Findings Of Fact Respondent 360 North Corporation is seeking a permit to fill .05 acre of land dominated by submerged and/or transitional plant species as defined by the DER. The purpose of this fill is to enable Respondent 360 North Corporation to construct a residential building on its property. Respondent 360 North Corporation has proposed to create .15 acre of wetland habitat on its land in the vicinity of the proposed fill area to compensate for whatever detriment may ensue as a result of the .05 acre fill. Respondent 360 North Corporation has produced evidence, uncontroverted at the hearing, that it is the record owner of the real property for which the permit is being sought and of the area in which the proposed mitigation is to be conducted. Respondent 360 North Corporation established by testimony that there was no practical alternative by which the two proposed buildings could be located within the property without requiring significant modification to the buildings' structure or without the use of fill. Credible expert testimony characterized the vegetation within the .05 acre fill area as dominated by black mangroves (Avicennia gerrninans) and white mangroves (Laguncularia racemosa), all of which are less than 2.5 feet in height. The proposed fill activity is to be conducted in wetlands contiguous to Longboat Pass, Sarasota County, Florida, described by the DER as a Natural Class III Water Body. Respondent 360 North Corporation's witness testified that the placement of .05 acre of fill as proposed will have no significant effect upon the water quality in Longboat Pass. Respondent 360 North Corporation submitted a proposal for wetland habitat creation with its modified permit application. This proposal indicates the methodology by which the mangroves from the area to be filled will be transplanted to the mitigation area. It also indicates that the proposed fill will have a gradual slope and will be replanted with wetland herbaceous vegetation to prevent erosion. Testimony by 360 North Corporation's expert witness established that with proper planting and monitoring, the mitigation area would have an 80 percent chance of success barring any unforeseen acts of nature such as an extreme frost or hurricane. In addition, the expert testified that once established the mitigation area will create an environmentally superior habitat to that now existing in the area to be filled and would add to the stability of the shoreline at the north end of Longboat Key. The expert for Respondent 360 North Corporation testified that transplantation should be done in the spring of the year, preferably in March. In addition, he recommended that the trees be removed with a tree spade and replanted on four-foot centers. Additional mangrove plants and seedlings from nursery stock should be planted in the understory on two-foot centers. It was also recommended that a monitoring program be initiated to ensure survival of the trees in the mitigation area. The trees should be monitored at weekly intervals for the first six weeks, decreasing to biweekly intervals for the remaining first year, then at semiannual intervals for two additional years. The parties agreed to resolve this dispute if the requested permit was issued containing conditions requiring planting and restoration as outlined by Respondent 360 North Corporation's expert in his testimony at the hearing and in the proposal submitted to the DER with the modified permit application. Respondent 360 North Corporation agreed to revegetate with wetland vegetation the area disturbed by the use of scaffolding or other equipment employed during construction. Respondent 360 North Corporation additionally agreed to post a bond or other form of financial assurance in the amount of $10,000 with the DER to insure compliance with the conditions of the permit.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners filed separate, although virtually identical, applications with the Department in February, 1983 to construct separate catwalks from their properties, with platforms at the end of each catwalk. The dimensions of each catwalk were to be three feet by 350 feet, and the platform dimensions were to be six feet by twelve feet. This construction was to take place through a marsh and mangrove wetland and tidal creek known as Andrews Creek. Petitioner's properties adjoin and are in the interior of the creek. Intervenor's property is located at the mouth of Andrews Creek where it intersects a canal, and borders that area of the creek through which Petitioners proposed to construct their catwalks and platforms. On March 9, 1983 the Department notified Petitioners that a permit would be required for their project pursuant to Chapters 253 and 403, F.S., that their applications were incomplete, and that approval from the Department of Natural Resources in the form of a "consent of use of state-owned land" might be required. Petitioners provided additional information in support of their application, but were again notified on April 5, 1983 that Department of Natural Resources consent or approval was necessary in order to complete their application file. The Department prepared a permit application appraisal report on June 13, 1983 without the benefit of an on-site inspection for these applications. The appraisal was based upon written materials submitted by Petitioners in their applications. The appraisal recommended approval, noting that a single joint access facility would be preferable to the dual catwalk and platform configuration proposed by Petitioners As a result of this appraisal, the Department notified the Department of Natural Resources on July 1, 1983 that it intended to issue permits to the Petitioners but that it needed a response from the Department of Natural Resources concerning consent of use or approval pursuant to Section 253.77, F.S. Final action on Petitioners' applications could not take place until the Department received a reply from the Department of Natural Resources. Petitioners received a copy of this notice which was sent from the Department to the Department of Natural Resources. Petitioner was again notified on August 29, 1983 that consent or approval from the Department of Natural Resources was required before the Department's approval could be given. The August 29 letter also stated that Petitioners would have to obtain a letter of authorization and affidavit of ownership from any property owner, other than Petitioners themselves, whose property would be crossed by their construction. In response, Petitioners submitted to the Department an approval they received from the local homeowner's association, but this approval was not issued in compliance with the association's by-laws, and was therefore not a valid authorization and consent to the use of whatever interest the association has in Andrews Creek. On December 5, 1933 Petitioners notified the Department that they were amending their applications to eliminate the platforms at the end of their respective catwalks. On or about January 3, 1984 the Department of Natural Resources suggested to the Department that public notice of this project be given due to the type and location of the project. The Department notified Petitioners on January 26, 1984 that since numerous property owners might be affected by their project, a public notice would have to be published. In response to such publication, the Department received letters from other property owners on Andrews Creek which both opposed and supported Petitioners' project. At about the same time, the Department learned that Petitioners had already constructed their catwalks, with one large platform joining the ends of both catwalks. This construction took place despite the lack of either a permit from the Department or consent/approval from the Department of Natural Resources. Petitioners' applications indicate the use of six inch pilings and a portable jet pump with a one inch jet nozzle in the construction of their project. The Department performed a field inspection of the site and issued a permit application appraisal report dated May 3, 1984 which recommended denial of the permit applications while also confirming that the project had already been constructed. Denial was recommended since the dimensions of the actual construction exceeded the project dimensions described in the applications, considerable clearing of mangroves had taken place although the applications stated no such clearing would be required, and the adverse impact on water quality, marine productivity and other environmental factors the two catwalks were found to terminate with a large platform thirty-eight feet long by ten feet wide, with Zembillas' catwalk being 417.5 feet in length and Starzak's being 398 feet long. The combined project has a total square footage of approximately 3700 square feet, with each catwalk exceeding the permit exemption dimensions of 1000 square feet. Andrews Creek has been designated a conservation area and therefore the clearing and resulting damage to the mangrove community resulting from this project is particularly significant. As part of a permitting action in 1972 the State of Florida, through he Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, negotiated with Lindrick Corporation, the developer of the residential area surrounding Andrews Creek, to preserve certain areas from development. The Board of Trustees issued a permit to Lindrick Corporation "to perform certain works in the navigable waters of the State of Florida" which allowed half of Andrews Creek to be filled and which preserved the other half that remains today as a conservation area. The conservation area was to be protected from development. Thereafter, the Lindrick Corporation entered into an agreement with the homeowner's association whereby association approval would be required for development in the conservation area. Petitioners' project, as constructed, shades a larger area than it would have if built in accordance with their applications. Shading of wetlands can reduce dissolved oxygen levels of a wetland and thereby reduce the area's productivity. Although Petitioners offered a laboratory report showing exceedingly high dissolved oxygen levels in Andrews Creek, it appears that the sampling technique used resulted in the aeration of the sample which therefore did not reflect the true level of dissolved oxygen. Intervenor testified that he purchased his property because of the designation of Andrews Creek as a conservation area, and the resulting privacy of such a natural habitat. Petitioners' construction has obstructed Intervenor's view of the water and wetlands area of Andrews Creek, and infringes on this privacy due to the close proximity of Petitioners' platform to Intervenor's property. The catwalk is twelve to fourteen feet from the boundary of Intervenor's property. The portion of Andrews Creek crossed by Petitioners' project is navigable according to testimony presented, and as recognized in 1972 when a dredging permit was issued to the developer, Lindrick Corporation. The portion in question includes the original tidal creek, which is a tributary of the Gulf of Mexico via an excavated channel. Navigability of the creek has been adversely affected by this project. There would be a significant, adverse, cumulative effect on Andrews Creek if other surrounding property owners decided to construct docks similar to Petitioners' since this would involve additional clearing of mangroves, a reduction of dissolved oxygen in the water due to extensive shading, and the further elimination of the creek's navigability. There are eighteen (18) property owners on Andrews Creek, including Petitioners and the Intervenor, and there is a reasonable likelihood that other homeowners will apply for permits to construct similar docks.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is recommended that: Petitioners permit applications be DENIED. Petitioners shall have forty-five (45) days from rendition of the Final Order in this case to remove their dock, consisting of catwalks, a connecting platform and support pilings. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of April, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Stephens, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nicholas M. Zembillas 2001 Dewey Drive New Port Richey, Florida 33552 Martha Harrell Hall Esquire Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. L. Starzak 2003 Dewey Drive New Port Richey, Florida 33552 Victoria J. Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Application No. 76-00408 is for an existing water use from six wells. The application seeks a total average annual withdrawal of 3.298 million gallons per day and a maximum daily withdrawal of 9.801 million gallons per day. The wells will be located in the Peace River basin in Polk County. Ninety-nine percent of the water will be used for industrial purposes and one percent of the water will be used for irrigation purposes. The applied for consumptive use will not violate any of the conditions set forth in Subsection 16J-2.11(2), (3) or (4), Florida Administrative Code. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff recommends granting of the subject permit in the amounts requested with the following conditions: That the applicant shall install totalizing flowmeters of the propeller-driven type on all withdrawal points with the exception of the well to be used for agriculture located at , Latitude 27 degrees 45 minutes 39 seconds, Longitude 81 degrees 37 minutes 07 seconds and the fire well located at Latitude 270 54 minutes 39 seconds, Longitude 81 degrees 36 minutes 00 seconds. The applicant shall submit to the district a record of pumpage for each meter installed in (a) above on a quarterly basis beginning January 15, 1977, with the pumpage recorded on a weekly basis.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that a consumptive use permit in accordance with Application No. 76-00408 be issued with the conditions set forth in paragraph 3 above. ENTERED this 13th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Citrus World, Inc. Staff Attorney Post Office Box 1111 Southwest Florida Water Lake Wales, Florida 33853 Management District Post Office Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512
Findings Of Fact Application No. 76-00292 is for a consumptive use permit for one well located in the Green Swamp, Lake County. The water withdrawn is to be used for industrial purposes. The application seeks a total withdrawal of 3.642 million gallons per day average annual withdrawal and 5.112 million gallons maximum daily withdrawal. This withdrawal will be from one well and a dredge lake and constitutes in its entirety a new use. The consumptive use, as sought, does not exceed the water crop as defined by the district nor otherwise violate any of the requirements set forth in Subsections 16J-2.11(2) , (3) or (4), Florida Administrative Code. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff recommends issuance of a permit with the following conditions: That the applicant shall install totalizing flowmeters of the propeller-driven type on the subject well. The applicant shall record the pumpage from the subject well on a weekly basis and submit a record of that pumpage to the district quarterly beginning on January 15, 1977. The permit shall expire on December 31, 1980. The procedural requirements of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto, have been complied with as they pertain to this application. The intended consumptive use appears to be a reasonable, beneficial use which is consistent with the public interest and will not interfere with any legal use of water existing at the time of the application.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that a consumptive water use permit in the amounts and manner sought for by the subject application be issued subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph 3 above. ENTERED this 5th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Florida Rock Industries, Inc. Staff Attorney Post Office Box 4667 Southwest Florida Water Jacksonville, Florida Management District Post Office Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Respondent Laven owns a parcel of land at 1500 Bay View Drive, Sarasota, Florida on which he has a home. The property is approximately 180 feet by 100 feet, and is located on Sarasota Bay. A seawall has been constructed along the shoreline. Respondent Cloud owns a parcel of land at 2610 Cardinal Lane, Sarasota, Florida that is contiguous to Respondent Laven's property at 1500 Bay View Drive, Sarasota, Florida that is also located on Sarasota Bay. Approximately 100 feet of the property is located along the shoreline of Sarasota Bay. Sarasota Bay is currently designated as a Class III outstanding Florida waterbody. On or about June 28, 1991 Respondents Laven/Cloud filed an application to modify existing permit number 581885033 which had been previously issued to Respondent Laven for construction of a private dock consisting of an access pier 210 feet by 5 feet, with a terminal platform 20 feet by 4 feet on Laven's property located at 1500 Bay View Drive, Sarasota, Florida. Previous to the modified application being filed by Laven and Cloud, Laven had attempted to modify permit no. 581885033 by reducing the access pier from 210 feet by 5 feet to 175 feet by 5 feet. The Department concluded that the dock, as modified, would not reach water of sufficient depth to prevent damage to the seagrass, and considered this a major modification requiring a new application. Therefore, the Department denied the modified application, and Respondent Laven did not file a new application. The application filed by Laven/Cloud on or about June 28, 1991 to modify existing permit 581885033 proposed to construct a private dock on the property line between Laven's and Cloud's property. The private dock was proposed to consist of an access pier 4 feet by 210 feet, with two terminal platforms, each 25 feet by 6 feet. After review of the application to modify permit 58188503 the Department issued a Notice of Intent to issue a permit for the proposed construction of the private dock on August 2, 1991. The Notice of Intent included 18 specific conditions to which the proposed dock would be subject. Those relevant to this proceeding are as follows: 1) . . . . If historical or archaeological artifacts, such as Indian canoes, are discovered at any time within the project site the permittee shall immediately notify the district office and the Bureau of Historic Preservation, Division of Archives, History and Records Management, R.A. Gray Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. Turbidity screens shall be utilized, secured, and properly maintained during the permitted construction and shall remain in place until any generated turbidity subsides. Double turbidity screens, staked hay bales, staged construction and other additional measures shall be used as necessary to insure compliance with water quality standards in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. During construction, all areas of exposed soils shall be effectively isolated from waters of the state to prevent erosion or deposition. All exposed soils shall be stabilized with an appropriate ground cover within 72 hours of attaining final grade. 5) . . . . 6) . . . . The applicant is not permitted to conduct or construct the following activities or facilities in conjunction with this dock structure: Fish cleaning facilities. Fuel hoses or fueling facilities. The mooring of boats or vessels for live aboards. The mooring of boats utilized for com- mercial purposes such as fishing, scuba diving, boat rental, etc. Picnic tables or benches. Storage sheds or enclosed structures. Covered boat slips. Sanitary facilities. The rental of boat slips or mooring space. Turbidity screens shall effectively encom- pass each piling during installation and remain in place until any generated turbidity has subsided. Turbidity screens shall effectively encompass an area around each piling not to exceed 7 square feet. Any watercraft which may be utilized during construction activities shall only operate/moor in waters of sufficient depth so as not to cause bottom scour or prop dredging. The access pier shall be elevated a minimum of 5 feet above mean high water for the most waterward 150 linear feet of the access pier. The most waterward 150 linear feet of the access pier shall be constructed with the slated[sic] design indicated on sheet 4 of permit submittals. The most landward 60 feet of the access pier shall be constructed utilizing the 2 x 6 decking. The permittees shall construct 100 linear feet of rip rap along the existing vertical seawall as indicated on sheet 1 of permit submittals. Rip rap material shall consist of natural boulders or clean concrete rubble six inches to three feet in diameter or in average dimensions. The slope of the rip rap shall be no steeper than 2H:1V. There shall be no reinforcing rods or other similar protrusions in concrete rubble and all rubble or boulders shall be free of attached sediments. The rip rap shall be install concurrently with the construction of the permitted dock. The permittees shall grant the Department a conservation easement over the shorelines of the two subject parcels. A conservation easement shall be established over the seawall cap and 2 feet waterward of the seawall for the entire length of the seawall to 1500 Bay View Drive (Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, and 14 Block Q, Bay View Heights Addition). A conservation easement shall also be established between the limits of the mean high water linear and the landward extent of waters of the State (Pursuant to Section 170301.400[sic] FAC) for the entire length of the shoreline at 2610 Cardinal Place (Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, 16, 17 and 18, Block Q, Bay View Heights Addition). 14) . . . . 15) . . . . The following seagrass monitoring program shall be implemented and adhered to: Within 45 days of the issuance of this permit (and prior to initiation of dock con- struction) the permittee shall establish a preconstruction monitoring program consisting of one meter square grids within the area specified on sheet 1 A of permit attachments. A minimum of 10 random one meter square plots shall be selected within each area A and B and also along the centerline established along the length of the dock. The permittee shall measure percent areal coverage of seagrasses within each plot within the grid system. Each of the plots shall be monitored as specified in above a minimum of two times per year (July and January) over a three year monitoring period subsequent to dock construction. Reports shall include date, water depth, water clarity, species of seagrasses observed, percent areal coverage and representative height of seagrasses within each plot. Moni- toring reports shall be submitted to the Department within 30 days of the monitoring event. The first monitoring event shall occur during the first January or July (which ever occurs first) subsequent to completion of dock construction. Hand railing shall be constructed along the entire length of the access pier (on both sides). The temporary or permanent mooring of watercraft shall only occur at the terminal platform. 18) . . . . By imposing special conditions 3, 4, 8 and 9 it will ensure that the dock construction will have a temporary minimal impact on the water quality, and there will be no permanent water quality impacts as a result of this project. If this permit is not issued, it would be possible for each of the applicants to build an exempt dock on his property which would require two accesses or swaths through the seagrass beds. An exempt dock (500 square feet or less) may result in the dock terminating in seagrass beds and in water of insufficient depth to prevent damage to the seagrass beds or to prevent bottom scour or propeller dredging. The project site consists of a shoreline with a shoal area where Shoal grass (Halodule wrightii) and Turtle grass (Thalassia sp.) are growing, with the Turtle grass being the predominant species to a point further waterward to where there is a significant change in the water depth. Such point being approximately at the termination of the proposed dock. Beyond this point the seagrass beds are scattered. Therefore, any dock shorter than approximately 210 feet would terminate in the main seagrass beds and result in the seagrass beds being routinely disrupted or damaged by power boats. The proposed design of the most waterward 150 linear feet of the deck portion of the proposed dock has less solid surface than a normal deck, and, along with the proposed height of the most waterward 150 linear feet of the proposed dock, would allow substantially more light to penetrate the area and provide sufficient light for healthy existence of the seagrasses. The proposed impacts consists of disturbance of the seagrass beds. Requiring railing along the entire access pier on both sides will preclude mooring of motor craft in the area of the seagrass and in water depths insufficient to prevent damage to the seagrass, and to prevent bottom souring and propeller dredging. Because of the length, height and design of the dock there would be minimal impact, if any, on the seagrass beds. The design of the dock will ensure that the project will not adversely affect the functions being performed in the area intended for the dock. The conservation easement will ensure that a feeding ground for wading birds will be maintained, and along with the dock design will minimize any impacts that the proposed dock will have on the fish and wild life habitats. The construction of the 100 linear feet of rip rap along the existing vertical seawall on Sarasota Bay along Laven's property will reduce scouring and erosion at the base of the seawall, and provide beneficial habitat which will be an improvement of the seawall alone. There may be minimal impacts on recreation in that it may impose some inconvenience for those fishing and those attempting to access the bay for sailing. There may be some minimal impact on navigation in that the proposed dock will entend out approximately 35 feet further than any other existing dock in the area but due to the shallow water in this area boats presently have to travel at a reduced rate of speed, and for this reason the proposed dock would not adversely affect navigation. However, this should be mitigated by requiring lights on the dock as a safety feature. The project will not adversely affect the fishing, or recreational values, or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. The proposed project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or property of others. The proposed dock will be a permanent structure, notwithstanding that regular mainentaince will be required. The Respondents Laven/Cloud have provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will be clearly in the public interest, notwithstanding the minimal impact it may have on recreation and navigation. Particularly, when all Special Conditions are considered, specifically Special Conditions 12 and 13 pertaining to rip rap along the vertical seawall on Laven's propertry and the granting of the Conservation Easement over both Laven's and Cloud's shoreline.
Recommendation Accordingly, in view of the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, recommended that the Department enter a Final Order issuing Permit Number 581885033 to Respondents Robert Laven and John Cloud as set forth in the Department's Intent To Issue dated August 2, 1991 provided that the grant of the subject permit should include the general and specific conditions in the Intent To Issue as well as the condition requiring lights on the dock for safety purposes as set forth in Finding of Fact 20 above. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of November, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-3988 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120- 59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in the case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Both paragraphs regarding Respondent Cloud's testimony at the hearing go to his credibility as a witness and are not stated as a finding of fact and are therefore rejected. Paragraphs 1 and 2 regarding Rose Poynor's testimony appear to be supported by documents or testimony not received at the hearing and are therefore rejected. Paragraph 3 regarding Rose Poynor's testimony is either immaterial or irrelevant or goes to her credibility as a witness or is supported by facts not in the record. The paragraph regarding Roy R. Lewis' testimony goes to his credibility as a witness and is not a statement of fact. Paragraphs 1 and 2 regarding Robert Patten's testimony is more of a restatement of his testimony than a finding of fact. But in any event, are neither material or relevant. The next to the last paragraph is not supported by the record but see Finding of Fact 20. The last unnumbered paragraph is not supported by the record. See Finding of Fact 24. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which adopts the proposed findings of fact: 1 (1, 2, 3); 2 (4, 6); 3 (5); 4 (11); 5 (11); 6 (13); 7 (7, 8); 8 (7, 8); 9 (7, 8); 10 (7, 8); 11 (7); 12 (7); 13 (12, 15); 14 (7); 15 (12); 16 (7, 14); 17 (15); 18 (7, 16); 19 (17); 20 (7); 21 (7); 22 (7, 18); 23 (18); 24 (20); 25 (7, 17); 26 (23); 27 (19); 28 (21); 29 (22); 30 (7); 31 (17); 32 (7); 33 (9); 34 (9, 10); 35 (7, 8, 11, 12, 14-22); and 36 (7). Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondents Laven and Cloud Respondents Laven and Cloud have divided their findings into two groups (1) Findings of Fact and (2) Ultimate Findings. Since the Findings of Fact are duplicative of the Ultimate Facts or are only restatements of the witnesses testimony, I will respond only to the Ultimate Facts. 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1 (1); 2 (3); 3 (2); 4 (4, 6); 5 (3); 6 (7, 12); 7 (7, 17, 18); 8 (7); 9 (7); 10 (7, 24); 11 (7, 24); 12 (22); 13 (17); 14 (is a duplication of paragraph 13); 15 (20); 16 (21) and 17 (16). COPIES FURNISHED: Alan S. Dorrill 1726 Floyd Street Sarasota, FL 34239 F. Craig Richardson, Esquire Icard, Merrill, Cullen, Timm, Furen, & Ginsbrug, P.A. 2033 Main Street, Suite 600 Sarasota, FL 34237 Carol Forthman, Esquire Maureen A. Eggert, Certified Legal Intern 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted the relief requested in his petition challenging the Department of Environmental Protection's Consolidated Notice of Denial [of] Environmental Resource Permit and Consent of Use to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a collector and wholesaler of various "saltwater products," as defined in Chapter 370, Florida Statutes.1 He possess a saltwater products license (issued pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 370, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 46-42, Florida Administrative Code), with a restricted species and marine life endorsement, which allows him to engage in these activities. Petitioner collects and sells, among other things, what is referred to as "live sand," a calcium carbonate sediment used in public and home aquaria as a decorative detoxifying agent. "Live sand" is found on offshore water bottoms in the Florida Keys (where Petitioner engages in his collection activities) and other areas in Florida. "Live sand" consists primarily of the calcified (dead) remains of Halimeda plants. Halimeda plants (generally on a seasonal basis) produce plates, which they ultimately shed. These plates, through various physical and biological processes, are broken down over time into smaller and smaller granules. Halimeda plants are very productive (in terms of the number of plates they produce), but they are found only in certain (not all) offshore areas in the Florida Keys. While the granules that make up the "live sand" Petitioner collects and sells consist of dead plant matter, thousands of micro and macroorganisms (in a cubic foot area), representing numerous species, live amongst these granules and therefore are also removed from the water as a result of Petitioner's collection activities. The microorganisms living in "live sand" include nitrosomous bacteria. The presence of nitrosomous bacteria enables "live sand" to neutralize the ammonia waste products of fish in public and home aquaria. Among the macroorganisms living in "live sand" are mollusks, worms, arthropods, and echinoderms. These organisms are an important part of the diet of other species, including protected species such as the spiny lobster (Panulirus argus), which itself is part of the food supply for fish in the area. Petitioner collects "live sand" by diving underwater and using his hands to scoop up and place in buckets the top layers of the bottom ("live sand") substrate. Such collection activities have negative environmental consequences that are not insignificant. They adversely impact water quality in the waters in which they occur and in adjacent waters inasmuch as they increase turbidity and reduce biological diversity. Excavation of the top layer of bottom substrate exposes the siltier sediment below, which, when disturbed, reduces water clarity and therefore also the amount of sunlight that penetrates the water. Furthermore, this newly exposed substrate, because of its anaerobic nature, is unable to attract a significant benthic community comparable to that found in the "live sand" that previously covered it. In addition, because these collection activities result in the removal of organisms that are important components of the aquatic food chain and in loss of their habitats, these activities have an adverse effect on marine productivity and, resultantly, on fishing and recreational values. The "live sand" that is the subject of the instant controversy is located in Monroe County within the boundaries of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary in state waters designated Class III, Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW).2 Petitioner first contacted the Department in writing regarding the removal of this "live sand" in May of 1997, when he sent the Department a letter which read, in pertinent part, as follows: REF: Collection of Sand for Use in Aquari[a] Pursuant to our recent telephone conversation, I respectfully request that I receive a letter of de minimis for the aforementioned activity. The sand is collected by hand using five gallon buckets. The collection occurs under water [at] a depth of approximately 20 feet. The sand occurs in an area devoid of marine grasses, plants and corals. No sand is taken from or near shorelines and no sedimentary resultant is produced. I intend to collect four five gallon buckets each of which contains 50 pounds of sand. This collection is to occur once a month. . . . By letter dated June 2, 1997, the Department acknowledged receipt of Petitioner's letter and requested that he provide "additional information" to enable the Department to determine whether it should grant him "an exemption from the need for an Environmental Resource Permit pursuant to Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and an authorization to use state- owned submerged lands, pursuant to Chapters 253 and 258, F.S., to collect sand, by hand, from underwater." On August 28, 1997, Petitioner supplied the Department with an "addendum to [his] original request for consideration" in which he specified the location of his "proposed collection" of "live sand" as "Lat. N 24.31.29 - Lon. W 081.34.40. The Department deemed Petitioner's "addendum" insufficient to render his paperwork "complete." By letter dated September 23, 1997, the Department so advised Petitioner. Along with letter, the Department provided Petitioner with the following "revised request for additional information identifying the remaining items necessary to complete [his] application": Part I REVISED COMPLETENESS SUMMARY FOR SAND COLLECTION The proposed project will require an Environmental Resource Permit. The correct processing fee for this project is $500.00. Provide a $500 processing fee payable to the Department of Environmental Protection. In your letter received May 6, 1997, requesting a De Minimis exemption you state you intend to collect four (4), five (5) gallon buckets of sand each of which contains fifty (50) pounds of sand per month. A letter you submitted to the Department from the Army Corps of Engineers (dated May 9, 1997) states you will collect four (4) or five (5), five (5) gallon buckets three (3) times per month. Please indicate the quantity of sand you propose[] to collect per month. Part II CONSENT OF USE (Chapters 18-18, 18-20 and 18-21, Florida Administrative Code) For your information If the project develops to the point where proposed dredging will be recommended for authorization, payment for the removal of sovereign submerged land will be required at $3.25 per cubic yard, or a minimum payment of $50.00 prior to issuance of the authorization. Do not provide payment until requested by Department staff. [See 18- 21.011(3)(a), F.A.C.] Petitioner timely responded to the Department's "revised request for additional information" by letter dated October 10, 1997, to which he attached the requested "processing fee." In his letter, Petitioner advised the Department that it was his "intent to collect approximately 600 (six hundred) pounds of material each month." Following its receipt of Petitioner's letter and accompanying "processing fee," the Department sent letters to potentially affected parties advising them of Petitioner's "proposed [sand collection] activit[ies]" and soliciting their comments concerning these activities. The Florida Department of Community Affairs responded to the Department's request by indicating, in written correspondence it sent to the Department, that it had "no objection to the proposed project." The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) also provided written comments to the Department. It did so by letter dated November 21, 1997, which read as follows: The following are comments from the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) concerning the application from Jeff Frankel to collect live sand, File No 44-0128760-001. These comments reflect the consensus of both NOAA and FDEP Sanctuary staff. The harvest of live sand is viewed by the Sanctuary as dredging. This activity is considered neither fishing nor traditional fishing activity. Therefore, "harvesting of live sand" is within the prohibition against dredging, or otherwise altering the seabed of the Sanctuary and does not fall within the exception for "traditional fishing activities" as Mr. Frankel asserts. As such this activity should not be conducted in the Sanctuary without a Federal or State permit. The Sanctuary is opposed to permitting this activity in Federal or State waters for the following reasons: As stated above, it is a dredging activity which is prohibited.3 The Sanctuary exists because of the unique and nationally significant resources found here. These resources exist due to the dynamic ecosystem of which sand, and the meiofaunal communities found therein, is a major component. The Sanctuary is opposed to unnecessary alteration of the ecosystem particularly when viable alternatives exist such as harvesting outside the FKNMS in Gulf waters and aquaculture. Sixty-five percent of the Sanctuary seabottom is State sovereign lands. Removal of the quantities of substrate for commercial purposes does not appear to be in the public interest. Pursuant to the intragency compact agreement between the State of Florida and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration dated May 19, 1997, NOAA will not permit a prohibited activity in federal waters in the Sanctuary that is not allowed in the State waters of the Sanctuary. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this application. On January 8, 1998, the Department issued its Consolidated Notice of Denial [of] Environmental Resource Permit and Consent of Use to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands. In its Consolidated Notice, the Department gave the following reasons for its action: The Department hereby denies the permit for the following reason: The proposed project will directly impact water quality by removal of approximately 660 pounds of "live sand" from state-owned sovereign submerged land each month. The material collected consists of dead calcareous green algae (Halimeda spp.) and calcium carbonate grains. This substrate is important habitat for grazers and detritivores and it contains an extensive and diverse invertebrate community. . . . The project as proposed does not comply with the specific criteria within; Chapter 373, F.S., F.A.C. Rule 62-300, and Section 4.2 of the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District. The above impacts are expected to adversely affect marine productivity, fisheries, wildlife habitat, and water quality. The applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the immediate and long-term impacts of the project will not result in the violation of water quality standards pursuant to F.A.C. Rule 62-312.150(3) and 62-312.070. Specific State Water Quality Standards in F.A.C. Rules 62-302.500, 62-302.510, 62- 302.560 and 62-4.242 that will be affected by the completion of the project include the following: Biological Integrity- . . . . This project will also result in the following matter which are not clearly in the public interest pursuant to Section 373.414(1)(a), F.S.: adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered species, or their habitats; diminish the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity; adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; the activity will be permanent in nature; adversely affect the functions and relative value of the habitat within the area of the proposed project. Therefore, the Applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the project is clearly in the public interest pursuant to Section 373.414(1)(a), F.S. The request for authorization to use sovereign submerged lands is denied because the Applicant has not met all applicable requirements for proprietary authorizations to use sovereign submerged lands, pursuant to Article X, Section 11 of the Florida Constitution, Chapter 253 F,S., associated Chapter 18-21, F.A.C., and the policies of the Board of Trustees. Specifically, operation of the activity is inconsistent with management policies, standards and criteria of F.A.C. Rule 18- 21.00401(2) and 18-21.004. The Applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the activity will be clearly "in the public interest," will maintain essentially natural conditions, will not cause adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources or public recreation or navigation, and will not interfere with the riparian rights of adjacent property owners. In addition, the project is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the "Conceptual State Lands Management Plan," adopted by the Board of Trustees on March 17, 1981. The . . . activity is inconsistent with Section 18-21.00401(2), F.A.C., the authorization to use sovereign submerged lands cannot be approved, in accordance with Sections 18-21.00401 and 62-343.075, F.A.C., because the activity does not meet the conditions for issuance of a standard general of individual permit under Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., as described above. The Consolidated Notice accurately describes the adverse impacts of the "project" which is subject of the instant case (Project). Petitioner has not proposed any measures to mitigate these adverse impacts. If the Department authorizes the Project, it is reasonable to anticipate that other collectors of "live sand" would seek the Department's approval to engage in similar activity in the area. If these other projects were also approved, there would be additional adverse environmental consequences. As the Consolidated Notice alleges, Petitioner has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the Project would not degrade the ambient water quality of the OFW in which the Project would be undertaken, nor has he provided reasonable assurance that the Project is clearly in the public interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order denying Petitioners' application for an environmental resource permit and for a lease to use sovereign submerged lands. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 1999.
The Issue The issues in this case are: Whether Petitioner, Warren M. Briggs ("Briggs"), should be issued a Wetland Resource Permit (WRP) for the construction of a single-family dwelling on a lot with jurisdictional wetlands in Santa Rosa County, Florida, as proposed in his application submission of 1998; and Whether the Department would permit the construction of a single-family dwelling on the subject lot under conditions and circumstances other than those set forth in Briggs' application.
Findings Of Fact Briggs is the owner of Lot 67, Block H, Paradise Bay Subdivision, located in southern Santa Rosa County ("Briggs lot"). Paradise Bay Subdivision was developed in approximately 1980, prior to the passage in 1984 of the Warren Henderson Wetland Protection Act. (Official Recognition of Section 403.918, Florida Statutes). The subdivision consists of modestly priced single- family homes that are attractive to young families because of the quality of nearby schools. The typical non-waterfront home in the subdivision is single story, approximately 2,000 square feet in area, and built on a concrete slab. The typical setback from the road to the front edge of a home is 75 feet. This fairly consistent setback from the road prevents the view from one home into the adjacent property owner’s back yard and, thereby, adversely affecting the neighbor’s property value. The undeveloped Briggs lot was purchased in 1981 for approximately $15,000 and remains undeveloped. Briggs bought the lot, along with three other lots in the subdivision, as investment property. The other three lots have been sold. One of the lots sold earlier by Briggs was a waterfront lot on East Bay located in jurisdictional wetlands. The entire lot was filled pursuant to a permit issued by the Department. The Briggs lot is 90 feet wide by 200 feet deep. It is located on the south side of Paradise Bay Drive. The lots on the north side of Paradise Bay Drive are waterfront lots on East Bay. To the rear (south) of the Briggs lot and other lots on the south side of Paradise Bay Drive, is a large swamp that eventually discharges into East Bay. The major connection between the Briggs lot and East Bay is through a culvert under Paradise Bay Drive. The Briggs’ lot consists of 2,914 square feet of uplands and 15,086 square feet of state jurisdictional wetland, with all of the uplands located in the northern half of the lot. Converted to acres, the Briggs lot consists of 0.067 acres of uplands and 0.347 acres of state jurisdictional wetland. Lot 66, immediately east of the Briggs lot, has been cleared and is about half tietie swamp with the remainder consisting of uplands and disturbed wetlands. Some fill has been placed on the lot. Lot 68, immediately west of the Briggs lot, is undeveloped and consists of all tietie wetlands. Lots 69, 70 and 71 of Block H of the subdivision are undeveloped and consist primarily of wetlands. The Department issued a permit on October 31, 1996, that allowed the owners of Lot 71 to fill 0.22 acres (9,570 square feet) of wetlands. The fill is allowed to a lot depth of 145 feet on the west side, and to a width of 73 feet of the total lot width of 90 feet. The fill area is bordered on the east and west by wetland areas not to be filled. The Department issued a permit on November 13, 1997, that allowed the owner of Lot 61 to fill 0.26 acres (11,310 square feet) of wetlands. Fill is allowed over the entire northern 125 feet of the 185 foot-deep lot. On April 28, 1998, Briggs applied to the Department for a permit to fill Lot 67. The Department, in its letter of August 7, 1998, and its permit denial of September 2, 1998, erroneously described the project as consisting of 0.47 acres of fill. The entire lot consists of only 0.41 acres, of which 0.067 acres is uplands, leaving a maximum area of fill of 0.343 acres. If Briggs’ residential lot is to be used, some impact to the wetlands on the lot is unavoidable. Alternatives discussed by Briggs and the Department, three of which are still available for Briggs to accept, included the following: One hundred feet of fill with a bulkhead separating the fill from the wetland area, with no off-site mitigation; Fill pad could be placed on property with the remainder of the wetlands on the site to remain in their natural state with no backyard, with no off-site mitigation required; One hundred feet of fill with a bulkhead separating the fill material from the wetland, with a small back yard, with no off-site mitigation required. Briggs did not accept any of the foregoing alternatives or proposed acceptable mitigation measures.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the permit application, provided that the parties may reach subsequent agreement regarding proper mitigation in order to make the construction of a single-family dwelling possible on the Petitioner’s property in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Collette, Esquire Lucinda R. Roberts, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Jesse W. Rigby, Esquire Clark, Partington, Hart, Larry Bond and Stackhouse 125 West Romana Street, Suite 800 Post Office Box 13010 Pensacola, Florida 32591-3010 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue This proceeding concerns a Consent Order entered into by the Department of Environmental regulation (DER), and James and Patricia Gratzer (Gratzers) regarding an allegedly unpermitted fill in Winter Springs, Florida. The ultimate issue for determination is whether DER abused its discretion in resolving the alleged violations by entering into the subject Consent Order.
Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1990, the Gratzers purchased a 4.35 acre lot located at 216 Stoner Road in Winter Springs, Florida. At the time of purchase, the Gratzers planned to divide the lot and build a residence on the two acre parcel. In preparation for construction of their new home, the Gratzers approached the Winter Springs City Council to subdivide the property and to approve of use of the fill road as ingress and egress for both lots. In February of 1991, the Gratzers and their builder obtained the proper building permits from the County and septic tank permits from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Construction began on the residence on April 9, 1992 when the Gratzers' builder brought in several trucks of dirt to the end of the existing fill road to begin the house pad. At the time the Gratzers began construction on the subject lot, they had no idea or reason to believe that they were about to build in jurisdictional wetlands of the State of Florida. On approximately April 14, 1992, the Gratzers were first made aware that they may have problems with potential wetlands on the property when an officer of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission visiting the site instructed the builders to halt construction, pending a review by DER. As a result of the site visit, the Gratzers investigated further with DER employees the potential wetlands on their property. They also sought the advice of an attorney and his environmental consultant regarding possible ways to solve DER's concerns. On approximately April 26, 1991, an employee of DER visited the site and made an initial determination that the property was a jurisdictional wetland subject to permitting by DER. Under present rules the Gratzer property, with exception of the filled access road, would all be in DER jurisdictional wetlands if only the natural vegetation were considered. Upon being informed of DER's initial determination, the Gratzers hired an engineer from Boyer-Singleton & Associates to make an engineering determination as to the extent of jurisdictional wetlands based upon a ten-year backstop. A ten-year backstop is a method provided by statute to determine the ultimate landward extent of DER's vegetational jurisdictional line. It is a hydrological calculation to determine water elevation levels in a certain area, subject to the ten-year recurrent storm event. By rule and statute, DER's jurisdiction over wetlands effectively stops at the upper end or limit of the ten-year flood elevation line. Claude Cassagnol, of Boyer-Singleton and Associates, an expert in hydrology, reviewed available materials, visited the site and made an initial determination of the ten-year backstop on the Gratzers' property, and ultimately mapped out his conclusions on a plat. Mr. Cassagnol's hydrological study, and his review of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) materials, led him to conclude that the ten-year backstop would leave the Gratzer's house pad out of any DER jurisdictional wetlands. As a result of his study, Cassagnol forwarded several letters to George Baragona of DER requesting that Mr. Baragona, an expert hydrologist, review his determination and ratify his conclusions. The Gratzers, on advice of counsel, allowed their building contractor to complete compaction of the house pad and begin preparations to pour the house floor. The septic tank contractor for the Gratzers completed installation of the tank and drain field prior to July 1st. After the Gratzers had recommenced construction, on approximately July 10, 1992, DER, issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) which ultimately formed the basis for the Consent Order in this case. The Gratzers immediately ceased further construction on the property and sought further negotiations with DER. Shortly after the NOV was issued, George Baragona reviewed the information, studies and plats submitted by Mr. Cassagnol regarding the ten-year backstop. Baragona made a determination of the ten-year backstop at a point more landward than Cassagnol's. It appears from the plat submitted at hearing, that Baragona's ten- year backstop line runs along the base of the fill roadway; his testimony, however, indicated that his backstop line dipped in and out near the roadway, and he simply chose the baseline of the fill road as his "worst case scenario". Baragona, because of the house pad, was required to extrapolate a line through the house pad, resulting in approximately half of the house pad area being in jurisdictional wetlands. The result of further negotiations between the parties was the Consent Order which is the subject matter of this proceeding. As settlement, the Gratzers agreed to Baragona's "worst case scenario" ten-year backstop, placing approximately half of the house pad was in DER jurisdictional wetlands. As part of the settlement, the Gratzers agreed to, and have paid, a fine of $1,400.00 to DER and have granted a conservation easement over a large portion of the remainder of their property, resulting in an 11.6 to 1 ratio of conservation easement to impacted wetlands, slightly above DER's guideline 10 to 1 ratio. In investigating the alleged violations at the subject property, DER reviewed the cumulative impacts of the project and determined that they were not great, in light of the surrounding area and its already high level of development. In making this determination, DER reviewed property lists, maps and other facts to determine the level of current development. In reviewing the alleged violations, DER also considered whether or not this project would have been able to get a permit had the Gratzers sought a permit prior to any construction. It was DER's determination that the project would have been permittable under the criteria in Chapter 403, in conjunction with the mitigation offered at the site. Finally, in its review and study of the alleged violations, DER determined there was no evidence that this project would have any adverse impact on water quality. DER made a determination that this was a "low to medium" violation, and that the impacts were properly addressed through the Consent Order which imposed the $1,400.00 fine and secured the conservation easement. Fill Road Issue A small road or driveway existed on the site at the time the Gratzers purchased the property, extending from Stoner Road from the south, to the center of their property. Although Baragona indicated the DER modelled backstop line did not always extend to the driveway, he said it sometimes appeared to "bump up" to the eastern edge of the driveway. Baragona could not say with absolute certainty where the 10 year backstop would be on the east side of the site if the driveway were not present. The type of wetland vegetation on the Gratzer property would be considered jurisdictional wetland vegetation under rules adopted pursuant to the 1984 Warren F. Henderson Wetlands Act (Section 403.91, et seq.), but would not be considered jurisdictional wetland vegetation under rules applicable prior to October 1, 1984. If the driveway on the Gratzer property was installed prior to October 1, 1984, it is legal, but if it was installed after that date it is illegal because there is no evidence it ever was properly permitted. DER does not allow illegally filled areas to cut off the extent of its wetland jurisdiction. Therefore, if the driveway on the Gratzer property were placed in DER jurisdictional wetlands without a permit, the road itself could not act as a 10 year backstop cutting off DER wetland jurisdiction to the west. There was conflicting evidence as to when the driveway was placed on the property. James Hartman, who sold the property to the Gratzers, testified he built the driveway in 1978 and 1979. William Kuyper, an expert in aerial photography interpretation, testified that based on his review of aerial photos, the road had been placed on site sometime between January 6, 1986, and March, 1989. The weight of the evidence indicates the driveway was probably placed on site before October 1, 1984, and therefore did not require a DER permit. First, the former landowner's testimony that he built the road in 1978 and 1979, must be considered more reliable than an interpretation of aerial photos taken from 12,000 feet in the air, in spite of the expertise of the photographic interpreter. A possible explanation for why the driveway "appeared" in the 1989 aerial photo but not in the 1986 aerial photo is that the road may have been disturbed, or new fill put on the road sometime between 1986 and 1989, causing the road to be more visible in 1989. Even if the 10 year backstop were to be determined without the driveway present, it would not be significantly different. While DER's 10 year backstop line "bumps up" against the road in places, it does not "bump up" in other places along the driveway, but in order to be conservative the line was placed along with driveway in all areas. The modelled location of the line north of the housepad where there is no driveway is consistent with where the line is modelled south of the housepad where the driveway is located. The Society and its Concerns The Society's corporate status was not controverted. CFWS members have been patrolling the Lake Jessup/Gee Creek area and other wetland areas and have found what they believe are violations of the law and rules intended to protect wetland resources. Although neither Michael Mingea nor his expert witness have been on the Gratzer property, they have been in the immediate area and are concerned about the cumulative impact of small dredging projects, like the Gratzers, which projects are routinely reported to DER by the Society. Beginning in May 1991, the Society corresponded regularly with Secretary Browner at DER and Secretary Williams at the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) and their respective staffs, regarding what the Society perceived were violations occurring through lax enforcement. The Society believed, though review of HRS and DER files, that the Gratzers' project included a septic tank placed in jurisdictional wetlands. This was not established; rather, the septic tank was erroneously placed inside a setback line, but outside the jurisdictional line, and a variance was readily obtained from HRS. DER does not have direct jurisdiction over septic tank permits and HRS' authority is derived from the statutes, not from DER. The Society's position regarding the Gratzer project is based in substantial part on its assertion that the fill road was illegally placed and that DER's jurisdiction extended through the entire property. The Society, however, did not rebut the sound evidence by George Baragona of the 10-year backstop. Nor did it present competent evidence of any alleged water quality violations. Only one other actual violation of permit requirements was established, and DER has required the developer to move the project from jurisdictional wetlands.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, recommended that the Consent Order that is the subject of this proceeding be adopted as Final Agency Action. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-0104 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by Petitioners: 1.-3. Adopted in preliminary statement and paragraph 19. 4. Adopted in substance in paragraph 5. 5.-6. Rejected as unnecessary. 7.-8. Adopted in substance in paragraph 14. 9.-12. Rejected as unnecessary. 13. Adopted in part in paragraph 20, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 14.-16. Rejected as unnecessary. 17.-18. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 19. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 20.-22. Rejected as unnecessary. 23.-25. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 26. Rejected as unnecessary. 27.-30. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 31.-32. Rejected as summary of testimony or argument, rather than findings of fact. 33.-34. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 35.-36. Rejected as unnecessary. 37. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. [Section VI, pp 19-22 includes unnumbered paragraphs summarizing testimony, rather than findings of fact]. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael W. Mingea, President Central Florida Wetlands Society P.O. Box 2826 Orlando, FL 32802 Rex D. Ware, Esquire P.O. Box 1794 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire DER-Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary DER-Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. DER-Twin Towers Ofc. Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Crestwood Lakes Associates provided reasonable assurance that a modification to a conceptual surface water management permit complies with the permit criteria contained in statutes and rules.
Findings Of Fact Background This case involves a 900-acre parcel in the Loxahatchee Slough, west of the Florida Turnpike in Palm Beach County (County). Although the property occupies part of a slough, all of the wetlands in this case are isolated wetlands. Respondent Crestwood Lakes Associates (Applicant) owns the south 503 acres, Petitioner owns the north 287 acres, and the Village of Royal Palm Beach (Village) owns the remaining 115 acres, which abut the southwest boundary of the north parcel. The acreages do not total 900 acres because the numbers are approximate. The 900-acre parcel is generally bounded on the south by Okeechobee Boulevard and the north and east by the M-1 canal. The west boundary of the south part of the parcel adjoins a residential development known as Loxahatchee Groves, and the 115-acre parcel adjoins a County-owned preserve of at least 600 acres. Applicant’s land is undeveloped except for some landclearing. Petitioner’s land is partly developed, mostly in the south next to the boundary with Applicant’s land. The Village's 115 acres are a preserve, divided equally between wetlands and uplands. On February 11, 1988, Respondent South Florida Water Management District (District) issued surface water management (SWM) permit No. 50-00618-S-02 to Royal Palm Homes, Inc. for conceptual approval of a SWM system serving a residential development on the 900-acre parcel (1988 Permit). References to the Original Developer shall include Royal Palm Homes, Inc., its agents, lenders, and assigns, except for Petitioner and Applicant. The permitted development, which was known as the Royal Palm Homes PUD, comprises single-family and multifamily residences, wetland preserve areas, two 18-hole golf courses, and a park area. On August 3, 1994, Applicant filed SWM application number 940803-6 to modify the 1988 Permit to show the change in ownership and obtain conceptual approval of a modification to the permitted SWM system. The application was not complete when the new Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) rules replaced the old Management and Storage of Surface Water (MSSW) permit rules. On May 24, 1996, the District transmitted the staff report, which proposed the issuance of a permit modification. On June 13, 1996, the District approved the issuance of the proposed permit modification. On the same date, Petitioner filed its petition challenging the proposed agency action. Permits The first relevant SWM permit for the 900-acre parcel involved a larger parcel that includes the 900-acre parcel. On September 14, 1978, the District issued a two-page permit authorizing the “construction of a water management system serving 2073 acres of residential lands by waterways discharging into canal C-51.” This 1978 permit, which is identified as number 50-00618-S, contains a special condition calling for a minimum finished floor elevation of 18.0 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The next permit is the 1988 Permit, which is a substantial modification to the 1978 permit. The 1988 Permit covers only the previously described 900 acres and, as modified, currently remains in effect. The 1988 Permit requires the preservation of two large wetlands in the north parcel, just north of the 115-acre preserve; one wetland is about 30 acres and the other is about ten acres. The 1988 Permit requires the preservation of no other wetlands in the north parcel, but, in addition to the wetlands in the 115-acre preserve, the 1988 Permit requires the preservation of several much smaller wetlands in the south parcel. The staff report for the 1988 Permit divides into three basins the drainage area for the 900-acre parcel: a north basin of 98.9 acres, a central basin of 525.7 acres, and a south basin of 270.8 acres. The staff report states that basin runoff will pass through a system of inlets and culverts into a series of interconnected lakes, from which, through control structures, the runoff will pass into the M-1 canal and eventually into the C-51 canal. The staff report notes that the control elevations will be 17.25 feet NGVD for the north basin, 17.55 feet NGVD for the central basin, and 17.75 feet NGVD for the south basin. Under the discussion of environmental impacts, the staff report observes that the 1978 permit proposed for protection only 30 acres of wetlands among the 281 acres of isolated wetlands on the site. The staff report notes that “extensive” melaleuca invasion has taken place since the 1978 permit and only 160 acres of wetlands remain in “relatively good” condition, with much of this subject to melaleuca encroachment. Due to the “extensive seed source” and “seasonal drying of the wetlands,” the staff report predicts eventual melaleuca dominance of the “entire site.” The staff report asserts that the proposed development plan includes the protection of about 100 acres of the “best quality wetlands,” plus eight acres of wetlands created in conjunction with the golf courses and 15 acres of wetlands created as littoral zones in conjunction with the lakes to be constructed. The staff report calls a program “to eradicate all melaleuca from the site” “[t]he major environmental feature” of the proposed development plan. But this major environmental feature of the 1988 Permit is presently in jeopardy. One major component of the present case is that, following the conveyances of the three parcels by the Original Developer, the District has evidently concluded that no one is responsible to perform certain obligations under the 1988 Permit and no remedies are available for the nonperformance of these obligations. It appears that these conclusions are largely driven by the vagueness of the plan to eradicate the melaleuca. This plan is called the "Melaleuca Eradication Plan." The Melaleuca Eradication Plan is incorporated into the 1988 Permit. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan, which is dated December 11, 1987, recounts that the Original Developer and regulatory bodies agreed that the melaleuca should be “eradicated and a program for this should be developed and included as a part of the permit application.” The plan states that the eradication plan will cover the entire 900- acre site with the Original Developer performing the “initial . . . program” on the entire site, including the 115-acre preserve to be deeded to the Village. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan calls for the Original Developer to create a bonded authority to conduct the “ten-year melaleuca eradication program.” The program is phased to coincide with the projected 10-year buildout of the 3000-unit parcel. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan describes in detail the three phases of the program and exactly how the Original Developer will proceed to remove the melaleuca and restore wetlands by planting native wetland species in disturbed areas. The plan promises a yearly inspection followed by hand-removal of any seedlings discovered on the site. This last phase will terminate ten years after commencement of the first phase. A “Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program” is also incorporated into the 1988 Permit. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which is dated December 8, 1987, states that Dr. Dwight Goforth performed a wetlands survey of the 900-acre site in 1985 and divided wetlands into three categories based on their quality. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance promises the preservation of 112.71 acres of wetlands comprising 98.81 acres of “large wetlands totally preserved” and nine wetlands totaling 13.9 acres that will be “partially preserved.” Also, the program will create golf course wetlands of 6.93 acres and littoral-zone wetlands around the lakes of 15 acres. Thus, the program summarizes, the “total wetland acreage preserved, enhanced and created will [be] 134.64 acres.” The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program describes a three-year monitoring program using transects to assist in the vegetative mapping of the site. The program also promises semiannual observations of birds, small rodents, and larger mammals using the wetlands and adjacent preserved uplands, as well as semiannual sampling for fish, macroinvertebrates, and amphibians. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program outlines a plan to remove melaleuca and control algae buildup in the lakes. The program promises to contain algae through the use of “biological controls” and, when needed, hand-raking. The program also assures that the Original Developer will use a “conservative fertilization program” for the golf course and landscaped areas to reduce eutrophication in the created lakes. On February 18, 1988, the District issued its conceptual approval of the 1988 Permit. Among the special conditions of the 1988 Permit are Special Condition 15, which requires wetland monitoring and maintenance in accordance with the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, and Special Condition 16, which requires melaleuca removal in accordance with the Melaleuca Eradication Plan. Also, Special Condition 17 requires low berms around protected or created wetlands, including littoral zones, to protect against sheetflow runoff from the golf course or other areas of intense development. The references in the preceding paragraphs to the responsibilities of the "Original Developer" imply greater clarity than is present in the Melaleuca Eradication Plan or Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. The passive voice predominates in both these documents, so it is sometimes difficult to determine on whom a particular responsibility falls. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan states clearly that "[the Original Developer] will conduct the initial melaleuca eradication on the entire site including the dedicated park area [i.e., the 115 acres]." The next sentence of the plan contemplates the conveyance of the 115 acres to the County. But, after these clear provisions, the Melaleuca Eradication Plan lapses into the passive voice almost invariably. The next two sentences read, "A bonded authority will be created to conduct the ten-year melaleuca eradication program" and "The eradication program will be carried out through a bonded agreement with the [Original] Developer to remove the melaleuca . . .." Alluding to the several phases of melaleuca eradication, the plan states only "[t]he eradication program will be completed in stages " Only two other sentences establishing responsibility for melaleuca eradication identify the responsible party. The end of the plan states that the "bonded authority responsible for initial eradication clearance will likewise provide a yearly inspection." One of the final sentences of the plan adds: "the bonding authority's crew will hand remove entire seedlings found on site." The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program is similar except that it does not once name the entity responsible for the monitoring and maintenance duties or hiring the firm or individual to conduct the actual work. The two special conditions incorporating these two documents likewise are in the passive voice, implying only that the responsibility belongs to the Original Developer. Given the vagueness of the melaleuca-eradication and wetlands-maintenance documents, it is not surprising that they fail entirely to address the issue whether these responsibilities run with the land, remain the responsibility of the Original Developer, or, for the eradication of melaleuca, remain the duty of the "bonded authority," if the Original Developer ever created such an entity, which appears highly doubtful. The documents likewise do not disclose the penalties for noncompliance. On June 16, 1988, the District issued a modification to the 1988 Permit for the construction and operation of a 110.9-acre residential development in Phase I, which occupies the central basin. On October 1, 1988, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) issued the Original Developer a permit to destroy 164 acres of wetlands on the 900-acre parcel. Special conditions of the 1988 Army Corps permit require the preservation of "115 acres of high quality wetlands," the creation of 18 acres of wetlands and 15 acres of littoral shelf, and the implementation of a "Melaleuca Eradication Program," which is the same program as is incorporated in the 1988 Permit. The 1988 Army Corps permit contains an attachment dated October 24, 1987. This attachment identifies the protected wetlands as the two large wetlands in the north parcel totaling about 40 acres, 58 acres in the 115-acre preserve, and 53.5 acres in the south parcel. The 1988 Army Corps permit protects several wetlands in the south parcel, including wetland numbers 14 (3.04 acres), 16 (1.6 acres), 23 (0.53 acres), 30 (2.6 acres), 44 (0.8 acres), 29 (1.08 acres), and 46 (3.0 acres). These wetlands, which total 12.65 acres, are seven of the nine wetlands partially preserved in the 1988 Permit, although some of the acreages vary from those preserved in the 1988 Permit. Unlike the District's permits (except for the subject proposed permit modification), the 1988 Army Corps permit addresses conveyances by the developer. The 1988 Army Corps permit states: "If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the space provided and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization." Below the signature line of the 1988 Army Corps permit is language stating: When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below. On March 1, 1989, the Original Developer conveyed the 115-acre preserve to the Village, which later leased the preserve to the County. The Original Developer had not eradicated the melaleuca at the time of the conveyance, nor has anyone since done so. On August 17, 1990, water elevations in the wetlands in Phase I reached 19.4 feet NGVD, washing out construction pads, roads, and in-ground utilities. On September 7, 1990, the District issued a stop-work request because the SWM system was not working as required. On September 28, 1990, the District approved interim measures to preserve the wetland hydroperiod and allow for wetland overflow. These measures include berming the residential areas in Phase I/Plat I adjacent to wetlands. On June 13, 1991, the District approved additional modifications to the 1988 Permit and the construction and operations permit for Phase I and issued a conceptual approval for works in the north and central basins. The revisions to the conceptual approval include adding two control structures to the north wetland that connect to the water management system in the north basin and adding a berm around the smaller of the two preserved wetlands in the north parcel. The construction approval was for a perimeter berm along the south wetland and park areas. On June 24, 1992, the District issued a staff report recommending issuance of another modification of the 1988 Permit for the conceptual approval of a SWM system to serve the 900-acre parcel and approval of construction and operation of a SWM system to isolate and control the existing onsite wetlands and revise the control structure for the central basin. The staff report explains that this modification proposes berming the wetlands to the 100-year, three-day peak elevation. The staff report notes that the wetlands basin consists of 295.18 acres of wetlands, including 155.85 acres of “wetlands/uplands.” The staff report notes that the north basin contains 107.41 acres of “good quality wet prairie wetlands” with “minimal” melaleuca encroachment. The staff report restates that the purpose of the modification is to berm all of the wetlands and uplands not planned for development. Special Condition 19 requires the Original Developer to dedicate as conservation and common areas in deed restrictions the “wetland preservation/mitigation areas, upland buffer zones, and/or upland preservation areas," so that these areas are the “perpetual responsibility” of a named property owners’ association. Special Condition 22 states that “a wetland monitoring and maintenance program” and “a melaleuca eradication program” “shall be implemented,” but the condition does not expressly state by whom. Special Condition 22 requires that the work implementing these programs conform to these “approved environmental programs as outlined in the [1988 Permit].” Special Condition 25 provides that, on submittal of an application for construction approval in the south basin (Phase II), the "permittee shall submit a detailed wetland construction mitigation, monitoring and maintenance plan.” In evaluating the plan for approval, the District shall apply the “environmental criteria in effect at the time of construction permit application.” Although the approval of the District is not attached to the staff report, the District approved the June 24, 1992, staff report and proposed permit. The 1992 permit modification did not address the issue of who was responsible for melaleuca eradication after the sale of the property. On November 10, 1993, the staff report accompanying another request for a permit modification restates the special conditions of earlier permit modifications. Special Condition 23 restates the requirement that a melaleuca eradication program “shall be implemented,” again not stating by whom. Special Condition 23 now requires the completion of the melaleuca eradication program by February 25, 1994. The omission of a referenced exhibit to the permit from the exhibit filed in this case prevents a determination that this is the same as the Melaleuca Eradication Plan incorporated in the 1988 Permit and restated in the 1992 modification, although it probably is. In any event, Special Condition 23 concludes in another sentence lacking a stated or implied subject: “Maintenance of the preserved wetlands and berm planting areas shall be conducted in perpetuity to ensure that the conservation areas are maintained free from exotic vegetation (Brazilian pepper, Australian pine and melaleuca) . . ..” Although the record does not contain the written approval of the District to the staff report, the District approved the staff report dated November 10, 1993. On November 12, 1993, the Original Developer conveyed by special warranty deed the north to Petitioner. The deed is subject only to "easements, declarations, restrictions and reservations of record . . .." The record does not provide recording information for the deed. The Original Developer probably conveyed the south parcel to Applicant in the same fashion and at the same approximate time. Almost five months later, on March 29, 1994, the Army Corps issued another permit for the 900-acre parcel. Although the Original Developer had conveyed at least the north parcel, the Army Corps issued the 1994 permit to the Original Developer. The 1994 Army Corps permit authorizes the destruction of 158 acres. The general conditions governing transfers are the same as those in the 1988 Army Corps permit. The special conditions of the 1994 Army Corps permit require the permittee to preserve and enhance only 110 acres of high quality wetlands, instead of preserving 115 acres of such wetlands, as was required in the 1988 Army Corps permit. The 1994 Army Corps permit drops the requirement of creating eight acres of wetlands and 15 acres of littoral zone, as was required in the 1988 Army Corps permit, but requires the preservation of what appears to be the 39.5-acre preserve that is proposed by Applicant in the subject permit modification, as described below. Special Condition 3 of the 1994 Army Corps permit adds that all preserved areas "will be maintained in perpetuity free of Melaleuca. The permittee agrees to develop a bonded Melaleuca eradication program for the entire 906 acres. Copies of the bonded agreement will be provided to this office for approval before development can commence." The next permit activity affecting the 900-acre parcel is the subject application filed by Applicant on August 3, 1994, for its 503-acre parcel. On May 24, 1996, the District issued a staff report for conceptual approval of a SWM system proposed by Applicant for its 503-acre parcel. On June 13, 1996, the District issued an addendum to the staff report that contains another special condition that is not especially relevant to this case. In the background section, the staff report mentions the flooding of Phase I of the north parcel and states that the District had “assumed the adjacent wetlands would flow away from the development.” The staff report outlines the modifications implemented to eliminate the flooding; these modifications include connecting the M-1 canal, through inlets, with several wetlands located in the north and central basins. According to the staff report, Petitioner’s north parcel, which totals 287.34 acres, includes the Phase I/Plat 1 area, north basin, and part of central basin south of Phase I. Describing Applicant’s proposal, the staff report states that a preserve of 39.5 acres will be located in the northwest corner of the south parcel, adjoining the east boundary of the 115-acre parcel. The staff report states that the 39.5-acre preserve will sheetflow through cuts in the berm to wetlands in the 115-acre preserve. The 115-acre preserve is connected to the SWM system permitted on November 10, 1993, to eliminate flooding from these wetlands, whose control elevation is 19 feet NGVD. The staff report describes the south parcel as “dominated by flatwood habitat,” within which are stands of Australian pine and other exotic plant species that have recently been spreading across the site. The onsite wetlands are 4.93 acres of wet prairies, 18.4 acres of pond cypress strands, 1.56 acres of isolated marsh, 3.5 acres of cypress mixed with pine flatwood, and 163.91 acres of melaleuca. The staff report finds that only the 4.93 acres of wet prairies and 18.4 acres of cypress are in good condition, but melaleuca has become established in many of the wet prairies. The 1.56 acres of freshwater marshes and 163.91 acres of melaleuca are in poor condition. The 3.5 acres of cypress mixed with pine flatwoods are in fair condition. As for listed species, the staff report mentions only the possibility that herons might forage onsite during periods of standing water. Summarizing the impact of the proposed project on wetlands preservation, the staff report endorses the hydrologic reconnection of the 39.5-acre wetland/upland site with the 115-acre wetland. The staff report notes that water levels in the 115-acre preserve, which has been bermed to 21 feet NGVD, have stabilized at 19 feet NGVD. The staff report asserts that the “proposed wetland impacts (183.54 acres) were previously permitted under the conceptual permit application” for the original 1988 Permit. The staff report adds that this modification is to “change a portion of the original mitigation requirements . . . and includes impacts to a 6.78 acre wetland area that was previously permitted to be preserved.” But the staff report does not recommend the preservation of this wetland “[d]ue to the reduced hydrology and proximity to the proposed upland development” and the mitigation and compensation provided by the 39.5-acre preservation area. The staff report states that 8.76 acres of the 39.5- acre preserve are wetlands, and the remainder are uplands. As for the 8.76 acres of wetlands, the staff report lists 0.67 acres of mixed cypress and pine flatwoods, 4.93 acres of wet prairies, and 3.16 acres of cypress. Applicant would also restore 4.95 acres of pine flatwoods. As for the 183.54 acres of wetlands to be destroyed, the staff report lists 2.83 acres of mixed cypress and pine flatwoods in fair condition, 15.24 acres of cypress in fair condition, 1.56 acres of freshwater marshes in poor condition, and 163.91 acres of melaleuca in poor condition. Addressing the mitigation and monitoring elements of the current proposal, the staff report states that the modification would eliminate the creation of 15 acres of littoral wetlands around SWM lakes and 7.99 acres of marshes in golf courses in return for the creation of the 39.5-acre preservation area. The staff report assures that Applicant will perpetually manage and maintain the 115-acre preserve. Conceding that the 1988 Permit also required long-term maintenance of the 115-acre parcel, the staff report notes that the initial eradication effort was never completed. The staff report mentions an “access agreement” giving Applicant the authority to enter the 115-acre preserve for mitigation and monitoring, but “anticipat[es]” that Applicant will submit an application for another permit modification, on behalf of the two governmental entities, so that Applicant can “assume future maintenance responsibilities for this area.” As is clarified by the maintenance and monitoring plan, which is part of the proposed permit, Applicant's expectation is that the County and Village, not Applicant, will assume future maintenance responsibilities for the 115-acre preserve. The staff report concludes that the District should issue the permit subject to various conditions. Special Condition 1 is that the minimum building floor elevation is 20 feet NGVD. Special Condition 16 requires the implementation of a wetland mitigation program and requires Applicant to create 4.95 acres of marsh; restore 3.16 acres of cypress, 4.93 acres of marsh, and 0.67 acres of mixed forest; and protect 25.79 acres of uplands. Special Condition 17 sets performance criteria for the mitigation areas in terms of percentage and length of survival of vegetation. Special Condition 17 supplies completion dates for monitoring reports. Special Condition 21 addresses listed species. Noting that listed species have been seen onsite or the site contains suitable habitat for such species, Special Condition 21 requires Applicant to coordinate with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission or the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for guidance, recommendations, or permits to avoid impacts to such species. The monitoring and maintenance plan does not address direct and contingent liabilities for maintenance and generally is a poor candidate for enforcement. In addition to the vagueness of the passive voice, the plan is, at times, simply unreadable, as, for example, when it concludes boldly, but enigmatically: The site as a whole is evolving hydrologic trends which permits successional seres development toward communities with shorter hydroperiods and ultimately, toward more upland transitional and/or exotic species dominance of historically wetland habitats. Long-term prospectives infer that successional deflection has become a severe detriment for natural environmental control to alter the present scenario. Active management coupled with graduated balanced in hydrologic restoration and created habitat elements will become the processes engineered to obtain an infusion of probabilities fashioned to inscribe a regenerative adaptation to the present site condition while fostering in situ processes, to optimize derived functions, for the maintenance of both habitat and wildlife over the long-term existence of the Preserve. (Sic.) Water Quality Impacts Petitioner does not contend in its proposed recommended order that the proposed project fails to meet applicable requirements regarding water quality. Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed permit modification would not violate State water quality standards. Flooding Petitioner contends in its proposed recommended order that the proposed permit modification would not meet applicable requirements regarding water quantity and flooding. However, Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the project would not violate these requirements. There are several aspects to a SWM system. Undeveloped land stores and conveys rainfall through soil and surface storage. An artificial SWM system alters the undeveloped land’s storage capacity by the addition of a storage and drainage system, such as, in this case, conveying water through the soil into storm drains and then to lakes to store surface runoff prior to release, through an outfall structure, into a receiving body of water--in this case, the M-1 canal. The SWM system hastens the conveyance of stormwater runoff offsite. The control elevation of a SWM system is the height at which water in the lakes will flow through the outfall structure into the receiving body of water. Except during the dry season, the control elevation tends to establish not only the water level of the SWM lakes, but also of the nearby water table. The hastening of drainage offsite with the establishment of control elevations produce the drawdown effect of SWM systems. As to flooding, the basic underlying dispute between Petitioner and Respondents is whether to use the pre- or post- development depth to water table. In determining whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance as to the impact of a proposed development on wetlands, one would project the effect of any post-development drawdown on the wetlands themselves and their functions and inhabitants. It would be illogical not to do the same in determining whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance as to the impact of a proposed development on flooding. Pre-development, the average depth to water table on Applicant’s property is as little as two feet. Post- development, the average depth to water table on Applicant’s property will be five feet, which is the difference between the control elevation of 14 feet NGVD and ground elevation of 19 feet NGVD. Petitioner’s evidence concerning flooding is flawed because its expert witness based his calculations on an average depth to water table of two feet on Applicant’s property. He did not adjust for the considerable drawdown effect of the SWM system. The District table allows for no more than four feet between the water table and ground, so there is an added margin of safety in the ensuing flooding calculations. Another important factor in the flooding calculations is the soil type in terms of permeability. The District properly characterized the prevailing soils as flatwoods, and the soils onsite are in the category of “good drainage.” Applicant’s suggestion that flooding calculations use the post-development soils is rejected. Post-development depths to water table are used because they can be calculated to predict post-development conditions accurately. Applicant produced no proof that it would replace such massive amounts of soil from the site with more permeable soils so as to justify reclassifying the soil type. The District's flooding calculations probably overstate the risk of flooding in the three-day, 100-year design storm because they ignore lake bank storage, which is the additional amount of water that a lake can store in its sloped banks above the typical water elevation. The District could have relied on the effect of lake bank storage for additional assurance that the proposed project will not result in flooding. The proposed project contains a large number of long, narrow lakes, which will thus have a relatively high percentage of lake banks to lake area. Additionally, the District has raised the minimum floor elevation at this site by two feet over 18 years. Whatever other effects may follow from this trend, the higher floor elevation offers additional protection to onsite improvements. The flooding of Petitioner’s property seven years ago understandably is a matter of concern to Petitioner. Applicant proposes to change the configuration of drainage basins, but the District has adequately addressed the drainage issue, and this is not the first time in the 20-year permitting history of this property that the District has approved a reconfiguration of basins. Also, in the 1988 Permit, the District incorrectly projected the direction of runoff under certain conditions. However, the flooding was partly due to inadequate road- drainage facilities. Following the flooding, the Original Developer enlarged these features and bermed the flooding wetlands, so as to eliminate the flooding of developed areas due to design storm events. On balance, Applicant has proved that the proposed permit modification would not adversely affect flooding or water quantity. Environmental Impacts A. Wetlands Petitioner contends in its proposed recommended order that the proposed permit modification would not meet applicable requirements regarding environmental impacts to wetlands. Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed work would not violate these requirements. There are two major deficiencies in the District's analysis of wetland impacts and mitigation or compensation. First, the proposed permit modification includes mitigation or compensation in the form of melaleuca removal. But prior permits have already required the same work, no one has ever done the work, and the District does not know if these permit requirements are still enforceable. Second, the proposed permit modification ignores 13.9 acres of preserved wetlands in the 1988 Permit, allowing their destruction without mitigation or compensation. The permitting process requires the District to balance the impacts of development and mitigation or compensation on the natural resources under the District's jurisdiction. Balancing these impacts in issuing the 1988 Permit, the District required the complete eradication of melaleuca in return for permitting the residential, institutional, and recreational development proposed by the Original Developer. District staff, not the Original Developer or Petitioner, called the Melaleuca Eradication Plan “the major environmental feature” of the development plan approved by the 1988 Permit. The major environmental feature of the 1988 Permit clearly justified significant development impacts on natural resources. To justify additional development impacts on natural resources, the District now proposes to count again another developer’s promise to eradicate the melaleuca. The District claims that the term of the original melaleuca protection plan was only ten years, not perpetual as is presently proposed. However, the District's claim ignores Special Condition 23 in the 1993 permit modification. This condition set a deadline of February 25, 1994, for the eradication of melaleuca and made perpetual the requirement that one or more of the potentially responsible parties--the Original Developer, Petitioner, Applicant, the bonded authority, the property owners' association, or transferees-- maintain the wetlands free of melaleuca and other exotics. Unfortunately, this “major environmental feature” of the 1988 Permit, as well as subsequent permit modifications, was so poorly drafted as to leave potentially responsible parties unsure of their legal obligations. The District tacitly suggests that it cannot enforce the obligations imposed by the 1988 Permits and later modifications for the eradication of melaleuca. But there is presently no reason for the District to resort again to permitting without first reviewing carefully its enforcement options. The District should first determine whether anyone will voluntarily assume these obligations. As a business consideration, Petitioner may choose to eradicate the melaleuca from the north parcel and 115-acre preserve to prevent Applicant from providing this service and claiming that it should receive compensation credit against additional environmental impacts permitted by a modification of the 1988 Permit. Maybe the County or Village has already budgeted funds for this work. If no party offers to perform the necessary work, the District must next determine its legal rights and the legal obligations of these parties. Depending on the results of this research, the District may need to consider litigation and the cessation of the issuance of construction and operation permits on the 900-acre parcel or either the north or south parcel. At this point, the District should discuss joint litigation or permit revocation with the Army Corps, whose 1994 permit requires the permittee to develop a bonded melaleuca-eradication program and apparently imposes on the permittee the responsibility to maintain all preserved areas free of melaleuca. Only after having exhausted these options may the District legitimately conclude that melaleuca eradication on any part of the 900 acres represents fair compensation for the development impacts on jurisdictional natural resources. The second major problem as to wetlands impacts concerns the calculation of wetlands acreages to be destroyed by the proposed permit. The 1988 Permit expressly incorporates the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. This program, as an operative part of the 1988 Permit, represents that the developer will “partially preserve. . .” nine wetlands totaling 13.9 acres. The partial preservation of wetlands does not mean that a five-acre wetland will remain a five-acre wetland, except that its function will be impaired. Partial preservation means that, for instance, two acres of a five- acre wetland will be preserved. It is impossible for the District to have required mitigation to offset the destruction of these 13.9 acres of wetlands because the District denies that the 1988 Permit required the partial preservation of these nine wetlands. As noted below, neither the District nor Applicant can identify all of the wetlands that make up the 13.9 acres. Rather than account for these wetlands that were to have been partially preserved, the District instead contends that this undertaking by the Original Developer was ineffective or nonbinding because it was overriden by contrary statements in the staff report. Not so. The specific provisions delineating the preserved wetlands area in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which was prepared by the Original Developer, override more general statements contained in the staff report accompanying the permit. There is not necessarily a conflict between the staff report and the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. The staff report states that the plan “includes the protection of approximately 100 acres of the best quality wetlands,” together with the creation of eight acres of golf course wetlands and 15 acres of lake littoral zones. The plan “includes” these wetlands among those preserved or created; the word suggests that the list is not exhaustive, but only illustrative. Alternatively, if the list were exhaustive, the preservation of “approximately” 100 acres reasonably encompasses the 112.71 acres of partially or totally preserved wetlands cited in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. More to the point, on October 26, 1987, Donald Wisdom, the engineer handling the 1988 Permit, prepared a memorandum for the file stating that the total acreage of wetlands to be preserved or created was 134.45. This figure represents an insignificant deviation of 0.19 acres from the total listed in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which was dated six weeks later, on December 8, 1987. In the October 26 memorandum, Mr. Wisdom describes the preserved wetlands as 111.46 acres of A- and B-quality wetlands. This is 1.25 acres less than the acreage in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. These small discrepancies were eliminated by November 18, 1987, when Mr. Wisdom wrote a memorandum noting that the program called for the total preservation of 98.81 acres and partial preservation of 13.9 acres. Adding the created wetlands, the new total for preserved or created wetlands was 134.64 acres. A month later, a District employee wrote a memorandum to the file, expressing his “main concern” that the proposed development would protect only 99 acres of wetlands. It is unclear why the employee mentioned only the 98.81 acres slated for preservation. Perhaps he was confused or mistaken. But the misgivings of a single employee do not constitute the rejection by the District of a developer's proposal to preserve nearly 14 acres of high-quality wetlands. The staff report for the 1988 Permit notes that the 900-acre site contained about 281 acres of wetlands. If the 1988 Permit required the preservation, as an entire wetland or part of a larger wetland, of 112 acres of wetlands, then the 1988 Permit allowed the destruction of 169 acres, which is consistent with the 164 and 158 acres allowed to be destroyed by the 1988 and 1994 Army Corps permits. However, by the 1996 permit modification, the staff report refers, without explanation or justification, to the permitted destruction of 183.54 acres of wetlands--evidently adding the 13.9 acres to the 169 acres previously permitted to be destroyed. Tab 13 of the Wisdom bluebook identifies the nine wetlands constituting the 13.9 acres, which are entirely in Applicant's south parcel. Except for three, all of these wetlands were characterized as A-quality, meaning that they are in good to excellent condition and “have not been stressed significantly from the biological viewpoint.” B-quality wetlands are in disturbed condition and “are in various stages of biological stress caused primarily by a lowered water table and/or melaleuca invasion.” C-quality wetlands are highly disturbed and “are substantially degraded biologically.” The 13.9 acres of wetlands comprise wetland numbers 23 (0.5 acres), 46 (0.4 acres), 44 (0.6 acres), 37 (0.4 acres), 29 (1.1 acres), 20 [sometimes misreported as 21] (3.9 acres), 30 (2.6 acres), 16 (1.5 acres), and 14 (2.9 acres). Wetland numbers 46 and 29 are B-quality, and wetland number 20 is C-quality. The wetlands shown in District Exhibit 4 and Applicant Exhibit 3 inaccurately portray the wetlands constituting the missing 13.9 acres. A internal memorandum to the file notwithstanding, the District predicated the 1988 Permit in part on the preservation of 112.71 acres of functioning wetlands, including the 13.9 acres that the District now disclaims. The mitigation and compensation required of Applicant in the present case ignored the destruction of these wetlands. The District's analysis of mitigation and compensation in this case was fatally flawed by these two deficiencies. But more deficiencies exist in the District's analysis of wetland impacts. The District relied on faulty data in reviewing Applicant's request for a permit modification. Undercounting the extent of wetlands by at least 21 acres and their condition by an indeterminable amount, Applicant presented to the District a materially inaccurate picture of the wetland resources on the south parcel. Despite disclaimers to the contrary, the District relied on this inaccurate data in reviewing Applicant's request for a permit modification. There are possible problems with 39.5-acre preserve offered by Applicant. This parcel contains less than nine acres of wetlands, including two wetlands that Applicant may already be required to preserve under the 1994 Army Corps permit. At the same time, Applicant's proposal may include the destruction of a third wetland that is to be preserved under the 1994 Army Corps permit. The best rendering in the record of the 1994 Army Corps permit may be Applicant Exhibit 4, which shows eight large wetland areas to be “preserved/enhanced/created.” Two of these are the 10- and 30-acre wetlands on Petitioner’s property, which were preserved in the 1988 Permit. Three of the eight wetlands are in the 115-acre preserve; these were also preserved in the 1988 Permit. The remaining three wetlands to be preserved, enhanced, or created under the 1994 Army Corps permit are in the north end of Applicant’s property. It is difficult to estimate acreage given the scale of the drawing, but the two westerly wetlands are about 4-5 acres each and the easterly wetland is 3-3.5 acres. Subtracting the total preserved acreage of 110 from the acreage identified in the preceding paragraph, the total acreage of these remaining three wetlands is about 12. The two westerly wetlands are in the 39.5-acre preserve that Applicant offers as mitigation in the present case. According to Applicant Exhibit 6, the easterly wetland, or at least the most valuable part of it--the center--is slated for destruction if the District grants the subject permit modification. The proposed destruction of the third wetland is a matter of greater interest to the Army Corps than to the District, but the offer to preserve the other two wetlands really does not provide anything in return for the permitted development impacts because these two wetlands are already preserved under the 1994 Army Corps permit. As the District and Applicant contend, golf course marshes and littoral zones are typically of little environmental importance. Although the 1988 Permit addresses some of these problems, although without supplying any performance standards, golf courses themselves are often conduits of fertilizers and pesticides into the groundwater and nearby surface water. The District and Applicant justifiably question the value of the golf courses approved in the 1988 Permit as wildlife corridors. It is unclear what wildlife would use the corridor, which is surrounded by residential development and bounded by Okeechobee Boulevard. Other factors also militate in favor of Applicant's proposal. But, as the record presently stands, there is no way to find that Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed development and related mitigation and compensation, as described in the subject permit modification, meet the applicable criteria. The District substantially undervalued the environmental impacts of the proposed modification while substantially overvaluing the environmental impacts of Applicant's proposed contributions in the form of mitigation and compensation. To find adequate assurance as to wetland impacts in these circumstances, where the District did not perform an informed balancing of various impacts in a large-scale development, would permit the District to transform the unavoidably imprecise task of balancing wetland impacts into an act of pure, unreviewable discretion. Listed Species The only relevant listed species onsite is the gopher tortoise, which is a species of special concern. Gopher tortoises use the site to an undetermined extent. Applicant's suggestion that someone brought the tortoises to the site is rejected as improbable. However, due to the resolution of the wetlands issue, it is unnecessary to determine whether Applicant provided reasonable assurance as to the value of functions provided to wildlife and listed species by wetlands. Procedural Issues A. Standing Petitioner has standing due most obviously to flooding considerations. Additionally, the SWM system permitted in 1988 is for the entire 900-acre parcel, of which Petitioner’s parcel is a part. Applicability of ERP Rules The proposed permit modification would substantially affect water resources. The proposed permit modification would substantially increase the adverse effect on water resources. Requirement to Delineate Wetlands Due to the resolution of the wetlands issue, it is unnecessary to determine whether Applicant met applicable requirements concerning the delineation of wetlands. Improper Purpose Petitioner did not challenge the proposed permit modification for an improper purpose. Relevant Provisions of Basis of Review The District revised its Basis of Review after the adoption of ERP rules. Although the order concludes that the District should have applied the ERP rules, and thus the ERP Basis of Review, the order shall discuss both versions of the Basis of Review because the District ignored numerous provisions of both documents in approving Applicant's request for a permit modification. Section 4.6 MSSW Basis of Review requires the District to consider "actual impact" to the site by "considering the existing natural system as altered by the proposed project[,]" including "positive and negative environmental impacts." Section 4.6 requires the District to "balance" these impacts "to achieve a reasonable degree of protection for significant environmental features consistent with the overall protection of the water resources of the District." The proposed permit modification fails to comply with several provisions of Appendix 7 of the MSSW Basis of Review, such as Sections 4.2 requiring a detailed description of the isolated wetlands to be destroyed; 5.1.1(d) favoring the protection of isolated wetlands over their destruction, mitigation, and compensation, which are considered "only when there are no feasible project design alternatives"; and 5.1.6 prohibiting the alteration of water tables so as to affect adversely isolated wetlands. The proposed permit modification also violates various provisions of the ERP Basis of Review. Section 4.0 of the ERP Basis of Review sets the goal of permitting to be "no net loss in wetland . . . functions." Sections 4.2 and following generally require balancing. Section 4.2.1 predicates District approval on a showing that the SWM system does not cause a "net adverse impact on wetland functions . . . which is not offset by mitigation." The ERP provisions first require that the District "explore" with an applicant the minimization of impacts prior to considering mitigation. Section 4.2.2.4(c) specifically imposes monitoring requirements for SWM systems that "could have the effect of altering water levels in wetlands." Sections 4.3.2.2 and following discuss mitigation ratios under the ERP Basis of Review. If the District can explicate a policy to count as mitigation wetlands acreage already preserved under Army Corps permits, the ratios in this case might warrant further consideration, assuming Applicant resubmits an application for permit modification. But it would be premature to consider the ratios on the present record for several reasons. The District has not proved such a policy. If such a policy counts such wetland acreage, on the theory that the District protects function and the Army Corps protects merely the wetland, the record is insufficiently developed as to the functions of the wetlands proposed for protection, as well as the functions of the 13.9 acres of wetlands proposed for destruction. Also, the District has not sufficiently explored project minimization, as is now required under the ERP Basis of Review.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the District enter a final order denying Applicant's request for a permit modification. ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 13, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 13, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey D. Kneen John F. Mariani J. Barry Curtain Levy Kneen 1400 Centrepark Boulevard, Suite 1000 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Ronald K. Kolins Thomas A. Sheehan, III Moyle Flanigan Post Office Box 3888 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 John J. Fumero Marcy I. LaHart Office of Counsel South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Samuel E. Poole, III Executive Director Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
