Findings Of Fact The Parties and the Property. The Respondent, HORNE, owns or has options to purchase approximately 24.35 acres of real property at the southwest corner of U.S. Highway 41 and State Road 50 Bypass in Brooksville, Florida. The Petitioner, the ASSOCIATES, owns approximately 67.5 acres of real property to the south and downstream from the HORNE property. The ASSOCIATES' property is presently undeveloped. The HORNE property contains an existing Publix shopping plaza, a mobile home sales office and vacant lands. The Publix plaza was previously permitted by the DISTRICT before it was constructed. The Surface Water Permit Application On August 7, 1992, HORNE submitted its application for surface water permit No. 400317.02. The application sought approval to construct a surface water management system for a proposed new K-Mart store on HORNE's property. On November 3, 1992, the DISTRICT issued notice of final agency action approving issuance of permit No. 400317.02 to HORNE. The day before the original final hearing in this matter scheduled for March 1993, new information from a study called the Peck Sink Watershed Study came to light which rendered the project as then designed unpermittable. This information resulted in the surface water management system being redesigned. On April 1, 1993, the DISTRICT notified all of the parties that the redesigned surface water management met District rule criteria. This resulted in issuance of what became known as the April 1 submittal. On May 12, 1993, in response to concerns raised by the ASSOCIATES at depositions on May 10, 1993, HORNE produced the May 12 submittal and provided it to all parties on that same date. The changes in design reflected on the May 12 submittal related to lowering the pond bottoms one foot below the orifices and changing the contour lines on the outside of Pond 5A. On May 13, 1993, further minor changes were made to the permit materials. Specifically, the changes were: reflecting on the engineering worksheets the lowering of the pond bottoms accomplished on the May 12 submittal, correction of the contour line on the outside of Pond 5A and showing the amount of additional fill into the 100-year floodplain caused by the addition of the contour line to the outside of Pond 5A. In reviewing HORNE's application, the District applied the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 40D-4, Florida Administrative Code, and the Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications. Compliance with DISTRICT Permitting Criteria Water Quantity The main two areas considered by the DISTRICT in assessing water quantity in a closed basin are: attenuating the peak rate of discharge for the 25 runoff for the 100 The peak rate of runoff for this project for the 25 (2) cubic feet per second (cfs) less in the post-developed condition than in the pre-developed condition, as shown on the April 1 submittal. No changes were made between the April 1 and May 12 or 13 submittals relating to the peak rate of discharge. The difference in the volume of runoff between the pre-developed and post-developed condition during the 100-year storm is being retained on site, as shown on the April 1 submittal. Therefore, DISTRICT rule criteria for the peak rate and volume of runoff were met on the April 1 submittal. Lowering the bottoms of the detention ponds on the May 12 and 13 submittals resulted in additional post 100 system, as redesigned to retain this additional 100-year volume, exceeds the DISTRICT's 100 Floodplain Encroachment Under the DISTRICT's floodplain encroachment standards, any fill within the 100 out an equivalent volume of fill elsewhere on the property. HORNE's application satisfies the DISTRICT's floodplain standards. HORNE is filling 1.59 acre feet of the floodplain and creating 1.75 acre feet of compensation. The floodplain compensation will be above the seasonal high water table, as required by Section 3.2.1.4 of the DISTRICT's Basis of Review. The original, existing seasonal high water table will be lowered as a result of the excavation so that the entire floodplain compensation area will be above the seasonal high water table. Water Quality A wet detention system as proposed by HORNE is an acceptable means under the DISTRICT's rules of treating runoff for water quality purposes. The bottoms of the ponds, as shown on the May 12 submittal, are all at least one foot below the orifice elevations, as required by the Basis of Review. Thus, the project met all relevant DISTRICT water quality requirements as of the May 12 submittal. Operation and Maintenance DISTRICT rules require that reasonable assurances be provided that the surface water management system can be effectively operated and maintained. HORNE will be the operation and maintenance entity for this surface water management system. The DISTRICT's main concerns at the time of permit review are that the design of the surface water management system not be an exotic design, that the design insure that littoral zones can be established, that the system orifice can be cleaned, that the overall system will be stable and that there is a viable operation and maintenance entity. HORNE's project can be effectively operated and maintained. Remaining District Rule Criteria As stipulated to by the parties that the project will not cause adverse impacts to wetlands and will not diminish the capability of a lake or other impoundment to fluctuate through the full range established for it in Chapter 40D Additionally, the proof establishes that the project will not cause adverse impacts on surface and groundwater levels and flows will not adversely affect the public health and safety; is consistent with the requirements of other public agencies; will not otherwise be harmful to the water resources within the District; will not interfere with the legal rights of others as defined in Rule 17 Objections Raised by the ASSOCIATES at the Hearing Pond Slopes and Operation and Maintenance Contrary to the assertion that the pond slopes will not be stable and cannot be effectively operated and maintained, the pond side slopes at this project are going to be constructed out of a heavy clay type of soil. Sodded side slopes of 1:1, as proposed for three of the ponds, can be stabilized and effectively operated and maintained. Although there is no DISTRICT requirement that sodded side slopes be mowed, so on these slopes could, if necessary, be cut. In the event the side slopes were to erode, easy repair is possible. All of the ponds except one side of one pond have areas at least 20 feet wide and slopes no steeper than 4:1 where maintenance can be performed. With regard to the pond that does not have this characteristic, equipment can enter and perform necessary maintenance. Water Quality Treatment Concerns that at least a portion of the bottoms of the ponds need to be below the seasonal high water table and that circulation of the ponds needs to be maximized in order to meet water quality treatment criteria are misplaced since there is no requirement that the pond bottoms be below the seasonal high water table in wet detention systems such as the one at issue in this case. Further, the entire bottoms of the ponds are littoral zone and meet DISTRICT rule requirements that 35 per cent of the pond be littoral zone, concentrated at the outfall. Additionally, the ponds at issue maximize circulation through the location of points of inflow and outflow. Floodplain Mitigation Concerns that volume in the floodplain mitigation area is not available because of problems with the seasonal high water table are also misplaced. Specifically, the floodplain area encroachment requiring mitigation relates to Pond 5A. There is more than enough volume within the area which will be excavated to compensate for the area where the fill will be deposited. The seasonal high water table will be at or below the floodplain mitigation area after the required excavation takes place. Although the seasonal high water table will be lowered where the excavation or cut is made and later raised where the fill is placed, no adverse effects on the water table will result from such lowering and raising of the water table. Volume In Pond 5A Allegations that the May 12 and 13 submittals reflect that Pond 5A has less volume available than the modeling calculations contemplate are incorrect. The changes in the contour lines of Pond 5A on the May 12 and 13 submittals from what was shown on the April 1 submittal occurred on the outside of the pond. The volume on the inside of the pond was not reduced actually increased when the pond bottom was lowered for water quality purposes. In determining how much volume a pond is to have when it is constructed, the computer modeling figures take precedence over the scaled plan drawings. In this case, the computer modeling figures never changed after the April 1 submittal. HORNE submitted a computer model that calculated the volume of Pond 5A. The output data clearly reflects that the top of the bank was 82 feet. Publix's Status as an Existing Site Assertions that the Publix site should have been considered in its pre-developed state since there will be approximately one acre foot of volume of runoff, or possibly less, leaving the site without retention are without validity. The Publix plaza was permitted by the DISTRICT in 1985 and constructed in 1986. The amount of peak flow discharge and overall discharge is currently authorized by a valid MSSW permit. When the DISTRICT reviews a permit application, all existing permitted surface water management systems must be accepted in their present state. There is no authority in the DISTRICT's rules to consider an existing permitted site in its pre Even if the Publix site is considered in its pre project has only .02 of an acre foot more volume of runoff in its post-developed condition than in the pre Storage of 100-Year Volume Allegations that the amount of 100-year volume being retained on site in the ponds has been incorrectly calculated by the DISTRICT and HORNE are also invalid. The DISTRICT's rules require that the difference between the pre- and post-development volume for the 100-year storm be retained on site. In the ponds which are the subject of this proceeding, the 100-year volume is retained in the ponds below the orifice. This volume cannot leave the site through the orifice; it can only leave the site by percolation into the ground or evaporation into the air.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order granting HORNE's Application for Surface Water Management Permit No. 400317.02. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DON W. 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 25th day of June, 1993. APPENDIX The following constitutes my rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties Proposed findings submitted by Petitioners (Petitioner's proposed findings begin at paragraph number 13.) 13.-19. Accepted. 20.-30. Rejected, unnecessary. 31.-44. Rejected, subordinate to hearing officer findings. 45.-47. Accepted. 48.-77. Rejected, subordinate to hearing officer findings. 78.-79. Rejected, recitation of documents. 80.-84. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 85.-88. Rejected, unnecessary. 89.-93. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 94.-95. Rejected, unnecessary. 96. Accepted. 97.-98. Rejected, subordinate, weight of the evidence. 99.-100. Rejected, unnecessary. 101.-126. Rejected, subordinate. 127. Accepted. 128.-129. Rejected, unnecessary. 130.-135. Rejected, argument. 136.-144. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Respondents Joint Proposed Findings. 1.-56. Accepted, though not verbatim. 58.-59. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: David Smolker, Esquire Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn 2700 Landmark Centre 401 East Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Rodney S. Fields, Jr., Esquire Blain & Cone, P.A. 202 Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Richard Tschantz, Esquire Mark F. Lapp, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34609-6899
The Issue The issue to be decided in these cases is whether Petitioner, A. Wayne Lujan (Petitioner), was entitled to issuance of five environmental resource permits (ERPs) that Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), intended to deny as stated in notices of denial dated October 25, 2019.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. Parties and Background Petitioner Lujan is the president and a director of Kay Haven Associated Enterprises, Inc. (Key Haven), that owns the five parcels, which are the subject matter of this hearing. Although Key Haven owns numerous lots, it chose to submit ERP applications for the Subject Lots within the Key Haven Tenth Addition plat dated September 1966 (Plat). See Joint Exhibit 84. Joint Exhibit 84 The Subject Lots are located in an unincorporated part of the County on the northwestern edge of a body of land lying north of State Road A1A, identified on the Plat as Raccoon Key. The Subject Lots are approximately half a mile east of the city limits of Key West, Florida. The Subject Lots are all characterized by a small upland portion adjacent to Floral Avenue. The majority of the Subject Lots transition into a mangrove fringe of varying depth and submerged lands containing marine seagrasses and sponges. See Joint Exhibits 81 and 82. Joint Exhibit 81 Joint Exhibit 82 DEP is the administrative agency of the state having the power and duty to protect Florida's air and water resources, and to administer and enforce the provisions of part II of chapter 380, part IV of chapter 373, and chapter 403, Florida Statutes. DEP also administers the provisions of Florida Administrative Code chapters 62-312 and 62-330 regarding activities in wetlands and other surface waters of the state. DEO is the state land planning agency and reviews certain permit applications for consistency with its statutory responsibilities under the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP), which includes part II of chapter 163, and part I of chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Relevant to this proceeding, DEO exercises authority over the ACSC program. See § 380.05, Fla. Stat. On July 26, 2018, Petitioner filed five applications for ERPs with DEP. Although certain details within each application differed, the applications all sought to authorize construction of a seawall in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and in unnamed wetlands within the landward extent of the Gulf of Mexico, a Class III OFW, to remove the entirety of the existing mangrove fringe, and to place fill within wetlands and other surface waters for the construction of single-family residences (Project). The minor differences in each application relate to the length of the seawall and the amount of fill necessary for each lot. Although some testimony was provided concerning the differences, no party argued that the differences were material to the determinations necessary in this proceeding. Accordingly, the factual and legal analysis for the Subject Lots and ERP applications were addressed without distinction herein. DEP forwarded a copy of the applications to DEO for its recommendation. On August 24, 2018, DEO issued objections to approval of the permits citing inconsistency with the Florida Keys ACSC Principles for Guiding Development (PGDs) in section 380.0552(7). DEO also objected based on inconsistencies between the Project and the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and Land Development Code (LDC), which implement the PGDs. DEP's first RAI dated August 24, 2018, included DEO's objections. The first RAI notified Petitioner that DEP had concerns with the Project that included: (1) installation of the vertical seawall; (2) placement of fill within an OFW; (3) direct impacts to marine seagrass bed community without adequate mitigation; and (4) failure to provide stormwater management plans since the Project was a common plan of development. The first RAI contained 19 specific requests for additional information. On October 23, 2018, Petitioner responded to DEP's first RAI by submitting slightly revised plans. The revised Project proposed less of a vertical seawall footprint by adding rip-rap to the side seawalls as a means of containing fill. Petitioner's responses to the 19 specific requests for information can generally be categorized as follows: (1) elimination of some vertical seawalls, but not the ones on the waterward edge of the Subject Lots; (2) no change in the placement of fill; (3) Petitioner would attempt to find appropriate compensatory mitigation for the seagrass impacts; and (4) Petitioner did not consider the Project to be a common plan of development. Regarding DEO's objections, Petitioner stated that "[w]e acknowledge that the project has been forwarded to FWC [Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission] and DEO and that additional comments and information may be requested by those agencies in order to fully evaluate the application." Petitioner did not substantively address DEO's objections. DEP issued a second RAI on November 21, 2018. DEO again objected in a letter dated November 26, 2018. DEP's second RAI raised the same concerns as the first RAI and acknowledged that four of the 19 specific items were adequately addressed. On January 11, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's second RAI by again submitting slightly revised site plans. However, the Project remained generally unchanged, with a proposed vertical seawall on the waterward edge of the lots, rip-rap along the sides, removal of the entire mangrove fringe, and fill of the entire lots eliminating the existing marine seagrasses. DEP issued a third RAI to Petitioner on February 8, 2019. DEO reiterated its objections by letter dated February 8, 2019. The third RAI raised the same concerns as the first and second RAIs, although DEP acknowledged that six of the 19 specific items were adequately addressed. By letter dated April 8, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's third RAI. The response again proposed slightly altered site plans from the January 2019 submissions. Petitioner essentially stated that mitigation opportunities were scarce, but had contacted the County and was looking into derelict vessel removal. However, the proposed Project remained generally unchanged, with a proposed vertical seawall on the waterward edge of the lots, rip-rap along the sides, removal of the entire mangrove fringe, and fill of the entire lots eliminating the existing marine seagrasses. As it relates to DEO's objections, Petitioner responded that "[a]fter review of the comments outlined in the [DEO] revised letter, it seems that the DEO objections are related to compliance with the provision[s] of the [Monroe] County [Comp Plan]. We will deal with those issues at the time of local permitting." Petitioner again failed to substantively address DEO's objections. DEP issued its final RAI on May 8, 2019. DEO again objected by letter dated May 6, 2019. This final RAI raised the same concerns as the first, second, and third RAIs. DEP stated that seven of the 19 specific items were not addressed by Petitioner, and that failure to provide a complete response to the prior RAI may result in denial of the ERP applications. On August 29, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's final RAI by once again submitting slightly revised plans, and additional information concerning mitigation proposals. However, the Project did not change and Petitioner again failed to substantively address DEO's objections. DEO’s objection letter identified that the ERP applications were inconsistent with the Florida Keys ACSC PGDs, seven Comp Plan policies, and six regulatory provisions of the County's LDC. DEP denied the ERP applications on October 25, 2019. The grounds for denial reiterated the issues not addressed by Petitioner's RAI responses. Specifically: (1) the failure of the Project to provide reasonable assurances concerning direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts to the marine seagrass bed community; (2) continued reliance upon construction of a vertical seawall; (3) failure to provide stormwater management information necessary given the determination that the Project constituted a common plan of development; (4) inconsistency with the FCMP as identified by DEO in its objection letters; and (5) failure to provide reasonable assurances that the Project was clearly in the public interest. Direct Impacts The Project proposed to entirely fill the Subject Lots, contain the fill with vertical seawalls and rip-rap, and construct pile-supported single-family residences. The Project would remove the entire mangrove fringe that aerials and site inspections show is a healthy mix of red, black, and white mangroves along with some green buttonwood. The shallow, open surface waters are dominated by marine seagrasses that vary in density. Petitioner did not make any design modifications to the Project that sought to reduce or eliminate direct impacts to the mangrove fringe and marine seagrasses. Petitioner's resource inventory was done using GIS aerial photography so that the aerial benthic resource surveys submitted to DEP were not ground- truthed. DEP staff conducted physical site inspections and ground-truthing inspections that included swimming in the open surface waters. DEP staff found significant marine seagrasses and sponges that were not mentioned in Petitioner's resource surveys. Depending on the lot, the Project would fill approximately 6,000 square feet of wetlands and other surface waters, i.e., 900 to 2,500 square feet of mangrove habitat and 4,000 to 4,800 square feet of marine seagrass bed habitat. The seawalls depicted in the final version of Petitioner's site plans were "vertical seawalls" because the rip-rap would not face the seawalls to the mean high water line (MHWL). The rip-rap would be placed on submerged resources inside the property lines of the Subject Lots. Also, Petitioner's final plans did not include the mooring of vessels. Vertical seawalls are prohibited in the OFW of the County. Petitioner did not affirmatively demonstrate that fill or shoreline stabilization could be accomplished by using native vegetation instead of vertical seawalls. Secondary Impacts DEP's expert witness, Ms. Mills, testified that Petitioner's ERP applications did not identify any potential secondary impacts. Ms. Mills testified that the expected secondary impacts from the Project included stormwater runoff, shading, and erosion or shoaling. Although the Project plans showed that stormwater would be collected and directed to Floral Avenue, DEP's investigation established that there is no stormwater management system on the side of Floral Avenue abutting the Subject Lots. Thus, the collected and directed stormwater would end up flowing back into the mangrove fringe and surface waters at the lot locations that were not proposed for development, e.g., Lots 36 and 38. The proposed single-family homes are piling-supported structures. Ms. Mills testified that the piling-supported structure would cause shading of the immediate adjacent resources on either side. She identified potential shading impacts to the resources of the undeveloped Lots 36 and 38. In addition, Ms. Mills identified potential erosion or shoaling impacts to the undeveloped Lots 36, 38, and unnamed lots to the left of Lot 40 since they would be surrounded by developed fill on either side. Although Mr. Swakon testified that tidal velocity is low in this area, other aspects, such as effects from wind-driven circulation, were not adequately addressed. Mitigation Petitioner was required to propose mitigation to offset remaining direct and secondary impacts after going through a reduction and elimination exercise. However, Petitioner did not propose any revisions to the Project to reduce or eliminate the direct and secondary impacts identified above. Ms. Mills explained that appropriate mitigation usually provides benefits to the same type of ecological community as the one being impacted. Petitioner's ultimate mitigation proposal was to purchase saltwater credit at a mitigation bank, the Florida Power and Light Everglades Mitigation Bank (FPL EMB). The FPL EMB is located on the mainland of Florida approximately a hundred miles away from the Subject Lots. Ms. Mills testified that saltwater credit would be appropriate to offset and replace the same ecological function of mangroves, but not to offset the submerged benthic communities that would be impacted by the Project. Mr. Swakon testified that calculation of the amount of mitigation credits included a multiplier to address secondary and cumulative impacts, the out-of-kind mitigation, and the dissimilarities in the communities. However, Ms. Mills persuasively testified that the proposed multiplier was not sufficient to justify the three aspects of impact that needed to be offset. Whether to justify dissimilarities between the ecological communities, secondary and cumulative impacts, or the distance of the mitigation site from the Project, the multiplier was not sufficient. Cumulative Impacts The Project is not within a recognized cumulative impact basin of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) for mitigation of impacts purposes. Accordingly, Ms. Mills testified that the plain language of a cumulative impacts analysis is considered. Contiguous lots to the Subject Lots owned by Petitioner could be developed through similar requests in the future. Also, each ERP application's cumulative impact analysis would consider the other four ERP applications as in-house examples of potential future projects. Common Plan of Development Petitioner contested DEP's conclusion that the Project was a common plan of development subject to section 2.0 of the Applicant's Handbook Volume 1 and associated stormwater management requirements. The Project would facilitate the advancement of land uses such as multiple residences, a residential subdivision, or phased site development. The Project comprised a total land area divided into multiple lots or parcels that are under common ownership or control. In total, Petitioner owns 648 lots under common ownership within the Key Haven Tenth and Eleventh Addition. The Subject Lots are all part of a residential subdivision. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project was a common plan of development. For this common plan of development, Petitioner's proposed stormwater management consisted of a cap on the proposed seawalls directing stormwater to swales on each lot. The swales would then direct stormwater to Floral Avenue with no additional treatment or management. During site inspections, DEP staff did not find any evidence of stormwater management along Floral Avenue. Seawalls and Rip-rap The seawalls depicted in the final version of Petitioner's ERP applications would be vertical seawalls because the rip-rap facing the seawall did not come above the MHWL. In addition, the final plans did not include the mooring of vessels. As found above, the Project would place fill, seawalls, and rip-rap on marine seagrasses and sponges. Petitioner failed to affirmatively demonstrate that native vegetation was not sufficient to prevent erosion. The evidence established that Petitioner did not apply for any waiver or variance of applicable ERP rule criteria. FCMP Consistency The evidence demonstrated that Petitioner refused to address DEO's objections based on a mistaken view of the criteria governing ERP applications in the County and the Florida Keys ACSC. Relevant to this proceeding, DEO exercises authority over the ACSC program. See § 380.05, Fla. Stat.; see also § 380.23(6), Fla. Stat. (Each agency charged with implementing statutes and rules that are part of the FCMP, shall be afforded an opportunity to provide DEP with its comments and determination regarding consistency of the activity with those statutes and rules.). Section 380.05(16) prohibits persons from undertaking any development within the Florida Keys ACSC, except in accordance with the PGDs. Thus DEO, as the administrator of the ACSC program, reviewed the ERP applications for consistency with applicable regulatory requirements. DEO issued objections to approval of the permits citing inconsistency with the Florida Keys ACSC PGDs; and inconsistencies between the Project and the County's Comp Plan and LDC which implement the PGDs. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with four PGDs. DEO's expert witness, Ms. Powell, testified that the Project was inconsistent with the PGD, which provides for strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that the local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the ACSC designation. See § 380.0552(7)(a), Fla. Stat. Ms. Powell persuasively testified that the ERP applications were inconsistent with this PGD because the Project would impair the local government's ability to have the ACSC designation removed. Allowing development inconsistent with its regulations would hurt the local government's ability to pursue de-designation. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The second PGD cited by DEO provides for protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. See § 380.0552(7)(b), Fla. Stat. It was undisputed that the Project would result in total removal of the mangrove and buttonwood fringe on each lot and 100% destruction of existing submerged marine resources. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The third PGD cited by DEO provides for limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. See § 380.0552(7)(e), Fla. Stat. Ms. Powell testified that degradation to nearshore water quality from prior dredge and fill activity was one of the reasons for the designation of the Florida Keys as an ACSC. Additionally, as further discussed below, the Project would be inconsistent with the County's Comp Plan policies and LDC regulations that further the goal of protecting the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys ACSC. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The fourth PGD cited by DEO provides for protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys, and maintaining the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. See § 380.0552(7)(n), Fla. Stat. As further discussed below, the Project would be inconsistent with the County's Comp Plan and LDC regulations that prohibit the use of structural fill within velocity zones. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. Ms. Powell testified that DEO considered the remaining statutory PGDs, and determined they were not particularly applicable to these ERP applications. In accordance with its duties, DEO had also reviewed and approved the County's Comp Plan and LDC as consistent with the statutory PGDs. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with seven Comp Plan policies. They are Policies 102.1.1, 101.5.25, 203.1.1, 204.2.2, 204.2.3, 204.2.4, and 212.5.3. Policy 102.1.1 provides: The County shall protect submerged lands and wetlands. The open space requirement shall be one hundred (100) percent of the following types of wetlands: submerged lands mangroves salt ponds fresh water wetlands fresh water ponds undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands only for use as transferable development rights (TDRs) away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Policy 101.5.25 provides that "[t]he allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available." Policy 203.1.1 provides that "[t]he open space requirement for mangrove wetlands shall be one hundred (100) percent. No fill or structures shall be permitted in mangrove wetlands except for elevated, pile-supported walkways, docks, piers and utility pilings." Policy 204.2.2 provides: To protect submerged lands and wetlands, the open space requirement shall be 100 percent of the following types of wetlands: submerged lands; mangroves; salt ponds; freshwater wetlands; freshwater ponds; and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands. Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetland only for use as transferable development rights away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Within one (1) year after the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the County shall revise the LDC to include a prohibition of development in salt ponds. Policy 204.2.3 provides: No structures shall be permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands, except for elevated, pile-supported walkways, docks, piers, and utility pilings. No fill shall be permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands except: as specifically allowed by Objective 212.5 and subsequent Policies; to fill a manmade excavated water body, such as a canal, boat ramp, or swimming pool if the Director of Environmental Resources determines that such filling will not have a significant adverse impact on marine or wetland communities; or as needed for shoreline stabilization or beach renourishment projects with a valid public purpose that furthers the goals of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, as determined by the County. Policy 204.2.4 provides: No fill or structures shall be permitted in mangroves or wetlands except as allowed by Policy 204.2.3 (as amended) and for bridges extending over mangroves or wetlands that are required to provide automobile or pedestrian access to dwelling units located on upland areas within the same property for which there is no alternative means of access. Such bridges shall be elevated on pilings such that the natural movement of water, including volume, rate, and direction of flow shall not be disrupted or altered. Upland areas shall include disturbed wetlands that have been lawfully converted into uplands through filling. Policy 212.5.3 provides: Bulkheads, seawalls or other hardened vertical shoreline structures shall be permitted on residential canals and altered shorelines only in the following situations: to replace an existing deteriorated bulkhead or seawall; or to stabilize a severely eroding shoreline area. DEO's expert witness, Ms. Powell, persuasively testified that the Project was inconsistent with all seven policies, because it did not protect the submerged lands and wetlands, did not provide for 100% open space within the submerged lands and wetlands, and provided for the construction of a seawall not excepted from the general prohibition. Petitioner did not present any evidence that the Project was consistent with the cited policies. Instead, Petitioner's witness, Mr. Nelson, testified that he felt certain County regulations would militate in favor of allowing the development. The main factor cited by Mr. Nelson was that the Subject Lots were designated as Tier III parcels under the County's LDC. However, designation of a parcel as Tier III did not conflict with the policies cited by DEO. The more credible and persuasive evidence concerning the Project's compliance with the Comp Plan policies was provided by Ms. Powell, who concluded that the Project was not consistent with those policies. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with six sections of the County's LDC regulations. Those are sections 118-4, 118-10(e), 118-12(k)(2), 122-4(b)(5), 130-157, and 130-162. The LDC regulations are more specific methods for implementing the Comp Plan policies outlined above. Section 118-4 provides: No development activities, except as provided for in this chapter, are permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, freshwater wetlands, freshwater ponds, or in undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands; the open space requirement is 100 percent. Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands only for use as transferable development rights away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Section 118-10(e), in relevant part, provides: Mangroves, wetlands, and submerged lands. All structures developed, used or occupied on land classified as mangroves, wetlands or submerged lands (all types and all levels of quality) shall be designed, located and constructed such that: Generally. Only docks and docking facilities, boat ramps, walkways, water access walkways, water observation platforms, boat shelters, nonenclosed gazebos, riprap, seawalls, bulkheads, and utility pilings shall be permitted on or over mangroves, wetlands, and submerged lands, subject to the specific restrictions of this subsection. Trimming and/or removal of mangroves shall meet Florida Department of Environmental Protection requirements. * * * (4) Placement of fill. No fill shall be permitted in any mangroves, wetlands, or submerged lands except: As specifically allowed by this Section or by Section 118- 12(k) (Bulkheads, Seawalls, Riprap) and 118-12(l) (Boat Ramps); To fill a manmade, excavated water body such as a canal, boat ramp, boat slip, boat basin or swimming pool if the County Biologist determines that such filling will not have a significant adverse impact on marine or wetland communities; As needed for shoreline stabilization or beach renourishment projects with a valid public purpose that furthers the goals of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, as determined by the County Biologist; For bridges extending over salt marsh and/or buttonwood association wetlands that are required to provide automobile or pedestrian access to lawfully established dwelling units located on upland areas within the same property for which there is no alternate means of access. Such bridges shall be elevated on pilings so that the natural movement of water, including volume, rate and direction of flow shall not be disrupted or altered; or As approved for Disturbed Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Association Wetlands with appropriate mitigation as defined by the wetland regulations of subsection (e)(6) of this Section. Section 118-12(k)(2) provides: (2) Vertical type seawalls or bulkheads shall be permitted only to stabilize severely eroding shorelines and only on manmade canals, channels, or basins. Such seawalls or bulkheads shall be permitted only if native vegetation and/or riprap and filter cloth is not a feasible means to control erosion. No new seawalls, bulkheads, or other hardened vertical structures shall be permitted on open water. Section 122-4(b)(5), in relevant part, provides: Coastal high-hazard areas (V zones). Within the areas of special flood hazard are areas designated as coastal high- hazard areas, which have special flood hazards associated with wave wash. The following provisions shall apply in these areas: * * * e. There shall be no fill used as structural support. Section 130-157, Maximum Permanent Residential Density and Minimum Required Open Space, provides at note (a): (a) The allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available. Section 130-162, Maximum Densities for Hotel/Motel, Campground, Recreational Vehicle, Seasonal and Institutional Residential Uses, and Minimum Open Space, proves at note (a): (a) The allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available. Ms. Powell persuasively testified that the Project was not consistent with the County's LDC regulations in sections 118-4, 118-10(e), 118-12(k)(2), 122- 4(b)(5), 130-157, and 130-162. The Project was inconsistent with the cited LDC regulations because it sought to construct seawall in submerged land, fill portions of the lots subject to a 100% open space requirement, remove the entirety of the existing mangrove fringe, impair 100% of the marine seagrass resources within the Subject Lots, and utilize structural fill within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated Velocity Zone. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project did not meet the criteria of part IV of chapter 62-312 and section 380.0552. The testimony also demonstrated that Petitioner did not apply for a variance or waiver of the County's LDC regulations. Conditions for Issuance Petitioner generally argued that the five applications provided reasonable assurance for issuance of individual ERPs. However, the persuasive and credible evidence established that the Project did not satisfy a majority of the conditions for issuance under rule 62-330.301. Petitioner failed to provide adequate information regarding stormwater management, the impacts of runoff to Floral Avenue, and runoff flowing back into the Gulf of Mexico OFW. This failure resulted in a lack of reasonable assurance that the Project would not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; would not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; and would not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Those functions would be 100% impacted and the impacts would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. As found above, the Project would cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, adverse impacts to surface water conveyance, and the adverse impacts would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. Additional Conditions for Issuance Petitioner generally contended that the five applications provided reasonable assurance that the Project was clearly in the public interest under rule 62-330.302. However, the persuasive and credible evidence established that the Project did not satisfy a majority of the applicable additional conditions for issuance. The Project would adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others because Petitioner failed to provide adequate information regarding stormwater management. DEP's site inspection found no stormwater management or treatment system on the side of Floral Avenue adjacent to the Subject Lots. Thus, the collected and directed stormwater would end up flowing back into the mangrove fringe and the OFW. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, or their habitat, as a result of the 100% impact to benthic communities, which would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely affect marine productivity, the current condition, and the relative value of functions being performed by the impacted areas. Also, the Project would be permanent in nature. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that Petitioner failed to provide reasonable assurance that there would not be harmful erosion or shoaling. The Project would not adversely affect or enhance any significant historical and archaeological resources. The Project would not be within a recognized cumulative impact basin of the SFWMD for mitigation of impacts purposes. Contiguous lots to the Subject Lots owned by Petitioner could be developed through similar requests in the future. Each ERP application's cumulative impact analysis would consider the other four ERP applications as in-house examples of potential future projects. Thus, Petitioner did not provide reasonable assurance that each ERP application would not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order denying Petitioner's five ERP applications. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathryn E.D. Lewis, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jay Patrick Reynolds, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Moore, Esquire Moore Bowman & Reese, P.A. Suite 100 551 North Cattlemen Road Sarasota, Florida 34232 Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Mail Station 35 Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jon F. Morris, Esquire Brandon W. White, Esquire Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street, Mail Station 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Valerie A. Wright, Esquire Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue is whether Hernando County's application for an environmental resource permit authorizing the construction of a new surface water management system to serve a 7.85 acre drainage system improvement three miles southeast of Brooksville, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Petitioners, Richard J. Silvani, Dick W. Thompson, James E. and Marilyn Bates, Joyce Menzie, James M. Gibson, Claudia C. Munsell, Mr. and Mrs. Phillip E. Durst, Donald R. Sosnoski, Mr. and Mrs. Robert L. Nelson, and Mr. and Mrs. Richard Ladow (Petitioners), are property owners in central Hernando County, Florida. Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Managment District (District), is the state agency charged with the responsibility of issuing Environmental Resource Permits (ERP) within its jurisdictional boundaries. Respondent, Hernando County (County), is a local government seeking the issuance of a permit for the purpose of alleviating drainage and flooding problems in a subdivision known as High Point Gardens in the central part of the County. On June 11, 1997, the County filed an application with the District seeking authorization to construct a low earthen berm to help control flooding in High Point Gardens, an eighty- five unit residential subdivision. On September 29, 1997, the District gave notice of its intention to issue ERP No. 449342.01 authorizing the "construction of a new surface water management system to serve a 7.85 acre drainage system improvement known as the Hernando County - High Point Gardens Drainage Improvements." The project is located off Sun Hill Lane, three miles southeast of Brooksville, Florida, in central Hernando County. On an undisclosed date, but in a timely fashion, Petitioners filed their Petition for Informal Hearing challenging the issuance of the permit. As grounds, Petitioners alleged that the permit application contained "possible miscalculations of design" which would "alter the natural water flow route"; "adversely affect several acres of natural wetlands by changing hydrology of surface area"; "adversely affect adjacent uplands by innundating forest areas never before flooded by heavy rainfall"; "not guarantee 100% flood protection to the few affected homes"; and "create flood problems to adjacent homes and property by diverting stormwater from natural flow (north) to area east of 'proposed' retention area." The petition further alleged that the "'proposed' area should not be normal recepient [sic] of excess water from Cedar Falls subdivision" and that "all affected properties are not owned or easements acquired by Hernando County for surface water storage." The filing of the petition prompted the initiation of this proceeding. The Permit The High Point Gardens subdivision, which lies within the Bystre Lake Basin, is a "relatively old subdivision," having been built around the 1970's. There is a low area in the middle of the subdivision, and it has "[s]everal sinks with a natural drainage within the area." Because the thirty-square-mile basin is a closed drainage basin, with no natural outflows, "significant" flooding problems have been present throughout the basin since at least the 1980's. In an effort to resolve flooding problems within the basin, the County and District jointly sanctioned a study by a consulting firm, Dames and Moore, to provide suggested alternative actions to correct the problem. The firm's first interim report was rendered on August 5, 1988, and a final report known as the Bystre Lake Stormwater Management Master Plan was rendered in August 1989. Among other things, the consultant's report recommended that a berm be constructed to relieve the flooding in the High Point Gardens' area. Acting on the report, the County obtained a construction permit from the District in August 1991 in accordance with the consultant's recommendation, but construction on the project was not commenced prior to the permit expiring in 1994. Although the consultant's report was the genesis for the first permit, the plans and specifications for the new berm have been modified by engineers after further study and review. It is noted that the total land area of the project will be less than 100 acres. The High Point Gardens subdivision lies within sub-basin 304 of the basin. Under the new proposal, water which now comes into sub-basins 304 and 406 from sub-basins 305 and 306 will be stored in those latter sub-basins. The requested permit would authorize the County to construct a low earthen berm along the western side of sub-basin 406 and the southern boundary of sub- basin 304 to help control flooding in the subdivision. The proposed berm will range from one to five feet in height and extend some 3,250 feet, or approximately six-tenths of a mile. It will range from eight to ten feet in width with a side slope of 4 to 1. The berm will impound water upstream of the berm to an elevation of 90.5 NGVD, which is 1.5 feet higher than the water would rise in the area under natural conditions. The water will be stored in two natural ponds which are now located in the project area. Once the water reaches an elevation of 90.5 NGVD, which will occur only during an event exceeding a 25-year storm event, three overflow structures will become operative and are designed to mimic the natural water flows of the area. After the berm is constructed, all basins "downstream" of the berm, including sub-basins 304, 405, and 406, will have "significantly lower flood elevations than the 10, 25 and 100- year storm event." That is to say, existing flooding to the north and east of the proposed berm will be lessened. To the extent that additional impoundment of water behind the berm will occur, or flooding beyond the berm may occur during a 100-year storm event, the County will acquire easements from local property owners to store the additional water. Until the aquisition of land occurs, construction cannot begin. There is one already disturbed wetland area near the proposed construction area. No mitigation is required, however, since the impact will be temporary and the area is expected to naturally revegetate itself. There will be no adverse impacts to fish, wildlife, or adjacent wetlands. Neither will the project create any other environmental concerns. While there will be some impact to upland trees caused by the impounded water, under existing District rules, that impact cannot be used as a basis to deny the permit. Based on generally accepted engineering principles, the project is capable of being effectively performed and can function as proposed. Also, the project can be effectively operated and maintained. The County has the resources to undertake the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit. The greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence supports a finding that the County has given reasonable assurances that all applicable criteria for the issuance of a permit have been met. Petitioners' Objections At hearing, Petitioners contended that the overflow structures for the berm would alter the natural flow of water, and increase the flow of water to the east of the proposed project, where several Petitioners reside. As previously noted, however, the more credible evidence shows that the project will not increase the natural flow of water to the east of the berm. More specifically, expert testimony demonstrated that the regular flow through each weir in the post-development condition will not be adversely greater than what occurred during the pre- development condition. Petitioners also contended that the wetlands will be negatively impacted by the project. Contrary expert testimony by witness Defoe established, however, that there will be no permanent adverse impacts to wetlands, fish, or wildlife if the permit is approved. Petitioners next contended that the process was flawed because very few on-site inspections of the project area were made by District and County personnel, especially during the rainy season, before the application was preliminarily approved. There were, however, on-site inspections by District and County staff and consultants, and it was not shown that the lack of additional inspections affected the validity of their studies. A further contention was made at hearing that the information supporting the application was insufficient and that more study, including soil boring tests, should have been made. As to additional soil boring tests, the evidence shows that it is not a common engineering practice to perform soil testing throughout the entire area that will be submerged. Therefore, the existing tests were adequate to support the engineering assumptions. Further, even if there were some infirmities in the data and assumptions used and made in the 1989 Dames and Moore report, as alleged by Petitioners, the errors or omissions were minor, they were subject to later refinement by professional engineers, and they did not materially affect the overall validity of the current application. Finally, the application file contains uncontradicted technical information supporting the issuance of the permit. Petitioners' other concerns, while sincere and well- intended, are not relevant to the permitting process. For example, a concern that the construction of a berm will decrease nearby property values, even if true, is not a consideration in the permitting process. Similarly, Petitioners' valid concern that some nearby upland trees will be damaged if water levels rise for a prolonged period of time is not a basis under existing District rules to deny the permit. At the same time, whether the project is cost-effective and the best alternative for alleviating flooding conditions in the area are political decisions for the County, and thus they are not in issue in this proceeding. Finally, Petitioners have pointed out that the County has not completed acquisition of the necessary easements for the project, and that until this is done, a permit should not issue. However, the District has specifically provided as a condition precedent to any construction work that the County finalize ownership or control for all property where water levels will be raised by the project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order granting Hernando County's application for Standard General Environmental Resource Permit No. 449342.01. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675, SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: E. D. "Sonny" Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Chester Bradshaw 18520 Bradshaw Road Dade City, Florida 33523 Richard L. Silvani 24419 Lanark Road Brooksville, Florida 34601 Margaret M. Lytle, Esquire 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Robert Bruce Snow, Esquire 20 North Main Street, Room 462 Brooksville, Florida 34601
Findings Of Fact S. A. Williams Corporation (Williams) is a Florida corporation which has its principal place of business in Florida, has a net worth of less than two million dollars, has fewer than 25 employees, and was the prevailing party in the initial proceedings. Williams has operated a construction and demolition landfill in Hernando County since prior to the adoption of zoning ordinances by the county, and its use of the land for this purpose was grandfathered. Subsequently, William sought to comply with certain conditions established by the County for expanding the landfill site. These improvements necessitated construction of a basin to retain surface water. On April 6, 1993, William applied for a surface water drainage permit from the Southwest Water Management District. On June 16, 1993, the District gave notice of its intent to issue the surface water drainage permit to Williams. On May 26, 1993, while Williams' application was pending with the Water Management District, the County revoked the zoning of Williams to operate a construction and demolition landfill site. Williams sought and obtained an injunction against the County to prevent it from revoking its zoning, and the County appealed the Circuit Court's order enjoining the revocation of the zoning. The Hernando County Commission was advised by their attorney on May 10, 1993, that the County might desire to challenge the issuance of permits by the Water Management District or the Department of Environmental Regulation to Williams to prevent Williams from proceeding with its operation during the appeal of the injunction. At a meeting on June 24, 1993, before the County challenged issuance of the permit, the Water Management District staff advised the County Attorney and a member of the County Commission, who were attending the presentation in their official capacity, that there would be no adverse drainage impacts to any property owned by the County, its rights-of-way, or any property of any citizen of the county because the drainage would be retained on Williams' property by a close basin system large enough to retain surface water drainage on the property during a 100 year storm. Subsequent to this meeting and prior to filing its petition challenging issuance of the permit, the County did not bring to the attention of the Water Management District any concerns to be resolved between the District, Williams, and the County over adverse drainage impacts to County property or rights-of-way. 7 On June 30, 1993, Hernando County filed a petition in the original proceeding challenging the issuance by Southwest Water Management District to Williams of a surface water drainage permit. That petition alleged two grounds for standing: (1) that the County was substantially affected because of adverse impacts to county property and the rights-of-way to county roads, and (2) that the County had standing to challenge the issuance of the permit under its general police powers. The County Engineer was not asked by the County Attorney to review the drainage impacts of the surface water drainage permit prior to filing the challenge, and did not review the District's file until after his first deposition on October 22, 1993. After reviewing the information, to include a new survey of the berm contours, furnished to the Water Management District by Williams, the County Engineer determined that there were no adverse drainage impacts off site. The County Engineer's opinion that there were no adverse impacts to County property was known by the County Attorney prior to the formal hearing in Case Number 93-4212 on November 16, 1993. At the formal hearing on November 16, 1993, in Case Number 93-4212, Williams moved to dismiss the petition filed by Hernando County for lack of standing on the basis that the County was not substantially effected by the Water Management District's decision to issue a surface water drainage permit to Williams. The County receded from its allegation of damage to County property and rights-of-way at the commencement of the hearing, but asserted standing on the basis of its general police powers. The County specifically denied at the formal hearing acting in a representative capacity in the manner of an association in behalf of the county's citizens. After hearing the argument of counsel and being fully advised in the premises, the undersigned hearing officer recommended that the County's petition be dismissed. At the conclusion of the hearing, Williams moved for the award of attorney's fees and expenses from the County after argument on the motion to dismiss the County's petition. Thereafter, Williams filed a written motion for the award of attorney fees and expenses. The Hearing Officer retained jurisdiction to consider the Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses when the recommended order was entered. The Water Management District adopted the Recommended Order in its Final Order dated December 20, 1993, and the County appealed the District's Final Order which was affirmed per curiam without opinion in Hernando County v. Southwest Florida Water Management District, 647 So. 2d 124, (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The instant case was established to consider William's motion which is treated as a collateral fact finding proceeding. The style of the original case was retained to prevent confusion. An evidentiary hearing on the motion for attorney's fees was held on May 10, 1995 which revealed the following facts. During the work-up period prior to notice of intent to issue the permit, the county's engineer and environmental specialist did not raise issues regarding drainage, contours, wetlands, and wildlife. (Tx-220). Although the County Attorney and one of its commissioners had been advised by the District that there would be no impact to County property or rights-of-way, the County Engineer was not asked to investigate whether the drainage from the proposed project would remain on the site as stated in the application and as concluded by the staff of the Water Management District prior to the County challenging the issuance of the permit. (Tx-198,199) The County Engineer looked at the Water Management District's file on the issuance of the permit only after the County had filed its challenge. (Tx-209). The County Engineer had expressed concerns to the District staff about suspected changes in the topography on the site. (Tx-208). When the Water Management District was made aware of the County engineer's concerns, a new survey was conducted which resolved the County engineer's concerns about changes in topography on the site, and revealed that the tops of the berms were as high or higher than represented in the application. The results of this new survey was shared with County Engineer prior to the original hearing. (Tx-208,211-219). The County's environmental specialist did not review the complete file on the Williams' permit application until within two weeks of the original formal hearing, well after the challenge was filed. (Tx-161). The environmental specialist had no basis to question the validity of the number of acres of wetlands stated in the second permit. (Tx-176). The environmental specialist did not have any personal knowledge regarding the flora or fauna on the site because she had never been on the site, and her information was based solely on material provided to her by individuals living in the vicinity of the site. (Tx-176,180-181). She did not have authority to enter on the site because the County had no enforcement authority over endangered species. When the county's concerns about endangered species on the site were voiced, an on site inspection was conducted by the District. The District staff found no endangered species, or evidence of endangered species, or persons who had seen them on the site. The District staff's findings were shared with the County prior to the original hearing. (Tx-220.) Williams incurred attorney fees and expenses responding to the challenge of the County to issuance of the surface water drainage permit. The expenses incurred by Williams were primarily in response to the County's allegations of adverse impacts to County property. However, it is impossible to reasonably separate the expenses incurred by Williams responding to the allegations of off-site impacts from those related to standing based upon general police power. The County's assertion of general regulatory authority was primarily a legal argument which was addressed by the District's staff. Williams sought no fees for the appeal which was litigated principally by the District and County. By agreement of the parties the evidence on the amount of attorney fees and rate were submitted by affidavit without agreement regarding the facts asserted in the affidavits. The rate charged by counsel for Williams of $195/hour was a reasonable rate for the type of service provided in the geographic area in which it was provided considering the skill and experience of counsel. The number of hours billed through preparation of the post hearing briefs in the original formal hearing in this case, 160.25 hours, was not excessive given the number of depositions taken, the motions hearings which were held, and the legal and factual issues raised. The Williams' affidavits of attorney's fees and expenses are as follows: Attorney fees thru original hearing: $31,248.75 Estimate of costs related to preparation and service of Motion for Attorneys Fees and Expenses: $ 1,560.00 Teleconference charges on motion to compel: $ 127.73 Outside copying expense: $ 8.73 Expert Witness fee: $ 1,277.90 Court Reporter fees for depositions & transcripts: $ 1,692.45 Expert fees on Motion for Attorney Fee and expenses: $ 788.00 24. The attorney's fees, expert witness fees, and costs incurred by Williams in the hearing on attorney fees May 10, 1995 of $3,894.81 are reasonable. Williams incurred an expense of $1,019.00 for publication of the transcript in the almost seven hour hearing.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the record owner of certain contiguous lots in Escambia County, Florida, which were part of a subdivision originally platted and recorded in 1926. Three of those lots, contiguous to each other, are waterfront lots lying along the southern shore of Bayou Garcon in Escambia County. A portion of the northern boundary of those lots, as originally platted and recorded and conveyed to Petitioner, extends beyond the current upland and into the waters of Bayou Garcon, a Class III Florida Water body. That portion of the lots extending into the bayou is roughly triangular in shape, measuring approximately 125 feet from the northwest corner of the property eastwardly to the shoreline and approximately 40 feet from the northwest corner of the property south to the shoreline. See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit C. Immediately adjacent to the inundated portion of Bayou Garcon, that is the shoreline, is a so-called "beach berm," consisting of a sand deposit historically built up by wave action. This beach berm is well vegetated, primarily with juncus and also with spartina patens. Immediately landward of this beach berm, and physically separated by it from the open waters of Bayou Garcon, is a so-called juncus marsh. This juncus or salt-brackish marsh is vegetated predominately with black needle rush (juncus roemerianus), which is gradually supplanted by sawgrass (cladium jamaicense) near the junction of the marsh area with the landward upland of the three lots. This marsh area extends almost all the way across all three lots in a region running roughly parallel to the course of the bayou. The marsh area terminates in upland, however, on the most easterly lot so that a portion of that lot's upland runs continuously from the landward boundary along Gorham Road to the edge of the open waters of Bayou Garcon on the waterward edge of the beach berm in question. While the beach berm serves to isolate the marsh area to some extent from the open waters of Bayou Garcon, vegetation is continuous from the marsh across the beach berm to the waters of the bayou in a number of places or for most of its length across the waterward boundary of the three lots in question. The open waters of Bayou Garcon and the waters present in the marsh do exchange. The evidence was uncontroverted that the beach berm is overflowed by tidal waters during occasional storm tides, during the course of a typical year, and by other unusually high tides, such as Spring tides. The berm appears to be more frequently inundated from a point lying at the northwesterly corner of the three lots even at normal high tides. Thus, although there is some conflicting evidence regarding the frequency with which the waters of the bayou exchange with the marsh waters, there is no question that this exchange of waters does occur and thus that water salinity varies in the marsh and in Bayou Garcon as a result of this exchange and that the various characteristic elements of the marshes' biological productivity are exported to the waters of the bayou thereby. The marsh and the adjacent littoral zone underlying Bayou Garcon currently perform a number of relevant biological functions. These include the uptake of nutrients from upland runoff, fertilizers, heavy metals and the like and the production of detrital material, which is exported from the marsh during periods of tidal exchange to form part of the nourishment of the estuarine food chain. The marsh and the adjacent littoral zone of the bayou also constitute an important habitat for marine life forms and other wildlife. It constitutes a nursery ground for fish, shrimp, crabs, amphipods, worms, mollusks and other species. The smaller species are in turn fed upon by larger predators such as wading birds, larger fin fishes and the like. The marsh and its littoral zone is thus important to commercial and recreational interests involving fisheries, both sport and commercial. The Petitioner's proposed project consists of the erection of a bulkhead faced with "riprap" along the northerly boundary of the three contiguous lots, running approximately 125 feet, which boundary and proposed bulkhead would include part of the waters of Bayou Garcon waterward of the current shoreline. The Petitioner then proposes to place 1,745 cubic yards of fill in the area landward of that bulkhead extending across the littoral zone of the waters of the bayou, across the beach berm referenced above and back-filling the entire marsh to the upland portion of the subject lots. The placement of this bulkhead, riprap and associated back-filling will eliminate essentially all of the biological and ecological functions performed by the marsh, as well as the adjacent intertidal and littoral zones across the water frontage of the three lots. The project, as currently proposed, would replace these functions with a new source of negative impacts to Bayou Garcon, Perdido Bay and related State waters, including the deposition of additional nutrients such as lawn fertilizers and septic tank leachates associated with development, which can fertilize and cause excessive algae growth and resultant retardation of dissolved oxygen levels in the waters involved. Resultant development of the filled lots will cause additional water quality degradation in the form of pesticides and coliform bacteria emanating from septic tank leachate, associated with the upland development. Development of waterfront land in the Bayou Garcon area has increased in recent years. Much of the development occurring in the past involved filling marshes, such as that involved in the case at bar. Substantial areas of salt marsh have been filled and substantial areas remain in a relatively natural state along the bayou in the area of the proposed project. The cumulative effect of development in the area, that is the bayou, its littoral zone and adjacent salt marshes, of the type and in the manner proposed by the Petitioner, will result in significant degradation of water quality, as well as a substantial loss of the biological functions previously described and delineated in Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, with resulting substantial adverse impact on the public interest. Prior to the filing of the permit application, the Petitioner's consultants met with a representative of the Department at the project site, whereupon the Department's representatives advised them that the Department had certain objections to the project as it was then proposed. They discussed these problems concerning the adverse environmental impact of the project, and the Department proposed modifications, during the free-form review stage of the permit application, intended to lessen the environmental impacts while still protecting the existing shoreline from erosion, which was one of the objects of the Petitioner in applying for the permit. The Petitioner, however, elected not to modify the design of the project to incorporate the changes or all of the changes suggested by DER, so that, after a review of the application the Department issued a notice of its intent to deny it. A permit had been issued by the Department for the same property on November 9, 1978, which authorized a dredge and fill project similar in scope and configuration to that sought in the instant proceeding, contingent upon receipt of all necessary State and Federal governmental authorizations. The Department did not assert jurisdiction over the subject marsh area at that time, apparently taking the position that there was a break in the continuity of the jurisdictional vegetation across the middle of the beach berm, which constituted a continuous gap across the entire waterward frontage of the property, so as to sever the vegetative connection to State waters. That 1978 permit authorized construction of a seawall along the waterward side of the berm and around a group of trees growing at the northeast corner of the property, immediately proximate to the shoreline. It also authorized the placement of fill landward of the seawall and in the subject marsh area. That marsh area was designated as an area "to be filled" on the relevant permit drawings. The Petitioner began installation of that project, pursuant to that 1978 permit, in July 1978, after obtaining the necessary authorization from the United States Army Corps of Engineers on May 18, 1978. Construction continued under the 1978 permit until the Petitioner received a Cease and Desist Order from the Corps of Engineers and a Notice of Violation and an Order for Corrective Action from the Department of Environmental Regulation. Factual details and legal conclusions concerning the enforcement action are summarized in the Recommended Order of Hearing Officer Benton entered May 20, 1983, which was adopted by the Secretary of DER on June 6, 1983, affirmed by the First District Court of Appeal in Lord vs. DER, supra, and officially recognized in this case. As a result of that enforcement action, the Petitioner was allowed to leave the vertical bulkhead around the trees at the northeast corner of her property but was required to remove a promontory that had been constructed by placing unconsolidated fill into the waters of the bayou. The Hearing Officer noted: "Respondent also contends that permit number 17-11736-IE authorized this deposition of fill west of the bulkhead out into the waters of Bayou Garcon. The permit clearly does no such thing. The permit contemplated bulk- heading and back-filling, not road building. The amount of unconsolidated fill exposed to wave action is at least 2 1/2 times what was authorized by the permit to be put behind bulkheads. . . Filling in the waters of the State requires a permit pursuant to Rule 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code, and Respondent had no permit authorizing placement of the fill so as to build the promontory." See page 8 of 1983 Recommended Order. The 1978 permit expired on May 18, 1982. Before its expiration date, the Petitioner did not place significant amounts of fill in the subject juncus marsh behind the beach berm although the permit authorized her to. When the application for the current permit was filed, the promontory fill in the waters of the bayou had been removed in accordance with the enforcement proceeding and Final Order therein, and only the northeast corner of the property around the subject stand of pine trees remains bulkheaded. The Petitioner has not attempted, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Rule 17-4.022(8), Florida Administrative Code, to have the Department validate the jurisdictional determination which it made in connection with the 1978 permit application. The time has now expired for such a validation of the Department's 1978 determination of the landward extent of State waters, using the vegetative index adopted June 10, 1975. Such a validation would have had to have been made within six months of October 1, 1984, the effective date of the amendments to Chapter 403, commonly known as the "Warren S. Henderson Wetlands Act". Since that six month deadline mandated by the above-cited rule has long since passed, that prior 1978 jurisdictional determination, which resulted in the 1978 permit authorizing the filling of the marsh, can no longer have any material effect in this proceeding. The record establishes no representations or acts on the part of the Department or its representatives occurred during the life of that 1978 permit such that representations or actions of the Department during the life of that permit would have prevented the Petitioner from filling the marsh, landward of the berm or, in fact from completing the other work authorized by the permit, such as constructing the bulkhead across the front of the lots in accordance with the terms of the permit. The only thing interfering with the Petitioner's work on the project involved in the 1978 permit was the above-mentioned enforcement case, which stemmed from the Petitioner exceeding the authorization of that permit in the first place. No agency action or representation by any of its employees or agents prevented the Petitioner from filling the marsh area landward of the beach berm before the 1978 permit expired.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the application of Joyce L. Lord for a dredge and fill permit as described above, be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3033 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1 & 2. Accepted. 3-5. Accepted, but not dispositive of any material issue presented for the reasons enumerated in the body of the Recommended Order. Accepted in part, but rejected as to its material overall import as not being in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Accepted as to its chronology of events only; rejected otherwise as being not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence and as immaterial to the disposition of the material issues presented. Rejected as to its material import and as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officers Findings of Fact on this subject matter. 12 & 13. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter and as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the testimony and evidence. 14. Accepted, but not in and of itself dispositive of material issues presented. 15 & 16. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter and as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the testimony and evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-13. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory Paul Farrar, Esquire Paul Shimek, Jr., Esquire 311 North Spring Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 David A. Crowley, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue Whether Petitioner's dredging and filling on his property in Center Hill, Florida, qualifies for an agricultural exemption under section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes,1/ from the requirement to obtain an environmental resource permit from the Southwest Florida Water Management District.
Findings Of Fact The Property is comprised of 118 acres of contiguous parcels located within Section 23, Township 21 South, Range 23 East, in Sumter County, at the intersection of County Road 469 and County Road 710 in Center Hill, Florida. Title to the Property is held by Petitioner and his wife under various entities that they control.2/ The District is an administrative agency charged with the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage, and control water resources within its geographic boundaries, and to administer and enforce chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and related rules under chapter 40D of the Florida Administrative Code. The Department is the state agency authorized under section 373.407, Florida Statutes, to make binding determinations at the request of a water management district or landowner as to whether an existing or proposed activity qualifies for an agricultural-related exemption under section 373.406(2). Petitioner uses the Property for raising cattle, an agricultural use. The activities at the Property are operated under the name "Serenity Ridge Farms." Petitioner has had up to 65 head of cattle on the Property, but since 2011, has kept only approximately 30 head. The Property is classified as agricultural pursuant to section 193.461, Florida Statutes. At the time Petitioner acquired the Property, there was an approximately 2.5-acre, more or less triangular, wetland at the southern end of the western parcel at the intersection of State Road (SR) 469 and County Road (CR) 710, Center Hill, Florida (the Site).3/ This wetland was originally the northern part of a much larger wetland system but, years before, had been severed from the larger system by the construction of the two roads which form a “V” at the southern boundary of Petitioner’s property. Due to its severance from the larger system, the condition of the wetland on the Site was adversely affected. In addition, the Site had been used by others for dumping various types of debris over the years, including tires, appliances, and concrete. In approximately 2007, Petitioner decided to clean up the Site and build a pond. Although the primary water needs for his cattle had been met with water troughs serviced by a four- inch well on the Property, he intended to use the pond as a supplemental source of water supply for his cattle. In deciding to build the pond, Petitioner did not consult with the District. Nor did he confer with an engineer regarding the amount of water the pond should hold to meet the needs of his cattle. Rather, his decision as to the size and configuration of the pond was driven by the footprint of the area in the Site that Petitioner perceived as "full of garbage" and a "landfill." In March 2007, Petitioner began cleaning up the Site. He noticed a stench from the garbage as the area was cleaned. During cleanup, 26 old tires, 14-cubic yards of old appliances, and pieces of concrete and steel were removed from the Site. While there were no accurate wetland surveys of the Site prior to the initiation of Petitioner's clean-up efforts, historical photographs of the Site and remnant plants indicate that, at the time Petitioner undertook the cleanup, the wetland had been significantly impacted. The construction of roads SR 469 and CR 710, which occurred prior to 1973, severed and excluded the Site from the larger wetland area, preventing the free flow of water beyond the Site. Although remaining a wetland, the severance adversely impacted the wetland even before the dumping. The likely dominant species in the wetland were Carolina Willow (Salix spp.) and Primrose Willow (Ludwigia spp.). While both Carolina Willow and Primrose Willow are obligate wetland indicator species,4/ Primrose willow can be a nuisance species and Carolina willow can form a monoculture. In June 2007, the District became aware of Petitioner's activities on the Site. The District opened a complaint file and advised Petitioner that he should not proceed without a permit. Petitioner met with District staff on a number of occasions during his activities in an attempt to find a resolution with the District, but a resolution was never reached. As a result of Petitioner's dredging and filling, a 1.12-acre pond was created and an area of approximately 1.3 acres of wetland was filled. There is no remaining wetland function at the Site. In July 2008, the City of Center Hill sent a letter to the District's Environmental Regulation Manager. The letter, dated July 2, 2008, was signed by the City of Center Hill's Mayor, Chairman of the City Council, and City Clerk, and stated in pertinent part: As community leaders we have many responsibilities that include the stabilization and revitalization of the City of Center Hill. We are fortunate to have citizens who are concerned and active regarding the quality of life in the neighborhoods they reside in. The upkeep of our neighborhoods remains a critical element to the success of our community. Code enforcement cannot be successful without the support of our local citizens. It is the responsibility of each of us to keep our properties code compliant. This will ensure a safe and healthy City. As part of a large voluntary effort, we are pleased that Serenity Ridge Farms in eastern Center Hill implemented a clean-up on property adjacent to the intersection of SR 469 and CR 710 (E. Jefferson Street). The community has increased traffic visibility at this location after the removal of nuisance overgrowth. Additionally, the hauling of debris from the site eliminated a public health hazard that existed as a common dumping-ground for many years. In fact, the work at this location far exceeds any code compliance among the nearly 60 cases that have come to our attention in recent years. Property owners like Serenity Farms are what make our City in Sumter County a great place to live. Hence we ask that our correspondence be included in your files and distributed to members of your staff as you see fit. The subject property has no code deficiencies in the City of Center Hill. Despite the City's letter and efforts between Petitioner and the District, negotiations to settle the District's complaint by restoration or mitigation of the alleged adverse impacts of Petitioner's dredge-and-fill activities have been unsuccessful. The District’s governing board authorized initiation of litigation against Petitioner on December 14, 2010. On January 4, 2011, Petitioner submitted an after-the- fact application to the District for an environmental resource permit for the pond, along with an approximately $1,500 permit application fee. After conducting a site meeting to review the impact of Petitioner's activities, District staff made a request for additional information. The request for additional information (RAI) requested an amount of engineering that, according to Petitioner, would make compliance cost prohibitive. As Petitioner explained in his testimony: My quick estimate, and what the engineering, required all of that, surveys[,] to[p]ographic surveys, could have been anywhere from 50 to [$]75,000, maybe more. While the actual costs to comply with the Districts RAI have not been determined, Petitioner's testimony that the RAI requirements were cost prohibitive is credited. On November 14, 2011, the District wrote a letter to the Department formally requesting a binding determination from the Department as to whether the activities on the Property qualify for the agricultural exemption afforded by section 373.406(2). After receiving the District’s request, Department staff conducted a site visit of the Property on December 28, 2011. The approximately 1.12-acre open water area resulting from Petitioner’s dredging and filling ranges from 4 to 6 feet deep at the center, depending on the groundwater level. At the time of the District’s site visit, the central pond depth was approximately four feet. December is the dry season in this area of Florida and in 2011 there was a drought. The Department’s survey of the Site shows a water depth of six feet. There has been some recruitment of wetland vegetation in the shallower areas of the pond. In fact, some of the emergent vegetation is of higher quality than that which existed prior to the dredging and filling, and there is evidence that wildlife is utilizing it. In addition, Petitioner’s activities included the construction of berms below the bisecting roadways that help filter direct road run-off that previously washed into the Site. The Site, however, has not been restored to a wetland in any significant way. No regeneration is expected at sustained depths of greater than two feet. The maximum recommended depth for planting is one-and-one-half feet. The pond is fenced off, preventing the cattle from direct pond access. Petitioner has spent over $12,000 landscaping and putting in an irrigation system around the pond area. The irrigation system is designed to water the landscaping, including sapling live oaks and sod. Neither landscaping a pond nor irrigating landscaping around a pond is typical for cattle ponds. Petitioner has stated that he would someday like to build a retirement home overlooking the pond. The irrigation system, like the watering troughs on the upland portions of the Property, is serviced by a four-inch diameter well. Generally, a four-inch well can produce 60-100 gallons per minute. The pond as constructed contains approximately 100,000 gallons in the first four inches of water alone. The District’s standard permitting allocation for water withdrawal for cattle is 12 gallons of water per day. Under the Department’s best management practices rule,5/ the allocation is up to 30 gallons per head of cattle per day. On February 10, 2012, the Department rendered its Preliminary Determination which concluded that Petitioner’s activities did not meet the requirements for an agricultural exemption. Under the heading "Application of Statutory Criteria,” the Preliminary Determination stated: Pursuant to Section 373.406(2) F.S., all of the following criteria must be met in order for the permitting exemption to apply. "Is the landowner engaged in the occupation of agriculture, silviculture, floriculture, or horticulture?" YES. The [Department's Office of Agricultural Water Policy] finds that [Petitioner] is engaged in the practice of agriculture on 118 acres of agricultural land in Sumter County, as evidenced by their current agricultural land use classification, the ongoing agricultural production activities observed on site, and the aforementioned cattle sale receipts. "Are the alterations (or proposed alterations) to the topography of the land for purposes consistent with the normal and customary practice of such occupation in the area?" NO. [The Department] finds that the construction of a cattle watering pond within the footprint of a wetland is not a normal and customary practice for the area because: Cattle watering ponds are not normally constructed within wetlands; and Cattle watering troughs were observed in other upland locations throughout the property, precluding the need for a cattle pond in this location. "Are the alterations (or proposed alterations) for the sole or predominant purpose of impeding or diverting the flow of surface waters or adversely impacting wetlands?" NO. (As to impeding or diverting surface waters.) [The Department] finds that the construction of a pond in the wetland was not for the sole or predominant purpose of impeding or diverting surface waters. During the December 28, 2011 site visit, [the Department's Office of Agricultural Water Policy] staff verified that the post-development drainage patterns are consistent with the pre-development drainage patterns. Secondly, the wetland is not connected to offsite drainage systems, as it was severed in its entirety by the construction of SR 469 and CR 710. This occurred prior to [Petitioner] taking ownership of the property. Lastly, the entire farm's drainage system is gravity driven, and is devoid of discharge pumps. YES. (As to adversely impacting wetlands.) [The Department] is aware that the wetland was already of questionable quality (see letter from the City of Center Hill) when the pond was constructed, given that the wetland was severed and excluded from the larger wetland system by the construction of SR 469 and CR 710. Nevertheless, [the Department] finds that the activity was for the sole or predominant purpose of adversely impacting the wetland, as the character of the wetland was destroyed. In sum, the Preliminary Determination concluded that Petitioner’s dredging and filling activities did not qualify for the agricultural exemption provided under section 373.406(2) because the activities are not normal and customary and they adversely impacted wetlands. At the final hearing, however, the evidence indicated that Petitioner’s activities were normal and customary for cattle operations in the area. While the water needs of Petitioner’s cattle are usually served by a four-inch well, the pond constructed at the Site has been an effective supplemental source of water for Petitioner’s cattle operations. When the well ran dry, Petitioner used pump trucks to siphon water from the pond and fill the upland troughs. Petitioner plans to put a pump in the pond to supply water to his cattle, but has not yet done so. Man-made, belowground cattle-watering ponds are very typical in Florida, especially in south and southwest Florida because of the high water tables in the southern part of the peninsula.6/ Further, “[i]t is not uncommon practice for Florida cattle ranchers to excavate cattle ponds, remove muck from existing cattle ponds, and/or grade side slopes of ponds in low lying depressional areas to provide a safe and reliable water source for their cattle.”7/ The fact that it is common for cattle ponds to be built in low-lying areas was further demonstrated by aerial photographs presented by Petitioner’s witness, Mr. Modica, of areas near the Property, including an approximately six-acre pond off Palm Avenue (the Sanchez property), a pond at a site labeled Emory Lane, and a pond off CR 48. While the ponds are considered by the District to be out of compliance on the grounds that they may have adversely affected wetlands, their existence shows that dredging and filling in low areas for cattle ponds is common practice in the area.8/ Although the pond is larger than needed because the footprint of the dumping area was large, and Petitioner may have some non-agricultural plans for the Site in the future, under the facts and evidence as outlined herein, it is found that the pond constructed by Petitioner was for purposes consistent with common practices for cattle operations in the area. On the issue of whether there was adverse impact to a wetland, the evidence showed that Department changed its position several times while drafting the Preliminary Determination. Of the five drafts of the Preliminary Determination, on the question (c) "[a]re the alterations (or proposed alterations) for the sole or predominant purpose of . . . adversely impacting wetlands?” one draft stated: UNSURE. (As to adversely impacting wetlands.) Documentation shows a 2.47 acre wetland impact area. This dredge and fill activity was for the purpose of converting the wetland to an open water and pasture area. However, this remnant wetland area was severed and excluded from the larger wetland system, as it was originally impacted by the construction of SR 469 and CR 710. Although wetland conditions prior to Zagame’s actions cannot be determined with certainty, a letter from the City of Center Hill indicates questionable wetland condition, which obfuscates remaining quality and function. Another draft, in answering the same question, stated: NO. (As to adversely impacting wetlands.) In the opinion of the [Department], the impacted remnant wetland was of questionable quality (see letter from the City of Center Hill) having been previously severed and excluded from the larger wetland system, by the construction of SR 469 and CR 710. Considering those factors addressed in the above- quoted drafts of the Department’s drafts of the Preliminary Determination, as well as the evidence of the condition of the wetland when Petitioner began his cleanup operations, it is found that the predominant purpose and effect of Petitioner’s activities was to construct a cattle pond and clean up a dumping ground, not to adversely impact a wetland.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order finding that the activities on Petitioner’s property addressed in this case are exempt pursuant to section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of February, 2013.
The Issue Whether a consumptive use permit for the quantities of water requested in the application should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Application 7500137 seeks an average daily withdrawal of 2.4 million gallons of water with maximum daily withdrawal not more than 2.88 million gallons from an existing well in order to process phosphate and reclaim land. This is an existing use for mining operations located southwest of Lakeland, Florida, on land consisting of 1531 acres. Notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation, to wit: The Lakeland Ledger, on November 11 & 18, 1975, pursuant to Section 373.146, Florida Statutes. The application and affidavit of publication were admitted into evidence without objection as Composite Exhibit 1, together with correspondence from James R. Brown, Vice President, Dagus Engineers, Inc., dated November 19, 1975 to the Southwest Florida Water Management District. No objections were received by the Water Management District as to the application. Mr. George Szell, hydrologist of the Water Management District testified that the application met the conditions for a consumptive use permit as set forth in Chapter 16J-2.11, Florida Administrative Code, except that the quantity of water requested to be withdrawn is 41.06 per cent over the maximum average daily withdrawal permitted under the water crop theory as set forth in Section 16J-2.11(3), F.A.C. However, the Water Management District witness recommended waiver of that provision since the mining operations will be concluded in several years and thereafter the water table and hydrologic conditions will return to normal. The Water District staff recommended approval of the application with the condition that a meter be installed on the well and that the applicant be required to take monthly readings thereof and submit quarterly reports of the readings to the District. The applicant's representative agreed to these conditions at the hearing.
Recommendation It is recommended that Application No. 7500137 submitted by Poseidon Mines, Inc., for a consumptive water use permit be granted on the condition that a meter be installed on the applicant's well and that monthly readings be taken and submitted quarterly by the applicant to the Southwest Florida Water Management District. It is further recommended that the Board of Governors of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, pursuant to Rule 16J-2.11(5), for good cause, grant an exception to the provisions of Rule 16J-2.11(3), as being consistent with the public interest. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of January, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J.T. Ahern, Staff Attorney Southwest Florida Water Management District P.O. Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Poseidon Mines, Inc. P.O. Box 5172 Bartow, Florida
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of Lot 28, Hidden Bay Subdivision, Martin County, Florida. On July 19, 1990, Petitioner filed an application with the Respondent for a dredge and fill permit to construct on the wetland portion of his lot a single family dwelling on stilts, a garage, and a connecting driveway to an existing roadway. The application also seeks a permit to retain a roadway that was constructed on the property before the Respondent asserted jurisdiction over the property. The existing roadway is 25 feet wide and 510 feet long and remained in existence at the time of the formal hearing. The connecting driveway on the wetlands portion of the property would require 40 cubic yards of fill. The following, taken from the Notice of Permit Denial entered by Respondent, accurately describes the proposed project: The proposed project will entail the temporary placement of 500 cubit yards of clean fill in order to set piles for a proposed stilt house. Additional fill (40 cubic yards) is proposed for a driveway to access a proposed garage. Riprap is proposed along the east slope of the driveway and along the northwest slope under the proposed stilt house. In addition, 186 cubic yards of the existing unauthorized fill road is proposed to remain. Total acreage to be impacted by this project is .092 acres. Petitioner's lot fronts Bessey Creek and is located in Section 1, Township 38 South, Range 40 East, in Palm City. Petitioner's lot is located approximately 2,200 feet south of the C-23 Canal on Bessey Creek. Bessey Creek is designated a Class III water. Bessey Creek combines with other tributaries and ultimately discharges into the North Fork of the St. Lucie River, which is designated an Outstanding Florida Water. Petitioner's lot consists of 1.82 acres. Respondent has asserted jurisdiction over approximately 1.3 acres of Petitioner's lot on the grounds that it is a fresh water wetland. Petitioner does not challenge Respondent's asserted jurisdiction in this proceeding. The Respondent has jurisdiction over dredge and fill activities conducted on the portion of Petitioner's lot that is at issue in this proceeding. This project is not exempt from permitting procedures. A dredge and fill permit is required for the proposed construction. Prior to applying for this permit, Petitioner contacted James McElheny, a landscape architect, who assisted Petitioner in drawing up the plans for the house, the driveway, and the garage that Petitioner desired to construct on the property. Without being aware that a permit from the Respondent would be required, Petitioner constructed a driveway on a portion of his property that was within the permitting jurisdiction of Respondent. This driveway extended to the landward end of a boardwalk that terminated as a dock in Bessey Creek. After Petitioner became aware of the need for a permit, he removed the filled driveway to a point that Martin County and Respondent agreed was appropriate. A portion of the driveway remained on property within the permitting jurisdiction of the Respondent at the time of the formal hearing. The plan prepared by Mr. McElheny also depicted this existing, unauthorized roadway. Petitioner's application seeks, in part, a permit to retain this driveway. On June 10, 1991, Respondent issued its Notice of Permit Denial based on the Respondent's conclusion that the Petitioner had failed to provide the required assurances in Sections 403.918(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. The Notice of Permit Denial provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The Department hereby denies the permit for the following reasons: This project is expected to have both short and long term impacts to biological resources and water quality. The total acreage to be impacted by this project is .092 acres. In addition, the applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest pursuant to Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to 403.919, F.S. which gives the Department the authority to examine secondary impacts, the Department has concerns about additional wetland resource and water quality impacts that may result from this project. Floodplain areas are essential to the river system and provide important functions for the environment. The floodplain serves as a buffer system in high tide and storm events. It also serves as a source of detrital input which supports the freshwater and estuarine food chains. In addition, these areas act to improve water quality by stabilizing sediment and filtering upland runoff. Long-term effects of the proposed project would include a decrease in the productivity of the system, as well as a decrease in the filtering and stabilizing capabilities of the system. Water quality degradation is also expected to occur with upland runoff from pesticides, fertilizers, sewerage and petroleum products. Floodplain wetlands also provide a habitat for a wide variety of reptiles, amphibians, birds, crustaceans and mammals. This would eliminate this wetland habitat. This project is expected to be in violation of the following Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code Rules: 403.918 Criteria for granting or denying permits 17-312.080 Standards for Issuance or Denial of Permit 17-312.300(3) Mitigation Intent 17-302.560 Criteria: Class III waters The Department has determined that the following changes to the project make the project permittable. Modify the project to reduce or eliminate adverse environmental impact by: Removing the unauthorized fill road from water of the state. Relocate the proposed house to utilize as much upland area on the property as possible. Relocate the garage and access driveway to an upland area [and] eliminate or modify the garage and access road to reduce impacts. Section 403.918, Florida Statutes, provides the following permitting criteria pertinent to this proceeding: A permit may not be issued . . . unless the applicant provides the department with reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. . . . A permit may not be issued . . . unless the applicant provides the department with reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest. . . . (a) In determining whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others . . . the department shall consider and balance the following criteria: Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered species, or their habitat; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The Respondent is entitled to consider the cumulative impact of the proposed project pursuant to Section 403.919, Florida Statutes, which provides as follows: The department, in deciding whether to grant or deny a permit for an activity which will affect waters, shall consider: The impact of the project for which the permit is sought. The impact of projects which are existing or under construction or for which permits or jurisdictional determinations have been sought. The impact of projects which are under review, approved, or vested pursuant to s. 380.06, or other projects which may reasonably be expected to be located within the jurisdictional extent of waters, based upon land use restrictions and regulations. The residence that Petitioner proposes to build on the wetland portion of the property will be constructed on pilings so that the underside of the house will be 12 feet above the ground. There will be a total of 12 pilings, with each piling being 10 inches square. The "footprint" of the house will be 1,654 square feet. If the project is permitted, best management practice will require that a silt screen be erected around the construction site during construction to prevent silt runoff. The proposed site for the house is located in a natural clearing that would require minimal clearing. If the project is to be permitted in this wetland, the site selected by Petitioner is the best site with the least impact on the wetland. Petitioner would be required to remove up to two laurel oaks and seven red maple trees. These are relatively small trees, and both species are common. Petitioner would also be required to remove shrub of no particular unique value. Petitioner proposes to mitigate the removal of the trees by replanting on the property trees that were removed in a 2-1 ratio, so that 6 laurel oaks and 14 red maples would be replanted. Petitioner also proposes to revegetate the area beneath the residence, with the exception of the area required by the pilings. There are invasive, exotic plants on the property, such as Brazilian pepper, that would be removed by Petitioner and replaced by native plants. Ms. Jacqueline Kelly, the environmental specialist who reviewed this project for Respondent, visited the property approximately four times for a total of eight hours. Ms. Kelly is of the opinion that no dredge and fill activity should be permitted on jurisdictional wetlands. Ms. Kelly testified that she observed several species of birds while she was on the property, including a wood stork, a great blue heron, a little blue heron, a tricolored heron, an osprey, bluejays, woodpeckers, and grackles. The wood stork is an endangered species and the little blue heron, the tricolored heron, and the osprey are species of special concern. These birds do not nest on the subject property, and they were not observed in the area of the wetland on which the proposed construction would occur. There was no testimony upon which it can be concluded that the proposed construction will stop these species from coming on to the property. Because of the slope of the terrain, the upland portion of the Petitioner's property drains away from the wetland while the portion on which the proposed construction would occur drains toward the wetland. At the formal hearing, Petitioner suggested that any concerns as to drainage from the roof of the proposed residence could be discharged onto the upland portion of the lot by gutters. In his post-hearing submittal, Petitioner proposes that a condition of the permit be that "[a] roof drainage system be installed that allows the roof to drain to the upland portion of the project." The permitting requirement contained in Section 403.918(6), Florida Statutes, pertaining to historical or archaeological resources was not at issue in this proceeding. Ms. Kelly concluded that Petitioner has not provided reasonable assurances required by Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, as to each of the remaining permitting criteria. The rationale given by Ms. Kelly for her conclusions is not persuasive. The greater weight of the evidence is that all reasonable assurances required by Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, that were at issue in this proceeding have been provided as it pertains to the construction of the residence. The existing roadway was filled using shell rock which has stabilized. The mere existence of the roadway on the wetland property was not shown to violate any permitting criteria since this roadway does not violate water quality standards and is not contrary to the public interest. Petitioner did not, however, provide reasonable assurances that the utilization of this existing roadway as either a driveway or a parking area would not violate water quality standards as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(1), Florida Statutes, or that such use would not be contrary to the public interest or that those parts of the project would not be contrary to the public interest as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. Petitioner did not provide reasonable assurances that the construction of the garage or the extension of the driveway on these wetlands would not violate water quality standards as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(1), Florida Statutes, or that those parts of the project would not be contrary to the public interest as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. John Meyer was of the opinion that the project should be denied because of the possible precedent that the permitting of this project may establish for other owners of wetland properties. There was no factual or legal basis established for this opinion. The permitting of this project has no value as a precedent for other projects. There was no evidence that there were other permit applications pending for other projects in wetlands, and Mr. Meyer could only recall one or two such applications ever having been filed. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that speculative cumulative impacts of this project does not prohibit the permit pursuant to the provisions of Section 409.919(3), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order which permits Petitioner to construct the residence on stilts with the following conditions: That silt screens be erected during the actual construction to prevent silt runoff from the construction from reaching Bessey Creek. That a roof drainage system be installed that allows the roof to drain to the upland portion of the project. That Petitioner be required to mitigate for the removal of laurel oaks and red maple by replanting on the property two laurel oaks for each laurel oak removed and by replanting on the property two red maples for each red maple removed. That Petitioner be required to revegetate with native plants the area under the house except for the areas required for the stilts. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Respondent deny a permit to construct a garage or extend the existing roadway. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Respondent permit Petitioner to retain the existing roadway on the condition that the roadway not be utilized as either a driveway or as a parking area for motor vehicles. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January 1994.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner Cargor Partners VIII – Long Bar Pointe, LLLP (“Cargor”) is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2017).
Findings Of Fact Notice On February 17, 2017, the attorney for Cargor sent Joseph McClash a letter on law firm stationary. In the first paragraph of the letter it states, “Please allow this letter to serve as notice of Cargor’s intent to seek relief pursuant to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (the “Statute”) against you, individually as qualified representative, and the named Petitioner.” Cargor sent an email to McClash on February 28, 2017, reminding McClash that “the 57.105 deadline is March 10, 2017.” McClash referred to a motion for attorney’s fees that he received on or about March 13, 2017, but the motion was not shown to the Administrative Law Judge nor introduced into evidence. On April 5, 2017, the same day that McClash voluntarily dismissed the petition for hearing in DOAH Case No. 17-0655, Cargor filed with DOAH its motion for attorney’s fees under section 57.105. Contested Claims The renewal of a FDOW is governed by section 373.421(2), Florida Statutes, which states in relevant part that the FDOW shall be renewed “as long as physical conditions on the property have not changed, other than changes which have been authorized by a permit pursuant to this part, so as to alter the boundaries of surface waters or wetlands.” If the boundaries of wetlands or other surface waters have been altered without a permit, the FDOW cannot be renewed and an application for a new FDOW is required. The SWFWMD reviewer explained in a letter requesting additional information from Cargor: Please be advised that letters of exemption do not qualify as permits issued under Part IV of chapter 373, F.S. and therefore if work has been done on the site that has altered the wetlands or other surface water boundaries in association with a letter of exemption, a new formal determination application will be required. McClash claims Cargor did not qualify for the renewal of its FDOW because Cargor altered the boundaries of surface waters or wetlands on its property after the 2011 FDOW was issued and the some of the alterations were made pursuant to letter of exemption. In its February 17, 2017, letter to McClash, Cargor set forth six grounds for Cargor’s contention that McClash’s petition for hearing should be withdrawn. The first three grounds were described in Cargor’s letter as follows: The Formal Determination of Wetlands and Other Surface Waters, dated December 28, 2016, which is the subject of this Proceeding, does not authorize any construction activity. Consequently, no standing to challenge is or could be properly presented. There is no injury in fact and no one is in immediate danger of a direct injury from the issuance of the Formal Determination of Wetlands and Other Surface Waters, dated December 28, 2016, as of the date and time of filing the Petition in this Proceeding. Consequently, no standing to challenge is or could be properly presented. The Formal Determination of Wetlands and Other Surface Waters, dated December 28, 2016, is not a permit, license, or authorization. Consequently, no standing to challenge is or could be properly presented by an association. These were issues of law and they were decided against Cargor in an Order dated February 28, 2017. The fourth and fifth grounds described in Cargor’s letter involve the central issue in the case: Changes in the land have been previously authorized by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (“SWFWMD”) pursuant to existing and final permits including (i) SWFWMD ERP No. 43040157.001, dated August 6, 2014, (ii) SWFWMD CONCEPTUAL ERP No. 49040157.002, dated September 4, 2015, (iii) SWFWMD ERP No. 4304157.003, dated March 31, 2016, and (iv) SWFWMD Notice of Qualification for Permanent Farming Exemption, dated August 30, 2016. Changes in the land are authorized by the identified permits and authorizations. All changes in the land have occurred pursuant to the identified permits and authorizations. Allegations to the contrary are simply false and are not supported by material facts. In 2015, Cargor was issued a “Conceptual ERP” permit, which describes, among other things, planned modifications to some agricultural ditches. However, the conceptual permit does not allow the commencement of construction activities. On August 30, 2016, SWFWMD issued to Cargo a Permanent Farming Exemption, pursuant to section 373.406(13), which authorized Cargor to excavate three agricultural ponds in uplands. In its application for the exemption, Cargor also proposed to modify some agricultural ditches. On March 31, 2017, SWFWMD issued Cargor an ERP Individual Construction Major Modification, which, among other things, authorized work in ditches. This permit was issued just before McClash’s voluntary dismissal and, therefore, could not have authorized the changes on Cargor’s property that McClash described in the petition for hearing. Before filing his petition, McClash consulted with a wetland scientist, Clark Hull, about the merits of McClash’s proposed challenge to the FDOW renewal. Hull gave McClash an affirmative response, but his input was speculative because it was based on assumptions and representations that Hull had not investigated. McClash consulted with another wetland scientist, Pamela Fetterman, who conducted an “aerial, desktop review of publically available Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data.” Fetterman described her initial review as an evaluation of potential undelineated wetlands and other surface waters. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the delineation approved by the 2011 FDOW became final and could not be challenged by McClash. McClash then asked Fetterman to review changes in physical conditions on the property that occurred after the FDOW was issued. Fetterman produced a report (McClash Exhibit R-6), in which she opined that the changes to physical conditions on Cargor’s property “have a high likelihood of affecting the previously delineated landward extent of wetlands and other surface waters.” She stated further: [C]hanges in physical conditions of the property took place prior to issuance of the [FDOW renewal] as purported “exempt agricultural activities”, and include ditch dredging alterations to delineated other surface waters. . . . A Permanent Farming Request for Exemption Confirmation letter was applied for on August 23, 2016 for construction of these ponds and modification of existing ditches, some of which were determined to be jurisdictional other surface waters by the subsequently re-issued [FDOW]. At the final hearing on fees, neither McClash nor Cargor made clear to the Administrative Law Judge: (1) the physical changes to the property that were alleged to be authorized by permit, (2) the physical changes that were alleged to be authorized by exemption, or (3) any physical changes that were alleged to be unauthorized. The sixth ground described in Cargor’s letter is as follows: The picture attached to the Petition as set forth in Paragraph 9, and the stop work allegation set forth in Paragraph 10 are irrelevant and have no factual relationship to any issue in the proceeding. Since any changes in the land have occurred pursuant to identified permits and authorizations, the allegations are simply false and/or intentionally misleading. It is not a basis for an award of attorney’s fees under section 57.105 that an irrelevant photograph was included in a petition for hearing. Moreover, the aerial photograph in McClash’s petition was relevant in this case because it showed the physical conditions of Cargor’s property. In the petition, McClash states that Manatee County issued a stop work order on November 16, 2016, for construction activities commenced on Cargor’s property without a County- approved erosion control plan. This allegation also pertained to physical changes to the property. All evidence about physical changes was relevant in determining whether Cargor was entitled to renewal of the FDOW. Fees Cargor claims fees based on 48.4 hours of attorney time (Edward Vogler) at an hourly rate of $410, and 3.6 hours of attorney time (Kimberly Ashton) at an hourly rate of $385, for a total of $21,230.00. The fees Cargor is seeking include the hours spent on legal issues raised by Cargor that were rejected by the Administrative Law Judge. These fees amount to at least $1,025. See Cargor Exhibit 1, Invoice entries for February 20, 2017. Cargor’s attorney testified that the fees are reasonable. Cargor did not call an expert witness to corroborate the reasonableness of the hourly rate and the reasonableness of the hours expended.
