The Issue Whether Michael Chbat's 2008 application for a Wetland Resource Permit (WRP) to construct a culvert extension across his property in Walton County, Florida, should be approved?
Findings Of Fact La Grange Bayou Estates La Grange Bayou Estates is a residential subdivision in Freeport, Walton County, Florida. The subdivision lies to the north of the shoreline of Choctawhatchee Bay. It can be viewed as divided roughly in half between bayfront lots south of an east-west road that transects the subdivision and lots that are north of the road. The subdivision is platted and the plat is in the public records of Walton County. Filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Walton County, Florida, on September 15, 1982, the plat ("the 1982 Plat") shows 29 residential lots in the subdivision as of that date. See Petitioner's Ex. 6. Lots 1 through 16, according to the 1982 Plat, are the bayfront lots, south of a 40-foot wide road designated as a private road in the plat. That road is now known as Alden Lane. Wetlands over which the Department has jurisdiction ("jurisdictional wetlands") comprise much of the southern portion of bayfront lots and the drainage easement. Among the bayfront lots are both Lot 9 which belongs to Mr. Chbat and Lot 8 which belongs to Mr. Sheehey. A 50-foot easement lies between Lot 9 and Lot 8 and is described more fully below. The presence of jurisdictional wetlands on Mr. Chbat's lot over which he hopes to install the culvert extension requires that he obtain a WRP. To the north of Alden Lane are lots numbered by the 1982 Plat as 17 through 29. The lots are served by Alden Lane and, in what is roughly the northeast quadrant of the subdivision, by two other roads. One of the roads is shown on the 1982 Plat as a "40' PRIVATE ROAD." Id. A 2006 aerial photograph introduced into evidence by Chbat designates the road "unnamed." See Chbat Ex. 5. The other is designated as a "graded county road," on the 1982 Plat. By 2006, it had come to be known as Beatrice Point Road. Id. Beatrice Point Road transects a pond that runs roughly 340 feet (excluding about 30 feet of roadway) in a northeasterly direction from Alden Lane to the southern edge of an area north of the subdivision shown on the 1982 Plat to be un-platted. The pond is most likely the result of a "borrow pit" dug in order to obtain fill for the construction of the roads when the subdivision was initially developed. The southern boundary of the pond lies along approximately 140 feet of Alden Lane's northern edge. The pond is across the street from Lots 9, 10 and 11 of the subdivision. The pond is also not far northeast of the 50-foot easement (the "Drainage Easement") between Lots 9 and 8. The Drainage Easement The Drainage Easement is just to the west of Lot 9. It is noted on the 1982 Plat as a "50' EASEMENT (PRIVATE)." Id. The 50-foot wide Drainage Easement runs the length of the western boundary of Lot 9 and the length of the eastern boundary of Lot 8. The northeast corner of the Drainage Easement is approximately 30 feet from the southwest corner of the pond separated from the pond by the roadway of Alden Lane. The eastern boundary of the Drainage Easement is 226.37 feet in length, or if taken to the middle of Alden Lane, 246.3 feet. The western boundary is 206.13 feet long or if taken to the middle of the road, 226.65 feet. The purpose of the Drainage Easement, as is evident from its denomination in this recommended order, is drainage. As Mr. Street definitively put it at hearing, it is "now and always has been intended to drain stormwater to the [B]ay." Tr. Vol. III at 179. Mr. Street's opinion of the function of the Drainage Easement is supported by drawings submitted by Mr. Chbat as part of the WRP application. The drawings show that the Drainage Easement's function is facilitated by three culverts north of the Easement (referred to during the hearing as "pipes") each of which is intended to direct stormwater at its point of discharge toward the Drainage Easement. See Chbat Ex. 1. One of the culverts ("the Drainage Ditch Culvert") serves a drainage ditch that is to the north of the Easement and Alden Lane. According to the drawings, the drainage ditch lies on the other side of the "un-named road" from the pond, that is, to the west of the pond, and is some 40-to-50 feet north of the Drainage Easement. The Drainage Ditch Culvert extends from the ditch to the southern half of Alden Lane from where it appears from the application's drawings that stormwater would be conveyed to the western side of the Drainage Easement along it's border with Lot 8 and on toward the Bay. In fact, it is a functioning culvert that "conveys water from a swale on the side of the road into the [D]rainage [E]asement." Tr. 64. Once in the Drainage Easement, according to the drawings, the water should flow into the Bay out of a "cut," id., that is labeled on the drawings as an "existing trench." See Chbat Ex. 1. The trench, however, has been filled in with sand by tidal activity or sediment deposited by stormwater or both. The trench has not been maintained, and it no longer exists. The other two culverts (the "Pond Culverts") lie east of the Drainage Ditch Culvert. They catch overflow from the pond caused by stormwater and convey it under and through Alden Lane toward the Drainage Easement. The westernmost Pond Culvert (the "Western Pond Culvert") appears to terminate in Alden Lane near its southern edge just north of the Easement. At the time of hearing, however, it was not functioning properly. "[I]t is full of sand and silted up . . .", tr. Vol. I at 58; "[t]he pipe to the west is clogged and it is not functioning." Tr. Vol. I at 64. It is also at an elevation that would keep it from serving drainage purposes in all but the most severe storm events. See Chbat Ex. 9 at 22. The other Pond Culvert, (the "Eastern Pond Culvert") terminates in the northwest corner of Lot 9 at the border between Lot 9 and the Drainage Easement about 10 feet southeast of the terminus of the Western Pond Culvert. The Eastern Pond Culvert is the culvert with which the Amended Permit is concerned, that is, it is the culvert to be extended by the permit. Calling it a "pipe," Mr. Street offered the following about the assistance the Eastern Pond Culvert offers in conveying stormwater into the Drainage Easement and down to the Bay: There is currently a pipe that discharges into that easement. There . . . was an attempt to place the water from the . . . pond into the easement. And the natural flow of water on this entire property from the road to the [B]ay is north to south. At some point, at least 2004, that drainage easement contained a conveyance at its southern end that would safely discharge stormwater to the [B]ay. Tr. Vol. III at 179-80. Petitioner Sheehey and Lot 8 Thomas Sheehey is the owner of Lot 8, where he has a residence in which he makes his home. He has lived in the residence approximately five years. During that time, Mr. Sheehey has fished in the Bay and enjoyed the use of his kayak and his waverunner on the Bay. He also enjoys "sitting down having a cup of coffee and looking at it," tr. vol. III at 151, as well as watching his neighbors fish. The recreational uses to which he puts the Bay is the reason he chose to purchase a bayfront lot in La Grange Bayou Estates. Over the period of time that he has resided on Lot 8, Mr. Sheehey has observed the effects of rain events on his lot and well as lots close to Lot 8. He has also taken pictures of his property and the near-by lots. Among the photographs were four taken after rain events or "after a wet period," tr. vol. III at 88, at some point in the last four years. The four photos were introduced as a composite exhibit, Petitioner's Ex. 2, with each photograph marked as 2A, 2B, 2C or 2D. Mr. Sheehey could not specify when the pictures were taken in the past four years other than that if a picture had a certain dock in it, then it was taken after January of 2009. Petitioner's Ex. 2A was taken from Mr. Sheehey's lot looking toward the Bay. It shows an area of the lot under water separated from the Bay by a ridge. Petitioner's Ex. 2B is a picture taken from Lot 13 looking west across Lots 12, 11, 10, 9 "down through 8." Tr. Vol. III at 86. Much of what is photographed is among trees and vegetation emerging from water standing above the surface of the soil. Petitioner's Ex. 2C is a picture taken from Alden Lane looking south across Mr. Chbat's property. It shows a wide swath of water that extends from the road across most of the property to the Bay. The water is either in a swale or constitutes overflow outside the swale. The most recent of the four is Petitioner's Ex. 2D, which shows the dock referred to by Mr. Sheehey that was built in early 2009. It is a picture taken from Lot number 13 toward the west through Lots 12, 11, 10, 9. Like the others, it shows vegetation standing in water to the north of the Bay. Taken together, the four pictures in Petitioner's Exhibit 2 demonstrate that significant portions of the lots depicted are under water following sufficient amounts of recent rain. The four photographs that comprise Petitioner's Exhibit 2 are not the only photos taken by Mr. Sheehey that were introduced into evidence. Three other photographs of Mr. Sheehey's, Petitioner's Exhibits 7A, 7B and 7C, were admitted following testimony about them from a long-time observer of the flow of water from Alden Lane to the Bay. A Long-time Observer Thomas Eugene Cummins had lived in La Grange Estates "[t]wo months shy of 20 years," tr. vol. III at 7, at the time of his testimony. His house was the fourth to be constructed in the subdivision. Over the two decades of his residence, the pond between Alden Lane and the property north of the subdivision has been in existence. Consistent with the drawings submitted to DEP as part of the application, when asked where the pond overflows today, Mr. Cummins answered "it drains under Alden Lane on to Mr. Chbat's lot." Tr. Vol. III at 8. Asked by Mr. Chesser at hearing, "When the water comes out of the pond, is it possible to know where it spreads?"1/ Mr. Cummins testified: On really heavy rains, I have watched the normal color of the pond change from its dark blackish gray color into the reddish color that the clay has washed down into it, flow under Alden Lane and on to Mr. Chbat's lot, and then proceed west through the wetland on lots eight, seven, six, and my five, and turn reddish color even in my lot. Tr. Vol. III at 9-10. Mr. Cummins knew the source of the "red color" of the stormwater: red clay introduced to La Grange Estates by the County half a decade earlier. Mr. Cummins testified: Beatrice Point Road, which is the road that runs over the pond, about five years ago the county did some repair on the road and actually put red clay in certain spots to even it out. Tr. Vol. III at 9. Prior to the county's work on the road referred-to by Mr. Cummins, there had been no red clay in the neighborhood. Alden Way, for example, has no red clay. It is a road composed of shell. The only red clay in the subdivision is that which is on Beatrice Point Road. The water that runs onto Mr. Cummins' lot following a heavy rain rises to as much as 12 inches.2/ The water rises as high as it does because it is held back by a naturally-occurring land formation between the Bay and Mr. Cummins property. This geo-formation was referred-to at hearing as the ridge line or the ridge. The Ridge The Ridge was described by Mr. Cummins as a vegetated mass of earth that most of the time, even in heavy rains, sits above the water that collects on the bayfront lots of La Grange Estates. The Ridge prevents a substantial amount of stormwater runoff from entering the Bay from the wetlands on the southern portion of the subdivision's bayfront lots. For that reason, the ridge is called "our upland,3/" tr. vol. III at 13, according to Mr. Cummins. Between Lot 9 and Lot 5, the ridge varies in width "anywhere between 10 feet . . . up toward Mr. Chbat's lot, down to [Mr. Cummins'] lot where its around 30 or 40 feet [wide.]" Id. (It may extend, in fact, across all of the bayfront lots.) The ridge meanders not far from the shoreline. Id. In some places it is as narrow as five feet. The height of the ridge varies as well from as low as one foot to as high as two and half feet. Mr. Street also testified about the Ridge, referring to it in his testimony as a "ridge line": Now, there is a ridge line, and there's been a lot of testimony about this ridge line, that it exists across all of the lots. My testimony was, essentially, related to the review that I did, which was primarily associated with lots eight and nine, and the drainage easement between them. And from what I can tell, the elevation of that ridge line is give or take three. Elevation three, not a height of three. An elevation of three. It could be lower, and perhaps, is higher. And its subject to the vagaries of a number of factors, flow of stormwater, wave action, tidal influence, and the like. And these accretions and depositions of sand over time change that ridge line. And sometimes, it opens up. And sometimes it may not have a natural opening, depending on where you are along that entire stretch of beach. * * * [T]o the extent there is an opening in that ridge line, water will flow naturally to the bay. Tr. Vol. III at 180-181. An "east west flow of water," tr. vol. III at 181, along the bayfront lots, that is, a flow of water either in an easterly direction or a westerly one is contrary to the flow from Alden Lane north of the lots to the Bay south of the lots. Whether flowing east or west, the water in the southern portions of the bayfront lots is "controlled by the ridge line." Id. In other words, stormwater that flows from north to south across the bayfront lots, including Mr. Chbat's and the Drainage Easement, is going to collect and begin to flow from east to west or west to east at some point north of the Ridge before it drains into the Bay. The only exception to east-west flow, as made clear by Mr. Street, is when and if there is an opening in the Ridge that allows the water otherwise held back by the Ridge to flow southward into the Bay. The east-west flow of the water along the Ridge was described at hearing as "unnatural." Id. In fact, it is not un-natural. The Ridge is the cause of the east-west flow and, as Mr. Street testified, the Ridge is the result of natural processes such as tidal influence, wave action, accretion and deposition of sand.4/ The Ridge is shown in Petitioner's Exhibit 7A,5/ another photograph taken by Mr. Sheehey. The ridge as shown in the picture is well vegetated and above water to its north and higher than the Bay to its south. It is quite clear that if there is no opening in the ridge to the Bay, stormwater north of the ridge is forced to flow in east-west directions and is prevented from flowing into the Bay. Petitioners' Exhibit 7B is a photograph of the southern terminus of a swale (see paragraphs 40 - 49, below) on Mr. Chbat's property. It shows the swale cut through the Ridge. Water, however, does not appear to be running from the end of the swale into the bay. It appears that the end of the swale is a few feet from the Bay separated by a narrow sandy area on the shore. Nonetheless, the photograph shows that there is potential for stormwater to flow from the swale when the swale has more water in it. Petitioner's Exhibit 7C is a picture of the pond6/ across the street from Mr. Chbat's Lot 9. Mr. Chbat and Lot 9 Michael Chbat is the owner of Lot 9. He purchased the lot "[t]o build a house on it." Tr. Vol. I at 22. Because he has family close by (in Fort Walton Beach), Mr. Chbat expects to use a house built on the lot for weekend visits. His ultimate aspiration is to live in a house on Lot 9 after he retires from his position as a construction engineer with the City of Tallahassee. At hearing, Mr. Chbat described Lot 9 on the day he bought it: "the lot was overgrown. It drained from north to south. It had water standing on it. And it had a pipe [the Eastern Pond Culvert] on the northwest corner discharging." Tr. Vol. I at 23. He also described the state of the lot at the time of hearing. The Eastern Pond Culvert on the northwest corner was still there. The lot had been cleared to some extent to rid it of invasive species. Overgrown vegetation was trimmed or cleared to make room for a driveway permitted by the Department and "a parking pad in the front area of it, as well as an access pad in the uplands." Id. A dock had also been constructed from the property into the Bay. The most significant difference between the lot at the time of purchase and the lot at the time of hearing for purposes of this proceeding is that the lot now has a swale (the Swale) that runs from the point of discharge of the Eastern Pond Culvert "all of the way to the bay area." Id. The Swale The Swale was put in sometime after March 20, 2007, as the result of a Settlement Agreement fully executed on that date "By and Between Michael Chbat and Thomas L. Sheehey." Petitioner's Ex. 10. The Settlement Agreement followed events that commenced in 2004 when Mr. Chbat filed an application (the "2004 Application") with DEP for a WRP primarily to construct a house and a boardwalk leading from the house on Lot 9 to a dock in the Bay. The 2004 Application also proposed the extension of the Eastern Pond Culvert with a "pipe" along the western boundary of Chbat's property in a manner substantially similar to the culvert extension allowed by the Amended Permit that is the subject of this proceeding. On October 28, 2005, DEP proposed that the 2004 Application be granted. The permit (the "Proposed Original Permit") was assigned No. 66-0235320-001-DF. See Petitioner's Ex. 10, at 2. The Proposed Original Permit was challenged by Mr. Sheehey when he "filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing contesting certain action authorized under the [Proposed Original] Permit . . . specifically the relocation of a drainage pipe . . . ." Petitioner's Ex. 10, at 2. After referral of the petition to DOAH, Mr. Chbat and Mr. Sheehey wrote in the Settlement Agreement that they had "determined that it is in their best interests to settle this matter amicably pursuant to the terms hereafter". Id. Among the terms is that Chbat would file an Amended Application. See id. The agreed-to amendment to the 2004 Application was attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit "A," a drawing of a "Drainage Swale Plan," produced by Genesis Group for Mr. Chbat. The drawing depicts a swale that runs from the discharge point of the Eastern Pond Culvert nearly the full length of the western boundary of Lot 9 to the Bay. See Exhibit "A" to Petitioner's Ex. 10. The Swale was designed to take the place of the 2004 Application's proposal for a "pipe"7/ attached to the point of the discharge from the Eastern Pond Culvert. The Settlement Agreement received the support of DEP because the Department believed that a swale would assist in improving the quality of the stormwater discharged to the Bay over the untreated discharge from the end of the "pipe." Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement the 2004 Application was amended. The Department amended the Proposed Original Permit accordingly and final agency action was taken with the issuance of a permit to Mr. Chbat (the "Final Original Permit") found in DEP Permit File No. 66-0235320-001- DF. Installation of the Swale The Swale was installed, but it did not work as intended. The result of the Swale's installation was more water on the lot rather than less. Mr. Chbat described the after-effects of the Swale: "it started bringing more water to the lot . . .". Tr. Vol. I at 31. The increased amount of water is the result of several factors, one of which is tidal influence: the tide from the Bay pushes water into the Swale. "[A]bout halfway on the swale . . . that water from the bay was meeting the water from the pipe . . .". Id. The water from the Bay tide and the stormwater conveyed by the Swale would meet at "about the middle of the span of the swale." Id. The result was "a lot more water," id., on the lot. Mr. Thomason confirmed Mr. Chbat's assessment that the reason the Swale did not function as effectively as necessary is tidal flow onto Lot 9 from the Bay particularly from high winds. But tidal flow onto Lot 9 and the interruption in the discharge of stormwater through the Swale are not the only problems. There is also a maintenance factor that accompanies tidal flow: sand deposition. Mr. Thomason elaborated: "[D]uring storm events or [just normal] wave action in the bay, sand is brought back up on to . . . the sandy area at the end of [Lot 9] next to the [Bay.]"8/ Tr. Vol. I at 62. The influx of sand onto Lot 9 is not just a problem for adequate functioning of the Swale. The Drainage Easement has "the same problem." Id. Both the Swale and the Drainage Easement are plagued by deposition of sand pushed landward by normal tidal influences and storm events. Maintenance of the Swale and the Drainage Easement, therefore, would assist the drainage of stormwater into the Bay. The tidal influence and maintenance issues that Mr. Chbat encountered with the Swale led him to apply for a different and new permit. That application was filed in 2008. The 2008 Application Mr. Chbat filed a "Joint Application for Works in the Waters of Florida" with DEP on August 1, 2008 (the "2008 Application"). See Chbat Exhibit 1. The work to be approved was similar to the work originally proposed in the 2004 Application in that both applications proposed installation of a "pipe" to be fixed to the discharge point of the Eastern Pond Culvert that would run along the western boundary of Lot 9 toward the Bay. A description of the work is contained in Section 10 of the 2008 Application: "Extension of an existing stormwater pipe within a private lot approximately 150 feet. The slope for the proposed pipe extension will be at minimum so that stormwater will be treated further, and minimizing erosion." Chbat Ex. 1 at 3. After the filing of the 2008 Application, Mr. Chbat learned that Mr. Sheehey objected to the newest Chbat proposal because he believed 150 feet is not lengthy enough to clear the Ridge. See Chbat Exhibit 2. In order to cure the objection, Mr. Chbat proposed a modification to the 2008 Application. He attached a "sealed and signed drawing," id., to a letter dated September 18, 2008, that he submitted to DEP. The drawing shows the extension to be 177 feet, 27 feet more than initially proposed by the 2008 Application. The additional 27 feet was intended to ensure that the discharge would be directly into the Bay in order to "eliminate any possible run-off impact to adjacent properties." Id. The modification was accepted by DEP." See exhibit number 19/ attached to the Amended Permit, Chbat Exhibit 4. There was conflicting evidence in the proceeding on whether the outfall from a culvert extension of 177 feet will be bayward of the Ridge. The issue was put to rest by Mr. Street’s testimony in rebuttal at the hearing. See Tr. Vol. III at 194 and 203-4. His testimony establishes that the point of discharge at the end of the culvert extension will clear the Ridge so that the discharge will be directly into the Bay. The Mound The culvert extension is designed at an elevation and with cover (presumably sod). The extension runs through jurisdictional wetlands and segments them. It does not, however, isolate any portion of the wetlands. The wetlands on Mr. Chbat's property and those to the immediate east and west of it, therefore, will retain their status as jurisdictional wetlands should the extension be installed. With its sod cover, the culvert extension will be a mini-berm (or a "mound" as Mr. Street called it) at an elevation of 17 to 18 inches above grade. Water that pools to its west will no longer be able to flow eastward of the mound (except rarely under the most extreme weather events.) Conversely, water that collects to its east will no longer be able to flow westward of the extension. It would have to be a severe storm event for water to rise above the mound. Mr. Chbat has never seen water rise to 18 inches above grade and Mr. Cummins testified the highest water ever gets on his property is roughly 12 inches. The Department approved the 2008 Application as modified to lengthen the extension to 177 feet and issued the Amended Permit. But an incorrect and critical assumption was made during review of the application that related to the mound. Review of the 2008 Application During his review of the application, Mr. Street, as DEP's stormwater engineer, assumed from the drawings that the Drainage Easement is functional.10/ The assumption was expressed in Mr. Street's testimony in the Department's case-in-chief: Q [D]id you determine whether the pipe, as it would be mounded . . . [the culvert extension covered in sod] . . . would create problems for storm water flow? A I looked at that. There were two conclusions that I drew. One was that the mound would create a higher water elevation on the Chbat property east of the mound, but would not create standing water west of the mound extending into the [Drainage E]asment . . . . Which on the drawings that I reviewed showed an existing trench at the south end of that easement. And it was my opinion that any water that fell west of the mound would exit through the easement. Tr. Vol. II at 92 (emphasis added.) Mr. Street's assumption that water would not pool to the west of the mound in the Drainage Easement and toward Mr. Sheehey's property was contradicted by Mr. Sheehey's stormwater engineer, Mr. Porterfield. THe Porterfield Testimony and Support for It at Hearing The testimony at hearing of Mr. Porterfield, who conducted a site visit, established the opposite of what Mr. Street assumed. The volume of stormwater runoff that pools east of the mound, that is, water on Lot 9, will not be as great as the volume as the water that pools west of the mound. Water that would have flowed onto Lot 9 from the Eastern Pond Culvert will flow directly to the Bay via the culvert extension. The extension will also protect the Drainage Easement and Lot 8 from water that would have flowed from the Eastern Pond Culvert onto that property. But there is a significant difference between stormwater to the west of the extension and to the east. To the extension's west, the Drainage Easement and Lot 8 will have to contend with stormwater from the Drainage Ditch Culvert, the culvert north of Alden Lane that does not convey stormwater from the pond but that like the Pond Culverts has a discharge point directed at the Drainage Easement. How often and to what extent pooling of stormwater will occur west of the mound due to its presence is difficult to determine on the state of this record.11/ No studies or analyses of the likelihood and severity of storm events and the volumes of stormwater runoff that would be produced by them were conducted by any of the stormwater engineers in the case nor were any such analyses done with regard to pooling caused by the presence of the covered culvert extension. The testimony of Mr. Porterfield, however, and other evidence, demonstrates that that additional collection of water west of the mound caused by the mound will occur following heavy rain. Mr. Street was present in the hearing room throughout the entire hearing, including during the presentation of Mr. Sheehey's case. As Mr. Street candidly testified on rebuttal after he had heard all the evidence: I would also maintain that the drainage easement which has signs of a historical usage as a drainage easement with a trench, in fact, that conveys water safely to the bay, that should be re-established and maintained. That’s what it’s there for.” Tr. Vol III at 181 (emphasis added.) Thus, it became clear to Mr. Street after listening to all the evidence in the case that the Drainage Easement has not been properly maintained. The trench that was expected to carry stormwater toward the Bay no longer exists. In short, the testimony of Mr. Street, for all his many strengths as a witness, falls short of supporting the position of the Department and Mr. Chbat. Having never visited the site,12/ he approved the project on the basis of drawings that do not conform to the on-site physical reality. When presented with the evidence at hearing that the Drainage Easement is not functioning, he championed re-establishment and maintenance of the Drainage Easement. Mr. Chbat placed part of the Swale's functionality problem on the tide pushing stormwater northward but his case also recognized the maintenance problem caused by deposition of sand that besets the Swale. Mr. Thomason, moreover, recognized that the Drainage Easement has the same maintenance issue. Mr. Chbat's stormwater engineer testified During storm events or just normal wave action in the bay, sand is brought back up on to. . . the sandy area at the end of [Chbat's] lot next to the water. And so that . . . tends to inhibit the natural flow down the swale . . . we have the same problem on the drainage easement . . . where sand builds up in that discharge. Tr. Vol. I at 62 (emphasis added). From this record, it is clear that neither the Swale nor the Drainage Easement functions properly. Their functional status, moreover, is due in significant part to lack of maintenance. It may be that maintenance ultimately will not solve the problem; maintenance efforts to keep the Swale and Drainage Easement clear of the sand deposited by tidal activity may require too much effort for them to be reasonably required. But that evidence was not produced. Indeed, the record was silent as to any maintenance efforts with regard to the Swale by Mr. Chbat or with regard to the Drainage Easement by the owner of the easement. The record is also silent as to whether DEP voiced any concern about the maintenance issues that beset the Swale. It is clear that concern was not raised by the Department in regard to the Drainage Easement until the rebuttal phase of the hearing, since the assumption was made that the easement was properly maintained. Whatever communication may have occurred with regard to maintenance issues among the parties, the Department issued the Amended Permit.13/ The Permit/Authorization Number for the Amended Permit is 66-235320-002-DF.14/ Issued December 19, 2008, the Amended Permit has an expiration date of December 19, 2013. The expiration date coincides with the construction phase of five years on the face of the Amended Permit. See Chbat Ex. 4. Mr. Sheehey Challenges the Amended Permit On January 6, 2009, Mr. Sheehey, pro se, filed with DEP a petition (the "Petition") seeking a formal administrative hearing with regard to "Amended Wetland Resource Permit 66- 00235320-002-DF." Although the Petition makes reference to the Amended Permit, it seeks in the first instance enforcement of the Settlement Agreement that relates to the Final Original Permit. The Petition states: "Petitioner believes that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has jurisdiction over this matter and should enforce the March 20, 2007 Settlement Agreement which requires that Permittee act in conformance with Exhibit 'A' of the Agreement [the drawing of the Swale]." In the event that DEP declined to enforce the Settlement Agreement, the Petition sets out disputed issues of material fact that relate to issuance of the Amended Permit. The Petition was referred to DOAH on February 19, 2009. One week before the final hearing, the Department filed the motion in limine that is discussed in the Preliminary Statement of this Recommended Order. The motion was granted to the extent that it sought to preclude Sheehey from introducing evidence that supported enforcement of the Settlement Agreement since the 2008 Application, which, while bearing similarity to the 2004 Application, is nonetheless an independent application that should be approved or denied on its own merits without regard to the 2004 Application, the Proposed Original Permit, the Settlement Agreement or the Final Original Permit. The case proceeded to hearing on the remaining issues raised by the Petition: 1) whether Sheehey has standing to contest approval of the 2008 Application; 2) whether Chbat gave the notice required by Section 373.413, Florida Statutes, and 3) whether Chbat's application meets the criteria in statutes and rules for issuance of the Amended Permit. Standing The findings of fact relevant to Mr. Sheehey's standing are found in paragraph 9, above. Notice Notice of the 2008 Application was published in The Defuniak Springs Herald-Breeze, a newspaper published in Defuniak Springs, Walton County, Florida. The notice was published on October 23, 2008. The evidence presented by Mr. Sheehey concerning lack of legal notice consisted of testimony by Mr. Sheehey at hearing in response to questions from his counsel. See Tr. Vol. III at 134. The testimony does not establish that Mr. Sheehey was a person who had filed a written request for notification of any pending application affecting his particular area. The testimony of Mr. Sheehey, moreover, establishes that he was given oral notice of the application by Mr. O'Donnell within four days of its filing. WRP Permitting Criteria To obtain a WRP, an applicant must satisfy the criteria in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-312 and Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. These criteria govern a range of topics including water quality. Water Quality15/ Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-312.080 provides that no permit shall be issued unless the Department has been supplied with reasonable assurances that the proposed work will not violate water quality standards. Water that enters the pond spends some amount of time in the pond (residence time) before flowing out. During residence time, solids drop out of the water so that the quality of the stormwater that flows out of the pond is reasonably expected to be better than the quality of the stormwater runoff when it entered the pond. Vegetation surrounding the pond, furthermore, enhances the quality of the water in the pond, whether the water’s source is runoff or rain falling directly into the pond. The water that flows out of the pond north of Alden Lane is “existing discharge.” Tr. Vol. I at 65. It generally made its way to the Bay prior to the Swale. Some of it makes its way to the Bay via the Swale now; some of it outside the Swale as overflow. The culvert extension will convey that discharge to the Bay if the extension is installed. The quality of the water is not significantly less when it discharges to the Bay via the Swale or otherwise from the Chbat property than when it would enter the culvert extension should it be installed. It is true that the Swale would have provided filtration and additional treatment to the discharge from the Eastern Pond Culvert as does the Chbat property in general. But that does not mean that the quality of the culvert’s discharge is a concern. The Swale may have been an option preferable to the extension of the culvert as far as water quality goes but all parties agree that the Swale has failed as a conveyance (albeit Mr. Sheehey maintains that the Swale would work with proper maintenance.) That there is a discharge method that improves the quality of the discharge, such as a swale, does not mean that the discharge to the Bay via the culvert extension is of insufficient quality. None of the parties tested the quality of the discharge from the Eastern Pond Culvert. The Department, nonetheless, offered evidence with regard to its quality. The Department concluded that the quality of the pond and its discharge were not of concern. Had the pond been contaminated to an extent that would have given rise to concerns, moreover, the Swale or the culvert extension as a means of conveying the discharge to the Bay would not have made a “discernible difference.” Tr. Vol. II at 80. The Department provided evidence of assumptions made with regard to the quality of the water that led the Department to conclude that testing of the discharge was unnecessary. Mr. O’Donnell, the Department’s expert in the application of state rules and statutes in wetland resource permitting, detailed the assumptions at hearing: My assumption was that that pond was dug some time in the past as a way to provide fill for roads. That it was never any part of . . . [a] stormwater treatment system. And that it conveyed upstream water through the pond and then on down into Choctawhatchee Bay. It was strictly a [borrow pit and a conveyance pond.] It was never permitted as a treatment system in any way that I was aware of in my diligence [in determining whether the extension should be permitted.] Tr. Vol. II at 79. Once Mr. O’Donnell’s testimony entered the record at the behest of Mr. Chbat, the burden shifted to Mr. Sheehey to prove that the applicant had not provided reasonable assurance of water quality. Mr. Sheehey did not offer evidence of any testing of the discharge. Nor did he offer testimony that rebutted Mr. O’Donnell’s opinion. In fact, the testimony of Mr. Wilkinson (Mr.Sheehey's witness) supported Mr. O'Donnell's opinion with regard to water quality. See Tr. Vol. III at 112. In sum, the Department made assumptions that are found to be reasonable based on Mr. O’Donnell’s expertise and experience. Those assumptions were not shown to be unreasonable by Mr. Sheehey. The Department’s conclusions about water quality flow directly from Mr. O’Donnell’s reasonable assumptions. Reasonable assurances have been provided that the project will not violate water quality standards. Public Interest Test Choctawhatchee Bay is not designated as an “outstanding Florida water.” The test that Mr. Chbat must meet therefore is whether the activity proposed by the permit application is “not contrary to the public interest.” § 373.414, Fla. Stat. In making that determination, the Department is directed by the statute to consider and balance seven criteria. See § 373.414(a) 1-7, Fla. Stat. Of the seven, three are at issue once water quality is determined to be of no concern. Two of the three, “[w]hether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature,” Section 373.414(1)(a)5., Florida Statutes, and “[t]he current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity,” Section 373.414(1)(a)7., Florida Statutes, do not require in-depth consideration. With regard to the nature of the project time-wise, the evidence establishes that the culvert extension is intended to be permanent. With regard to current condition, the area affected by the proposed activity is a residential lot, a substantial portion of which is under water following heavy rain. To facilitate the conveyance of stormwater, the lot is served by the Swale. The Swale is not functioning optimally because of lack of maintenance and because of the Ridge. With regard to relative value from the standpoint of water quality, the function being performed by the lot and the Swale is little, at least as established by this record. While it is certainly true that the lot with or without the Swale will filtrate and otherwise treat stormwater runoff from the pond, the difference in the quality of the stormwater conveyed by the culvert extension from that which would enter the Bay without the extension is not significant. See the discussion above of Mr. O’Donnell’s accepted opinions. Of the seven statutory criteria to be weighed and balanced by the Department, the one that is central to this case is found in subparagraph 1., of subsection (1)(a): “[w]hether the [culvert extension] will adversely affect . . . the property of others.” The “property of others” in this case is the property of Mr. Sheehey. The Project’s Effect on the Property of Mr. Sheehey. For the reasons discussed in paragraphs 63-70, above, Mr. Chbat has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the project will not have a detrimental effect on the property of Mr. Sheehey. The extent of the detrimental effect to Mr. Sheehey's property is difficult to determine from this record but it is highly likely based on all the evidence of record that there will be a detrimental effect: additional flooding in heavy rain events.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection deny17/ the Amended Permit for the failure of Mr. Chbat to provide reasonable assurances that the project will not adversely affect Mr. Sheehey's property. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 2010.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to an environmental resource permit for a surface water management system and the alteration of a wetland in connection with the construction of two warehouses, paved parking and loading areas, a detention pond, and enhancement of the remainder of the existing wetland. If not otherwise entitled to the permit, an additional issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to the permit through an exemption, waiver, or variance from the standard requirements for mitigation.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner Carlos M. Beruff, as Trustee under Florida Land Trust No. 22 dated March 30, 1989 (Petitioner), purchased 85 acres of land in Manatee County for $1.2 million in May 1989. (All acreages are approximate.) The east boundary of the 85-acre parcel consists of about 1700 feet of frontage along U.S. Route 301. One month after the purchase, Petitioner sold 70 of the 85 acres for $1.6 million. In the intervening month, Petitioner incurred no significant expenses for development or marketing, although the development and marketing expertise of Carlos Beruff facilitated the $1.6 million sale. The 70 acres that were sold included the frontage on U.S. Route 301. The 15 acres remaining after the sale comprise two tracts of 9 and 5.88 acres. In these cases, Petitioner seeks an environmental resource permit (ERP) for activities involving the 5.88-acre parcel (Site). The 9-acre parcel occupies the northwest corner of the 85-acre parcel. The Site, which was platted in 1911, is the only noncontiguous land constituting the 85-acre parcel; it is 450 feet south of the remainder of the 85-acre parcel. The sole parcel between the Site and the remainder of the 85- acre parcel was originally owned by Lowe's and is now owned by Cheetah Technologies (Cheetah Parcel). The 5.88-acre Site is subject to a road right-of-way of 0.32 acres in favor of the Cheetah Parcel. Of the remaining 5.56 acres, 4.66 acres are wetland and 0.9 acres are upland. The 0.9 acres of upland are subject to an access easement of 0.42 acres, also in favor of the Cheetah Parcel, so the net available upland acreage is only 0.48 acres. The Cheetah Parcel occupies the northwest corner of U.S. Route 301 and Saunders Road (also known as 63rd Avenue East). The Site is immediately west and south of the Cheetah Parcel and occupies the northeast corner of Saunders Road and 24th Street East (also known as Arlin Road). The Site is about 530 feet west of the intersection of U.S. Route 301 and Saunders Road. U.S. Route 301 is a major arterial, and Saunders Road is at least a major collector road. The Site contains about 600 feet of frontage along Saunders Road and 465 feet of frontage along 24th Street East. The Site is in unincorporated Manatee County roughly midway between downtown Bradenton and downtown Sarasota. Saunders Road crosses a north-south railroad line approximately one-half mile west of the Site and Bowlees Creek about 650 feet west of the railroad track. The 9-acre parcel still owned by Petitioner is about 350 feet north-south by 1250 feet east-west. The western boundary of the 9-acre parcel runs along the east side of the railroad line. Like the other parcels involved in this case, the 9-acre parcel drains into Bowlees Creek. The Site is in an area characterized by industrial land uses, including warehouses, a junkyard, an industrial center, and a bakery. A halfway house for persons recently released from prison is located one-quarter mile to the west of the Site. The Site is zoned HM (heavy manufacturing), which is a limited, and thus valuable, zoning category in Manatee County. Respondent has issued three relatively recent surface water management permits that are relevant to these cases: a 1986 permit for the development of the Cheetah Parcel (Cheetah Permit), a 1988 permit for the widening of Saunders Road from two to four lanes (Saunders Road Permit), and a 1989 permit for the construction of a commercial park north of the Site known as 301 Park of Commerce (301 Permit). Bowlees Creek runs from north to south, emptying into Sarasota Bay across from Longboat Key. Sarasota Bay is an Outstanding Florida Water. Bowlees Creek drains a nine square-mile basin, which is about 21-25 percent developed. The Bowlees Creek basin is an open drainage basin. Due to flooding problems, Manatee County has imposed special limitations upon development within the Bowlees Creek basin. Among these limitations is that the rate of post- development runoff must be less than the rate of pre- development runoff--up to 50 percent less, according to expert witnesses for both sides (Lawrence Weber, Tr. Vol. III, pp. 118-19; and Daryl Flatt, Tr. Vol. IV, p. 230). By stipulation, the Site is at the extreme eastern end of the Bowlees Creek basin. In fact, the Site may have historically drained into Bowlees Creek and will drain into Bowlees Creek after, as described below, the northwest window is added to the surface water management system. In 1993 or 1994, Petitioner began the process of developing the Site following the sale five years earlier of the larger 70-acre parcel. Mr. Beruff has been in the development business for 20 years. His career began in 1980 when Mr. Beruff became an employee for U.S. Homes and Modern Builders; he became self-employed in 1984. Mr. Beruff has developed seven commercial and ten residential developments. Application Process Deciding to pursue warehouse development for the Site, Petitioner initiated the development process by hiring an engineer and environmental consultant. With the assistance of these consultants, Petitioner prepared its application for an ERP. By application dated October 9, 1998, and filed November 13, 1998, Petitioner requested that Respondent issue an individual ERP for the construction on the Site of a surface water management system in connection with the construction of two warehouse buildings, paved parking and loading areas, and a detention pond, as well as the enhancement of the remainder of the existing wetland (Application). The Application states that the total building, parking, and loading areas would be 58,026 square feet and that wetlands constitute 3.37 acres of the 5.88-acre Site. The site plan attached to the Application shows a "wetland preservation & enhancement" area of 1.592 acres at the north end of the Site. To the south, toward Saunders Road, are two buildings with paved parking and loading areas. On the southwest corner is a "stormwater treatment & attenuation" area. After several discussions with Respondent's staff, Petitioner modified the proposed development. In its latest revision, the footprint of the proposed development would occupy 2.834 acres of wetland, leaving 1.826 acres of wetland. On November 13, 1998, Petitioner filed a Petition for Exemption, Waiver or Variance as to Mitigation Requirements, seeking an exemption, waiver, or variance from all laws requiring offsite mitigation or additional onsite mitigation for the portion of the wetland that would be destroyed by the proposed development. Drainage At present, the Site receives runoff from a total of 27 acres. The offsite contributors of runoff are the Cheetah Parcel and a segment of Saunders Road east of 21st Street East. These locations have drained into the Site for hundreds of years. In general, drainage raises two distinct issues: water quality and water quantity. For an open drainage basin, the issue of water quantity expresses itself primarily in runoff discharge rate, although historic basin storage is also an issue. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the Respondent's Basis of Review identifies different storm events to which applicants must design different components of surface water management systems. For water quantity, the system may release no more than the permitted discharge rate in the design storm, which is the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. At present, the design storm would produce about eight inches of rain, although the same design storm, due to a different model or modeling assumptions, produced 9.5 inches of rain at the time of the issuance of the permit for the Cheetah Parcel. (The practical effect of this change in the calculation of the design storm is that the quantitative capacity of the surface water management system of the Cheetah Parcel is nearly 20 percent greater than would be required today.) For water quality, the system must capture the first inch of runoff (sometimes only the first half-inch of runoff, depending on the type of system and receiving waterbody). In contrast to the relatively infrequent 25-year storm, approximately 90 percent of the storms in Respondent's jurisdiction produce no more than one inch of runoff. The underlying premise is that the first inch of runoff contains nearly all of the contaminants that will be flushed from impervious surfaces. The Cheetah surface water management system features a wetland and a retention pond along the north property line of the Site. The Cheetah pond and wetland attenuate runoff before allowing it to drain south onto the Site. The Cheetah surface water management system also includes a swale running north along 24th Street East to take runoff eventually to Bowlees Creek. The Saunders Road surface water management system discharging onto the Site consists largely of an underground, offline storage and attenuation system that stores excess runoff, as compared to pre-development rates, in lateral pipes off a weir. Nothing in the record suggests that the surface water management systems authorized by the Cheetah Permit or the Saunders Road Permit fail to provide reasonable assurance that the discharged runoff is of satisfactory water quality. Following their respective permits in 1986 and 1988, respectively, the rates of discharge of runoff from the Cheetah Parcel and Saunders Road were no greater post- development than they had been pre-development. The Cheetah Parcel post-development and pre-development discharge rates were both 10.6 cubic feet per second (cfs). The Saunders Road post-development and pre-development discharge rates were both 32.4 cfs. In issuing the 301 Permit, Respondent authorized the construction of a drainage system that would take runoff north along 24th Street East and then west, eventually emptying into Bowlees Creek. Conforming to the previous drainage system, the new system replaced an open ditch with underground stormwater pipes. Of particular relevance to the Site, two prominent features of the system authorized by the 301 Permit were windows in the vicinity of the southwest and northwest corners of the Site (Southwest Window and Northwest Window). A window is an opening in the wall of a hardened structure whose purpose includes drainage. The opening is constructed at a certain elevation and a certain size to allow specified volumes or rates of water to pass into the structure and then offsite. The 301 Permit authorized the construction of a swale along the southwest corner of the Site to direct runoff discharging from the Saunders Road system into the Southwest Window. This swale has been construed. However, several problems have precluded the construction of the Southwest Window, probably permanently. The most serious problem, from an engineering perspective, is the failure to lay the stormwater pipe along 24th Street East at the proper depth. The stormwater pipe was erroneously installed at an elevation of 15.32 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), and the Southwest Window was to have been cut at a control elevation of 14.75 feet NGVD. The discharge elevation of the Saunders Road outlet precludes raising the control elevation of the Southwest Window sufficiently to allow gravity drainage into the stormwater pipe. Exacerbating the discrepancy among the as-built elevations of the three structures is what appears to be a design problem belatedly recognized by Respondent. Respondent is justifiably concerned that the Southwest Window, at a control elevation of 14.75 feet NGVD, would draw down the water elevation of the Site's wetland, which is at a wet season elevation of 16.5 feet NGVD (now actually 17 feet NGVD, possibly due to the absence of the Southwest Window). A third problem with the Southwest Window is that the southwest corner of the Site was not historically a point of discharge, so the Southwest Window would deprive the Site's wetland of runoff. Fortunately, neither the Southwest nor the Northwest Window is essential for the proper operation of the surface water management system of 301 Park of Commerce, which largely depends on a series of lakes for treatment and attenuation. The Northwest Window was to be at elevation 16.5 feet NGVD, and its construction would provide needed drainage for the Site. In general, the Northwest Window does not raise the same concerns as does the Southwest Window. The Northwest Window is in the vicinity of the historic point of discharge for the Site and replaces a ditch permitted for the Cheetah Parcel to take runoff north along 24th Street East. The Northwest Window would also alleviate a standing-water problem at the northwest corner of the Site. However, Manatee County, which controls the right- of-way on which the Northwest Window is located and is responsible for its construction and maintenance, has discovered that it lacks a sufficient property interest to access the Northwest Window. The County has since initiated the process by which it can obtain the necessary interest, and, once completed, the County will cut the Northwest Window into the existing structure. Due to the role of the Northwest Window in draining the runoff in the area, including the Site, the Application reincorporates the Northwest Window, as it should have been constructed pursuant to the 301 Permit. Although the Cheetah and Saunders Road permits resulted in greater runoff volume entering the Site, more importantly to area drainage, these permits did not result in greater runoff rates and or in a deterioration in runoff water quality. Likewise, the failure to construct the Southwest Window and Northwest Window is not especially relevant to area drainage, nor is the likely inability ever to construct the Southwest Window. Far more important to area drainage is the fact that Petitioner proposes that the Site, post-development, would produce a runoff rate of 10.6 cfs, as compared to a pre-development runoff rate of 7 cfs. A serious adverse impact to area drainage, the proposed activity increases the runoff rate by 50 percent in a floodprone, 80-percent builtout basin--a basin of such sensitivity that Manatee County is imposing a post-development requirement of substantially reduced runoff rates. The cumulative impacts of the proposed development, together with existing developments, would be to cause substantial flooding of the Bowlees Creek basin. Petitioner's expert attempted to show that the runoff from the Site, which is at the extreme eastern end of the Bowlees Creek basin, would be delayed sufficiently so as not to exacerbate flooding. Respondent's expert thoroughly discredited this testimony due, among other things, to its reliance upon obsolete data and an unrealistic limitation upon the assumption of the direction of travel of storms. Similarly, Petitioner failed to prove that the authorized discharge rate for the 301 Permit is 42 cfs. This assertion is most succinctly, though not exclusively, rebutted by the fact that the 42-inch pipe can only accommodate 18 cfs. Even if the 42-inch pipe could accommodate a substantially greater runoff rate, Petitioner's expert would have erroneously inferred a permitted discharge rate from this increased capacity without negating the possibility that other structures in the 301 surface water management system effectively reduced the rate or that oversized structures existed to accommodate higher runoff rates in storms greater than the design storm. In addition to increasing the runoff rate by 50 percent, Petitioner's proposal would also reduce the historic basin storage by over 40 percent. Displaced basin storage moves downstream, increasing flood levels from fixed storm events. At present, the Site provides 8.68 acre-feet of historic basin storage. The Application proposes to replace this storage with storage in the wetland and retention pond totaling only 4.9 acre-feet. The loss of 3.8 acre-feet of basin storage means that this additional volume of water would, post-development, travel down Bowlees Creek. A final drainage deficiency in Petitioner's proposal arises out of a berm's proposed outside of the Northwest Window. A one-foot bust in the survey of Petitioner's expert would have resulted in this berm preventing runoff from entering the Site from the Cheetah Parcel, as runoff presently does. Respondent's expert suggested several possible alternatives that might result in a permittable project with respect to post-development runoff rates (the record is silent as to the effect of these alternatives upon historic basin storage, although it would seem that they would add storage). Reducing the area of destroyed wetlands to one acre would probably reduce the excess of post-development runoff rate to 1-2 cfs. Petitioner could then obtain offsetting attenuation through a variety of means, such as by obtaining an easement to use the wetland on the Cheetah Parcel, constructing an attenuation pond on the 9-acre parcel, or constructing underground vaults in the filled area of the wetland on the Site. Wetlands Except for the road right-of-way, the Site is undeveloped and forested. The presence of 25-year-old red maples militates against attributing the transition from an herbaceous to a forested wetland to the failure to install the Northwest and Southwest windows. More likely, this transition to the sub-climax species of red maple and willow (in the absence of a cypress source) is due to the repression of fire on the Site. Experts for the opposing sides differed sharply in their biological assessments of the wetland. Petitioner's expert described a stressed wetland whose impenetrable thicket provided habitat only to a lone rat and swarm of mosquitoes. Respondent's expert described a robust wetland featuring a luxuriant overstory of red maple and Carolina willow; an rich understory of ferns, and diverse wildlife ranging from birds in the air (direct evidence); fish, snails, and tadpoles in a small pond (direct evidence); and squirrel and opossum (indirect evidence) scampering (indirect evidence) among the buttonbush, elderberry, and wax myrtle (direct evidence). Undoubtedly, the wetland has been stressed; approximately 30 percent of the wetland vegetation is Brazilian pepper, which is a nuisance exotic. However, the wetland is well hydrated. Issuance of the Cheetah Permit was predicated, in part, upon the rehydration of the wetland on the Site. With the issuance of the Cheetah Permit and especially the Saunders Road Permit, the quality of water entering the wetland has improved by a considerable amount. As already noted, added volumes of runoff are entering the wetland since the issuance of these two permits, although post-development runoff rates are the same as pre-development runoff rates. On balance, the wetland is functioning well in providing habitat and natural drainage functions. Giving due weight to the current condition of the wetland, the enhancement offered by Petitioner does not approach offsetting the loss of wetland area. In return for destroying 2.83 acres of the wetland, Petitioner proposed the enhancement of the remaining 1.83 acres by removing exotic species to no more than 10 percent of the total vegetation. The mitigation is plainly insufficient because of the level of functioning of the entire wetland at present. Additionally, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the Brazilian pepper, which is the major nuisance exotic occupying the Site, is evenly distributed; to the contrary, it is present mostly outside the wetland, along a berm just outside of the wetland. The lack of seedlings and old specimens suggests that the Brazilian pepper population may not be stable and may itself be stressed. Petitioner's failure to show that the remaining wetland area has more than 10 percent infestation or is likely to suffer additional infestation further undermines the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation. Respondent has never issued an ERP for a proposed activity involving the alteration of wetlands when the enhancement mitigation ratio is as low as .65:1, as Petitioner proposes. In general, Respondent requires higher mitigation ratios when proposals involve wetlands enhancement, rather than wetlands creation, because the wetlands to be enhanced are already functioning--in these cases, at a relatively high level. Although Petitioner has been unwilling to consider such alternatives, numerous alternatives exist for offsite mitigation or mitigation banking, if insufficient area exists for adequate onsite mitigation. Lastly, Petitioner devoted considerable effort at hearing to portraying Respondent's handling of the Application as flawed and unfair. However, the evidence does not support these assertions. Most strikingly, Respondent's staff treated the drainage windows inconsistently, to the benefit of Petitioner. They treated the Northwest Window as installed for the purpose of calculating the pre-development runoff discharge rate to Bowlees Creek. Until the Northwest Window is installed, the actual rate is even lower. This approach is justifiable because the Northwest Window will be installed at some point. On the other hand, Respondent's staff ignored the higher wetland elevation on the Site, presumably resulting from the absence of the Southwest Window. However, this approach, which benefits Petitioner in calculating wetland drawdown effects, is unjustifiable because the Southwest Window probably will never be installed. Petitioner's specific complaints of unfair treatment are unfounded. For example, Petitioner suggested that Respondent credited Lowe's with wetland acreage for the littoral shelf of its wetland, but did not do so with the wetland on the Site. However, Petitioner produced no evidence of similar slopes between the two shelves, without which comparability of biological function is impossible. Additionally, Petitioner ignored the possibility that, in the intervening 14 years, Respondent may have refined its approach to wetland mitigation. Although occurring at hearing, rather than in the application-review process, Respondent's willingness to enter into the stipulation that the Site presently drains into Bowlees Creek, despite recent data stating otherwise, was eminently fair to Petitioner. Absent this stipulation, Respondent would have been left with the formidable prospect of providing reasonable assurance concerning drainage into the floodprone Bowlees Creek when the post-development rate was 10.6 cfs and the pre-development rate was 0 cfs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent deny Petitioner's application for an environmental resource permit and for an exemption, variance, or waiver. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of February, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ ROBERT E. MEALE 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 29th day of February, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: S. W. Moore Tracey B. Starrett Brigham. Moore, Gaylord, Schuster, Merlin & Tobin, LLP 100 Wallace Avenue, Suite 310 Sarasota, Florida 34237-6043 Mark F. Lapp Jack R. Pepper Assistant General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609 E. D. "Sonny" Vergara Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue Whether Petitioners are entitled to validation of an alleged determination by Respondent of the landward extent of its dredge and fill jurisdiction over a portion of Petitioners' Property?
Findings Of Fact Under former DER rules, those using the vegetative index adopted June 10, 1975, as amended March 11, 1981, DER's dredge and fill jurisdiction upland of the mean high water line depended exclusively on the landward extent of waters of the state, as evidenced by the dominance of certain species of plants that thrive under wet conditions. Only if these indicator species, in the aggregate, were not dominant along the edge of a water body would DER's jurisdiction end at the shoreline. In 1977, Petitioners Fabre and Jacobs acquired more than 43 acres of unimproved land on Garcon Point, fronting Blackwater Bay in Santa Rosa County. By the time of the hearing, their original development plans had changed, but Petitioners still held the property in the hope of subdividing part of it for resale. At Petitioners' request, somebody from the Pensacola office of the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) inspected the site in the fall of 1979, probably Michael C. Applegate on October 3, 1979. Petitioners wanted to know what DER permits, if any, would be required in order for a road to be built on the property. In connection with their inquiry, they furnished DER a legal description of the parcel and an aerial photograph of the area. Whether DER also received a site plan at that time depicting the proposed road is not shown by the record. DER's pre-application file on the parcel has probably been destroyed. At least in the minds of some DER employees, there is a clear difference between advising whether a particular project falls within DER's permitting jurisdiction, based on a site visit; and making a jurisdictional determination, which may involved planting flags that are then surveyed or photographed from the air. Petitioner Fabre received a letter from Michael C. Applegate, at the time DER's dredge and fill supervisor in Pensacola, which stated: RE: Approximate 43.48 acre parcel located between State Road 191 and Blackwater Bay, Garcon, Section 14, Township I s, Range 28 w, Santa Rosa County, Florida Dear Mr. Fabre: The above referenced land parcel (legal description enclosed) was inspected by a member of this Department to determine the necessity of obtaining dredge and fill permits for future construction activities on the site. It is the opinion of the staff that since the site is dominated by upland vegetation (oaks, pines, etc.) and has no water bodies connecting to the adjacent B1ackwater Bay that dredge and fill permits will not be required for construction activities within the interior of the property; however, any construction along the shoreline or any attempt to connect artificial lakes or canals to Blackwater Bay will require prior permit authorization from this Department in accordance with the provisions of Section 403.087, Florida Statutes, 253.123 and 253.124, F.S. and Section 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code. Further, should your development of the property result in and [sic] increased stormwater discharge, a stormwater permit may also be required. Joint Exhibit No. 4 In the opinion of DER's expert witness, "along the shoreline" usually means to the edge of open water. In surveying, "shoreline" is a term of art meaning mean high water line. As a practical matter, mean high water line surveys are seldom undertaken because they are complex, expensive and time- consuming. Because Mr. Applegatets letter was undated, Mr. Fabre later asked for a dated reiteration, which DER furnished by copy of a memorandum to the file from DER's William H. Daughdri11, stating: SUBJECT: Review of Undated Correspondence to Frank Fabre [sic] (Baskerville Donovan Engineers) Regarding Proposed Construction on a 43.48 Acre Parcel of Property on Blackwater Bay. On June 23, 1980, I received a call from Mr. Prank Fabre, [sic] during which he requested clarification of a letter written by Mike Applegate in October, 1979. I advised Mr. Fabre that my recollection of the proposed project and subsequent letter was that the excavation was on the interior of the property and not subject to Department of Environmental Regulation's permitting jurisdiction. I cautioned Mr. Fabre [sic] to read the letter carefully and proceed accordingly. On June 24, 1980, I reviewed Mile's letter to Mr. Fabre [ sic] (copy) attached). Mike's letter indicated that no permit would be required for construction activities in the interior of the property; however, construction along the shoreline or any attempt to connect artificial lakes or canals to Blackwater Bay would require a valid Department permit. I called Mr. Fabre and advised him of same. Finally, in reviewing Mr. Applegate's letter to Mr. Fabre, I discovered it to be undated. The photograph attached to the letter referenced a date of October 3, 1979. I assume that the letter to Mr. Fabre went out within a week of the inspection and would therefore be properly dated between October 5 and October 10, 1979. Joint Exhibit No. 3. Having received this memorandum, Petitioners filled out a form Army Corp of Engineers/DER joint application for activities in the waters of the State of Florida. They attached an aerial photograph on which a proposed road is shown, lying more than 200 feet inland; and a drawing representing a proposed community building elevated on piling, approximately 50 feet inland of the mean high water line. Joint Exhibit No. 5. On September 24, 1984, copies of the joint form application with attachments were mailed to DER, along with a cover letter stating, "As we discussed, an application fee is not included since D.E.R. does not have jurisdiction based on enclosed letters from Michael Applegate and William Draughdrill [sic]." Joint Exhibit No. 5. In response, W. Richard Fancher, DER's dredge and fill supervisor, wrote Petitioners, on October 9, 1984: I have reviewed your permit application for a fill road leading to Blackwater Bay, along with the accompanying jurisdictional determinations. However, the Department's dredge and fill jurisdiction has changed significantly since Mr. Applegate's and Mr. Daughdrill's determinations, specifically, since October 1, 1984. Unless you have had the old pre- October 1 jurisdiction verified by our Bureau of Permitting in Tallahassee ("grandfathered"), the Department must consider the project under the post-October 1 jurisdiction and permitting standards. Joint Exhibit No. 7 (emphasis supplied.) A DER "completeness summary" also dated October 9, 1984, was included indicating that Petitioners' application was incomplete for failure to pay the application fee, because, "approximate MHW's" had not been labeled, a claim at least partially belied by attachments to the application, and because certain water quality information allegedly had been omitted. Joint Exhibit No. 7. On October 15, 1984, DER received Petitioners' request for validation with supporting papers. Joint Exhibit No. 9.
The Issue The issue is whether an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and a Letter of Consent to Use Sovereignty Submerged Lands (Letter of Consent) should be issued to Respondent, Palm Beach County (County), authorizing it to fill 7.97 acres of submerged lands for a restoration project in Lake Worth Lagoon.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings are determined: The Parties Trump is the owner association for a two-towered residential and commercial condominium building located at 525 South Flagler Drive in downtown West Palm Beach, upland and west of the project site in the Lagoon. Each tower rises thirty floors and together they have of two hundred twenty units. The first five floors are common areas including a lobby on the first floor, while a pool and patio are located on the fifth floor of the north tower. The property is separated from the Lagoon by Flagler Drive, a four-lane divided road with landscaping and sidewalks which runs adjacent to, and on the western side of, the Lagoon. There is no dispute that Trump has standing to initiate this action. Flagler owns, manages, and leases two multi-story office buildings located at 501 Flagler Drive on the upland real property directly west of the project location. Like the Trump property, the Flagler property is separated from the Lagoon by Flagler Drive. There is no dispute that Flagler has standing to participate in this matter. The County is a political subdivision of the State and is the applicant in this proceeding. The Department is the state agency with the authority under Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes,2 to issue to the County an ERP for the project, as well as authority as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board of Trustees) to authorize activities on sovereign submerged lands pursuant to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 18-21. Background On October 29, 2007, the County submitted to the Department its Joint Application for an ERP and Letter of Consent to use sovereignty submerged lands in the Lagoon owned by the Board of Trustees. The application was assigned File No. 50- 0283929-00. After an extensive review process, including three requests for additional information, on August 12, 2008, the Department issued its Notice of Intent authorizing the County to fill 7.97 acres of submerged lands in the Lagoon with approximately 172,931 cubic yards of sand and rock material to create the following: (a) approximately 1.75 acres of red mangrove habitat including 1.52 acres of mangrove islands and 0.23 acres of red mangrove planters; (b) approximately 0.22 acres of cordgrass habitat; (c) approximately 0.90 acres of oyster habitat; (d) approximately 3.44 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation habitat; and (e) a 10-foot by 556-foot (5,560 square feet) public boardwalk with two 3-foot by 16-foot (48 square feet) educational kiosk areas and a 16-foot by 16-foot (256 square feet) observation deck for a total square footage of approximately 5,912 square feet. The Notice of Intent also included a number of general and specific conditions particular to this project. Trump (by timely Petition) and Flagler (by intervention) then challenged the Notice of Intent. They contend generally that the project unreasonably infringes upon or restricts their riparian rights and fails to meet the permitting and consent to use criteria set forth in Chapters 18-21 and 40E-4, as well as Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Section 253.141, Florida Statutes. Conflicting evidence on these issues was presented at the hearing. The conflicts have been resolved in favor of the County and the Department, who presented the more persuasive evidence. The Project The project area is a cove in the Lagoon, a Class III water body which extends within the County from North Palm Beach to Manalapan. The western side of the water body in the project area is lined with a vertical concrete seawall approximately 6.64 feet above the mean low water line. The waters immediately adjacent to the Trump and Flagler upland property are generally two to five feet deep along the seawall. To the east lies the island of Palm Beach, to the south is the Royal Park Bridge, which connects West Palm Beach and the Town of Palm Beach, while to the north is the Flagler Memorial drawbridge. The Lagoon is approximately 2,000 feet from shore to shore. The Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) runs roughly through the middle of the Lagoon in a north-south direction. Currently, there is an artificial dredge hole in the project area around four hundred feet from the western seawall. The dredge hole, which descends to approximately twenty feet at its deepest location, is filled with muck, which can be re- suspended by wave energy into the water, blocking the sunlight necessary for the support of biotic life. The muck covers the natural hard bottom, consumes oxygen, and presents an unsuitable environment for benthic organisms. The dredge hole is too deep to support seagrasses. The project calls for filling the dredge hole to intertidal elevations, i.e., between the high and low tide elevations, for mangroves and elevations suitable for seagrass. In all, approximately 173,000 cubic yards of fill will be placed in and around the hole to build up three separate islands within the project footprint, on which the County will plant 10,000 red mangroves, which naturally grow between fifteen and twenty-five feet in height. (The County estimates that eighty to ninety percent of the mangroves will survive and grow to a height of at least fifteen feet.) The top of the islands, not including mangroves, will be just below the mean high water mark. The County also proposes locating planters along the seawall and oyster reefs along the southern end of the project. The planters are designed to extend out approximately twenty feet from the seawall and will be placed on sovereign submerged lands. The last five feet will consist of limestone rock. Mangrove, spartina, and seagrass habitats will provide a biodiverse source of food and habitat for other species, and occurs naturally within the Lagoon but has been lost over time. Oyster habitat is proposed for additional bio-diversity and to provide a natural water filtration function. From the County's perspective, the restoration project would be incomplete without all the habitats proposed. The planters will be at an intertidal elevation, planted with red mangroves and spartina, and faced with rock to reduce wave energy in the area. The oyster reefs are rock structures designed to rise one foot above mean high water line for visibility to boaters. The project also includes a boardwalk and attached educational kiosks on the south side of the project to bring the public in contact with the habitats. The County will maintain the boardwalk, empty the trash daily, and open/close the gates at sunrise/sunset. The County proposes a minimum ten-foot buffer between seagrass beds and the fill area. The project is part of the County's Lagoon Management Plan, which outlines the County's restoration goals within the Lagoon. The County has performed numerous other restoration projects within the Lagoon to re-introduce mangrove and seagrass habitat, such as Snook Island, which consisted of filling a 100- acre dredge hole, installing mangrove islands, seagrass flats, and oyster reefs. The Snook Island project restored mangrove habitat and recruited fish and bird species, including endangered and threatened species. Snook Island has remained stable, with no sediment deposition or erosion. The County intends to fill the dredge hole with native lagoon bottom sediment. A clam-shell machine will deposit the sediment below the water line to reduce turbidity. Sediment will be placed around the edges of the dredge hole, reducing the velocity of the fill as it settles to the bottom and encapsulates the muck, as required by Draft Permit Special Condition No. 19. The County will use turbidity curtains, monitor conditions hourly, and stop work if turbidity levels rise beyond acceptable standards. These precautions are included in Draft Permit Conditions 12, 13, and 14. The County will use construction barges with a four- foot draft to avoid propeller dredge or rutting and will place buoys along the project boundary to guide the construction barges, precautions integrated into the Draft Permit conditions. The County's vendor contracts require maintenance of construction equipment to prevent leakage. A similar condition is found in the Draft Permit. Both the intertidal and seagrass flats elevations at the top of the islands will be built at a 4:1 slope; elevations subject to wind and wave energy will be reinforced with a rock revetment constructed of filter cloth and rock boulders. Seagrass elevations will have no reinforcing rock because they are deep enough to avoid significant currents. Proposed drawings were signed and sealed by a professional engineer. The ERP Criteria To secure regulatory approval for an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions in current Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E- 4.302. The first rule focuses primarily on water quantity, environmental impacts, and water quality. The latter rule requires that a public interest balancing test be made, and that cumulative impacts, if any, be considered. Also, the BOR, which implements the rule criteria, must be taken into account. a. Rule 40E-4.301 21. Paragraphs (1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c), (1)(g), (1)(h), and (1)(k) and subsections (2) and (3) of the rule do not apply. Although Trump and Flagler have focused primarily on paragraphs (1)(d), (f), and (i) in their joint Proposed Recommended Order, all remaining criteria will be addressed. Paragraph (1)(d) requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the proposed activity "will not adversely affect the value of the functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters." Based on the project design, the filling of the dredge hole and capping of muck, the restoration of seagrass habitat, and the creation of mangrove habitat, the project will have no adverse impacts but rather will be beneficial to the value of functions for fish and wildlife. Paragraph (1)(e) requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. The County will be required to manage turbidity that may be generated from the project. In part, the turbidity will be contained by the proposed construction method for filling the dredge hole. As noted earlier, the native sand will be deposited using a clamshell-type arm to dump the sand under the water around the periphery of the edge of the downward slope of the dredge hole. This will continue around the periphery of the hole, building up a lip and letting it slide down towards the bottom of the hole, squeezing the muck into the center of the hole and beginning to encapsulate it. Once there are several feet of native sand over the muck to encapsulate it, the County will resume the filling at the target rate. Subsection 4.2.4.1 of the BOR requires that the County address stabilizing newly created slopes of surfaces. To satisfy this requirement, the County will place the fill at a 4:1 slope. The outer edge of the mangrove islands slope back to a 4:1 slope and use rock rip-rap to stabilize that slope. Also, filter cloth, bedding stones, and boulders will be used. Because water currents slow near the bottom, the 4:1 slope for the seagrass elevations on the bottom will not de-stabilize. There will be turbidity curtains around the project area. Those are floating tops and weighted bottoms that reach to the bottom and are intended to contain any turbidity that may be generated by the project. Specific Conditions 12, 13, and 14 require extensive monitoring of turbidity. The County proposes to use a barge with a draft no greater than four feet. This aspect of the project will require a pre-construction meeting and extensive monitoring throughout the project. As a part of the application review, the County performed a hydrographic analysis which was coordinated with and reviewed by the Department staff. There are no expected debris or siltation concerns as a result of the project. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that over the long term, the project is expected to have a beneficial effect on water quality. By filling the dredge hole and providing habitat for seagrass, mangroves, and oysters, the project will provide net improvement to water quality. The requirements of the rule have been met. Paragraph (1)(f) requires that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that the activities will not "cause secondary impacts to the water resources." More detailed criteria for consideration are found in BOR Subsection 4.2.7. The County has provided reasonable assurance that through best management practices, it will control turbidity. Also, Specific Conditions in the proposed permit require that water quality monitoring be conducted throughout the process. There will be no impacts to upland habitat for aquatic or wetland dependent species. This is because a vertical seawall is located upland of the project site, and no surrounding uplands are available for nesting or denning by aquatic or wetland dependent listed species. A secondary impact evaluation also includes an evaluation of any related activities that might impact historical and archaeological resources. There are, however, no historical or archaeological resources in the area. If resources are uncovered during the project, Draft Permit conditions require notification to the Department of State. Finally, there are no anticipated future activities or future phases on the project to be considered. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i) requires that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that the project "will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed." Trump and Flagler contend that the project cannot be constructed and successfully operated as proposed. Trump's expert witness, Joseph Pike, testified that there were ambiguities and conflicts within the plan drawings that would require changes upon build-out; either fill will be placed outside of the fill area, or the mangrove islands will be smaller than depicted. Mr. Pike also voiced concerns that a 4:1 slope would not be stable and might cause fill to migrate to existing seagrass beds. He further stated that the Snook Island project included 18:1 slopes, and he thought providing rock revetment only at the intertidal zone was insufficient. Mr. Pike acknowledged that he had used 4:1 slopes in lake projects; however, in a tidal project involving fill placement, he opined that a 4:1 slope was likely to "relax." He did not do calculations about what slope might hold and admitted that prior experience using similar slopes with the same type of fill might change his opinion. Finally, Mr. Pike noted that a portion of the dredge hole would not be filled and concluded that the project would not fully cap the muck. Trump's biologist, James Goldasitch, speculated that the water flow changes would cause sediment deposition on existing seagrass beds, possibly causing the seagrasses to die. He admitted, however, that the County's plans called for the creation of 3.44 acres of seagrass and did not know the amount of habitat created compared to the amount of habitat he anticipated being affected. The Department's engineer, Jack Wu, approved the hydrologic aspects of the County's plan, but Mr. Goldasitch speculated that Mr. Wu was more focused on shoreline stability than on depositional forces. Mr. Goldasitch never actually spoke to Mr. Wu regarding his analysis, and Mr. Wu's memorandum refers not only to engineering and construction aspects of the proposal but also to the criteria in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. Mr. Goldasitch believed the County's boardwalk will impact the seagrass beds by blocking sunlight, but acknowledged that the Draft Permit required the boardwalk to be elevated and portions to be grated. Both the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the Department's expert witness concluded that the permit conditions for constructing the boardwalk, which are common, eliminated impacts to seagrass. Mr. Goldasitch further opined that the 4:1 slope might slump, but then deferred to the opinion of a registered engineer on this type of engineering matter. The County presented its professional engineer, Clint Thomas, who worked on the project design. Mr. Thomas explained that permit drawings are not intended to be construction-level in detail, but are merely intended to provide sufficient detail for the regulator to understand the project within the 8 and 1/2 by 11-inch paper format required by the Department. The County will ultimately prepare permit-level, construction-level, and as-built drawings. Permit conditions also require a pre-construction meeting. No fill will be placed outside the area designated for fill, and the 4:1 slope will start at the outer boundary of the designated fill area until it reaches the specified elevation. Mr. Thomas acknowledged that the plan view drawings depict a mangrove island too close to the western project boundary, but stated that the mangrove island would simply be placed farther to the east during the construction-level plan process. Islands will become smaller islands, but will not be relocated, and in no event will the fill area expand; the fill boundary is a very strict limit. There is no evidence that the County has ever violated a fill boundary established in a permit. The 4:1 slope was based on the type of fill proposed for the project and to maximize project features. Mr. Thomas has successfully used 4:1 slopes with non-compacted fill in the Lagoon, both at Snook Island in its as-built state and at other projects. The islands at Snook Island are similar to those proposed. Other areas in the Lagoon have held slopes steeper than 4:1 with the same type of fill. Therefore, Mr. Thomas opined the 4:1 slope would hold. In rendering this opinion, he explained that the currents in the project vicinity are only around 1.2 knots. Because currents slow near the bottom, the 4:1 slope for the seagrass elevations on the bottom will not de- stabilize. Mr. Thomas addressed the contention that a change in water flow velocity would cause sediment to deposit on existing seagrass. The oyster reefs are rubble structures that allow the water to flow through. If any sediment flows through, it will deposit on the north side of the oyster bar, rather than on the seagrass beds. Given these considerations, the evidence supports a finding that the project will function as proposed. Finally, paragraph (1)(j) requires that the County provide reasonable assurance that it has the financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit. The evidence supports a finding that the County has complied with this requirement. In summary, the evidence supports a finding that the County has given reasonable assurance that the project satisfies the criteria in Rule 40E-4.301. b. Rule 40E-4.302 In addition to the conditions of Rule 40E-4.301, the County must provide reasonable assurance that the construction of the proposed project will not be contrary to the public interest. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)1.-7. Rule 40E-4.302(1)(a)1. requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. Trump first contends that the project will increase the mosquito population. The evidence shows, however, that the mangroves will be placed below the mean high water mark and therefore no increase in mosquitoes should occur. Also, the design of the project, coupled with the local mosquito control program, should ensure that there will be no increase in mosquito population or a risk to the public health. Trump also raised the issue of an increase in trash along the boardwalk area or in the newly-created mangrove islands. The County presented evidence that there will be appropriate trash receptacles in the area as well as regular garbage collection. In terms of safety, navigation markers are included as a part of the project for safe boating by the public. The County consulted with the United States Coast Guard regarding navigation issues. Further, the project will not cause flooding on the property of others or cause an environmental impact on other property. Although a number of Trump residents expressed sincere and well-intended concerns about the project impacting the value of their condominiums (mainly due to a loss of view), BOR Subsection 4.2.3.1(d) provides that the "[Department] will not consider impacts to property values or taxes." Rule 40E-4.302(1)(a)2. requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Subparagraph 4. of the same rule requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational value or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity. The proposed activity is a restoration project for the creation of seagrass and mangrove habitats. As such, it is beneficial to the conservation of fish and wildlife and is expected to increase the biotic life in the project area. Besides providing additional habitat for fish and wildlife, the project will add to the marine productivity in the area. In terms of recreational opportunities, the project is expected to be a destination for boating, kayaking, fishing, and birdwatching. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has also recommended issuance of the permit with the standard manatee condition for in-water work. This recommendation has been incorporated as Specific Conditions 23 through 25 Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a)3. requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect navigation and the flow of water, or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The nearest navigation channel is the ICW. The project is located outside of that area. Subsection 4.2.3.3 of the BOR provides additional guidance on the evaluation of impacts of this nature. Paragraph (a) of that subsection provides that, in evaluating a proposed activity, the Department "will consider the current navigational uses of the surface waters and will not speculate on uses which may occur in the future." Trump residents indicated that in the project area persons are now picked up off the seawall and then travel to the ICW. Access to the seawall is possible from the east and south, although existing shoals currently limit the approach from the south. Large boats do not use the area because of shoals. In general, "[t]here's not a whole lot of boating activity in the project area." The parties agree that if the project is constructed as designed, boats will not be able to travel directly out from the seawall in front on Trump or Flagler to the ICW, as they now do. However, navigation in the area will still be available, although not as convenient as before. As to water flow, shoaling, and erosion, the more persuasive evidence supports a finding that the 4:1 slope will be stable and will not cause fill to migrate outside of the boundaries of the project into existing seagrass beds. The tidal flow will continue through the area after construction without sediment deposition into existing seagrass beds or destabilizing the 4:1 slope. There will be no shoaling or erosion. Finally, the project will be permanent and there are no significant historical and archaeological resources in the area. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)5. and 6. In summary, the evidence supports a finding that the County's proposal is neutral as to whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare, or the property of others; that the County's proposal is neutral with respect to navigation, erosion and shoaling, and water flow, as well as to historical and archaeological concerns; and that the County's proposal is positive with respect to the conservation of fish and wildlife, recreational values and marine productivity, permanency, and current values and functions. When these factors are weighed and balanced, the project is not contrary to the public interest and qualifies for an ERP. D. Proprietary Authorization Chapter 18-21 applies to requests for authorization to use sovereign submerged lands. The management policies, standards, and criteria used to determine whether to approve or deny a request are found in Rule 18-21.004. In making its review, the Department reviews the rule in its entirety; it also looks at the forms of authorization (e.g., letters of consent, leases, deeds, or easement) to determine the most appropriate form of authorization for an activity. Trump and Flagler have raised contentions regarding the proprietary authorization, including whether the application should have been treated as one of heightened public concern, whether the proper form of authorization has been used, and whether their riparian rights are unreasonably infringed upon by the project. Heightened Public Concern Rule 18-21.0051 provides for the delegation of review and decision-making authority to the Department for the use of sovereign submerged lands, with the following exception found in subsection (4) of the rule: (4) The delegations set forth in subsection (2) are not applicable to a specific application for a request to use sovereign submerged lands under Chapter 253 or 258, F.S., where one or more members of the Board, the Department, or the appropriate water management district determines that such application is reasonably expected to result in a heightened public concern, because of its potential effect on the environment, natural resources, or controversial nature or location. On March 13, 2008, the Department's West Palm Beach District Office sent a "heightened public concern [HPC]) memo" to the Department's review panel in Tallahassee,3 seeking guidance as to whether the project required review by the Board of Trustees under the above-cited rule. The Department emailed the County on March 14, 2008, stating that the project would be elevated to the Board of Trustees for review to approve the entire Lagoon Management Plan. The County asked for reconsideration, concerned over timing restraints on grant opportunities. This concern is based on the fact that the County will receive grant monies to assist in the construction of the project and must have regulatory approval by a date certain in order to secure those funds. A second HPC memorandum was sent to the review panel on April 22, 2008. Part of the interim decision to elevate the application to the Board of Trustees concerned the boardwalk connection to the City of West Palm Beach's existing seawall. The City of West Palm Beach is the upland owner of the seawall, sidewalk, and Flagler Drive. On June 9, 2008, the Mayor of West Palm Beach sent a letter to the Department stating that the City "fully supports" the proposed activity, and that the County and the City collaborated on the design of the project, held joint public meetings, and produced a project video. See Department Exhibit Trump and Flagler argue that under the City Charter, the Mayor cannot unilaterally bind the local government to allow structures to be built on City property. Assuming this is true, one of the remaining conditions for the County to initiate the project is to obtain a "letter of concurrence" from the City of West Palm Beach authorizing the County to connect the boardwalk to the seawall. Therefore, the review panel ultimately concluded that the application could be reviewed at the staff level and did not require Board of Trustees review. The evidence at hearing did not establish that the application was one of heightened public concern, given the limited size of the project, its location, and the net benefit to both environmental and natural resources. Compare Brown, et al. v. South Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., et al., DOAH Case No. 04-0476, 2004 Fla. ENV LEXIS 112 (DOAH Aug. 2, 2004, SFWMD Sept. 8, 2004). Therefore, review by the Board of Trustees was not required. Form of Authorization Trump and Flagler contend that an easement is required by the County, rather than a consent of use. The standard for obtaining an easement is more stringent than a consent of use, and an easement offers a greater interest in sovereign lands. Rule 18-21.005(1) provides the general policy direction for determining the appropriate form of authorization and reads in relevant part as follows: It is the intent of the Board that the form of authorization shall grant the least amount of interest in the sovereignty submerged lands necessary for the activity. For activities not specifically listed, the Board will consider the extent of interest needed and the nature of the proposed activity to determine which form of authorization is appropriate. This rule requires that the Department should apply the lowest and least restrictive form of authorization. Trump and Flagler argue that the County's project constitutes a spoil disposal site under Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)8., a public water management project other than public channels under Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)10., or a management activity which includes "permanent preemption by structures or exclusion of the general public," as described in Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)11. Each of these activities requires an easement rather than a letter of consent in order to use sovereign submerged lands. The evidence shows that the County's project is not a spoil disposal site. Also, it is not primarily a public water management project as there is no evidence that the project relates in any way to flood control, water storage or supply, or conservation of water. Likewise, there is no evidence indicating that the activities will prevent access by the public by exclusion. Even though many of the features (structures) of the project will be permanent, the project is intended to generally increase public access to water resources, as well as the islands, boardwalk, and kiosks. Besides raising the issue of heightened public concern, the second HPC Memorandum dated April 22, 2008, sought guidance as to whether the project required a consent of use or an easement. The review panel concluded that the project qualified for a consent of use, rather than an easement under Rule 18- 21.005(1)(f), because the County's project most closely fits the definition in Rule 18-21.005(1)(c)15. That rule provides that if the proposed activity involves "[h]abitat restoration, enhancement, or permitted mitigation activities without permanent preemption by structures or exclusion of the general public," an applicant may use sovereign submerged lands with a consent of use. Because the County's project increases public access not only to water resources in the Lagoon but also to the permanent structures being built, it more closely falls within the type of activity described in Rule 18-21.005(1)(c)15. Notably, all of the County's restoration projects in the Lagoon have been previously authorized through a consent of use. Finally, the review panel concluded that the project did not fall under Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)16., which requires an easement for environmental management activities that include "permanent preemption by structures or exclusion of the general public" because of the rule's focus on the exclusion of the general public. Riparian Rights The parties have stipulated, for the purpose of this proceeding, that Trump and Flagler have riparian rights, including view, ingress/egress, fishing, boating, swimming, and the qualified right to apply for a dock, that should be considered. Trump and Flagler contend that their right to wharf out (build a dock) from the seawall, ingress/egress from navigable water, and view will be unreasonably infringed upon if the application is approved. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18- 21.004(3)(a)("[n]one of the provisions of this rule shall be implemented in a manner that would unreasonably infringe upon the traditional, common law riparian rights, as defined in Section 253.141, F.S., of upland property owners adjacent to sovereignty submerged lands"). For the reasons given below, the greater weight of evidence establishes that none of these riparian rights will be unreasonably infringed upon. Currently, while access is possible from the east and the southern approaches, existing shoals limit the southern approach. The boardwalk will further limit boat traffic on the south end, and boats would not be able to cross over the islands. Boat traffic will still be able to access the cove from the north end, and the restoration project will create a boating destination. Trump witness Pike opined that the County's project would negatively affect navigation between the upland parcels and the ICW because the project would eliminate the eastern and southern approaches and leave only the northern approach, which could not be used by both parcels fully. The County's expert, Dr. Nicholas De Gennarro, testified that, during his site visits, he observed boat traffic waiting for the drawbridges using the east side of the ICW away from the project site. Dr. De Gennarro noted that several existing structures are closer to the ICW than the proposed County project, which lies 220 feet away from the ICW. Thus, Dr. De Gennarro concluded that the project would not impact navigation in the ICW. With respect to ingress/egress, Dr. De Gennarro acknowledged that access to the Trump and Flagler properties would not be available from the southern and eastern approaches, but concluded that the restriction represented nothing more than an inconvenience. He noted that the southern approach was already a less preferable approach due to existing shoals. At present, there is very little boating in the area outside of special events. While the project would limit the use of boats directly over the one and one-half acres of mangrove islands, the project will provide a boating destination. Further, both the City docks to the north of the site and the temporary docks in front of Flagler's property –- both used for special events –- will still be available under the County's proposal. There is no swimming and very little fishing in the area because of the degraded conditions caused by the dredge hole. Accordingly, while the project will fill a small portion of water currently available, but not used, for swimming, it will greatly enhance swimming by providing a destination for swimmers. The mangroves planned for the intertidal islands are likely to reach a height of fifteen feet and will be interspersed with spartina. The seawall is located six feet above the water line, making a person's view at eye level already several feet above the water. Trump and Flagler's buildings are built at even higher elevations. Therefore, the mangroves will not substantially obscure the view from either property, even at street level where the view is already partially obscured by existing landscaping. The Lagoon is approximately 2,000 feet across. From north to south around one hundred acres of water can now be viewed from the vicinity. Since the intertidal islands only comprise one and one-half acres, the overall impact to the view of the water body is very small. The mangroves in the planters extending out from the seawall will be trimmed to one foot above the seawall; the County requested the condition and committed at hearing to trimming the mangroves if the City of West Palm Beach does not. County photographs show Trump and Flagler's present view of the water body and demonstrate the comparatively small percentage of the view affected by the one and one-half acres of mangrove islands. See County Exhibits 133a-e and 134a-d. The photographs also demonstrated that sizeable palm trees are already part of the existing view. Additionally, the County photographs depicted the small impact that trimmed mangrove planters would have on the view. The area obstructed by the mangrove islands and seagrass is negligible compared to the expanse of the existing view. Trump and Flagler offered no evidence to contradict the County's analysis regarding the scope of the impact on the view. Trump residents Dale McNulty, Dean Goodman, and Charles Lemoine testified that they personally would not want to view mangrove islands regardless of tree size or the size of the islands. Understandably, after years of unfettered view and an open expanse of water, they are opposed to any type of project in this area of the Lagoon. However, Mr. Goodman acknowledged that he would still be able to see the Town of Palm Beach from his unit. The evidence supports a finding that while the project will undoubtedly alter the view of the water from both Trump and Flagler's property, the impact on view is not so significant as to constitute an unreasonable infringement of their riparian rights. Mr. Lemoine stated that he had a forty-foot trawler that he would like to dock in front of his property. He currently docks the boat at a marina twenty miles north of the Trump property. He prefers to bring his boat in stern first and enter slips oriented north to south. He indicated that he can drive his boat in five feet of water, but prefers six feet; however, he also testified that he has brought his boat directly up to the bulkhead in front of Trump, which is approximately a two- or three-foot depth. The witness has seen sailboats and other boats moored near the bulkhead over extended timeframes. Mr. Lemoine speculated that Trump might seek a dock, either alone or in conjunction with Flagler, but admitted that Trump has never applied for a dock permit. He stated that Trump has had discussions about the possibility of a dock over the last fifteen years and speculated that a dock plan might include anything from the purchase/lease of the City docks to a lease of Trump's riparian interests to a third party. By contrast, Trump resident and former Board member Dean Goodman indicated "the idea was to provide an amenity [for] a number of people that are in the building that are boaters." Mr. Goodman stated that he hoped to be able to have a boat in front of the building someday, but did not own a boat in Florida. Association president Dale McNulty explained that, while informal discussions have occurred regarding the possibility of a dock, no official action had been taken. Mr. McNulty characterized the dock plans as being "sort of in the land of wishful thinking." Mr. Pike, while acknowledging that both parcels would still be able to design a dock for their property, opined that the County's project unreasonably limited the size and configuration of the docks possible. Mr. Pike initially admitted that a safe navigation depth for a forty-foot boat, or even a sailboat, was four feet below mean low water (MLW), but stated that he would prefer to design a dock with an additional two-to- three feet of water below the four-foot draft to avoid propeller damage. However, Mr. Pike conceded that he has designed docks for boats in four feet below MLW and ultimately based his own calculations on an assumption of a four-foot draft and one-foot cushion, or five feet below MLW. Mr. Pike also opined that a north-south alignment for boat slips was a preferred slip orientation. Given the bathymetry in the area and the documented seagrasses, Mr. Pike estimated that twenty slips could be designed for the Flagler property, rather than the thirty-four slips provided for by the County Manatee Protection Plan. He thought that a design might accommodate thirty to thirty-two slips for Trump, rather than the forty-slips provided for by the County Manatee Protection Plan. Based on the limitation on number of slips and configurations, the witness opined that the County's project would unreasonably interfere with Trump and Flagler's ability to design a dock. He admitted, though, that the numbers derived from the County Manatee Protection Plan represent a maximum number, rather than a specified or guaranteed number. He further admitted that other agency limitations may further restrict Trump and Flagler's right to dockage. Without a permit application or plan from Trump or Flagler, County witness Robbins concluded that the most reasonable assumption was an owner-oriented facility designed for the building owners/tenants. The County introduced a graphic illustrating areas available for dock construction, with sufficient depth for 35- to 40-foot boats (-6 feet NGVD) and with no seagrasses present. Rule 18-21.004(4)(b)2. limits ownership-oriented facilities generally to forty square feet for each foot of riparian shoreline, giving Trump the ability to apply for a dock that preempted a maximum of 16,000 square feet, and Flagler a maximum of 14,000 square feet. Under the County Manatee Protection Plan, Trump would be limited to forty slips; Flagler would have the potential for thirty-four slips. Mr. Robbins testified that, in his experience, a minus five MLW is a common depth for docks, but that elevations as shallow as a minus four MLW could be used depending on the type of boats and the dock configuration. Mr. Robbins explained that, even with the County's project in place and factoring in the other limitations, Trump would still have 61,842 square feet of potential space within which to design a dock. Flagler would still have 41,481 square feet of potential space, even considering the need to retain a path for ingress and egress from the Trump parcel. A more detailed analysis of the seagrasses might make more square footage available for dock construction. Dr. De Gennarro also evaluated whether a dock could be designed to serve Trump and Flagler's parcels. The vessel owner statistics for the County indicate that at least ninety-five percent of the boats registered in the County are thirty-nine feet or less; consequently, Dr. De Gennarro focused on boats forty feet or less. Dr. De Gennarro considered the water depths and the existence of subaquatic vegetations and concluded that the graphic presented by Mr. Robbins was conservative, but still provided adequate space for both Trump and Flagler to construct appropriate dockage, allowing thirty-eight boats for Trump and thirty-two for Flagler of varying size. However, Dr. De Gennarro concluded that a dock design of forty slips for each would also be possible, depending on the size of the boats. Dr. De Gennarro proposed that a single, double-loaded parallel dock design would be a good layout for a potential docking facility in front of both Trump and Flagler's property that would be protected by the County's proposed islands, provide sufficient water depths, and provide an attractive facility. He specified, however, that the single, double-loaded parallel dock design was simply one of "many" that might work in the given space. Dr. De Gennarro explained that the existing dredge hole would not be a preferable location for either a mooring field or a dock because the deep muck-bottom would drive up the costs for either type of facility. Accordingly, Dr. De Gennarro concluded that the County's project would not foreclose or even substantially restrict the ability to locate a dock in front of Trump and Flagler’s property. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that neither the right of ingress/egress nor the right to boat in the vicinity is unreasonably infringed upon by the County's project. Trump and Flagler will continue to have reasonable access to navigation. The northerly approach preserved by the County's project will allow for boat traffic to safely navigate in the area. While the southerly and easterly approaches are eliminated by the County's plan, the evidence indicates that the two approaches were less preferable than the northerly approach because of the presence of shoals. Based on the above considerations, the County's project will not unreasonably infringe upon Trump or Flagler's qualified right to a dock. The fact that the project might preclude the design and permitting of a dock that would host very large vessels does not mean that Trump and Flagler's rights regarding docking have been unreasonably infringed. The evidence shows that substantial docking facilities of multiple configurations are still possible even if the County's project is approved. In summary, the County's application for proprietary authorization should be approved. Other Contentions All other contentions raised by Trump and Flagler have been considered and are found to be without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order approving the County's application for a consolidated ERP and consent to use sovereignty submerged lands. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 2009.
Findings Of Fact In June 1984, Clark Vargas applied for a permit with the Department of Environmental Regulation for activities in the waters of the state. The application stated that the proposed activity was to construct a soil road 700 feet long and constructed of 2,000 cubic yards of fill to be deposited landward of the mean high water line. The roadway proposed was to have Geotextile Fabric placed over it, and would have fifteen inch culverts for cross flow. The purpose of the road was to allow 8 property owners to have automobile access to their lots. Attached to the application was a copy of a larger engineering drawing of the project, reduced to letter size paper. The larger drawing C in evidence as Responder's Exhibit 1, and the original application is in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 2. The drawing depicts the construction that is proposed, and in the notes states that the mean high water line is 1.1 feet above mean sea level. The drawing (Respondent's Exhibit 2) shows a number of elevation readings along the road. The elevation readings on the land upon which approximately one half of the road is to be located, the southerly portion closest to Julington Creek, and adjacent to lots 19 through 26, are all below the elevation of mean high water. The data as to the mean high water elevation for the note on the drawing was obtained by Mr. Vargas from the Corps of Engineers. The elevations on the road were the elevations measured by a survey caused to be conducted by Mr. Vargas starting from a U.S.G.S. benchmark three quarters of a mile away. The survey was conducted by a registered land surveyor. Mr. Vargas stated that the survey was not meant to be a survey to establish mean high water, and that it was intended to determine a price and plan for construction. In Mr. Vargas's professional opinion, the survey was not adequate to establish the mean high water line. Timothy J. Deuerling, an Environmental Supervisor I for the Northeast District, visited the site of the project in the summer of 1984. He saw water throughout the area. He developed the initial opinion that the project was landward of the mean high water line. When he returned to the office, he looked at the small attached drawing and decided that the project appeared to be mostly landward of the mean high water line. The elevations are very unclear on the reduced size version attached to the application. Mr. Deuerling's statement as to the mean high water line is contained in Respondent's Exhibit 4. It is the finding of the Hearing Officer that the drawing was so small and the elevations so unclear that Mr. Deuerling's opinion as to the mean high water line in Exhibit 4 is not reliable, and is rejected. Jeremy G. Tyler, Environmental Supervisor of the Dredge and Fill Section, North East District, said that the conclusions contained in the Intent to Deny and Final Order of Denial, Respondent's Exhibits 7 and 6, that one-third of the fill was to be placed waterward of the mean high water line, was based upon the data provided to DER by Mr. Vargas, Respondent's Exhibit 2. Mr. Tyler said that it is very hard to determine mean high water line by site inspection, and that he credited the survey as better evidence. It is she finding of the Hearing Officer that the location of the mean high water line has not been established by the evidence. This finding is not based upon the testimony of Mr. Vargas, however. Mr. Vargas did not present any evidence that the standard for mean high water, which was obtained from the Corps of Engineers, was inaccurate, and he did not present any evidence that the survey elevations on the drawing were inaccurate. There is good reason to believe that the proposed road in this case may be, at least with respect to the one half from lots 19 through 26, waterward of the mean high water line. The evidence shows there is an elevated ridge along the edge of the canal, that this ridge was caused by deposit of dredged material when the canal was dredged in the 1950's or 1960's, and that the ridge has eroded in places, and the water from the canal and Julington Creek floods much of the area from time to time through low places in the ridge. The engineering drawing, however, runs a series of elevation readings across only two places on the ridge, and in both cases there is at least one reading above mean high water level. Further, the only reading at a spot directly on the open water is at the southerly end of the proposed road, and it also is above mean high water. It is possible, therefore, that although portions of the road are below mean high water elevation, these portions may be completely surrounded by higher ground. It is also possible that the several low spots on the canal ridge bring the mean high water line to the road itself. On this record, it is not possible to conclude where the mean high water line is. The site of the proposed road and surrounding lots are located in a hardwood swamp associated with Julington Creek in Duval County. The land upon which the road would be built is heavily wooded. Julington Creek is Class III waters of the state. The land upon which the road is to be built is the landward extent of the waters of the state. All of the Petitioners stipulated at the hearing that the Department of Environmental Regulation has jurisdiction to require a permit for fill pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The proposed project would result in the placement of silica fill upon a strip of wetlands described above measuring 25' by 702.5', which is 17,562.5 square feet, plus four driveway pads to lots measuring 25' by 30', for an additional 3900 square feet, for a total of 20,562.5 square feet, which is 0.47 of an acre. (An acre is 43,560 square feet.) The sand of the roadway and driveway pads will not pollute the waters of the state. The sand of the road will not increase biological oxygen demand or nutrients. During construction, turbidity could be increased if high waters are experienced and the area is not properly stabilized, but turbidity could be monitored and controlled. The materials of the roadway further will not depress the oxygen levels in Julington Creek. The project originally proposed that seed and fertilizer be used to stabilize the banks of the road, and fertilizer would contribute to nutrients in the waters of the state, but Petitioners at the hearing gave reasonable assurances that seeding could be accomplished without fertilizer by using burlap and seed. The roadway itself will also not generate unlawful bacteria that could make its way to the waters of the state. The road will disturb the biological integrity of the organisms living in the soil beneath the roadway and driveway pads. The proposed project will permanently destroy 0.47 of an acre of the wetlands associated with Julington Creek. These and adjacent wetlands function as a natural kidney, cleansing the water of pollutants, in a continuous cycle. Wetlands contain soil and living organisms that, in balance, filter out pollutants, assimilate nutrients, and provide habitat for organisms. The silica road proposed by Petitioners will not perform these functions. Petitioners presented no evidence to rebut these findings, except to argue that the loss of wetland was insignificant and to argue that wetlands, at times, will also cause pollution. Petitioners gave no other reasonable assurances that the long-term effects of the road would not degrade water quality. The exchange of water, which results in the natural filtration and cleansing described above, occurs from waters coming from the uplands, from the wetlands, and from open waters such as Julington Creek. Julington Creek is tidal, and the testimony indicated that with significant regularity the wetlands associated with this proposed road were inundated with water. In a natural state, wetlands will experience dry conditions. During such periods, which are natural and cyclical, water will drain from the swamp and there can be a natural depression of oxygen levels in the open waters, increasing suspended solids. While these facts are true, Petitioners did not present evidence to show with particularity whether this had occurred or to what extent this had occurred with respect to the wetland area where the road is to be located, and did not show with particularity how removal of these wetlands by constructing this road would prevent natural degradation of the water in the future. Moreover, whether or not the natural filtration system of a wetland becomes less efficient due to natural cycles is not relevant in this case. Petitioners here do not propose to replace nature's cyclical inefficiencies with a better, manmade system, but propose, rather, to remove a significant portion of the only filter now operating, without replacement. The entire Julington Creek drainage basis is 30 or 40 square miles. The relevance of this figure was not established, since from the map which is Respondent's Exhibit 9 it is clear that the drainage basis of Julington Creek, with its associated wetlands, serves to filter pollutants from an equally large, if not larger, upland area. Petitioners argue that removal of 0.47 acre is insignificant if the entire area is 30 to 40 square miles, but from Respondent's Exhibit 9 it is evident that much of that other part of the wetland is not available to function as a filter for the waters currently filtered by the wetlands in the vicinity of the pro- posed roadway. The proposed road is near the conjunction of Julington and Durbin Creeks, and near the place where the open waters enlarge. The wetlands of the proposed road would be expected to serve the filtration function for those open waters and the uplands immediately above the wetlands, and not some other part of the 30 or 40 square miles. The land at the headwaters of Julington Creek is now being developed for multifamily housing and industrial uses, and the whole watershed of the Creek is being developed. The waters of Julington Creek have already been stressed in a general way by this development. Petitioners Vargas, Mrs. M. E McCullough, Dr. Robert L. Barksdale, and Mr. Steve Scecere, all testified at the hearing, and own, respectively, lots 22, 21, 19, and 24. All testified that they intend to build houses on their lots, but have not yet applied for permits. Since 1977, the Department of Environmental Regulation has consistently taken the position that deposit of fill on the wetlands which are the landward extent of Julington Creek will degrade the quality of the waters of the state, and have consistently acted to prohibit such fill. See Respondent's Exhibits 8, 10, and 11. The Department further has consistently told prospective buyers of this position with regard to these wetlands. Of particular relevance to this application, in 1977 the Respondent denied a fill permit to place 2,500 cubic yards of fill on lot 20 as depicted on Respondent's Exhibit 1. This lot is now owned by Debra H. Prevatt, and is contiguous to lot 19 owned by Petitioner, Dr. Robert L. Barksdale. The fill proposed in 1977 would have eliminated 20,000 square feet of wetlands, approximately the same as the proposed project in this case. Petitioner proposes the finding that the Corps of Engineers stands ready to issue their permit pending resolution of their application by the Department of Environmental Regulation. This finding is based solely upon the testimony of Mr. Vargas as to the intentions of unnamed officials in the Corps of Engineers, and as such, is hearsay. Therefore, absent direct evidence on the point, the proposed finding is rejected. Petitioners propose a finding that the permitting process progressed "without negative feedback" until objections were raised by adjacent property owners. This finding was not supported by any evidence other than the opinion of Mr. Vargas, and will be rejected as unsupported and possibly hearsay. It is also rejected as irrelevant since there was no evidence that the Respondent denied the permit for reasons other than those provided by statute and regulation. The Petitioners have paid taxes on their property, are of the opinion that they cannot build on their land if the permit is denied, and would be willing to sell their land to the state for a reasonable amount if the permit is denied. Respondent has not placed a monetary value on the wetlands which Petitioners propose to fill. If Petitioners proposed to build the road on pilings, elevated above the wetlands so that most of the wetlands would continue to function, the application would be approved.
Recommendation It is therefore recommended that the application for a dredge and fill permit to construct the road and driveway pads as proposed by Petitioners be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Clark Vargas, P.E. President C. Vargas & Associates 8596 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida 32211 M. E McCullough 9139 Warwickshire Jacksonville, Florida 32217 Steve Scecere 9058 Kentism Court Jacksonville, Florida 32217 Dr. Robert L. Barksdale 2423 Acadie Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Ross Burnaman, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinke, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for consideration at the hearing was whether the Respondent, Roger Harloff, should be issued a consumptive use permit to withdraw and use ground water from the wells on his property, and if so, in what amount and under what conditions.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Roger Harloff, owns several farms in southeastern Manatee County, Florida which, taken together, make up an irregular 8,500 acre tract located approximately 2 1/2 miles north of the City of Sarasota's Verna Wellfield. Mr. Harloff grows vegetables on much of this tract, of which approximately 1,500 acres is devoted to tomatoes. This tomato crop is the prime crop produced by Mr. Harloff, and provides the raw material for the Harloff packing plant which is dependent upon the tomato crop in order to stay in business. Mr. Harloff also operates a plant nursery at which he produces many if not most of the seedling plants utilized in his vegetable growing operations. In order to be economically feasible and remain operative, Mr. Harloff must farm approximately 3,800 acres during the Spring growing season and approximately 3,000 acres during the Fall. These acres are made up of tomatoes and other vegetables. The packing plant and the plant nursery are dependent upon the farm operation and without adequate water, the farm operation cannot be successfully carried on. In September 1988, Mr. Harloff applied to the District for a consumptive use permit to withdraw water from twelve wells located on his property, requesting an annual average rate of 12,995,606 gpd, and a maximum daily rate of 47,520,000 gpd. The consumptive use permit application filed by Mr. Harloff was assigned District Number 204467.04. After evaluation of the application in conjunction with its needs and policies, the District issued a staff report and proposed agency action on the application which recommended issuance of the permit authorizing water to be drawn from the 12 wells at a rate approximating that requested in the application. Thereafter, the City of Sarasota, which operates the nearby Verna Wellfield, considering that the proposed withdrawal would have a substantial adverse impact on its wellfield operations, filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing objecting to the issuance of the permit to Mr. Harloff. Though Mr. Harloff has owned much of the property which make up the 8,500 acre tract in question here, at the time of his application, he did not own, but had under contract, a substantial portion. He closed on the purchase of that remainder after he received notice of the District's intention to issue the permit in question but prior to the City's filing its Petition For Formal Hearing. The purchase price of the property in question was $9,000,000.00 which carries an interest payment on the financed portion of $52,000.00 per month. The wells pertinent to the issues in this proceeding are as follows: # Cons. Depth Cas. Lin. Diam. Cap. Loc. 1 1978 1185' 200' 220-490' 12" 2000 gpm SE 2. 1988 1320' 210' 210-480' 16" 3000 gpm SE 9. 1974 1130' 390' 16" 3000 gpm C 10. 1976 1232' 231' 283-400' 16" 3000 gpm NW 11. 1979 1120' 210' 260-480' 12" 2000 gpm NW 12. 1976 1180' 480' 12" 2000 gpm SW 3. 1989 1434' 460' 16" 3000 gpm SE 5. 1989 1374' 610' 16" 3000 gpm W 8. 1989 1292' 548' 16" 3000 gpm NW 13. 1989 1310' 635' 16" 2000 gpm NE Well No. 8 was used as the pump test well for the constant rate discharge test and Well No. 13 was the deep observation well for that test. Wells 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, and 12 have all been previously permitted by the District and No's 1, 2, 9 and 10 are currently permitted under two other permits, while 11 and 12 were permitted under a different permit. Wells No. 3, 5, 8 and 13 have been authorized for construction but not, as yet, to produce water. Wells 4, 6 and 7 have not yet been constructed. The intention is to drill them to a depth of 1,300 feet and case them to 600 feet. Each will have a pump capacity of 3,000 gpm. Number 4 will be in the southeast portion of the tract, number 6 in the central portion, and number 7 will be located just north of number 6. Wells 1, 2, 9, and 10 currently have a combined permitted maximum daily rate of 13,680,000 gallons under permits number 204467.03 for 1 and 2, and 204630 for 9 and 10. The former was issued on December 29, 1987 and will expire on December 29, 1993, and the latter, issued on October 7, 1981, will expire on that same day in 1991. The permit previously issued for wells 11 and 12 authorized withdrawal at a maximum daily rate of 2,160,000 gallons. That permit, number 204374, expired on September 9, 1986 and was not renewed. After the City filed its Petition challenging Mr. Harloff's proposed permit, Mr. Harloff, on June 26, 1989, filed an amended application to withdraw water at an average annual rate of 10.99 mgd and a maximum daily rate of 48.96 million gallons. This amended application refers to an additional proposed well, Number 13. The District, however, had previously approved wells 3 - 8 and 13, and pursuant to this authorization, wells 3, 5, 8, and 13 were built. Mr. Harloff submitted additional amendments to his application on August 7 and 9, 1989. The former requests a seasonal average daily rate of 25.34 mgd and a seasonal maximum daily rate of 32.79 mgd. The latter requests a seasonal average rate of 26.18 mgd, an annual average rate of 15.18 mgd, and a seasonal maximum rate of 31.56 mgd. In that regard, a seasonal rate is the same as an annual rate, (average or maximum) when applied to a growing season as opposed to a year. The additional amendments to the application were evaluated by District staff who, on August 18, 1989, issued a revised staff report and a proposal to issue to Mr. Harloff a consumptive use permit authorizing an average annual withdrawal of 11.1. mgd, an average seasonal withdrawal of 15.6 mgd, and a seasonal maximum withdrawal of 20.1 mgd. The proposed permit also contains terms and conditions which, the District contends, will, inter alia, permit Mr. Harloff to withdraw more water than he is currently authorized without additional adverse impact on the City's Verna Wellfield. It is to some of these terms and conditions that Mr. Harloff objects. Since the issuance of the revised staff report and intent to issue, the parties have negotiated on the various terms and conditions in question and have agreed to some and the amendment of others. Mr. Harloff has no objection to conditions number 1, 2, 3, 7 - 14, 23, 24, 26, 28 - 30, 32, and 34 & 35. The parties agree that other conditions, as indicated herein, should be amended as follows: Condition 19, on the third line, should be changed to read, " up to 20 inches tapering to 12 inches." Condition 22, on the second line, should be changed from "30 days" to "10 days". Condition 25, on the first line, should be changed from "within 60 days" to within 120 days". Condition 31, on the third line, starting with "following month" should be changed to "following months: January, April, July and October". Also, under Sampling Frequency, "Monthly" should be changed to "Quarterly". Condition 33, on the ninth line, insert the work "economically" before the word "feasible" in the phrase "specific operation and irrigation improvements are feasible". Mr. Harloff objects to conditions 4, 5, 15 - 17, 20 & 27. He does not object to the proposed new standards for new wells. Taken together, the parties then disagree only on the requirement for abandonment or refurbishment of existing wells and the quantities of water Mr. Harloff will be allowed to draw. The City supports the District's position on both issues. The City of Sarasota owns and operates a public water system to serve between 50 to 75 thousand people located in Sarasota County. The primary source of water for this system is the Verna Well field which is also owned by the City and which accounts for approximately 60 percent of the City's water needs. The City also operates a reverse osmosis, (R.O.) water desalinization facility, and has back-up wells at St. Armond Key and at the Bobby Jones Wellfield. The Verna Wellfield is located about 17 miles east of the Sarasota city limits on approximately 2,000 acres of land in northeastern Sarasota County. It consists of two tracts of land: Part "A", which is approximately 1/2 mile wide by 4 miles long; and Part "B", which is approximately 1 mile square located about 500 feet southeast of Part "A". The Verna Wellfield's permitted allocation is based on whether the R.O. facility is producing at capacity. If it is, the Verna daily allocation is 7 mgd, and if not, 9.5 mgd. The R.O. facility's capacity is 4.5 mgd and the backup wells have a capacity of 1.7 mgd. The wellfield contains 39 permitted production wells, 30 of which are in Part "A" and 9 of which are in Part "B." One of them, well 30, is currently inactive. The wellfield has been in operation as a part of the City's public water system since September 1966. When the Verna Wellfield was constructed in 1965-1966, its original design specified casing on most wells down to 140 feet with pump bowl settings at 125 feet. Each pump was to have a total dynamic head, (TDH) of 200 feet. Over the years, the City has decreased the TDH of the pumps at Verna from 200 feet to 175 feet. This has resulted in a reduction of the pumps' ability to produce water with sufficient pressure to carry it to the discharge point. This decline has been caused by an increase in withdrawal of water regionally, and not solely because of withdrawals from the Verna Well field. Verna is impacted by the use of water outside the boundaries of the wellfield. The City has an ongoing program calling for the refurbishment of 2 to 3 wells per year at the Verna Wellfield. It is the City's intent to convert the pumps to 200 feet TDH on all well refurbishments in the future. In August 1977, a program requiring permits for the consumptive use of water was implemented in both Sarasota and Manatee Counties. At that time, the Verna Wellfield had a production rate of 6.9 mgd annual average daily rate. On January 6, 1978, the City applied for a permit for Verna and on April 3, 1979, the District issued permit number 27804318 to allow the City to draw water from the Verna Wellfield. The City applied for a renewal of that permit in October 1983 and thereafter, in January 1985, the District authorized the continued withdrawal of water from Verna by the issuance of permit 204318 which, at Condition 18, placed limitations on the City's use of water from the wellfield. Specifically, the permit limited withdrawals from Verna to: ...6,000,000 gallons per day average and 7,000,000 gallons per day maximum, except during those times when ... [the R.O. process is reduced or to facilitate maintenance or repairs]. At such times, ... [withdrawals) may be increased to provide additional supplies not to exceed 8,000,000 gallons per day average annual and 9,500,000 gallons per day maximum. This condition clearly provides for additional supplies to be drawn to increase the Verna Well field production to a total of 8,000,000 and 9,500,000 mgd, respectively, not in addition to the regular permitted amount, by those quantities. The City's permit has been neither suspended nor revoked nor is any violation enforcement action currently under way. The current permit expires January 9, 1991. The water pumped from the Verna wells is held in a 1,000,000 gallon reservoir at the wellfield. This reservoir, which is topped at approximately 22 to 23 feet, electronically controls the pumping activity at the well field by turning on and shutting off pumps, in series, as the water level in the reservoir rises and falls. The water, when needed, is transmitted to another reservoir near the City's treatment plant in downtown Sarasota by gravity flow through a 30" diameter, 92,000 foot long pipe. The flow rate is approximately 5,000 gpm normally. When the treatment plant needs more water, a pump at the well field forces the flow at a rate of between 7,200 to 8,200 gpm, depending upon the level of water in the receiving reservoir. A flow of 8,200 gpm would draw 11.8 mgd from the wellfield. The operating capacity of the Verna Wellfield, in August 1988, was 17.9 mgd. Harloff's experts assert, and there is no concrete evidence to rebut it, that if all wells at Verna were pumping during a 24 hour period in May 1989, the reservoir could have been maintained at full level. However, though there is a manual override of the automatic reservoir/pump control system, it is unrealistic and unwise to expect full production on a 24 hour basis for any lengthy time period. Water under both Mr. Harloff's property and the Verna Well field is found at various levels known by different names. These include, in order of descent, the Surficial Aquifer, the Intermediate Aquifer, the Upper Floridan Aquifer, and the Lower Floridan Aquifer. The Surficial Aquifer extends from the surface down to between 20 and 60 feet below the surface. A 20 foot thick bed of clay separates the water in this aquifer from that in the aquifer immediately below it, the Intermediate Aquifer, which extends from approximately 80 feet down to approximately 420 feet below the surface. In the lower part of the Intermediate Aquifer, permeability decreases until a confining unit separating the bottom of the Intermediate Aquifer from the top of the Upper Floridan Aquifer is formed. There is such a confining unit between 420 and 500 feet. There is no well-defined confining unit between the Upper and Lower Floridan Aquifers. There is, however, a substantial difference in the transmissivity in each zone. "Transmissivity" is defined as the amount of water that will exist through a section of the aquifer that is the same width from the top to the bottom. The lower the transmissivity rate, the deeper the cone and the narrower the radius of effect. The higher the rate, the shallower the cone and the broader the radius. The Lower Floridan Aquifer has an extremely high transmissivity. Its top is found at a range of from 1,050 to 1,200 feet below the surface on Mr. Harloff's property. The water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer is of higher quality than that in the Lower. It is more readily usable for drinking than that in the Lower, but the Lower water is quite acceptable for agricultural purposes. What confining layer exists between the Upper and Lower Floridan Aquifers is made up of relatively impermeable anhydrides and gypsum. Because of this, there is little likelihood of the highly mineralized water from the Lower Floridan Aquifer rising into the better quality water in the Upper. If, therefore, water for agricultural purposes is drawn from the Lower Floridan Aquifer, with its high transmissivity and narrower cone radius, and if the wells utilized to procure this water are cased down to within the Lower aquifer, there is little chance of a negative impact on the better quality water, used for drinking by the City, within the Upper Floridan and Intermediate Aquifers. Mr. Hardin, an expert geologist and hydrogeologist testifying for Mr. Harloff, concluded, utilizing certain commonly accepted computer models, that Mr. Harloff's requested additional withdrawals would not have a significant effect on the Verna Wellfield's ability to produce water sufficient for the City's needs. This conclusion was based on 1989 seasonal use figures including an average rate of 21.95 mgd, a maximum rate of 27.04 mgd, and a maximum rate of 29 mgd under a "run time" calculation and the fact that during that period, the City was able to pump at least its permitted quantity from its wells at Verna. The City and the District do not accept this conclusion as reasonable, however, because, they claim, the withdrawal figures cited are not meter readouts but estimates based on the number of acres farmed and the number of pump operating hours during the period in question. The City's experts contend the data used by Hardin and Prochaska in their opinions is not that which other experts in the field would reasonably rely upon. They do not appear to be unrealistic, however, and, therefore, Mr. Hardin's opinion is accepted as but one factor to be considered. On the other hand, Mr. Anderson, also a Harloff expert hydrogeologist, claims the requested withdrawals would result in only an additional 1.7 foot drawdown in the Upper Floridan Aquifer underlying the Northeast corner of the Verna Well field. To be sure, this is only one small portion of the wellfield in issue. There has, however, been a continuing history of declining groundwater levels in this area over the past several years. After the 1975 drought, the City started to experience declining water levels at Verna which, because of the reduction in ability to produce water, required a lowering of the pump elements in some wells, and also caused the City to develop an R.O. facility in an effort to reduce dependence on well water. This drop in capability occurred again during the 1985 drought and this time the City modified the pump motors to shut off prior to cavitation and initiated a schedule of operating times for wells, so that water is drawn from different and geographically separated areas in a sequence designed to allow periodic regeneration of an area's supply. Nevertheless, water supply remains a concern at Verna, and the problems previously experienced continue to occur during periods of drought. In May 1989, the Verna Wellfield was periodically "unable" to meet it's short term peak demands at times even though all operating wells were pumping. This means that at the times in question, more water was being drawn from the Verna reservoir than could be replaced by pumping activities. It does not mean that the reservoir ran dry and water could not be furnished to the treatment plant. However, this condition is serious and indicative of a more serious shortage in the future unless appropriate safeguards are instituted. Mr. Balleau, the City's expert in hydrology and hydrogeology, and the District's experts all believe the Verna Wellfield is in trouble. It is operating well beyond its design range and the imposition of additional demands on it would seriously and adversely affect its ability to produce water. This position is supported by the facts and found to be accurate. There appear to be several options open to the City to contend with the Verna problem potential. These include: drill deeper wells at Verna to tap the Lower Floridan Aquifer. (This will produce the lower quality water found there and require additional treatment facilities. construct a linear wellfield along the pipeline from Verna to the treatment facility. (This will require additional permitting to draw the water, high construction and operating costs, and still result in low quality water requiring treatment. redevelop the downtown wells currently supplying the R.O. facility. (This will require satisfaction of regulatory issues, adversely impact on the users of the upper aquifers, possibly result in poor water quality and in contamination from nearby landfills.) develop a new well field southeast of Verna. (This will experience regulatory issues and high construction costs, with an unknown water quality result.) buy water from Manatee County. (This is expensive, may result in transmission and compatibility problems, and would be only a short term solution. lower pump assemblies; replace existing pumps and modify the pump circuits. (These are all unreliable, short term solutions of minimal benefit.) Mr. Harloff and the City/District disagree on the appropriate amount of water needed for the successful growing of the crops produced by his operations. Both agree, however, that the heaviest demands for water come in the spring growing season including April and May. Tomatoes require the most water. Peppers require nearly as much. This is because the short root systems require a higher water table in the soil to supply needed moisture. In its analysis of Mr. Harloff's application, the District, referring to tables developed for the purpose of allocation and relating to Harloff's watering history during the period from August 15, 1988 to June 7, 1989, subtracted the fall season recorded application of 20.7 acre-inches from the total 10 month figure of 50.92 acre-inches and concluded he would need 30.22 acre-inches for peppers during the spring, 1989 season. Unless shown to be totally unreasonable, however, (not the case here), the applicant's water need figures should be accepted. Mr. Harloff's operation constitutes an important part of Manatee County's agricultural economy, and agriculture utilizes 68.9 percent of the land in the county. Agricultural products sold in Manatee County in 1987 were valued at $145,655,000.00, which ranked Manatee County third among all Florida counties in vegetable production. Agriculture is the fourth largest employer in Manatee County, employing an average of 4,692 people per month. Through his farm operation alone, Harloff employes as many as 1,050 people, with 200 employed on a full-time basis. Experts estimate that the loss of the Harloff operation would cause a reduction of between 16 and 18 million dollars in agricultural sales in the county with an additional loss in jobs and income to his suppliers. This estimate is not at all unreasonable. Florida produces approximately 95 percent of all tomatoes grown in this country for the fresh tomato market during the winter growing season. Tomatoes are the single largest vegetable crop grown in the state and accounted for 39.7 percent of the total value of vegetables produced in Florida during the 1987-1988 growing season. Mr. Harloff produced 4.8 percent of the total shipment of tomatoes from this state during that period. Water, primarily through irrigation, is an indispensable portion of the farming operation for this crop. Mr. Harloff currently irrigates the majority of his non-citrus crops by use of a "semi-closed ditch irrigation system", as opposed to a "drip system." The drip system is considerably more efficient than the semi-closed system having an efficiency rating, (amount of water actually used by the plants) of between 80 to 90 percent, as opposed to 40 to 60 percent for the other. While Mr. Harloff could reduce his water needs considerably and achieve substantial savings on pump fuel by conversion to a drip system for all or a part of his crops, such an undertaking would be quite costly. One of the conditions proposed by the District for the approval of Harloff's permit, as amended, is the refurbishment of several of the existing wells utilized by Mr. Harloff to make them more efficient and to promote the withdrawal of water from the Lower Floridan Aquifer, in which there appears to be adequate water and from which the Verna Well field does not draw. Currently, Mr. Harloff has seven wells which do not meet the standards of this proposed condition. They are not drilled to 1,300 feet below mean sea level and are not cased to 600 feet. To bring these wells into compliance, they would have to be drilled to the 1,300 foot level, or to a level which has a specific capacity of 400 gpm, and the casings in each would have to be extended to 600 feet. Extending the casings would be a complicated procedure and Harloff's experts in the area cannot guarantee the procedure would successfully achieve the desired end. Assuming the retrofit was successful, the cost of the entire process would be approximately $15,000.00 to $16,000.00 per well. In addition, the process would, perforce, require reducing the diameter of the well from 10 to 8 inches, thereby necessitating increasing the pump capacity to produce sufficient water. The cost of this is substantial with an appropriate new pump costing somewhere between $10,000.00 and $15,000.00 each. Consequently, the anticipated cost of bringing the existing wells up to condition standards would be between $25,000.00 to $31,000.00 per well, while the cost of constructing a new well is between $40,000.00 and $50,000.00 per well. Mr. Harloff feels it would be more prudent for him to replace the existing wells rather than to retrofit them. This may be correct. Harloff experts also claim that extending the casings on the existing wells down to 600 feet would not provide a significant benefit to the aquifer nor cause any significant reduction in drawdown impact at Verna. The District and City experts disagree and, taken on balance, caution and the interests of the public indicate that a conservative approach is more appropriate. While Mr. Harloff proposes to convert the areas served by wells 1, 9, 11, and 12 to the growing of citrus which requires much less water than tomatoes, this would not be sufficient mitigation to offset the need for some modification if large amounts of water will still be drawn. The entire area under the District's jurisdiction has been experiencing a water shortage due to a lack of rainfall. As a result, in June 1989, the District adopted a resolution identifying an area, including the area in question here, as a "water use caution area." This was done because the Floridan Aquifer has been subjected to large seasonable drawdowns of the potientiometric surface, the level to which water in a confined aquifer can rise in a well which penetrates that acquifer. This drawdown is directly related to increased water use in the area, much of which is for agricultural purposes. As a result of the District's action, special conditions on well construction for consumptive use applicants have been imposed on a permit by permit basis to insure, as much as possible, that the applicant uses the lowest quality water appropriate for his intended purpose. These conditions are not unreasonable. While accepting the District's and City's conclusion that his wells, if permitted, would have some impact on the Verna Wellfield, Mr. Harloff does not concede that the impact is significant. Specifically, the difference in impact resulting from an increase from his currently permitted use of 13.68 mgd seasonal maximum and his requested use of 31.56 mgd seasonal maximum for wells 1, 2, 9, and 10 would be a maximum increased drawdown of 1.1 feet at the Intermediate aquifer and 1.8 feet at the Upper Floridan Aquifer. Both figures relate to that portion of the wellfield found in the northeast corner of Part A. If the anticipated usage for crops predicted by Mr. Harloff's experts for the spring of 1989 is accurate, the drawdown would be 0.2 feet for the intermediate aquifer and 0.4 feet for the Upper Floridan Aquifer measured at the northeast corner of Part B of the Verna We1lfield. Harloff's experts contend that additional impacts for the spring of 1989 included, the increased usage will not have a significant effect on Verna's ability to produce its permitted daily maximum withdrawal of 9.5 mgd. While this is an educated speculation, it should be noted that during May 1989, the Verna field was able to produce up to 8.3 mgd without using all wells during any 24 hour period. This does not consider, however, the problems encountered by the City as indicated by the wellfield personnel, and the fact that some of the City wells are not pumping water.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Roger Harloff be issued a consumptive use permit, No. 204467.04, as modified, to reflect authorization to draw 15.18 mgd annual average, not to exceed 31.56 mgd seasonal maximum, conditioned upon compliance with the conditions found in the conditions portion of the permit, as modified to conform to the quantities as stated herein, and to include those requirements as to acre-inch and crop-acre limitations, well usage and abandonment schedules, well modification standards, and record keeping, as are contained therein. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 5th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE No. 89-0574 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to s. 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: City of Sarasota, joined by the District 1 & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8-12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14-22. Accepted and incorporated herein. 23-25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27 & 28. Accepted and incorporated herein. 29-33. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of party position. & 36. Accepted. 37. & 38. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on opponent's satisfaction of its burden of proof. 42-44. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as a misstatement of fact. Water service was never interrupted. The deficiency was in the City's inability to keep its wellfield reservoir filled. 47-54. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected for the reasons outlined in 41. 57-62. Accepted and incorporated herein. 63. Rejected for the reasons outlined in 41. 64-66. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected for the reasons outlined in 41. Rejected. & 70. Accepted and incorporated herein. 71. & 72. Accepted and incorporated herein. 73. Accepted and incorporated herein. 74 & 75. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of party position. Rejected. Accepted. Irrelevant. 81-84. Rejected. 85. & 86. Accepted and incorporated herein. 87 & 88. Accepted and incorporated herein. 89. Accepted and incorporated herein. 90 & 91. Accepted and incorporated herein. 92. & 93. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Roger Harloff 1-9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10-13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14 & 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16-25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26-28. Accepted and incorporated herein. 29 & 30. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not proven. 35 & 36. Accepted and incorporated herein. 37 & 38. Accepted and incorporated herein. 39-41. Accepted and incorporated herein. 42 & 43. Accepted and incorporated herein. 44. Accepted. 45 & 46. Accepted and incorporated herein. 47 & 48. Accepted and incorporated herein. 49. Accepted. 50 & 51. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. & 56. Accepted and incorporated herein. 57. Accepted. 58-60. Accepted and incorporated herein. 61 & 62. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as unproven. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. 67-68. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but an interpretation of party po Accepted. Rejected. 72 & 73. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire de la Parte, Gilbert and Gramovot, P.A. 705 East Kennedy- Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33602 Edward B. Helvenston, Esquire SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Douglas P. Manson, Esquire Blain & Cone, P.A. 202 Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
Findings Of Fact On November 1, 1982, Respondent Janson filed a Joint Application for a dredge and fill permit from Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, and from the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers. The project described in that application involved the construction of an approximately 1,000-square- foot, pile-supported residence, landward of the mean high water line but within the landward extent of Robinson Creek in St. Johns County, Florida. The proposed project also involved the placement of approximately 35 cubic yards of fill and a 30-foot culvert within a small (approximately 4-foot), tidally- influenced roadside ditch for driveway access and parking. The original application sought permission to place part of a concrete driveway and tool shed within the landward extent of Robinson Creek. The project is to be constructed on Lot 47, J.A. Lew Subdivision. Respondent Janson owns Lot 47, as well as Lots 45 and 46, which lots are north of and adjoining Lot 47 and also adjoining Robinson Creek. The next adjoining property owner to the north is the City of St. Augustine, Florida, which presumably owns the street. The adjoining property owner to the south of Lot 47 is Virginia P. Melichar. Neither Melichar nor the City objected to the Department's approval of the dredge and fill permit application. In support of his application, Janson retained the services of a registered surveyor and civil engineer, who performed a survey on Lot 47 to determine the location of the mean high water line with reference to the proposed project. That expert determined the location of the mean high water line to be at elevation 2.4 feet. Accordingly, all work contemplated by the dredge and fill permit is upland from the mean high water line. T.J. Deuerling, an environmental specialist for Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, visited the project site on December 13, 1982 and on December 30, 1982 in order to prepare the Department's Biological and Water Quality Assessment. As a result of those site visits, Deuerling recommended to Respondent Janson that he modify his permit application by moving the concrete slab and tool shed from the marsh area onto the uplands. Janson did so revise his application. In spite of the name of the permit being sought by Respondent Janson, the project involves no dredging. However, the culvert and its attendant fill would be placed in the man-made roadside ditch. That ditch constitutes a very weak transitional marsh. Although the culvert will eliminate some vegetation within that ditch, the effect of the elimination will be insignificant on water quality. The pilings for the pile-supported residence will also eliminate a small area of marsh. The anticipated shading caused by the pile-supported residence may impact somewhat on the vegetation in a small area below the residence; however, due to the fact that the floor of the house will be eight feet above the ground, light will still be able to penetrate. Therefore, the vegetation below the pile-supported residence will continue to act as a filter for pollutants. Janson has mitigated the small loss in wetlands by modifying his project so as to remove the concrete slab and tool shed from the marsh area to the uplands. Due to the project's small size, no storm water impact can be expected. Additionally, no evidence was introduced to show a violation of any water quality standard as a result of the proposed project. On March 16, 1983, Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, executed its Intent to Issue the dredge and fill permit in accordance with the revised application and subject to the conditions that: (1) turbidity curtains be employed in the ditch during the placement of fill over the culvert to contain any turbidity generated, and (2) construction on the uplands be confined to periods of normal water level conditions. On July 5, 1983, the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers issued its Permit and Notice of Authorization. The essence of the testimony presented by the Petitioners, including that of the employees of the St. Johns River Water Management District, who testified in opposition to the proposed project, is that even though Janson's proposed project would not impact water quality in a way that was either significant or measurable (although no one even suggested any specific water quality standard that might be violated), approval of Janson's permit might set a precedent for other projects which might then have a cumulative impact in some unspecified way at some unspecified location. No evidence was offered to show that Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation's review of permit applications is other than site specific. Further, no evidence was introduced to show any proposed project anywhere having any impact with which Janson's project could be cumulative. Petitioners Sandquist and Shuler live in the neighborhood of the proposed project, perhaps as close as two blocks away.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing with prejudice the petition filed herein as to each individual Petitioner and issuing a dredge and fill permit to Respondent Janson in accordance with his revised application. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of January, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Stormy Sandquist 3 Aviles Street St. Augustine, FL 32084 Marion C. Snider Volla F. Snider 79 Fullerwood Drive St. Augustine, FL 32084 Carmen Ashton 51 East Park Avenue St. Augustine, FL 32084 Reuben D. Sitton Gail P.Sitton 35 Seminole Drive St. Augustine, FL 32084 Sandra N. Shuler 22 East Park Avenue St. Augustine, FL 32084 Patty Severt Greg Severt 1 Fern Street St. Augustine, FL 32084 Nancy Moore Paul Moore, Jr. 6 Fern Street St. Augustine, FL 32084 John D. Bailey, Jr., Esq. P.O. Box 170 St. Augustine, FL 32085-0170 Charles G. Stephens, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Millender and Son Fish Company is a wholesale seafood business, with its principle place of business located on the banks of the Carrabelle River in Carrabelle, Franklin County, Florida. The business is owned and operated by Farris G. Millender. Mr. Millender owns the real property on which the business is located and that property is bordered on the north by Avenue "A", also known as State Road 10 which is the main street of the City of Carrabelle. The property is bordered on the southerly margin by the mean high water line of the Carrabelle River. Prior to September 2, 1985, there existed several wooden docks which ran lengthwise along the margin of the Carrabelle River on the waterward boundaries of the Petitioner's property. In the fall of 1985, the Carrabelle area was struck by two hurricanes: the first occurred on September 2, 1985, and the second in November, 1985. These two hurricanes together severely damaged the wooden docks, as well as Petitioner's buildings. In March, 1985, the Petitioner had hired Edwin G. Brown, a registered surveyor, to survey his property. The survey was completed on March 18, 1985, and showed a line along the Carrabelle River identified as "approximate MHW line" (mean high water). The surveyor stated that this line represented the shoreline of Petitioner's property at the time the survey was done. Employees of the Department of Natural Resources verified each end of the Brown survey as being an accurate location of the line of mean high water. That survey also depicted the location of the Petitioner's docks and pilings which were later damaged by the storms. The approximate mean high water line lay landward of the location of Petitioner's existing docks and pilings. The survey also depicted a small concrete bulkhead along part of the boundary line designated as "approximate MHW line" on that survey. On September 10, 1985, after the first of the two hurricanes struck, the Petitioner applied for a city building permit from the City of Carrabelle seeking to construct a seawall at the line of mean high water along that part of his property fronting the Carrabelle River. That permit was granted on September 17, 1985. On September 25, 1985, after Hurricane Elena struck, an emergency permitting team comprised of representatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, and the Department of Natural Resources met with Farris G. Millender at his place of business and inspected the hurricane damage. Following that inspection, an emergency authorization permit (APL0029) was issued. That permit described the pre-existing condition of the property as a "functional off-loading seafood dock" and it authorized the Petitioner to rebuild the docks and piers to existing pre- disaster condition. That is, he was authorized to build the docks and piers to the same dimensions, consisting of a "6' x 300' pier, 20' x 45' pier, and 6'-10' x 800' pier and docks behind building." The members of the inspection team saw no evidence of any concrete bulkhead or seawall existing at or near the site of the Petitioner's damaged wooden docks. The Petitioner asked the team members if the permit authorization would allow the construction of a concrete seawall. He was told that the emergency authorization only permitted the building of wooden docks and structures as they had existed previously. He was told that the construction of a concrete seawall would have to be permitted through normal permit application procedures. The emergency permitting process was designed to allow property owners to rebuild structures damaged by the hurricane in the same configuration, as to size, type of material and intended purpose, as those structures which existed prior to the emergency situation caused by the hurricane. On October 11, 1985, Mr. Powell Rivers called Mr. Larry Taylor of the Department of Environmental Regulation and inquired, on Petitioner's behalf, concerning whether bulkheading and backfilling was authorized under the emergency permit. Mr. Taylor informed Mr. Rivers that the emergency permit only authorized repair of the structures as they existed prior to the storm disaster. Mr. Taylor informed him that any additional work or change in the pre-existing installations, such as bulkheading and backfilling, would require a permit which must be obtained through normal permit application procedures. The Petitioner, however, proceeded to construct a concrete bulkhead along the Carrabelle River adjacent to his property and backfilled dirt or soil behind the bulkhead for its entire length. The bulkhead was constructed between September, 1985 and February, 1986. It is approximately 505 feet long and lies 20 to 55 feet waterward of the March 18, 1985, "approximate MHW line" surveyed by Edwin Brown. The area below the mean high water line encompassed by the seawall or bulkhead and attendant fill material is 0.446 acres. In response to a report by the Florida Marine Patrol, representatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of environmental Regulation (DER) and the Respondent inspected Petitioner's property on January 24, 1986. The concrete seawall itself was then nearly complete, but the backfilling had not yet been done. The Petitioner was informed at this time that the structure was not authorized under the above-mentioned emergency permit and that state and federal formal permitting was necessary. The Respondent formally notified the Petitioner of the encroachment of the construction in question on state-owned lands, without consent, by letter dated January 28, 1986. The Respondent requested the Petitioner to take immediate action to comply with the Respondent's rules and applicable state law. The Petitioner responded to this notice by stating that his position was that the work was authorized by the emergency authorization issued on September 25, 1985. In this connection, the Petitioner originally testified that Susan Radford, an employee of the Respondent, signed a handwritten note on November 21, 1985, giving Petitioner permission to construct the concrete seawall and related backfilling, below mean high water. The Petitioner recanted that testimony, however, following testimony of Susan Radford, on rebuttal, to the effect that she had not met the Petitioner, had never visited the site and had never signed any form of consent for Petitioner to perform the work in question under the aegis of the emergency permit. Based upon the Petitioner's response to the notice of January 28, 1986, the Respondent conducted an investigation and confirmed that indeed, in its view, the construction was located on-state-owned lands and was not authorized by the emergency permit issued on September 25, 1985. Accordingly, on April 1, 1986, the Respondent notified the Petitioner, with a formal Notice of Violation, that his construction was in violation of Chapter 253 and Rule 16Q- 14.03(1) and (4), Florida Administrative Code. He was ordered to cease and desist any further construction and given 20 days to apply for an "after-the-fact lease" or else to remove all unauthorized materials placed waterward of the referenced mean high water line. The Petitioner thereafter filed a petition for administrative hearing. The materials Petitioner placed waterward of mean high water have not as yet been removed. The Petitioner at a later time, however, applied for an "after-the- fact lease." The Carrabelle River is formed by the confluence of the New River and the Crooked River in Franklin County, Florida. It flows south into St. George Island Sound on the Gulf of Mexico. The river has been variously referred to in times past as the Crooked River, the New River and the Carrabelle River. It is a tidally-influenced water body at the point in question. Its shoreline boundaries are determined at the elevation of mean high water. Historically, Carrabelle and the surrounding environs, including the Carrabelle River area, has been the site of Indian villages, timber harvesting operations and seafood harvesting and processing industries. The river was traveled by boat by a surveyor as early as the year 1806, as far as the source of the New River and Crooked River. In 1840, the river was used as the means of transport for a military expedition. In 1882, the settlement of Rio Carrabelle, now called Carrabelle, had been established and timber was being transported on the river by logbooms or rafts moved by steamboats. Although the mouth of the river was partially obstructed by an oyster bar and sand, the channel contained approximately 4 1/2 feet of water at low tide in 1827 and by 1895 was being travelled by lighters, mail packets, tugs, and other vessels drawing 3' to 5' of water, plying between Carrabelle and Dog Island Harbor. (See Respondent's Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 in evidence.) The existence, location and general size of the New River and Crooked River, and their connection with St. George Sound via the Carrabelle River, has been shown on an 1846 topographic map of the state, as well as on an 1855 survey for the Apalachicola Land Company. The Crooked River was declared navigable by the Florida legislature in 1852, and in 1889, in a Memorial to Congress, the legislature described the importance of the river and the commerce then being shipped from Carrabelle via the river and its mouth. The water immediately adjacent to the Petitioner's property was part of a tidal slough or lagoon running parallel to and slightly north of the main channel of the Carrabelle River, at least as early as 1913. The lagoon was closed from the river on the west end by an intervening strip of land, but opened on its east end into the main channel of the river near Petitioner's property. On the south side of the lagoon there existed a series of marshy islands which were inundated at high tide. The water depth in the slough ebbed and flowed with the tide, but the connection between the east end of the slough and the main river channel near Petitioner's property was always inundated, even at low tide. Since the early part of this century, through 1965, the slough was capable of floating logs and small boats, typically oyster and mullet skiffs, even at low tide. In 1943, when the Petitioner's father purchased the property in question, which the Petitioner now owns, a fish processing house and dock existed along the shore of the property. The Petitioner's father purchased the property for the purpose of operating a wholesale fish business and the Petitioner was able to transport mullet to and from the main channel of the river to the docks along the front of his property in a "mullet skiff," which is a small boat of shallow draft typically used by commercial fishermen in the area. By 1954, the width of the slough along the Petitioner's property had increased and the marsh islands separating it from the main body of Carrabelle River had become smaller. More docks had been constructed along the Petitioner's shoreline and the adjacent property farther up the slough. Boats were able to navigate and moor to these docks. Additionally, since at least as early as 1913 through the present time, the shoreline along the Petitioner's property has been covered and uncovered by the daily ebb and flow of the tides in the Carrabelle River and in the slough. Thus, from the early part of this century to the present time, the waters adjacent to the Petitioner's property have been susceptible to navigation by small boats and skiffs used commercially by oyster and mullet fishermen. In 1965, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers deepened the main channel of the river and the waters near the Petitioner's property, enabling larger vessels to dock alongside Petitioner's property. The Petitioner and his witnesses testified to substantial erosion which has occurred along Petitioner's shoreline over the years, allegedly as a result of dredging activities of the Corps of Engineers. However, aerial photographs taken by the Department of Transportation in 1953, 1965 and 1977, during periods at or near mean high tide, show a shoreline location and configuration essentially the same as that existing when it was surveyed by Edwin Brown in March of 1985. The Petitioner's wooden pilings, which now form the waterward boundary of the new seawall, were part of a wooden dock which was located at the same place prior to the 1965 dredging activities by the Corps. It was used to dock and unload fishing boats prior to 1965.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Respondent, Department of Natural Resources, finding the Petitioner in violation of the authority cited next above and ordering such corrective action as is authorized by Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 18-14, Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 7th day of January, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1498 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-7. Accepted. 8-9. Rejected as contrary to the preponderant weight of evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact on Historical Mean High Water: 1-3. Accepted. Accepted generally but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as constituting a recitation of testimony, contrary to the preponderant weight of evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as constituting a recitation and dis- cussion of testimony. Rejected as constituting a discussion or recitation of testimony and not a finding of fact and is contrary to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and subordinate thereto. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as contrary to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Accepted, but not dispositive of any material issue presented and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact on the Issue of Estoppel: Accepted, but not dispositive of any material issue presented in itself. Accepted, but not dispositive in itself of any material issue presented. Accepted, but not dispositive of any material issue presented in itself. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-8. Accepted. 9. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 10-14. Accepted. 15. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 16-27. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Eugene E. McClellan, Jr, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 J. Ben Watkins, Esquire WATKINS & RUSSELL 41 Commerce Street Apalachicola, Florida 32320 Tom Gardner Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Thomas G. Tomasello General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether the Department of Environmental Regulation should grant a dredge and fill permit to James N. and Janice E. Nash authorizing removal of eleven cubic yards of soil, installation of five 24-inch culverts in lieu of two 18- inch culverts, and placement of 19 cubic yards of limerock in and around the bed of an unnamed creek near the point it reaches the Alford Arm of Lake Lafayette in Leon County, Florida?
Findings Of Fact More than a thousand acres in eastern Leon County comprise the drainage basin giving rise to the unnamed stream that intermittently wends its way across the Alvarez property, crosses the 30-foot wide "tongue" of the Nashes' lot, and traverses the Saltiels' land on its way to the Alford Arm of Lake Lafayette (unless it reaches Alford Arm earlier because rain or other conditions have raised the lake, moving the water's edge upland.) Although neighbors allow them ingress and egress by another route, when flooding makes the roadway impassable, Mr. and Mrs. Nash have no legal right of access other than by the private road which crosses the intermittent stream. In addition to wetlands on either side, part of the streambed, 15 feet wide where it meets the roadway, was originally filled in 1968, when the private drive was built. The strip of land, 30 feet wide and 700 feet long that underlies most of the private road, joins the part of the parcel where the Nashes' house stands to Deep Wood Trail, the public thoroughfare which the private road enters. Leaving a car on the Deep Wood Trail side of the stream, wading across to the other side, and hiking to the house pose difficulties for Mr. Nash, who has muscular dystrophy. Under some conditions, the roadbed acts as a dam. When the lake is low, water flowing downstream may be impeded. When the lake is high, backwater moving in the other direction may be impeded. Of the two culverts installed when the private road was constructed, each with a diameter of 18 inches, only one permits water to flow through now, and even it is partially clogged. When Lake Lafayette rises above 45.3 feet NGVD, Alford Arm spills over the terrain between it and the Nashes' road, and reverses the flow in the streambed where it intersects the roadway. The "invert of the stream at the subject crossing [is] 44.3 feet [NGVD]." T.402. The roadbed is submerged in the vicinity of the stream when Alford Arm rises above 46.7 feet NGVD. The Nashes propose to excavate the streambed (about two and a half feet deep in the natural channel on either side of the existing fill) where it crosses (diagonally) the Nashes' private road, remove the existing culverts together with the soil in which they are embedded, install five culverts, each 24 inches in diameter, in their stead, install cement bag riprap at the ends of the culverts, remove 11 cubic yards of dirt from a 205' by 10' wide section of existing road surface and replace with 19 cubic yards of lime rock surface, Nashes' Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6, realigning the roadway slightly (to avoid the existing encroachment on the Saltiels' property) and increasing the roadbed's elevation over a 205-foot stretch by no more than four inches. Five trees are to be removed, but other trees are to be protected "by tree protection barricades." Nashes' Exhibit No. 7A. Filter fences upstream and down would contain turbidity during construction. The plan is to lay sod and plant grass seed afterwards in order to prevent erosion. Larger culverts would permit the flow of a greater volume of water at lower velocity, more closely approximating the natural regime and reducing scour or erosion downstream. Even when water levels exceeded the elevation of the existing roadbed, more water than the existing culverts can accommodate could move through the proposed replacement culverts, and at a slower velocity. At water levels above the existing grade and below the proposed, slightly higher grade, however, the four inches or less of limerock added to the roadbed would act as a (presumably somewhat porous) barrier to flows that could now move over the roadway unimpeded. The proposed improvements would have no discernible effect on water levels whenever Alford Arm overtopped the roadbed. Ted L. Biddy, the professional engineer called as a witness by the Nashes, testified that a 25-year return two-hour storm would raise water immediately upstream of the roadway, when runoff concentrated there, to levels above the existing roadway grade, assuming that the drainage basin was saturated at the time of the rainfall and that all ponds within the basin were full, but that the level of Lake Lafayette was at or below 45.3 feet NGVD. T.489. "Ordinary high water for Alford Arm is 45.7 [feet NGVD.]" T.486. On this record, it can only be a matter of speculation how often (if ever) a 25-year return, two-hour storm might be expected to occur after rainfall has saturated the ground and filled all ponds in the drainage basin without raising the lake above 45.3 feet NGVD. The wet conditions Mr. Biddy assumed already to obtain in the drainage basin at the time of the hypothetical storm seem unlikely to coincide with the low lake level assumed to occur simultaneously. Alford Arm's 100-year flood level is 51 feet NGVD, "50.25 for the 25 year flood or rainfall, and elevation 49.9 for the 10 year storm water event." T.425. In any event, flooding of the Saltiels' property attributable to the proposed raising of the roadway would last only a matter of hours every quarter of a century according to Mr. Biddy, and would represent temporary diversion of water that would otherwise have flooded their property downstream of the roadway. Even then, no house or structure on the Saltiels' property would be affected nor any part of their property not within the 100-year flood plain. At all water levels below the existing roadway grade, the overwhelmingly more frequent condition, larger culverts would prevent or diminish flooding that might otherwise reach the Saltiels' property upstream of the roadway. By impeding flows downstream, the roadway affords some solids suspended in the water an opportunity to precipitate, instead of being borne on into Alford Arm. Under certain conditions, the larger culverts proposed by the Nashes would reduce time for particulate matter to settle upstream of the roadway; the greater volume of flow through larger culverts would reduce the time water was impounded upstream. Uncontroverted expert testimony established, however, that any increase in turbidity in water reaching Alford Arm would not violate applicable standards.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DER issue a dredge and fill permit to Mr. and Mrs. Nash for the project described in their application on the conditions stated in the notice of intent to issue. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1992. APPENDIX Petitioners' proposed findings of fact Nos. 2 and 10 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 1, what knowledge petitioners are charged with is a matter of law. Petitioners' proposed findings of fact Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 31 pertain to subordinate matters. Petitioners' proposed findings of fact Nos. 5, 6 and 32 pertain to immaterial matters as does petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 9. Only the dredge and fill permit DER proposes to grant the Nashes is at issue. With respect to petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 30, the calculations of both Mr. Flatt and Mr. Biddy seem to be flawed. With respect to petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 33, it is not clear that the proposed project would increase the flooding on the Saltiels' property significantly. Temporally de minimis, the change might amount only to relocating the flooding. With respect to petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 34, see finding of fact No. 12. With respect to petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 35, larger culverts will decrease the velocity of the flow through the culverts. Petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 36 is immaterial because it does not relate to any applicable rule or statutory standard. With respect to the individual respondents' and intervenor's (applicants') proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 and 2, the application does not specify dredge and fill. The applicants' proposed findings of fact Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 32 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to the applicants' proposed finding of fact No. 6, backwater flows at levels above 45.3 feet NGVD. With respect to the applicants' proposed finding of fact No. 9, the OHW is 45.7 feet NGVD. With respect to the applicants' proposed finding of fact No. 11, testimony so implied. With respect to the applicants' proposed finding of fact No. 12, Mr. Nash suffers from muscular dystrophy. The applicants' proposed findings of fact Nos. 14 and 15 pertain to subordinate matters. With respect to the applicants' proposed finding of fact No. 16, the only testimony regarding flooding concerned the critical 25-year return storm. With respect to DER's proposed findings of facts Nos. 1 and 2, the application does not specify dredge and fill. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 3, backflows begin at 45.3 feet NGVD. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 4, not all fill would be removed. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 5, testimony so implied. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 6, no statute or rule specifies a design storm. DER's proposed finding of fact No. 7 is really a conclusion of law. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 8, less settling may result in more suspended solids under some conditions. DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. DER's proposed finding of fact No. 13 is immaterial to the merits. COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Barley P.O. Box 10166 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Donna H. Stinson Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Fitzgerald & Sheehan, P.A. 118 North Gadsden Street Suite 100 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Candi E. Culbreath Patricia Comer 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carlos Alvarez c/o Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact The Parties and the Property. The Respondent, Saddlebrook Resorts, Inc. (Saddlebrook), is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Florida, and is wholly owned by the Dempsey family. Saddlebrook is located on approximately 480 acres in central Pasco County, east of I-75 and south of State Road 54. The Petitioner, Wiregrass Ranch, Inc. (Wiregrass) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Florida, and is wholly owned by the Porter family ("the Porters"). Wiregrass owns approximately 5,000 acres of property which extends from Saddlebrook west approximately one mile to State Road 581 and south for approximately four miles. The Respondent, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), is a political subdivision created pursuant to Chapter 61-691, Laws of Florida, which exists and operates under the Water Resources Act, Fla. Stat., Ch. 373. SWFWMD is charged with regulating, among other things, surface water management systems in Pasco County. Saddlebrook discharges surface water onto Wiregrass at two locations on the southern and western boundaries of Saddlebrook, known as the south outfall and the west outfall. Saddlebrook's property is part of a drainage basin totalling approximately 1400 acres that contributes runoff to Wiregrass' property. Until approximately 1973, the Saddlebrook property was undeveloped and owned by the Porters. In approximately 1973, the Porters sold the Saddlebrook property to the Refram family, which began developing the property. In approximately 1979, Saddlebrook acquired the property from the Reframs. The Saddlebrook property includes residential development, a conference center, and golf course and tennis facilities. Wiregrass' property, which is largely undeveloped and used for ranching, consists of pine-palmetto flatwoods, wetland strands, isolated wetlands, and improved pastures. The Porters' Civil Action Against Saddlebrook. The Porters instituted a civil action against Saddlebrook, Porter, et al. v. Saddlebrook Resorts, Inc., Case No. CA 83-1860, in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Pasco County, complaining that post-development discharges from Saddlebrook exceed pre-development discharges. In the civil litigation, the Porters contended that Saddlebrook's peak flow discharges should be returned to pre-development, or 1973, levels. A primary purpose of Saddlebrook's proposed redesign is to return peak flow discharges to those levels that existed in 1973, in response to the Porters' complaints in the civil action. Saddlebrook's current surface water management system is deemed by SWFWMD to be in compliance with Rule 40D-4, and SWFWMD's regulations do not require redesign or modification of the current system. Prior to Saddlebrook's submission of its application, SWFWMD advised Saddlebrook that, because Rule 40D-4 became effective on October 1, 1984, SWFWMD considered that date to be the "pre-development" condition for purposes of evaluating Saddlebrook's discharges. Saddlebrook requested that SWFWMD evaluate its application using 1973 as the pre-development condition. SWFWMD advised Saddlebrook that it would apply 1973 as the pre-development condition if the Porters consented. By letter from the Porters' counsel to SWFWMD dated January 31, 1990, the Porters provided their express consent to SWFWMD's use of 1973 as the pre- development date for purposes of evaluating those discharges relevant to Saddlebrook's MSSW permit application. Saddlebrook's MSSW Permit Application. On or about February 8, 1990, Saddlebrook submitted its application for MSSW permit no. 497318.00, seeking SWFWMD's conceptual approval of the redesign of Saddlebrook's surface water management system. The proposed redesign calls for modification of most of the existing drainage control structures at Saddlebrook and installation of new control structures at several locations, including the south and west outfalls. After submission of its initial application, Saddlebrook made various subsequent submittals in response to SWFWMD requests for additional information. Saddlebrook's response to SWFWMD's requests culminated in final submittals on March 7, 1991 and April 5, 1991. In its various submittals, Saddlebrook provided, among other things, detailed descriptions of all proposed modifications to its drainage system, engineering reports, and computerized flood-routing analyses of runoff from Saddlebrook under pre-development (1973) and post-modification conditions. Saddlebrook provided all information requested, and SWFWMD thereafter deemed its application complete. SWFWMD's Review of Saddlebrook's Application. In the fifteen months following Saddlwbrook's initial February, 1990, submittal, SWFWMD conducted an intensive review of the application. During the course of this review, SWFWMD staff performed numerous field inspections, made an independent determination of all input data to the computer analyses of Saddlebrook's discharges, and made six separate formal requests for additional information. SWFWMD's requests for additional information required, among other things, that Saddlebrook modify various input data and rerun its computer analyses of discharges under the pre-development and post-modification conditions. In addition, SWFWMD required Saddlebrook to perform computer modelling analyses of discharges from Wiregrass' property onto the property of downstream landowners. Because, unlike the Porters, these downstream owners had not provided consent to use 1973 as the relevant pre-development date, SWFWMD required Saddlebrook to model this downstream discharge using a "pre- development" date of 1984. SWFWMD performed its standard review procedures in connection with Saddlebrooks' application. In addition, SWFWMD also performed its own computer-modelling analyses of Saddlebrook's discharges. This modelling was based on input data independently collected by SWFWMD staff in the field and from other sources. SWFWMD staff also met with the Porters' hydrologist, Dr. Gerald Seaburn, and thoroughly reviewed concerns he expressed in connection with Saddlebrook's application. In addressing these concerns, SWFWMD performed additional work, including conferring with an independent soils expert, performing additional field inspections, and modifying the SWFWMD computer modelling analyses based on alternative input parameters suggested by Dr. Seaburn. In reviewing Saddlebrook's application, SWFWMD applied the design and performance criteria set forth in its "Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications" ("Basis of Review"), which is incorporated by reference in F.A.C. Rule Chapter 40D-4. Based upon its review of Saddlebrook's application, SWFWMD concluded that Saddlebrook had demonstrated compliance with the design and performance criteria set forth in SWFWMD's Basis of Review and the conditions for permit issuance under F.A.C. Rule 40D-4.301. By a Staff Report dated April 29, 1991, and Notice of Proposed Agency Action dated May 3, 1991, SWFWMD recommended approval of Saddlebrook's application. Compliance With SWFWMD Permitting Criteria. The design and performance criteria for MSSW permitting set forth in SWFWMD's Basis of Review fall into four categories: (1) water quantity, in terms of peak flow discharges for projects, like Saddlebrook's, located in open drainage basins; (2) flood protection; (3) water quality; and (4) wetlands impacts. Water Quantity. Under the Basis of Review's water quantity standards, SWFWMD requires that projected peak flow discharges during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event under the proposed system be reasonably similar to peak flow discharges under the pre- development condition. The evidence presented at the formal hearing demonstrated that Saddlebrook's application satisfies SWFWMD's water-quantity standards. This evidence demonstrated that peak flow discharges during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event under the proposed system will be less than, but reasonably similar to, pre-development (1973) peak flow discharges. The evidence presented at the formal hearing also demonstrated that, under the proposed system, peak flow discharges during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event from Wiregrass' property onto downstream landowners will be less than, but reasonably similar to, 1984 peak flow discharges. The evidence presented by Saddlebrook further demonstrated that storage will be increased under the proposed redesign versus the pre- development, 1973 condition. On Saddlebrook's property, there will be approximately 35 percent more storage than existed in 1973, and the total storage for Saddlebrook and the contributing drainage basin upstream of Saddlebrook will be increased by approximately 15 percent over that existing in 1973. Flood Protection. Under the flood-protection standards of the Basis of Review, SWFWMD requires that the applicant demonstrate that under the proposed condition the lower floor of all residential and other buildings on-site, and in areas affected by the site, will be above the 100-year flood elevation. SWFWMD also requires that there be no net encroachment into the flood plain, up to that encompassed by the 100-year event, which will adversely affect conveyance, storage, water quality or adjacent lands. The evidence presented at the formal hearing demonstrated that Saddlebrook's application satisfies SWFWMD's flood-protection standards. The testimony of Mr. Fuxan and Wiregrass' related exhibit, Ranch Ex. 35, purporting to show that in a 25-year, 24-hour storm Saddlebrook's proposed redesign will "flood the [Saddlebrook perimeter] roads and just sheet flow onto the Porter property" is not accurate. As part of its redesign, Saddlebrook will construct an additional berm along the southwestern and southern perimeters of its property. This berm will detain water on Saddlebrook's property during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event and prevent it from "sheet-flowing" onto the Wiregrass property. Water Quality. Under the water-quality standards of the Basis of Review, SWFWMD requires, for systems like Saddlebrook's involving wet detention and isolated wetlands, that the applicant provide sufficient storage to treat one inch of runoff from the basins contributing runoff to the site. This volume must be discharged in no less than 120 hours, with no more than one-half of the volume being discharged within the first 60 hours. The evidence presented at the formal hearing demonstrated that Saddlebrook's application satisfies SWFWMD's water-quality standards. Wetland Impacts. Under the wetland-impacts standards of the Basis of Review, SWFWMD requires that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that the proposed system will not adversely impact on-site and downstream wetlands. The evidence presented at the formal hearing demonstrated that Saddlebrook has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed redesign will cause no adverse impacts to on-site wetlands. Saddlebrook's proposed redesign will impact only approximately .167 acres of on-site wetlands, for which Saddlebrook will fully mitigate by creating .174 acres of forested wetlands and buffer area. The evidence presented at the formal hearing also demonstrated that Saddlebrook has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed redesign will cause no adverse impacts to off-site wetlands. Reasonable assurance that off- site wetlands will not be adversely impacted was demonstrated by, among other things, evidence establishing that: (1) discharge points will not change under the proposed condition; (2) discharge elevations will be reasonably similar under the proposed condition; (3) there will be no significant variation in the water fluctuations in the wetlands adjacent to the south and west outfalls as a result of the proposed condition; (4) the drainage basin areas will be reasonably similar under the proposed condition; and (5) the proposed redesign will satisfy SWFWMD's water quality requirements. Wiregrass' Petition. In its Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing, Wiregrass focused primarily on water quality issues and stormwater runoff rates (or peak flow discharges), alleging the following "ultimate facts" which it claimed "entitle [it] to relief": The application, as submitted, contains insufficient storage to meet water quality criteria. The application, as submitted, will result in storage volumes on the project site which will not be recovered within 72 hours [sic] as required by the DISTRICT criteria. The application, as submitted, contains calculations based on erroneous hydraulic gradients. The application, as submitted, will result in storage volumes insufficient to meet water quality criteria as required by DISTRICT criteria. Post development stormwater runoff rates are underestimated in the application, resulting in system design with insufficient retention storage capacity to meet the DISTRICT's water quantity criteria. The failure to store stormwater or irrigation runoff impacts the substantial interest of the RANCH in that it deprives it of groundwater resources necessary for the successful operation of the ranch. Further, the lack of storage of stormwater and irrigation water is a prohibited waste of the water resources. At the formal hearing, Wiregrass presented no evidence to support any of the foregoing allegations of its Petition. Objections Raised by Wiregrass At The Hearing. At the final hearing, Wiregrass' opposition to Saddlebrook's permit application focused on three different grounds: For purposes of evaluating peak flow discharges, SWFWMD does not have jurisdiction to use a pre-development date prior to October 1, 1984. Under F.A.C. Rule 40D-4.301(1)(i), which provides that an applicant must give reasonable assurance that the surface water management systems "is consistent with the requirements of other public agencies," SWFWMD must apply not only its own permitting criteria but also those of other governmental entities, including county planning ordinan Under F.A.C. Rule 40D-4.301(1)(b), which provides that a permit application must give reasonable assurances that the surface water management system "will not cause adverse water . . . quantity impacts", SWFWMD must consider whether the annual volume of runoff will increase as a result of the proposed surface water management system. None of the foregoing objections was raised in Wiregrass' Petition as a basis for denying Saddlebrook's application. (Annual volume was alluded to in the Petition only as being pertinent to the question of Wiregrass' "substantial interest" for purposes of standing.) In any event, for the reasons set forth below, each of these objections was refuted by the evidence presented at the formal hearing. The 1973 Pre-Development Date. In their civil action against Saddlebrook, the Porters took the position that Saddlebrook's surface water management system should be redesigned so that discharges approximate those levels existing in 1973, before development of the Saddlebrook property. Dr. Gerald Seaburn, a hydrologist retained by the Porters, testified in the civil action that 1973 is the appropriate pre-development date for purposes of evaluating Saddlebrook's peak flow discharges. David Fuxan, a civil engineer retained by the Porters, took the position in the civil action that Saddlebrook should modify its surface water management system so as to return peak flow discharges to 1973 levels. At the formal hearing in this proceeding, Mr. Fuxan testified that it is still his position that Saddlebrook should modify its surface water management system so as to return peak flow discharges to 1973 levels. By letter from the Porters' counsel to SWFWMD dated January 31, 1990, the Porters provided their express consent to SWFWMD's use of 1973 as the pre- development date for evaluating those discharges relevant to Saddlebrook's MSSW permit application. Use of a 1984 "pre-development" date would prevent Saddlebrook from making the modifications the Porters claim in the civil litigation that it must make. Saddlebrook's existing system, about which the Porters complain in the civil litigation, is in all material respects the same system that was in place on October 1, 1984. Use of this existing system as the benchmark of comparison for attenuation of peak flows, therefore, would mean that substantial modifications to the existing system could not be made without substantially increasing retention storage on Saddlebrook. Substantially increasing retention storage on Saddlebrook is not possible due to the high water table and proximity of the lower aquifer. See Finding of Fact 70, below. In addition, a primary claim of the Porters in the civil action is that duration of flow under Saddlebrook's existing system exceeds 1973 levels and has resulted in expanded wetlands on the Porter property. But duration of flow and peak flow discharges are inversely related: duration of flow can be decreased only if peak flow discharges are increased. Accordingly, the only way that Saddlebrook can reduce the duration of flow onto Wiregrass to 1973 levels, as the Porters have demanded, other than increasing retention storage on Saddlebrook, is to return peak flow discharges to 1973 levels. Other Governmental Agencies' Requirements. F.A.C. Rule 40D-4.301(1)(i) provides that a permit applicant must give reasonable assurance that the surface water management system "is consistent with the requirements of other public agencies." SWFWMD has consistently interpreted this provision to be "advisory", i.e., to apprise applicants that they must also comply with other applicable laws and that issuance of an MSSW permit by the District does not relieve them of the responsibility to obtain all necessary local and other permits. SWFWMD's long-standing and consistently-applied interpretation and practice is not to require applicants to prove compliance with the regulations of other govermental agencies in order to obtain an MSSW permit. There are two primary reasons for this interpretation and practice. First, the Southwest Florida Water Management District includes 16 counties and 96 municipalities. In addition, other state and various federal agencies have jurisdiction within its territory. It is impracticable for SWFWMD to become familiar with, and to apply, the permitting and other regulations of more than 100 other agencies. Second, SWFWMD has concluded that, under Part 4 of Secton 373 of the Flordia Statutes, it does not have authority to deny a permit application based on its interpretation of another governmental agency's regulations. In any event, the evidence demonstrates that Saddlebrook has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed redesign will be "consistent with the requirements of other public agencies" as provided in F.A.C. Rule 40D- 4.301(1)(i). Limiting Condition No. 3 of the proposed permit requires that Saddlebrook must comply with Pasco County and other local requirements: The Permittee shall comply with all applicable local subdivision regulations and other local requirements. In addition the permittee shall obtain all necessary Federal, State, local and special district authorizations prior to the start of any construction or alteration of works authorized by this permit. In addition, Standard Condition No.3 ensures that SWFWMD approval will not supersede any separate permitting or other requirements imposed by Pasco County: The issuance of this permit does not . . . authorize any . . . infringement of federal, state or local laws or regulations. (Emphasis added.) Finally, the Pasco County ordinance upon which Wiregrass relies imposes requirements that are in substance identical to SWFWMD's with respect to MSSW permit applications. Saddlebrook's compliance with SWFWMD's regulations likewise would satisfy the substance of the requirements of the county ordinance. Annual Volume of Runoff. F.A.C. Rule 40D-4 (incorporating the Basis of Review) does not address, and SWFWMD does not regulate, the annual volume of runoff in open drainage basins. If annual volume of runoff is relevant under Rule 40D-4.301, as Wiregrass contends, that rule requires only that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that "the surface water management system" will not cause adverse quantity impacts. Saddlebrook's existing surface water management system has not caused a significant increase in the annual volume of runoff onto Wiregrass' property. The increase in the annual volume of runoff from Saddlebrook that has occurred over the pre-development 1973 condition has resulted from the urbanization of Saddlebrook's property. The increase in the annual volume of runoff from Saddlebrook over that existing prior to development (1973) is approximately 3.4 inches. This increase is only a small fraction of the natural year-to-year variation in runoff resulting from differences in rainfall alone. Rainfall can vary up to 30 inches on an annual basis, from 40 to 70 inches per year. The resulting year-to-year variations in runoff can total as much as 20 inches. The approximately 3.4 inches increase in the annual volume of runoff from Saddlebrook due to urbanization has caused no adverse impact to Wiregrass. The natural drainage system on the Wiregrass property has in the past and throughout its history received and handled increases in the annual volume of runoff of up to 20 inches due to rainfall differences. Such increases simply flow through Wiregrass' property. Of the approximately 3.4 inch increase in annual runoff due to urbanization, only approximately one-third of an inch is due to the filling in of bayheads by Saddlebrook's prior owner. This increase is insignificant and has not caused a substantial adverse impact to Wiregrass. Any reduction of storage resulting from the filling of bayheads will be more than compensated for under the proposed redesign. Storage on Saddlebrook's property will be increased by approximately 35 percent under the proposed condition over that existing in 1973, before the bayheads were filled. In open drainage basins, like Saddlebrook's, downstream flooding is a function of the rate of peak flow of discharge, not the annual volume of runoff. This is one of the reasons why, in the case of open drainage basins, SWFWMD regulates peak flow discharges and not the annual volume of runoff. Because Saddlebrook's proposed redesign will attenuate peak flow discharges to those levels that existed in the pre-devlopment 1973 condition, Saddlebrook has provided reasonable assurance that there will not be increased flooding on Wiregrass' property in the future. The evidence does not establish that Wiregrass has suffered, or will suffer, any adverse impact due to an increase in the annual volume of runoff from Saddlebrook as a result of the design, or redesign, of the system, or as a result of urbanization, or otherwise. It is not possible to design a surface water management system at Saddlebrook that would reduce the annual volume of runoff. Such a system, which involves the percolation of surface water from retention ponds into a deeper, aquifer system, requires a deep water table. At Saddlebrook, the water table is near the ground surface. As a result, it is not possible to store a significant quantity of water in retention ponds between storm events. In addition, the water levels in the deeper and the shallower aquifer systems at Saddlebrook are approximately the same and, therefore, there is insufficient hydraulic pressure to push the water through the confining layer between the two systems and into the deeper aquifer system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order granting Saddlebrook's application for surface water management permit no. 497318.00, subject to the terms and conditions in the SWFWMD Staff Report. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 31st day of March, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-3658 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-4. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 7.-9. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. First sentence, accepted. Second sentence, rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but not necessary. 12.-13. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but not necessary. The extent of the wetland expansion is rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The rest is accepted. However, the increased volume is due in large part to urbanization, not to the surface water management system. It also is due in part to alterations to the property done by the Porters. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted. However, this would occur only during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, and there was no evidence that one has occurred or, if it has, whether Mr. Porter was there to observe it. 18.-20. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Characterization "much of" is rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that lichen lines, by themselves, are ordinarily are sufficient to set jurisdictional lines. 26.-29. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Even if it were proven that the wetlands had expanded, it was not proven, and is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, that Saddlebrook (and, especially, Saddlebrook's surface water management system) caused the expansion. First sentence, accepted but cumulative. The rest is rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. In any event, both factors are undeniably significant. 32.-34. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 39.-41. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that SWFWMD does not apply it. The evidence was that SWFWMD interprets it differently than Wiregrass proposes and applies its own interpretation. Under the SWFWMD interpretation, the permit conditions requiring compliance with other legal requirements constitute the necessary "reasonable assurance." In addition, SWFWMD's review and evaluation is not complete until this formal administrative proceeding is completed, and the Pasco County ordinance has been considered as part of this proceeding. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Again, SWFWMD's review and evaluation is not complete until this formal administrative proceeding is completed, and annual volume has been considered as part of this proceeding. That consideration has affirmed SWFWMD's position that, at least in this case, the proposed stormwater management system does not cause an increase in annual volume that would result in denial of the application. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. First sentence, accepted (although the characterization "far exceed" is imprecise) and incorporated. Second sentence, rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary that no "stipulation" was entered into. But the evidence is clear that Wiregrass, Saddlebrook and SWFWMD all agreed to the use of 1973 as the point of comparison for peak flow discharges. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact. The proposed findings of fact contained in the Proposed Recommended Order of Respondents Saddlebrook Resorts, Inc., and Southwest Florida Water Management District are accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas P. Manson, Esquire Foley & Lardner 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 3650 Tampa, Florida 33602 Stephen R. Patton, Esquire Jeffrey A. Hall, Esquire Kirkland & Ellis East Randolph Drive Chicago, Illinois 60601 Enola T. Brown, Esquire Lawson, McWhirter, Grandoff & Reeves East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 800 Post Office Box 3350 Tampa, Florida 33601-3350 Mark F. Lapp, Esquire Edward Helvenston, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
