Findings Of Fact Lake Powell Improvement Corporation is a consortium of interested owners of land comprising the majority of the Lake Powell shoreline. Camp Helen Company, one of its members, owns lake property which was formerly operated as a recreational facility for associates of Avondale Mills. Camp Helen Company now holds the property for the possibility of future development. George Jeter is one of approximately 76 persons who sent a form letter to the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in opposition to the designation of Lake Powell/Phillips Inlet as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). The rule-making proceeding to designate Lake Powell/Phillips Inlet an OFW was initiated with a petition filed on June 11, 1987, by the St. Andrews Bay Resource Management Association, a private citizens' organization formed in 1986 to help protect wildlife and resources in the St. Andrews Bay area. A public workshop was conducted by DER on September 6, 1990, in Panama City, Florida. Approximately 70 persons attended the workshop, including Bay County residents, Walton County residents, Lake Powell area property owners and representatives from various organizations. Craig Crockard, Vice President of Lake Powell Improvement Corporation, opposed the designation based on alleged degradation of property values and tax base, negative impact on growth and increase in road maintenance costs. Agency staff encouraged workshop participants and members of the public to submit information, including economic information, that would aid in the decision-making process. Only general and speculative information was received, with the exception of a response from the Department of Transportation that costs of future construction and expansion of the Phillips Inlet bridge, part of four-laning Highway 98, would be increased by $1.5 million as a result of the OFW regulations. DER sent a letter to Craig Crockard, received on April 2, 1991, requesting specifics as to the property owners' development plans and estimated economic impacts by April 5th. Crockard responded that the deadline was too short and that it was obvious that the decision had already been made. At no time, up to and including the hearing before the Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC), did Petitioners or other opponents provide information as to specific economic impacts of the proposed designation. The proposed rule would add the following area to rule 17- 302.700(9)(i), F.A.C. specifying special waters under the OFW designation: Special Waters * * * Lake Powell, Phillips Inlet, and all tributaries to Lake Powell as bounded by the following described line: Begin at the Northwest corner of Section 26, Township 2 South, Range 18 West; thence East to the Northwest corner of Section 29, Township 2 South, Range 17 West; thence South to the Northwest corner of the SW 1/4 of Section 29, Township 2 South, Range 17 West; thence East to the West line of Section 27, Township 2 South, Range 17 West, thence South to the mean high water line of the Gulf of Mexico; thence meander Northwest along the mean high water line to the West line of Section 35, Township 2 South, Range 18 West; thence North to the point of beginning ( - - 91). * * * In making its determination to recommend OFW designation for Lake Powell to the ERC, the Department compared Lake Powell to other water bodies. Lake Powell was found to be exceptionally ecologically and recreationally significant in terms of size, water quality and recreational usage. The Department makes its determination as to whether the proposed water body is exceptional by making direct comparisons to features of other water bodies, and by relying on the professional judgements of others familiar with the particular class of water bodies. Lake Powell has been compared by professionals familiar with other water bodies in the area and in their opinion it has exceptional value as an ecosystem. The Department relied on professional judgement of this type as well as its own findings when making the determination that Lake Powell was exceptional. Lake Powell is located in Bay and Walton Counties in Northwest Florida adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico. Its total surface area of 737 acres makes it the largest by far of any of a series of similar lakes in the area. Seven small streams provide fresh water to the lake; periodically Phillips Inlet, connecting the lake to the Gulf of Mexico, opens or closes. When the inlet is open, the lake becomes estuarine in nature. Most of the shoreline of Lake Powell is still undeveloped and the lake is significant in that it has experienced only minimal adverse impact from human activity. There are no permitted point source discharges to Lake Powell. It is basin-shaped, with a shallow shell, steep sandy slopes, and a flat bottom ranging from approximately 10 to 20 feet deep. Silty, high organic sediments in the water are amenable to degradation and are uniquely sensitive to pollution. Restricted flushing and the opportunity for development growth in the area add to that sensitivity. Lake Powell is a Class III waterbody. Water quality in the lake is good, and meets Class III standards; some parameters are as good as Class II standards. The low dissolved oxygen level in the lake is a result of natural conditions, is not a result of pollution, and is therefore not a violation of the Class III standard for dissolved oxygen. Lake Powell is one of the lakes in the state that is part of the water quality sampling effort known as Lake Watch. A benefit of OFW designation to this effort will be that Lake Powell, absent degradation, can serve as a control lake to compare other Lake Watch lakes throughout the State. At least 170 species of birds, (trust resources of the US Fish and Wildlife Service), have been observed and are dependent on Lake Powell. Unusual species include the piping plover (federally and state designated threatened), snowy plover (state designated threatened), least tern (state designated threatened), and bald eagle (federally designated endangered and state designated threatened). These species have a direct dependence on Lake Powell for habitat, feeding, or nesting areas. They are dependent on non-trust species such as small fishes which could be impacted by chemicals introduced to the lake. Edwin James Kepner, a biologist for the National Marine Fisheries Service, has identified three new species of nematodes which so far have been uniquely found in Lake Powell. Although nematode species are among the most abundant on earth (97,000 individuals may be found in a single rotting apple), they are a highly significant part of an ecological system and must be understood and studied for any understanding of marine communities. The lake supports a diversity of animals. At least 87 species of macrobenthic invertebrates and 67 species of fin fish inhabit the lake, a diversity based on the system's intermittent connection to the Gulf and the lake's relatively pristine condition compared to other lakes. One would expect to find even more diversity, 3 to 4 times more species, if better and more accurate sampling methods were employed. Lake Powell presents a unique nursery area, since most large predator fishes do not have access to it. The lake presently supports a variety of recreational activities, including canoeing, sailing, windsurfing, water-skiing, fishing, crabbing and picnicking. This recreational use has increased during the last five years. Lake Powell is ranked 36th out of 361 lakes statewide in a 1982 study of recreational usage. In terms of potential to the public for recreational usage, Lake Powell has three public access points to the lake, and a possible fourth. Public access is gained by a Bay County public park and by way of Gulf View Drive, which is owned by Bay County and used to launch boats. There is a public dock in Walton County which is also used extensively. The fourth access is currently the subject of an inquiry by the Bay County Audubon Society. The unusual quality of recreational experience lies in the pristine nature of the lake and the fact that it is located not far from the Miracle Strip in Panama City Beach. The ERC Commissioners, who were taken on a tour of the lake, were able to contrast the two areas and found that Lake Powell had unusual recreational value. Lake Powell provides an exceptional educational opportunity, and with its many different types of habitat it is a compact, manageable educational laboratory. As compared to the St. Andrews Bay System it would be much easier to collect samples, obtain information on biotic communities and generally conduct research on the effectiveness of regulatory programs, due to the manageable size of the lake. The proposed amendment to Rule 17-302.700(9)(i), F.A.C., to designate Lake Powell as an OFW would potentially affect future Department permit applicants by requiring they provide the Department with reasonable assurances that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest and that the proposed project would not lower existing ambient water quality standards (Rule 17-4.242, F.A.C.); by requiring that direct stormwater discharges into the lake include an additional 50% treatment level (Rule 17-25.025(9), F.A.C.); and by reducing the exemption for private residential docks from 1000 square feet to 500 square feet (Rule 17-4.04(9)(c), F.A.C.). These requirements will result in increased costs to permit applicants, although the costs cannot be calculated at this time since there are no such projects firmly proposed to the Department. The primary beneficial effect of the proposed rule would be the protection of future water quality based on existing ambient water quality standards at time of OFW designation. Pursuant to Section 120.54(2), F.S., an Economic Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared by the Department. Section 120.54(2)(b), F.S., requires the statement to include: * * * An estimate of the cost to the agency of the implementation of the proposed action, including the estimated amount of paperwork; An estimate of the cost or the economic benefit to all persons directly affected by the proposed action; An estimate of the impact of the proposed action on competition and the open market for employment, if applicable; A detailed statement of the data and method used in making each of the above estimates; and An analysis of the impact on small business as defined in the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act of 1985. Additionally, Rule 17-302.700(4)(e) provides: An economic impact analysis consistent with Chapter 120, shall be prepared which provides a general analysis of the impact on growth and development including such factors as impacts on planned or potential industrial, agricultural, or other development or expansion. It is undisputed that the EIS properly addressed the costs of implementation to the Department. The EIS identified the kind of Department permit applicant that would potentially be affected by the rule amendment, and what kinds of developmental impacts could be expected by operation of other Department rules. The EIS did not identify any specific costs that would be attributable to the rule, as the Department was unaware of any specific development plans for the lake that would be subject to the Department rules. Existing development activities are grandfathered and would not be affected by the more stringent requirements. The Department stated in its EIS that the overall costs imposed on future development due to the proposed OFW designation would depend on both the nature of the development and its impact on the ambient water quality of the lake. Since the type and nature of future development in the area is uncertain, an estimate of the potential aggregate costs associated with the proposed OFW designation could not be made at the time the EIS was prepared. The EIS properly addressed the costs of the proposed rule to the parties, based upon the facts as known to the Department. The benefits to the public of the rule were stated to be largely environmental, as a result of protection of future ambient water quality standards in the lake. The EIS cited an economic benefit to land owners around the lake in the form of enhanced property values due to water quality protections of the OFW designation, water quality being an important variable in determining property values of waterfront property. That property values would be enhanced is based on the DER economist's study of another state's experience and experience with OFW designation in other Florida counties. The EIS properly addresses the benefits of the rule. The EIS states that there will be no significant effect on competition as a result of the proposed OFW designation; Petitioners have not presented any evidence to the contrary. The EIS adequately addresses the rule's effect on competition. The EIS states that the proposed OFW designation is not expected to create any significant adverse disproportionate impacts on small businesses, as required by Section 120.54(2)(b)5., F.S. As Petitioners have not introduced any evidence to the contrary, the EIS adequately addresses this issue. The EIS states that appropriate economic analysis techniques were employed preparing the EIS. Petitioners participated in the rulemaking process; they attended the Panama City workshop when economic information was solicited; they submitted written comments, none of which provided specific economic information; and they participated in the ERC hearing but offered no evidence to the Commission regarding economic impacts of the rule. The type of information they suggest that the Department should consider was not submitted by them, or anyone else, during the rulemaking process or this hearing. The evidence shows that the Department considered all comments submitted throughout the rulemaking process in making the recommendation of OFW designation to the ERC. The EIS properly explains the data and methodology used in its preparation, and this data and methodology was adequate to estimate the economic impacts of the rule. In January 1991, the Bay County Board of County Commissioners amended the County's comprehensive plan to provide special protection for Lake Powell. These provisions include more stringent requirements for stormwater retention and detention, an objective to maintain Lake Powell's water quality at its present level, restriction on use of household septic tanks, designation of a low-density residential zone, and prohibition of point source discharges which would lower existing water quality. (Joint Exhibit #1, Appendix D) Both parties have invoked the plan amendments for their own purpose. Petitioners argue that the plan amendments provide the same or greater protection than the proposed OFW designation and that the designation is not needed. This argument ignores the fact that at least 10% of the lake lies within Walton County, outside Bay County's jurisdiction. DER did not require Bay County to amend its plan and could not require it to maintain the new Lake Powell protections indefinitely. The OFW designation does not detract from or conflict with the local government's commendable initiative, but rather augments it. Respondent, DER, addresses the plan in its modified EIS where it discusses the contention by the Department of Transportation (DOT) that OFW designation will add $1.5 million in costs to widen a road at the Phillips Inlet bridge. DER's economist concedes that designation will result in additional costs and has discussed that in the EIS. Because he has not received back-up data from DOT he is unable to confirm that the cost will be as much as DOT asserts. He also attributes the increase to the new stormwater requirements of the Bay County comprehensive plan, and concludes the additional costs due to OFW designation might be zero. (Joint Exhibit #2, p. 7) Even if misplaced, the attribution of costs does not invalidate the EIS or the proposed designation. The EIS generally describes potential costs and provides a basis to weigh the environmental, social and economic costs against the environmental, social and economic benefits. In summary, the facts above support the ERC's finding that the waters selected for designation are of exceptional recreational or ecological significance and the benefits of designation outweigh its costs.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondents, Kelly Endres and Ifrain Lima (Endres/Lima), are entitled to an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) that would allow use of 0.535 acres of previously impacted wetlands for the construction of a single-family residence and associated structures, a 30' x 30' private dock with a 4' access walkway, and a 12' wide boat ramp (Project) at 160 Long Acres Lane, Oviedo, Florida (Property).
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. The Parties The Department is the administrative agency of the state statutorily charged with, among other things, protecting Florida's air and water resources. The Department administers and enforces certain provisions of chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated, thereunder, in the Florida Administrative Code. Under that authority, the Department determines whether to issue or deny applications for ERPs. Respondents Endres/Lima own the Property and are the applicants for the ERP at issue in this consolidated proceeding. Petitioner Meier is a neighboring property owner to the south of the Property. Petitioner Meier's property includes a single-family residence with accessory structures and is located on Long Lake. Petitioner Meier is concerned that the NOI provides inadequate environmental protections and that there will be flooding on adjacent properties from the Project. Petitioner Hacker is the neighboring property owner adjacent to the south of the Property. Petitioner Hacker's property includes a single-family residence with accessory structures and is located on Long Lake. He is concerned with the completeness of the application for the Project, the calculation of wetland impacts, that reasonable assurances were provided, and that the Department's NOI ignores willful negligence and allows disparate treatment of Respondents Endres/Lima. Petitioner Kochmann is a property owner with a single-family residence and accessory structures located on Long Lake. She is concerned that the NOI is based on a misleading application and provides no evidence that the Respondents Endres/Lima made reasonable efforts to eliminate and reduce impacts detrimental to the environment. History of the Project and Application On April 12, 2018, Respondents Endres/Lima applied for an ERP for proposed wetland impacts associated with a planned single-family home on the Property. This was the first ERP application for the Property. The Department sent a Request for Additional Information (RAI) on April 24, 2018, and a second RAI on November 2, 2018. Respondents Endres/Lima provided a Mitigation Service Area Rule Analysis for "As If In-Basin" for the Lake X Mitigation Bank for the St. Johns River Water Management District Basins to the Department via email on May 10, 2018. Respondents Endres/Lima submitted revised plans to the Department on September 19, and October 30, 2018. On January 7, 2019, the Department denied the ERP application. The Department and Respondents Endres/Lima, on July 18, 2019, entered into a Consent Order (CO). The Department found, and Respondents Endres/Lima admitted, that approximately 0.80 acres of jurisdictional wetlands were dredged and filled without a valid ERP from the Department; and was done with improperly installed erosion and sedimentation controls. On August 22, 2019, Respondents Endres/Lima submitted a second ERP application. The Department sent an RAI on September 20, 2019, to which Respondents Endres/Lima responded on December 19, 2019. In addition, Respondents Endres/Lima reserved 0.60 of forested Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) wetland credits from the Lake X Mitigation Bank and provided the Department with an updated site plan and Lake X Mitigation Bank credit reservation letter. The Department issued an NOI on February 7, 2020, which was timely published in the Sanford Herald on February 9, 2020. Respondents Endres/Lima provided timely proof of publication to the Department on February 13, 2020. Consent Order and Compliance A warning letter was issued to Respondents Endres/Lima on January 30, 2019, for the dredging and filling of approximately 0.80 acres of forested wetlands and improper installation of erosion and sedimentation control. The CO, executed on July 18, 2019, required Respondents Endres/Lima to cease any dredging, filling, or construction activities on the Property, submit an application for an Individual ERP within 30 days, and pay $5,599.00 in penalties and the Department's costs and expenses. After the issuance of an ERP, Respondents Endres/Lima were also required to implement the restoration actions outlined in the CO. Respondents’ Endres/Lima’s application, dated August 19, 2020, was submitted to the Department on August 22, 2020. Respondents Endres/Lima paid the CO's penalties and costs, and had multiple meetings with the Department to complete the requirements of the CO. Respondents Endres/Lima’s expert, Mr. Exner, testified that he began working on a restoration plan for the Property, which will be provided to the Department once an ERP is issued. Permitting Criteria The Department reviewed the complete application and determined that it satisfied the conditions for issuance under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-330.301, and the applicable sections of the ERP Applicant's Handbook Volume I (AH Vol. I). The Department also considered the seven criteria in rule 62-330.302 and section 373.414(1)(a), and determined that implementing the Project would not be contrary to the public interest. Water Quantity, Flooding, Surface Water Storage and Conveyance Respondents’ Endres/Lima's civil engineering expert, Mr. Herbert, testified that according to the drainage design, the Property would have swales on either side of the proposed residence to slope water away from the residence. There would also be a conveyance swale on the north property boundary to convey water from the street area and front yard toward the restoration and wetland areas with ultimate discharge to Long Lake. He stated that the elevation of the road at the front of the Property would be at 47.4 feet, and the elevation at the terminus of the swale would be at 45 feet. This would allow a 2.4-foot vertical fall for the swales to convey water to the lake. The design would preserve pre-development surface water flow over the Property to Long Lake, which is the lowest elevation in the area, and will ensure that storm water does not flood adjacent properties. Mr. Herbert also testified that the Project design would maintain pre-development water storage capacity. The imported fill that is currently on the Property in the flood plain would be removed and reshaped so that the lake elevation would be maintained and water can flow correctly. Elimination or Reduction of Impacts and Mitigation Respondents Endres/Lima provided the Department with design modifications to reduce impacts associated with the Project. These included a 15-foot restoration buffer along the lake front's northern shoreline, an elevated access walkway five feet above the wetland restoration area to the proposed dock, limiting the width of the access walk to four feet, and limiting the boat ramp width to a single-lane. In June 2015, an informal wetlands determination was conducted for the Property. The informal determination concluded that the entirety of the Property were wetlands. However, this was an informal determination and was not binding. In October 2016, before the first permit application was submitted, Mr. Exner did a wetlands delineation flagging prior to the Property being cleared or disturbed. Mr. Exner testified that, in his opinion, the Property was not all wetlands because large pines near the road had no high water marks, adventitious growth around the bases, or evidence of pine borer beetles along with other indicators of upland habitat. This wetland delineation was part of the permit submittal, was shown on the plans, was accepted by the Department, and was used for the preparation of the UMAM scoring. Mr. Exner's wetland delineation line was used by the Department to help determine and map the wetland impacts identified in the CO. The direct impact area was assessed at 0.54 acres with a secondary impact area of 0.02 acres for a total impact of 0.56 acres, and a functional loss score of 0.364. Respondents Endres/Lima reserved 0.6 forested UMAM mitigation credits, almost double the amount of functional loss under the UMAM assessment, agreed to purchase 0.46 credits. The excess mitigation bank credits implement part of a plan that provides regional ecological value and greater long-term ecological value than the area of wetland adversely affected. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts The Project's UMAM analysis assessed 0.02 acres, or 870 square feet, of secondary impacts. These impacts would be fully offset by the mitigation proposed for the Project. Petitioners' expert, Mr. Mahnken, noted three areas where he thought the application was incomplete. The first was that the site plan did not call out the location of the secondary impacts. However, Part III: Plans of Section B of the application, does not require that the site plan show the location of the secondary impacts. The application requirements for "plans" requires only the boundaries and size of the wetlands on the Property and provide the acreages of the upland areas, wetland impact areas, and the remaining untouched area. Second, Mr. Mahnken questioned the calculation performed to determine the secondary impact acreage. However, Mr. Mahnken read the information incorrectly and stated that the secondary impact area was 0.002 acres, or 87 square feet, when the UMAM score sheet clearly showed that the secondary impact area is 0.02 acres, or 870 square feet. In addition, the Department's witness, Ms. Warr, testified that even if the Department were to use Mr. Mahnken's analysis, the result would have been the same, i.e., the requirement to purchase 0.46 mitigation credits. Thus, Petitioners failed to support their claim that the Project would have adverse secondary impacts. Third, Mr. Mahnken asserted that cumulative impacts were not adequately addressed. He testified that the assessment for the Property using spill over benefits, in his opinion, was not enough to fully offset the impacts of the Project. Mr. Mahnken acknowledged, however, that his opinion was open to debate, and that he had not conducted any rigorous hydrologic evaluation in reaching his opinion. Respondents Endres/Lima had submitted a report prepared by Breedlove, Dennis & Associates (BDA Report) with their application in order to demonstrate compliance with section 10.2.8, ERP AH Vol. I, regarding cumulative impacts. The BDA Report utilized peer-reviewed hydrologic data that was reviewed and approved by the South Florida Water Management District, and was accepted by the Department pursuant to section 373.4136(6)(c). This was consistent with the Property's location within the mitigation service area for the Lake X Mitigation Bank. The Project is located within the Econlockhatchee River drainage basin, which is a nested basin within the larger St. Johns River [Canaveral Marshes to Wekiva] drainage basin. The Lake X Mitigation Bank is located outside of the Econlockhatchee River drainage basin, but the Project is located within the Lake X Mitigation Bank service area. The BDA report determined that: In summary, the Lake X Mitigation Bank is a regionally significant mitigation bank site that has direct hydrological and ecological connections to the SJRWMD basins, to include the cumulative impacts basin in which the subject property is located (i.e., SJRWMD Basin 19). The size, biodiversity, and proximity of the mitigation bank site to the SJRWMD basins, and the regionally significant hydrological connection between the mitigation bank site and the contiguous SJRWMD mitigation basins, supports the use of this mitigation bank site “as if in basin” mitigation for the Lima/Endres Wetland Fill Project. Additionally, the evaluation of factors, to include connectivity of waters, hydrology, habitat range of affected species, and water quality, demonstrates the spillover benefits that the Lake X Mitigation Bank has on the St. Johns River (Canaveral Marshes to Wekiva) mitigation basin, which includes the Econlockhatchee River Nested basin, and demonstrated that the proposed mitigation will fully offset the impacts proposed as part of the Lima/Endres Wetland Fill Project “as if in-basin” mitigation. The Lake X Mitigation Bank will protect and maintain the headwaters of two regionally significant drainage basins [i.e., the Northern Everglades Kissimmee River Watershed and the Upper St. Johns River Watershed (to include the nested Econlockhatchee River basin)], and will provide resource protection to both river systems (SFWMD Technical Staff Report, November 29, 2016). Furthermore, the permanent protection and management of the Lake X Mitigation Bank will provide spillover benefits to the SJRWMD basins located within the permitted MSA. Mr. Mahnken stated that his review of the Project did not include a hydrologic study and only looked at basic flow patterns for Long Lake. By contrast, the BDA Report included an extensive hydrologic study, looked at all required factors in section 10.2.8(b), ERP AH, Vol. I, and determined that the Project would be fully offset with the proposed mitigation. Thus, Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts. Water Quality Rule 62-330.302(1)(e) requires that Respondents Endres/Lima provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the state water quality standards will be violated. The conditions of the ERP would require the use of best management practices including a floating turbidity curtain/barrier, soil stabilization with grass seed or sod, and a silt fence. Respondent Endres/Lima's experts, Mr. Herbert and Mr. Exner, testified that there is an existing turbidity barrier in the lake around the property and a silt fence around the east half of the Property. While these items are not required by the Department until construction of the Project, part of the silt fence and the turbidity barrier are already installed on the Property and will be required to be repaired and properly maintained in accordance with the conditions of the ERP and Site Plan SP-2. Mr. Herbert testified that the Property will be graded in a manner that will result in a gentle sloping of the lake bank in the littoral zone, which would allow revegetation of the lake bank. Outside of the restoration area and the undisturbed wetlands, the backyard would be covered with grass to prevent migration of sand and soil discharging into the lake. Mr. Exner testified that the grass swales proposed for the Project would provide a considerable amount of nutrient uptake and filtration of surface water on the Property. Also, in the restoration area next to the lake, the restoration plan includes a dense planting plan with native species that have good nutrient uptake capability. Impacts to Fish and Wildlife Rule 62-330.301(1)(d) requires that Respondents Endres/Lima provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Mr. Exner testified that, in his review of the Property, he did not identify any critical wildlife habitat. He visited the Property multiple times and he did not see any osprey nests, deer tracks, animal scat, gopher tortoises, or sand hill cranes. The Department's Ms. Warr testified that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission database was reviewed, and did not show any listed species in the area. Publication of Notice Petitioners argued that the notice published in the Sanford Herald on February 9, 2020, did not meet the requirements of section 373.413(4). Despite the notice having no effect on their ability to timely challenge the proposed ERP, Petitioners argued that the published notice was insufficient because the notice itself did not provide the name of the applicants or the address of the Project, only a link to the Department's permit file. Unlike the notice required in section 373.413(3), where a person has filed a written request for notification of any pending application affecting a particular designated area, section 373.413(4) does not specify the contents of the published notice. Section 373.413(4) does not require the published notice to include the name and address of the applicant; a brief description of the proposed activity, including any mitigation; the location of the proposed activity, including whether it is located within an Outstanding Florida Water or aquatic preserve; a map identifying the location of the proposed activity subject to the application; a depiction of the proposed activity subject to the application; or a name or number identifying the application and the office where the application can be inspected. In response to the published notice, the Department received approximately ten petitions challenging the NOI, including the petitions timely filed by Petitioners. Therefore, Petitioners were not harmed by any information alleged to have been left out of the published notice. Ultimate Findings Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; and will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project complied with elimination and reduction of impacts, and proposed more than adequate mitigation. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water resources; and unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters within the same drainage basin. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse water quality impacts to receiving water bodies. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife, and listed species by wetlands, or other surface waters. Petitioners failed to prove lack of reasonable assurance by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order granting Respondents’ Endres/Lima's ERP application. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES 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 COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 2020. Jay Patrick Reynolds, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Neysa Borkert, Esquire Garganese, Weiss, D'Agresta and Salzman 111 North Orange Avenue Post Office Box 398 Orlando, Florida 32802 (eServed) Tracy L. Kochmann 249 Carolyn Drive Oviedo, Florida 32765 (eServed) Shelley M. Meier 208 Long Acres Lane Oviedo, Florida 32765 (eServed) Brian Hacker 170 Long Acres Lane Oviedo, Florida 32765 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) should approve applications to renew consumptive use permits filed on behalf of the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (Authority), Pinellas County (County), and Freeman F. Polk (Polk), and if so, what conditions should be included in the permits. The District proposes to issue renewed permits to these applicants with specified conditions, but Polk seeks certain additional condition; to the permits sought by the Authority and the County, and similarly, the Authority and County seek the imposition of additional conditions on Polk's permit. The parties seek these additional conditions to insure that the permitted uses will not interfere with any legal use of water existing at the time of the applications, and will also not cause the water table to be lowered so that lake stages or vegetation are adversely and significantly affected on lands other than those owned, leased or controlled by the applicants.
Findings Of Fact The following findings are based upon relevant stipulations of the parties: The Authority is a special taxing district of the State of Florida encompassing Pasco, Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties, which was created by interlocal agreement on October 25, 1974. It is responsible for the design, construction, operation and maintenance of facilities in locations, and at times, necessary to insure that an adequate supply of water will be available to all persons residing within its boundaries. The District is an agency of the State of Florida which is charged with regulating consumptive uses of water in a sixteen county area, including Pinellas, Pasco and Hillsborough Counties. It has implemented a permitting program that requires all persons seeking to withdraw water in excess of an annual average daily rate of 100,000 gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 1,000,000 gallons, to obtain a consumptive use permit. The Cypress Creek Wellfield is located on a 4,895 acre site in central Pasco County, lying east of U.S. 41 between State Roads 52 and 54. The District owns 3,623 acres of this Wellfield, and the remaining 1,272 acres are owned by the City of St. Petersburg. Construction on the Cypress Creek Wellfield commenced in 1974, and it currently consists of thirteen production wells, numerous monitor wells, several thousand feet of transmission lines, two 5 gallon storage tanks, a pump station and several buildings. The City of St. Petersburg, Pinellas and Pasco Counties, and the District have transferred their rights and privileges in this Wellfield, as well as the Wellfield facilities, to the Authority by contracts entered into in November, 1973, and August 1974. Water produced at the Cypress Creek Wellfield is sold at cost by the Authority to users which include the City of St. Petersburg and Pinellas County. The water produced at this Wellfield comprises 29% of the County's total water system demand (20 million gallons a day), and 25% of the City of St. Petersburg's total system demand (10 million gallons a day). These water systems serve approximately 470,000 and 330,000 persons, respectively. In March 1978, the District issued a six-year consumptive use permit to the Authority, the City of St. Petersburg, and the County authorizing an annual average and maximum daily withdrawal of 30 million gallons a day from the Cypress Creek Wellfield. The Authority also began a detailed ecological monitoring program in, and around, this Wellfield in 1978. A three-year permit was then issued to the Authority in December, 1982, authorizing withdrawals of 30 million gallons a day, annual average, and 40 million gallons a day, maximum daily, from the Wellfield. The District determined by Order No. 82-28, dated December 1, 1982, that an average annual daily rate of withdrawal of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of withdrawal of 40 million gallons from the Cypress Creek Wellfield was a reasonable-beneficial use, was consistent with the public interest, and would not interfere with any legal use of water existing at the time of that application. An application for renewal of the Cypress Creek Wellfield consumptive use permit at the quantities permitted in 1982 was filed with the District on November 7, 1985, by the Authority, the County and the City of St. Petersburg. The continued withdrawal of water from the Cypress Creek Wellfield at an annual average daily rate of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 40 million gallons is needed in order to meet the water supply demands of the residents of Pinellas and Pasco Counties, is in the interest of residents of Pinellas County, and will not cause the rate of flow of a stream or other watercourse to be lowered below the minimum rate of flow established by the District. The regulatory level of the potentiometric surface established by the District for the Cypress Creek Wellfield has never been exceeded by prior withdrawals of water at permitted rates. Continued withdrawal of water from the Cypress Creek Wellfield at an annual average daily rate of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 40 million gallons will not cause the potentiometric surface level to be lowered below sea level, or any regulatory level established by the District, will not cause the surface level of water to be lowered below any minimum established by the District, and will not significantly induce salt water encroachment. The Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield is located on a 8,060 acre site in north central Pasco County, lying approximately one mile south of the Pasco-Hernando County line, and immediately east of U.S. 41. The Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield property has been owned by Pinellas County since 1976. Wellfield construction was completed in 1981. By agreement entered into on April 11, 1979, the Authority is obligated to sell the County water produced from the Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield, but any excess not currently being used by the County may be sold to other members of the Authority. A significant amount of water produced at Cross Bar Ranch is pumped to the Cypress Creek Wellfield where it is combined with that Wellfield's water, and then distributed to Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties, as well as the City of St. Petersburg, for further distribution. The water produced at these two Wellfields in combination accounts for about 60% of the County's total water system demand. Following pump tests performed from 1977 to 1979, as well as an ecological monitoring program, the District issued a modified consumptive use permit to the Authority by Order 80-9, dated February 6, 1980, for Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield. The District determined that withdrawals at an average daily rate of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 45 million gallons from Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield was a reasonable beneficial use, was consistent with the public interest, and would not interfere with any legal use of water existing at the time of that application. On November 7, 1985, the Authority and County jointly applied to the District for renewal of the consumptive use permit for Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield at the current permitted quantities of an annual average daily rate of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 45 million gallons. These withdrawal rates are needed in order to meet present and future water supply demands of the residents of Pinellas, Pasco and Hillsborough Counties, provide water for environmental mitigation, and make up water when one or more production facilities cannot pump at their permitted levels. The withdrawal of water from Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield at permitted rates will not cause the level of the potentiometric surface to be lowered below sea level, or any regulatory levels established by the District, and will not significantly induce salt water encroachment. Jumping Gully is the only stream or watercourse in the vicinity under the influence of this Wellfield, and the District has not established a minimum rate of flow for Jumping Gully. Hydrologic data collected from monitor wells located at the Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield show the potentiometric surface has been above mean sea level during the operation of this facility. The District has renewed consumptive use permits for a period of ten years for the City of St. Petersburg, and the City of Lakeland Power Plant. The Authority owns, leases or otherwise controls the area within both the Cypress Creek and Cross Bar Ranch Wellfields. Polk owns, leases or otherwise controls the property identified in his amended permit application of July 26, 1988. Both the Authority's and Polk's permit applications were filed on the proper forms, and otherwise comply with the District's procedural requirements for consumptive use permits. Each party has standing to participate in this case. The proposed uses of water which are the subject of these proceedings are reasonable beneficial uses, and in the public interest. The only permit criteria that remain at issue in this case are set forth in Rules 40D-2.301(1)(c) and (2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. The following findings of fact are based upon the evidence presented at the hearing: Polk was first issued a consumptive use permit for Ft. King Ranch in August, 1981, after both the Cypress Creek Wellfield and Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield had each been permitted to withdraw 30 million gallons per day. Polk's permit authorized him to withdraw ground water at an average annual rate of 420,000 gallons per day, and a maximum rate of approximately 1.94 gallons per day for irrigation of pasture grass and citrus, and cattle drinking water. A temporary consumptive use permit issued to Polk in August, 1981, was signed by him and states on its face that these additional groundwater withdrawals were necessary because of drought conditions. A modified permit was issued to Polk by the District in July, 1982, authorizing him to increase his withdrawals to an average annual rate of approximately 1.94 gpd, and a maximum rate of 5.9 gpd. Polk's wells are not metered. Prior to August, 1981, Polk did not have man made surface or groundwater withdrawal on his property. As it relates to this proceeding, the property owned, leased or otherwise controlled by Polk is known as the Ft. King Ranch, which is generally located between the Cross Bar Ranch and Cypress Creek Wellfields, and consists of approximately 6,000 acres. The Ft. King Ranch is comprised of five tracts which were separately acquired by Polk commencing in January, 1969, and ending in 1984. By 1978, Polk had acquired two of these five tracts. He leased a third tract beginning in 1971, before acquiring an ownership interest in 1981. These three tracts were designated parcels A, B, and C, and are located in the eastern and northern portion of the Ranch. These three parcels were the only tracts owned, leased or otherwise controlled by Polk at the time the first Cypress Creek and Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield permits were issued in 1978. The western tracts were acquired in 1982 and 1984, and were also referred to as the AL-BAR Ranch at hearing. Polk uses the Ft. King Ranch for a cow-calf operation, and also sod farming and seeding. From 1969 to approximately 1978, there was sufficient surface water on the Ft. King Ranch for these farming activities to be carried out without irrigation or wells. Water holes used by cattle were always wet, and lakes on the property were used for swimming and fishing. His pasture, hay, seed and sod grasses received moisture solely from rainfall. However, Polk did not establish the amounts of water used in his operations prior to the issuance of Wellfield permits. In 1976, parcels A, B, and C were used for these purposes, although Polk has frequently changed the specific size and location of acreages devoted to these land uses. In order to correct flooding that occurred on portions of the Ft. King Ranch during times of heavy rainfall, Polk sought the advice of the Soil Conservation Service in the mid-1970's. He was advised to construct a series of dikes and swales to control the flow of surface water on his property. During 1980 and 1981, Polk constructed a network of swales and ditches to divert and control the flow of surface water from portions of the Ranch needing less water to those requiring wetter conditions, such as his sod and seed operation. The swales interconnect lakes and ponds on his Ranch. He also constructed a levee on the property, and installed a lift pump. These activities have converted most of the eastern portion of his ranch to improved pasture and sod grasses, and virtually eliminated native vegetation. Polk had no professional help in the construction of his ditch-swale systems, or the levee. Beginning in approximately 1980, drier conditions were experienced at the Ranch. One of the ten driest years on record in this area occurred in 1980, and continued drought conditions in 1981 caused the District's Governing Board to declare a water shortage, and impose water conservation measures throughout the District. Some lakes and cypress swamps dried completely and failed to recharge to pre-1980 levels after rainfall. Due to reduced water availability since 1980, including drought conditions in 1985, Polk's calf weights have decreased, while the number of non-breeding cows has increased. Feed bills have increased due to reduced hay and grass production at the Ranch. Polk's bahia seed and sod crops have also declined since 1980 due to reduced surface water levels. Adequate and stable moisture is essential for seed production, and while such conditions did exist on the Ft. King Ranch prior to 1980, they have been absent since 1980. Due to the drier conditions which he noted in 1980 and 1981, Polk filed a formal complaint with the District in 1981. A site visit and pump test were conducted, and the District concluded that the Wellfields were causing less than a one foot drawdown in the Ft. King Ranch water table, and that dry conditions at his ranch were due primarily to drought. In 1985, Polk complained to the District again, and requested that it augment two lakes within the Ranch. After review of surrounding lake conditions, the District declined his request since Polk's lakes had not experienced water level declines atypical of lakes well beyond the influence of the Authority's Wellfields. Studies of water level elevations in the area indicate that the effect of Cypress Creek Wellfield pumpage is quite small when compared to natural changes in water levels due to variable rainfall and evapotransporation. Rainfall in this region is variable, and there has been a significant negative trend over time in surficial and potentiometric water levels that predates Wellfield pumpage. According to J. B. Butler, who was accepted as an expert in hydrology, the swales, dikes and levees constructed by Polk have not caused the water table or surface water level reductions experienced since late 1981. Rather, these are an attempt to divert and retain water on the property, and even in their absence, there would be no significant flow of surface water across Ft. King Ranch from an east to west direction. In addition, Butler testified that a fence line berm constructed along the northern border of the Ranch is an insignificant obstacle to the flow of surface water from the north to south across the Ranch when compared to topographic features, and has had no impact on the water tables of the Ranch. However, evidence introduced at hearing established that as early as 1981, the staff of the District concluded that the swales and elevated fence lines could be aggravating low water conditions by increasing evaporation and leakance, and by excluding surface water which would have entered the Ft. King Ranch from the north. The Authority offered competent substantial evidence to rebut the Butler testimony. Thomas Schanze, who was accepted as an expert in agricultural engineering, testified that Polk's elevated berm along his northern fence line has significantly restricted the flow of surface water onto Ft. King Ranch, and has contributed to the eastern portion of the Ft. King Ranch becoming a closed watershed. Between 1984 and 1986, approximately 700 million gallons of surface water have been excluded by Polk's water control and diversion activities. This exclusion has resulted in a diminished water table within the Ft. King Ranch of about one half foot compared with the water table on the northern side of the berm. Surface water cannot flow onto Polk's property until water levels immediately north reach flood stage. Aerial photographs of the Ft. King Ranch and surrounding properties show that the Polk property is significantly drier than surrounding properties, which include predominant wetlands. If the dry conditions experienced by Polk had been due to pumpage, the same dry conditions should be observed on surrounding properties and lands nearer the Wellfields. However, aerial photos show that lands closer to the Wellfields than Ft. King Ranch are less dry than the Ranch itself. This supports the position of the District and the Authority that Polk's own activities have had a significantly greater impact than pumpage on surface and groundwater levels. The reduction in productivity of Polk's farming activities is reasonably related to his northern berm which serves as a dike, preventing water from flowing onto Ft. King Ranch, as well as drought conditions existing in 1980, 1981 and 1985. The cumulative effect of water excluded from this property and dry weather conditions is significant, and accounts for decreased production. It was not established through competent substantial evidence that Polk's decreased production has resulted from any hydrologic impact of Wellfield pumpage. The District's expert in hydrology and ground water modeling, Robert G. Perry, concluded that significant water table declines on Ft. King Ranch due to pumping from Cypress Creek and Cross Bar Ranch Wellfields could not be confirmed. Through groundwater flow modeling and statistical analysis, he concluded that a one foot water table drawdown contour resulting from withdrawals at the rate of 30 mgd for 30 days without any recharge would not reach the Ft. King Ranch. Even in a worse case scenario of 120 days without recharge and pumpage at Cypress Creek of 30 mgd for 30 days, then 40 mgd for 30 days, and finally 30 mgd for 60 days, Perry concluded that the one foot water table drawdown contour would not reach Polk's Ranch. There is some evidence that under a worse case condition, pumpage at the Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield could result in the one foot water table drawdown contour intersecting a small portion of the western tract of the Ft. King Ranch, but this tract was not owned or leased by Polk in 1978, when the first Wellfield permits were issued. Conflicting evidence based upon steady state modeling by Craig Hutchinson of the United States Geological Survey was introduced on behalf of Polk to establish that the cumulative impact of the Wellfields could induce a significant drawdown in the water table in the area between the Wellfields, including the Ft. King Ranch. However, this evidence is rejected as less credible than the analysis conducted by Park and Phillip Davis, who was also accepted as an expert in hydrology and groundwater flow modeling. The steady state approach used by Hutchinson is inappropriate for analyzing the effects of wellfield withdrawals on the water table, because the water table is a dynamic system which is never at steady state. The transient groundwater simulation model used by the District is better suited for an analysis of impacts to the water table, although it does tend to overpredict such impacts, since it accounts for changes in rainfall. The Hutchinson analysis is also unreliable since it is based upon artificially derived antecedent water levels, rather than observed levels. Finally, he did not have required predevelopment water table data, and thus, could not verify water table predictions derived from his steady state model. A transient groundwater flow computer model used by Terry Bengtsson to estimate greater potentiometric surface and water table declines due to withdrawals from the Wellfields than predicted by Park or Davis was discredited, and shown to be unreasonable, by the results of a 28 day pump test in September and October, 1988. According to Rick Stebnisky, who was called on behalf of Polk and accepted as an expert in groundwater hydrology, the combined effect of pumping at the Cross Bar Ranch and Cypress Creek Wellfields has resulted in a significant reduction in water table and potentiometric surface levels at Ft. King Ranch, with such reductions being greater in the southern areas than northern portions of Polk's property. He testified that drawdowns have been noted since pumping began at Cypress Creek in April, 1976, with greater drawdowns occurring closest to the Wellfields, and for this reason drawdowns appear to be related to pumping rather than drought conditions. However, Stebnisky's conclusions were drawn from an overly simplistic hydrographic analysis which ignored factors other than pumpage, such as reduced rainfall, regional trends, surface drainage and non-wellfield pumpage, according to Robert G. Perry, an expert in hydrology and groundwater modeling. Stebnisky was not accepted as an expert in groundwater flow modeling. It was also established that some of the basic assumptions used by Stebnisky in predicting drawdowns were inaccurate, and not based upon accepted hydrologic principles. Therefore, when weighed and considered against other expert testimony, including that of Perry and Dr. J. I. Garcia-Bengochea, Ph.D., an expert in hydrology and environmental engineering, the testimony of Stebnisky is found to lack credibility. While Dr. Garcia-Bengochea agreed with the testimony of Stebnisky that the potentiometric surface and water table levels on the Ft. King Ranch had been somewhat reduced due PAGE 18 MISSING individual well meters, regardless of whether on-site wetlands are being augmented, and is sufficiently accurate for use in evaluating the impact of withdrawals on the water table and Floridan Aquifer. As a condition for renewal of the Authority's permits, the District has required that flow measuring devices or methods be installed for each augmentation discharge point, although generally augmentation of lakes and wetlands within wellfields is not metered. The allowable drawdown levels of potentiometric surface for the Cypress Creek Wellfield established by the District have never been reached. The lowest levels occurred during severe drought conditions in 1981 and 1985. However, even during these times, the lowest potentiometric surface level was 8.53 feet above regulatory levels. Notwithstanding the testimony of Philip Waller, an expert in hydrology, pumping from Polk's irrigation Wellfields have not had a significant impact on the Cypress Creek Wellfield because Waller's model assumptions are extreme, according to Robert G. Perry, whose field of expertise includes groundwater modeling. These unrealistic assumptions included that Polk would operate his irrigation wells at maximum capacity for 120 days, and that there would be no recharge, even though irrigation, like rainfall, would be expected to result in some recharge. Even under these extreme assumptions, Waller's modeling only produced a one foot drawdown at Cypress Creek Wellfield, which would still be well within regulatory levels established by the District, based upon data for the drought years of 1981 and 1985. Since 1979, Cypress Creek Wellfield has averaged approximately 30 million gallons per day, with the maximum withdrawal occurring in May, 1983, when it averaged 34.2 mgd. From 1981 to 1985, the average withdrawals from Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield remained stable at 13 mgd, but since 1986, the pumpage has increased to over 15 mgd due, in part, to the use of water from Cross Bar to compensate for contaminated wells shut down at the Eldridge-Wilde Wellfield. For purposes of Rule 40D-2.301(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code, the District does not consider the use of water that occurs naturally, without pumping or diversion, for use on crops or other agricultural purposes to be, an existing legal use of water, because it does not require a permit. The District does not apply Rule 40D-2.301(2)(e) to protect agricultural crops, but rather to protect naturally occurring vegetation. When an application to renew a consumptive use permit is reviewed by the District, and that renewal does not seek an increase in the quantity of water withdrawals, "legal users" are those present prior to the original permit. On May 17, 1988, a Final Order was entered in DOAH Case No. 88-0693R declaring the District's Rules 40D-2.301(3)(b), (c), and (d), Florida Administrative Code, which otherwise would apply in this proceeding, to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The Authority's applications were declared complete by the District on June 18, 1987, and the District staff recommended issuance of these permits on August 14, 1987. Modifications to the draft permit were made by the District on December 28, 1988, and these modified draft permits are acceptable to the Authority. The latest draft permits contain stated conditions which include the requirement that the Authority directly measure the amount of water it uses to augment the water level of on-site wetlands. On February 22, 1989, the Authority and the District filed a Joint Notice of Settlement in Case Number 87- 4644 by which they settled their dispute as to the duration of consumptive use permit renewals for the Wellfields, and provided for a ten year permit for Cypress Creek, and a six year permit for Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield. Polk submitted his original permit application on April 13, 1987, and then amended his request on July 26, 1988. The District has proposed to issue a draft permit to Polk, with stated conditions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order approving the consumptive use permit applications of the West Coasts Regional Water Supply Authority and Pinellas County for the Cross Bar Ranch and Cypress Creek Wellfields, with conditions proposed by the District, and also approving the consumptive use permit application of Freeman F. Polk, with conditions proposed by the District. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. 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 10th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-4644, 87-4645, 87-4647, & 88-1169 Rulings on the District's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings 6, 21. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 38. Adopted in Finding 21. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Finding 38. 8-11. Adopted in Finding 20. 12. Adopted in Finding 21. 13-14. Adopted in Finding 22. Adopted in Finding 27. Adopted in Finding 25. 17-19. Adopted in Findings 25, 26. 20-22. Adopted in Findings 26, 28. 23-48. Adopted in Findings 31 through 35. 49-60. Adopted in Findings 28 through 30. 61-64 Adopted in Finding 36. 65-68. Adopted in Finding 37. Rulings on the Authority's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Findings 4, 10. Adopted in Finding 2. 4-6. Adopted in Finding 39. Adopted in Finding 18. Adopted in Findings 21, 22. Adopted in Finding 40. 10-11. Adopted in Finding 3. 12-14. Adopted in Finding 36. Adopted in Findings 6, 38. Adopted in Finding 5. 17-19. Adopted in Findings 6, 21. 20. Adopted in Findings 7, 16. 21-23. Adopted in Finding 41. 24-25. Adopted in Finding 9. 26-27. Adopted in Finding 36. Adopted in Findings 11, 38. Adopted in Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 11. 3132 Adopted in Findings 11, 21. 33. Adopted in Findings 12, 16. 34-36. Adopted in Finding 41. Adopted in Finding 21. Adopted in Finding 24. Adopted in Finding 29. Adopted in Finding 24. 41-42. Adopted in Finding 22. 43-45. Adopted in Finding 25. Adopted in Finding 26. Adopted in Finding 25. Adopted in Finding 26. Adopted in Findings 26, 28. 50-53. Adopted in Finding 20. Adopted in Findings 20, 21. Adopted in Finding 20. Adopted in Finding 37. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding 41. Rejected as unnecessary. 60-62. Adopted in Finding 35. 63. Adopted in Finding 36. 64-70. Adopted in Findings 34, 35. 71-76. Adopted in Findings 33 through 35. 77-78. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 79-80. Adopted in Finding 34. 81-87. Adopted in Finding 32. 88-91. Adopted in Findings 26 through 35. 92-96. Adopted in Findings 29, 30, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding 28. Adopted in Finding 29. 99-100. Adopted in Finding 30. 101-102. Adopted in Finding 37. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding 37. Rejected in Finding 37. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding 37 Ruling on Pinellas County's Proposed Finding of Fact: (The County also adopted the Authority's Proposed Findings.) 1. Rejected since the statement proposed by the County is not a finding of fact, but simply a statement on the evidence. Evidence which was not admitted at hearing has not been considered. Rulings on Polk's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Findings 9, 10. Adopted in Finding 21. Rejected in Findings 6, 11, 21. Adopted in Finding 22. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings 25 through 27. 7-8. Rejected in Findings 25 through 27. Adopted in Finding 25. Adopted in Finding 24. 11-13. Rejected in Findings 24, 29, 30. Adopted in Finding 37. Rejected as argument on the evidence and not a proposed finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire Douglas M. Wyckoff, Esquire 705 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Thomas E. Cone, Jr., Esquire 202 Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 John T. Allen, Jr., Esquire Chris Jayson, Esquire 4508 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33711 Bram D. E. Canter, Esquire 306 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Peter G. Hubbell, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34699-6899
The Issue Do Hilton, Ocala Park and La Quinta have standing (substantial interest) in these proceedings? Has Ocala Park demonstrated reasonable assurance of compliance with the District's requirements for issuance of the remedial/retrofit stormwater management system permit? Did Hilton institute these proceedings for an improper purpose, and if so, may attorney's fees and costs be determined and/or awarded?
Findings Of Fact The Parties and the Allegation of Improper Purpose: The Ocala Park Centre Maintenance Association, Inc. exists for the purposes of providing common maintenance and common services for owners of certain properties located within the Park Centre subdivision pursuant to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions to which those properties are subject. Park Centre is a platted commercial subdivision located near the intersection of Interstate 75 and S.R. 200 and is within the City of Ocala, Florida. The Association's board of directors is presently controlled by the developer of Park Centre. The developer is Ocala 202 Joint Venture, which in turn, is controlled by representatives of "Arvida." Since its formation in 1986, the Association has operated as a property owners' association. It has collected assessments from its members and has directed maintenance activities within Park Centre. The Association owns a leasehold interest in the master retention pond which is the subject of these proceedings. Under the lease, as amended, the Association is the current lessee and Alan E. Greenfield is Trustee of the current lessor. Due to the Association's rights and obligations as set forth in the Declaration of Covenants and the master retention pond lease, the Association was listed (abbreviated as Ocala Park Centre Main., Inc.) as the Applicant in the original permit application materials. The Association's legal name is correctly stated and disclosed by its Articles of Incorporation, a copy of which was included in the application materials submitted prior to the District's July 24, 1996 intent to issue permit. The Association funds the cost of its maintenance activities and the rent payable under the lease by assessing its members, of which Hilton is one. The Association has paid rent due under the lease to the lessor. Pursuant to the Declaration of Covenants, assessment and lease payments are apportioned among the members of the Association, based on the relative amount of square footage within their respective properties. (See also Findings of Fact 55-60) The master retention pond for which this permit was intended lies within the jurisdictional boundaries of the District. The District is a regulatory authority created by the legislature. It is charged with the responsibility for administering and enforcing permitting programs for the management of stormwater. The Association is accordingly subject to the District's regulatory authority. The Ocala/Silver Springs Hilton hotel occupies Lot 3 within Park Centre and constitutes a hotel-spa complex located immediately adjacent to the master retention pond parcel. The Hilton hotel's real property is owned by MJ Ocala Associates, Ltd., a Florida general partnership. The petition filed in this case was brought in the name of "Ocala/Silver Springs Hilton". "Ocala/Silver Springs Hilton" is apparently a trade name used by MJ Ocala Hotel Associates, Ltd. No evidence was presented that this trade name has been registered as a "fictitious name" under Florida law. Mr. William A. Myer, a principal with MJ Ocala Associates, Ltd. retained and directed counsel to oppose the permit the District proposed to grant to Ocala Park Maintenance Association, Inc. Since July 1996, Intervenor La Quinta Inns, Inc. has been under contract to purchase from Ocala 202 Joint Venture (the developer) a portion of Lot 2 of Park Centre which directly adjoins Hilton's property. La Quinta intends to construct a new hotel on the property that will compete in the marketplace with Hilton. Lot 2 is also subject to being serviced by the Ocala Park Maintenance Association's master stormwater retention pond that is the subject of this proceeding. Prior to the commencement of these proceedings, Hilton filed another petition challenging the issuance of a different permit by the District to La Quinta, for construction of a stormwater treatment facility on Lot 2. Those proceedings have been settled. However, the sale of Lot 2 from the developer to La Quinta cannot be closed, and La Quinta cannot proceed with construction of its new hotel on the property, until the permit which is the subject of these instant proceedings is finally approved and issued. Pursuant to the terms of the Declaration of Covenants, upon the sale of the last lot in Park Centre commercial subdivision, the developer will assign its revised rights, and the duties of maintenance of the subdivision, and thus the master retention pond which is the subject of the instant proceedings, will pass to the Association members, of whom one is Hilton. Thereafter, the developer will have no significant financial interest in the subdivision. The six month delay occasioned by this instant case has caused Ocala 202 Joint Venture an estimated $100,000 in mixed "attorney's fees, engineering fees, preparation for hearings, and lost interest on the income that would have been received on the purchase price." This is the only record evidence concerning obligation for, or amount of, attorney's fees and costs incurred by any entity. Ocala Park and La Quinta have asserted that Hilton has instituted these instant proceedings solely to prevent or to significantly delay the closing of the La Quinta transaction and the construction of La Quinta's new hotel on Lot 2 which would offer competition as a hotel to Hilton. Ocala Park Maintenance Association, Inc. has moved for attorney's fees and costs based upon this allegedly "improper purpose." Background, The Initial Permit Application Process, and Filing of the Petition in Opposition: In 1984, the District had required no permit application for the original construction of the master retention pond. At that time, it had been represented to the District that the master retention pond would serve a project of approximately twenty-four acres. Similarly, in July 1985, a Notice of Intent to Use (general permit available under Chapter 17-25, Florida Administrative Code) had been submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection. Thereafter, the master retention pond had been constructed. At all times material, the Park Centre developer, Ocala 202 Joint Venture, had the authority to exercise control over the Association by electing all of the members of its board of directors. As of May 19, 1989, the Association had become the lessee of the master retention pond. Pursuant to the terms of the lease and the Declaration of Covenants, the Association had (and currently has) the right and obligation to maintain the retention pond. (See also Finding of Fact 58). Sometime prior to the instant 1996 permit application, the Park Centre developer was notified by the City of Ocala that the master retention pond could be subject to a notice of violations and would have to be remediated. Following discussions of alternative methods of remediation, it was agreed with the City of Ocala that an exfiltration trench designed to discharge directly into the underlying limestone formation would be installed in the bottom of the existing master retention pond. This proposed remediation, or retrofit, of the existing master retention pond required a stormwater management permit pursuant to Chapter 40C-42 Florida Administrative Code from the District, and the application that is at issue herein followed. In May and October 1995, Hilton had experienced some flooding of its property. Hilton's then-manager feared Hilton's electrical room was in danger of flooding. At various times, Hilton complained to the Florida Department of Transportation and the City of Ocala about flooding. On June 18, 1996, "Ocala Park Centre Main., Inc." submitted an application to the District for a stormwater management permit authorizing the remediation of the existing "master retention pond" serving the commercial subdivision known as Parke Centre. Upon request from District staff, the Applicant submitted a different form application and additional information on July 8, 1996. On July 18, 1996, Joseph C. London, P.E., submitted to Hilton a general watershed study which had taken him about six weeks to complete. He determined that water overflow from the nearby Chili's Restaurant parcel was going via a storm sewer system into the master retention area; that the Black Eyed Pea Restaurant/Star Bar & Grill site also had an overflow system that went into a storm sewer system and thus went to the master retention pond area; that there was an interconnection between the Lowe's site and the water retention pond area; that water from another site occupied by Barnes & Noble, Pet Smart, and Ruby Tuesday's Restaurant also flowed into a smaller retention area in the northerly portion of Lot 2 a/k/a the Park Centre Commons' Pond a/k/a the Jacoby Pond and ultimately into the master retention pond area; that Lot 2 was currently unoccupied; that when the master retention pond area filled to an elevation of 71.3 feet, the water went through an inlet and pipe into a Department of Transportation retention pond directly south of the master retention pond area; and that the Hilton property was experiencing overflow as a result of this combination of contributing factors. As of July 18, 1996, Mr. London further advised Hilton that the Park Centre Commons' retention pond had overflowed its banks and that engineers were remediating it. In fact, that pond has been issued a notice of violations by the City of Ocala and the City has required that the Park Centre Commons' pond also be remediated. (See Findings of Fact 18 and 44-47). District staff concluded, in a July 23, 1996 Technical Staff Report, that the Applicant's submittals presented on June 18, 1996 and July 8, 1996 provided reasonable assurance of compliance with the District's objectives for stormwater management systems. At that time, staff had only reviewed the application materials in connection with the rules needed to insure technical compliance. Staff recommended issuing a standard permit with ERP Stormwater General Conditions 1-19; Special Conditions 8, 9, and 30; and no "Other Conditions." That permit was issued July 24, 1996. Ocala/Silver Springs Hilton timely filed its petition beginning these proceedings on August 9, 1996 to contest the District's issuance of the permit on July 24, 1996. The petition alleged that overflow from the existing master retention pond had, in the past, overflowed onto Hilton's property; that the Applicant had miscalculated the area of stormwater runoff; that the permit application contained defects, mistakes, and irregularities, or lacked complete information; that the District's permit contained procedural mistakes, defects, and irregularities; and that the proposed remediation was inadequate to solve existing problems or future problems that might result from further development in the area. The Applicant's materials submitted prior to the July 24, 1996 permit approval did not address the entire area reported upon by Mr. London to Hilton as contributing to Hilton's flooding problem, and they did not acknowledge the connecting feature between the Lowe's parcel and the water retention area. The Applicant's plans were not signed and sealed by a registered engineer, and the corporate and succession documents were otherwise flawed. Developments Between August 9, 1996 and January 27, 1997: The August 9, 1996 petition initiated the formal proceeding process with its inherent discovery and trial preparation. The Applicant's engineer considered the concerns expressed in Mr. London's letter and the petition and made additional calculations which were first available to the parties on November 13, 1996. The Applicant's Declaration of Covenants also was amended in November 1996. According to the District's spokesman and expert witness, additional materials were requested of the Applicant by the District "in an abundance of caution" and to prepare for formal hearing. Apparently, that request was for signed and sealed plans, corporate documentation conforming to District rules and a site plan with increased parameters and calculations addressing a ten year, 24 hour storm. A third package of materials in support of the instant permit application was submitted by the Applicant to the District on December 16, 1996. The Applicant's December 1996 submittal addressed many concerns raised in the petition. It added a Schedule C -- Notice of Receipt on the District's official form and added a quadrangle map and aerial photograph. The Schedule C -- Notice of Receipt was added to correct an oversight in the original application, and the quadrangle map and aerial photograph were voluntarily provided, although the District had never inquired as to the location of the project. The plans depicting the drainage area served by the master retention pond were modified to include a larger area than before, including the Chili's Restaurant site which had concerned Hilton's engineer. The plans and calculations previously submitted in June and July were resubmitted, this time with the Applicant's professional engineer's signature and seal. The Applicant's prior submittals had not been signed and sealed as required by rule. Additional calculations regarding the impact of neighboring stormwater management systems were included. The additional calculations demonstrated the minimal impact of the nearby Lowe's and Park Centre Commons' stormwater management systems on the master retention pond and showed that for the required mean annual, 24 hour storm event, there would be no discharge from the master retention pond, even taking overflow from the nearby Lowe's and Park Centre Commons' systems into account. The Applicant's December 1996 submittal also added a well location survey and included proposed amendments to the Association's operation and maintenance documents. The well inventory provided the District with an additional copy, since the inventory for the original application materials had been obtained from the District's files for a prior permit on neighboring property. This addressed karst formation and sinkhole concerns raised by Hilton. The Applicant's December 1996 submittal also addressed Hilton's corporate concerns. The proposed amendments to the Association's ownership and maintenance documents added the District's current suggested operation and maintenance language. The final documents establishing Ocala Park Maintenance Association, Inc. as the operations and maintenance entity were submitted to the District July 8, 1996, but that package had lacked several provisions which the District's rules now require. Specifically, the Applicant's December 1996 submittal contained required language providing for operation and maintenance in the event of dissolution of the Association, language authorizing the District to enforce the provisions related to the stormwater system or language requiring prior District approval to modify the declaration so as to affect the stormwater system. This is reasonable since the original documents had been executed and recorded at a time when the master retention pond was exempt from the District's permitting requirements. The technical and scientific design for the proposed trench work was not changed between the June 18, 1996 and December 16, 1996 submittals. However, the drainage calculations submitted by the Applicant in December 1996 cover the larger area considered then. The Applicant's December 1996 calculations were accurate with the exception that the elevation of discharge structure was assumed to be 71.8 feet rather than 71.3 feet. The District either missed this error or considered it a minor flaw, insignificant for purposes of its January 27, 1997 Technical Staff Report, described below. By a new Technical Staff Report issued on January 27, 1997, only two days before formal hearing, District staff advocated that two new "Other Conditions" be added to the permit, if issued. The District's new proposed "Other Conditions" read as follows: The proposed stormwater management system must be constructed and operated in accordance with plans received by the District on December 18, 1996. Within 45 days of permit issuance, the permittee shall submit to the District final operation and maintenance entity documents, filed or recorded as appropriate, and in the form reviewed by the District. Although the Applicant's December 16, 1996 plans were technically no different than earlier ones, they were now professionally signed and sealed. Its corporate documents were likewise conformed to District Rule Requirements. Therefore, it is found that the two new "Other Conditions" would not have been required by the District but for the initiation of this administrative proceeding by Hilton's petition herein and by Hilton's participation in this proceeding up through January 27, 1997. After January 27, 1997, the following situation continued to exist: The general site condition was limerock of varying levels subject to karst formations and sinkholes. The Applicant still relied on two soil borings and Hilton's engineer was used to submitting more. A minor flaw existed in the Applicant's modeling calculations (see Findings of Fact 32 and 42), and those calculations were based on the entire trench reaching limestone. The Park Centre Commons' pond had not been remediated, and the Applicant's calculations treated it as already functioning properly. Hilton continued to be concerned about operation and maintenance responsibility. Formal hearing on January 29-30, 1997 focused on these issues. Formal Hearing January 29-30, 1997: The Applicant's December 16, 1996 amendment to its application and the January 27, 1997 Technical Staff Report were admitted in evidence at formal hearing and were considered by the expert witnesses who testified. District staff continued to support the granting of the permit with the addition of only the two new "Other Conditions." The proposed trench will be 12 feet deep, 5 feet wide, and 178 feet in length. For maximum efficiency, the trench is designed to make contact for its entire length with the limestone formation underlying the master retention pond, but at formal hearing the Applicant showed that it is not necessary for the trench's entire length to contact limestone in order to function properly. Because the limerock in this area is not a flat, level surface, it remains possible that some portions of the trench, as designed, will not contact limestone. However, the Applicant proved that, even applying a very conservative safety factor of two, only 25 feet of the trench needs to actually be in direct contact with the limestone for the trench to function as intended. Moreover, even Hilton's engineer conceded that if sand, rather than clay, is encountered, the percolation factor will be better than if limerock is encountered as predicted. Sinkhole problems have been accounted-for and minimized. At the bottom of the exfiltration trench, a geogrid fabric will be installed. Above this, approximately nine feet of FDOT No. 57 stone will be installed and wrapped with filter fabric. Above this, a three foot layer of filter sand will be installed. Approximately eight inches of the sand will be mounded above the bottom of the retention pond. The trench will be lined on each side with a three foot concrete pad to facilitate maintenance. Moreover, during construction, the Association will employ a full-time geotechnical consultant to help ensure that the exfiltration trench is installed properly. The Association's present plan is to continue excavation until sufficient contact with the underlying limestone is achieved. At formal hearing, the Applicant established that there is a reasonable degree of engineering certainty that limestone will be encountered at a depth of approximately 12 feet, which is the depth contemplated by the remediation plans. Evidence to the contrary presented by Hilton is speculative, at best. All witnesses ultimately conceded that the only way to know with absolute certainty is to dig. The greater weight of the evidence is that Hilton's suggestion of more soil borings or an additional "Other Condition" mandating the presence on-site of an engineer or geotechnical consultant is not cost-efficient or necessary. The Applicant demonstrated that once the proposed remediation is completed, the master retention pond will retain, without any discharge, a mean annual, 24 hour storm event. During such an event, the level of water within the master retention pond will reach an elevation of 64.59 feet. The existing outfall structure in the master retention pond is located at elevation 71.3 feet. Therefore, there will be approximately seven feet of additional storage capacity within the master retention pond following a mean annual, 24 hour storm event. The issue of elevation at 71.3 versus 71.8 feet was litigated at formal hearing. Upon the evidence adduced at formal hearing, it is found that this minor flaw, in fact, did not substantially affect the Applicant's modeling data. Petitioner showed that there is another retention pond serving the Lowe's property in the same vicinity, and that it is connected by a pipe to the storm sewer system that drains into the master retention pond and that a portion of the stormwater from Lowe's parking lot bypasses Lowe's storm sewer system and enters the storm sewer system served by the master retention pond which is the subject of this proceeding. Petitioner showed that the Park Centre Commons' retention pond is currently subject to a notice of violations issued by the City of Ocala and is in the process of being remediated. The latest date demonstrated at formal hearing herein for completion of the Park Centre Commons' retention pond's remediation as represented to the City of Ocala, is March 31, 1997. In the past, when the Park Centre Commons' retention pond has overflowed its banks, stormwater has flowed into the street and into the storm sewer system served by the master retention pond which is the subject of the instant proceeding. (See Findings of Fact 18-19) However, the Applicant demonstrated that, assuming that the Lowe's and Park Centre Commons' retention ponds function in compliance with the District's rules and the requirements of the City of Ocala, but taking into account the impact of the elevation of the connecting pipe and the bypassing of stormwater within Lowe's parking lot into the master retention system, the master retention pond which is the subject of this proceeding, will, once remediated, retain stormwater from a mean annual, 24 hour storm without any discharge. Finally, the Applicant proved it had ultimately correctly calculated the size of the area to be served by the proposed retrofit of the master retention pond to be 14.85 acres. This 14.85 acres now includes the Hilton, Black Eyed Peas/Star, and Chili's Restaurant properties, the common areas within Ocala Park Centre subdivision and the undeveloped parcel covered by the La Quinta contract for sale. The Applicant does not, and does not need to, include the bulk of the Lowe's property, Park Centre Commons property or any of the State right-of-way for Interstate 75, because each of these properties is served by its own separate stormwater management system, over which the Applicant has no control and which it has no duty to accommodate. The District does not require that stormwater management systems be designed to accommodate neighboring stormwater management systems that do not comply with the District's rules. The District's position is that the Association, like all other permit Applicants, is entitled to assume that neighboring systems will comply with all applicable requirements and that the District and the City of Ocala each has enforcement procedures in place if the neighboring systems do not comply. That position is both reasonable and in accord with the applicable statute and rules. Ed Wilson, testifying on behalf of Hilton, described incidents of flooding at Hilton's property that occurred in 1995. He identified October 1995 photographs of flooding on a portion of the Hilton property located south of the hotel. However, by its response to Requests for Admissions served by La Quinta, Hilton had already admitted that overflow from the master water retention pond does not contribute to flooding on the south portion of its property. Ed Wilson also described prior incidents of flooding within the parking lot and tennis courts serving Hilton's hotel. A single photograph was produced showing several inches of water standing over a stormwater grate that is located in the vicinity of Hilton's tennis courts. Contribution to this problem by the master retention pond, if any, could only be improved by its remediation. (See Findings of Fact 53-54) William Meyer, testifying on behalf of Hilton, offered his purely personal opinion that the Applicant should be required to give reasonable assurance of storage capacity for more than a mean annual, 24 hour storm event. He conceded his personal opinion was not based on any statute, rule, or expert advice he had received. A mean annual, 24 hour storm event equates to 4.3 inches of rain over a 24 hour period. It is the only volume and recovery requirement contained in the applicable rules. The Applicant demonstrated its remediation will accommodate a mean annual 24 hour storm event or a ten year 24 hour storm event. Hilton presented no evidence that the remediated master retention pond will back up into Hilton's parking lot or tennis courts during a mean annual, 24 hour storm event or even a ten year 24 hour storm event. Hilton has neither made, nor has it caused to be made, any calculations of whether such a backup would occur during such storm events. Another "concern" of Hilton, as expressed by Mr. Myer at formal hearing, seems to be that once the Association is controlled by its members, rather by than the developer, the Association may be unable to properly operate and maintain the retention pond as modified by this proposed permit. This concern is two-fold: the technical operation-maintenance issue and a legal responsibility/financial capability issue. Mr. Meyer's technical concern is based upon the inadequacy of the pond as originally constructed and such flooding as has occurred to date under the developer's administration. At formal hearing, Hilton presented evidence of prior flooding events, but provided no evidence to support its claim that the proposed remediation will adversely affect flooding conditions on its property. In fact, through its expert witness, Mr. London, Hilton admitted that the Applicant's proposed remediation will, in fact, alleviate the potential for flooding on its property. (See Findings of Fact 39 and 48-51) Hilton presented no expert testimony or other evidence to support its stated concern that the proposed remediation of the master retention pond will not reduce the potential for flooding within Hilton's parking lot and tennis court. Quite to the contrary, Hilton's engineer, Joseph London, testified that he believes that if the technical plan remediation works successfully, the problem with overflow onto the Hilton's property will be cured. (See Findings of Fact 39 and 48-51) Hilton's legal responsibility/financial capability concern, as expressed by Mr. Myer at formal hearing, is based on the fact that Association Members, of which Hilton is one, have not been notified of Association meetings and permitted to vote on how to improve, remediate, or retrofit the master retention pond or any other maintenance function, while on the other hand, the Association holds Hilton responsible for approximately 63% of the expenses related to the lease of the retention pond and approximately 29% of the other Association expenses. William Meyer testified that since MJ Ocala Hotel Associates, Ltd.'s acquisition of the Hilton property on May 10, 1995, he has received minimal communication from the Association. Hilton did, however, have an arrangement with the Association whereby Hilton arranged and advanced the cost of maintenance of the landscaping in various common areas within Park Centre. (See Finding of Fact 3) Until September 1996, Hilton received monthly reimbursement payments from the Association for the maintenance services it arranged. In September 1996, despite a prior estoppel letter to the contrary, a dispute between Hilton and the Association arose with respect to the amounts of assessments owed by Hilton to the Association, and with regard to the amount of reimbursements owed by the Association to Hilton, going back to 1989. No litigation concerning this dispute has yet occurred. Petitioner showed that the Association's only official meetings of its members, consents or written actions in lieu of meetings were its organizational meeting, a 1990 meeting, and a 1992 meeting; that the Association's tax returns show no expenses from 1989 to 1995; that the Association has never had any assets and that the first proposed repair contract on the master retention pond was not let by the Association but by the developer. It is conceivable that there may be some technical violation of the Articles of Incorporation, Declaration of Covenants, Lease, or general corporate law pursuant to Chapter 617, Florida Statutes due to the Association's failure to give notice and hold Association meetings, but those issues have not yet resulted in litigation between these parties. Also, under the terms of the Declaration of Covenants and other enabling papers, Association members are not presently entitled to elect the board of directors, set budgets, or otherwise directly operate the Association. Therefore, and since the developer has exclusively operated the Association to date, there has been little practical reason to call meetings of the members. In any case, this instant forum is without jurisdiction to resolve those corporate and real property issues. At formal hearing, Hilton demonstrated that one of the Applicant's witnesses did not know at that moment in time from which corporate "pocket" the remediation project would be paid and that it is probable that the cost of remediation of the master retention pond ultimately will be passed on to the Association membership as provided for in the enabling documents. Hilton presented no affirmative evidence indicating that the Association will not be able to pay for and effectively operate and maintain the master retention pond after it is remediated. The Applicant's December 1996 submittals put the succession in proper form acceptable to the District. In fact, Hilton will have a significant percentage-based vote in the affairs of the Association following turnover of control from the developer because Hilton owns the largest parcel within Park Centre that is subject to the terms of the Declaration of Covenants. (See Finding of Fact 3). Ocala Park Maintenance Association, Inc. has demonstrated sufficient financial, legal, and administrative capability to provide for the long-term operation and maintenance of the remediated retrofit master retention pond. The undisputed evidence shows that the project meets the District's volume and recovery requirements for retention systems for the entire drainage area served, including the proposed La Quinta project which will involve some land fill. The master retention pond as repaired will not result in discharges into surface or ground water which would cause or contribute to violations of state water quality standards. The master retention pond as repaired will include all of the design features required by the District to assure adequate treatment of the stormwater before it enters Florida's aquifer, and to preclude the formation of solution pipe sinkholes in the stormwater system. Addendum: At formal hearing, Hilton argued that the proposed remediation does not satisfy its own arbitrary standard for flood prevention and generalized "concerns" that remediation could be accomplished in a better way. It advanced no better way except to suggest more soil borings to better "guesstimate" the depth of limerock in the location. However, by its proposed recommended order, Hilton apparently now concedes, post-formal hearing, that the permit application, as fully amended December 16, 1996 and proven-up at formal hearing, should be granted subject to the additional conditions recommended by the January 27, 1997 Technical Staff Report (see Findings of Fact 20 and 34) plus the following proposed additional "Other Conditions": Issuing the requested permit to the Applicant following completion of the repairs to the Park Centre Commons retention pond on Lot 2, and SJRWMD's receipt of signed and sealed as built plans showing that it has been properly cured and is working properly. The permit contain as an additional condition that a licensed engineer be on site present and observe the construction and within 30 days following the completion of construction supply the SJRWD with as- built plans showing that a minimum of 100 feet (25 feet minimum times two, as required by Rule 40C-42.026(3) F.A.C., times two, for reasonable assurance to Ocala Hilton) of the bottom of the filtration system is in proper contact with the subsurface limerock foundation and that no other problems were encountered during construction which will, in the professional opinion of the engineer, materially adversely affect the system functioning as planned in its design. The permit contain an additional condition that the Association notice and hold meetings of members and board of directors to approve the Sixth Amendment to Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Ocala Center Subdivision, and that it be properly enacted and recorded in the Public Records of Marion County, Florida, in order to meet the operation and maintenance entity requirements. Petitioner's first proposed additional condition misapprehends the nature of permitting individual projects, is contrary to District policy and permitting law generally, and is not supported by any statute or rule. (See Findings of Fact 44- 47 and Conclusion of Law 78). Petitioner's second proposed additional condition is in part provided for in the permit as recommended in the January 27, 1997 Technical Staff Report and in part is unnecessary. (see Findings of Fact 20, 34 and 39-42), misapprehends the nature of permitting individual projects, is contrary to the District policy and permitting law generally, and is not supported by any statute or rule. (See Findings of Fact 44-47). Petitioner's third proposed additional condition is in part provided for in the permit as recommended in the January 27, 1997 Technical Staff Report (see Findings of Fact 20 and 34) and otherwise seeks to make the District the "policeman" of corporate compliance. The latter is outside the District's function and authority.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that St. John's River Water Management District enter a final order, Granting the permit upon the terms set forth in the January 27, 1997 Technical Staff Report; and Denying attorney's fees and costs upon any "improper purpose" theory. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of April, 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Lauren E. Merriam, III, Esquire BLANCHARD, MERRIAM, ADEL & KIRKLAND, P.A. Post Office Box 1869 Ocala, Florida 34478-1869 Jennifer B. Springfield, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Thomas M. Jenks, Esquire 200 West Forsyth Street, Suite 1400 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Charles R. Forman, Esquire FORMAN, KREHL & MONTGOMERY, P.A. Post Office Box 159 Ocala, Florida 34478-0159 Henry Dean, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429
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 central issue in this case is whether the Petitioners are entitled to an exemption pursuant to Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulations of the parties, the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The District is a public corporation in the state of Florida existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida 1949, and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40E, Florida Administrative Code, as a multipurpose water management district, with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida. The Petitioner, London Creek Associates, is a Florida general partnership with the address 4545 Pleasant Hill Road, Suite 205, Kissimmee, Florida 34759. The Petitioner, Louis Fischer, is a general partner of London Creek Associates who resides on the property which is the subject of this case. The subject property is commonly known as London Creek Ranch. The subject property is located in Sections 1, 6, and 7, Township 28 South, Range 29 East, Polk County, Florida. The subject property is located within the geographic boundaries of the District's jurisdictional territory. The subject property is owned in fee simple by London Creek Associates. At all times material to the allegations of this case, London Creek Associates has been such owner. In October, 1989, acting in his own behalf and on behalf of London Creek Associates, Louis Fischer contracted with a road excavator to build a road through the subject property. The location of the road was selected as the route which would require the least amount of clearing and the crossing of the least amount of water or swamps. That route was to connect an existing right- of-way and was to traverse the subject property ending at or near the residence occupied by Mr. Fischer. The road was approximately two miles long, tied into a preexisting road for a portion of its length, and crossed about 2000 feet of wetlands. Prior to the construction of the road, neither Mr. Fischer nor London Creek Associates nor anyone associated with the construction project conducted any engineering studies regarding the road or the ditching associated with its construction. Prior to the construction of the road, neither Mr. Fischer nor London Creek Associates nor anyone associated with the construction project conducted any hydrologic studies regarding the road or the ditching associated with its construction. Prior to the construction of the road, neither Mr. Fischer nor London Creek Associates nor anyone associated with the construction project conducted any hydraulic studies regarding the road or the ditching associated with its construction. In constructing the road, materials were excavated from along the sides of the route and placed along the roadbed in order to elevate the road above natural grade. As a result, a series of ditches were created along the sides of the road. Additionally, fill material was brought in from off-site and was used to raise the road above the natural grade. Some of the fill material for the road construction was taken from wetland areas located on the subject property. A portion of the road and ditches were constructed through wetlands on the subject property. The construction of the road altered the topography of the subject property by creating a road at an elevated grade above the natural grade. During the construction of the road, a borrow pit in a wetland area was dug. That pit has since been filled. During the construction of the road, wetland areas were cleared in order to align the road. The road was completed in March, 1990. Petitioners, Louis Fischer and/or London Creek Associates, are responsible for all acts associated with the construction of the road. Prior to the construction of the road across Petitioner's property, neither Louis Fischer nor London Creek Associates applied for, or received, a surface water management permit from the District. On March 20, 1990, the District issued a notice of violation to Louis Fischer regarding the subject road. On August 6, 1990, the District issued an administrative complaint and order 90-29 regarding the subject road. On August 23, 1990, pursuant to the notice of rights attached to order 90-29, London Creek Associates filed a petition pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, objecting to the administrative complaint and requested a formal hearing. London Creek Associates' position has been that it is exempt from permitting by virtue of Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes, which grants agricultural exemptions. On February 25, 1991, the FOTH were granted leave to intervene in order to participate in these proceedings. Certain "works" constructed by London Creek Associates on the subject property are hydrologically connected to wetlands. The road which is at issue in this case is between 12 and 14 feet wide and is elevated above natural grade from 2 to 3 feet. Exact measurements of the road's elevation have not been performed. However, it is sufficient to say that the road will not likely become submerged by normal rainfall events. Three 36 inch concrete culverts, two 12 inch corrugated pipe culverts, and one 18 inch corrugated pipe culvert have been installed to provide drainage under the road. These culverts allow water to overflow ditches from one side of the road to the other side of the road. Thus, the road only temporarily dams water flow. Louis Fischer is the managing partner of London Creek Associates and as such controls the day-to-day operations of that partnership. Mr. Fischer manages London Creek Ranch and oversees its cattle and timber enterprises. Prior to the construction of the road and, in anticipation of future timber cuts, London Creek Ranch has engaged in silviculture activities on the subject property. The road grade and construction will assure that timber vehicles will have access to the property and will be able to remove large loads without fear of impasse. It is expected that the partnership will continue to derive a portion of its income from timber as it has in the past. Prior to the construction of the road and, in anticipation of future efforts, London Creek Ranch has been used for cattle grazing. Cattle grazing leases have generated income to the partnership and it is expected that they will continue to do so in the future. The road grade and construction will assure that cattle trailers will have access to the property during all seasons. At all times material to the allegations of this case, London Creek Ranch has received an agricultural use classification from the Polk County Property Appraiser's Office. That classification entitles the subject property to be assessed ad valorem taxes as an agricultural concern. At all times material to this case, the subject property has been used for agricultural and silvicultural purposes. No other use, inconsistent with agricultural and silvicultural use, has been proposed for the subject parcel. Residences occupied by Mr. Fischer and the ranch foreman are consistent with its agricultural use. The construction of the road which is at issue will assure that the agricultural and silvicultural activities of the Petitioners will not be foiled by inadequate access. The road at issue is consistent with the practice of the uses to which it is being employed. While it may be superior to some "cattle trails," the road is not so improved as to suggest its use is inconsistent with its intended utilization. Further, the construction of the road was not for the sole or predominant purpose of impounding or obstructing surface waters. Surface waters are only temporarily impounded or obstructed by the road. The culverts and ditching associated with the road operate to maintain the natural surface water flows through the area. FOTH is a Florida corporation whose members hunt, fish, and recreate on the properties adjacent to the London Creek Ranch. The FOTH membership is concerned about the preservation of the London Creek areas and oppose development of those properties. FOTH's incorporation and its opposition to the road constructed by the Petitioners coincided with one another. The District has promulgated no rules or has adopted no written policies interpreting Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order granting the Petitioners' exemption pursuant to Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS: The first sentence of paragraph 1 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 2 through 5 are accepted. Paragraph 6 is rejected as it does not make sense. Paragraphs 7 through 32 are accepted. With the deletion of the words "guaranteed legal" which are irrelevant, Paragraph 33 is accepted. Paragraph 34 is rejected as irrelevant. The Petitioners or any entity claiming an exemption pursuant to Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes, are not required to show that the access claimed is the only access to the property or that another access is less desirable. With the deletion of the word "sole" paragraph 35 is accepted. Paragraphs 36 through 42 are accepted. Paragraph 43 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 44 is accepted. Paragraphs 45 and 46, including its subparts, are accepted. Paragraph 47 is rejected as argumentative and irrelevant. Paragraph 48 is rejected as argumentative or contrary to the weight of the evidence. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DISTRICT: Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. With the deletion of the word "fill" as it is used before the word "road," paragraphs 6 through 11 are accepted. The District has identified the road in this case as a "fill road" but it is for the purposes of all applicable statutes or rules or policies articulated herein a "road." It is not disputed that fill materials were placed on the roadbed to elevate the road surface above the natural grade. Semantics aside, the road is a road. "Fill" is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the law applicable to this case. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant. With the deletion of "fill" (see comment above), paragraph 13 is accepted. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant or argumentative. Paragraph 15 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 17 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 18 is accepted with the deletion of the word "fill" as indicated above. Paragraph 19 is rejected as comment, recitation of testimony or irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is rejected as irrelevant or argumentative. Paragraph 21 is rejected as argument, recitation of testimony or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 22 is rejected as recitation of testimony or contrary to the weight of the evidence. With regard to paragraph 23, it is accepted that neither Mr. Fischer nor London Creek Associates owns cattle and that their cattle efforts stem from allowing others to graze on the ranch lands; otherwise rejected as argumentative, irrelevant, or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 24, it is accepted that Petitioners have received revenues from cattle and timber efforts otherwise the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. The first sentence of paragraph 25 is rejected as irrelevant. The second sentence of paragraph 25 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 26 is accepted. Paragraph 27 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 28 is accepted with the deletion of the word "fill." Paragraph 29 is accepted. Paragraph 30 is accepted. Paragraph 31 is accepted. Paragraph 32 is rejected as irrelevant. With the deletion of the word "fill," paragraphs 33 through 35 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 36 is rejected as irreevant. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 37 is accepted. Paragraph 38 is rejected as argumentative or irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 39 is rejected as irrelevant or argumentative. Paragraph 40 is rejected as recitation of testimony or irrelevant. Paragraph 41 is rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraph 42 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The road in dispute may be more passable than "cattle trails" or less improved roads but its use is not inconsistent with agricultural and silvicultural purposes. Paragraph 43 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 44 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 45 is rejected as irrelevant. It is accepted that the road in dispute provides access to both Mr. Fischer's and his foreman's homes. That it also provides access for bona fide agricultural and silvicultural purposes is why it does not require a permit. Paragraph 46 is accepted. With the exception of the last sentence, paragraph 47 is accepted. The last sentence is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 48 is rejected as argumentative or irrelevant. It is not disputed that the road is above the natural grade. Paragraph 49 is accepted with the deletion of the word "fill." Paragraph 50 is rejected as argumentative or attempt to recite testimony. In the alternative the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant as to whether the road has been used for timber harvesting since future harvesting will require the road. Paragraph 51 is rejected as irrelevant. The issue in this case is whether the road was constructed for the sole or predominant purpose of impounding or obstructing surface waters. Paragraph 52 is accepted. Paragraph 53 is rejected as irrelevant or a statement of fact contrary to the weight of the credible evidence presented. It has not been disputed, however, that the Petitioners sought to construct a road that would be passable during all seasons for the purposes expressed herein. Paragraph 54 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence or a recitation of testimony not fact. Paragraph 55 is accepted to the extent that it suggests surface waters flowed across this parcel in the areas where the road was constructed and that further the culverts assure that the flow remains the same as prior to the road. Otherwise rejected as irrelevant or recitation of testimony. Paragraph 56 is accepted. Paragraph 57 is rejected as argumentative, comment on testimony or irrelevant; see comment re: paragraph 55. Paragraph 58 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 59 it is accepted that Mr. Ady correctly described the location and size/number of culverts; otherwise, rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 60 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 61 is accepted. Paragraph 62 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant given the promulgated rules, policies and applicable statutes in effect at the times material to this case. Paragraph 63 is rejected as comment, recitation of testimony or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 64 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or recitation of testimony. Paragraph 65 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence and argumentative. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE INTERVENOR: The findings of fact submitted by FOTH mirror those submitted by the District and have been addressed above. Those paragraphs not previously considered are identified below. The first sentence of paragraph 45 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 46 is accepted. Paragraph 47 is accepted. Paragraph 48 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 49 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 50 is accepted. Paragraphs 51 and 52 are accepted. Paragraph 53 is rejected as argumentative or irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Tilford Creel Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 John J. Fumero Associate Attorney South Florida Water Management District 3303 Gun Club Road Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 Joseph W. Landers, Jr. Landers & Parsons Post Office Box 271 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Carl W. Hartley, Jr. HARTLEY & WALL Suite 2810, Sun Bank Tower 200 S. Orange Avenue Post Office Box 2168 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether DER properly asserts jurisdiction over the site in question, and whether Petitioner (Vatalaro) is entitled to a permit to fill that site.
Findings Of Fact Sometime in 1986, Billie Vatalaro purchased approximately eleven acres within an approximately 20-acre wetland contiguous to Lake Rouse in east Orange County, Florida. Approximately five acres of the Vatalaro parcel are in the lake itself. In June 1987, personnel from Orange County's planning department and environmental protection department visited the site in response to reports of illegal filling. Correspondence ensued, and meetings were held among Mrs. Vatalaro and her sons and the staff from Orange County. In the meantime, some activity on the site continued, including clearing of trees and vegetation and sometime in January 1988, Mrs. Vatalaro obtained from the Orange County building department building permits and septic tank permits for two houses on approximately 1/2 acre of the property. In early February 1988, the Orange County Environmental Protection Department requested the involvement of DER. Jurisdiction Pamela Thomas is an environmental specialist with DER in the Orlando office. She first visited the site on February 8, 1988, with DER's enforcement officer, a staff person from Orange County, Mrs. Vatalaro, and Mrs. Vatalaro's sons, Russ and Ron Vatalaro. She performed a jurisdictional determination on the occasion of that visit, and returned for subsequent visits on July 20, 1988 and February 22, 1989. Jurisdictional determinations were made pursuant to Rule 17-4.022 F.A.C. (Since renumbered as 17-3.022). This required locating the water body of the state, Lake Rouse, and a determination of whether there is a connection of the water body to the adjacent wetlands. The vegetation is then examined to determine whether canopy, sub-canopy or ground cover will be analyzed. Within the rule are two tests, one used when submerged species predominate, the other used when the wetland vegetation is more transitional. Ms. Thomas located Lake Rouse and found no berms or other barriers between the lake and the wetlands. She also performed transects, visually sampling segments of the area and determined there was continuity between the lake and landward to the site in question. She found a full mature canopy in the uncleared area and loblolly bay, a submerged species, dominated. This area, between the lake and cleared site met the first ("A") test in Rule 17-4.022, F.A.C. The submerged plus transitional species were greater than 50 percent of the vegetation, the submerged species was greater than 10 percent and exceeded the upland species present. Because a portion of the area had been cleared, it was necessary to attempt to reconstruct what vegetation had existed prior to clearing. The cleared area included tall spindly pine trees spaced to indicate that other trees had been growing between them. The pine trees which did not have fill next to them were sitting on hummocks, a common phenomena in wetlands. Within the disturbed area Ms. Thomas found two bore holes where previous soil borings had been done. She and the DER enforcement officer determined by examining those holes that substantial fill had been placed in the cleared area. Root mat was more than ten inches below the surface and water was standing in the bottom of the holes. In order to reconstruct what vegetation had been present in the cleared area, Ms. Thomas completed a series of three feet by ten feet visual transects fanning out into the thicket from the cleared area. The dominant species were Ioblolly bay (gordonia), sweet bay and dahoon, all submerged species. It was apparent that the predominance of trees that had been removed were submerged species, mainly Ioblolly bays. As reconstructed, the biomass in a transect would have been greater than the sum of the biomass of the pine trees. This reconstruction was further validated on subsequent visits to the site when juvenile loblolly bay trees were found seeded and thriving in the disturbed area, but no pine seedlings were found, even though there was adequate time for that to occur. DER staff also viewed aerial photographs provided by the Valataros, taken in 1984, prior to major clearing and in 1987, after the clearing. The photographs are on a scale of 1 to 300 and do not indicate a drastic change in the area that would reflect that the cleared area had been mostly pine trees. The photographs are not of such quality that a conclusive determination can be made on them alone. David Kriz is an area resource soil scientist with the U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. He visited the site with representatives of DER and Mrs. Vatalaro on July 20, 1988, at the request of DER. He performed three soil borings, the first in an area of bay trees outside the area cleared for the house. This boring revealed Samsula muck, a hydric soil, indicative of being saturated or flooded. The second boring was taken within the area designated for the house pad. This yielded about fifteen inches of fill, then St. Johns soil, an organic sandy layer, which can be hydric if inundated for more than thirty days in a year. It was impossible to determine whether this specimen was hydric, because this surface had been disturbed and filled. The third boring was taken just off the pad, but still in the cleared area. It yielded about nine inches of sandy fill and Samsula muck below, similar to the first boring, and clearly a hydric soil. St. Johns fine sand also appears on the site in a USDA soil conservation map of Orange County. The map is a good guide, but cannot be relied upon without ground tests in specific sites as the scale on the map is 1 to 20,000. Although distinct soil zones are indicated, in fact there are transitional areas between soil types in the zones, which means that in a transitional zone there may be either wet or dry areas. It would be virtually impossible to determine the soil type prevalent in Mrs. Vatalaro's cleared half acre, without the borings. DER properly concluded that it has jurisdiction over the site. Petitioner's expert, William Dennis, concedes that most of the Vatalaro property is within DER's jurisdiction, including a substantial portion of the cleared area, most notably the 43 by 100 foot cleared finger extending south from the cleared area designated for the house. In performing his jurisdictional analysis, Dr. Dennis concentrated on the cleared area. He did not complete transects. He counted and measured trees, and with the aid of a compass, sited them on a chart, received in evidence as Petitioner's exhibit #13. Within the cleared area he found a predominance of pines, and upland species (71%) and some submerged and transitional species (4.8% and 24.2%, respectively). This, he concluded, failed the jurisdictional test described in paragraph 7, above. Dr. Dennis also examined the aerial photographs and determined there was a vegetation break extending approximately 30 feet into the thicket from the northwest corner of the cleared area. He counted and measured trees in that area and found 14.8% submerged species, 35.4% transitional species, and 49.8% upland species. That area failed the jurisdictional "A" test because the submerged species did not outnumber the upland species present. Extrapolating from this finding, he concluded that the upper part of the cleared area designated for placement of the house, is outside of DER's jurisdiction. This conclusion is unreliable. The aerial photographs, particularly the pre-clearance photographs from 1984, are not crisp and clear. It is also possible that in looking at an aerial photograph, the tallest trees, the pines, would overshadow the other species which are also four inches or greater in diameter breast height (DBH) and are, therefore, equally significant. Rule 17.4.022(1)(c), F.A.C. provides that belt transects be used when the line demarcating the landward extent of waters of the state cannot be determined visually or by photo interpretation. DER, but not Mr. Dennis, relied on belt transects. Rule 17.4.022(I)(d), F.A.C. provides that other methods may be used as long as the department and applicant both agree in writing, to the method used. DER did not agree with Dr. Dennis' method. Counting trees in an area that has been disturbed is not a reliable means of establishing what existed prior to clearance when substantial evidence suggests that the clearing left the pines but eliminated the predominant submerged and transitional species. Section 403.8171(5), F.S. provides a "back-stop" to the vegetative jurisdictional determination by providing that "...in no case shall [the landward extent of the waters of the state] extend above the elevation of the 1- in-10-year recurring flood event or the area of the land with standing or flowing water for more than 30 consecutive days per year calculated on an average annual basis, whichever is more landward." The petition in this proceeding raised the issue of the jurisdictional backstop but the application and evidence at a hearing fails to include sufficient information to substantiate that this alternative applies. Generally, a study would be required, and the applicant has not provided such. The Merits of the Application The wetland contiguous to Lake Rouse, within which the Vatalaro property is located, comprises approximately 20 acres. It is the only mature forested wetland of its quality within a large region of east Orange County. This wetland provides a filtration function contributing to the water quality of Lake Rouse and to the waters of the region. The Lake Rouse wetland also provides flood abatement capacity via its soil and plants. The effects of the loss of this capacity in other severely impacted wetlands along the State Road 50 corridor have become evident. The altered areas are no longer able to provide water holding capacities. Wildlife which are residents of the area and which use the area as a stopover will be impacted by alteration of the habitat which they currently rely upon for food, cover, nesting and resting. Examples of those wildlife are ducks and other birds, raccoons, deer and opossums. Even though the proposed project will comprise only 1/2 to 3/4 an acre of the wetland, the impact is significant considering the unique quality of the wetland. Dr. Dennis agrees that alteration of the site would change the habitat value of the area and would impact the functions of the wetlands. He argues, however, that the effects of this project are minimal compared to the development which has already occurred in surrounding areas. Although the applicant has a building and septic tank permit and a Corps of Engineers permit, the regulations for those permits are not the same as the balancing criteria which DER must consider. The Orange County Planning and Environmental Protection Departments recommend denial of the project. No evidence was presented with regard to mitigation proposed or agreed to by the applicant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered denying the application for fill permit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael D. Jones, Esquire 996 Westwood Square Suite 4 Oviedo, Florida 32765 Vivian F. Garfein, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact David W. Shepard is President of Loreda Development, Inc., which has developed Lake Suzy Estates on approximately 160 acres in the southwestern portion of DeSoto County, bordered by Kings Highway. Lake Suzy includes approximately 245 single family lots, 100 of which are sold, with a 42 acre man-made lake. High density and commercial areas are also designated within Lake Suzy. Development of Lake Suzy began in 1972 and is still underway. There are approximately 2 1/2 to 3 miles of asphalt-top roads within Lake Suzy. Construction of these roads began in 1974 and was completed in 1984. On or about September 26, 1985, Petitioner issued a Notice to Show Cause charging that, "Respondent has failed to construct the completed roads and drainage improvements in accordance with DeSoto County specifications, in violation of Section 498.033(2), F.S." The County Engineer for DeSoto County, George Solana, testified that roads and drainage improvements within Lake Suzy do not meet DeSoto County specifications, and Eugene E. Waldron, Jr., County Administrator, testified that the county has not accepted the roads or drainage improvements in Lake Susy for maintenance. In September, 1982, Shepard met with Solana and was informed of several conditions he had to meet to bring Lake Suzy's roads and drainage improvements into conformance with county specifications. Shepard then applied for a permit on September 16, 1982, which was issued on November 1, 1982, subject to conditions enumerated by Solana in a letter dated September 8, 1982. In March, 1985, Solana reviewed the roads and drainage improvements in Lake Suzy and found that most of the deficiencies and conditions noted in 1982 remained. Solana categorized these remaining deficiencies in a letter to the County Administrator, Waldron, dated March 28, 1985 and revised April 5, 1985, as follows: Drainage easements Cross-sections Materials and quality control Existing construction Inlet grates and steel end sections Street and traffic control signs Grassing Certificate of satisfactory completion Other deficiencies At the time of the hearing on February 20, 1986, only the drainage easement deficiencies had been corrected in accordance with DeSoto County specifications. Shepard testified he was fully aware of Solana's conditions in 1982 and the remaining deficiencies noted in 1985. Further, he had tried to correct the deficiencies and meet these conditions for compliance with DeSoto County specifications. He does not dispute that the deficiencies noted by Solana as still existing in 1985 would have to be corrected to comply with the county public works manual. The Order of Registration for Lake Suzy, issued by Petitioner on June 4, 1973, includes a Public Offering Statement which states that roads will be installed to the specification of DeSoto County and will be maintained by the county. As revised on October 21, 1980, the Public Offering Statement includes the same statement about road improvements in Lake Suzy. Respondent has failed to comply with this provision in its Public Offering Statement.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner issue a Final Order which requires Respondent to comply with Section 498.033(2), Florida Statutes, within one year by bringing roadways within Lake Suzy into compliance with DeSoto County specifications and by requesting that DeSoto County accept said roads in their road maintenance system, and further providing that failure to comply with said Final Order within the one year period shall result in a one-year suspension of Respondent's registration and a civil penalty in the amount of $10,000. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of March, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas L. Barnhart, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David W. Shepard, President Loreda Development, Inc. 910 Kings Highway Lake Suzy, Florida 33821 James Kearney, Director Division of Florida Land Sales Condominiums and Mobile Homes 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard B. Burroughs, Jr., Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1 Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2-3 Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 4 Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 5 Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 6-7 Accepted although not necessary as a finding of fact. The weight of the evidence supports Petitioner's position after considering all evidence presented by Respondent. 8 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 1. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-3 Rejected after considering all evidence presented. Respondent's position is not based on competent substantial evidence.
