigation and usage of the lake was found to be inhibited by milfoil and bladderwort which are three feet or less from the surface. The permit was designed to allow the abutting owners two types of access: navigational and riparlan. The permit allows the Homeowners Association to remove one acre of bladderwort and milfoil in open waters where these aquatic plant species are found within three feet of the surface and are inhibiting navigational access. Any open water herbicide treatment plot must be at least 50 yards from shore. The permit also allows riparian access from the shoreline to open waters by controlling/removing southern cutgrass, bladderwort, and milfoil in an area not exceeding 40 percent of the riparian owners' waterfront property from the shore to open water. Any such riparian herbicide treatment plots may not extend mcre than 50 yards from shore. It may be inferred from this requirement that the agency is attempting to avoid any overlapping of herbicide treatment. Although Dr. Christman challenged the permit partly on the basis that its language was unclear, vague, and subject to a variety of interpretations by each homeowner so as to result in an excessive use of 2,4-D not contemplated by the agency's permitting personnel, it is found upon the evidence as a whole that the permit is sufficiently clear as to what activities are and are not permitted, and is, in fact, conservative in nature. The permit is only good for one year, therefore renewals must be subject to agency review. The permit does not allow the eradication or control of all the aquatic vegetation in the lake, and it specifically identifies the species of aquatic plants that can be controlled by the abutting homeowners, as well as the areas in the lake where such control can take place. DNR's Rule 16C-20.0045, F.A.C., requires that all herbicides used for aquatic plant control or maintenance must be used according to the instructions contained on the respective products' labels. Commercially sold 2,4-D is labeled with instructions and directions on the use of the product. Moreover, the testimony of Jeffrey Schardt of DNR's Bureau of Aquatic Plant Management, and of Larry Nall, DNR Research Program Administrator, who qualified as an expert in herbicide usage and registration, is persuasive that when the product 2,4-D is used according to its label's instructions, there will be no direct negative impact on fish, wildlife, or non-target plants. Also, the testimony of Dean Barber, DNR Regional Biologist, to the effect that with a permit, the agency can better "police" the anti-vegetation activities on and around Lake Skinner than DNR was able to do when individual homeowners bought and administered their own herbicides without a permit, is accepted. In summary, Mr. Barber testified that the permit was designed as a justifiable management technique and is restrictive enough to keep the Homeowners Association from proceeding haphazardly. The herbicide 2,4-D is one of the most widely used herbicides in the world. It is used primarily for weed control on food and non-food crops, range and pasture land, and forest management, and for aquatic plant control. 2,4-D has been registered for such uses since 1948. It is presently registered with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The EPA has classified 2,4-D in Category "D" (not classifiable as to carcinogenicity) based on the inadequate evidence of cancer in human beings and laboratory animals. Basically, this means that from the federal government's viewpoint, there is insufficient evidence to conclusively prove the suspicions of many, including Petitioner Dr. Christman, that 2,4-D is carcinogenic. Whereas the EPA's conclusions are based upon a consensus of opinion from EPA scientists, national experts on epidemiology, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel, Dr. Christman admitted that he had no experience in aquatic toxicology, chemistry or `pharmacology, and that he has conducted no research studies on 2,4-D. Dr. Christman, who was accepted as an expert in terrestrial and fresh water ecology and as a natural historian, expressed the opinion that 2,4-D can be dangerous to human beings, animals, and fish on two levels: their ability to reproduce at all and their ability to produce normal offspring without any mutations in those offspring. However, Dr. Christman did not demonstrate that either of these possible results could be reasonably expected from the application of 2,4-D as limited by the conservative terms of the proposed permit. There is also clear evidence which is contrary to Dr. Christman's assertions that aquatic animal life will be negatively affected. That contrary evidence is compelling in that it arises from considerable direct experience that DNR has had with permitting the use of 2,4-D over a number of years. See Finding of Fact 20, infra. DNR has long permitted the use of 2,4-D for aquatic plant control activities. 2,4-D is the first or second most frequently used aquatic herbicide in Florida. 2,4-D is the primary control method for water hyacinths and has been successful in reducing the number of hyacinths in Florida waters. The pounds of 2,4-D as an active ingredient used to control aquatic plants pursuant to a DNR permit have gone from a high of 159,666 pounds in 1984 to 62,005 pounds in 1987. One possible inference from this decline in poundage used is that the product is effective because repeat usage may be less necessary. Another inference is that its use is not authorized excessively by the agency. 2,4-D will not work on all plants. It is primarily intended for the control of broad-leafed plants. Therefore, it can be targeted for the plants that create a problem. 2,4-D will have a limited effect on grasses at low concentration rates. Its use, according to Mr. Schardt, is mandated to control plants anticipated to create a problem before that problem actually arises, which means that less herbicide can be used, thereby resulting in less cost and better control than might be required later. The Florida Department of Game and Fresh Water Fish is actively controlling native bladderwort and milfoil in Lafayette County with granular 2,4-D this year. In the years that DNR has permitted the use of 2,4-D for aquatic plant control activities in water bodies throughout Florida, there have been no documented fish kills, snail kills, or animal kills where the herbicide has been used. Likewise, there have been no documented reports of people being adversely affected by going into waters treated by 2,4-D
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Natural Resources enter a Final Order reissuing the August 4, 1988 permit containing all the restrictions and special conditions as it did originally, but modified to reflect a current issuance date, limit the permit's duration to one year from the current issuance date, and clearly specify that renewal is subject to complete review and survey of the lake at the time any renewal is applied for. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-4629 The following constitutes specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S., upon the Proposed Findings Of Fact, (PFOF) of the parties. Petitioner Dr. Christman filed no post-hearing proposals. Respondent Lake Skinner Homeowners Association filed no post-hearing proposals. Respondent Department of Natural Resources PFOF: 1-9 Accepted except where immaterial or unnecessary. 10-21, and 23 Accepted in substance but modified to more closely conform to the credible record fact and expert evidence as a whole. 22 Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Steven P. Christman Post Office Box 391 Hawthorne, FL 32640 Mr. Raymond Bragg 1813 Grassington Way Jacksonville, FL 32223 Margaret S. Karniewicz General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Tom Gardner Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made. Chandler sought exemption from permitting requirement from the Department to perform certain dredging in two artificial dead-end canals located in Placida Point Subdivision (formerly Porto-Fino Subdivision), Charlotte County, Florida. The Department has denied the exemption on the basis that "the proposed work indicates that it is not for maintenance purposes, and therefore, it does not fit the maintenance exemption". The dredging proposed by Chandler would remove the existing earthen plugs between Coral Creek (an adjacent creek) and the two canals. Coral Creek is a natural body of water and is waters of the State. The two canals were excavated (constructed) during the latter part of 1969 and early 1970 (before April 1970). Although no original design specifications were offered into evidence, there is sufficient competent evidence to show that at the time the canals were constructed earthen plugs were left between the canals and Coral Creek which restricted the water exchange between the canals and Coral Creek. The exchange of water apparently occurred at mean high water, and navigation, if any, was restricted to small boats. Porto-Fino Realty Co., Inc., (Porto-Fino) developed the Porto-Fino Subdivision in 1971, and in early 1971 applied to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board) for a dredge permit to connect the certain existing canals, which included the canals in question, to Coral Creek. As part of the application review, a site inspection was made, and it was found that the earthen plugs left between Coral Creek and the canals when they were constructed allowed water to ebb and flow during periods of high tide. As a result of this site inspection, it was recommended that before any further consideration be given the permit application, that the applicant be advised that the canals had to be adequately diked. The record is not clear on whether this permit was granted, but apparently it was not because this subject was raised again in 1974 with Lou Fusz Motor Company, the present owner of Porto-Fino Subdivision, by the Board and the Department of Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps). Apparently, it was determined by the Board, and possibly by the Corps, that the plugs had washed out and needed to be repaired. In 1975, at the request of the Board, the earthen plugs were repaired and culverts placed in the plugs to allow flushing of the canals. The earthen plugs are presently in existence in the mouth of the canals, and are colonized by mangroves, Brazilian pepper and Australian pine. The mangroves are mature trees 10-15 feet in height, and approximately 10-15 years old. The plugs do not show any signs of any recent dredging in or around the mouths of the canals. The plugs form a barrier to navigation between the canals and Coral Creek. The canals have not been used for navigational access to Coral Creek since they were repaired in 1975. The canals have not been previously dredged to maintain navigational access for boat traffic to Coral Creek, and are not presently used for navigational access to Coral Creek. There is sufficient competent substantial evidence to establish facts to show that the earthen plugs, as they presently exist, are man-made barriers that separated the two canals from Coral Creek. There is insufficient evidence to show that the repair of the earthen plugs in 1975 by the developer was illegal. The repair of the earthen plugs in 1975 by the developer was necessary because the original plugs had not been properly constructed or had washed out over the period of years. Coral Creek and the canals in question are surface waters of the state as defined in Rule 17-312.030(2), Florida Administrative Code. Canals which are used for navigation have to be periodically dredged to maintain navigational access. There is sufficient competent substantial evidence to establish facts to show that the dredging proposed by Chandler would not be "maintenance dredging" as contemplated by Rule 17-312.050(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether four agency memoranda describing policy on mitigation for dredge and fill projects are unpromulgated rules and were relied on by the agency in violation of Section 120.535(1), F.S. During the hearing, and afterwards in writing, Petitioner sought leave to amend its pleadings to incorporate other policies allegedly relied on by the agency in the process of the dredge and fill application review. That request was denied in an order entered on August 23, 1993. Those policies are addressed in the recommended order in DOAH #93-3367.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, SIP Properties Limited Partnership (SIP) is the record owner of the parcel at issue, approximately thirty-five (35) acres located in the southwest area of Orlando, Orange County, Florida. SIP proposes to prepare the site for commercial and office use by developing the site into separate parcels or lots with proposed uses such as restaurant or fast food establishments, offices and retail stores. Development of the site requires the construction of compensating storage ponds that will act as retention/detention ponds and filling the site. The proposed improvements will result in the filling of 7.47 acres and dredging of 0.42 acres of wetlands claimed to be jurisdictional by DEP. Based on statements made to SIP by staff regarding department "mitigation policies" applicable to SIP's dredge and fill permit application, SIP believed that department policy memoranda were applied during permit review. SIP attached these various memoranda regarding mitigation to its Petition for Administrative Determination of Violation of Rulemaking Requirement dated May 27, 1993, and identified these memoranda as nonrule policies utilized by the department. The department retains on file and makes available for use by its staff the identified memoranda. However, in this case the department did not rely on or apply the mitigation guidelines contained in the memoranda in SIP's Petition. Instead, it applied Part III of Chapter 17-3120, F.A.C. In Part III of Chapter 17-312, F.A.C., the agency has adopted rules addressing the mitigation issues contained in the memoranda in SIP's Petition. For example, the agency has adopted guidelines in rule 17-312.340(2), F.A.C., for applying ratios when mitigation involves creation of state waters, as in this case. The department presently relies on these rules when reviewing mitigation plans, and does not rely on the policy memos referenced in the petition. Determining the mitigation needed to successfully offset impacts from a project is difficult and depends on many factors, including hydrology, soils, planting methods, and monitoring plans. Determining what is needed to reasonably assure successful mitigation must be done on a case by case basis. Not enough is known about the subject to apply any particular set of directions and expect success. DEP is presently in the process of developing rules to further address most aspects of mitigation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Protection issue its Final Order granting SIP's dredge and fill permit #48-2086169, with the mitigation proposed by the applicant, and establishing an expiration date and monitoring and evaluation plan for determining success of the mitigation as provided in rules 17-312.320 and 17-312.350, F.A.C. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 11th day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-3. Adopted in paragraph 2. 4.-6. Adopted in paragraph 7. 7.-8. Rejected as unnecessary. 9. Adopted in paragraph 8. 10.-11. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9. 12. Adopted in substance in paragraph 10. 13.-16. Rejected as unnecessary Adopted in paragraphs 11 and 12. Rejected as unnecessary. 19.-21. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. 22.-23. Adopted in substance in paragraph 14. 24.-25. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 16. Substantially rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Adopted in part in paragraph 17, otherwise rejected as immaterial. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 18. Rejected as immaterial. The agency witnesses established that the vegetation along the canal evidences the physical connection and there is evidence that water flows from the site into the canal. Rejected as unsubstantiated by reliable competent evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph 22. 36.-40. Rejected as unsupported by reliable competent evidence. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary, and as to characterization of merely "relic" wetlands, unsupported by the weight of evidence. Rejected (the conclusion of jurisdictional limit) as unsupported by the greater weight of evidence. 45.-53. Rejected as immaterial or unnecessary. 54.-56. Adopted in paragraphs 33 and 34. 57. Adopted, as to the limited function, in paragraphs 22 and 23. 58. Adopted in paragraph 26. 59.-60. Adopted in paragraph 23. 61. Rejected, as to the absolute conclusion of "no function", as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 62. Adopted in paragraph 25. 63.-64. Adopted in paragraph 26. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 30. Adopted in paragraph 34. Adopted in substance in paragraph 31. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 30 and 34. Adopted in paragraph 31. 71.-73. Adopted in paragraph 33. 74.-77. Rejected as unnecessary. 78.-79. Adopted in paragraph 31. 80.-81. Adopted in paragraph 35. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 33. 84.-90. Rejected as unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraph 15. 2.-3. Adopted in paragraph 16. 4.-5. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 16. Rejected as unnecessary and as to "binding" effect, unsupported by the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 19. 11.-15. Adopted in substance in paragraph 21. 16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and inconsistent with proposed findings #18 with regard to the constant level in the canal. 17.-18. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 21 and 23. 19.-21. Adopted in paragraphs 19 and 20. 22.-26. Adopted in summary in paragraph 21. Adopted in paragraph 27. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 1 and 2. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in part in paragraph 16. That the forests are "healthy and viable" is rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph 17. Adopted in part in paragraph 25; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 33.-34. Adopted in part in paragraph 27; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 35.-37. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 38.-43. Rejected as unnecessary. 44. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. The stormwater management plan and mitigation will restore the stormwater treatment functions. 45.-47. Adopted in substance in paragraph 30. Rejected as substantially contrary to the greater weight of evidence (as to the negative impact). Adopted in part, as to water quality problems generally, but rejected as to the ultimate conclusion, as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. 51.-52. Adopted in summary in paragraph 31. 53.-54. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 55. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Ronald M. Schirtzer, Esquire Martha H. Formella, Esquire R. Duke Woodson, Esquire FOLEY & LARDNER 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1800 Orlando, Florida 32801 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire John L. Chaves, Esquire Rosanne G. Capeless, Certified Legal Intern Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
