Findings Of Fact Respondent, Woodland, is made up of property owners in Woodland Lakes subdivision, an area abutting on Woodland Bayou, situated off Pensacola Bay in Santa Rosa County, Florida. Petitioner, Margaret B. Miller, owns property directly across the channel which forms the entrance to Woodland Bayou and which is the proposed location for the bulkhead and riprap forming the subject matter of this dispute. Mrs. Miller and her late husband purchased their property, which is not located in Woodland Lakes subdivision, in 1957. Their lot is located on Pensacola Bay and at the time she and her husband purchased the property, they were looking for an area that had the special characteristics of this lot she now owns. It included big trees, a gentle slope to the Bay, and a view out over Pensacola Bay across a sandy peninsula which extended out into the bay a considerable distance and which they owned. At the time they made their purchase, Woodland Bayou opened into Pensacola Bay at the East End but the opening near Mrs. Miller's property was obstructed by a sandy beach. The extent of channel blocking and obstruction caused by this sandy beach was the subject of a lawsuit between the Millers, the Woodland Lake Property Owners Association, and the State of Florida 1n June, 1972. The substance of that suit was concerned with ownership of the land which extended out from the Miller property into Pensacola Bay over which certain of the parties desired to cut a channel from Woodland Bayou into Pensacola Bay. There was substantial conflict in the testimony at the time as to whether there was a natural channel existing across the Miller property prior to 1957-1958 or not, or, in the alternative, whether the Millers filled in an existing channel thereby blocking reasonable entrance to Woodland Bayou. The answer to that question is irrelevant to the issue in this hearing. However, a judgment of the Circuit Court entered on June 13, 1972, awarded to the Millers title to property which extended out across the currently existing channel dredged subsequent to that time by the Respondent, Woodland, to a point into Pensacola Bay. The decision of the court also awarded to the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund a section of property directly west of the northern tip of the Miller property consisting of a strip approximately 40 feet wide and a maximum of76 feet long lying approximately perpendicular to the currently-existing channel and through which it was envisioned the channel would be dredged from the entrance of Woodland Bayou out to Pensacola Bay. By so doing, the canal would have made a left turn coming out of the bayou into Pensacola Bay but the Miller's property, which was not then split by the canal, would be left intact. According to Mr. Hunsley, the dredging completed after the entry of the final judgment in the Quiet Title suit was not done consistent with the dictates of that judgment. Instead, the channel was cut straight out from the bayou across the Miller property, and so it remains to this day. He contends, however, that historically, the channel existed in this very spot and that the Millers as well as other property owners in the area at the time, closed the channel off by dredging and filling at their own expense some time in 1957 and 1958. Regardless of the history regarding the genesis of the channel, however, the fact remains that the channel now exists in a straight line from Woodland Bayou to Pensacola Bay across the Miller property and has so since 1972 when it was dredged subsequent to the lawsuit. The channel, being a tidal channel and subject to sand drift caused by wind and wave action, tends to become clogged with sand on a periodic basis. Because of the increased clogging currently experienced, sometime prior to September 9, 1983, the officers of Woodland circulated a petition to secure the permission of all the neighbors in the subdivision to construct a bulkhead on the Woodland side of the channel across from and up channel from the Miller property. This petition, which at the time did not include riprap, was approved by all property owners in the subdivision except for 2 and was then forwarded to the Gulf Breeze City Council to allow the Council to assess costs in the amount of approximately $600.00 per property owner against the property owners in the event DER approved the permit to construct the bulkhead. Mrs. Miller was not solicited to sign the Petition nor will she be assessed any of the costs of construction of the bulkhead if approved since she is not a property owner in the subdivision in question. The petition was circulated, according to Mr. Kettenring, who has lived in the area for several years, because of the increasing sedimentation. To his knowledge, the channel was last dredged in 1982 and 1983. Prior to that time, during the period 1979-1981, he recalls at least three fish kills in the bayou but none since the dredging was accomplished. The residents of Woodland and the surrounding owners are all on septic tanks. There is no city sewage service to this area and every year there is a change in the clarity of the water in Woodland Bayou in the summer. During warmer weather, as the temperature increases, the water becomes cloudy and full of algae. However, after dredging was accomplished and the channel was opened further both in width and in depth, the water quality improved considerably. Mr. Kettenring has seen patterns of sand drifting from the point into the channel. The area has changed considerably in that the point has scalloped out into the channel blocking it. As a result, the bayou, which is at the mainland source of the channel, is currently somewhat brackish. Access of boat owners to the bayou has become impaired. On September 9, 1983, the application submitted by Woodland was received by DER, and a determination was made that the proposed project lay in Class III waters of the State, the standards for which are outlined in Rule 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code. Shortly thereafter on September 28, 1983, DER notified Woodland that the application was incomplete in that the application fee had not been submitted, aerial photographs of the area were required, and a consent for the use of State-owned land was necessary. In addition, it was determined that Woodland needed to provide detailed plans for compliance with State water quality standards as well as a hydrographic survey. All requirements were subsequently met except for the survey. The application originally called for an additional 300 foot bulkhead to the east of the area in question here and the hydrographic survey referred to that bulkhead. Subsequent to the filing of the application, however, that bulkhead portion of the project was deleted and when that was done, the need for the hydrographic survey was obviated. Since all other shortcomings in the application had been corrected, the project was then reviewed by Mr. Hambrick who recommended the installation of riprap in front of the remaining bulkhead and grass, and on December 20, 1984, DER published an intent to issue for the project. The project in question is a 150 feet long bulkhead fronted with 35 cubic yards of riprap at the toe. The bulkhead will be located at the entrance channel of Woodland bayou across from Petitioner's property. Mr. Hambrick, who initially reviewed the application for DER and who signed off on it in December, 1984, visited the site in question on at least 2 or 3 occasions in relation to the application and because Mrs. York, Miller's neighbor, also had an application for a bulkhead pending. He looked at the property and determined that the amended application did not call for riprap. However, because the new law requires riprap in front of seawalls, he recommended that the riprap be installed here where there is no grass. In other words, according to Mr. Hambrick, riprap will be placed flush against the bulkhead where no sea grasses exist but will curve out in front of the sea grasses where there is grass at the foot of the bulkhead which will proceed behind the grassed area. The purpose of using riprap is to dissipate wave energy. Riprap will diminish the effect of the wave and its adverse effect on Petitioner's property. Mr. Hambrick is of the opinion that installing the bulkhead and riprap would not cause or increase damage to Petitioner's property and based on the criteria he used in analyzing the project, he feels that it is in the public interest. The factors he used in his consideration of this project include: that an erosion problem exists in the area, that bulkheading and riprapping would reduce the need for dredging, that there is a history of fish kills in the area, that maintaining a channel would help flush out the bayou, and homeowners on the bayou would have access to Pensacola Bay and their interests constituted a part of the public interest. Since the revised application was completed in October, 1984, it therefore had to comply with the criteria outlined in the new water quality bill which are two-fold in general application. These are: that the project will have no adverse effects on water quality of Woodland Bayou but would likely improve it through the increased flushing of the bayou as a result of maintaininq the channel, and that a need for dredging would be reduced since the channel will not shoal in as much. According to Mr. Hambrick, at the present time there is a collapsing and sluffing off of soil along the channel, which has increased since his prior visit in November, 1984. In his analysis of the project, he considered the effects that the project would have on the public interest, water quality, wildlife and fish in the area, and the historical and archeological aspects of the area. In his opinion, riprap would provide a habitat for marine wildlife which is a plus factor and would help to maintain a shallow shore environment. It would help to maintain a stand of marsh grass that is presently in the area and which is being covered with sand coming from the eroding point. In his opinion, there would be no adverse effect on the archaeological aspects of the area nor is there any indication of any adverse effect on the public interest, including Mrs. Miller. He also considers there would be no adverse effect on marine productivity which, in his opinion, would very likely improve as a result of the project. In his opinion, overall the project will maintain and even enhance the public interest considerations in the area and there would be no damage to the marine bottom by the installation of the riprap. Since the bulkhead will be fronted by riprap, it is not considered a vertical seawall which would be prohibited by the statute as it is currently constituted. Mr. Hambrick is quite certain in his opinion that since Mrs. Miller's property is already bulkheaded and riprapped, there would be no further erosion of her property. Consequently, there would be no adverse ecological effect notwithstanding the fact that Mrs. Miller contends that keeping the channel open would be a continuing trespass to her property. She also contends that when she put in her bulkhead, now at water's edge, it was designed as a retaining wall and was located in sand some substantial distance from the water. When the channel was cut across her land, the beach from the channel to the "retaining wall" eroded and when it appeared the wall would be undercut as well, she put in the riprap. All of this would be perpetuated by the construction of Woodland's project which would keep the channel open and keep it naturally closing as she believes it would do if left alone. In short, Mr. Hambrick's analysis of the situation including his personal visits to the site lead him to conclude that the project will not: harm water quality in the area, increase the number of boats using the channel, influence the speed of boats that use the channel, or increase erosion of Petitioner's property. This opinion is supported by that of Dr. Echternacht, a hydrographic engineer who is also convinced that construction of the proposed bulkhead and riprap would not cause any erosion to Petitioner's property. In fact, the riprap in front of the bulkhead will act to absorb wave energy and since it cannot be placed in a vertical manner, it reduces that amount of reflected energy. The bulkhead and riprap as proposed here would reduce the amount of soil infusion into the channel and thereby the amount of dredging needed. The technical aspects of the proposal were also considered by Mr. Fancher, the dredge and fill supervisor for DER in the Northwest District. When he reviewed the application, including Mr. Hambrick's proposal for riprap, he concurred with it. In order to appropriately receive a permit, applicants must show that the application conforms to both water quality and public interest standards. After his review of the entire project, Mr. Fancher concluded that this project would not adversely affect water quality standards and would not adversely affect but in fact might promote public interest considerations. When the Florida Legislature passed its new water quality bill in October, 1983, it prohibited the construction of most vertical seawalls. In Mr. Fancher's opinion, what is proposed here is not a vertical seawall and there is no evidence submitted by Petitioner to refute this. In fact, there was no evidence presented by Petitioner, save her own testimony which does not serve to overcome the expert opinions to the contrary, that the proposed project fails to meet the tests set out under the laws of this State.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Woodland Lake Property Owners, Inc.'s permit to construct a bulkhead be issued as modified. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth G. Oertel, Esq. Oertel and Hoffman 2700 Blair Stone Road Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. B. Murphy, Esq. 506 S. Palafox Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Brad Thomas, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent South Florida Water Management District is entitled to an environmental resource permit from Respondent Department of Environmental Protection to construct a weir in Collier County on the Merritt Canal about 3600 feet south of Interstate 75 for the purpose of extending the hydroperiod on the Florida Panther Federal Wildlife Refuge.
Findings Of Fact Proposed Permit On April 17, 1996, Respondent South Florida Water Management District (District) filed with Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) an application for the construction of a water-control structure in the Merritt Canal. The stated purpose of the structure, which is a weir, is to extend the hydroperiod of the Lucky Lake Strand. The application states that the District is the owner of a drainage easement covering the land proposed as the site of the weir. According to the application, Collier County, in which the Merritt Canal lies, originally held the drainage easement. The District later adopted the Merritt Canal as a "Works of the District," which transferred operational responsibility for the canal from the County to the District. (A sub-unit of the District, the Big Cypress Basin Board has jurisdiction for District projects of the type involved in this case. References to the District shall include the Big Cypress Basin Board.) The application requests a permit to construct an adjustable sheet-pile weir within the 80-foot Merritt Canal right-of-way. The application accurately describes the Merritt Canal as a Class III waterbody that is not an Outstanding Florida Water. By Notice of Intent to Issue Environmental Resource Permit dated January 29, 1997 (NOI), DEP proposed to issue an environmental resource permit (ERP) to the District for the construction of the Lucky Lake Strand Water Control Structure. The structure would be an adjustable weir with operating levels of 7.0 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) in the wet season and 9.5 feet NGVD in the dry season. As stated in the NOI, the Merritt Canal is 12 miles long and one of four main north-south canals within a larger system of 183 miles of canals--all Class III waters-- constructed in the 1960s by Gulf American Land Corporation to drain wetlands for development of the Southern Golden Gate Estates area. These four north-south canals drain water south through the Faka Union Canal and into Faka Union Bay, which is part of the 10,000 Islands/Cape Romano Aquatic Preserve. The preserve contains Class II Outstanding Florida Waters. The NOI notes that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and District entered into an agreement in September 1994 to construct two weirs in the Merritt Canal "to partially restore historic hydroperiods into two major wetland features within the federally owned lands of the USFWS Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, Lucky Lake Strand and Stumpy Strand (Class III Outstanding Florida Waters)." As stated in the NOI, these federally owned wetlands constitute over 3000 acres of cypress and mixed swamps, wet prairies, marshes, and ponds. The NOI relates that FWS staff proposed the project to counteract "subtle vegetational changes and accelerated pond draw-downs [that] were taking place in the strands as a result of shortened hydroperiods caused by a three-year drought, I-75 widening activities, and subsequent canal modifications." The NOI correctly states that water in the wet season historically flowed southerly through Stumpy Strand, Lucky Lake Strand, and Picayune Strand, before entering the larger Fakahatchee Strand. Lucky Lake Strand narrows to 1000 feet at its south end, which is at Interstate 75 (I-75). The NOI accurately asserts that the construction of the Merritt Canal and the I-75 borrow canals combined to draw down the upstream wetlands, thus reducing their hydroperiods. The effect of the Merritt Canal is reportedly significant because of its confluence with the southern tip of Lucky Lake Strand. The NOI discloses that the original agreement between the District and FWS called for the construction of two weirs south of I-75, one at the headwaters of the Merritt Canal and another about 1800 feet downstream in the Merritt Canal. However, the proposed permit eliminates one weir, whose function was performed by plugs in the north I-75 borrow canal, and relocates the remaining proposed weir about 3600 feet south of I-75, rather than immediately south of I-75, reportedly because of difficulties in accessing the proposed weir at I-75. The NOI states that the Merritt Canal is within the 80-foot drainage easement originally acquired by Collier County. The uplands adjacent to the weir are reportedly owned by DEP. The NOI describes the proposed weir as a sheet pile weir with adjustable partitions. As proposed, during the wet season, the District would start to open the gates at 7 feet NGVD and start to close them at 6.5 feet NGVD. During the dry season, the District would start to open the gates at 9.8 feet NGVD and start to close them at 9.3 feet NGVD. Also, the proposed permit would anticipate that the District would dredge the canal to a trapezoidal cross-section having a bottom elevation of -1.5 feet NGVD and a width of about 49 feet at the weir and transitioning to 20-foot bottom widths upstream and downstream of the weir. According to the NOI, the purpose of the proposed weir is to reduce over-drainage of the upstream wetlands in Lucky Lake and Stumpy Strands by extending the hydroperiod further into the dry season. No increase in water levels during the wet season is expected. Although the historic extended hydroperiod is not expected to be achieved, the weir structure is expected to improve current conditions to the upstream wetlands. Holding back water in these wetlands [is] also expected to improve water quality downstream by removal of excess nutrient, sediments, and chemicals. Wildlife values are expected to be enhanced in preferred waterfowl and wading bird habitat, including areas for the endangered wood stork and threatened bald eagle. Forage areas are also expected to be improved for white-tailed deer and other wildlife species which are essential prey for the endangered Florida panther. Aquifer recharge is also expected as the ground water reserves will be raised by raising the canal water levels, while maintaining the existing level of flood protection for adjacent private landowners. The NOI states that FWS will monitor post- construction environmental conditions and will recommend to the District adjustments to the weir elevations. The NOI reports that the District will be the "main operator" of the weir to adjust elevations to maintain flood control for adjacent lands. The NOI adds: The project was designed so as not to decrease the peak discharge capacity in the canal or increase flood stages in the Upper Merritt Canal watershed. Hydraulic modeling by the District indicates that there will be no additional surface water flooding to private property as a result of the project, and the current level of service will be maintained. Based on this analysis, the NOI concludes that the District has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will comply with Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the underlying rules, including Chapter 62-330 and Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302, Florida Administrative Code. The NOI states that the District has demonstrated that the activity is clearly in the public interest, pursuant to Section 373.414(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The proposed permit conforms to the NOI's description. Specific Condition 13 sets the fixed crest of the proposed weir at 4.5 feet NGVD and the width of the weir at 48 feet. Although the proposed permit is nowhere explicitly conditioned on a successful wetland enhancement project, Specific Condition 12 states that "the" wetland enhancement project shall be considered successful if, after five years, Lucky Lake Strand and Stumpy Strand display wetland- appropriate vegetation and the "viability of adjacent upland sites [is] not negatively impacted by increased ground water or surface water levels resulting from the authorized project." Specific Condition 17 requires the District to document the operation of the gates and notify DEP, within three days, whenever any of the permitted elevations are exceeded. Annually, the District must supply DEP detailed data and analysis of the operational history of the weir, including "reasons for going to nonstandard operation and a narrative description of the effectiveness of initiating the nonstandard operation to include areas not flooded (or flooded, if applicable) and other associated impacts." During the final hearing, the District proposed, and DEP approved, a modification of Specific Condition 18. As modified, Specific Condition 18 requires the District to "monitor the effects of the operation" of the weir, pursuant to the revised monitoring plan incorporated by reference into this condition. The revised monitoring plan, which is dated November 12, 1997, alters the original monitoring plan by adding two sites for the installation of water-table wells. One of the new sites (Site A) is 1200 feet north of the weir, and the other new site (Site B) is 1200 feet north and 2000 feet west of the weir. These are the only water-table monitoring devices. Five other sites are surface-water monitoring sites. Three of the these sites are in the Merritt Canal: one immediately upstream of the weir, one immediately downstream of the weir, and one farther upstream at I-75. The other two surface-water monitoring sites are farther upstream. One is in Lucky Lake about 1.75 miles north of the weir, and the other is about three miles northeast of Lucky Lake. Three other sites are rainfall-monitoring sites. Two rainfall-monitoring sites are north of the weir. The site just north of I-75 is at the Ford Motor Company test track, which is immediately west of Lucky Lake and Stumpy Strands, and the site more directly north of the Merritt Canal is about ten miles north of I-75. Specific Condition 18 states the frequency with which someone (presumably a District employee or contractor) is to collect the data from these 10 monitoring sites, but contains no performance criteria. The monitoring plan thus commits the District to collecting data, but not to analyzing the data, nor, more importantly, taking specified actions when certain performance parameters are exceeded. Neither the revised monitoring plan nor the application in any way commits the District to using the data collected from the revised monitoring plan to develop a set of criteria, based on rainfall amounts, groundwater levels, and surface water levels, to fine-tune the operation of the gates so as not to exacerbate present flooding. Nothing in the revised monitoring plan or the application suggests that the District will use the data collected from the revised monitoring plan to identify more clearly the relationships between storm events and water levels to understand better the relationship between flooding, on the one hand, and the existence of the proposed weir and the operation of its gates. Faka Union Canal Watershed and Southern Golden Gate Estates What is now known as the Faka Union Canal Watershed historically covered about 234 square miles. It ran from an area about four miles north of what is now known as Immokalee Road south in a widening expanse that approached 12 miles at what is now U.S. Route 41. It then ran south until it emptied into the Gulf of Mexico at Faka Union Bay in what is now the Cape Romano Ten Thousand Islands State Aquatic Preserve east of Marco Island. Land alterations due to road and canal construction and urban and agricultural development eventually reduced the Faka Union Canal Watershed to about 189 square miles. Most noticeably, these changes narrowed the drainage area at U. S. Route 41 from almost 12 miles to little more than the width of the Faka Union Canal. The Faka Union Canal Watershed is characterized by low relief and poorly defined drainage patterns. At the north boundary of the watershed, which now ends at Immokalee Road, the elevation reaches 24 feet NGVD. Twenty-eight miles to the south, at the outlet of the basin, the elevation is two feet NGVD. The water flows generally in a southwest direction. Historically, water ran slowly through the watershed in sheetflow several miles wide and a few inches to a few feet deep. Drainage concentrated in slightly lower sloughs and strands, which generally dried out in the dry season. Historically, the watershed featured flat, swampy lands containing cypress trees, islands of pine forests, and wet and dry prairies. Prior to development, much of the watershed remained inundated by several feet of water during the five- month wet season (roughly from mid-May through mid-October). In this undisturbed state, the prominent features of the watershed were the storage of runoff in depressional areas, attenuated peak flows, and a longer hydroperiod into the dry season. In the early 1960s, Gulf American Land Corporation subdivided a 173 square-mile area in Collier County into many thousands of lots as small as 1.25 acres. The development was Golden Gate Estates. The portion of Golden Gate Estates south of I-75 is known as Southern Golden Gate Estates. Golden Gate Estates is west of the Merritt Canal. Gulf American's purpose in dredging the 183-mile canal system was to allow it to market as land, available for continuous occupation, subdivided lots superimposed over an area that was land during the dry months and water during the wet months. To achieve this objective, Gulf American Land Corporation constructed one group of canals that drains to the west and another group of canals drains to the south into the Faka Union Canal. Gulf American dredged the canals draining to the south, which form the Faka Union Canal System, from 1968 through 1971. Four north-south canals spaced two miles apart drain Southern Golden Gate Estates and the portion of the Faka Union Canal Watershed north of I-75. From west to east, the canals are the Miller Canal, Faka Union Canal, Merritt Canal, and Prairie Canal. Only the two westerly canals run north of I-75. The Miller Canal extends almost seven miles north of I-75, and the Faka Union Canal extends about 14 miles north of I-75. The Merritt Canal starts in the immediate vicinity of I-75, and the Prairie Canal starts about two miles south of I-75. The average excavated depth of the four canals is about ten feet from the top of the bank to the bottom of the channel. Given the relatively close proximity of the water table to the surface in this area, excavation to these depths thus established a direct hydraulic connection with the surficial aquifer. The canals are large, ranging from 45 to over 200 feet wide. Although unable to convey without flooding the water from even a ten-year storm event, which is the level of service standard set by Collier County for Southern Golden Gate Estates, the Faka Union Canal system has nonetheless severely impacted the water resources of Collier County. According to the Hydrologic Restoration of Southern Golden Gate Estates, prepared in February 1996 by the Big Cypress Basin Board (Southern Golden Gate Estates Restoration Plan): . . . Construction of the canals has led to both increased volumes and rates of runoff from the watershed which has had lasting effects on the area's water supply, vegetation, wildlife, and coastal estuaries. The canals intercept large volumes of surface and subsurface flow and quickly divert them to the Faka Union Bay and the Ten Thousand Island Estuary of the Gulf of Mexico resulting in less surface water available for storage. Since groundwater recharge is achieved primarily through infiltration from surface detention storage, reduced groundwater recharge threatens both groundwater supply for the region and the natural barrier to salt water intrusion. Continued overdrainage has caused an eventual lowering of the groundwater table. This has caused vegetation to change from wetland dominant to transitional and upland systems with invasive exotic species. The extreme dry conditions caused by overdrainage have resulted in more frequent and more intense wildfires with a greater destructive impact on vegetation. The increased runoff rate has had severe effects on the receiving estuaries. Historically, the estuaries would receive broad, slow moving sheets of water that were capable of carrying essential nutrients but not high sediment loads. This has been replaced with point loads of freshwater at the Faka Union Canal outlet that push salinity levels down and result in freshwater discharge shocks throughout the Ten Thousand Island Estuary. The increased runoff rate drains the area quickly and does not allow the hydroperiods necessary to sustain wetland vegetation. . . . Southern Golden Gate Estates Restoration Plan, pages 8-9. The major roadway affecting the Faka Union Canal Watershed is State Road 84, which was a two-lane road constructed in 1966. In 1990, construction was completed transforming State Road 84 into four-lane I-75. These road projects have hastened drainage of the lands to the north of I-75 and east of the Faka Union Canal. The land north of the Merritt Canal is largely undeveloped. If one were to extend the Merritt Canal due north of I-75, it would run through the middle of Lucky Lake Strand and much of Stumpy Strand, which is immediately to the north of Lucky Lake Strand. Agricultural land owned by Collier Enterprises is just north of the Ford Motor Company test track and immediately west of Lucky Lake Strand. Agricultural land owned by Baron Collier Company is immediately north of Stumpy Strand. This imaginary extension of Merritt Canal would mark the west boundary of the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, which was established in June 1989. The Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge constitutes 26,000 relatively undisturbed acres immediately north of I-75. Intervenor Clifford Fort owns property south of the refuge on the south side of I-75. The Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge features mostly wetlands, oak hammocks, pine flatwoods, and prairies. The refuge receives runoff from stormwater and possibly agricultural pumping of the water table from the adjacent farmland. In addition to draining into the headwaters of the Merritt Canal near the southwest corner of the refuge, the refuge also drains into the northerly borrow canal running along the north side of I-75. In the vicinity of the Merritt Canal, the four borrow canals running along the north and south sides of I-75, on both sides of the Merritt Canal, drain in the direction of the Merritt Canal. Listed species using the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge include the Florida panther, Florida black bear, wood stork, roseate spoonbill, limpkin, and Eastern Indigo snake. In October 1995, an inordinate amount of rain fell in the area. Attracted by the increased water depths, which more closely approximated historic conditions, 75 wood storks nested in the Lucky Lake Strand; in drier years, wood storks do not nest in the strand. Lucky Lake Strand occupies the southwest corner of the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. Lucky Lake and two other ponds are present in this area. When full, Lucky Lake and one of the ponds are about 50 meters wide, and the third pond is about half of this width. During the dry season, a person can throw a stone across any of the ponds. Historically, Lucky Lake and Stumpy strands passed surface water into the Picayune Strand, which is west of the Merritt Canal and south of I-75, from which the water ran into the Fakahatchee Strand. Lucky Lake Strand presently narrows to about 1000 feet at I-75. The hydrologic connection between the outlet of Lucky Lake Strand and the headwaters of the Merritt Canal has contributed significantly to the overdrainage of these two strands, which occupy a significant area within the federal refuge. The FWS wildlife biologist stationed at the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge reported in a habitat assessment report prepared in August 1996 that four ponds in the strand dried out by December so that they could not sustain fish or provide feeding habitat for birds. Permitting Criteria Public Health, Safety, or Welfare or Others' Property One of the main disputes between the parties is the affect of the proposed weir on flooding. This case is largely about flooding or, more generally, the amount of water to be stored for a specified period of time. Petitioners and Intervenors fear that the District's effort will cause flooding to areas south of I-75 and east and west of the Merritt Canal. Occupying property within a vast area whose natural drainage patterns have been greatly disrupted, Petitioners and Intervenors justifiably fear the ravages of flood and fire. Although this area was undoubtedly subject to these hazards prior to man's alteration of the natural landscape, large- scale alterations to natural drainage in Southwest Florida have artificially heightened the risk presented by these natural hazards. Destructive flooding follows the inhabitation of areas historically devoted to the storage of considerable volumes of water; the flooding is exacerbated where, as here, natural drainage features have been replaced by artificial facilities that are inadequate for both the natural flows and the new, artificial flows generated by development. Although inadequate for the natural and artificial flows generated by even design storm events, the artificial drainage facilities nevertheless change historic drainage rates, accelerating the rate and volume of natural drainage and shortening the hydroperiod. In this manner, the artificial drainage facilities contribute to the desiccation of previously saturated soils and foster conditions suitable for dangerous fires. Initially, Petitioners and Intervenors contend that the District seeks approval of the proposed weir as an indirect means of implementing the Southern Golden Gate Estates Rehydration Plan. Little evidence supports this concern. The Southern Golden Gate Estates Rehydration Plan outlines several alternatives for the proposed rehydration of Southern Golden Gate Estates. The preferred alternative does not call for a weir at the proposed location. The purpose of the proposed weir is to rehydrate an area north of the Southern Golden Gate Estates. As discussed below, the role of the proposed weir in rehydrating Southern Golden Gate Estates appears insubstantial to the point of nonexistent. Focusing on the location of the proposed weir over half of a mile downstream from the southernmost part of the area intended to be rehydrated, Petitioners and Intervenors dispute the stated purpose of the project, focusing on the District's earlier relocation of the proposed weir from positions just north and then just south of I-75 to its present position a half-mile farther to the south. The District did nothing to allay this concern of Petitioners and Intervenors when its employees could not provide a reasonably detailed explanation of the process by which someone moved the proposed site to the south. From the District's evidence, one would infer that the decision to relocate the proposed weir to the south spontaneously emerged, without human sponsor, in the course of bureaucratic decisionmaking. The District asserted that the northerly sites were impractical due to access problems. However, the District made little, if any, real effort to see if the Department of Transportation would allow access to these more northerly sites--one of which the District might be able to access without the consent of the Department of Transportation. The record does not reveal why the District relocated the proposed weir to its present location, considerably south of its initial two locations at I-75. Again, though, the evidence does not support the contention of Petitioners and Intervenors that the relocation decision was part of a private plan among District employees to incorporate the proposed weir as part of a more ambitious project to rehydrate Southern Golden Gate Estates. Nor does the evidence establish, as Petitioners and Intervenors contend, that the relocation decision was driven by the concerns of three influential landholders to the north of I-75--Collier Enterprises, Barron Collier Company, and Ford Motor Company. These three landholders approved the proposed weir in its present location over a half-mile to the south of its original locations and may have expressed concern that the original locations at I-75 would unreasonably raise the risk of flooding their land and business and agricultural activities to the north of I-75. If the District's real reason for relocating the proposed weir was due to objections from these landowners to the north of I-75, this reason would not itself help Petitioners and Intervenors. If the District acceded to the demands of these landowners to the north, it does not necessarily follow that the District lacked confidence in its flood calculations. A relocation decision under these circumstances would have as likely reflected political, as scientific, concerns. Additionally, if the District moved the proposed weir at the insistence or suggestion of the landowners to the north, any flooding concerns voiced by these landowners raise different issues from the flooding concerns raised by Petitioners and Intervenors. Owners of land immediately to the north and west of the federal refuge are more directly within the area of the intended effects than are Petitioners and Intervenors. More substantially, Petitioners and Intervenors claim that the proposed activity is so negligently designed or will be so negligently operated as to result in heightened and more frequent flooding of areas to the west and east of the proposed weir. The District's record in operating weirs in Collier County is not flawless. In recent years, the District constructed and maintained a weir with unlawfully high gates and did not correct the noncompliant water-control structure for several months after first learning of the violation. However, this appears to have been an isolated violation. The division of responsibility between the District and Collier County for the maintenance of drainage canals is based on whether the canal is a primary or secondary drainage facility. The District has assumed responsibility for all of the primary drainage facilities in Collier County. Surprisingly, though, the record reveals no master map or index of the primary drainage facilities and at least the larger nonprimary drainage facilities. However, Petitioners and Intervenors failed to show that any confusion concerning maintenance responsibilities that may exist between the District and Collier County would appreciably raise the probabilities that the District would operate the proposed weir in such a way as to exacerbate present flooding concerns. The District and Collier County agree that the District has jurisdiction over the Merritt Canal. Petitioners and Intervenors have also failed to show that any confusion concerning secondary-drainage contributions that may exist between the District and Collier County would have a substantial impact on the successful operation of the proposed weir. The most significant claim raised by Petitioners and Intervenors asserts that the District failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed weir would not exacerbate flooding. Although the weir gates would be closed only during the dry season, the proposed activity requires analysis of the risk of heightened water elevations upstream of the proposed weir. In theory, flooding could result from the effects of the weir even when the gates are open, as well as the possibility of an extreme storm event during the dry season. Expert witnesses on both sides clashed over whether the design of the proposed weir was sufficient not to exacerbate existing levels, rates, and frequencies of flooding of adjacent uplands. The crucial feature over which the experts disagreed was the spoil banks running along the canal. When the Merritt Canal was constructed, the spoil was dumped along the banks. In the ensuing years, vegetation colonized and stabilized the spoil banks, which now function as levees. The expert witness called by Petitioners and Intervenors disregarded the spoil banks in his calculations. His lack of confidence in the opposing expert witness's use of top-of-bank elevations was partly justified for the reasons stated below. Although a minor point, part of the argument of Petitioners and Intervenors' expert witness proved too much by asserting that levees cannot maintain water levels higher inside the levee than the existing ground elevation outside the levee. On the other hand, in showing that the proposed weir would not exacerbate flooding, the District's expert witness relied, not entirely justifiably, on the top-of-bank elevations. The District took only spot elevations of the spoil bank and then assumed that these elevations prevailed along the entire 3600 feet of canal upstream of the weir. The District did not inspect the upstream banks for unpermitted culverts, of which at least one was discovered during the lengthy hearing in this case. There is a possibility of material differences in elevations along the spoil banks. These spoil banks were not constructed to a specified elevation; they were an excavation byproduct that was haphazardly deposited beside the excavated canal. Additionally, the record suggests that this general area has been the site of unpermitted works, such as the installation of a culvert and creation of unpermitted canal plugs. In the months over which the hearing took place, Petitioners and Intervenors alertly found a culvert breaching the spoil bank upstream of the proposed weir. At least one of their representatives demonstrated superior familiarity with the spoil bank over the familiarity demonstrated by the District's representatives. It is a fair inference that, if the spoil bank was substantially missing at any point upstream of the proposed weir, Petitioners and Intervenors would have brought such evidence to the hearing. The absence of such evidence, coupled with the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the concededly more cursory investigation of the site by the District, precludes a finding that the spoil bank is substantially missing at any material point so as to warrant the use of ground elevations, as used by the expert witness called by Petitioners and Intervenors. At best, from the perspective of Petitioners and Intervenors, the record supports the finding that the spoil banks may not be as continuously as high as the District posits, but they are not nearly as low (i.e., nonexistent) at any point as Petitioners and Intervenors contend. The two experts also disagreed over two subordinate inputs used in running the flood calculations. The expert called by Petitioners and Intervenors claimed that initial tailwaters (i.e., water elevations downstream of the weir) in excess of 8.53 feet were appropriate. Although the canal has experienced historically higher tailwaters than 8.53 feet, the expert did not explain adequately why such higher tailwaters should be used in running the model, especially since flood calculations are not used to predict flooding conditions in all storms, such as a 1000-year storm. Absent a showing that tailwater in excess of 8.53 feet would be present at the relevant time preceding or during the design storm event, the expert called by Petitioners and Intervenors failed to show why the District's tailwater input was unreasonable. On the other hand, the District's expert claimed that the model required an adjustment to the friction factor or Manning's N coefficient. This adjustment, which decreased the friction factor by an order of magnitude, approximated a bottom that was many times smoother than the actual bottom of the Merritt Canal. The District's expert did not explain adequately why the lower friction factor should be used in running the model, and he frankly did not demonstrate the same familiarity with this friction factor as did the expert called by Petitioners and Intervenors. The most likely inference is that the District's expert erred in making this adjustment. There was another controversy between the parties regarding a subordinate input for the flooding calculations. Petitioners and Intervenors raised the possibility that agricultural discharges from the Collier properties adjacent to the federal refuge, which the District ignored in its calculations, might further undermine any assurances as to flooding. This could have been useful information if developed in the record, but the record permits no basis to quantify the value of this additional discharge or ascertain its timing relative to wet and dry seasons and storm events, if in fact this agricultural discharge takes place at all. Also, offsetting any such discharge would be two factors: the District ran its calculations assuming a runoff rate 25 percent greater than that appropriately used by the Florida Department of Transportation for modeling the design storm event, and the District ignored the plugs in the I-75 borrow canals, which attenuate the runoff into the Merritt Canal. Although Petitioners and Intervenors incorrectly inputted ground elevation in place of the top-of-bank elevation--when the best elevation is somewhere in between these two values--their expert's calculations are useful for illustrating a scenario that, for this reason, exceeds the worst-case scenario. Again, this is an illustration of a scenario that predicts greater flooding than reasonably should be predicted because, in actuality, the restraining elevation is higher than ground elevation. Using the 8.53-feet initial value for tailwater, Petitioners' Exhibit 27 illustrates the different water elevations resulting from running the model with and without the excessive reduction of the friction factor. Petitioners Exhibit 27 illustrates the effect of the design storm on upstream water elevations with the gates open. Petitioners Exhibit 27 ignores the spoil banks and instead uses prevailing ground elevations. At the site of the proposed weir, the canal bottom is at about -1.5 feet NGVD. The proposed weir would add fixed barriers up to an elevation of 5.0 feet NGVD; the adjustable gates would, when closed, extend the barrier from 5.0 feet NGVD to 9.5 feet NGVD. Approximate existing ground elevation averages about 10 feet NGVD downstream of I-75, with one dip to below 9 feet NGVD about 600 feet downstream of I-75. For about 6000 feet upstream of I-75, where there is no spoil bank whatsoever, the average ground elevation, outside of the slough, is about 13 feet. The slough bottom in this area gently slopes from about 9 feet NGVD to 10 feet NGVD. Ignoring the spoil bank, Petitioners Exhibit 27 predicts flooding in two major areas in the design storm event, even with the gates open. One of these is about 300 feet long, starting about 400 feet downstream of I-75. The other is at least 300 feet long, starting near the northern extreme of the modeled area and running off the modeled area. The District did not survey in detail the spoil bank along the 300 feet downstream of I-75. There is no spoil bank upstream of I-75 because there is no dredged canal. The water elevation about 400 feet downstream of I-75 would be almost one foot greater than the ground elevation. The water elevation about 6000 feet upstream of I-75 will be as much as half of a foot greater than the ground elevation. At the more downstream point, the actual water elevation would exceed the District's projection by nearly three-quarter of one foot. At the more upstream point, the actual water elevation would exceed the District's projection by over 1.5 feet. Although the record could have been better developed on this important point, there is reasonable assurance that the existing spoil-bank elevations are sufficient to contain these flood elevations predicted by the expert called by Petitioners and Intervenors. Petitioners and Intervenors claimed that the District could achieve its stated purpose of extending the hydroperiod in the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge without increasing the risk or extent of flooding of adjacent uplands. Petitioners and Intervenors suggested that the District repair an existing plug in the Merritt Canal just south of I-75. (This "plug" is actually the original ground surface, which evidently was undisturbed during the construction of I-75. Given the excavation of canals on both sides of what is now a narrow strip of earth, the land resembles a plug, and this recommended order refers to it as a plug, although this term is descriptive only of the feature's present appearance, not its method of creation.) There are actually six plugs--again, in the broad sense of the word--in the vicinity of the junction of the Merritt Canal and I-75. Two plugs interrupt the flow into the Merritt Canal of the borrow canals to the north of I-75. Two plugs likewise interrupt the flow into the Merritt Canal of the borrow canals to the south of I-75. The last two plugs are in the Merritt Canal, a few feet north and south of I-75. Repairing the plug immediately south of I-75 would raise the water elevation by about 1.3 feet under the I-75 bridge. By about 2000 feet upstream of I-75, there is no significant difference between the water elevation using the model of Petitioners and Intervenors' expert for the proposed weir 3600 feet downstream of I-75 and the water elevation for the proposed plug repair just south of I-75. Repairing the plugs would have reduced the water elevation downstream of I- 75 by less than one half of a foot. Petitioners, Intervenors, and their expert have proposed a promising alternative to the proposed weir. The alternative appears to serve the stated purpose of the proposed activity at least as well as the proposed weir would, if not somewhat better due to its closer proximity to the targeted federal refuge, and the alternative project would cost much less to construct, maintain, and operate. The restorative nature of the work would probably relieve the District of the necessity of obtaining a permit. Perhaps the prospect of such work might motivate other state and federal agencies to grant the District access to the area at I-75 to build the weir at one of its first two locations. However, the issue is whether the District has provided reasonable assurance for the activity that it has proposed. As to flooding, the District has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will not exacerbate flooding during the design storm events or even more severe storm events. Even assuming an absence of reasonable assurance as to flooding, the first criterion requires consideration of whether the proposed activity would adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or the property of others. Extending the hydroperiod of the federal refuge protects the property of others by reducing the period of time that the turf is dried out. This provides a wide range of environmental protection, including protection against the risk of fire caused by excessive drainage, for the federal refuge and other property in the area. Retarding the artificially high rate of drainage will improve water quality in at least two respects. The proposed weir will retard and reduce the nutrients conveyed down the canal and into the estuary into which it eventually empties. The proposed weir will also tend to restore somewhat the rate and timing of historic freshwater inputs on which the viability of the estuary and its inhabitants depends. Concerns about public health, safety, and welfare, as well as the property of others, cannot be severed from these broadscale environmental benefits to be derived from the proposed activity. Public health concerns are tied to these considerations. Thus, even if the District had failed to provide reasonable assurance as to flooding alone, the District has provided reasonable assurance that, on balance, the proposed weir will not adversely affect the matters set forth in the first criterion. Conservation of Fish and Wildlife, Including Endangered or Threatened Species, or Their Habitats The proposed weir will serve the conservation of a wide range of flora and fauna, as well as their wetlands habitat, within the targeted federal refuge. These species include listed species. The evidence does not support a finding that extending the hydroperiod of the federal refuge would in any way disturb the Florida panther. Navigation, Flow of Water, or Harmful Erosion or Shoaling The proposed weir will have not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water within the canal, and it will not cause erosion or shoaling. Fishing or Recreational Values or Marine Productivity in the Vicinity of the Activity The proposed weir will not adversely affect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed weir. To the contrary, the proposed weir will enhance these values in the immediate vicinity of the proposed weir and downstream at the estuary at the mouth of the Merritt Canal. Temporary or Permanent Nature The proposed weir will be of a permanent nature. Significant Historic and Archaeological Resources The record provides no basis for a finding that the proposed weir jeopardizes significant historic and archaeological resources. Current Condition and Relative Value of Functions of Areas Affected by the Proposed Activity The federal refuge is functioning well environmentally, despite the adverse impact of dramatic disruptions of the natural drainage regime. The value of these functions is high. Likewise, the receiving estuarine waters are functioning well, despite the adverse impact of dramatic disruptions of the natural drainage regime. Extending the hydroperiod of the federal refuge will partially offset these historic disruptions. Thus, the proposed weir will assist in the functioning of natural systems that are now functioning well, but could use some help. Public Interest The proposed weir is not in an Outstanding Florida Water. Thus, the question is whether the proposed activity is not contrary to the public interest. The District has provided reasonable assurances as to the preceding seven criteria sufficient to demonstrate that, on balance, the proposed activity is not contrary to the public interest. Cumulative Impacts There is no evidence that the proposed weir will cause any adverse cumulative impacts upon wetlands or surface waters. Other Criteria The District has proved that the proposed weir would not violate any water quality standards. To the contrary, any effect from the proposed activity would be to improve water quality, especially downstream at the estuary. The restoration of conditions more typical of historic drainage would allow more nutrients to be captured upstream and would tend to restore the historic timing and volume of freshwater inputs into the estuary. For the reasons set forth above, the District has also provided reasonable assurance that the proposed activity meets the 11 criteria contained in Rule 40E-4.301, which largely duplicate the seven criteria discussed above, and the relevant provisions of the Basis of Review. It is true that the monitoring provisions are largely illusory because they provide no quantifiable parameter beyond which the District must take specified action. In other words, at best, the monitoring provisions assure that the District will collect post-operational flooding data, but they do not promise that the District will take any action if certain levels of flooding take place. However, the monitoring provisions are of little importance given the factual findings concerning flooding, as discussed above, and the legal requirements of the Basis of Review, as discussed below.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting the permit for the construction of the proposed weir about 3600 feet south of I-75 in the Merritt Canal. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: James W. McDonald, Jr., Esquire McDonald & Associates Community Plaza, Suite 306 15600 Southwest 288th Street Homestead, Florida 33030 A. Glenn Simpson Qualified Representative 5961 22nd Avenue Southwest Naples, Florida 34116 Marcy I. LaHart Associate Attorney South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 Francine M. Ffolkes Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Walter R. Shaw, Sr., pro se 1400 Northwest 62nd Avenue Sunrise, Florida 33313-6138 Cliffort L. Fort 8410 Northwest 16th Street Pembroke Pines, Florida 33024 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Lake Powell Improvement Corporation is a consortium of interested owners of land comprising the majority of the Lake Powell shoreline. Camp Helen Company, one of its members, owns lake property which was formerly operated as a recreational facility for associates of Avondale Mills. Camp Helen Company now holds the property for the possibility of future development. George Jeter is one of approximately 76 persons who sent a form letter to the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in opposition to the designation of Lake Powell/Phillips Inlet as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). The rule-making proceeding to designate Lake Powell/Phillips Inlet an OFW was initiated with a petition filed on June 11, 1987, by the St. Andrews Bay Resource Management Association, a private citizens' organization formed in 1986 to help protect wildlife and resources in the St. Andrews Bay area. A public workshop was conducted by DER on September 6, 1990, in Panama City, Florida. Approximately 70 persons attended the workshop, including Bay County residents, Walton County residents, Lake Powell area property owners and representatives from various organizations. Craig Crockard, Vice President of Lake Powell Improvement Corporation, opposed the designation based on alleged degradation of property values and tax base, negative impact on growth and increase in road maintenance costs. Agency staff encouraged workshop participants and members of the public to submit information, including economic information, that would aid in the decision-making process. Only general and speculative information was received, with the exception of a response from the Department of Transportation that costs of future construction and expansion of the Phillips Inlet bridge, part of four-laning Highway 98, would be increased by $1.5 million as a result of the OFW regulations. DER sent a letter to Craig Crockard, received on April 2, 1991, requesting specifics as to the property owners' development plans and estimated economic impacts by April 5th. Crockard responded that the deadline was too short and that it was obvious that the decision had already been made. At no time, up to and including the hearing before the Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC), did Petitioners or other opponents provide information as to specific economic impacts of the proposed designation. The proposed rule would add the following area to rule 17- 302.700(9)(i), F.A.C. specifying special waters under the OFW designation: Special Waters * * * Lake Powell, Phillips Inlet, and all tributaries to Lake Powell as bounded by the following described line: Begin at the Northwest corner of Section 26, Township 2 South, Range 18 West; thence East to the Northwest corner of Section 29, Township 2 South, Range 17 West; thence South to the Northwest corner of the SW 1/4 of Section 29, Township 2 South, Range 17 West; thence East to the West line of Section 27, Township 2 South, Range 17 West, thence South to the mean high water line of the Gulf of Mexico; thence meander Northwest along the mean high water line to the West line of Section 35, Township 2 South, Range 18 West; thence North to the point of beginning ( - - 91). * * * In making its determination to recommend OFW designation for Lake Powell to the ERC, the Department compared Lake Powell to other water bodies. Lake Powell was found to be exceptionally ecologically and recreationally significant in terms of size, water quality and recreational usage. The Department makes its determination as to whether the proposed water body is exceptional by making direct comparisons to features of other water bodies, and by relying on the professional judgements of others familiar with the particular class of water bodies. Lake Powell has been compared by professionals familiar with other water bodies in the area and in their opinion it has exceptional value as an ecosystem. The Department relied on professional judgement of this type as well as its own findings when making the determination that Lake Powell was exceptional. Lake Powell is located in Bay and Walton Counties in Northwest Florida adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico. Its total surface area of 737 acres makes it the largest by far of any of a series of similar lakes in the area. Seven small streams provide fresh water to the lake; periodically Phillips Inlet, connecting the lake to the Gulf of Mexico, opens or closes. When the inlet is open, the lake becomes estuarine in nature. Most of the shoreline of Lake Powell is still undeveloped and the lake is significant in that it has experienced only minimal adverse impact from human activity. There are no permitted point source discharges to Lake Powell. It is basin-shaped, with a shallow shell, steep sandy slopes, and a flat bottom ranging from approximately 10 to 20 feet deep. Silty, high organic sediments in the water are amenable to degradation and are uniquely sensitive to pollution. Restricted flushing and the opportunity for development growth in the area add to that sensitivity. Lake Powell is a Class III waterbody. Water quality in the lake is good, and meets Class III standards; some parameters are as good as Class II standards. The low dissolved oxygen level in the lake is a result of natural conditions, is not a result of pollution, and is therefore not a violation of the Class III standard for dissolved oxygen. Lake Powell is one of the lakes in the state that is part of the water quality sampling effort known as Lake Watch. A benefit of OFW designation to this effort will be that Lake Powell, absent degradation, can serve as a control lake to compare other Lake Watch lakes throughout the State. At least 170 species of birds, (trust resources of the US Fish and Wildlife Service), have been observed and are dependent on Lake Powell. Unusual species include the piping plover (federally and state designated threatened), snowy plover (state designated threatened), least tern (state designated threatened), and bald eagle (federally designated endangered and state designated threatened). These species have a direct dependence on Lake Powell for habitat, feeding, or nesting areas. They are dependent on non-trust species such as small fishes which could be impacted by chemicals introduced to the lake. Edwin James Kepner, a biologist for the National Marine Fisheries Service, has identified three new species of nematodes which so far have been uniquely found in Lake Powell. Although nematode species are among the most abundant on earth (97,000 individuals may be found in a single rotting apple), they are a highly significant part of an ecological system and must be understood and studied for any understanding of marine communities. The lake supports a diversity of animals. At least 87 species of macrobenthic invertebrates and 67 species of fin fish inhabit the lake, a diversity based on the system's intermittent connection to the Gulf and the lake's relatively pristine condition compared to other lakes. One would expect to find even more diversity, 3 to 4 times more species, if better and more accurate sampling methods were employed. Lake Powell presents a unique nursery area, since most large predator fishes do not have access to it. The lake presently supports a variety of recreational activities, including canoeing, sailing, windsurfing, water-skiing, fishing, crabbing and picnicking. This recreational use has increased during the last five years. Lake Powell is ranked 36th out of 361 lakes statewide in a 1982 study of recreational usage. In terms of potential to the public for recreational usage, Lake Powell has three public access points to the lake, and a possible fourth. Public access is gained by a Bay County public park and by way of Gulf View Drive, which is owned by Bay County and used to launch boats. There is a public dock in Walton County which is also used extensively. The fourth access is currently the subject of an inquiry by the Bay County Audubon Society. The unusual quality of recreational experience lies in the pristine nature of the lake and the fact that it is located not far from the Miracle Strip in Panama City Beach. The ERC Commissioners, who were taken on a tour of the lake, were able to contrast the two areas and found that Lake Powell had unusual recreational value. Lake Powell provides an exceptional educational opportunity, and with its many different types of habitat it is a compact, manageable educational laboratory. As compared to the St. Andrews Bay System it would be much easier to collect samples, obtain information on biotic communities and generally conduct research on the effectiveness of regulatory programs, due to the manageable size of the lake. The proposed amendment to Rule 17-302.700(9)(i), F.A.C., to designate Lake Powell as an OFW would potentially affect future Department permit applicants by requiring they provide the Department with reasonable assurances that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest and that the proposed project would not lower existing ambient water quality standards (Rule 17-4.242, F.A.C.); by requiring that direct stormwater discharges into the lake include an additional 50% treatment level (Rule 17-25.025(9), F.A.C.); and by reducing the exemption for private residential docks from 1000 square feet to 500 square feet (Rule 17-4.04(9)(c), F.A.C.). These requirements will result in increased costs to permit applicants, although the costs cannot be calculated at this time since there are no such projects firmly proposed to the Department. The primary beneficial effect of the proposed rule would be the protection of future water quality based on existing ambient water quality standards at time of OFW designation. Pursuant to Section 120.54(2), F.S., an Economic Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared by the Department. Section 120.54(2)(b), F.S., requires the statement to include: * * * An estimate of the cost to the agency of the implementation of the proposed action, including the estimated amount of paperwork; An estimate of the cost or the economic benefit to all persons directly affected by the proposed action; An estimate of the impact of the proposed action on competition and the open market for employment, if applicable; A detailed statement of the data and method used in making each of the above estimates; and An analysis of the impact on small business as defined in the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act of 1985. Additionally, Rule 17-302.700(4)(e) provides: An economic impact analysis consistent with Chapter 120, shall be prepared which provides a general analysis of the impact on growth and development including such factors as impacts on planned or potential industrial, agricultural, or other development or expansion. It is undisputed that the EIS properly addressed the costs of implementation to the Department. The EIS identified the kind of Department permit applicant that would potentially be affected by the rule amendment, and what kinds of developmental impacts could be expected by operation of other Department rules. The EIS did not identify any specific costs that would be attributable to the rule, as the Department was unaware of any specific development plans for the lake that would be subject to the Department rules. Existing development activities are grandfathered and would not be affected by the more stringent requirements. The Department stated in its EIS that the overall costs imposed on future development due to the proposed OFW designation would depend on both the nature of the development and its impact on the ambient water quality of the lake. Since the type and nature of future development in the area is uncertain, an estimate of the potential aggregate costs associated with the proposed OFW designation could not be made at the time the EIS was prepared. The EIS properly addressed the costs of the proposed rule to the parties, based upon the facts as known to the Department. The benefits to the public of the rule were stated to be largely environmental, as a result of protection of future ambient water quality standards in the lake. The EIS cited an economic benefit to land owners around the lake in the form of enhanced property values due to water quality protections of the OFW designation, water quality being an important variable in determining property values of waterfront property. That property values would be enhanced is based on the DER economist's study of another state's experience and experience with OFW designation in other Florida counties. The EIS properly addresses the benefits of the rule. The EIS states that there will be no significant effect on competition as a result of the proposed OFW designation; Petitioners have not presented any evidence to the contrary. The EIS adequately addresses the rule's effect on competition. The EIS states that the proposed OFW designation is not expected to create any significant adverse disproportionate impacts on small businesses, as required by Section 120.54(2)(b)5., F.S. As Petitioners have not introduced any evidence to the contrary, the EIS adequately addresses this issue. The EIS states that appropriate economic analysis techniques were employed preparing the EIS. Petitioners participated in the rulemaking process; they attended the Panama City workshop when economic information was solicited; they submitted written comments, none of which provided specific economic information; and they participated in the ERC hearing but offered no evidence to the Commission regarding economic impacts of the rule. The type of information they suggest that the Department should consider was not submitted by them, or anyone else, during the rulemaking process or this hearing. The evidence shows that the Department considered all comments submitted throughout the rulemaking process in making the recommendation of OFW designation to the ERC. The EIS properly explains the data and methodology used in its preparation, and this data and methodology was adequate to estimate the economic impacts of the rule. In January 1991, the Bay County Board of County Commissioners amended the County's comprehensive plan to provide special protection for Lake Powell. These provisions include more stringent requirements for stormwater retention and detention, an objective to maintain Lake Powell's water quality at its present level, restriction on use of household septic tanks, designation of a low-density residential zone, and prohibition of point source discharges which would lower existing water quality. (Joint Exhibit #1, Appendix D) Both parties have invoked the plan amendments for their own purpose. Petitioners argue that the plan amendments provide the same or greater protection than the proposed OFW designation and that the designation is not needed. This argument ignores the fact that at least 10% of the lake lies within Walton County, outside Bay County's jurisdiction. DER did not require Bay County to amend its plan and could not require it to maintain the new Lake Powell protections indefinitely. The OFW designation does not detract from or conflict with the local government's commendable initiative, but rather augments it. Respondent, DER, addresses the plan in its modified EIS where it discusses the contention by the Department of Transportation (DOT) that OFW designation will add $1.5 million in costs to widen a road at the Phillips Inlet bridge. DER's economist concedes that designation will result in additional costs and has discussed that in the EIS. Because he has not received back-up data from DOT he is unable to confirm that the cost will be as much as DOT asserts. He also attributes the increase to the new stormwater requirements of the Bay County comprehensive plan, and concludes the additional costs due to OFW designation might be zero. (Joint Exhibit #2, p. 7) Even if misplaced, the attribution of costs does not invalidate the EIS or the proposed designation. The EIS generally describes potential costs and provides a basis to weigh the environmental, social and economic costs against the environmental, social and economic benefits. In summary, the facts above support the ERC's finding that the waters selected for designation are of exceptional recreational or ecological significance and the benefits of designation outweigh its costs.
The Issue This case arises out of the denial by the Department of Environmental Regulation of an application by the Petitioner to construct a 24-slip marina on Bayou Chico in Pensacola, Florida. At the formal hearing, Petitioner testified on his on behalf and offered and had admitted into evidence one exhibit. The Respondent called as its only witness, Jeremy Craft, and offered and had admitted into evidence four exhibits. Counsel for the Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings and conclusions are inconsistent with this order, they were rejected as not being supported by the evidence or as unnecessary to a resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact On March 18, 1982, Petitioner applied for a permit to dredge approximately 78,480 cubic yards from Bayou Chico and an unnamed embayment adjacent to the Bayou. The proposed project site is located in Pensacola, Florida, Bayou Chico in Section 59, Township 2 South, Range 30 West. Specifically, the project site is located on the south side of Bayou Chico just north of the Barrancas Avenue Bridge. On April 15, 1982, the Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, sent a completeness summary to the Petitioner requesting additional information before the application or permit could be processed. Over a period of approximately a year and a half, Department of Environmental Regulation conferred with Petitioner concerning the proposed project and a number of different plans were discussed. In July of 1983, Petitioner submitted the July 11, 1983 plan, with modifications, and withdrew all prior plans. It is this plan which is the subject of this hearing. A field appraisal of the proposed site was made by Department of Environmental Regulation on December 25, 1982. On August 31, 1983, Department of Environmental Regulation issued an Intent to Deny the Petitioner's permit application. The Intent to Deny encompassed all plans and revisions submitted by the Petitioner, Department of Environmental Regulation based its denial on Petitioner's failure to give reasonable assurances that water quality standards would not be violated by his project. The Department's denial also asserted that the project would also result in matters adverse to the public interest. The final proposal submitted by the Petitioner sought a permit to dredge a strip 100 feet wide by 450 feet long to a depth of 6 feet. This strip is adjacent to a spit or strip of land which separates Chico Bayou from the emboyment. This plan was subsequently modified to include dredging an additional 100 to 150 feet along the full length of the strip. This additional dredging would take the dredged area out to the deep water of Chico Bayou and was intended to eliminate a channeling effect. The purpose of the dredging is to enable the Petitioner to construct a marina or docking facility along the split. The marina would include 24 slips. The proposed dredge area gradually slopes from the shoreline to five and six foot depths 200 to 250 feet from the spit. The water in the embayment is highly polluted and at one time was used as a holding pond for mahogany logs because the wood-boring worms could not survive in the water. Bayou Chico is also very polluted and fails to meet the water quality standards found in Rule 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code, for the parameters lead, cadmium, copper, and aluminum among others. The bayou has for many years been used for boat and barge traffic. Jeremy Craft testified on behalf of DER and his opinions as to the impact of the project on water quality and marine life were uncontroverted. In Mr. Craft's opinion, the dredging proposed by the Petitioner would result in further degradation of the water quality in Bayou Chico by eliminating important shallow areas and underwater grasses. The deepening of the dredged area would limit the amount of oxygen available to the water in the bayou thereby harming the aquatic life by freeing many of the heavy metals which are presently bound in the sediments in the bayou. The shallow areas are the most important areas in cleansing the water. With increased oxidation, the biota survive better and the water is better cleansed. Freeing the heavy metals would allow their introduction into the food chain and accumulation in living organisms. The Petitioner has not informed DER of his specific dock specifications, stormwater plans, upland development plans, or dredge disposal plans. The type of dock will determine the type of boating traffic and this will indicate the amount and content of stormwater discharge. Because of the contaminated nature of the spoil, the Petitioner must provide reasonable assurances that the spoil and spoil water will be properly retained. Petitioner testified on his own behalf but did not present any evidence relating to the impact the proposed prod act would have on water quality.
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 denying the Petitioner's application for a permit as set forth in the Intent to Deny previously issued by the Department. DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of May 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: David K. Thulman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Joe Pair 1200 Mahogany Mill Road Pensacola, Florida 32907 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent owns property in Lake County, Florida which adjoins North Lake Holly. North Lake Holly is a fresh water lake. On an undetermined date between December, 1975 and September, 1976, the Respondent caused a horseshoe-shaped basin to be dredged along the shoreline of North Lake Holly adjoining his property. The fill material taken from the dredged area was deposited along the shore of the lake to farm a beach. The basin is approximately 90' long, 50' wide, and 6' deep. The Respondent has erected a dwelling house on his property, and it appears that the dredging was done in order to transform the shoreline of the lake from a vegetated littoral zone to a beach and boat basin. The Department confirmed the violations in December, 1976, and sought to negotiate a restoration plan with the Respondent. The formal Notice of Violation was issued an November 17, 1977. The dredged area was previously a shallow littoral zone dominated by wetlands vegetation. The most prevalent vegetation was sawgrass, but there were also abundant quantities of cattails, maidencane, arrowhead, and willows. The dredging activity relates to only a small portion of the shoreline of North Lake Holly. The activity nonetheless has resulted in the alteration of the characteristics of the lake. The marsh area which fringes the lake serves as habitat for fish and other wildlife, and also serves to filter runoff which enters the lake from the uplands. The Respondent's activities have obliterated a portion of the wildlife habitat, and provide an avenue for some uplands runoff to be discharged directly into North Lake Holly without the benefit of being filtered through wetlands vegetation. The quality of waters in central Florida lakes is related directly to the amount of development along the shoreline. The greater degree of alteration of the shoreline, the greater degree of deterioration of water quality, and the greater the deterioration of wildlife habitat. A project of the magnitude of that accomplished by the Respondent may have no clearly measurable impact upon water quality and wildlife habitat since the rest of North Lake Holly is surrounded by a broad littoral zone. The only impact that the project can have is, nonetheless, adverse. If a project such as the Respondent's is approved, the Department could not, consonant with due process and equal protection concepts prohibit further such alterations of the shoreline. It is likely that some aquatic vegetation will reestablish itself along the shoreline of the dredged area. Such a natural restoration will not, however, alleviate the negative impacts of the Respondent's dredging. The steep inclines of the dredged area will allow only a very narrow rim of vegetation, which cannot be expected to provide habitat and protect water quality to remotely the extent of the, previous undisturbed broad littoral zone. Furthermore, in the time since the project was completed, no significant vegetative zone has reestablished itself. It is possible for the Respondent to gain access to the lake for boating and other recreational purposes without totally obliterating the littoral zone that was in the area. The Department has offered a restoration plan which would accomplish this result. The Respondent undertook the dredge and fill activity without seeking a permit from the Department, and he continues to operate what amounts to a stationary installation which will serve as a source of pollutants to North Lake Holly without any valid permit issued by the Department. The Department has spent $229.41 in assessable costs in investigating and attempting to rectify the illegal dredge and fill activity undertaken by the Respondent.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondents, Kelly Endres and Ifrain Lima (Endres/Lima), are entitled to an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) that would allow use of 0.535 acres of previously impacted wetlands for the construction of a single-family residence and associated structures, a 30' x 30' private dock with a 4' access walkway, and a 12' wide boat ramp (Project) at 160 Long Acres Lane, Oviedo, Florida (Property).
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. The Parties The Department is the administrative agency of the state statutorily charged with, among other things, protecting Florida's air and water resources. The Department administers and enforces certain provisions of chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated, thereunder, in the Florida Administrative Code. Under that authority, the Department determines whether to issue or deny applications for ERPs. Respondents Endres/Lima own the Property and are the applicants for the ERP at issue in this consolidated proceeding. Petitioner Meier is a neighboring property owner to the south of the Property. Petitioner Meier's property includes a single-family residence with accessory structures and is located on Long Lake. Petitioner Meier is concerned that the NOI provides inadequate environmental protections and that there will be flooding on adjacent properties from the Project. Petitioner Hacker is the neighboring property owner adjacent to the south of the Property. Petitioner Hacker's property includes a single-family residence with accessory structures and is located on Long Lake. He is concerned with the completeness of the application for the Project, the calculation of wetland impacts, that reasonable assurances were provided, and that the Department's NOI ignores willful negligence and allows disparate treatment of Respondents Endres/Lima. Petitioner Kochmann is a property owner with a single-family residence and accessory structures located on Long Lake. She is concerned that the NOI is based on a misleading application and provides no evidence that the Respondents Endres/Lima made reasonable efforts to eliminate and reduce impacts detrimental to the environment. History of the Project and Application On April 12, 2018, Respondents Endres/Lima applied for an ERP for proposed wetland impacts associated with a planned single-family home on the Property. This was the first ERP application for the Property. The Department sent a Request for Additional Information (RAI) on April 24, 2018, and a second RAI on November 2, 2018. Respondents Endres/Lima provided a Mitigation Service Area Rule Analysis for "As If In-Basin" for the Lake X Mitigation Bank for the St. Johns River Water Management District Basins to the Department via email on May 10, 2018. Respondents Endres/Lima submitted revised plans to the Department on September 19, and October 30, 2018. On January 7, 2019, the Department denied the ERP application. The Department and Respondents Endres/Lima, on July 18, 2019, entered into a Consent Order (CO). The Department found, and Respondents Endres/Lima admitted, that approximately 0.80 acres of jurisdictional wetlands were dredged and filled without a valid ERP from the Department; and was done with improperly installed erosion and sedimentation controls. On August 22, 2019, Respondents Endres/Lima submitted a second ERP application. The Department sent an RAI on September 20, 2019, to which Respondents Endres/Lima responded on December 19, 2019. In addition, Respondents Endres/Lima reserved 0.60 of forested Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) wetland credits from the Lake X Mitigation Bank and provided the Department with an updated site plan and Lake X Mitigation Bank credit reservation letter. The Department issued an NOI on February 7, 2020, which was timely published in the Sanford Herald on February 9, 2020. Respondents Endres/Lima provided timely proof of publication to the Department on February 13, 2020. Consent Order and Compliance A warning letter was issued to Respondents Endres/Lima on January 30, 2019, for the dredging and filling of approximately 0.80 acres of forested wetlands and improper installation of erosion and sedimentation control. The CO, executed on July 18, 2019, required Respondents Endres/Lima to cease any dredging, filling, or construction activities on the Property, submit an application for an Individual ERP within 30 days, and pay $5,599.00 in penalties and the Department's costs and expenses. After the issuance of an ERP, Respondents Endres/Lima were also required to implement the restoration actions outlined in the CO. Respondents’ Endres/Lima’s application, dated August 19, 2020, was submitted to the Department on August 22, 2020. Respondents Endres/Lima paid the CO's penalties and costs, and had multiple meetings with the Department to complete the requirements of the CO. Respondents Endres/Lima’s expert, Mr. Exner, testified that he began working on a restoration plan for the Property, which will be provided to the Department once an ERP is issued. Permitting Criteria The Department reviewed the complete application and determined that it satisfied the conditions for issuance under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-330.301, and the applicable sections of the ERP Applicant's Handbook Volume I (AH Vol. I). The Department also considered the seven criteria in rule 62-330.302 and section 373.414(1)(a), and determined that implementing the Project would not be contrary to the public interest. Water Quantity, Flooding, Surface Water Storage and Conveyance Respondents’ Endres/Lima's civil engineering expert, Mr. Herbert, testified that according to the drainage design, the Property would have swales on either side of the proposed residence to slope water away from the residence. There would also be a conveyance swale on the north property boundary to convey water from the street area and front yard toward the restoration and wetland areas with ultimate discharge to Long Lake. He stated that the elevation of the road at the front of the Property would be at 47.4 feet, and the elevation at the terminus of the swale would be at 45 feet. This would allow a 2.4-foot vertical fall for the swales to convey water to the lake. The design would preserve pre-development surface water flow over the Property to Long Lake, which is the lowest elevation in the area, and will ensure that storm water does not flood adjacent properties. Mr. Herbert also testified that the Project design would maintain pre-development water storage capacity. The imported fill that is currently on the Property in the flood plain would be removed and reshaped so that the lake elevation would be maintained and water can flow correctly. Elimination or Reduction of Impacts and Mitigation Respondents Endres/Lima provided the Department with design modifications to reduce impacts associated with the Project. These included a 15-foot restoration buffer along the lake front's northern shoreline, an elevated access walkway five feet above the wetland restoration area to the proposed dock, limiting the width of the access walk to four feet, and limiting the boat ramp width to a single-lane. In June 2015, an informal wetlands determination was conducted for the Property. The informal determination concluded that the entirety of the Property were wetlands. However, this was an informal determination and was not binding. In October 2016, before the first permit application was submitted, Mr. Exner did a wetlands delineation flagging prior to the Property being cleared or disturbed. Mr. Exner testified that, in his opinion, the Property was not all wetlands because large pines near the road had no high water marks, adventitious growth around the bases, or evidence of pine borer beetles along with other indicators of upland habitat. This wetland delineation was part of the permit submittal, was shown on the plans, was accepted by the Department, and was used for the preparation of the UMAM scoring. Mr. Exner's wetland delineation line was used by the Department to help determine and map the wetland impacts identified in the CO. The direct impact area was assessed at 0.54 acres with a secondary impact area of 0.02 acres for a total impact of 0.56 acres, and a functional loss score of 0.364. Respondents Endres/Lima reserved 0.6 forested UMAM mitigation credits, almost double the amount of functional loss under the UMAM assessment, agreed to purchase 0.46 credits. The excess mitigation bank credits implement part of a plan that provides regional ecological value and greater long-term ecological value than the area of wetland adversely affected. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts The Project's UMAM analysis assessed 0.02 acres, or 870 square feet, of secondary impacts. These impacts would be fully offset by the mitigation proposed for the Project. Petitioners' expert, Mr. Mahnken, noted three areas where he thought the application was incomplete. The first was that the site plan did not call out the location of the secondary impacts. However, Part III: Plans of Section B of the application, does not require that the site plan show the location of the secondary impacts. The application requirements for "plans" requires only the boundaries and size of the wetlands on the Property and provide the acreages of the upland areas, wetland impact areas, and the remaining untouched area. Second, Mr. Mahnken questioned the calculation performed to determine the secondary impact acreage. However, Mr. Mahnken read the information incorrectly and stated that the secondary impact area was 0.002 acres, or 87 square feet, when the UMAM score sheet clearly showed that the secondary impact area is 0.02 acres, or 870 square feet. In addition, the Department's witness, Ms. Warr, testified that even if the Department were to use Mr. Mahnken's analysis, the result would have been the same, i.e., the requirement to purchase 0.46 mitigation credits. Thus, Petitioners failed to support their claim that the Project would have adverse secondary impacts. Third, Mr. Mahnken asserted that cumulative impacts were not adequately addressed. He testified that the assessment for the Property using spill over benefits, in his opinion, was not enough to fully offset the impacts of the Project. Mr. Mahnken acknowledged, however, that his opinion was open to debate, and that he had not conducted any rigorous hydrologic evaluation in reaching his opinion. Respondents Endres/Lima had submitted a report prepared by Breedlove, Dennis & Associates (BDA Report) with their application in order to demonstrate compliance with section 10.2.8, ERP AH Vol. I, regarding cumulative impacts. The BDA Report utilized peer-reviewed hydrologic data that was reviewed and approved by the South Florida Water Management District, and was accepted by the Department pursuant to section 373.4136(6)(c). This was consistent with the Property's location within the mitigation service area for the Lake X Mitigation Bank. The Project is located within the Econlockhatchee River drainage basin, which is a nested basin within the larger St. Johns River [Canaveral Marshes to Wekiva] drainage basin. The Lake X Mitigation Bank is located outside of the Econlockhatchee River drainage basin, but the Project is located within the Lake X Mitigation Bank service area. The BDA report determined that: In summary, the Lake X Mitigation Bank is a regionally significant mitigation bank site that has direct hydrological and ecological connections to the SJRWMD basins, to include the cumulative impacts basin in which the subject property is located (i.e., SJRWMD Basin 19). The size, biodiversity, and proximity of the mitigation bank site to the SJRWMD basins, and the regionally significant hydrological connection between the mitigation bank site and the contiguous SJRWMD mitigation basins, supports the use of this mitigation bank site “as if in basin” mitigation for the Lima/Endres Wetland Fill Project. Additionally, the evaluation of factors, to include connectivity of waters, hydrology, habitat range of affected species, and water quality, demonstrates the spillover benefits that the Lake X Mitigation Bank has on the St. Johns River (Canaveral Marshes to Wekiva) mitigation basin, which includes the Econlockhatchee River Nested basin, and demonstrated that the proposed mitigation will fully offset the impacts proposed as part of the Lima/Endres Wetland Fill Project “as if in-basin” mitigation. The Lake X Mitigation Bank will protect and maintain the headwaters of two regionally significant drainage basins [i.e., the Northern Everglades Kissimmee River Watershed and the Upper St. Johns River Watershed (to include the nested Econlockhatchee River basin)], and will provide resource protection to both river systems (SFWMD Technical Staff Report, November 29, 2016). Furthermore, the permanent protection and management of the Lake X Mitigation Bank will provide spillover benefits to the SJRWMD basins located within the permitted MSA. Mr. Mahnken stated that his review of the Project did not include a hydrologic study and only looked at basic flow patterns for Long Lake. By contrast, the BDA Report included an extensive hydrologic study, looked at all required factors in section 10.2.8(b), ERP AH, Vol. I, and determined that the Project would be fully offset with the proposed mitigation. Thus, Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts. Water Quality Rule 62-330.302(1)(e) requires that Respondents Endres/Lima provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the state water quality standards will be violated. The conditions of the ERP would require the use of best management practices including a floating turbidity curtain/barrier, soil stabilization with grass seed or sod, and a silt fence. Respondent Endres/Lima's experts, Mr. Herbert and Mr. Exner, testified that there is an existing turbidity barrier in the lake around the property and a silt fence around the east half of the Property. While these items are not required by the Department until construction of the Project, part of the silt fence and the turbidity barrier are already installed on the Property and will be required to be repaired and properly maintained in accordance with the conditions of the ERP and Site Plan SP-2. Mr. Herbert testified that the Property will be graded in a manner that will result in a gentle sloping of the lake bank in the littoral zone, which would allow revegetation of the lake bank. Outside of the restoration area and the undisturbed wetlands, the backyard would be covered with grass to prevent migration of sand and soil discharging into the lake. Mr. Exner testified that the grass swales proposed for the Project would provide a considerable amount of nutrient uptake and filtration of surface water on the Property. Also, in the restoration area next to the lake, the restoration plan includes a dense planting plan with native species that have good nutrient uptake capability. Impacts to Fish and Wildlife Rule 62-330.301(1)(d) requires that Respondents Endres/Lima provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Mr. Exner testified that, in his review of the Property, he did not identify any critical wildlife habitat. He visited the Property multiple times and he did not see any osprey nests, deer tracks, animal scat, gopher tortoises, or sand hill cranes. The Department's Ms. Warr testified that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission database was reviewed, and did not show any listed species in the area. Publication of Notice Petitioners argued that the notice published in the Sanford Herald on February 9, 2020, did not meet the requirements of section 373.413(4). Despite the notice having no effect on their ability to timely challenge the proposed ERP, Petitioners argued that the published notice was insufficient because the notice itself did not provide the name of the applicants or the address of the Project, only a link to the Department's permit file. Unlike the notice required in section 373.413(3), where a person has filed a written request for notification of any pending application affecting a particular designated area, section 373.413(4) does not specify the contents of the published notice. Section 373.413(4) does not require the published notice to include the name and address of the applicant; a brief description of the proposed activity, including any mitigation; the location of the proposed activity, including whether it is located within an Outstanding Florida Water or aquatic preserve; a map identifying the location of the proposed activity subject to the application; a depiction of the proposed activity subject to the application; or a name or number identifying the application and the office where the application can be inspected. In response to the published notice, the Department received approximately ten petitions challenging the NOI, including the petitions timely filed by Petitioners. Therefore, Petitioners were not harmed by any information alleged to have been left out of the published notice. Ultimate Findings Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; and will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project complied with elimination and reduction of impacts, and proposed more than adequate mitigation. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water resources; and unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters within the same drainage basin. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse water quality impacts to receiving water bodies. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife, and listed species by wetlands, or other surface waters. Petitioners failed to prove lack of reasonable assurance by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order granting Respondents’ Endres/Lima's ERP application. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 2020. Jay Patrick Reynolds, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Neysa Borkert, Esquire Garganese, Weiss, D'Agresta and Salzman 111 North Orange Avenue Post Office Box 398 Orlando, Florida 32802 (eServed) Tracy L. Kochmann 249 Carolyn Drive Oviedo, Florida 32765 (eServed) Shelley M. Meier 208 Long Acres Lane Oviedo, Florida 32765 (eServed) Brian Hacker 170 Long Acres Lane Oviedo, Florida 32765 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Respondent, South Florida Water Management District (District) is a multipurpose water management agency of the State of Florida. Its duties include the operation and maintenance of a vast network of canals which provide flood control and other benefits to Palm Beach County. Pertinent to this proceeding, the District is the owner in fee of a 600' right of way which contains a canal known as C- The tidewater reach of C-18 extends east from a control structure (S-46) near State Road 706 downstream for a distance of 8,375' (1.6 miles) to the southwest fork of the Loxahatchee River. Of this distance, 7,322' lie upstream from a small bridge, which crosses the C-18 at Loxahatchee River Drive (the bridge) and 1,053' downstream. The canal is approximately 200' wide, with 200' of overbank right of way on its north and south sides. The River Trails Development Petitioner, River Trails, Ltd (River Trails) is the developer of a 28 acre condominium community in Palm Beach County known as River Walk. The River Walk development, comprised of 347 townhouse units, is contiguous to 2,500' of the south overbank right of way of the C-18, approximately midway between S-46 and the southwest fork of the Loxahatchee River. On December 9, 1983, River Trails filed an application with the District for a right of way occupancy permit to selectively clear and regrade the C-18 right of way and to construct a marina facility within the right of way consisting of a temporary parking area, boat ramp and 3 docking facilities with a combined capacity of 97 boats. The District approved River Trails' application and issued it a permit on January 12, 1984. That permit provided: WORK PROPOSED WILL BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 1-31, 1985, otherwise, this permit is voided and all rights thereunder are automatically cancelled unless an extension to the construction period is applied for and granted. Upon receipt of the District's permit, River Trails began to selectively clear the bank of the canal of exotic vegetation, primarily Brazilian pepper, and to regrade the bank to a more gentle slope than its existing 12'-14' vertical drop on the west and 2'-3' vertical drop on the east. In the process, 28 mangrove trees were damaged or destroyed.1 To settle a dispute which arose between Palm Beach County and River Trails over the destruction of the mangroves, River Trails agreed to plant additional mangroves and spartina grass along the southeasterly shoreline of the C-18. To consummate that agreement, River Trails requested that the District modify its permit to allow the selective planting of mangroves and spartina grass along the shoreline and in a tidal slough, to alter the bank slope to provide a wider intertidal zone to accommodate the plantings, and to move the proposed docks further out from the bank of the canal. The District granted River Trails' requested modification on June 25, 1984 subject to the following special conditions: Construction of the boat dock facilities as originally permitted and modified hereunder is subject to the issuance of a permit from the DER. Prior to commencement of construction, the applicant shall submit a DER permit for the boat docking facilities. Any future modification of the boat docking facilities by the applicant must have the approval of the governing board prior to construction. Rule 40E 6.301(c), Florida Administrative Code, requires an applicant to give reasonable assurances that the proposed use of the works of the district "does not degrade the quality of the receiving body and meets the standards of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation for the receiving body. The board may waive the strict enforcement of this provision." Neither issuance of the original permit nor this modification shall be construed as a waiver of this provision as it applies to the per- mitting activity of the DER relative to this project. Department of Environmental Regulation Permitting On December 22, 1983, River Trails applied with the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for a permit and water quality certification to construct its boat ramp and 97 slip marina. During the processing of that application, River Trails requested two waivers of the 90 day time period prescribed by Sections 120.60(2) and 403.0876, Florida Statutes, (180 days total) in order to conduct a hydrographic survey of the area in order to respond to water quality concerns raised by DER. River Trails did not submit a hydrographic survey to DER, nor did it offer such a survey in this proceeding. On December 20, 1984, DER advised River Trails that its proposed boat ramp was exempt from permitting requirements. Thereafter, on December 21, 1984, DER issued its "intent to deny" the balance of River Trail's application predicated on its conclusion that the project was expected to have a long and short term adverse impact on the water quality and biological resources of the C-18 canal and the adjacent Outstanding Florida Waters of the Loxahatchee River. Specifically, DER found that degradation of water quality in the project's Class II waters and the adjacent Outstanding Florida Waters would likely occur due to: Shading from docks and walkways that would likely prohibit recolonization of shoreline vegetation. Marinas can be expected to lower water quality by the accumulation of marina source contaminants, including heavy metals, greases, oils, detergent ,and litter. Increased boat traffic (97+ boats), and their associated wakes will result in increased shoreline erosion. This additional erosion can prohibit the recolonization of shoreline vegetation beneficial to water quality. The cumulative impact of this project and other similar projects within the C-18 canal would be expected to degrade water quality. Prop wash from outboard motor boats in shallow littoral shelf areas will cause turbidity problems and adversely impact existing benthic communities. DER further found the proposed activity contrary to the public interest provisions of Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, since the proposed marina would substantially interfere with the conservation of the Florida Manatee and the destruction of natural marine habitat. River Trails declined to pursue its DER application for the 97 slip facility any further. Instead, it filed an application with DER for a docking facility of less than 1,000 square feet, accommodating 37 boats, to qualify for the exemption provided by Section 403.812(2)(b), Florida Statutes. Following a successful rule challenge in April 1985, River Trails received its statutory exemption. The District's emerging management policy. Shortly after the District approved River Trail's modification on June 25, 1984, it began to receive a great deal of negative comment from the public, DNR, DER, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. These comments, of which the District was not previously aware, included concerns for the Loxahatchee River, the Florida manatee, and negative biological and water quality assessments. Accordingly, the District's Governing Board requested that its staff investigate and evaluate various management options for the overall development of the 18 right of way. During the ensuing months the District's staff solicited input from DER, DNR, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; investigated the C-18; and formulated its recommendations for the future management of the canal. On January 10, 1985, the District's staff submitted its management plan to the Governing Board. The plan recommended that the intertidal zone be widened a minimum of 10 and planted in mangrove and spartina to combat erosion of the canal banks by boat wakes; that the canal banks be regraded to a minimum of one vertical on four horizontal slope and stabilized with a combination of grasses, native trees and shrubs; and that the overbank right of way be cleared of exotic species and replanted with native trees and shrubs. In keeping with the main goal of habitat improvement, staff recommended that the cumulative linear extent of areas provided for bankfishing and viewing be limited to 10 percent of the shoreline and that no structure be located waterward of the mean high water line. Subsequent to its January 10, 1985, meeting the District has pursued its management plan for the alteration of the shoreline and berms of C-18. Since that time two permits have been issued to large developers who agreed to reslope and revegetate, at their expense, the banks of the C-18 in accordance with the District's plan, and in exchange for the esthetic view accorded by C-18. No dockage, boat ramps, or other structures have been permitted. River Trails' permit expires Following DER's denial of its application for a permit to construct the 97 slip marina, River Trails requested that the District modify its permit to reflect a 37 slip facility and extend the permit for one year. River Trails subsequently withdrew its request to modify the permit. On January 10, 1985, the District entered an order denying River Trails' request for a one year extension of its permit. The District's denial was predicated on its perceived environmental sensitivity of the C-18 canal and the Loxahatchee River system, and its conclusion that the project was contrary to the restoration concept of the District's developing management plan for the C-18. River Trails filed a timely request for hearing, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 85-2272. On July 16, 1985 River Trails reapplied to the District for approval of its modified proposal for a boat ramp and 37 slip marina. The District denied River Trail's request on September 12, 1985. Reasons for denial included adverse water quality impacts, endangerment of the manatee population, increased bank erosion and increased liability risks to the District associated with increased boat usage of the C-18. River Trails filed a timely request for hearing, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 85- 3678. Impacts of the River Trails Development Because of its location and physical characteristics, boating activity in the C-18 has not been extensive. The canal joins the Loxahatchee River on its western shore, opposite the popular boating areas in the intercoastal waterway and Atlantic Ocean adjacent to the River's eastern shore. Access to the canal is restricted by a bridge with a 6' clearance, and its western expanse is blocked by S-46. Accordingly, boating activity within this 1.6 mile stretch of 18 has been generally limited to fishing trips to S-46, sightseeing, and occasional water skiing. River Trails' facility will increase boating within the C-18 well beyond the 37 slip capacity of its dock facility. River Trails proposes to provide upland storage for the boats of a all condominium unit owners, and expects a majority of owners to utilize the slips or boat ramp. Accordingly, use of the facility will not be limited to 37 boats but, rather, will reach into the hundreds. The District's management plan for the C-18 is designed to restructure the canal's present configuration to provide natural habitat, reduced erosion and scenic beauty. As originally designed, the C-18 had 1 on 2 side slopes throughout its reach, however, erosion of the bank downstream from S-46 has resulted in nearly vertical, unstable side slopes above mean high water along 40 percent of its length. The overbank right of way is heavily vegetated with exotic species. With the exception of several areas near the downstream end of the canal, mangroves are not well established along the existing shoreline due to the shading effect of overhanging Brazilian pepper and a rather narrow unstable intertidal zone. Currently, little use of the overbank right of way is made by the public due to its dense vegetation, and any view of the canal is severely impeded. Under the District's management plan the intertidal zone would be expanded and planted in mangroves and spartina to combat erosion from boat wakes and to provide natural habitat; existing vertical banks would be recontoured to a more gentle slope and stabilized with grasses and native trees; and the overbanks would be cleared of exotics so that native trees could prosper. To date the District has been successful in carrying out its plan; however, the survival of the mangrove seedlings and spartina is dependent on minimal disturbance. The introduction of the boats from River Trails would increase erosion and prevent the recolonization of shoreline vegetation beneficial to water quality, marine habitat, and canal bank stabilization. Furthermore, existing and proposed development along the C-18 right of way can be reasonably expected to exacerbate the erosion problem if River Trails' permit is granted. River Trails' proposed marina also raises the specter of adverse impacts to water quality, wildlife and habitat. The C-18 is classified as a Class II surface water body, and supports a diversity of aquatic life. Commonly observed species include snook, mullet, mangrove snapper, pinfish, needlefish and filter feeding organisms such as oysters. The endangered Florida Manatee, Trichechus manatus, is also observed in the C-18 and downstream in the Loxahatchee River. The Loxahatchee River is classified as outstanding Florida waters (OFW) and critical habitat for the Florida manatee. The river, as well as C-18 up to the S-46 control structure, has also been included by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) within the Loxahatchee River Zone of the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act.3 Due to the restricted access from C-18 into the Loxahatchee River, boats located at River Trails' development will likely be approximately 23' in length and powered by outboard motors. Such watercraft, through their introduction of oils and greases, contribute to a degradation of water quality however, neither party addressed the potential impacts to water quality which would be occasioned by the total number of boats that would utilize the boat ramp and boat slips at the proposed facility. By failing to address this issue, and limiting its proof to the impacts from a maximum of 97 boats, River Trails has failed to give reasonable assurances that its proposed project will not cause or contribute to a violation of Class II water quality standards. The impact of River Trails' project upon the Florida manatee is less clear than its impact upon the C-18. Although designated part of the manatee sanctuary, C-18 presently offers little in the way of food source for the manatee with the exception of some plant materials near S-46. The grass Fla. within the Loxahatchee River and the intercoastal waterway are the manatee's primary food source and congregating areas; however, as the mangrove and spartina plantings along the intertidal zone of the canal mature, the manatee may more often. venture into the canal. Whatever their frequency within the narrow confines of the C-18, the numbers of boats that would be introduced by River Trails would drive the manatee from the area. These boats would not, however, pose a significant threat to the manatee or its habitat within the Loxahatchee River since its navigation channels are well marked to avoid grass flats. Indeed, there has been no boat related manatee mortality in the Loxahatchee River area since 1977. The District's concern regarding increased liability risk is unpersuasive. Pursuant to rule the District requires that an applicant for a permit to occupy right of way provide the District with insurance coverage satisfactory to the District, There is no suggestion that the insurance coverage tendered by River Trails, and accepted by the District, was inadequate or otherwise unsatisfactory. The District's decision to deny River Trail's application was not inconsistent with its existing practice. While the District has permitted docks and boat ramps in other canals, there was no showing that those canals abutted a sanctuary or were under redevelopment to improve the works of the District.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the adjoining neighbor of Harrie E. Smith, the applicant, and runs the Coral Lagoon Resort. This is a commercial establishment which consists of rental units fronting on Bonefish Bay with an interior canal and a series of small boat docking facilities which give each unit docking space and water access. The Petitioner keeps two tame porpoises at the end of this canal which are a tourist attraction. The Petitioner's operation is tourist oriented particularly to those who come to the Keys for fishing or diving excursions. The application to the Department of Environmental Regulation is to the installation of a wooden dock which runs parallel to the Petitioner's northern boundary line. The applicant, Mr. Smith, runs a commercial boat repair facility alongside Mr. Goss' establishment and it is clear there have been misunderstandings between them in the past. The dock has been installed and as noted above, the application to the Department of Environmental Regulation is for an after-the-fact authorization. The department has indicated it intends to grant the permit as it does not see that the dock will degrade water quality or create a condition adverse to the public interest. The petition maintains that the dock will cause water quality problems in that it will encourage the docking of boats which will spill oil, gas and other contaminants into the waters and thereby degrade water quality. It should be noted that the Petitioner maintains extensive docking facilities in his establishment and could be subjected to the same argument.
Findings Of Fact On July 19, 1991, the Petitioner, Cahill Pines and Palm Property Owners Association, Inc. (Cahill), filed a permit application with the Department of Environmental Resources, predecessor to the Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (Department), for a permit to remove two earthen plugs in the Cahill canal system, located in Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. The plugs were to be removed to a depth of -5.5 feet N.G.V.D. Kenneth Echternacht, a hydrologist employed by the Department, had performed a hydrographic review of the proposed project and reduced his findings to writing in a memorandum dated June 25, 1993. Mr. Echternacht recommended that the project not be permitted. On August 20, 1993, the Department issued a notice of its intent to deny Cahill's application to remove the plugs. The notice included six proposed changes to the project which would make the project permittable. Cahill requested an administrative hearing on the Department's intent to deny the permit. On March 3 and 4, 1994, an administrative hearing was held on the issue of whether a permit should be issued. The hearing officer entered a recommended order on May 9, 1994, recommending that a final order be entered denying the permit. The Department issued a final order on June 8, 1994, adopting the recommended order of the hearing officer and denying the permit. See Cahill Pines and Palm Property Owners Association v. Department of Environmental Protection, 16 F.A.L.R. 2569 (DER June 8, 1994). In the final order the Department found that the following findings of Mr. Echternacht were "scientifically sound and credible conclusions": The estimated flushing for the presently open portion of the waterway was calculated to be 14.5 days. The flushing for the open section exceeds the 4 day flushing criterion by approx- imately 3.6 times. Clearly, the open portion poses a potential problem to the maintenance of acceptable water quality. For the presently closed sections of the waterway, the calculated flushing time was found to be 38.6 days. Again, this system would pose a significant potential for contamination to adjacent open waters if opened for use. The waters behind the barrier that presently appear to pose no problem would clearly become a repository for contaminants associated with boat usage. Because of the exceptionally long flushing time, contaminants would build up over time. Below standard water quality throughout the waterway would be expected and, associated with this, below standard water would be exported into adjacent clean water on each ebbing tide. The final order also found the following facts: 13. Neither the water in the open canals nor the water in the closed canals is presently of substandard quality. * * * Petitioner's plug removal project will also spur development in the Cahill subdivision and lead to an increase in boat traffic in the Cahill canal system, as well as in the adjacent waters of Pine Channel. Such activity will result in the discharge of additional contaminants in these waterways. As Echternacht stated in his June 25, 1993, memorandum that he sent to O'Connell, '[b]ecause of the [canal system's] exceptionally long flushing time, [these] contaminants would build up over time' and result in a significant degradation of the water quality of not only the Cahill canals, but also of Pine Channel, into which Cahill canals flow. This degradation of water quality will have an adverse effect on marine productivity and the conservation of fish and wildlife that now inhabit these waterways. Consequently, in the long run, the removal of the plugs will negatively impact fishing opportunities in the area. On the other hand, the project will have a beneficial effect on navigation and recreational boating and related activities. It will have no impact on historical and archaeological resources. On April 10, 1995, Cahill submitted a permit application to the Department to remove portions of the two canal plugs. Cahill proposed to leave an island in the center of each plug. The islands would be stabilized with riprap, and mangrove seedlings would be planted in the riprap. By letter dated April 21, 1995, the Department returned the April 10 permit application to Cahill along with the $500.00 processing fee. The Department advised Cahill that the application was not substantially different from the 1991 permit application which was denied by final order. The Department further advised that Cahill could resubmit the application and application fee if it wanted the permit to be processed but the Department would deny the application on the basis of res judicata. On May 17, 1995, Cahill submitted a revised permit application along with the processing fee. A circulation culvert had been added to the project. Ken Echternacht performed a hydrographic review of the proposed project. In a memorandum dated May 25, 1995, Mr. Echternacht recommended that the permit be denied for the following reasons: The proposed 24-inch culvert connection would not be expected to be visible hydraulically. A 24-inch diameter culvert, length 181 ft would be expected to have a friction factor several orders of magnitude greater than the adjacent canals. As such, water would not be expected to pass through the connector unless there were a sizeable head to drive the flow. No studies and/or supporting documentation have been provided to support the design in terms of the documenting the amplitude and repeatability of the flow driving force. Cutting holes through embankments do not necessarily result in flushing relief. As stated in 1, above, any and all proposed design modifications to the proposed waterway must be accompanied by adequate design justifi- cation based on hydrographic modeling supported by site specific data support. The culvert design proposed does not meet the above require- ment. The proposal is nothing new. In the hearing, ideas such as the above were suggested. However, as was stated in the hearing any and all such proposals must be supported by proper engineering study. On July 7, 1995, the Department issued a Notice of Permit Denial, denying the May, 1995 permit application on the basis of res judicata, stating that the May 1995 permit was not substantially different from the 1991 permit application which had been denied and that no studies had been submitted by Cahill that would support that the use of the islands and culvert would increase the flushing rate to the four day flushing criterion established in the hearing on the 1991 permit application. At the final hearing counsel for Cahill stated for the record that the use of the islands and the culvert would not increase the flushing rate to four days.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Cahill Pines and Palms Property Owners Association, Inc.'s application for a permit to remove two plugs separating the open and closed canal sections of the Cahill canal system, placing an island in the center of each plug, and adding a 24 inch culvert connection. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-4377 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1995), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-7: Accepted in substance but not necessary to be incorporated in the recommended order. Paragraph 8: The evidence presented showed that there is a dispute of whether the waters are now of substandard quality. For the purposes of this hearing, it is not necessary to determine whether the water quality is presently substandard. Based on the assumption that the water quality is not substandard, Petitioner has failed to show that the change in the design of the project is sufficient to warrant the rejection of the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata. Petitioner has failed to show that the addition of islands and a culvert will eliminate the potential for future contamination of the waters. The second sentence is accepted in substance but not necessary to be incorporated in the recommended order. Paragraphs 9-11: Accepted in substance but not necessary to be incorporated in the recommended order. Paragraphs 12-15: Accepted in substance to the extent that for the purposes of this hearing the water quality is assumed not to be substandard. Paragraph 16: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 17-27: Rejected as subordinate to the finding that for the purposes of this hearing the present water quality is assumed not to be substandard. Paragraphs 28-30: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 31: Accepted in substance to the extent that the changes in the design will not increase the flushing rate to four days. Paragraphs 32-33: Accepted to the extent that they were findings in the final order on the 1991 application. Paragraphs 34-35: Accepted to the extent that the slow flushing rate is one of the criteria to be considered. The increase of development and boat traffic are also contributors to the potential of contamination building up. Petitioner has not demonstrated that the use of islands and a culvert will eliminate the potential for contamination. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-10: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 11-14: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 15: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 16: Accepted in substance as corrected. Paragraph 17: Accepted. Paragraphs 18-21: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 22: Accepted. Paragraph 23: Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: David Paul Horan, Esquire Horan, Horan and Esquinaldo 608 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040-6549 Christine C. Stretesky, Esquire John L. Chaves, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kenneth J. Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Douglas Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
