The Issue Whether Robert Piechocki is entitled to a permit as governed by Section 403.087 F.S. and Chapter 62 F.A.C. (formerly Chapter 17 F.A.C.) to construct and operate a rotational grazing dairy, with an accompanying dairy waste management system.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Piechocki applied for the presently disputed DEP industrial wastewater permit on August 18, 1994. After submittal of additional information, the application was deemed complete. On July 7, 1995, DEP issued an intent to issue permit, including groundwater monitoring requirements and specific and general permit conditions. Petitioners challenged the intent to issue. SOS was stipulated to have standing to bring its petition. At formal hearing, Robert and Beverly Hawkins withdrew their petition in DOAH Case No. 95- 3900. The permit application seeks approval of a proposed dairy farm to be located on approximately 267 acres of property of which 255 acres will be utilized as rotational grazing paddocks. The herd will be 699 cows. The dairy will be located at a site in the extreme northeast corner of Dixie County. The site is less than one mile from the Suwannee River. At low water conditions, gravity dictates groundwater will flow from the proposed dairy site to the Suwannee River, which is the bottom level of the groundwater aquifer. Petitioners' environmental concern is that nitrogen, phosphorous, and pathogens from the dairy may reach the Suwannee River via surface water and groundwater runoff, through sinkholes or from leaching through the soil. The proposed dairy will have a waste management collection system consisting of collection, storage, treatment lagoon, and application system components. The waste management system is intended to collect the wastewater deposited upon the high use surfaces of the milking parlor, the collection system, and the cow transit area leading to the collection system. Wastewater deposited upon the high intensity or impervious surfaces of the milking parlor, the collection system and the cow transit leading to the collection system will be flushed six times daily by a 2500 gallon flushing tank. The cows are only on that area 15 percent of the time, so only 15 percent of their waste must be processed this way. That water and any stormwater that falls into the collection system will drain to the anearobic wastewater lagoon. The adequacy of the design of the lagoon system was not refuted for a 25 year-24 hour storm (flood event). The wastewater will be used to irrigate the 255 acres of rotational grazing patterns by a spray irrigation system. There will be no direct discharge of effluent to waters of the state. DEP inspections showed no ponding, but conditions of the permit provide that wastewater effluent may not be applied to ponded areas and that there be no surface water runoff from the dairy site. The only impact on the Suwannee River will be from the groundwater flowing from the site. Groundwater concerns are part of this wastewater permitting process. Six groundwater monitoring wells are to be installed as part of the proposed project. One of the wells will be located in the barn vicinity; one will be placed up gradient of the barn; and four will be located along the farm perimeter on the down gradient side of the dairy, specifically to provide extra security to the Suwannee River. The wells have been adapted to optimize monitoring within the expected flow pattern. The draft permit allows for a change in the number of wells should either analytical data or water flow data be other than as expected. The proposed dairy farm is designed to contain nutrients in the upper zones of soil, in the root zone or in the argillic layer. Mr. Piechocki plans to use a rotational grazing system. Fifty-seven paddocks would be utilized and 699 cows would be moved from paddock to paddock. This permits even grazing over the entire paddock area. If the contingency of thinning plant cover occurs in part of any paddock, electric tape can be used to seal that area off from the cows. Cows would be prohibited from congregating in a bare area or from grazing in one area until it became bare. Presumably, the same measures can keep cows out of any areas which subsequently pond or develop a sinkhole. Rotational dairy farming is relatively new to Florida, but has been practiced in other parts of the country for some time. Rotational dairy farming is designed to reduce the amount of nitrogen being imported as compared to a non-rotational dairy. Rotational dairy farming is a concept which essentially relies on the pasture production and grazing of grasses to meet most of the nutritional requirements of the dairy cows. This compares to other types of dairy farming where cows are generally brought together in a feed lot and fed with hay and grains. Rotational grazing means rotational loading of nitrogen. Rotational grazing prevents higher loads at any one spot caused by the natural congregational proclivities of cows in conventional confinement or free roam dairies. Rotational grazing means there will be no "manure pack" created in the feed lot, as was usual in older free roaming dairy systems which have created groundwater degradation in South Florida through nutrients leaching from the "manure pack" into the groundwater and surface runoff. The 699 cows intended for this dairy herd would not produce enough nitrogen in their manure to even produce a vigorous crop of grass, so the dairy will have to add fertilizer to the soil in order to be economically profitable. The fertilizer will contain phosphorous and nitrogen, but it is to the dairy's economic interest to use the resident cow manure to greatest advantage since the more vigorous a crop is produced naturally, the less imported fertilizer must be purchased. Fertilizer will be applied only when testing shows it is necessary. No environmental danger from phosphorous was demonstrated. Each paddock area will be free of all cows and all irrigation spraying for nine days at a time, thus "resting" from any nitrogenous deposit during that period of time unless fertilizer is applied. By rule, there is no requirement that each dairy have a DEP permit. By policy established in 1990, DEP has required every new dairy in the Suwannee River Water Management District to obtain an industrial waste management permit. Contrary to opposing experts' assumption that all or part of the dairy site was within the 100 year blood plain, Mr. Piechocki's experts were clear in their finding that the site is not within the 100 year flood plain. Regardless thereof, DEP has no requirement excluding utilization of sites which lie below the 100 year flood plain. For dairies of under 700 cows, DEP requires that there be no discharge through a man-made flushing device to surface waters of the state. This project has no such device. In this case, the proximity of the Suwannee River and the presence of a karst region made DEP personnel particularly cautious. Several on-site inspections were made by DEP personnel. Also, DEP applied its higher standards for dairies of over 700 cows. DEP's rule and/or policy creates a threshold of 700 cows to which more stringent rules apply for discharge to surface water, i.e., applicants must prove the project will not degrade water quality even under the 25 year-24 hour storm event criteria. This applicant ultimately demonstrated the dairy could meet that standard. DEP's concerns in this permitting process focus on nitrogen and nutrient loading of nitrogen into the soil and in this case, the Suwannee River, which has been designated an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). This designation entitles the Suwannee River to the highest level of environmental protection. Nitrogen is necessary in limited quantities to grow the plants cows eat so that they can produce milk. Some nitrogen from the plants goes into the milk which, upon leaving the cow is transported off-site. Some nitrogen is found in the waste produced by the cows, mostly manure. A portion of the deposited manure then volatilizes approximately 70 percent of the nitrogen in the manure into the air. The nitrogen remaining in the manure becomes part of the soil and plant system over time. Any volatilized nitrogen that might be returned to the soil by rainwater is considered lost as pure elemental nitrogen. The unfavorable side effect of nitrogen with which DEP is concerned in this case is when it affects groundwater and surface water runoff, and then only if the nitrogen is in a concentration which violates drinking water standards. The groundwater quality standard to be applied by DEP is the drinking water standard for nitrogen content. The applicant ultimately demonstrated the dairy will meet this standard. The geology underneath the proposed dairy farm site is characterized as karst geology but most of Florida is highly underlaid with karst. This type of geology can be described as being cavernous with many connected conduits allowing for rapid movement of groundwater. The site is classified by the Suwannee River Water Management District Aquifer Vulnerability Map as being highly vulnerable to groundwater contamination. The karst geology means that sometime in the past, limestone rose up and cracked, creating fissures, which ultimately resulted in sinkhole formation. Over time, sinkhole or collapse features tend to plug up with sands or clays. The feature becomes less steep- sided and more difficult to find, although a conduit between the surface and groundwater aquifer may still exist. Surface depressions can be indicators of subsurface solution features. Surface depressions can result in surface ponding. If there is a direct conduit, surface waters can more rapidly reach the groundwater aquifer as compared to other parts of the surface. Also, because of the limestone fractures and the porosity of the limestone, water can flow through the interconnected pore features. Normally, karst is only a problem as regards nitrogen loading if a particular conduit (or sinkhole) is subject to nutrient loading. If a sinkhole is active, that is, extending to the surface, it creates a direct link to the groundwater with no opportunity for treatment of contaminants through the soil. Barring the presence of active sinkholes, if there is a sufficient overlaying soil layer over any subterranean solution feature, the soil layer with crops growing on it will provide the necessary safeguards to protect surface and groundwater. However, the permit DEP intends to issue has conditions relevant to that issue to the effect that if any sinkholes should form on the dairy property, the cows must be fenced away from them or berms erected to prevent runoff or the sinkholes capped with clay to prevent water moving downward. Mr. Robert Hawkins, who owns the property directly north of the dairy site, but on the opposite side of the county road, demonstrated that his property is riddled with sinkholes, some as deep as seven feet, through which he can watch deep water often run rapidly to the Suwannee River. He theorized that this phenomenon occurs whenever both the Steinhatchee Refuge (basically a swamp) on the west side of his property and the Suwannee River to the east of both his property and the proposed dairy site rapidly fill from heavy rains. Then the water bubbles up through the sinkholes. Eight years ago, Mr. and Mrs. Hawkins and a friend paddled a canoe the length of his woods to the Suwannee River. He also claimed the water flows through the porous karst environment under all surrounding properties as well as his own, but he has not observed the phenomenon occurring on the dairy site. He has no recognized area of expertise and did not know the geology of the dairy site in particular. He has been on the site only one time, briefly, and then had observed some depressions but no sinkholes. He had allowed cattle to roam freely on his own property for fourteen years some years ago. Mr. Hawkins' theory had limited support in the testimony of Dennis J. Price, an expert in geology and hydrology, but Mr. Price seemed to believe one additional monitoring well on the southern border of the dairy site would provide sufficient security. Mr. Malcolm Howell owned the proposed dairy site property from 1956 until Mr. Piechocki bought it. Mr. Howell also owns parcels of real property scattered throughout the area. He confirmed other testimony to the effect that 30 years ago, a hurricane caused water to stand for several days on the county road north of the dairy property and on the parcel immediately southeast of the dairy site property. It is logical that flooding is likely to occur again under the same conditions. However, Mr. Howell has never seen a sinkhole on the dairy property. Although there are some depressions at various locations on the dairy property, no witness could say unequivocally that they were former sinkholes. The theory most damaging to the applicant is that these depressions are solution holes that developed on top of limerock and filled in, resulting in a gentler grade than an active sinkhole, but no witness could unequivocally say that these areas are over open karst fissures. There is limerock on the site which could indicate a conduit. Limerock also is highly porous. Ground penetrating radar was done. Ground penetrating radar is very site specific. Ground penetrating radar detected no active sinkholes on the dairy site. A fracture trace analysis may or may not have been more accurate for showing fracture resolution conduits, but such an analysis was not required and was not performed. The applicant has made adequate arrangements to prevent cows being in the depressed areas should a ponding effect or sinkhole occur. Ponding is more a nuisance (flies and odor) concern than a problem affecting groundwater. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) sets standards and assists farmers in developing dairy designs and other soil related designs pertaining to agriculture. Under its criteria, there must be at least a three inch thick layer of soil with at least five per cent silt plus clay content. DEP uses this criteria as a guideline. The applicant meets this guideline. In order to analyze the soil at the dairy site, the applicant had qualified engineers make 47 borings eight feet deep over a 600 foot grid. Except for one boring, all borings met NRCS standards. Only one sample was shown by professional soil testers to be 2 percent clay and 2 percent silt. In an abundance of caution, DEP required additional borings. Cal-Tech, a consulting firm retained by the applicant, made about a dozen soil borings at the proposed dairy farm site. Eight of the borings identified sand only as being encountered to depths of 10 to 12 feet. The clay and organic content of the soils is not uniform across the proposed dairy farm site, but it may be assumed the 59 borings are representational. DEP was then satisfied that reasonable assurances based on soil content had been provided. DEP reviewers consulted with field representatives of the NRCS and reached the independent conclusion that the dairy would have a negligible impact on all Florida waters and an immeasurably small impact on the Suwannee River. In assessing this application, DEP accepted figures and calculations produced by the applicant's experts, but the draft permit provides safeguards in case the data is other than as represented. The experts used standard and accepted formulas, even down to measuring the estimated averages of cow manure as collected and standardized by the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. In designing the dairy, a critical decision formula was utilized by the applicant's engineer, Mr. Tremwel. Mass-loading and mass balance equations were made for the proposed dairy farm operation to determine "worst case" loading of nitrogen and phosphorous to the Suwannee River. These calculations of the dairy farm's impact to the Suwannee River were made using low flow conditions for the river. Mr. Tremwel used low flow per the United States Geologic Survey standards to predict a higher concentration of nitrogen would affect the Suwannee River than probably would ever actually reach it. He assumed that once nitrogen got below the argillic layer of the earth, there would be no further adsorption to the soil. The foregoing assumption is very unrealistic because even subsoil and limerock can absorb some nitrogen, but the assumption was made to maximize the estimated nitrogen or phosphorus (primarily from phosphate fertilizers) that could be transported to the Suwannee River as a result of this dairy. Even using this "worst case" scenario, any change at all would be undetectable at low flow and have no negative offsite effects. Assuming arguendo there were some occasional cumulative impact not accounted for by these calculations, the dynamic flow of the Suwannee River would flush most nutrients quickly. In parts of the application process, DEP consults with Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) personnel. In this case, SRWMD personnel had reviewed the initial application and presented some groundwater and wastewater concerns primarily related to the vulnerability of the aquifer in a karst/sinkhole region. Among those who testified, there were still some concerns, but the witnesses were either basing their assumptions on 100 year storm event criteria and/or had not reviewed all the supplemental material such as additional boring data on soil content which the applicant submitted in response to DEP's requests for further information, and/or had never been to the site. The SRWMD witnesses deferred to experts in other fields. They expressed no clear opinion as to the adequacy of the agricultural engineering or dairy waste management system proposed for this dairy. The SRWMD had issued an Environmental Resource Permit for a road at the diary site, but deferred to DEP on ground and wastewater issues. Pathogens are related to viral and bacterial agents which cause disease syndromes. A number of pathogens are found in the manure and urine of cows. DEP permitting rules only consider the potential for pollution from one bacteriological pathogen: e.coli. Petitioners did not demonstrate any threat by the dairy from e.coli. Experts for Mr. Piechocki and DEP in the fields of agricultural engineering, dairy waste management, geology, hydro-geology, and soil science testified credibly that within reasonable professional certainty, the dairy will abate and prevent water pollution to the extent required by the applicable statute and rules. Petitioner has provided reasonable assurances to that effect. Terry Tremwel, Mark Bardolph, Edward Cordova and John J. Davis each gave their expert opinion that all existing applicable environmental permit criteria had been met. Petitioners presented no expert in dairy waste management. The applicant has provided reasonable assurances any discharges will be "free from" named nutrient concentrations covered by rule. The Suwannee River collects groundwater from a tremendously large area. This area contains numerous towns, private homes with septic tank systems, commercial farms and timberland, recreational areas, and other uses which all have some impact on groundwater quality. Further, most of these other uses do not require environmental permits nor do they provide for any specific safeguards to the quality of the groundwater. The potential impact of the proposed dairy is negligible and insignificant when compared with all of these other uses which may impact groundwater quality. Witnesses agreed that virtually all human or animal activity within the Suwannee River drainage area could potentially have an adverse impact on the quality of the groundwater flowing into the Suwannee River. It was not established that the proposed dairy would significantly degrade, either alone or in combination with other stationary installations, the Suwannee River, or that the proposed dairy would violate any applicable regulations protecting the Suwannee River.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order dismissing the Petition in DOAH Case No. 95-3900 as withdrawn ,and The Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting Respondent Piechocki permission to construct his dairy waste management system in accord with the draft permit's general and special conditions as modified to include one additional monitoring well on the southern border, and dismissing the Petition in DOAH Case NO. 95-3899 on the merits. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 22nd day of December, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 95-3899 and 95-3900 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Save Our Suwannee's PFOF: 1-10, 15-16, 19-20, 22-28, 30-33, 35-39, 41-45, 47-50, 60-61, 64-83, 85-93, 95- 102 Accepted, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been adopted. Legal argumentation and proposed conclusions of law have also been excluded or relegated to the conclusions of the recommended order. 11-12, 17-18, 29, 34, 40 and 46 Rejected because as stated, or in context with other proposals, they are not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence. However, the issues are covered within the recommended order to the degree they are material. Many of these proposals may be generally true as related by Mr. Ceryk and other of Petitioners witnesses, but are not site-specific and therefore not accepted. Many are opinions of experts who ultimately deferred to other experts. Legal argumentation on accepted opinions was excluded. 13, 56-59 Rejected as immaterial and as legal argumentation 14 The proposal is accepted. The footnote is not precisely supported by the transcript citation and is immaterial. 21 Accepted, except for the last sentence which is contrary to the facts as found upon the greater weight of the credible evidence. 51-55 Rejected as largely legal argumentation, but the 10 parts per million and cumulative discharge issues are covered in the recommended order and the weight and credibility of the testimony cited is likewise discussed therein. Accepted, except for the last conclusory sentence which is legal argumentation contrary to the facts as found. First sentence cumulative; second sentence immaterial. 84 Irrelevant under the facts of this rotational grazing system. 94 Rejected as immaterial, cumulative, and as legal argumentation. Mr. Piechocki's and DEP's Joint PFOF: 1-5, 8, 14 Accepted. 6 Accepted, except that "pollutants" in the generic sense are not the subject of permit but only as defined by statute and rule. 7, 9 Accepted, except that conclusions of law are assigned to that portion of the recommended order. 10-12, 15-29 Accepted, except for unnecessary, subordinate, and/or cumulative material. Also, legal argumentation has been excluded. Conclusions of law are assigned to that portion of the recommended order 13 The significance of the 100 year flood plain is covered in Finding of Fact 17. COPIES FURNISHED: Marty Smith, Esquire 125 N.E. 1st Avenue, Suite 1 Ocala, FL 34478-3319 Christine C. Stretesky, Esq. Dept. of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Robert Piechocki P. O. Box 2267 Chiefland, Florida 32626 Robert & Beverly Hawkins HC 4 Box 180 Old Town, Florida 32680 Peter B. Belmont, Esquire 511 31st Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevrd Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevrd Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, is an agency of the State of Florida charged with carrying out the mandates of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules contained in the Florida Administrative Code promulgated thereunder. Respondent, MRT, is a real estate investment trust organized under the laws of the State of Maryland and authorized to do business in Florida. Royal Oaks Development Corporation is a Florida corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Maryland Realty Trust. MRT is developing a parcel of land in Sections 33 and 34, T-2-N, R-1-E, Leon County, Florida, and Section 4, T-1-N, R-1-E, Leon County, Florida, of which approximately 60 acres has already been developed as Royal Oaks Unit No. 1, a recorded subdivision pursuant to Chapter 177, Florida Statutes. The balance of the 120 acres is yet to be developed, and is the subject of this proceeding. The specific activity for which the application for dredge and fill permit was submitted consists of improvements to a drainage-way running from the south boundary of the MRT property to a pond designated in the application as "Pond II", together with a drawndown structure, referred to as "S-15". Following submittal of the permit application, DER notified MRT of the receipt of the application and advised that both a permit under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes and a license for stormwater discharge under Rule 17-4.248, Florida Administrative Code, would be required. Following review by the Department, during which MRT was notified that the application in its original form would not be received favorably, MRT, on August 21, 1980, revised its application and based on such revisions, the Department, on October 10, 1980, notified MRT of its intent to issue the permit and license sought. As indicated in the Intent to Issue, DER has asserted jurisdiction over the dredge and fill activities in question contending that they are contemplated to either be in or connected to "waters of the State". Specifically, the Department's Intent to Issue states as follows: The Department has permitting jurisdiction under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, Section 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code, and Public Law 92-500 over dredge and fill activities conducted in or connected to certain waters of the State. The specific pond in question and the pond to which it is connected constitute waters of the State over which the Department has dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction as defined in Section 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code. The project is not exempt from permitting procedures. Pond II is approximately four acres in size and consists of a western lobe of approximately one acre. Pond II is connected to the north to a waterbody known as Pond III/Foxcroft Lake". The vegetation in the south portion of Pond III is typical of fresh water vegetation that grows in submerged or wet areas. The vegetation in an existing well-defined channel between Pond II and the proposed location of structure S-15 is also comprised of water-tolerant species. Sagittaria subulata was observed in the channel in the area proposed for location of S-15. This plant species cannot tolerate dry conditions, indicating that water is present in the channel under most conditions. Further, no upland or pioneer species were observed in the channel, which also is indicative of the fact that the channel usually contains water. Water flows from Pond II to Pond III approximately 90 percent of the time. The base flow in the channel is approximately 2 cubic feet per second. Based on the storage capacity of Pond II, it is probable that flow occurs out of Pond II into Pond III under most conditions. Although 88.0 feet mean seal level is the design normal pond elevation expected after construction of S-15, the present observable elevation of Pond II appears to be between 89.94 and 90.09 mean sea level. Observations of the types of vegetation surrounding Pond II supports the conclusion that the existing normal level of Pond II is approximately 90.0 mean sea level. Pond III is a waterbody of approximately four acres in size and is a portion of the continuation of a larger 10 acre body of water referred to in this proceeding as "Foxcroft Lake". Pond III was the subject of a prior Department dredge and fill permit in which it was determined that Pond III constituted waters of the State subject to the dredge and fill jurisdiction of the Department. Pond III/Foxcroft Lake is a lake owned by more than one person, of approximately 14 acres of surface area and a maximum average depth of approximately 3 feet. Pond III/Foxcroft Lake discharges to and is connected directly to a waterbody known as Long Pond. Long Pond in turn is eventually connected to and discharges into Lake Lafayette. Without any mechanisms designed to treat the pollutants expected to be generated by the proposed project, the development by MRT of its 120 acres of property could reasonably be expected to have a significant adverse impact on the waters of Pond II, Pond III and Foxcroft Lake. Scientific studies demonstrate that potential pollutants generated from developments - single family, multi-family and commercial - have a significant impact on receiving waters if not treated before discharged. The project as presently designed will correct an existing source of pollution by removing sediment which is entering Pond II from the south from Shannon Forest Subdivision. This sediment has been deposited in the drainage- way between Shannon Forest and Pond II and is damaging and severely stressing biota in the drainage-way. This sediment has filled a portion of Pond II and could be expected to eventually discharge into Pond III/Foxcroft Lake. The pre-development rate of flow off the project site as it presently exists is approximately 600 cubic ft. per second. The project as proposed will reduce the rate of flow by 50 percent, to approximately 300 cfs. The project incorporates five mechanisms or abatement controls to treat contaminants customarily contained in stormwater: a grassed conveyance system; retention of natural vegetated areas; energy dissipators; sediment traps; and added storage. Grassed conveyance systems treat stormwater by the assimulation by plant communities of dissolved pollutants, such as nutrients, and the deposition of suspended pollutants that have absorbed to the sediment particles. Approximately 50 percent of the conveyance system in the Phase II development will be grassed swales and re-vegetated ditches. As many swales as possible will be used to convey the stormwater from the discharge at the street outfalls to the ponds. The main drainage ditch through the property will also be grassed. Natural vegetated areas to be left around the existing ponds will treat stormwater by assimilation and filtration in the same manner as the grassed swales and ditches. A one-acre parcel of wetlands is to be left between the southern most portion of the drainage-way and Pond II as described in MRT Exhibit No. 8 and in the revised permit application of August 21, 1980. The vegetation downstream of Pond II between the pond and control structure S-15 will also be left intact. Virtually all the vegetation bordering Pond II and Pond III will be left in place. Five energy dissipaters are to be constructed upstream of Pond II. These structures are designed to reduce the existing sedimentation and erosion problems by reducing the energy gradient and allowing the deposition of sediment, upon which absorbed pollutants have attached, into the accompanying sediment traps. Sediment traps are also to be constructed upstream of Pond II. Sediment traps treat stormwater by reducing the velocity gradient. Sediment and the pollutants absorbed to the sediment will drop out due to insufficient velocity. Storage will be increased in Pond II by the construction of control structure S-15 and by the planned excavation of Pond II. Added storage has a beneficial effect on water quality in that it allows additional sediment particles to settle out, allows additional time for the vegetation on the edge of the ponds to assimilate dissolved pollutants such as nutrients, and reduces the peak discharge velocity. The project is in the public interest in that it will alleviate an existing stormwater problem. In terms of probable efficiency, physical needs and costs, the project represents the best available treatment alternative. Based on existing technology, the system designed for this project is the most effective system within reasonable costs. The effectiveness of the stormwater treatment system depends on the presence of vegetation and will require less maintenance and attendant costs. There does not presently appear to be any local government effort to implement stormwater controls to address this problem or source. Petitioner submitted no evidence of such local government efforts. The system proposed by MRT will mitigate not only the effects of the discharge generated by the proposed development of the 120 acres of property owned by MRT, but will also mitigate the effects of an existing source of stormwater pollution. The system, as designed, is sufficient to afford the Department reasonable assurance that stormwater quality standards will not be violated. The parties stipulated that, should the requested permit and license be issued, they should incorporate the following additional condition: Roads and drainage facilities are to be owned and maintained by Leon County. All paving and drainage shall be done in accordance with the County's standards, details and specifications. In addition, MRT has instituted civil litigation against Leon County concerning the property involved in this proceeding. One of the allegations of MRT's complaint is that Leon County has, through the action amounting to inverse condemnation, acquired a drainage easement over the property for which MRT is now seeking the dredge and fill and stormwater permits. The plans submitted to DER by MRT with its application contain the following: When the construction plans for Phase III of the Royal Oaks development are prepared, these plans shall be submitted to the Department for evaluation for compliance with the original stormwater review.
Findings Of Fact SFWMD is a public corporation and local sponsor for the federally authorized Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project. As part of its duties as local sponsor, SFWMD operates eight pumping stations and six other structures all of which discharge into Lake Okeechobee. On August 26, 1977, SFWMD filed an application with DER for an operating permit for its inflow points into Lake Okeechobee. By mutual agreement, SFWMD and DER determined that there was insufficient data available to determine whether SFWMD qualified for an operating permit, therefore, DER proposed issuing a TOP. On November 22, 1978, DER issued its notice of intent to issue a TOP to SFWMD for its inflow points into Lake Okeechobee. Among the conditions contained in the TOP is that the permit will be effective for thirty (30) months. Petitioners complain that Lake Okeechobee is being environmentally damaged by the drainage into Lake Okeechobee of waters from surrounding agriculture and dairy farming areas. This, say the Petitioners, is causing the eutrophication or damaging enrichment of the Lake by the addition of chemical elements above their natural levels in that environment. DER and SFWMD contend that at least thirty (30) months is required to complete the testing and observation of the Lake and to make long-range plans for reduction of drainage into Lake Okeechobee and to develop necessary management alternatives to accomplish that goal. The proposed TOP provides a temporal framework. Within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the permit, SFWMD is required to present to DER a program for interim actions which will reduce nutrient loading during the time of the permit. Within 120 days of the issuance of the permit, SFWMD is required to submit for approval by DER a plan of study for determining the probable impacts of management alternatives for reducing the nutrient loading into Lake Okeechobee. Within twenty-four (24) months of the issuance of the permit, SFWMD is required to submit to DER an analysis of the impacts of each reasonable management alternative which will reduce the nutrient loading into Lake Okeechobee. During two successive rainy seasons SFWMD is required to do extensive chemical testing on site. After SFWMD submits its analysis of the impacts of management alternatives, DER has six months to review the data submitted and approve a schedule for implementing a plan to reduce nutrient loadings into Lake Okeechobee. Petitioners have submitted seven (7) Proposed Findings of Fact, five of which are hereby adopted in this Recommended Order: Lake Okeechobee is in a eutrophic state and getting worse as a result of man's activities. Both state agencies charged with respon- sibility for protecting Lake Okeechobee have long recognized that the Lake is in a eutrophic state and is in need of relief. Both the DER and the SFWMD have recognized that backpumping contributes significantly to eutrophication. Since 1975, DER and SFWMD have known that backpumping is one cultural activity that should be and could be stopped or substan- tially reduced. (This proposed Finding of Fact was numbered 6 in Petitioners' pleading.) The durational provision of the TOP is linked to the addi- tional time the DER and SFWMD claim it will take to study ways to stop backpumping. Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact numbers 5 and 7 are hereby rejected for the following reasons. First Petitioners request a finding that "the state agencies have done nothing to reduce the amount of bad water backpumped into Lake Okeechobee." In fact DER and SFWMD have proposed the TOP with its temporal frame work and requirements of interim actions for reduction of backpumping. Petitioners also propose as a finding of fact that "the TOP's durational provision as drafted is unreasonable and arbitrary in not assuring immediate reductions in backpumping and therefore, should be redrafted to require such action." Petitioners have not supported this contention with substantial, competent evidence. In fact, the TOP provides that a plan for the reduction of nutrient loading be presented within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the TOP. Furthermore, the proposed finding of fact is outside the scope of the issues framed by the pleadings. The issue is whether the thirty (30) month durational provision of the TOP should be reduced to twelve (12) months and not whether the TOP provides for immediate reductions in backpumping. The reason for the issuance of the TOP in lieu of an operating permit is to allow SFWMD time to gather data, to assess impacts and to develop management alternatives for the control of nutrient and pollutant loadings. Although some biological and chemical data already exist, much of the information requested of SFWMD under the TOP is currently unavailable. Specifically, the TOP requires that numerical nutrient limits be established for each discharge point and that specific management alternatives be developed. Currently available data on backpumping reduction does not specifically detail how much reduction is feasible nor what alternatives are soundest environmentally. Existing reports dealing with backpumping into Lake Okeechobee are not specific enough to support presently implementable management alternatives. Petitioners introduced no evidence to establish that the budgetary or manpower constraints with which SFWMD must deal would allow a reduction of the durational provision of the TOP from thirty (30) months to twelve (12) months. SFWMD's witnesses, however, established that if SFWMD were required to complete the study within one year, it would be economically impossible unless money and personnel earmarked for other important projects were tapped. Not only would the instant studies suffer a decline in quality but other equally pressing environmental studies would be jeopardized.
The Issue Whether or not Petitioners' application for an on-site sewage disposal system (OSDS) permit should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Paula and David Caywood, are the owners of Lot 54, Timber Pines Subdivision, Unit 1, in Madison County, Florida. The subject lot is situated within the ten year flood plain of the Suwannee River Basin. On August 13, 1990, Petitioners filed an application with Respondent to install an OSDS to service a two-bedroom home which they desired to place on the subject lot. As an attachment to their OSDS application, Petitioners introduced a copy of a survey of their lot which was prepared by Walton F. Poppell, a Florida registered land surveyor who holds registration number 2940. The ground elevation for the ten year flood plain for the subject area where Petitioners propose to install their OSDS is 68.0 ft. A review of the land survey presented by Petitioners indicate that the proposed OSDS would be at a ground elevation of 63.8 ft. and when completed would be placed at a ground level of 65.64 ft. or 2.36 ft. below the elevation of the ten year flood plain. Although the Petitioners lot is not subject to frequent flooding, since the surface grade is beneath the ten year flood elevation, the bottom of the drain field trenches absorption bed to be installed would also be beneath the ten year flood elevation. Petitioners have not applied for a variance to install their OSDS within the ten year flood plain of the Suwannee River Basin.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioners application to install an OSDS to service a two-bedroom home on Lot 54, Timber Pines Subdivision, Unit 1, in Madison County, Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 28th day of February, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: David and Paula Caywood 9320 Horizon Drive Springhill, Florida 34608 John L. Pearce, Esquire HRS District II Legal Office 2639 N. Monroe Street, Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact The Winter Haven Housing Authority is developing a low-income cluster housing project on approximately eleven acres of land near 26th Street in Winter Haven, Florida. The project is known as the "Lake Deer" project. A stormwater runoff system for the project has been designed. The project, including the stormwater runoff system, is presently under construction. Petitioner is an incorporated association. Its members include several persons who live in close proximity to the Lake Deer project. Prior to commencement of construction on the Lake Deer project site, stormwater runoff from approximately seven acres of the site drained into a system which terminated at Lake Howard. Runoff from the remainder of the site drained toward Lake Deer. The Housing Authority's original plans called for changing this drainage pattern so that the entire site would drain toward Lake Howard. This was reflected in the Authority's original application to the Department of Environmental Regulation. Since that time, the authority has made changes in its plan, and the stormwater drainage system as presently being developed would have characteristics more closely approximating those of the undeveloped condition of the project site. The Authority's plan is to construct twelve "ponds" on the site. These ponds would be dry except during rainy times. Stormwater from the site would run into these ponds. The ponds would retain one inch of runoff from any storm event. If a storm event resulted in one inch or less of runoff, runoff from the project would accumulate in the ponds and percolate laterally and horizontally into the underlying groundwater. Only a very small amount of stormwater from the project would flow overland off the project site. A "swale" has been designed along the western border of the site. The swale has been divided so that the northern portion of it can carry runoff toward Lake Deer, and the southern portion can carry runoff toward Lake Howard. The swale would remain dry except during rainy times. The swale is connected with the ponds on the site through underground pipes. In the event that a given storm event resulted in more than one inch of runoff, water would flow from the ponds through the pipes to the swale. Water would only flow from the ponds to the swale when a storm event resulted in more than one inch of runoff. Runoff in excess of one inch from a given storm event would thus flow from the ponds to the swale, then to Lake Deer from the northern portion of the swale, or to Lake Howard from the southern portion. There was disputed testimony during the hearing as to whether the bottoms of the ponds and swale are above or below present groundwater levels in the area. The more credible evidence is that drainage systems already in effect in the area have lowered groundwater levels below the bottom levels of the ponds and swale so that the ponds and swale would be dry absent a storm event. The soils underlying the Lake Deer project site are classified as "myakka sands." This is a common soil type in the southern portion of Florida. Myakka sands are typically regarded has having poor drainage characteristics. This is because the groundwater level is generally very close to the surface in the areas where myakka sands are found. In areas where the groundwater level is lower, such as at the Lake Deer project site, myakka sands have very good drainage characteristics. Water from the retention ponds on the Lake Deer project site should therefore percolate as they are designed to do. The ponds are designed to retain one inch of runoff from a storm event. The runoff coefficient on the site is 0.32. This means that for every inch of rain which falls on the site, only approximately one-third of an inch would contribute to runoff. The remainder would either evaporate or percolate into the soil and not become runoff. With this runoff coefficient, it would take a three-inch rainfall event to generate one inch of runoff. Therefore, water will not flow from the ponds to the swale system except after a three-inch rainfall event. Storms of this magnitude do occur, but they are relatively rare, having a ninety-nine percent chance of not occurring within any given year. Given geologic and hydrologic conditions in the area of the Lake Deer project site, the drainage system that has been designed for the site should function as designed. The stormwater runoff system for the Lake Deer site will have no impact upon the water quality of receiving waters. Before it reaches either Lake Deer or Lake Howard, stormwater runoff from the site would travel overland across grassy areas into the retention ponds. Overland flow across grassy vegetation has the effect of removing substantial nutrients and pollutants from the runoff. Once the water is An the ponds, there is a "scouring" effect which results in further nutrient and pollutant uptake. Water would then flow from the ponds into the swale system. Flow through the swale system would have an additional purifying effect upon the waters due to additional scouring and nutrient uptake by vegetation in the swale. Given the facts that significant stormwater runoff will leave the Lake Deer site only after a storm event in excess of three inches, and that the runoff will have been subjected to overland flow, retention in ponds, and flow through a swale system, stormwater runoff from the Lake Deer site is not likely to be a source of pollutants for the receiving waters. Runoff which leaves the Lake Deer site through the southern portion of the swale system will enter into a drainage ditch known as the "railroad ditch." The railroad ditch connects with Lake Howard through a culvert system. Due to the size of various culverts that occur along the railroad ditch, flooding occasionally occurs after heavy rainfall events. The drainage system proposed for the Lake Deer site will not exacerbate this flooding condition. No more water, and possibly less, will run off the site once the drainage system is completed than occurred in the predevelopment condition.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Environmental Regulation exempting the stormwater runoff system at the Winter Haven Housing Authority's Lake Deer site from the Department's stormwater runoff permitting requirements. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Herbert N. Nigg Florida STOP, Inc. 229 - 26th Street, Southwest Winter Haven, Florida 33880 Stephen C. Watson, Esquire Hahn, Breathitt, Roberts & Watson, P.A. Post Office Box 38 Lakeland, Florida 33802 J. Julian Bennett, Esquire Jack T. Coyle, Esquire 116 West Central Avenue Winter Haven, Florida 33880 Gordon D. Cherr, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Victoria Tshinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether sanctions, including attorney's fees and costs, should be assessed against Respondent, the Lake Region Audubon Society, Inc. (LRAS), and awarded to Petitioner, Spanish Oaks of Central Florida, LLC (Spanish Oaks), under Sections 57.105, 120.569(2)(e), and 120.595(1), Florida Statutes,1 after LRAS unsuccessfully challenged the Southwest Florida Water Management District's (SWFWMD's) issuance of Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) Number 44025789.001 to Spanish Oaks.
Findings Of Fact LRAS' Amended Petition SWFWMD issued ERP 44025789.001 to Spanish Oaks on April 27, 2004. On May 11, 2005, Donna Stark, a member of LRAS, made a presentation to the LRAS board of directors asserting that Spanish Oaks was using one-to-three sinkholes to collect runoff water, instead of digging retention ponds, contrary to legal requirements and was polluting the underlying aquifer. She asked LRAS to consider filing an administrative challenge to the ERP. After the presentation, the LRAS board decided that its five-member Steering Committee--which took the place of a president, rotated responsibility for conducting board meetings, and functioned like an executive committee--would continue to investigate and make a decision as to what role LRAS should have in the future. The Steering Committee reviewed the information presented by Starks, decided to file a challenge, and invited Starks to help draft a Petition for Administrative Proceeding (LRAS Petition), which was signed by four members of the Steering Committee between May 31 and June 2, 2005, and was filed with SWFWMD on June 6, 2005. Because the timeliness of the LRAS Petition could not be ascertained from the allegations, SWFWD dismissed the Petition without prejudice. On July 11, 2005, an Amended Petition was filed, clarifying that LRAS was orally informed about the Spanish Oaks ERP by one of its members, later identified as Donna Stark, on May 10, 2005. The Amended Petition was signed by LRAS Steering Committee/Acting President Carrie Plair on July 6, 2005, and filed with SWFWMD, which determined that the Amended Petition was timely filed and substantially complied with the requirements for a petition and referred it to DOAH, where it was given DOAH case number 05-2606 and scheduled for a final hearing on September 22-23, 2005. The Amended Petition alleged in ¶5: The following evidence of the karst nature of the site is submitted: On February 3, 2005, in a meeting of Donna Stark, a member of [LRAS], with Sherry Windsor and biologist Jeff Whealton, the District personnel called in their geologist Tom Jackson for his professional opinion on this issue. Based on his training in karst geology and years of field observation at this site (prior to current ownership), Mr. Jackson referred to this structure as a fracture (an elongate sinkhole). Another individual who has graduate training in karst topography and who has studied this site for several years also has informed [LRAS] that this sinkhole has a vertical pipe and was an active "surface-to- ground water system" (Affidavit of Charles Cook - Ex. 8) Petitioners have consulted professionals who specialize in geological and geotechnical engineering and who are well recognized for their work in the state. Based on the available information they have expressed concern and have indicated that a thorough and detailed investigation consisting of geophysical and geotechnical methods should be performed to address the concerns of this Petition. Donna Stark, a member of [LRAS], observed first-hand the sinkhole in the southeast portion of Spanish Oaks collapsed during construction of the retention pond (perhaps due to heavy equipment or due to heavy rains of the fall 2004 hurricanes). Refer to Affidavit - Ex. 9. Paragraph 5. iv) of the Amended Petition continued and asserted that “[o]n November 13, 2004, LRAS member Donna Stark was informed by a man who had worked on the Spanish Oaks site [later identified as George Wilt] that the retention ponds were 30 feet deep.” It also asserted that LRAS member Donna Stark observed firsthand a sinkhole collapse that allegedly occurred in the southeast portion of Spanish Oaks site during construction of Retention Pond A. The Amended Petition alleged that on January 25, 2005, Donna Stark, along with a state employee (later identified as Timothy King), observed a "very large cone- shaped depression with smooth steeply-sloping sides – so steep that Donna Stark was nervous that the front-end loader driving up and down the slopes could end up in the aquifer if he lost traction in the loose unconsolidated sands. In the center of the depression was a lake perhaps 50 feet in diameter." The Amended Petition further alleged that “Donna Stark judged the distance from the top of the ground surface to the water surface to be about 15 feet.” It also asserted: "On February 4, 2005, Donna Stark went to the District office in Bartow to discuss this issue with the engineer in charge of the project, Sherry Windsor, biologist Jeff Whealton and geologist Tom Jackson. The engineering worksheet in the file shows a required depth of 6.5 feet from pond bottom elevation (136.5') to top of bank elevation (143.0')[.] It was suggested by one of the District scientists that the retention pond had collapsed during construction to create the observed depth. This is the only logical explanation in the opinion of Petitioner since [that would be a violation and grounds for revocation, as well very expensive, and would serve no useful purpose]." It also alleged that, "[w]hen Donna Stark returned on February 10, 2005, the area had been filled with sand to the required elevation and was flat-bottomed." On the clay core issue, paragraph 5. iv) of the Amended Petition alleged: "When Donna Stark spoke to William Hartmann, [SWFWMD] Surface Waters Regulation Manager, on April 21, 2005 he indicated that he had received no phone call from Permittee and that District staff had not inspected the clay core construction. At that time, the 'As-Built' inspection had been requested." The "Concise Statement of Ultimate Facts Alleged" included the statement: "Permittee also did not inform the District, as required, when (and if) a clay core was constructed in the berms. Serious impacts on adjacent property may be expected if the clay cores were not properly constructed." The Amended Petition in ¶6 alleged the following as disputed issues of material fact: the Permit allows construction of a retention pond in a sinkhole in the southeast portion of the site; construction of a retention pond in a sinkhole creates a danger to public health and safety; Spanish Oaks failed to notify SWFWMD that it was beginning construction of the clay cores of certain berms surrounding the retention ponds, as required by a permit condition so that SWFWMD could inspect during the construction; and Spanish Oaks failed to follow SWFWMD rules by neglecting to provide for permanent erosion control measures. LRAS’ Amended Petition asserted in ¶7. ii) that the Spanish Oaks development violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-522.300(1) and (3),2 which provided in pertinent part: (1) . . . [N]o installation shall directly or indirectly discharge into ground water any contaminant that causes a violation in the . . . criteria for receiving ground water as established in Chapter 62-520, F.A.C., except within a zone of discharge established by permit or rule pursuant to this chapter. * * * (3) Other discharges through wells or sinkholes that allow direct contact with Class G-I, Class F-I, or Class G-II ground water shall not be allowed a zone of discharge. It was alleged that this violation required reversal or modification of the proposed agency action. It was later revealed that the professionals referred to in paragraph 5. iii) of the Amended Petition included three engineers, one named Larry Madrid, and "many, many professionals of different government agencies." The attached "affidavit" (actually, an unsworn statement) of Charles Cook set out the basis of his knowledge of karst geology in general, and the Spanish Oaks site in particular, and his "conclusion that three depressional features existed on the subject parcel and I personally explored a subterranian [sic] void in a depressional sinkhole located in the southern part of the parcel in question, and believe it was an active recharge conduit connecting with subsurface aquifers." The attached "affidavit" (actually, an unsworn statement) of Donna Stark included the statement: "I hereby certify that the information submitted to [LRAS] concerning Spanish Oaks is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge." It also repeated some of the allegations in the Amended Petition and gave her "qualifying credentials for the above observations and interpretations" including: Ph.D. in Ecology from the University of Minnesota - 1971 with thesis title "Paleolimnology of Elk Lake, Itasca State Park, Northwestern Minnesota" Post-doctoral Research at Limnological Research Center, University of Minnesota 1972-1973 - published 1976 Science teaching at Southeastern College in Lakeland 1973-1974. Full Professor. The Amended Petition also was buttressed with citations cited to several scientific publications about karst geology, sinkholes, and stormwater retention ponds. It is clear that LRAS relied heavily on Donna Stark and her educational background and scientific knowledge, her alleged personal knowledge, and her alleged discussions with various professionals, including District personnel. Starks actually drafted almost all of the Petition and Amended Petition for the LRAS Steering Committee. Proceedings in Case 05-2606 LRAS was represented in Case 05-2606 by Paul Anderson, a member of LRAS' Steering Committee. By letter filed July 27, 2005, LRAS requested that the ALJ enter an order requiring a halt to all work on Spanish Oaks. On August 1, 2005, Spanish Oaks filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion to Strike. The grounds were that there was no jurisdiction to enforce compliance with permit conditions, which the prayer for relief in the Amended Petition seemed to seek, and that allegations of non-compliance with ERP conditions should be stricken as irrelevant to issuance of the ERP. Discovery was initiated in Case 05-2606. In addition, in response to concerns expressed in the Amended Petition, Spanish Oaks hired Sonny Gulati, a professional engineer and expert in the field, to undertake a sinkhole investigation on the Spanish Oaks property using ground penetrating radar (GPR) and standard penetration testing (SPT). Mr. Gulati concluded that there were no active sinkholes on the site and prepared a report to that effect. Spanish Oaks presented the report to LRAS in August 2005; Spanish Oaks also served LRAS with a Motion for Attorney's Fees under Sections 57.105, 120.569(2)(e), and 120.595(1)(a-e), Florida Statutes (Motion), and informed LRAS that Spanish Oaks would file the Motion within 21 days if LRAS did not drop its opposition to the ERP. The Motion specifically alleged the impropriety of the sinkhole and clay core issues raised in the Amended Petition but did not mention the erosion control issue. LRAS' first attempt at discovery was defective in that its interrogatories and requests for production were directed to witness Tom Jackson instead of SWFWMD. SWFWMD moved for a protective order, which was granted on August 17, 2005. LRAS promptly served interrogatories and requests for production on SWFWMD and Spanish Oaks. Also on August 17, 2005, an Order was entered explaining to LRAS the procedure for obtaining qualified non- attorney representation, and an Order on Motion to Dismiss or Strike and Request for Stop-Work Order was entered. The latter Order recognized that the peculiar procedural posture of the case (namely, that LRAS' Amended Petition was timely even though it challenged an ERP purportedly issued in April 2004) contributed to the incorrect wording of LRAS' prayer for relief; placed a gloss on LRAS' prayer for relief as seeking denial, not revocation, of the ERP; and declined to strike allegations of non-compliance with the ERP, as they could be relevant to LRAS' challenge to the provision of reasonable assurance by Spanish Oaks. The stop-work request was denied for lack of jurisdiction to give injunctive relief in an enforcement matter. (Unbeknownst to the ALJ, on July 22, 2005, SWFWMD approved the transfer of the ERP to the operation phase, with responsibility for future operation and maintenance transferred to the Spanish Oaks of Central Florida Homeowners Association (HOA), notwithstanding the requirement of Section 120.569(2)(a), Florida Statutes, that SWFWMD take no further action on the ERP except as a party litigant.) By letter dated August 26, 2005, LRAS requested that Spanish Oaks allow its retained engineer to enter, inspect, and conduct investigations on the Spanish Oaks site. Spanish Oaks denied this request. At the end of August and in early September 2005, the parties exchanged hearing exhibits and witness lists in accordance with the Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions. When LRAS followed the procedure for obtaining approval of qualified, non-attorney representation by Mr. Anderson, Spanish Oaks objected to Mr. Anderson's qualifications. On September 7, 2005, an Order Authorizing Qualified Representation was entered. It recognized the short- comings in Mr. Anderson's qualifications, and the possibility that representation by a Florida attorney would benefit LRAS and make the proceeding fairer to all (including LRAS). Also on September 7, 2005, Spanish Oaks filed its Motion for Attorney's Fees under Sections 57.105, 120.569(2)(e), and 120.595(1)(a-e), Florida Statutes. Cf. Finding 14, supra. On September 12, 2005, LRAS filed a request for permission to add Mr. Madrid to its witness list. On September 14, 2005, an Order Denying, without Prejudice, Request to Add Witness was entered because the request did not indicate whether LRAS had conferred with the other parties. On September 15, 2005, Spanish Oaks filed a Response in Opposition to Request for Entry upon Land for Inspection and Other Purposes and Motion for Protective Order. Spanish Oaks asserted that it no longer had control over the retention ponds, which were controlled by the HOA, and that home construction was in progress, making timing and coordination of the request problematic, if not impossible. Spanish Oaks also asserted that, if the inspections were allowed, multiple issues would have to be addressed, including potential liability and insurance issues, and that more detail would be required to ensure that LRAS' inspection, which could include drilling sample borings in the retention ponds, would not compromise the integrity of the stormwater system and retention ponds. By letter dated September 19, 2005, LRAS requested that Spanish Oaks agree to the addition of Mr. Madrid as a witness. By another letter dated September 19, 2005, LRAS requested that Spanish Oaks produce back-up documentation supporting Mr. Gulati's sinkhole investigation report, including site maps of GPR test locations, the uninterpreted GPR raw data, the GPR strip charts, as well as the actual SPT soil borings, because LRAS' retained expert geologist, Marc Hurst, had advised LRAS that the information was necessary for him to determine the reliability of Mr. Gulati's report and conclusions. A telephone hearing was held on September 20, 2005, on LRAS' requests to add Mr. Madrid to its witness list, for Mr. Hurst to be allowed entry on the Spanish Oaks site to inspect and investigate, and for Mr. Hurst to be allowed to review the back-up documentation and SPT borings supporting Mr. Gulati's report. No party ever requested a continuance of the final hearing (set to begin in just two days), and the request to add Mr. Madrid as a witness was denied as too late. It is not known what Mr. Madrid's testimony would have been. LRAS dropped its request for entry on land in the face of the opposing arguments from Spanish Oaks. As to the back-up documentation supporting Mr. Gulati's report, Mr. Gulati was required to bring the documents to the final hearing but Spanish Oaks was not required to produce the SPT borings, which were represented to be numerous and a large quantity of soil. Immediately before the start of the final hearing, Spanish Oaks filed both a Motion in Limine, which was denied, and a Motion for Summary Recommended Order. Ruling on the pending motions was deferred. Spanish Oaks' Motion for Summary Recommended Order Motion was based on arguments that LRAS' filing of the Amended Petition was "ultra vires" and that LRAS had no standing. These issues (which ultimately were resolved in favor of LRAS and against Spanish Oaks) were the focus of much of the effort of Spanish Oaks in discovery and in the final hearing, as reflected in the Recommended Order in the case. Recommended and Final Orders in Case 05-2606 After the final hearing, Spanish Oaks filed a proposed recommended order suggesting that jurisdiction to rule on its Motion for Attorney's Fees under Sections 57.105, 120.569(2)(e), and 120.595(1)(a-e), Florida Statutes, should be retained. A Recommended Order that ERP 44025789.001 be issued to Spanish Oaks was entered in Case 05-2606 on November 10, 2005. Jurisdiction was retained to consider Spanish Oaks’ Motion for Attorney's Fees under Sections 57.105, 120.569(2)(e), and 120.595(1)(a-e), if renewed within 30 days after issuance of the final order. On November 30, 2006, SWFWMD entered a Final Order adopting the Recommended Order in its entirety and issuing ERP 44025789.001 to Spanish Oaks. As to the ERP criteria, the Recommended Order found in pertinent part: Alleged Sinkholes * * * Marc Hurst, a geologist who testified for LRAS, opined that Mr. Gulati’s sinkhole investigation was insufficient to demonstrate whether or not the Spanish Oaks retention ponds were constructed over sinkholes.11 However, Mr. Hurst offered no opinion as to whether the retention ponds are located over active sinkholes. Nor did Mr. Hurst specifically disagree with Mr. Gulati’s conclusion that the Spanish Oaks retention ponds have not been impacted by active sinkholes.12 To the contrary, Mr. Hurst admitted that the retention ponds were holding water on the day that he observed them--indicating that to him that the ponds were not acting as a strong conduit to the aquifer. Mr. Gulati also noted the significance of the presence of water in the ponds, stating that, if there were active sinkholes in the ponds, they would not hold water.13 EN. 11 - Notably, Mr. Hurst has only participated in four sinkhole investigations and reviewed the reports of approximately six other such investigations, while Mr. Gulati has conducted between 700 and 800 during the past ten years. EN. 12 - The anecdotal testimony of Charles Cook and Tom Jackson regarding their observations of depressions and “cracks” at the site several years earlier did not support a finding that there is an active sinkhole. Mr. Jackson, a geologist for SWFWMD, was not willing to draw such a conclusion. EN. 13 - Mr. Gulati acknowledged that, in areas where the aquifer is under artesian pressure, an active sinkhole will hold water. However, that aquifer condition does not exist in the vicinity of Spanish Oaks. T. 358. The only suggestion of any sinkhole- related damage to the retention ponds came from Donna Stark, who testified that George Wilt--a heavy equipment operator at the site incorrectly identified by Ms. Stark as “an employee of Spanish Oaks”--told her that there had been a sinkhole collapse during the excavation of Pond A. This hearsay testimony was directly contradicted by Mr. Wilt himself, who testified that he made no such statement. Despite the allegation in LRAS’ petition regarding observations of collapse of sinkhole by Donna Stark, Ms. Stark herself admitted at hearing that she did not witness any actual collapse. Rather, she testified that, on January 25, 2005, she saw what she believed to be the aftermath of a sinkhole collapse. Stark may have been confused by the amount of excavated material being stored on the ground surface around the pond. 43,906 cubic yards of dirt was excavated from Pond A alone and was stacked to a height of 8-10 feet higher than the natural ground elevation. Others who observed the site on January 25, 2005, saw no evidence of a sinkhole collapse. Tim King, a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission employee who was with Ms. Stark on January 25, 2005, merely reported seeing pond excavation in process. Laura Howe, a SWFWMD employee who inspected the site on that date, observed that “[i]t appears depth of ponds are [p]robably close to permitted depth.” Moreover, Ms. Stark admits that, on February 10, 2005, she observed the ponds to be “[s]even and a half feet, or six and a half, whatever it should be.” Ms. Stark’s suggestion that the collapse was filled in between January 25 and February 10, 2005, is belied by testimony that repairing a sinkhole collapse of the size suggested by Ms. Stark would have required much more material than was available. (No dirt was imported onto the site.) The evidence admitted at hearing requires a finding that there was no sinkhole collapse onsite. Spanish Oaks provided reasonable assurance that the System was designed and constructed to include sufficient separation between the pond bottoms and the Floridan Aquifer to prevent groundwater contamination. Construction of Berms LRAS contended in its Amended Petition that Spanish Oaks failed to give notice prior to constructing clay cores in some of the berms onsite, as required as a condition of the ERP, and that this failure constituted failure to provide reasonable assurances.14 EN. 14 - The Amended Petition actually alleged that this was a permit condition violation requiring revocation of the ERP. However, it was ruled prehearing that "the Petitioner's request for revocation actually is a request for a final order denying Spanish Oaks' application for a permit" and that "the allegations of non- compliance with permit conditions should not be stricken but instead should be considered only as they might relate to Spanish Oaks' provision of required reasonable assurances for issuance of a permit." See Order on Motion to Dismiss or Strike and Request for Stop-Work Order, entered August 17, 2005. The interconnection of the three ponds that are part of the System will allow them to function as one pond, while a perimeter berm around the entire Spanish Oaks project will ensure that surface water runoff is retained onsite and directed toward the ponds. Ponds A and C are located, respectively, at the southeast and northeast corners of Spanish Oaks.15 The design plans submitted with the ERP application indicated that the berms alongside the eastern side of Ponds A and C are to include clay cores, a design feature that was included as a specific condition in the ERP. The purpose of the clay cores was to prevent offsite impacts caused by lateral movement of water. EN. 15 - Pond B is centrally located in the Spanish Oaks’ interior. The specific conditions of the ERP also required that Spanish Oaks notify SWFWMD's "Surface Water Regulation Manager, Bartow Permitting Department [William Hartmann], at least 48 hours prior to commencement of construction of the clay core, so that District staff may observe this construction activity." LRAS proved that Mr. Hartmann did not personally receive a phone call prior to the construction of the clay cores, as required by the ERP, and that SWFWMD staff did not observe the construction. Mr. Hartmann explained that this constituted a permit condition compliance issue which would prevent the ERP from being transferred to the operation phase until SWFWMD was assured that the clay core was, in fact, constructed as required. To confirm proper construction of the clay core, Spanish Oaks undertook soil borings. SWFWMD staff engineer Sherry Windsor was onsite to observe the soil borings. Spanish Oaks also submitted a report from its engineering consultant certifying that the clay cores had been properly constructed in accordance with the ERP. SWFWMD typically relies on a project engineer’s signed and sealed certifications of compliance matters. SWFWMD staff observations and the certification provided by the Spanish Oaks engineer satisfactorily resolved the issue of proper clay core construction. Failure to notify Mr. Hartmann prior to construction, as required by the ERP, does not undermine Spanish Oaks' provision of the necessary reasonable assurance for issuance of the ERP. Endnote 3 at Finding of Fact 4 in the Recommended Order in Case 05-2606 stated: "The Amended Petition also alleged that Spanish Oaks failed to follow SWFWMD rules by neglecting to provide for permanent erosion control measures, but no evidence was presented by LRAS on this issue, which appears to have been abandoned." As to the ERP criteria, the Recommended Order concluded in pertinent part: The applicable criteria for the issuance of a standard general ERP for the Spanish Oaks project are set forth in Rules 40D-4.301 and 40D-4.302, as well as SWFWMD's Basis of Review (BOR), which is made applicable pursuant to Rule 40D-4.301(3). LRAS’ challenge to the ERP alleges the presence of a sinkhole or a sinkhole collapse in one or more of the retention ponds for the Spanish Oaks subdivision, and the impact that such alleged sinkhole or sinkhole collapse would have on conditions for issuance relating to groundwater quality. LRAS’ case reflects a basic misperception of the permitting criteria applicable to surface water management system retention ponds. Section 6.4.1.b. of the BOR, which establishes specific design criteria for retention areas, requires as follows: Depth – The detention or retention area shall not be excavated to a depth that breaches an aquitard such that it would allow for lesser quality water to pass, either way, between the two systems. In those geographical areas of the District, where there is not an aquitard present, the depth of the pond shall not be excavated to within two (2) feet of the underlying limestone which is part of a drinking water aquifer. As found, the Spanish Oaks retention ponds comply with this criterion. LRAS also contends that the Spanish Oaks retention ponds violate Rule 62- 522.300, a rule which, in LRAS’ view, prohibits the location of a stormwater retention pond in or over a sinkhole. LRAS’ reading of the rule is incorrect. Rule 62- 522.300(1), with certain exceptions not relevant here, provides that no installation shall directly or indirectly discharge into ground water any contaminant that causes a violation in the . . . criteria for receiving ground water as established in Chapter 62-520, F.A.C., except within a zone of discharge established by permit or rule pursuant to this chapter. The purpose of a zone of discharge is to provide a mixing zone “extending to the base of the designated aquifer or aquifers, within which an opportunity for the treatment, mixture or dispersion of wastes into receiving ground water is afforded.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-520.200(23). No evidence introduced at hearing suggests that the surface water runoff that infiltrates through the bottom surfaces of the Spanish Oaks retention ponds, and then travels approximately 70 feet through soil before reaching the Floridan aquifer, will exceed applicable ground water criteria when it reaches the aquifer. For that reason, the Spanish Oaks retention ponds do not need a zone of discharge. Rule 62-522.300(3) provides that Other discharges through wells or sinkholes that allow direct contact with Class G-I, Class F-I, or Class G-II ground water shall not be allowed a zone of discharge. (Emphasis supplied). Classes F-1, G-1, and G-II groundwaters are designated for potable use and are located within an aquifer. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-520.410. “Aquifer” is specifically defined as “a geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formation capable of yielding a significant amount of ground water to wells, springs or surface water." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 520.200(2). Unless the alleged sinkholes allowed "direct contact" with the Floridan Aquifer, a zone of discharge would be permitted, assuming one were needed. No evidence introduced at hearing suggests that discharges from the retention ponds will come into direct contact with Class G-1, Class F-1, or Class G-II groundwaters. Instead, the discharges from the Spanish Oaks ponds only indirectly contact a drinking water aquifer, after infiltrating through tens of feet of separating soil layers. LRAS has not identified any applicable rule that prohibits the location of a retention pond in or over a relic sinkhole. Indeed, the record establishes that the presence of a sinkhole in or under a retention pond is problematic only if sinkhole activity affects the approved design of the retention pond. See Findings 47 and 49, supra. LRAS’s assertion of a sinkhole collapse at Spanish Oaks during the time frame alleged is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, which established that the ponds have been constructed and are operating as designed and that there is no active sinkhole on the Spanish Oaks site that adversely affects the quality of receiving waters such that state water quality standards would be violated, or that otherwise affects Spanish Oaks’ ability to provide reasonable assurance of meeting applicable permitting conditions. LRAS offered no evidence to establish that water percolating through the Spanish Oaks retention ponds will come into direct contact with a drinking water aquifer or that a state water quality standard would be violated by the project. The greater weight of the evidence established that the Spanish Oaks retention ponds comply with the applicable construction requirement as stated in BOR Section 6.4.1.b. There is more than sufficient soil underlying the Spanish Oaks retention ponds to assure compliance with this requirement. As found, Spanish Oaks' failure to notify Mr. Hartmann before beginning construction of the clay core berm does not prevent Spanish Oaks from providing reasonable assurance that permit criteria will be met. As a result, Spanish Oaks has met its burden of proof and persuasion that all conditions for issuance of the permit have been satisfied and that it is entitled to the requested ERP. As suggested in the proposed recommended order filed by Spanish Oaks in Case 05-2606, the Recommended Order retained jurisdiction to consider Spanish Oaks’ Motion for Attorney's Fees under Sections 57.105, 120.569(2)(e), and 120.595(1)(a-e), if renewed within 30 days after issuance of the final order. Spanish Oaks "renewed" the motion by filing its Petition in this case. SWFWMD's Final Order adopted the Recommended Order in its entirety. Petition in Case 05-4644F The Petition in this case asserts essentially that LRAS had no competent substantial evidence: that there was an active sinkhole under the retention ponds on the Spanish Oaks site; that the required clay core was not installed; or that erosion control measures were not used. As to the sinkhole allegations, Spanish Oaks asserts that, even if there were a reasonable basis for filing the Amended Petition in Case 05- 2606, it should have been withdrawn upon receipt of Mr. Gulati's report and Spanish Oaks' Motion for Attorney's Fees under Sections 57.105, 120.569(2)(e), and 120.595(1)(a-e), Florida Statutes. As indicated in the findings of fact and conclusions of law in Case 05-2606, Donna Stark and Charles Cook did not testify precisely as LRAS had been led to believe from their "affidavits" in the Amended Petition that they would. Likewise, the testimony of Timothy King and George Wilt was not supportive of Donna Stark's "affidavit" as to a sinkhole collapse during construction on the site, or her testimony as to Mr. Wilt's statements to her. The testimony of Tom Jackson and Charles Cook also did not completely support Donna Stark's "affidavit" as to the existence of sinkholes on the site. But while the use of "discovery" to establish the testimony of those individuals before the hearing certainly might have alerted LRAS to problems with the "affidavits" it was relying on, it was not incumbent on LRAS to undertake such "discovery" in order to avoid sanctions. It is not found that LRAS's prosecution of its Amended Petition in reliance on those "affidavits" was frivolous, for an improper purpose, or to needlessly increase the costs to Spanish Oaks of having its ERP approved. LRAS' prosecution of the Amended Petition after receiving Mr. Gulati's report and notice of Spanish Oaks' intention to file its Motion for Attorney's Fees under Sections 57.105, 120.569(2)(e), and 120.595(1)(a-e), Florida Statutes, also was not proved to be frivolous, for an improper purpose, or to needlessly increase the costs to Spanish Oaks of having its ERP approved. LRAS attempted to follow up on Mr. Gulati's report so as to enable its retained expert, Mr. Hurst, to verify whether it should be accepted as conclusive proof of the hydrogeology of the site, and perhaps assure LRAS that its Amended Petition could be withdrawn, but LRAS' attempts were unsuccessful. As a result, LRAS was left to presentation of Mr. Hurst's testimony based on the information he had. Mr. Hurst testified to the likely existence of at least three sinkholes at the site. He based this testimony on his knowledge of the area's stratigraphy, aerial photographs and topographical maps showing unexplained surface depressions, and evidence reported in Mr. Gulati's report. In addition, there are two documented sinkholes in the "immediate vicinity" of the site and about a dozen more within two-to-three miles. Based upon his review of all of the pertinent data, Mr. Hurst testified that the surface depressions on the site probably are part of a "lineament"--i.e., a fracture in the limestone formation below the earth's surface along which sinkholes tend to form. While he was unable to testify that an active sinkhole existed at the site, he maintained that the information presented to him was insufficient to disprove the existence of an active sinkhole at the site. He also testified to his opinion that relic sinkholes probably existed under the retention ponds. As found in the Recommended Order in Case 05- 2606: A relic sinkhole, as contrasted to an active sinkhole, has either been sealed or has self-sealed, so that there is no connection between the sinkhole and the underlying aquifer. An active sinkhole provides a direct connection--referred to by both LRAS’ and Spanish Oaks' experts as a “good communication”--between the surface and the aquifer. Mr. Hurst testified that, even if no active sinkhole existed at the site, the likely relic sinkholes made it more likely that active sinkholes would open there and create a direct conduit to the aquifer. At the final hearing and in its proposed recommended order in Case 05-2606, LRAS argued that the Spanish Oaks retention ponds violated Rule 62-522.300, even if they were not constructed over active sinkholes but rather only over relic sinkholes. As concluded in the Recommended Order and Final Order in Case 05-2606, such an interpretation of the Rule would be "incorrect" and a "misperception." But LRAS' primary argument was that Spanish Oaks did not provide reasonable assurance that there were not active sinkholes at the site, and the "fall-back" argument was not unreasonable to make based primarily on Mr. Hurst's testimony. The Petition also asserted that LRAS had no evidence in support of its allegation that the required clay core was not installed, or that required erosion control measures were not provided. But facts supported a finding that Spanish Oaks did not notify SWFWMD, as required, which was ruled to be relevant to the provision of reasonable assurance in general, and the erosion control issue was a minor feature of the Amended Petition, and the Motion for Attorney's Fees under Sections 57.105, 120.569(2)(e), and 120.595(1)(a-e), Florida Statutes, filed in Case 05-2606 did not mention it. Evidence was presented during the final hearing in Case 05-2606 that the challenge in LRAS' Petition and Amended Petition was virtually identical to a challenge to Spanish Oaks' ERP that was filed by Donna Starks on behalf of her not-for- profit corporation, Central Florida EcoTours, in early May 2005 but was time-barred and dismissed because Starks and Ecotours received mailed notice of the issuance of the ERP to Spanish Oaks on April 27, 2004. Spanish Oaks implied during the final hearing in Case No. 05-2606 that Donna Starks told LRAS about the fate of the EcoTours challenge and asked LRAS to file its Petition and Amended Petition at her behest to block the Spanish Oaks development for leverage to accomplish her ulterior motive- -namely, purchase of the property by EcoTours. But those allegations were denied by LRAS and were not proven during the hearing in Case 05-2606.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, South Florida Water Management District (District) is a multipurpose water management agency of the State of Florida. Its duties include the operation and maintenance of a vast network of canals which provide flood control and other benefits to Palm Beach County. Pertinent to this proceeding, the District is the owner in fee of a 600' right of way which contains a canal known as C- The tidewater reach of C-18 extends east from a control structure (S-46) near State Road 706 downstream for a distance of 8,375' (1.6 miles) to the southwest fork of the Loxahatchee River. Of this distance, 7,322' lie upstream from a small bridge, which crosses the C-18 at Loxahatchee River Drive (the bridge) and 1,053' downstream. The canal is approximately 200' wide, with 200' of overbank right of way on its north and south sides. The River Trails Development Petitioner, River Trails, Ltd (River Trails) is the developer of a 28 acre condominium community in Palm Beach County known as River Walk. The River Walk development, comprised of 347 townhouse units, is contiguous to 2,500' of the south overbank right of way of the C-18, approximately midway between S-46 and the southwest fork of the Loxahatchee River. On December 9, 1983, River Trails filed an application with the District for a right of way occupancy permit to selectively clear and regrade the C-18 right of way and to construct a marina facility within the right of way consisting of a temporary parking area, boat ramp and 3 docking facilities with a combined capacity of 97 boats. The District approved River Trails' application and issued it a permit on January 12, 1984. That permit provided: WORK PROPOSED WILL BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 1-31, 1985, otherwise, this permit is voided and all rights thereunder are automatically cancelled unless an extension to the construction period is applied for and granted. Upon receipt of the District's permit, River Trails began to selectively clear the bank of the canal of exotic vegetation, primarily Brazilian pepper, and to regrade the bank to a more gentle slope than its existing 12'-14' vertical drop on the west and 2'-3' vertical drop on the east. In the process, 28 mangrove trees were damaged or destroyed.1 To settle a dispute which arose between Palm Beach County and River Trails over the destruction of the mangroves, River Trails agreed to plant additional mangroves and spartina grass along the southeasterly shoreline of the C-18. To consummate that agreement, River Trails requested that the District modify its permit to allow the selective planting of mangroves and spartina grass along the shoreline and in a tidal slough, to alter the bank slope to provide a wider intertidal zone to accommodate the plantings, and to move the proposed docks further out from the bank of the canal. The District granted River Trails' requested modification on June 25, 1984 subject to the following special conditions: Construction of the boat dock facilities as originally permitted and modified hereunder is subject to the issuance of a permit from the DER. Prior to commencement of construction, the applicant shall submit a DER permit for the boat docking facilities. Any future modification of the boat docking facilities by the applicant must have the approval of the governing board prior to construction. Rule 40E 6.301(c), Florida Administrative Code, requires an applicant to give reasonable assurances that the proposed use of the works of the district "does not degrade the quality of the receiving body and meets the standards of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation for the receiving body. The board may waive the strict enforcement of this provision." Neither issuance of the original permit nor this modification shall be construed as a waiver of this provision as it applies to the per- mitting activity of the DER relative to this project. Department of Environmental Regulation Permitting On December 22, 1983, River Trails applied with the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for a permit and water quality certification to construct its boat ramp and 97 slip marina. During the processing of that application, River Trails requested two waivers of the 90 day time period prescribed by Sections 120.60(2) and 403.0876, Florida Statutes, (180 days total) in order to conduct a hydrographic survey of the area in order to respond to water quality concerns raised by DER. River Trails did not submit a hydrographic survey to DER, nor did it offer such a survey in this proceeding. On December 20, 1984, DER advised River Trails that its proposed boat ramp was exempt from permitting requirements. Thereafter, on December 21, 1984, DER issued its "intent to deny" the balance of River Trail's application predicated on its conclusion that the project was expected to have a long and short term adverse impact on the water quality and biological resources of the C-18 canal and the adjacent Outstanding Florida Waters of the Loxahatchee River. Specifically, DER found that degradation of water quality in the project's Class II waters and the adjacent Outstanding Florida Waters would likely occur due to: Shading from docks and walkways that would likely prohibit recolonization of shoreline vegetation. Marinas can be expected to lower water quality by the accumulation of marina source contaminants, including heavy metals, greases, oils, detergent ,and litter. Increased boat traffic (97+ boats), and their associated wakes will result in increased shoreline erosion. This additional erosion can prohibit the recolonization of shoreline vegetation beneficial to water quality. The cumulative impact of this project and other similar projects within the C-18 canal would be expected to degrade water quality. Prop wash from outboard motor boats in shallow littoral shelf areas will cause turbidity problems and adversely impact existing benthic communities. DER further found the proposed activity contrary to the public interest provisions of Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, since the proposed marina would substantially interfere with the conservation of the Florida Manatee and the destruction of natural marine habitat. River Trails declined to pursue its DER application for the 97 slip facility any further. Instead, it filed an application with DER for a docking facility of less than 1,000 square feet, accommodating 37 boats, to qualify for the exemption provided by Section 403.812(2)(b), Florida Statutes. Following a successful rule challenge in April 1985, River Trails received its statutory exemption. The District's emerging management policy. Shortly after the District approved River Trail's modification on June 25, 1984, it began to receive a great deal of negative comment from the public, DNR, DER, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. These comments, of which the District was not previously aware, included concerns for the Loxahatchee River, the Florida manatee, and negative biological and water quality assessments. Accordingly, the District's Governing Board requested that its staff investigate and evaluate various management options for the overall development of the 18 right of way. During the ensuing months the District's staff solicited input from DER, DNR, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; investigated the C-18; and formulated its recommendations for the future management of the canal. On January 10, 1985, the District's staff submitted its management plan to the Governing Board. The plan recommended that the intertidal zone be widened a minimum of 10 and planted in mangrove and spartina to combat erosion of the canal banks by boat wakes; that the canal banks be regraded to a minimum of one vertical on four horizontal slope and stabilized with a combination of grasses, native trees and shrubs; and that the overbank right of way be cleared of exotic species and replanted with native trees and shrubs. In keeping with the main goal of habitat improvement, staff recommended that the cumulative linear extent of areas provided for bankfishing and viewing be limited to 10 percent of the shoreline and that no structure be located waterward of the mean high water line. Subsequent to its January 10, 1985, meeting the District has pursued its management plan for the alteration of the shoreline and berms of C-18. Since that time two permits have been issued to large developers who agreed to reslope and revegetate, at their expense, the banks of the C-18 in accordance with the District's plan, and in exchange for the esthetic view accorded by C-18. No dockage, boat ramps, or other structures have been permitted. River Trails' permit expires Following DER's denial of its application for a permit to construct the 97 slip marina, River Trails requested that the District modify its permit to reflect a 37 slip facility and extend the permit for one year. River Trails subsequently withdrew its request to modify the permit. On January 10, 1985, the District entered an order denying River Trails' request for a one year extension of its permit. The District's denial was predicated on its perceived environmental sensitivity of the C-18 canal and the Loxahatchee River system, and its conclusion that the project was contrary to the restoration concept of the District's developing management plan for the C-18. River Trails filed a timely request for hearing, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 85-2272. On July 16, 1985 River Trails reapplied to the District for approval of its modified proposal for a boat ramp and 37 slip marina. The District denied River Trail's request on September 12, 1985. Reasons for denial included adverse water quality impacts, endangerment of the manatee population, increased bank erosion and increased liability risks to the District associated with increased boat usage of the C-18. River Trails filed a timely request for hearing, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 85- 3678. Impacts of the River Trails Development Because of its location and physical characteristics, boating activity in the C-18 has not been extensive. The canal joins the Loxahatchee River on its western shore, opposite the popular boating areas in the intercoastal waterway and Atlantic Ocean adjacent to the River's eastern shore. Access to the canal is restricted by a bridge with a 6' clearance, and its western expanse is blocked by S-46. Accordingly, boating activity within this 1.6 mile stretch of 18 has been generally limited to fishing trips to S-46, sightseeing, and occasional water skiing. River Trails' facility will increase boating within the C-18 well beyond the 37 slip capacity of its dock facility. River Trails proposes to provide upland storage for the boats of a all condominium unit owners, and expects a majority of owners to utilize the slips or boat ramp. Accordingly, use of the facility will not be limited to 37 boats but, rather, will reach into the hundreds. The District's management plan for the C-18 is designed to restructure the canal's present configuration to provide natural habitat, reduced erosion and scenic beauty. As originally designed, the C-18 had 1 on 2 side slopes throughout its reach, however, erosion of the bank downstream from S-46 has resulted in nearly vertical, unstable side slopes above mean high water along 40 percent of its length. The overbank right of way is heavily vegetated with exotic species. With the exception of several areas near the downstream end of the canal, mangroves are not well established along the existing shoreline due to the shading effect of overhanging Brazilian pepper and a rather narrow unstable intertidal zone. Currently, little use of the overbank right of way is made by the public due to its dense vegetation, and any view of the canal is severely impeded. Under the District's management plan the intertidal zone would be expanded and planted in mangroves and spartina to combat erosion from boat wakes and to provide natural habitat; existing vertical banks would be recontoured to a more gentle slope and stabilized with grasses and native trees; and the overbanks would be cleared of exotics so that native trees could prosper. To date the District has been successful in carrying out its plan; however, the survival of the mangrove seedlings and spartina is dependent on minimal disturbance. The introduction of the boats from River Trails would increase erosion and prevent the recolonization of shoreline vegetation beneficial to water quality, marine habitat, and canal bank stabilization. Furthermore, existing and proposed development along the C-18 right of way can be reasonably expected to exacerbate the erosion problem if River Trails' permit is granted. River Trails' proposed marina also raises the specter of adverse impacts to water quality, wildlife and habitat. The C-18 is classified as a Class II surface water body, and supports a diversity of aquatic life. Commonly observed species include snook, mullet, mangrove snapper, pinfish, needlefish and filter feeding organisms such as oysters. The endangered Florida Manatee, Trichechus manatus, is also observed in the C-18 and downstream in the Loxahatchee River. The Loxahatchee River is classified as outstanding Florida waters (OFW) and critical habitat for the Florida manatee. The river, as well as C-18 up to the S-46 control structure, has also been included by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) within the Loxahatchee River Zone of the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act.3 Due to the restricted access from C-18 into the Loxahatchee River, boats located at River Trails' development will likely be approximately 23' in length and powered by outboard motors. Such watercraft, through their introduction of oils and greases, contribute to a degradation of water quality however, neither party addressed the potential impacts to water quality which would be occasioned by the total number of boats that would utilize the boat ramp and boat slips at the proposed facility. By failing to address this issue, and limiting its proof to the impacts from a maximum of 97 boats, River Trails has failed to give reasonable assurances that its proposed project will not cause or contribute to a violation of Class II water quality standards. The impact of River Trails' project upon the Florida manatee is less clear than its impact upon the C-18. Although designated part of the manatee sanctuary, C-18 presently offers little in the way of food source for the manatee with the exception of some plant materials near S-46. The grass Fla. within the Loxahatchee River and the intercoastal waterway are the manatee's primary food source and congregating areas; however, as the mangrove and spartina plantings along the intertidal zone of the canal mature, the manatee may more often. venture into the canal. Whatever their frequency within the narrow confines of the C-18, the numbers of boats that would be introduced by River Trails would drive the manatee from the area. These boats would not, however, pose a significant threat to the manatee or its habitat within the Loxahatchee River since its navigation channels are well marked to avoid grass flats. Indeed, there has been no boat related manatee mortality in the Loxahatchee River area since 1977. The District's concern regarding increased liability risk is unpersuasive. Pursuant to rule the District requires that an applicant for a permit to occupy right of way provide the District with insurance coverage satisfactory to the District, There is no suggestion that the insurance coverage tendered by River Trails, and accepted by the District, was inadequate or otherwise unsatisfactory. The District's decision to deny River Trail's application was not inconsistent with its existing practice. While the District has permitted docks and boat ramps in other canals, there was no showing that those canals abutted a sanctuary or were under redevelopment to improve the works of the District.
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are: 1) whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction over a certain body of water known as Lake Blake in Okaloosa County, Florida; 2) if DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction is established, whether Respondents qualify for an exemption from DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction; and 3) if not otherwise exempt from DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction, whether Respondents are guilty of the violations alleged in the Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action issued by the Director of District Management for the Office of the DEP Northwest District on May 13, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Parties The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is the agency of the State of Florida vested with the power and duty to enforce the provisions of Chapters 373 and 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated in Chapter 62, Florida Administrative Code. DEP is the only agency involved in these proceedings. Respondent, Santa Rosa Three, Inc. (the Corporation), is the fee simple title holder of certain property in unincorporated Okaloosa County, Florida, located between Lewis Street and Clifford Street in Sections 2 and 3, Township 2 South, Range West. The property includes the subject water body, Lake Blake. Santa Rosa II, Inc., is a corporate predecessor in interest to the Corporation. Respondent, Lee Maddan (Maddan), is a long-time resident of Okaloosa County. Maddan is the Petitioner in DOAH Case No. 03-1499. Maddan has personally observed activities occurring at the Lake Blake property for more than 38 years, including the excavation of the lake. Maddan holds equitable title to the Lake Blake property and is in the process of purchasing the fee simple title to the property from the Corporation. Maddan is and was at all material times hereto authorized by the Corporation to enter upon the Lake Blake property, to proceed to develop the land, to obtain permits in his name, and to do other acts to prepare the property for Maddan's purchase. History of Lake Blake Lake Blake is an artificially-created water body in unincorporated Okaloosa County, having a water surface area slightly less than six acres. There is a small island in the center of the lake. The property surrounding Lake Blake presently consists of both uplands and wetlands. No other water body is visible from Lake Blake. For DEP jurisdictional determination purposes, Lake Blake is located in the Northwest District of Florida. The oldest records of the Lake Blake property dating to 1826, indicate that the property was flat land with natural vegetation dominated by palmetto and galberry. The property historically had no flowing streams. In the 1950's, the then owner of the property began excavating a borrow pit on the property. The excavations continued until approximately 1979. As the borrow pit excavations continued, a lake formed due to the intrusion of underground water as well as collected rainfall. During the excavation period, and until approximately 1976, the land around the borrow pit was primarily pasture land with no trees or other vegetation. Up to 1976, there was no wetland vegetation growing on the property. Prior to 1960, the natural stormwater flow from the property was to the southwest toward Cinco Bayou, a defined water of the State of Florida which on a direct line is located approximately one-quarter mile from the property. Cinco Bayou is the nearest surface waters of the State of Florida. During the 1960's, a road known as Lewis Street (also known as Mayflower Avenue) was constructed along the southern boundary of the property. At the time of the construction of Lewis Street, the borrow pit was separated into two parts, an eastern and western section. A concrete culvert divided the sections of the borrow pit. At the time of the Lewis Street construction, a stormwater discharge pipe was installed by Okaloosa County and excess water flowed out of the borrow pit only at certain times in direct response to rainfall. The installation of the stormwater discharge pipe on Lewis Street was intended to drain excess rainfall from the borrow pit. Okaloosa County never acquired ownership of the borrow pit for use as a stormwater retention pond. The water body that formed in the borrow pit would come to be called Lewis Street Pond, or Blake Lake, and eventually Lake Blake. The natural flow of the stormwater from the property was further altered in the 1970's when a public elementary school was constructed by Okaloosa County on Lewis Street. The public school is located between the property and Cinco Bayou. Borrow pit operations formally ceased in September of 1980 when DEP's predecessor agency, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), entered an order requiring the cessation of mining operations. The physical operations had actually ceased a few years before the DER order. Lake Blake resulted from collected rainfall, as well as underground water intrusion in the original borrow pit. At the present time, additional diverted stormwater runoff collects in the lake as a result of Okaloosa County's stormwater drainage system. Lake Blake today is an artificial body of water owned entirely by one person. Residential housing is located on property surrounding Lake Blake. The lake is occasionally utilized for recreational purposes, including fishing. The property surrounding the lake is not open to the general public, and the entrances to the property are fenced. For purposes of this proceeding, there are no threatened or endangered plants on the property. Okaloosa County Stormwater Drainage System Okaloosa County has constructed a stormwater drainage system that runs through the Lake Blake drainage area. As part of this stormwater drainage system, Lake Blake collects diverted stormwater discharge from surrounding areas which have been previously developed. Residential neighborhoods are close to the area, specifically the Berkshire Woods Subdivision. Indeed, as a condition for the development of the Berkshire Woods Subdivision in 1976, the Okaloosa County Planning Commission required that former owner, Ron Blake, excavate the lake and make it ready for stormwater drainage from the proposed development of the Berkshire Woods Subdivision. In addition to the residential areas and the public school to the south, there is a private school to the north across the road on Clifford Street which also diverts water to the lake from its campus and parking lots. Okaloosa County has installed at least seven pipes which carry stormwater from the surrounding developed areas into Lake Blake. The only drainage out of Lake Blake is via the stormwater discharge pipe located at the southern boundary of the property on Lewis Street which was installed by Okaloosa County in the 1960's. Okaloosa County's stormwater discharge system serving Lake Blake is integrated into a series of interconnecting underground stormwater pipes which route the flow of the water for approximately one-half mile before ultimately discharging water into Cinco Bayou. Okaloosa County's stormwater discharge system which ultimately connects Lake Blake with Cinco Bayou is composed of buried pipes. DEP considers buried pipes or culverts which convey stormwater as excavated water bodies. The installation of Okaloosa County's stormwater discharge system required the excavation of land. Under DEP's interpretation of its rules, specifically Rule 62-312.030(2), Florida Administrative Code, the underground installation of stormwater pipes is sufficient to establish a series of excavated water bodies which connect Lake Blake to Cinco Bayou. Prior to the installation of Okaloosa County's stormwater discharge pipe on Lewis Street in the 1960's, there was no dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction which applied to the property containing Lake Blake. The stormwater discharge pipe has continuously existed on the southern boundary of the property since its installation in the 1960's to the present. Lake Blake was not originally designed, constructed nor permitted as a stormwater treatment or retention pond. Lake Blake incidentally resulted from the borrow pit excavations. Okaloosa County, however, has at least since 1976, utilized Lake Blake as part of its stormwater drainage system. Okaloosa County never acquired title to Lake Blake for use as part of its existing stormwater drainage system. In 1981, the Okaloosa County Board of Commissioners (who were not the owners of the property) applied for, and were issued by DER, a Construction Permit (No. RC-46-80-2031, dated May 27, 1981, which expired November 27, 1981) for "Blake Lake Modifications" which permit stated it was "to modify an existing stormwater drainage system." This permit allowed for, among other items, construction of "two earthen berms in Blake Lake" and "the diversion of lake flow from the western lake to the eastern lake." Although attempts were made to construct the two earthen berms, due to the white clay composition of the soil the berms were not successfully established. In 1984, DER issued another Construction Permit (No. 460853421 dated August 20, 1984, which expired August 15, 1987) to the Okaloosa County Board of Commissioners (who again were not the owners of the property) for the purpose constructing "two drainage channels . . . from a berm separating East and West Blake Lake." The drainage channels were thereafter completed and the east and west portions of the lake were eventually connected. On August 14, 1984, Okaloosa County also filed a Notice of New Stormwater Discharge with DER which proposed a re-routing of an existing stormwater drainage system which then diverted stormwater from the Candlewood Subdivision and Navy Street into Lake Blake. The stated purpose of the re-routing of the stormwater drainage system away from Lake Blake was to address flooding problems in the Candlewood Subdivision. By letter dated August 21, 1984, DER informed Okaloosa County that "the stormwater discharge is exempt from stormwater permitting requirements of the Department pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-25.03(2)(c)." DER came to this conclusion in 1984 because the proposed project was "the modification of an existing County stormwater management system not serving a new development or increasing pollution loading." Although Lake Blake was utilized by Okaloosa County as part of the existing Okaloosa County stormwater drainage system, which in 1984 qualified for a DER stormwater permitting exemption, nothing pertaining to this stormwater permitting exemption supports a finding that Lake Blake was originally constructed, permitted or designed solely for the purpose of stormwater treatment so as to qualify for an exemption from DEP's dredge and fill jurisdiction under Rule 62-312.050(4), Florida Administrative Code. Dredge and Fill Permitting Jurisdiction Prior to the installation of Okaloosa County's stormwater discharge pipes on the property in the 1960's, there was no dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction which applied to the property and Lake Blake. Under current law, the Northwest District of Florida is governed by separate jurisdictional determination provisions. In order to initially establish DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction over wetlands and surface waters in the Northwest District, DEP must demonstrate that the wetlands and surface waters are connected to the surface waters of the State. Since 1995, isolated wetlands in all of the rest of the State of Florida are regulated by DEP without regard to any connection to the surface waters of the State. In the Northwest District under Rule 62-312.030(2), Florida Administrative Code, "surface waters of the state are those waters listed below and excavated water bodies, except for those exempted by Section 62-312.050(4), F.A.C., which connect directly or via an excavated water body or series of excavated water bodies . . ." to waters of the State. Under Rule 62- 312.045, Florida Administrative Code, however, "[i]solated wetlands that infrequently flow or otherwise exchange water with a described water body are not intended to be included within the dredge and fill jurisdiction of the Department." By letter dated April 24, 2001, DEP advised Santa Rosa II, Inc., that the Lake Blake property was not subject to DEP's dredge and fill jurisdiction. The letter was sent in response to an application seeking to fill 2.5 acres of the southeastern portion of the lake for the construction of an apartment complex. The letter was issued by DEP's Northwest District, and signed by Martin Gawronski on behalf of Larry O'Donnell, the Environmental Manager for Permitting Section of the Northwest District. The letter was issued after a visit to the property by one or more DEP employees, and based on an informal determination that Lake Blake was not connected to the waters of the State. In May of 2001, the United States Army Corps of Engineers determined that the Lake Blake property was not within its jurisdiction. Subsequent to the issuance of the April 24, 2001, non- jurisdictional letter, certain employees of Okaloosa County (not specifically named in these proceedings) contacted DEP seeking reconsideration of DEP's decision. These Okaloosa County employees thereafter met with DEP employees at the property and communicated by telephone with DEP employees while DEP considered a re-determination of its non-jurisdictional decision. The property owners were then notified that DEP was in the process of re-evaluating its non-jurisdictional decision. By letter dated October 24, 2001, DEP advised Santa Rosa II, Inc., that DEP had made a "correction" to the letter of April 24, 2001, and had determined that the property was in fact subject to DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction, because the "pond" was "connected to jurisdictional waters" of the State. The October 24, 2001, letter, like the previous letter, was issued from DEP's Northwest District and signed by Martin Gawronski on behalf of Larry O'Donnell. Between April 24, 2001, and October 24, 2001, there were no man-made alterations made to the Lake Blake property. Between March and April 2002, Maddan filled in a portion of the property and the lacustrine wetland. Maddan also built two pedestrian footbridges over the lake to the small island in the middle of the lake. DEP asserted its dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction based upon the existence of a series of underground pipes installed by Okaloosa County as part of its stormwater drainage system that conveys excess stormwater from Lake Blake to Cinco Bayou. Installation of the underground pipes required excavation. Neither the April 24, 2001, letter, nor the subsequent October 24, 2001 letter issued by the Northwest District, is binding determination of DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction over the wetlands and surface waters of Lake Blake. The authority to make a binding DEP dredge and fill permitting jurisdictional determination is vested in Dr. John Tobe, Environmental Administrator of the Wetland Evaluation and Delineation Section and his staff. DEP's Site Inspections/Jurisdictional Determination In April of 2002, Stacy Owens, DEP Environmental Specialist, received a telephone call from Chuck Bonta with the Okaloosa County Code Enforcement Department, and an unnamed homeowner, complaining that Lee Maddan had built two unpermitted pedestrian footbridges at Lake Blake and was also filling in part of Lake Blake. Ms. Owens initially investigated whether DEP had issued any permits for the placement of fill in Lake Blake or the surrounding wetlands, and determined that no permits had been issued. Ms. Owens further discovered that a prior Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action had been issued by DER in 1980 against the Okaloosa County Board of Commissioners and Lloyd D. Junger (a lessor conducting mining operations). The 1980 case pertained to the discharge of turbidities from the Lewis Street Pond into Cinco Bayou. A final order in that case was entered on January 5, 1981, requiring Okaloosa County to make payment to DER and take corrective action. On April 23, 2002, Ms. Owens followed up on these complaints by performing a site visit to Lake Blake. At this time Ms. Owens observed two unpermitted pedestrian footbridges, unpermitted fill in a finger of Lake Blake, and unpermitted fill within a 20-foot by 25-foot lacustrine wetland area. On April 25, 2002, Maddan came to Ms. Owens' office to discuss whether permits were necessary for the placement of fill at Lake Blake. At that time, Maddan showed Ms. Owens the previous letters of April 24, 2001, and October 24, 2001, which had been sent from the Northwest District of DEP. Maddan stated that in his opinion no dredge and fill permit was needed because Lake Blake was not within the jurisdiction of DEP. Ms. Owens was then informed by employees of Okaloosa County that there were underground pipes connecting Lake Blake to Cinco Bayou. She obtained from Gary Bogan of Okaloosa County, an aerial map of the drainage area for Lake Blake which identified the location of the culvert on Lewis Street which conveys excess flow from Lake Blake to Cinco Bayou. On April 30, 2002, Ms. Owens performed another site inspection at Lake Blake. During this site inspection, she tracked the connection from Lake Blake to Cinco Bayou by personal observation. After her second site inspection, Ms. Owens e-mailed her findings to Dr. Tobe, and inquired whether the underground pipes satisfied the DEP requirements for connection to a water body of the State for the purpose of establishing DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction. Dr. Tobe replied to Ms. Owens that an underground pipe connection would satisfy DEP's dredge and fill jurisdictional requirements. On June 25, 2002, Dr. Tobe, Ms. Owens, and a DEP wetland delineation team visited the Lake Blake property for the purpose of making a jurisdictional determination. Maddan also accompanied Dr. Tobe and his team on the day of the site inspection. As a result of this inspection, Dr. Tobe completed and filed a Field Report for Lake Blake, Okaloosa County, dated June 25, 2002. As indicated in his Field Report, Dr. Tobe and his wetland delineation team determined that for jurisdictional purposes, Lake Blake was connected to the waters of the State by reason of the culvert on Lewis Street that ultimately discharges into Cinco Bayou. At the time of his inspection on June 22, 2002, Dr. Tobe did not observe water flowing from Lake Blake into the Lewis Street culvert. Dr. Tobe attributed this to an abnormal drought conditions the area was then experiencing. Maddan, who has observed this area for many years, testified that the lake was near or only slightly less than its normal water level on that date. Dr. Tobe conducted a further examination of the area to determine the ordinary high water line, and concluded that Lake Blake would at ordinary high water level flow into the Lewis Street culvert on a sufficiently regular frequency into Cinco Bayou, a water body of the State, for purposes of establishing DEP's dredge and fill jurisdiction. In determining whether water exchange frequency is sufficient to establish jurisdiction, there is a DEP Interoffice Memorandum of October 31, 1988, setting out 25-year, 24-hour criteria which is used as guidance, but the criteria set in this Memorandum have not been adopted as a rule, and are not singularly determinative of DEP's jurisdiction. At this time, Dr. Tobe and his team also performed a wetland boundary delineation. Dr. Tobe found hydric soils and wetland plants dominating the area. The wetland delineation boundary was determined by the continual interpretation of vegetation, soils, and hydrologic indicators. As a result of his inspection and wetland boundary delineation, Dr. Tobe concluded that unpermitted fill had been placed within the surface waters of the State and in lacustrine wetland. Thereafter on July 18, 2002, DEP sent Maddan a Warning Letter (DF-SO-46-022) requesting that Maddan cease dredging, filling or construction activities at Lake Blake without obtaining a permit. Subsequent to DEP's sending Maddan the Warning Letter of July 18, 2002, Stacy Owens visited the Lake Blake site on numerous occasions beginning in October of 2002, and continuing through July of 2003. On most of these site visits, Ms. Owens observed water flowing from Lake Blake through the Lewis Street culvert. Ms. Owens documented water flowing from Lake Blake through the Lewis Street culvert on October 29, 2002, November 5, 2002, May 20, 2003, June 20, 2003, June 23, 2003, June 27, 2003, and July 8, 2003. The area was not experiencing abnormally excessive rainfall events at the times that Ms. Owens documented the water flowing from Lake Blake into the Lewis Street culvert. Maddan testified that in his personal observation over many years, Lake Blake generally discharges excess stormwater into the Lewis Street culvert only as a result from a significant rainfall event. Lake Blake discharges water into the Lewis Street culvert at regular intervals. Such discharged water from Lake Blake ultimately is conveyed through the Okaloosa County stormwater drainage system and released into the surface waters of Cinco Bayou, a water body of the State of Florida. The Okaloosa County stormwater drainage system connecting Lake Blake to Cinco Bayou is a series of excavated water bodies. Lake Blake is connected to the surface waters of Cinco Bayou and regularly exchanges water with Cinco Bayou. Exemptions from DEP's Jurisdiction To assert dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction over this property, not only must Lake Blake be connected to the waters of the State, but the property must not be otherwise exempt from dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction under either statute or rule. On August 29, 2002, under the authority of the Corporation, Maddan filed a "Joint Application for Works in the Waters of Florida" with DEP requesting an exemption from DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction under Rule Chapter 17- 312, re-codified as Rule Chapter 62-312. Rule 62-312.050, Florida Administrative Code, sets out the recognized exemptions to DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction. Respondents primarily rely on Rule 62-312.050(4), Florida Administrative Code, which provides that "[n]o permit under this chapter shall be required for dredging or filling in waters which are contained in those artificially constructed stormwater treatment and conveyance systems designed solely for the purpose of stormwater treatment and that are regulated by the Department or the water management district." Lake Blake, however, is the result of excavations in a borrow pit. Because of surrounding development, Lake Blake receives stormwater runoff; however, the lake was not "designed solely for the purpose of stormwater treatment," and cannot therefore qualify for this exemption. Respondents also cite Rule 62-312.050(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code, which provides an exemption for the "construction of seawalls or riprap, including only that backfilling needed to level land behind the seawalls or riprap, in artificially created waterways where such construction will not violate existing water quality standards, impede navigation or adversely affect flood control." Even assuming that the filling of the finger of Lake Blake meets the test of construction of a seawall, there is no evidence that such filling of Lake Blake was ever subjected to appropriate water quality tests, much less meeting such water quality tests as well as the other requirements of this exemption. In addition to the exemptions established by Rule 62- 312.050, Respondents cite statutory exemptions. The definition of "waters" which are regulated under Chapter 403, as set forth in Section 403.031(13), provides in pertinent part that "[w]aters owned entirely by one person other than the state are included only in regard to possible discharge on other property or water." Although Lake Blake is owned entirely by one person, this provision does not exempt Lake Blake because of not only its "possible discharge" but because of its actual discharge on the surface waters of Cinco Bayou. Respondents also cite Section 403.812, which provides that "[t]he department shall not require dredge and fill permits for stormwater management systems where such systems are located landward of the point of connection to waters of the state and are designed, constructed operated and maintained for stormwater treatment, flood attenuation, or irrigation." Although Lake Blake at least since 1976 has been utilized as part of Okaloosa County's stormwater drainage system, which is located landward of Cinco Bayou, it was not designed or constructed for stormwater treatment, flood attenuation or irrigation, and it is not being operated or maintained for stormwater treatment, flood attenuation or irrigation. Lake Blake does not qualify for an exemption from DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Paul Rippee operates the Big Oak Trailer Park. He has owned and operated it since 1955. As part of that operation he supplies his residents with water for human consumption. At the present time there are 41 residents in the park who receive their water from 31 service connections. A majority of the residents live in the park all year. The Big Oak Trailer Park water system does not have any means for providing continuous disinfection measures. While Mr. Rippee does have available the means to inject chlorine into the water system on a one shot basis, there is no means for continuous disinfection. The Big Oak Trailer Park water system does not have installed in it a flow meter, that is, a metering device which accurately indicates the volume of water pumped for distribution to residents. Mr. Rippee does not maintain any disinfectant level in the water distributed to the residents. The Big Oak Trailer Park water system is operated exclusively by Mr. Rippee himself. He is not certified as a water system operator by the Department of Environmental Regulation and he has never employed a certified operator for the supervision of his water system. Since the beginning of the year 1980, Mr. Rippee has filed no monthly operation reports as required by Department regulations. At no time since 1955 have any of the numerous tests done on the water supplied by the Big Oak Trailer Park water system indicated that the water was in any way unsafe for human consumption. Mr. Rippee is a small business man. His sole income comes from the Big Oak Trailer Park. At present only 41 people live there. The park is modest in size with small lots which will not accommodate even double-wide mobile homes. While the most commonly used and readily available disinfectant is chlorine, adequate disinfection meeting DER standards may be provided by ozone which is commercially available or by chlorine dioxide which is not yet commercially available. The design pumping capacity of the Big Oak Trailer Park water system is 2,000 gallons per hour or 48,000 gallons per day. Since at least August 28, 1978, Mr. Rippee has been on notice from the Department of Environmental Regulation that the Big Oak Trailer Park water system as deficient under Chapter 403 and Chapters 17-16 and 17-22, Florida Administrative Code, in the following respects: the water system does not have a flow meter, it fails to provide chlorination to the water, the plant is not operated by a certified operator and the monthly operation reports are not being submitted to DER. These deficiencies have continued until November 4, 1980.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation either return to Circuit Court to continue its enforcement action under the provisions of Section 120.69, Florida Statutes or that the Department withdraw its Final Order of August 20, 1979, and in its place substitute a new Final Order, finding that the Respondent has violated Section 403.859, Florida Statutes (1979) and order appropriate corrective action as stated in the Notice of Violation, paragraphs A through D. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of December, 1980. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Martha Harrell Hall, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 Paul Rippee Big Oak Trailer Park 4024 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32304
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, John H. Phipps Broadcasting Stations, Inc., owns approximately 10,600 acres of land bordering on Lake Jackson. The corporation owns roughly seventy percent of the waterfront property around Lake Jackson. The corporation's land is used for agriculture. Less than ten percent of the land is used in a minor grain operation involving the interspersion of cover via several small grain fields. Most of these grain fields are in self-contained basins creating no erosion or runoff problems. These fields are conducive to the propagation of wildlife, particularly quail and deer. The grain produced by these fields is used, at least in part, in the corporation's cattle operation. Approximately twenty-five percent of the corporation's land is used in a cattle breeding operation involving three to five hundred head of cattle. No feed lot operation is involved. The cattle are in pastures, the majority of which are bounded by the waters of Lake Jackson. The corporation fences to and into the water because of the fluctuating level of Lake Jackson and the necessity to contain their cattle. This practice has been ongoing for more than twenty-nine years. The corporation presently has no permits of an environmental nature in connection with the cattle operation. The testimony by Petitioner's witnesses is that the pasture cattle operation is very conducive to good water quality because it captures runoff and allows it to percolate. The remainder of the corporation's land is used in a timber operation which includes controlled burning to help contain erosion. Witnesses for Petitioner corporation testified that the water quality of Lake Jackson bordering the corporation's land is excellent. A high priority of the agricultural operation of the corporation is the maintenance of good water quality in Lake Jackson. Activities are not permitted on the corporation's land that degrade the water quality of the lake. Attempts are made to keep runoff from the lake. The evidence indicates that there are no discharges of water from the corporation's lands into Lake Jackson other than natural runoff. The testimony presented by Petitioner corporation at the final hearing was that the corporation intends to continue using the property as it is presently used and has no tentative plans for a different use of the property. Petitioner, Colin S. Phipps, owns approximately 1,000 acres bordering in part on Lake Jackson. He is also president of John H. Phipps Broadcasting Stations, Inc. Colin S. Phipps rents his acreage and shooting rights to an individual who farms the acreage. He testified that nothing was done on the property that presently requires permits from the Department of Environmental Regulation. John H. Phipps and John E. Phipps personally own parcels of land bordering on Lake Jackson. The three individual petitioners in this cause are officers of the corporate Petitioner. No evidence was presented to show activities on behalf of the petitioners on their property other than that set forth above. Further, it was the position of the petitioners that they did not foresee a change in the activities presently occurring on their property. It was their position that they had no tentative future plans for the property. They did indicate that they did not know what the future might bring. An experienced and qualified appraiser appeared on behalf of petitioners and testified that he had read the rules being challenged in this cause, was familiar with the subject property, and that in his opinion the vagueness of the proposed rules would dramatically and adversely affect the value of Petitioners' land. There are several problems with this opinion testimony. The witness did not testify that he had appraised the property. Rather, he testified that he was very familiar with the property. Thus, his testimony on the value of the land is speculation, albeit knowledgeable speculation, rather than the considered expert opinion of an appraiser. Further, the witness' opinion was based on his reading as a layman of the proposed rules and his speculation of their effect on the real estate market in which the subject lands might be offered for sale. The Hearing Officer found that the witness was a qualified appraiser with experience in appraising the economic impact of environmental regulations on waterfront property. Nevertheless, his interpretation of the proposed rules carries with it no aura of correctness for he is not, and, perhaps as all of us, cannot be, an expert in the interpretation of rules. The rules must speak for themselves and the witness can only speculate on the effect of different interpretations which might be given the rules. Therefore, the Hearing Officer concludes that the opinion of the witness is so speculative that his testimony is incompetent to support findings of fact as to the effect of the proposed regulations on the market value of Petitioners' real property.
