Findings Of Fact Petitioner has a lease on a 160-acre tract of land along the northern boundary of Palm Beach County which has been zoned and used for several years to mine rock used in local road building operations. This tract of land is surrounded on the east, south and west by some 1,000 acres of land owned by Intervenor, Vanguard Farms. The Vanguard Farms property is used to grow citrus and sugarcane. The geology of the area in the vicinity of this application is such that some three feet of Everglades top soil overlies the limestone. The land surface is about fifteen (15) feet NGVD and the water level table fluctuates from twelve (12) to fourteen (14) feet NGVD for the dry and wet seasons. The Vanguard Farms property, which surrounds Petitioner's property in Palm Beach County, is a wet area bordered on the west by Lake Okeechobee and on the east by high ground water elevation. The area has an excess of rainfall over evapotranspiration and excess water will always be generated. In order to render Vanguard Farms arable it is necessary to drain the property and pump excess water from the land. The existing rock pit is some 6.7 acres in area. In order to economically mine rock from this pit it is necessary to remove stable overburden and expose the limerock to provide a stable platform on which the mining equipment can be operated. Since the water table is generally above the top of this limerock, it is necessary to remove water from the pit to expose the rock to be quarried. During earlier operations water from the pit dewatering was pumped into a canal which flowed onto intervenor's property. In the application now under consideration, no water from the dewatering operation will be pumped off the 160 acres controlled by Petitioner. A 25-acre holding pond has been constructed on this site as well as a 9-acre overflow pond. The holding pond was constructed by piling the overburden, and possibly some limerock, in a rectangular shape some ten feet above the surface (25 feet NGVD). This material with which this 10-foot high levee is formed was excavated with a dragline and shaped with a tractor. Condition 28, of the conditions proposed by Respondent for the grant of this application, requires all dikes, levees and berms behind which water is to be retained to be inspected for structural adequacy. A report of such inspection and steps necessary to correct the deficiencies noted shall be submitted, and the report is to be signed and sealed by a Florida registered professional engineer. Perimeter ditches on the north, south and east sides of Petitioner's lands will intercept seepage from the retention pond and surface waters flowing onto this property. These perimeter ditches are connected to the rock pit to which such waters will flow. Water moving westward across the property will be intercepted by the rock pit. Without the rock pit excess water generated in this area will flow onto Vanguard's adjacent land. This condition will exist when the pit is not in operation. However, when the pit is in operation, the water will be retained on Petitioner's property by those limiting conditions requiring the maintenance of water level elevation in the perimeter ditch to be kept either equal to or below the water level elevation of Vanguard Farms. Under this condition, all water will be routed between the pit and retention pond. Conditions of the permit which Respondent proposes to issue include that the water level in the retention pond not exceed 18.5 feet NGVD, that the holding pond be interconnected with the overflow pond, that the water level in the perimeter ditches be maintained by use of a flashboard riser at 10.8 feet NGVD, that dewatering operations cease upon notification by District staff of any adjacent property owners experiencing water-related problems, and that a direct connection between holding pond and rock pit be established for emergency discharge of water from the holding pond back into the rock pit.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties and on the evidence received at the final hearing in this case, the following findings of fact are made. Respondent, DER, is the state agency charged with administering the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder, including the issuing of dredge and fill and certain stormwater permits/water quality certifications. Developers Diversified applied to DER for a dredge and fill permit/water quality certification to construct a shopping center and associated stormwater facilities by filling approximately four acres of DER jurisdictional wetlands. The project site is located at the intersection of State Road 71 and U.S. Highway 90, east of Marianna, Jackson County, Florida. The project is to be known as the Crossroads Shopping Center. It will be constructed on a 20-acre site and will consist of 165,000 square feet of enclosed area and approximately 1000 parking spaces. The center will include a major department store, a grocery store, a junior department store, and various other retail stores. The project site includes an unnamed watercourse (hereinafter known as the "north/south watercourse") which exits the site under U.S Highway 90 and connects to a flood plain to the Chipola River, an Outstanding Florida Water, which is about one mile away. Existing improvements to the property include a metal building, which is being used as an auto parts store, a vacant concrete building, and a residence. Developers Diversified has already removed five or six houses from the site. To the west of the site are several restaurants, a Holiday Inn, gas stations, and automobile dealerships. Other surrounding land use is a mixture of residential, commercial, and agricultural development. Developers Diversified subsequently modified its application and the application was eventually deemed complete on January 15, 1988. On April 12, 1988, DER issued an Intent To Deny. The Intent To Deny indicated that the project would be permittable if certain further modifications were made. After receipt of the Intent to Deny, Developers Diversified further modified the project and reduced wetland impacts to the point that only approximately 0.83 acres of DER jurisdictional wetlands will be filled. Other project modifications included moving the project approximately thirty feet to the west to reduce the amount of fill in the wetlands; the addition of wing walls at areas where fill will be sloped, thereby removing fill from stream areas; the use of an elevated pipe system to convey stormwater across the stream, so as not to impact natural flow; reduction of the project size by approximately 10,000 square feet; and the removal of one outlet, a one-half acre to one acre parcel. The stormwater treatment system was also redesigned to alleviate DER's water quality concerns. The stream systems on site comprise four identifiable watercourses: a) The largest is a north/south stream system which originates off site at a groundwater spring located adjacent to the northeast of the site and then flows south parallel to the eastern boundary of the project site and continues off site through a culvert beneath Highway 90 on the southern boundary of the site. b) The next largest is a small, intermittent forked tributary system which originates in a seepage slope system in the north central area of the project site and discharges into the larger north/south watercourse. c) The next largest is an intermittent east/west watercourse originating in a seepage slope system in the northwestern area of the project site which discharges into the north/south watercourse. d) The smallest is an intermittent watercourse located in the western central area of the site which originates at an outfall pipe from an unidentified source. The streams on site are tributaries to the Chipola River, which is designated in Rule 17-3.041(4)(i), Florida Administrative Code, as an Outstanding Florida Water. The streams themselves are classified as Class III waters pursuant to the standards in Rule 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code. The site currently receives untreated stormwater runoff from both State Road 71 and Highway 90. Stormwater collection systems from these roads discharge directly through outfall pipes into the stream systems on site. The streams on site currently appear to receive discharges from a number of septic tank systems located either on site or on adjacent sites. High fecal and total coliform levels found in water samples taken by the applicant's experts in the course of water quality analysis of the stream systems on site are evidence of these discharges. The ecosystem found in the undisturbed portion of the project site is a wet mesic hardwood system which is a product of the geologic and hydrologic character of the site. This type of ecosystem is uncommon in the state of Florida and is generally found only in the north central area of the Florida Panhandle. The dominant physical characteristic of the undisturbed wet mesic hardwood ecosystem on site is the presence of functioning seepage slopes. The seepage slopes on this site are hydrogeological formations which are relatively rare within the boundaries of the state of Florida. They occur as gently sloping hillsides or steeper ravines with characteristically porous upper layers of soil composed of sand or sandy clay situated atop lower strata of impervious white clays or limestone rock. Rainwater percolates through the upper layers of these slopes and collects on top of the lower impervious layers. The water then flows down gradients beneath the soil surface, following the contour of the impervious layer until it either encounters a fissure which allows an avenue to the surface in the form of small sinkholes and seepage points, or reaches the bottom of the ravine or slope where it discharges into the larger visible stream systems on the site. The effect of the seepage slope is the attenuation of rainfall-related moisture content in the soils on site and the resultant flattening of the hydroperiod in the system. This effect creates a wet hardwood ecosystem on this site which supports relatively unusual floral and faunal communities for Florida. Despite their hydrologic functions in relation to the wetlands on the site, most of the seepage slope systems on the site are not considered jurisdictional wetlands pursuant to the Department's rule criteria contained in Rule 17-12.030, Florida Administrative Code. The functions of the seepage slope systems on and adjacent to the project site not generally sensitive to adjacent development activities which do not impair the integrity and porosity of the upper strata of the soils on the slope. Department dredge and fill regulations do not provide protection from the adverse effects of silvicultural and agricultural activities for any part of the seepage slope systems on site. Developers Diversified would not be precluded from using for future commercial development purposes a substantial portion of the seepage slope systems on site which is not directly impacted by the proposed project and not within the Department's wetlands jurisdictional area. The natural hydroperiod of a large portion of the seepage slope systems associated with the Chipola River system was destroyed when a dam was constructed nearby at Highway 90 to create Merrits Mill Pond. Because of this factor, the function of the remaining seepage systems is more important. On June 16, 1988, DER, in response to the applicant's permit modifications, issued an Intent to Issue with ten permit conditions, including a mitigation plan consisting of a conservation easement over approximately 12.54 acres on and adjacent to the project site. On June 21, 1988, Developers Diversified filed with DER Proof of Publication of Notice of Proposed Agency Action. The stormwater system is designed to meet the requirements of Chapter 17-25, Florida Administrative Code. The stormwater discharge system utilizes filter fabric and sand to filter oil and grease to prevent water quality violations. The detention ponds have over 50 per cent more storage volume than required by Chapter 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, and are designed to drain through the filters in 36 hours or less. The filtration system is designed using sand media in accordance with Rule 17-25.025(2), Florida Administrative Code. This media is separated from perforated drain pipe by filter fabric which will hold the sand in place. As both ponds are designed to draw down in 36 hours or less, a safety factor of at least 2 is provided (72 hours divided by 36 hours 2). The stormwater system is not only designed to meet the minimum requirements of Chapter 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, but is also overdesigned to accommodate the first three- quarters of an inch of runoff. The system was overdesigned in order to receive not only the stormwater runoff from the project, but also DOT discharges from U.S. Highway 90 and State Road 71, which presently discharge into waters of the state in an untreated condition. Developers Diversified proposes utilization of construction and post- construction Best Management Practices ("BMP") to minimize the potential for adverse water quality impacts. These BMP include the construction of a ten-foot high retaining wall to prevent encroachment into the adjacent small, intermittent channel; steep embankment slopes sodded or stabilized to minimize erosion; silt fencing used along the limits of jurisdictional areas prior to construction; hay bales to reduce erosion upgradient from silt fences; sheet pilings to construct foundations of the pipe bridge; geotextile material to stabilize fill embankments to reduce erosion; disturbed areas to be sodded, grassed, or landscaped to minimize erosion after construction; use of Marafi- Miragrid fabric to stabilize slopes where staking sod alone would be ineffective to hold the slopes; and the use of natural vegetation in uplands, where possible, to retard erosion. Developers Diversified will also employ an on-site full-time engineer to assure that the stormwater system is properly constructed, that all permit conditions are complied with by the contractor, and that construction impacts are minimized. Developers Diversified will conduct the following post-construction activities: monthly monitoring of stormwater inlets to check for buildup of debris; regular sweeping of the parking lot; mowing of the berms of the stormwater retention ponds and removal of debris from the ponds; regular inspection of the ponds for signs of erosion; and regular inspection of the filter fabric by an engineer to make sure that the filtration system is functioning properly. BMP during and after construction will minimize erosion. The stormwater design assures that virtually no particulate load will reach waters of the state. Further, the drainage basin for this site is only approximately 0.2 square miles. Consequently, relatively little runoff from the site potentially contributes to the Chipola River. Improved water quality will result from treating the presently untreated DOT stormwater. In addition, water quality will also be improved by eliminating presently untreated discharge which appears to include sewage. There is, therefore, little potential for degradation of the Chipola River. DER has imposed as a permit condition, and Developers Diversified has agreed to, the posting of a construction bond equal to the amount of the construction costs of the stormwater system plus 10 per cent, to ensure that the stormwater system is constructed in accordance with permit conditions. Water quality sampling was conducted at 11 locations on site and in the conservation area. The results of this sampling indicate a violation of state water quality standards (Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code) at Sampling Station No. 4. Sampling Station No. 4 was selected to measure the water quality from the 6-inch PVC pipe located west of the north/south watercourse. Sampling at this station indicates water quality violations of standards for conductivity (specific conductance), ammonia, and total and fecal coliform. The apparent source of this discharge is effluent from untreated domestic wastewater. Residences and commercial establishments in the vicinity of the project currently use septic tanks. Developers Diversified has agreed to fund the extension of the City of Marianna's sewer system to the project site. Pursuant to Chapter 371, Florida Statutes, all commercial establishments and residences in the area of the project site which are currently on septic tank systems will be required to hook up to city sewage. Therefore, the presence of untreated effluent in waters on the site should be eliminated. The stormwater system at the Crossroads Shopping Center will be constructed so as to provide adequate retention areas to pick up the DOT discharge, which is presently discharging to waters of the state in an untreated condition. Therefore, the improvement in site conditions relating to elimination of the untreated sewage and DOT discharges should be considered a public benefit. No threatened and endangered animal species were observed on site during the course of extensive site inspections by both Developers Diversified's consultants and DER staff. Because of the altered character and location of the site, it is unlikely that any such animal species would be found in the particular habitat on this site. Furthermore, DER permitting staff requested comments from the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission regarding threatened and endangered animal species, and no comments were received. There is no evidence of record in this proceeding that shows the existence of any threatened or endangered animal species on site. No identified populations of plants on the threatened or endangered species list were found on the project site, with the exception of a single pyramid magnolia sighted in the upland area adjacent to the spring head of the north/south tributary. The project site is populated by ubiquitous animal species that can forage in the wetlands and uplands adjacent to the 0.83 acres proposed for filling. Small salamanders, frogs, and minnows were observed in the few areas of pooled or flowing water. It is unlikely that these animals would be significantly affected by the project because they are either located in the conservation area or can forage in areas which will be left undisturbed. Wetlands to be filled on the site also provide minimal opportunities for detrital export. The site contains no water deep enough to have permanent fish populations or to otherwise be of recreational value. Due to the relatively small area to be filled, the small size of the drainage basin, and the large area of wetlands within the Chipola River Basin which contributes to the Chipola River, removal of these wetlands will result in no measurable impact to fish and recreational values in the Chipola River. Permit conditions and construction and post-construction BMP will prevent harmful erosion or shoaling. This project will have no effect on navigation or the flow of water either on site or in the Chipola River. On-site waters present no opportunity for fishing or recreation. There should be no direct or indirect impacts on fishing and recreational values in the Chipola River. Since the on-site system is not a marine system, the proposed project will not affect marine productivity. This shopping center development will be permanent in nature. The construction activity associated with the development will, of course, be temporary. DER typically does not require applicants to conduct archeological site surveys. Instead, DER staff routinely requests comments on potential historic or archeological impacts of dredge and fill projects from the Secretary of State's office. DER staff requested comments from the Secretary of State's office in this case, but no comments were received. Consequently, there is no evidence of record to show the existence of any significant historical or archeological resources on the project site. The City of Marianna and Jackson County have no zoning code, land use map, regulations on development in wetlands, or restrictions on commercial development and only limited restrictions on residential development related to the dedication of infrastructure to the county. There is no evidence in the record indicating that existing projects impact waters of the state in the area of the project, nor is there evidence that there are other projects which are under construction, have been permitted, or have been the subject of a jurisdictional determination. Similarly, there is no evidence that any other specific projects may "reasonably be expected" in nearby jurisdictional areas. Commercial and agricultural uses already surround the site. Since the site is located at a major road intersection, the possibility of future development exists. Should development occur, the conservation easement proposed by the applicant will be especially valuable because it will preserve a majority of the wetland system in the vicinity of the project site. Since the enactment of the mitigation provisions of Section 403.918(2)(b), Florida Statutes, in 1984, the Department has attempted to adopt a rule to carry out this legislative provision. The Environmental Regulation Commission has approved a mitigation rule for adoption, but the rule has been the subject of successive administrative rule challenges. As a result, the Department has been operating under evolving non-rule mitigation policy in processing dredge and fill applications since 1984. Three Department memoranda provide guidance to Department staff involved in the evaluation of mitigation issues raised in connection with dredge and fill applications currently pending before the Department: a) a March 24, 1987, memorandum from Department Secretary Dale Twachtmann to Randy Armstrong on the subject of "Interim Mitigation Policy," b) an April 30, 1987, memorandum from Randy Armstrong to Department District Mangers and Mark Latch on the subject of "Evaluation of Mitigation," and c) a June 20, 1988, memorandum from Secretary Dale Twachtmann to Randy Armstrong titled "Policy for Wetlands Preservation as Mitigation." The selection of the proposal which will be considered to ameliorate the adverse impacts of a project is a site specific, fact specific, and project specific type of determination. Therefore, it is difficult to describe in general terms what kind of measures will be acceptable as mitigation. As indicated in all three memos, the Department does consider a wide variety of types of proposals in determining how a permit applicant can best mitigate the adverse impacts of the proposed project. The Department's dredge and fill permitting technical staff and policy makers generally go through at least three steps in considering what type of mitigation will be best suited for a specific project. The first step is to consider reasonable modifications to project placement and design which will minimize or eliminate any of the anticipated adverse impacts. If, for some reason, the applicant cannot reasonably comply with the Department's suggested modifications to minimize the adverse impacts by redesigning its project, the applicant is then allowed to develop alternatives for the creation of artificial wetland habitat or the enhancement of existing impacted wetlands on the project site. If for some reason the creation and enhancement of wetland areas on-site is not feasible, then the option of the creation or enhancement of wetland areas adjacent to the project may be explored. As a final matter, the Department may consider the dedication of property rights to the state as means of preserving wetlands and other valuable natural areas as a means of mitigating for expected adverse impacts. Property dedication can take the form of perpetual conservation easements or the conveyance of fee simple title on properties within the project boundaries or adjacent to the project site. As a result of a finding by the Department that Developers Diversified's proposed project proposed project was not permittable because of the adverse impacts of the habitat loss in the more valuable western potions of the east/west tributary and the northern forked seepage stream system, the Department considered modification options and mitigation proposals with the applicant in an effort to ameliorate those adverse impacts. The Department suggested a list of modifications which the applicant could make to the proposed project to eliminate or minimize the filling of jurisdictional wetlands on the project site. The applicant made the following modifications to the project in response to the Department's suggestions: The project was moved 30 feet to the west to reduce encroachment into the wetlands from 1.26 acres to 0.83 acres. An elevated stormwater drain crossing of the jurisdictional area was designed to eliminate the fill pipeline crossing originally proposed. A retaining wall 10 feet high and 150 feet long was designed to prevent encroachment of the project into approximately 1,000 square feet of wetlands to preserve a small, intermittent stream channel. Steep embankment slopes (1:1.5) were designed to reduce encroachment into the wetlands. These slopes will be sodded or otherwise stabilized to minimize erosion. Silt fencing will be installed along all limits of project construction adjacent to jurisdictional areas prior to commencement of construction and will be maintained during the entire construction phase. Geotextile or equivalent will be used to stabilize the fill (embankment) to support the building foundations and roadwork along the east side of the site. This will serve to reduce erosion of the fill into the jurisdictional area during and after project construction. All areas disturbed during construction and not paved or covered by structures will be sodded, grassed, or landscaped to minimize erosion after project construction. Mirafi-Miragrid fabric will be used to stabilize slopes where staking sod alone would be ineffective. This material will hold sod firmly in place until it is established. The Department considered wetlands creation and enhancement proposals provided by the applicant for areas both within the boundaries of the site and adjacent to the site. The Department and Developers Diversified discussed the feasibility of developing plans for the re-creation of both the hardwood slope forest type environment and the seepage slope environment either on site or adjacent to the site. However, in further exploring those options, both Department staff and the applicant's engineers agreed that the topography and soil characteristics of the area, combined with the complex nature of the systems which would have to be re-created, made both options impractical and most likely impossible. The department considered the option of accepting preservation of the seepage slope system as mitigation only after determining that wetland creation and/or enhancement options were not available to mitigate the adverse impacts of the project. As a means of utilizing the option of preservation of the remaining wetlands and other natural features within or adjacent to the project site, the Department considered the applicant's proposal for conveying conservation easements over all of the approximately 6 acres, both jurisdictional wetlands and uplands, which remained on the northern and eastern side of the project site. In addition, the applicant arranged for the donation of a conservation easement over approximately 6.5 acres of additional jurisdictional wetlands and related upland areas adjacent to the northern and eastern boundaries of the project site. The proposal provided for the execution of perpetual conservation easements over approximately 12.564 acres of high quality seepage slope and stream systems on or adjacent to the project site. The Department's guidelines on the acceptance of preservation proposals as mitigation recognize that the State of Florida is paying high prices for environmentally unique and threatened land through public land acquisition programs such as the Conservation and Recreation Lands Program. As a result, the Department considers that the possibility of acquiring such properties by donation makes the serious consideration of such preservation proposals environmentally and economically necessary. The Department considered the following factors in determining whether or not it was appropriate to accept the proposed conveyance of conservation easements in this case: Whether or not the parcel is under consideration for purchase and management as a conservation area or is immediately adjacent to one, or is of such high quality as to provide clear benefit to the state as preserved land; The current degree of threat to the parcel; The proximity of the parcel to the site of the project for which mitigation is required; The quality of the conveyance instrumcnt and the status of other encumbrances, such as mineral rights; Whether the parcel is within, near, or adjacent to any waters with a special designation such as parks, aquatic preserves, and Outstanding Florida Waters; The condition of the property as a result of previous activities, such as the disposal of hazardous or solid waste. The Department considered the following factors in assessing the relative value of the areas proposed for preservation on and adjacent to this project site: Relative proximity to existing or anticipated activity that would affect its environmental value; Existing water quality; Presence of threatened or endangered species; Presence of feral animals that would affect resources; Presence of historic or archeological sites; The hydrological importance of the surface water and ground water at that location; The configuration of the parcel. The proposed conservation easements mitigate the adverse effects of the proposed filling by perpetually preserving virtually all of the watershed for the north/south tributary on site and ensuring the continued functioning of this system in the face of future unrestricted commercial development in the area. The proposed preservation option ratio preserves over 15 acres of similar or better quality wetland and related uplands slope systems for every acre of jurisdictional wetlands to be filled. This 15:1 ratio is within the limits of the acceptable range of 10:1 to 100:1 proposed in the Department Secretary's June 20, 1988, memorandum for this type of preservation proposal. The Department has already accepted a mitigation proposal in one standard form dredge and fill permitting matter which involved the use of preservation through conservation areas alone. The DER Southwest District Office has issued Warning Notices to Developers Diversified for two shopping center projects in Pasco County, known as Bayonet Point and Pasco Square. At Pasco Square, the stormwater system was allegedly not constructed in accordance with permit specifications and the mitigation and enhancement areas were allegedly also not constructed. At Bayonet Point, a retention area was allegedly overgrown with nuisance species, a littoral shelf for a retention area was not complete, and portions of the stormwater system were not properly constructed. In addition, DER did not have proof that the conservation easement had been recorded with the Clerk of the Court. Subsequently, the permit was modified to eliminate the littoral shelf requirement. At the time of this hearing, all work on Bayonet Point has been completed to DER's satisfaction. Required work is underway at Pasco Square. No Notice of Violation or other enforcement action has been pursued against Developers Diversified relating to these or any other projects. The CBPG is a not-for-profit corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida and, as such, is considered to be a citizen of the state for the purposes of Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. The CBPG filed a verified petition for hearing alleging that the activities sought to be permitted will impair, injure, or pollute the natural resources of the state. The CBPG was concerned about the loss of wetlands on the proposed development site. The totality of the evidence fails to support a finding that CBPG undertook this action for an improper purpose or that its motives were frivolous. The correct full name of the Florida Sierra is "the Florida Chapter of the Sierra Club." The nature of Florida Sierra and of the Sierra Club is described as follows in Section 1.1 of Article 1 of the Bylaws of the Sierra Club Florida Chapter: This Chapter is constituted by action of the Board of Directors of the Sierra Club on February 14, 1971, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Bylaws of the Sierra Club. This Chapter is an integral part of the Sierra Club and is governed by its Bylaws; it is not a separate legal entity. The Sierra Club is a California- based corporation registered as a foreign non-profit corporation with the Florida Secretary of State. Section 1.5 of Article 1 of the same Bylaws provides, in pertinent part: "The members of this Chapter shall be those members of the Sierra Club who reside within the geographical limits of the Chapter. . . ." Those geographical limits are identical to those of the State of Florida. And Section 2.1 of Article 2 of the subject Bylaws requires that the management of the affairs and activities of Florida Sierra be carried out in a manner consistent with the purposes of Sierra Club National and the policies and directives of the National Board. The purposes of Florida Sierra include the protection, exploration, and enjoyment of the natural resources of the state. In that regard, the organization has an outings program, is involved in conservation issues, distributes a newsletter, and educates and champions other activities promoting the protection of the natural resources of the state. Florida Sierra has its own bank account with a treasurer responsible for its finances. The Bylaws of Florida Sierra vest the powers and duties of "the Florida Chapter of the Sierra Club" in a board of directors referred to as the Florida Executive Committee. Florida Sierra has not alleged, and there is no evidence of record, that it is a Florida corporation. Florida Sierra has not registered in any county in Florida under the Fictitious Name Statute, Section 865.09, Florida Statutes. Furthermore, Florida Sierra is not an unincorporated association. The national Sierra Club, Inc., a California corporation, is registered in Florida as a foreign corporation authorized to do business in this state.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order granting the application of Developers Diversified, Inc., to fill approximately 0.83 acres of wetlands and for the construction and operation of a stormwater treatment and conveyance system in relation to the development of the Crossroads Shopping Center in Marianna, Florida, and issuing permits with appropriate conditions governing the construction of a shopping center and the stormwater collection and treatment system and the execution of conservation easements as included in the Department's Intent to Issue dated June 16, 1988. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-3355 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Developers Diversified Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5: Accepted. Paragraph 6: Most rejected as unnecessary historical details. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13: Accepted in substance, with some unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 14: Covered in introduction; not necessary in findings of fact. Paragraph 15: Accepted. Paragraph 16: First two sentences covered in introduction; not necessary in findings of fact. The remainder of this paragraph is accepted in substance. Paragraph 17: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23: Accepted. Paragraph 24: Accepted in substance with some redundant language omitted. Paragraph 25: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details not fully supported by the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 26, 27, and 28: Accepted. Paragraphs 29 and 30: Accepted in substance with some clarifying additions. Paragraphs 31, 32, and 33: Accepted. Paragraph 34: Accepted with clarifying addition. Paragraph 35: Accepted. Paragraphs 36 and 37: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary material omitted. Paragraphs 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, and 48: Accepted in substance, although findings actually made are more closely modeled on the proposals submitted by the DER. Paragraphs 49 and 50: Rejected as constituting conclusions of law or argument, rather than proposed findings of fact. (Matters addressed by these paragraphs are discussed in the conclusions of law.) Paragraph 51. Accepted. Paragraph 52: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Findings proposed by Petitioner Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4: Accepted in substance with a number of unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 5: First sentence accepted. Remainder rejected as not fully supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence and as, in any event, subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 6: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 7: (There is no paragraph 7.) Paragraphs 8 and 9: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 10: Rejected as an unnecessary generality in light of other evidence about this specific system. Paragraph 11: Accepted. Paragraph 12: Rejected as irrelevant because not found in this system. Paragraph 13: Accepted in part; some parts rejected as unnecessary historical background. Paragraphs 14 and 15: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 16: A few details from this paragraph have been incorporated into the findings, but most have been rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 17 and 18: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 19: Rejected in part as speculative and in part as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 20: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 21: First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Third sentence rejected as irrelevant. Fourth sentence accepted. Paragraph 22: First sentence accepted. Remainder rejected as argument and as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 23: Rejected as constituting primarily argument rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraphs 24 and 25: Accepted. Paragraph 26: Rejected as speculation and as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 27: Rejected as constituting argument or conclusions of law rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraphs 28, 29, and 30: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 31: Rejected as constituting for the most part argument rather than proposed findings of fact. To the extent findings are proposed, they are irrelevant or not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 32: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 33, 34, and 35: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 36: Accepted with additional clarifying details. Paragraph 37: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 38: Rejected as redundant. Paragraph 39: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 40: First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant. Third sentence rejected as constituting argument rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 41: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 42: For the most part rejected as unnecessary details. Paragraph 43: Rejected in part as constituting unnecessary details and in part as constituting argument rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 44: Rejected as primarily constituting argument rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 45: Accepted in substance, with the exception of the last sentence, which suggests an incorrect inference. Paragraphs 46 and 47: Accepted. Paragraph 48: Accepted with the exception of the proposition that Florida Sierra acts "independently" of the national organization. (It cannot be truly independent if it is not a separate legal entity.) Paragraph 49: Accepted in substance, with some unnecessary details omitted. Findings proposed by DER Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18: Accepted. Paragraphs 19, 20, 21, and 22: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 23: Accepted in substance, with exception of last two sentences, which are conclusions of law. Paragraph 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 32: Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact. This proposed conclusion is discussed in the conclusions of law. Paragraphs 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44: Accepted. Paragraph 45: Last sentence accepted. Remainder omitted as constituting unnecessary historical background. Paragraphs 46, 47, and 48: Accepted. Paragraph 49: Rejected as redundant and unnecessary. Paragraph 50: Accepted. Paragraph 51: Accepted in substance, with clarification of ratio figures. (The formula appears to be 12.54 divided by .83 = 15.108433.) Paragraph 52: Accepted. Paragraph 53: Rejected as redundant and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter B. Belmont, Esquire 511 31st Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 William E. Williams, Esquire Robert D. Fingar, Esquire J. D. Boone Kuersteiner, Esquire Huey, Guilday, Kuersteiner & Tucker P. O. Box 1794 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Steven K. Hall, Esquire Carol Forthman, Esquire Richard Donelan, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 =================================================================
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-42.100, 62-42.200, 62-42.300, and a document incorporated by reference (“the Proposed Rules”) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority; whether the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) complied with statutory requirements regarding preparation of a statement of estimated regulatory costs (“SERC”) for the Proposed Rules; and whether the approval by the Governing Board of the Suwannee River Water Management District (“SRWMD”) of a document entitled “Recovery Strategy: Lower Santa Fe River Basin” (“Recovery Strategy”) is invalid because it required rulemaking.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Alliance is a Florida not-for-profit corporation with its principal place of business at 203 Northeast First Street, Gainesville, Florida. Its mission is to ensure the restoration, preservation, and protection for future generations of the ecosystems along the Ichetucknee River, including its associated springs. The Alliance has approximately 40 members. Seventeen members appeared at the final hearing and testified that they regularly use the Ichetucknee River and its associated priority springs for recreation, wildlife observation, and other purposes. Seventeen members is a substantial number of the total membership of the Alliance. Petitioner Still is a natural person who owns 117 acres of land in Bradford County. He uses the land primarily for timber production. He does not have a consumptive (water) use permit. He has used the Lower Santa Fe River and associated springs for recreation since 1979 and continues to visit the river and springs for this purpose. Petitioner FWF is a Florida not-for-profit corporation with its principal place of business at 2545 Blairstone Drive, Tallahassee, Florida. The mission of FWF includes the preservation, management, and improvement of Florida’s water resources and wildlife habitat. In the parties’ Pre-Hearing Stipulation, FWF identified Manley Fuller, its President, as its witness for organizational standing. It also listed “standing witnesses as needed,” but did not name them. At his deposition, Mr. Fuller stated that he did not know how many FWF members use the MFL water bodies. At the beginning of the final hearing, FWF made an oral proffer that it was prepared to call “10 members who are using the water bodies.” Later, FWF stated that some members were unwilling or unable to come to Tallahassee, but suggested that 10 or 15 might (now) be talked into coming to the final hearing or testifying by video. FWF also proffered a membership list, showing the number of members by county. It shows that FWF has a total of 11,788 members. In the six counties in the vicinity of the MFL water bodies (Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Gilchrist, Suwannee, and Union) there are 457 FWF members. Ten, 15, or 20 members is not a substantial number of FWF’s 11,788 total members, nor is it a substantial number of its 457 members who live in the vicinity of the MFL waterbodies. Respondent DEP is a state agency with powers and duties under chapter 373, Florida Statutes, including the power and duty under section 373.042(1), which it shares with the water management districts, to establish minimum flows for surface watercourses and minimum levels for groundwater (“MFLs”) and recovery strategies when MFLs will not be achieved. Respondent/Intervenor SRWMD is a regional water management district with powers and duties under chapter 373, including powers and duties related to MFLs. The MFL waterbodies are located within SRWMD. Intervenor SJRWMD is the water management district adjacent to SRWMD. A portion of SJRWMD is included within the planning area created for the MFL waterbodies. Intervenor NFUCG is a regional trade organization representing interests of public water supply utilities in North Florida that hold consumptive use permits and are subject to the Proposed Rules. Intervenors CCUA and JEA are two members of NFUCG. Intervenors Alachua County, Gilchrist County, Suwannee County, Bradford County, and Columbia County are political subdivisions of the State in geographic proximity to the MFL water bodies. These Counties have the duty to plan for and protect the MFL water bodies as part of their local government comprehensive planning responsibilities under chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Minimum Flows and Recovery Strategies The water management districts and the DEP are required to establish minimum flows for surface water courses. § 373.042(1), Fla. Stat. Minimum flows are “the limit at which further withdrawals would be significantly harmful to the water resources or ecology of the area.” § 373.042(1)(a), Fla. Stat. If the existing flow in a water body is below its established minimum flow, DEP or the district is required to develop a “recovery strategy” designed to “[a]chieve recovery to the established minimum flow or level as soon as practicable.” § 373.0421(2), Fla. Stat. MFLs and recovery strategies are required to be included in a water management district’s regional water supply plan. § 373.709(2)(c) and (g), Fla. Stat. Water management districts must develop regional water supply plans in regions where they determine existing sources of water are not adequate to supply water for all existing and future users and to sustain water resources and related natural systems. § 373.709(1), Fla. Stat. SRWMD does not have a regional water supply plan. It is working on a draft plan that is expected to be completed in late 2015. The MFL Water Bodies The Lower Santa Fe River runs for approximately 30 miles from Santa Fe River Rise Spring to its confluence with the Suwannee River. The Lower Santa Fe is fed primarily by groundwater discharge from the Upper Floridan aquifer including the baseflow provided by several major springs. The Lower Santa Fe River system, including its tributary, the Ichetucknee River (below State Road 27), is classified as an Outstanding Florida Water, a designation conferred on waters “with exceptional recreational or ecological significance.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.700(3). The Ichetucknee River runs for six miles from the Head Spring to its confluence with the Lower Santa Fe. Its flow is derived almost entirely from springflow. The ecological, recreational, and economic values of the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers are widely recognized. Both rivers flow through lands preserved for public use as part of the State Park System. SRWMD published a Water Supply Assessment in 2010 to determine whether water demands could be met for the 2010-2030 planning period without adversely affecting natural resources. The North Florida Groundwater Flow Model was used to evaluate groundwater withdrawals and their effect on aquifer levels and the flows in springs and rivers. The 2010 assessment concluded that groundwater levels of the Upper Floridan Aquifer in the eastern and northeastern portions of the District were in decline. The District’s analysis of river and streamflows also found declining trends. It was concluded that existing water sources would not be able to meet projected water demands over the planning period. As a result, the Lower Santa Fe River Basin (including the Ichetucknee River) was designated as a water supply planning region and SRWMD began to develop minimum flows for these water bodies. Because groundwater withdrawals within the adjacent SJRWMD were also affecting the MFL waterbodies1/, DEP, SRWMD, and SJRWMD entered into an interagency agreement in 2011 to work together on water supply issues and the development of a joint regional groundwater model. Development of the Minimum Flows The procedural difficulties faced in establishing minimum flows affected by water uses in two water management districts eventually lead to the Legislature’s creation of section 373.042(4) in 2013, which authorizes DEP to adopt relevant rules which can be applied by the water management districts without the need for their own rulemaking. In June 2013, SRWMD requested that DEP adopt minimum flows for the MFL waterbodies pursuant to the new law. A gage2/ for the Lower Santa Fe River near Fort White, and a gage for the Ichetucknee River on US 27 were selected for establishment of the respective minimum flows. The minimum flows were determined by first establishing a hydrologic baseline condition at the two gages. Then, SRWMD determined a departure from the baseline that would cause significant harm to the water resources and ecology of the area. The minimum flows are expressed as stage duration curves rather than a single number, in order to account for the changes in flow that occur naturally due to seasonal, climatic, and other factors affecting rainfall. Once the minimum flows were determined, SRWMD evaluated whether they are being met. It concluded that the minimum flows are not being met. Therefore, in accordance with section 373.0421(2), a recovery strategy had to be prepared and implemented. The Recovery Strategy A recovery strategy is a plan for achieving a return to adopted MFLs and will generally include plans for developing new water supplies and implementing conservation and efficiency measures. See § 373.0421(2), Fla. Stat. The practice of the water management districts has been to also adopt regulatory measures that are used in the review of consumptive use permits as part of a recovery strategy. See, e.g., Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D-80.074. That practice was followed for the MFL water bodies. The Recovery Strategy includes planning, water conservation, water supply development, and water resource development components. These components comprise the non-regulatory portion of the Recovery Strategy. Section 6.0 of the Recovery Strategy, entitled “Supplemental Regulatory Measures,” is the regulatory portion and is incorporated by reference in proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(d). The Recovery Strategy is to be implemented in two phases and the objectives of each phase are described in Table 4-1 of the Recovery Strategy. Phase I includes adoption of supplemental regulatory measures, work with user groups to implement water conservation measures, completion of an improved regional groundwater model, and identification and investigation of water supply projects. In Phase II of the Recovery Strategy, DEP plans to use the new regional model to develop long-term regulatory measures to address regional impacts to the MFLs water bodies. In addition, SRWMD and SJRWMD would develop and implement additional water resource and supply projects. The Proposed Rules The Proposed Rules would create three sections in a new chapter 62-42 of the Florida Administrative Code. Rules 62- and 62-42.200 set forth the scope and definitions: 62-42.100 Scope The purpose of this chapter is to set forth Department-adopted minimum flows and levels (MFLS) and the regulatory provisions of any required recovery or prevention strategy as provided in Section 373.042(4), F.S. The Department recognizes that recovery and prevention strategies may contain both regulatory and non-regulatory provisions. The non-regulatory provisions are not included in this rule, and will be included in the applicable regional water supply plans approved by the appropriate districts pursuant to Section 373.0421(2) and Section 373.709, F.S. [Rulemaking authority and law implemented omitted.] 62-42.200 Definitions When used in this chapter, the following words shall have the indicated meanings unless the rule indicates otherwise: Flow Duration Curve means a plot of magnitude of flow versus percent of time the magnitude of flow is equaled or exceeded. Flow Duration Frequency means the percentage of time that a given flow is equaled or exceeded. [Rulemaking authority and law implemented omitted.] Rule 62-42.300 is where the proposed minimum flows are set forth. The minimum flows for the Lower Santa Fe River are established in rule 62-42.300(1)(a); the minimum flows for the Ichetucknee River are established in rule 62-42.300(1)(b); and the minimum flows for 16 priority springs are established in rule 62-42.300(1)(c). The minimum flows for the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers are expressed as water flow in cubic feet per second (“cfs”) at various points on a flow duration curve. The minimum flows for ten named springs associated with the Santa Fe River and six named springs associated with the Ichetucknee River are set forth as a “percent reduction from the median baseline flow contribution of the spring to the flow” at a particular river gage. This approach, which ties spring flow to river flow, was used by DEP because there is minimal flow data for the springs. Rule 62-42.300(1)(d) adopts by reference “Supplemental Regulatory Measures,” which is Section 6.0 of the Recovery Strategy. Rule 62-42.300(1)(e) states that DEP, in coordination with SRWMD and SJRWMD, shall reevaluate these minimum flows after completion of the North Florida Southeast Georgia Regional Groundwater Flow Model, which is currently under development. The rule also states that DEP will “strike” rules 62-42.300(1)(a) through (d) and adopt new rules no later than three years after completion of the final peer review report regarding the new groundwater model, or by December 31, 2019, whichever date is earlier. The Supplemental Regulatory Measures adopted by reference in rule 62-42.300(1)(d) are intended to provide additional criteria for review of consumptive use permit applications during Phase I. These measures would be applied to water uses within the North Florida Regional Water Supply Planning Area. For the purposes of the issues raised in these consolidated cases, it is necessary to discuss three categories of permit applications and how they would be treated under the Supplemental Regulatory Measures in Phase I: (1) A new permit application that shows a “potential impact” to the MFL water bodies must eliminate or offset the potential impact; (2) An application to renew a permit, which does not seek to increase the amount of water used, would be renewed for five years no matter what impact it is having on the MFL water bodies; however, if the impact is eliminated or offset, the renewal would not be limited to five years; and (3) An application to renew a permit which seeks an increased quantity of water would have to eliminate or offset the potential impact to the MFL water bodies associated only with the increase. This category of permits is limited to a five-year renewal unless the existing impacts are also eliminated or offset. See § 6.5(a)-(d) of the Recovery Strategy. Section 6.5(e) states that existing permits that do not expire during Phase I are considered consistent with the Recovery Strategy and are not subject to modification during the term of their permits. Many permits are issued for a 20-year period, so Phase I would not capture all existing permits because they would not all expire during Phase I.3/ DEP stated that existing permits may be affected by the regulatory measures DEP plans to adopt for Phase II. Section 6.5(f) of the Supplemental Regulatory Measures states that permittees are not responsible for impacts to the MFL water bodies caused by water users in Georgia, or for more than the permittee’s “proportionate share of impacts.” The record evidence established that the effect of Georgia water users on the MFL water bodies is small. Section 6.6(b) requires permits for agricultural use in the counties surrounding the MFL water bodies to include a condition requiring participation in the Mobile Irrigation Lab (MIL) program. The purpose of SRWMD’s MIL program is to improve the efficiency of irrigation systems. SRWMD provides cost- sharing in this program. Whether DEP Must Adopt the Entire Recovery Strategy by Rule Petitioners contend that proposed rules 62-42.100(1) and (2) enlarge, modify, or contravene sections 373.042(4) and 373.0421(2) because these statutes require DEP to adopt all of a recovery strategy by rule, not just the regulatory portion of a recovery strategy. Respondents contend that it was consistent with the law for DEP to adopt only the regulatory portion of the Recovery Strategy by rule and have SRWMD approve the non- regulatory portion and implement it through a regional water supply plan. It has been the practice of the water management districts to adopt by rule only the regulatory portion of a recovery strategy and to implement the non-regulatory portion as a component of their regional water supply plans. This is primarily a legal issue and is addressed in the Conclusions of Law where it is concluded that DEP is not required to adopt the entire Recovery Strategy by rule. Whether SRWMD Must Adopt the Recovery Strategy By Rule Petitioner Still challenged SRWMD’s approval of the Recovery Strategy as violating the rulemaking requirements of section 120.54. However, Petitioner Still presented no evidence in support of his claim that the Recovery Strategy contains statements that meet the definition of a rule, but were not adopted as rules. Whether the Non-Regulatory Portion of the Recovery Strategy Will Prevent Recovery The Alliance claims that there are flaws in the non- regulatory portion of the Recovery Strategy that was approved by SRWMD, primarily related to the estimate of flow deficits in the MFL water bodies and the corresponding amount of water that must be returned to the system to achieve the minimum flows. There is unrefuted record evidence indicating that SRWMD did not account for consumptive use permits issued in the last three or four years. Therefore, the Recovery Strategy probably underestimates the flow deficits in the Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers and the amount of water needed to achieve the minimum flows.4/ However, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the Alliance cannot challenge the non-regulatory portion of the Recovery Strategy in this proceeding. The Recovery Strategy, including the non-regulatory portion approved by SRWMD, is in Phase I. SRWMD can revise the Recovery Strategy at any time, and in Phase II can do so with the improved analysis made possible with the new regional model. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, the non-regulatory portion does not have to achieve recovery in Phase I. Whether the Minimum Flows are Based on the Best Information Available Petitioner Still contends that the minimum flows are not based on the best information available as required by section 373.042(1)(b). He claims that the wrong method was used to estimate streamflow, the modeling was based on a false assumption about the relationship between groundwater levels and river flows, the relationship between withdrawals and flows was not properly accounted for, withdrawals and other anthropogenic impacts were not properly distinguished, tailwater effects were not properly accounted for, and the wrong period of record was used. Petitioner Still’s arguments in this respect are based largely on his own opinions about the quality and significance of the technical data that was used and how it affects the modeling results used in establishing the minimum flows. Petitioner Still does not have the requisite expertise to express these opinions and he did not get expert witnesses at the final hearing to agree with his claims. Petitioner Still does not have an expertise in modeling to express an opinion about the ability of the model to use particular data or how the model accounts for various surface and groundwater phenomena. Petitioner Still failed to prove that the minimum flows are not based on the best available information. Whether the Proposed Rules Are Vague Petitioner Still contends the Proposed Rules are invalid because they use terms that are vague. Some of the terms which Petitioner Still objects to are the same or similar to terms commonly used in other environmental regulations, such as “best available information,” “impact,” “offset,” and “eliminate.” The term “potential impact” is not materially different than the term “impact.” The term “best available modeling tools” is not vague. It reflects the recognition that, like best available information, hydrologic models and technical information are continually being created and updated. Petitioner Still contends that the definitions of “Flow Duration Curve” and “Flow Duration Frequency” in proposed rules 62-42.200(1) and (2), respectively, are vague because they do not state whether “synthetic” data may be used in the production of the flow duration curve, or that they are based on a specific period of record. Synthetic data are numeric inputs used to account for missing data and are created by extrapolating from existing data. As an example, they can be used to satisfy a model’s need to have a water flow entry for every month in a multi-year period being analyzed when there is no actual data available for some of the months. The use of synthetic data is a regular and accepted practice in modeling and does not have to be mentioned in the rule. Flow duration curves and flow duration frequencies are calculated from data covering specific periods of record. Although the definitions of these two terms in proposed rule 62-42.200 could contain more information than is provided, the proposed definitions are not inaccurate. They are not vague. Petitioner Still contends that proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(a) is vague because it establishes the minimum flows for the Santa Fe River at a location without precisely identifying the location. The record shows that the reference in proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(a) to “the Santa Fe River near Ft. White, FL” is the actual name of the United States Geological Survey flow gage that has been in use for many years. Furthermore, proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(c), which establishes the minimum flows for the priority springs, refers to “the respective river gages listed in paragraphs 62-42.300(1)(a) and (b).” Therefore, it is made clear that the reference to “the Santa Fe River near Ft. White, FL” in proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(a) is a reference to a river gage. The rule is not vague. Petitioner Still asserts that the minimum flows in proposed 62-42.300(1) are vague because they do not identify the period of record that was used in deriving the flow duration curves which are used in the rule. He compared the wording in the proposed rule to SRWMD’s existing rule 40B-8.061(1), which identifies the technical report from which the flow duration curve in that rule was derived. A general description of flow duration curves is found in “Minimum Flows and Levels for the Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee River and Priority Springs” dated November 22, 2013 (“MFL Technical Document”), at page 3-6: They show the percent of time specified discharges were equaled or exceeded for a continuous record in a given period. For example, during the period 1932 to 2010, the daily mean flow of the Santa Fe River near Fort White (Figure 3-2) was at least 767 cfs, 90 percent of the time. The curves are influenced by the period of record used in their creation, but for comparison purposes between different scenarios over a fixed time period they are extremely useful. [Emphasis added.] However, proposed rule 62-42.300(1) does not give the period of record for the flow duration curves that will be used to determine compliance with the minimum flows for the Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers. Respondents argued that identifying the period of record is unnecessary because anyone interested in knowing the period of record or anything else pertaining to how the flow duration curves were produced could refer to the MFL Technical Document. This is not a situation where a specific number and unit, such as 100 cfs, has been established as a criterion based on technical analyses that can be found in documents. In such a case, the technical documents are not needed to determine compliance with the criterion; they simply explain why the criterion was selected. In the case of a flow duration curve, however, the period of record for the data to be used must be known to determine compliance. For example, proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(a)1. would establish the following criterion: “3,101 cubic feet per second (cfs) for a flow duration frequency of five percent.” Five percent of what? Five percent of what data set? Data from what time period? Must the same synthetic data be used? The rule does not inform persons subject to the rule what data SRWMD will use to determine compliance. They would not know how to calculate flow duration frequencies without reviewing the MFL Technical Document. Because the minimum flows are not completely identified in the rule, they are vague. Whether a Minimum Flow Should be Established for Each Priority Spring Petitioner Still contends that the Proposed Rules are invalid because minimum flows are not established for each priority spring, which causes them to be unprotected. He claims that each spring needs its own minimum flow “that takes into account the surface and ground water inputs to its flow.” DEP and SRWMD presented evidence that establishing minimum flows for each spring was impracticable because there were insufficient data for the springs. Petitioner Still did not refute this evidence. Whether the Proposed Rules Allow Further Degradation of the MFL Water Bodies The Alliance contends that the Proposed Rules must reduce permitted withdrawals in Phase I and must require monitoring of water use by agricultural water users, but it did not present evidence that these alternative regulatory measures are practicable in SRWMD in Phase I. The Alliance did not show there are permitting mechanisms that have been used by other water management districts as part of the first phase of a recovery strategy that are practicable for use in SRWMD and would be more effective. The only evidence presented on the subject of what regulatory measures other water management districts have adopted as part of a recovery strategy pertained to the Southwest Florida Water Management District (“SWFWMD”). That evidence showed that SWFWMD took a similar approach of allowing existing permitted uses to continue their water withdrawals while new water supplies and conservation mechanisms were developed. The Alliance contends that the Supplemental Regulatory Measures do not prevent further degradation because there are projected to be numerous, new agricultural water uses in Phase I. However, under section 6.5(b), new water uses will not be allowed to adversely impact the MFL water bodies. The Alliance makes a similar argument regarding existing agricultural water users who will request an increase in water. Under section 6.5(c), increases in water use will not be allowed to adversely impact the MFL water bodies. Whether the SERC and Revised SERC are Good Faith Estimates and Whether the Proposed Rules Impose the Lowest Cost Regulatory Alternatives Petitioner Still failed to meet his burden under section 120.56(2) of going forward with evidence to support his allegations that DEP’s original SERC or the revised SERC were not good faith estimates of regulatory costs associated with the Proposed Rules. The record evidence shows they are good faith estimates. He also failed to meet his burden under section 120.56(2) of going forward with evidence to support his allegations that the objectives of the law being implemented could be substantially accomplished by a less costly regulatory alternative.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner Cargor Partners VIII – Long Bar Pointe, LLLP (“Cargor”) is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2017).
Findings Of Fact Notice On February 17, 2017, the attorney for Cargor sent Joseph McClash a letter on law firm stationary. In the first paragraph of the letter it states, “Please allow this letter to serve as notice of Cargor’s intent to seek relief pursuant to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (the “Statute”) against you, individually as qualified representative, and the named Petitioner.” Cargor sent an email to McClash on February 28, 2017, reminding McClash that “the 57.105 deadline is March 10, 2017.” McClash referred to a motion for attorney’s fees that he received on or about March 13, 2017, but the motion was not shown to the Administrative Law Judge nor introduced into evidence. On April 5, 2017, the same day that McClash voluntarily dismissed the petition for hearing in DOAH Case No. 17-0655, Cargor filed with DOAH its motion for attorney’s fees under section 57.105. Contested Claims The renewal of a FDOW is governed by section 373.421(2), Florida Statutes, which states in relevant part that the FDOW shall be renewed “as long as physical conditions on the property have not changed, other than changes which have been authorized by a permit pursuant to this part, so as to alter the boundaries of surface waters or wetlands.” If the boundaries of wetlands or other surface waters have been altered without a permit, the FDOW cannot be renewed and an application for a new FDOW is required. The SWFWMD reviewer explained in a letter requesting additional information from Cargor: Please be advised that letters of exemption do not qualify as permits issued under Part IV of chapter 373, F.S. and therefore if work has been done on the site that has altered the wetlands or other surface water boundaries in association with a letter of exemption, a new formal determination application will be required. McClash claims Cargor did not qualify for the renewal of its FDOW because Cargor altered the boundaries of surface waters or wetlands on its property after the 2011 FDOW was issued and the some of the alterations were made pursuant to letter of exemption. In its February 17, 2017, letter to McClash, Cargor set forth six grounds for Cargor’s contention that McClash’s petition for hearing should be withdrawn. The first three grounds were described in Cargor’s letter as follows: The Formal Determination of Wetlands and Other Surface Waters, dated December 28, 2016, which is the subject of this Proceeding, does not authorize any construction activity. Consequently, no standing to challenge is or could be properly presented. There is no injury in fact and no one is in immediate danger of a direct injury from the issuance of the Formal Determination of Wetlands and Other Surface Waters, dated December 28, 2016, as of the date and time of filing the Petition in this Proceeding. Consequently, no standing to challenge is or could be properly presented. The Formal Determination of Wetlands and Other Surface Waters, dated December 28, 2016, is not a permit, license, or authorization. Consequently, no standing to challenge is or could be properly presented by an association. These were issues of law and they were decided against Cargor in an Order dated February 28, 2017. The fourth and fifth grounds described in Cargor’s letter involve the central issue in the case: Changes in the land have been previously authorized by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (“SWFWMD”) pursuant to existing and final permits including (i) SWFWMD ERP No. 43040157.001, dated August 6, 2014, (ii) SWFWMD CONCEPTUAL ERP No. 49040157.002, dated September 4, 2015, (iii) SWFWMD ERP No. 4304157.003, dated March 31, 2016, and (iv) SWFWMD Notice of Qualification for Permanent Farming Exemption, dated August 30, 2016. Changes in the land are authorized by the identified permits and authorizations. All changes in the land have occurred pursuant to the identified permits and authorizations. Allegations to the contrary are simply false and are not supported by material facts. In 2015, Cargor was issued a “Conceptual ERP” permit, which describes, among other things, planned modifications to some agricultural ditches. However, the conceptual permit does not allow the commencement of construction activities. On August 30, 2016, SWFWMD issued to Cargo a Permanent Farming Exemption, pursuant to section 373.406(13), which authorized Cargor to excavate three agricultural ponds in uplands. In its application for the exemption, Cargor also proposed to modify some agricultural ditches. On March 31, 2017, SWFWMD issued Cargor an ERP Individual Construction Major Modification, which, among other things, authorized work in ditches. This permit was issued just before McClash’s voluntary dismissal and, therefore, could not have authorized the changes on Cargor’s property that McClash described in the petition for hearing. Before filing his petition, McClash consulted with a wetland scientist, Clark Hull, about the merits of McClash’s proposed challenge to the FDOW renewal. Hull gave McClash an affirmative response, but his input was speculative because it was based on assumptions and representations that Hull had not investigated. McClash consulted with another wetland scientist, Pamela Fetterman, who conducted an “aerial, desktop review of publically available Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data.” Fetterman described her initial review as an evaluation of potential undelineated wetlands and other surface waters. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the delineation approved by the 2011 FDOW became final and could not be challenged by McClash. McClash then asked Fetterman to review changes in physical conditions on the property that occurred after the FDOW was issued. Fetterman produced a report (McClash Exhibit R-6), in which she opined that the changes to physical conditions on Cargor’s property “have a high likelihood of affecting the previously delineated landward extent of wetlands and other surface waters.” She stated further: [C]hanges in physical conditions of the property took place prior to issuance of the [FDOW renewal] as purported “exempt agricultural activities”, and include ditch dredging alterations to delineated other surface waters. . . . A Permanent Farming Request for Exemption Confirmation letter was applied for on August 23, 2016 for construction of these ponds and modification of existing ditches, some of which were determined to be jurisdictional other surface waters by the subsequently re-issued [FDOW]. At the final hearing on fees, neither McClash nor Cargor made clear to the Administrative Law Judge: (1) the physical changes to the property that were alleged to be authorized by permit, (2) the physical changes that were alleged to be authorized by exemption, or (3) any physical changes that were alleged to be unauthorized. The sixth ground described in Cargor’s letter is as follows: The picture attached to the Petition as set forth in Paragraph 9, and the stop work allegation set forth in Paragraph 10 are irrelevant and have no factual relationship to any issue in the proceeding. Since any changes in the land have occurred pursuant to identified permits and authorizations, the allegations are simply false and/or intentionally misleading. It is not a basis for an award of attorney’s fees under section 57.105 that an irrelevant photograph was included in a petition for hearing. Moreover, the aerial photograph in McClash’s petition was relevant in this case because it showed the physical conditions of Cargor’s property. In the petition, McClash states that Manatee County issued a stop work order on November 16, 2016, for construction activities commenced on Cargor’s property without a County- approved erosion control plan. This allegation also pertained to physical changes to the property. All evidence about physical changes was relevant in determining whether Cargor was entitled to renewal of the FDOW. Fees Cargor claims fees based on 48.4 hours of attorney time (Edward Vogler) at an hourly rate of $410, and 3.6 hours of attorney time (Kimberly Ashton) at an hourly rate of $385, for a total of $21,230.00. The fees Cargor is seeking include the hours spent on legal issues raised by Cargor that were rejected by the Administrative Law Judge. These fees amount to at least $1,025. See Cargor Exhibit 1, Invoice entries for February 20, 2017. Cargor’s attorney testified that the fees are reasonable. Cargor did not call an expert witness to corroborate the reasonableness of the hourly rate and the reasonableness of the hours expended.
Findings Of Fact Application No. 76-00360 is for a new consumptive water use involving one well. The application seeks withdrawal of 1.29 million gallons per day average daily withdrawal and 2.59 million gallons per day maximum daily withdrawal. The water will be withdrawn from the Floridan Aquifer for the irrigation of tomatoes. The amount of water sought to be consumptively used will exceed the water crop as defined, by the district because approximately 25 percent of the water will be discharged off site. The land which is the subject of this application is being leased by the applicant for the purpose of growing tomatoes. Applicant's lease terminates in September, 1978 with an option to renew. Except as otherwise set forth above, the applied for consumptive use will not violate any of the conditions set forth in Subsections 16J-2.11(2), (3) or (4), F.A.C. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff recommends granting of the subject permit in the amounts requested with the following conditions: The applicant reduce runoff to 4.6 percent of the amount pumped by January 1, 1978. The district be allowed to install flowmeters and be allowed to go on the property to read these meters. The permit shall terminate on September 30, 1978, unless permitee seeks an extension. That the applicant give written notice of his intention to renew the lease if he so intends.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that Application No. 76-00360 be granted subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph 5 above. ENTERED this 26th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Ralph Williford Staff Attorney Glisson and Williford Farms, Inc. Southwest Florida Water Post Office Box 911 Management District Ruskin, Florida 33570 Post Office Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's decision to reject all proposals on RFP No. 008-02 to design and build an ancillary building at the Tampa Service Office was arbitrary, as alleged by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: On May 21, 2002, Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Management District (District), through its contracts manager, issued an Invitation to Proposal inviting interested persons to submit competitive sealed proposals on Request for Proposal No. 008-02 (RFP No. 008), which called for the design and construction of an ancillary building at its District Service Office (Tampa Service Center) located at 7601 Highway 301 North, Tampa, Florida. The proposed facility is an approximately 5,000 square foot metal building which will house the District's field staff. The last paragraph of the document provided that "[t]he District shall reserve the right to reject any or all bids/proposals received with or without cause." On May 24, 2002, the District placed an advertisement of its Invitation to Proposal in three local newspapers in Hillsborough County. The last paragraph of each advertisement also provided that the District reserved the right to reject all bids with or without cause. A mandatory pre-proposal conference was held on June 6, 2002, which was attended by various interested persons, including Petitioner, Paul J. Sierra Construction, Inc. (Sierra), a large construction firm located in Tampa, Florida. Although Sierra engages in general construction, it also has a division which specializes in projects using Butler building systems. A Butler building utilizes a combination of a metal roof with a pre-engineered structural system. At the pre-proposal meeting, Sierra requested a copy of RFP No. 008-02, which contained the general conditions for the project, nature of the services required, insurance requirements, and evaluation procedures. Section 1.13 of that document provided in relevant part that "the District reserves the right to reject all proposals and not grant any award from the issuance of this RFP." Five proposals, including Sierra's, were received and opened on June 26, 2002. All proposals were reviewed and independently scored by a three-person selection committee composed of District staffers. Although Sierra's proposal of $374,038.00 was not the lowest dollar amount submitted, it received the highest numerical score of 279, edging out two other proposers who both received scores of 277. The lowest dollar proposal submitted was $337,000.00. Under the process in place, the selection committee then referred the results of its evaluation to a three-person Facilities Ad Hoc Committee (Committee), comprised of the Governing Board's chairman, Mr. Ronnie E. Duncan, the Governing Board's vice-chairman, Mr. Thomas D. Dabney, II, and the treasurer of the Governing Board, Watson L. Haynes, II. The Committee was delegated the authority to reject any proposal without further action by the District's Governing Board; however, approval of a proposal had to be confirmed by the Governing Board. Committee members Duncan and Dabney are developers with extensive experience in construction while Mr. Haynes has a background in accounting. The Committee was formed in late 2001 for the purpose of achieving more efficiencies in the construction process, particularly in light of a newspaper's criticism of the money spent by the District while renovating Building 2 at its Brooksville office. The Committee was not obligated to accept the selection committee scoring. Rather, the Committee had a duty to make the ultimate decision as to how taxpayer dollars are best spent. The Committee met on July 30, 2002, to consider the results of the evaluation. Mr. Haynes was not present. The two other members voiced concerns regarding the cost of Sierra's proposal, which was more than $74.00 per square foot. For that reason, the Committee continued the decision on awarding the contract to its next meeting on August 28, 2002. It also requested the staff to determine how costs on the project could be reduced. On July 31, 2002, Sierra contacted the District's contract manager, Steven M. Long, by telephone and was told that Sierra had received the highest ranking from the selection committee, but that the Committee had postponed a decision until its next meeting because of concerns over the cost of the project. On August 28, 2002, the Committee reconvened. Due to a personal conflict, Mr. Haynes was not present. By a 2-0 vote, the Committee determined that because of the cost concerns, all proposals should be rejected, and that the 5,000 square foot ancillary building should be combined with two other projects being undertaken at the Tampa Service Center under a single construction manager to reduce costs and realize other benefits. This decision was conveyed by telephone to Sierra on September 1, 2002. On September 3, 2002, formal Notice of Rejection letters were sent to all five proposers. On September 5, 2002, Sierra filed its Notice of Protest. This was followed by a Formal Written Protest filed on September 12, 2002, in which Sierra contended that the Committee's decision was arbitrary. The Tampa Service Center is a branch office of the District and includes office, technical, maintenance, and garage facilities with accompanying parking and roadways. Existing Building 1 is outdated, crowded, and inadequate and must be replaced. It will be demolished once the new Building 1 is constructed. Although the District initially decided that the new building would need 30,000 square feet, it later determined that the approximately 5,000 square feet needed to house District field staff could be separated out as an ancillary building from Building 1 and built as a metal building. A preengineered metal building was selected since it would be cheaper and faster to build, and some of the field staff could be moved out of the crowded existing Building 1 to the ancillary building while new Building 1 was being constructed. In addition to the construction of the new Building 1 and the ancillary building, the District intends to re-roof existing Building 2, demolish Building 1, re-route traffic flow, install security gates, improve parking, improve the stormwater system, and install new landscaping. As a general rule, as a project gets larger, there are economies of scale that result in cost reductions because the cost per unit becomes less as a greater quantity is purchased. In deciding to reject all proposals, and combine all of the work at the Tampa Service Center, the Committee considered the following advantages to having a construction manager supervise the entire project: It would reduce potential confusion by better coordinating the number of contractors and subcontractors on the job and create a more efficient work flow. Task coordination is essential for safety since District employees and members of the public will have continuing access to the Tampa Service Center while all components of the project are under construction. There will be considerable underground construction work for the installation of electrical lines, telephone lines, computer cabling, water lines, fire protection water service lines, sewer lines, irrigation lines, and stormwater lines. Improved coordination reduces duplication and the possibility of putting recently completed work at risk for damage. By working with the architect and the construction manager, the District could use value engineering to reduce costs. Value engineering would allow the District to look at creative ways to reduce costs by substituting similar, less expensive items for more expensive items. Because the District is exempt from paying state sales tax, the District would save the 7 percent sales tax since the construction manager sets up accounts with vendors directly for the District. The District would also save the contractor's percentage markup that typically encompasses the 7 percent sales tax when it has to be paid. The construction manager system produces a better selection process and cost savings since the construction manager can be required to obtain at least three proposals for each of the sixteen divisions of labor. There will be benefits of accountability and uniformity from having only one person or entity responsible for any problems encountered. In addition, the following savings could be realized through economies of scale by including the ancillary building in the larger project and under a construction manager: mobilization; demobilization; site work; excavation for foundation; concrete for foundation; rough-in electrical work; rough-in plumbing; fire protection service line; electrical lines; water lines; computer cabling lines; plumbing; electrical; insulation; drywall; floor tile; ceiling grid; ceiling tiles; doors; air conditioning system; painting; landscaping; irrigation sprinkler system; paving work; stormwater system; and one project manager. At the same time, when the earlier decision was made to separate the construction of the ancillary building out from the rest of the Tampa Service Center project to save time and money, the Committee believed that the ancillary building would obtain its utility and communication services from an existing, adjacent building. After later learning that this was not the case, and that the scope of the work for the ancillary building had expanded to require considerable underground site work for its new utility and communication services, the Committee realized that the cost and other benefits originally intended had been lost. Finally, new Building 1 is only sixty feet from the ancillary building and will require considerable underground site work for its new utility and communication services. Therefore, the Committee concluded that it made more sense to combine the construction of the new Building 1 and the ancillary building to achieve cost savings and efficiencies in the installation of utility and communication services and to reduce other overlapping aspects of the Tampa Service Center project. Given the foregoing considerations, the Committee's decision to reject all proposals was not arbitrary in any sense. While it is true that the precise amount of savings to be realized cannot be quantified, the greater weight of evidence shows that some savings can be achieved, and that the Committee's decision was based on facts, sound reasoning, and logic.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order rejecting all proposals on RRP 008-02. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: E. D. "Sonny" Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 Stephen H. Kurvin, Esquire 7 South Lime Street Sarasota, Florida 34237-6105 Stephen O. Rushing, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899
Findings Of Fact The City of Boynton Beach, Florida, filed application number 24859 with the South Florida Water Management District (formerly the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District) for an annual allocation of 3.89 billion gallons (10.7 mgd) for a public water supply system for its service area of 18,351 acres for a period of ten years. The application was dated February 26, 1976. A supplemental engineering report was submitted on April 26, 1977, and a water withdrawal management plan on August 18, 1977. The delay in completing the documentation for the application was due to the applicant's completion of a test well program and hydrogeological evaluation of the aquifer capability of the 34 acre tract known as the "Jarvis Property," the proposed site of eight future wells. (Composite Exhibit 1) The existing raw water supply system for Boynton Beach consists of four separate well fields, comprising a total of 14 wells with a total rated capacity of 9700 gpm. Wells 1 through 5 were built during the period 1946-1958. Wells 6 through 11 were built from 1961-1973, and wells 12 through 14 were completed in 1976. The application seeks approval for eight additional wells, numbers 16 through 22 to be located on the "Jarvis Tract." It is proposed that wells numbers 15 and 16 be built immediately upon approval of the application and that the remaining six new wells be constructed at a rate of two per year through 1982, subject to demand. The city presently operates a water treatment plant with a treatment capacity of 8 mgd and is expanding that facility to a capacity of 16 mgd. It is anticipated that this expansion and the new well field will meet projected water demands in the service area through 1987. (Testimony of Swan, Composite Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2) The Applicant's present wells tap the shallow aquifer overlying the Hawthorne formation. These wells range in depths from 54 to 115 feet below ground surface. The planned wells will reach 180 to 230 foot depths. The shallow aquifer is largely recharged by local precipitation and a surface canal system. There are two major canals located near the Applicant's well fields in distances ranging from directly adjacent to approximately one mile. Canal E-4 is located on the western boundary of the proposed Jarvis well field which would provide direct recharge in the area. Withdrawal of water from wells number 1-5 had to be curtailed due to a landward movement of the freshwater/saltwater interface. The wells at present are used for emergency standby purposes only. After wells number 12-14 were put into operation, it was discovered that the withdrawals affected residential shallow irrigation wells nearby. Three of the residents have filed objections to the application for this reason. This problem will be resolved by the development of the Jarvis well field which will allow curtailment of pumpage from wells numbers 12-14. Well number 14 presently is not in operation due to an unknown polluted condition. The curtailment of use of wells 1-5 will aid in controlling any salt water intrusion. A U.S. Geological Survey saltwater monitoring well in the area indicates that there has not been any net landward movement of the saltwater/freshwater interface in the shallow aquifer since 1973. The Applicant's water withdrawal management plan which will substantially reduce the pumpage from wells 6-14 will also reduce the threat of saltwater intrusion by maintaining the aquifer water levels in the area at a higher elevation. (Exhibits 2-4, 6, Testimony of Gresh, Higgins, Kiebler) The City of Boynton Beach currently has a population of 51,000 and it is projected that by 1987 the population will reach 71,000 which is the maximum limit of its water treatment facilities. The city plans to build a new treatment plant and well field in the western portion of the area when the capacity of the current and proposed well fields are reached. It would be uneconomic to place the currently proposed well field in that area due to the requirement of building a raw water line for a distance of approximately four miles. (Composite Exhibit 1, Testimony of Cessna) The South Florida Water Management District staff recommends that the application be approved in its entirety for a period of ten years, subject to 18 special conditions which are acceptable to the Applicant. The district staff concluded that sufficient water is available in the Applicant's area to support the 1987 level of withdrawals and that the proposed consumption rate reflects a reasonable use of water. The staff further found that there would be a minimal impact on existing users in the area and that westward lateral intrusion of saltwater from the coastline will be reduced. (Exhibit 2-3, Testimony of Higgins)
Recommendation That the application be approved and that a water use permit be issued to the Applicant pursuant to application number 24859 for a ten year allocation of 3.8 billion gallons, subject to the special conditions recommended by the South Florida Water Management District staff. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Gene Moore, Esquire City Attorney City of Boynton Beach Post Office Box 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425 THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Steve Walker, Esquire 3301 Gun Club Road Post Office Box 3858 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of Lot 28, Hidden Bay Subdivision, Martin County, Florida. On July 19, 1990, Petitioner filed an application with the Respondent for a dredge and fill permit to construct on the wetland portion of his lot a single family dwelling on stilts, a garage, and a connecting driveway to an existing roadway. The application also seeks a permit to retain a roadway that was constructed on the property before the Respondent asserted jurisdiction over the property. The existing roadway is 25 feet wide and 510 feet long and remained in existence at the time of the formal hearing. The connecting driveway on the wetlands portion of the property would require 40 cubic yards of fill. The following, taken from the Notice of Permit Denial entered by Respondent, accurately describes the proposed project: The proposed project will entail the temporary placement of 500 cubit yards of clean fill in order to set piles for a proposed stilt house. Additional fill (40 cubic yards) is proposed for a driveway to access a proposed garage. Riprap is proposed along the east slope of the driveway and along the northwest slope under the proposed stilt house. In addition, 186 cubic yards of the existing unauthorized fill road is proposed to remain. Total acreage to be impacted by this project is .092 acres. Petitioner's lot fronts Bessey Creek and is located in Section 1, Township 38 South, Range 40 East, in Palm City. Petitioner's lot is located approximately 2,200 feet south of the C-23 Canal on Bessey Creek. Bessey Creek is designated a Class III water. Bessey Creek combines with other tributaries and ultimately discharges into the North Fork of the St. Lucie River, which is designated an Outstanding Florida Water. Petitioner's lot consists of 1.82 acres. Respondent has asserted jurisdiction over approximately 1.3 acres of Petitioner's lot on the grounds that it is a fresh water wetland. Petitioner does not challenge Respondent's asserted jurisdiction in this proceeding. The Respondent has jurisdiction over dredge and fill activities conducted on the portion of Petitioner's lot that is at issue in this proceeding. This project is not exempt from permitting procedures. A dredge and fill permit is required for the proposed construction. Prior to applying for this permit, Petitioner contacted James McElheny, a landscape architect, who assisted Petitioner in drawing up the plans for the house, the driveway, and the garage that Petitioner desired to construct on the property. Without being aware that a permit from the Respondent would be required, Petitioner constructed a driveway on a portion of his property that was within the permitting jurisdiction of Respondent. This driveway extended to the landward end of a boardwalk that terminated as a dock in Bessey Creek. After Petitioner became aware of the need for a permit, he removed the filled driveway to a point that Martin County and Respondent agreed was appropriate. A portion of the driveway remained on property within the permitting jurisdiction of the Respondent at the time of the formal hearing. The plan prepared by Mr. McElheny also depicted this existing, unauthorized roadway. Petitioner's application seeks, in part, a permit to retain this driveway. On June 10, 1991, Respondent issued its Notice of Permit Denial based on the Respondent's conclusion that the Petitioner had failed to provide the required assurances in Sections 403.918(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. The Notice of Permit Denial provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The Department hereby denies the permit for the following reasons: This project is expected to have both short and long term impacts to biological resources and water quality. The total acreage to be impacted by this project is .092 acres. In addition, the applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest pursuant to Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to 403.919, F.S. which gives the Department the authority to examine secondary impacts, the Department has concerns about additional wetland resource and water quality impacts that may result from this project. Floodplain areas are essential to the river system and provide important functions for the environment. The floodplain serves as a buffer system in high tide and storm events. It also serves as a source of detrital input which supports the freshwater and estuarine food chains. In addition, these areas act to improve water quality by stabilizing sediment and filtering upland runoff. Long-term effects of the proposed project would include a decrease in the productivity of the system, as well as a decrease in the filtering and stabilizing capabilities of the system. Water quality degradation is also expected to occur with upland runoff from pesticides, fertilizers, sewerage and petroleum products. Floodplain wetlands also provide a habitat for a wide variety of reptiles, amphibians, birds, crustaceans and mammals. This would eliminate this wetland habitat. This project is expected to be in violation of the following Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code Rules: 403.918 Criteria for granting or denying permits 17-312.080 Standards for Issuance or Denial of Permit 17-312.300(3) Mitigation Intent 17-302.560 Criteria: Class III waters The Department has determined that the following changes to the project make the project permittable. Modify the project to reduce or eliminate adverse environmental impact by: Removing the unauthorized fill road from water of the state. Relocate the proposed house to utilize as much upland area on the property as possible. Relocate the garage and access driveway to an upland area [and] eliminate or modify the garage and access road to reduce impacts. Section 403.918, Florida Statutes, provides the following permitting criteria pertinent to this proceeding: A permit may not be issued . . . unless the applicant provides the department with reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. . . . A permit may not be issued . . . unless the applicant provides the department with reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest. . . . (a) In determining whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others . . . the department shall consider and balance the following criteria: Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered species, or their habitat; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The Respondent is entitled to consider the cumulative impact of the proposed project pursuant to Section 403.919, Florida Statutes, which provides as follows: The department, in deciding whether to grant or deny a permit for an activity which will affect waters, shall consider: The impact of the project for which the permit is sought. The impact of projects which are existing or under construction or for which permits or jurisdictional determinations have been sought. The impact of projects which are under review, approved, or vested pursuant to s. 380.06, or other projects which may reasonably be expected to be located within the jurisdictional extent of waters, based upon land use restrictions and regulations. The residence that Petitioner proposes to build on the wetland portion of the property will be constructed on pilings so that the underside of the house will be 12 feet above the ground. There will be a total of 12 pilings, with each piling being 10 inches square. The "footprint" of the house will be 1,654 square feet. If the project is permitted, best management practice will require that a silt screen be erected around the construction site during construction to prevent silt runoff. The proposed site for the house is located in a natural clearing that would require minimal clearing. If the project is to be permitted in this wetland, the site selected by Petitioner is the best site with the least impact on the wetland. Petitioner would be required to remove up to two laurel oaks and seven red maple trees. These are relatively small trees, and both species are common. Petitioner would also be required to remove shrub of no particular unique value. Petitioner proposes to mitigate the removal of the trees by replanting on the property trees that were removed in a 2-1 ratio, so that 6 laurel oaks and 14 red maples would be replanted. Petitioner also proposes to revegetate the area beneath the residence, with the exception of the area required by the pilings. There are invasive, exotic plants on the property, such as Brazilian pepper, that would be removed by Petitioner and replaced by native plants. Ms. Jacqueline Kelly, the environmental specialist who reviewed this project for Respondent, visited the property approximately four times for a total of eight hours. Ms. Kelly is of the opinion that no dredge and fill activity should be permitted on jurisdictional wetlands. Ms. Kelly testified that she observed several species of birds while she was on the property, including a wood stork, a great blue heron, a little blue heron, a tricolored heron, an osprey, bluejays, woodpeckers, and grackles. The wood stork is an endangered species and the little blue heron, the tricolored heron, and the osprey are species of special concern. These birds do not nest on the subject property, and they were not observed in the area of the wetland on which the proposed construction would occur. There was no testimony upon which it can be concluded that the proposed construction will stop these species from coming on to the property. Because of the slope of the terrain, the upland portion of the Petitioner's property drains away from the wetland while the portion on which the proposed construction would occur drains toward the wetland. At the formal hearing, Petitioner suggested that any concerns as to drainage from the roof of the proposed residence could be discharged onto the upland portion of the lot by gutters. In his post-hearing submittal, Petitioner proposes that a condition of the permit be that "[a] roof drainage system be installed that allows the roof to drain to the upland portion of the project." The permitting requirement contained in Section 403.918(6), Florida Statutes, pertaining to historical or archaeological resources was not at issue in this proceeding. Ms. Kelly concluded that Petitioner has not provided reasonable assurances required by Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, as to each of the remaining permitting criteria. The rationale given by Ms. Kelly for her conclusions is not persuasive. The greater weight of the evidence is that all reasonable assurances required by Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, that were at issue in this proceeding have been provided as it pertains to the construction of the residence. The existing roadway was filled using shell rock which has stabilized. The mere existence of the roadway on the wetland property was not shown to violate any permitting criteria since this roadway does not violate water quality standards and is not contrary to the public interest. Petitioner did not, however, provide reasonable assurances that the utilization of this existing roadway as either a driveway or a parking area would not violate water quality standards as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(1), Florida Statutes, or that such use would not be contrary to the public interest or that those parts of the project would not be contrary to the public interest as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. Petitioner did not provide reasonable assurances that the construction of the garage or the extension of the driveway on these wetlands would not violate water quality standards as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(1), Florida Statutes, or that those parts of the project would not be contrary to the public interest as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. John Meyer was of the opinion that the project should be denied because of the possible precedent that the permitting of this project may establish for other owners of wetland properties. There was no factual or legal basis established for this opinion. The permitting of this project has no value as a precedent for other projects. There was no evidence that there were other permit applications pending for other projects in wetlands, and Mr. Meyer could only recall one or two such applications ever having been filed. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that speculative cumulative impacts of this project does not prohibit the permit pursuant to the provisions of Section 409.919(3), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order which permits Petitioner to construct the residence on stilts with the following conditions: That silt screens be erected during the actual construction to prevent silt runoff from the construction from reaching Bessey Creek. That a roof drainage system be installed that allows the roof to drain to the upland portion of the project. That Petitioner be required to mitigate for the removal of laurel oaks and red maple by replanting on the property two laurel oaks for each laurel oak removed and by replanting on the property two red maples for each red maple removed. That Petitioner be required to revegetate with native plants the area under the house except for the areas required for the stilts. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Respondent deny a permit to construct a garage or extend the existing roadway. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Respondent permit Petitioner to retain the existing roadway on the condition that the roadway not be utilized as either a driveway or as a parking area for motor vehicles. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 12th day of January 1994.
