Similar Cases - Case Laws -- eLawyers

Find Similar Cases by Filters

You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.

Find 49 similar cases

FRIENDS OF SAINT SEBASTIAN RIVER vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, 01-001466RP (2001)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tallahassee, Florida Apr. 13, 2001 Number: 01-001466RP Latest Update: Jun. 06, 2003

The Issue Whether proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, which describes how the Department of Environmental Protection will exercise its authority under Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, to identify and list those surface waters in the state that are impaired for purposes of the state's total maximum daily load (commonly referred to as "TMDL") program, is an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority," within the meaning of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, for the reasons asserted by Petitioners.

USC (2) 33 U.S.C 1251, 33 U.S.C 1313 CFR (4) 40 CFR 122.41, 40 CFR 130, 40 CFR 130.7(b), 40 CFR 130.7(b)(5) Florida Laws (24) 119.07, 119.15, 120.52, 120.536, 120.54, 120.56, 120.569, 120.57, 120.68, 216.311, 373.309, 373.414, 373.4145, 373.4592, 403.021, 403.031, 403.061, 403.062, 403.067, 403.086, 403.0885, 403.804, 403.805, 934.02

# 1

JAMES C. DOUGHERTY vs. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, 80-001055 (1980)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 80-001055 Latest Update: Nov. 01, 1991

Florida Laws (3) 120.57, 403.086, 403.087

# 2

ARMAND J. HOULE vs. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, 87-001469 (1987)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 87-001469 Latest Update: Apr. 29, 1988

Findings Of Fact In September, 1985, Armand J. Houle purchased an 80 acre tract located eight miles east of the Naples toll booth on State Road 84 and approximately two miles north of Alligator Alley. The purpose of buying the property was to mine the limestone rock thereon, through a borrow pit, for the purpose of selling it as road base to the State of Florida Department of Transportation for use in the construction of 1-75 (Alligator Alley extending from Naples to the Florida east coast). While no contract has existed or currently exists, correspondence between the Department of Transportation and counsel for the Petitioner indicates that approximately 800,000 cubic yards of fill will be required in the immediate area and that Petitioner's proposed borrow pit would be the ideal source of this rock. Prior to making the purchase, Mr. Houle's associate, Raymond Chester, contacted both the Department of Transportation concerning the potential use of the rock and representatives of the Department of Environmental Regulation. The response he received from these agencies led him to, believe that a borrow pit might well be permitted and the effort should be pursued. After Mr. Chester and Mr. Houle became partners in the property, they contacted county officials and received zoning and other local permits for the facility. It was only after this, when DER was approached again that the applicants were advised a permit would not be issued. Mr. Houle agrees that, if the permits as requested were granted, he would accept a prohibition against further development of the property after removal of the rock and fill, would allow access to the restored lakes to the public for fishing and recreation; would agree to an appropriate restoration plan for the site; and would ensure compliance with the restoration plan stipulated by the Department. After the property was purchased in late 1985, Mr. Houle approached Daniel W. Brundage, the vice-president of an engineering firm in Naples, with a view toward developing the property in question as a borrow pit. Plans were developed for application for permits with the County and Mr. Brundage, consistent therewith, visited the site on several occasions. He found some vegetation off from the site which could be related to wetlands and contacted a representative of DER with whom he went to the site to look it over. This agency representative, Mr. Beever, concluded that the property was a jurisdictional wetland. Mr. Brundage nonetheless felt confident enough to begin work with the County to secure a permit to convert this land, classified as agricultural, to mining property. Consistent with his efforts, the request for conversion went through a four step process on the way to the County Commission which included approval by (1) the Water Management Advisory Board, (2) the Environmental Advisory Council which recommended same changes accepted by the Petitioner, (3) the Subdivision Review Committee, and (4) the Coastal Area Planning Council. All four subagencies recommended approval and thereafter the County granted its permit for work to begin. Assuming all permits are issued, the property will be developed in two stages. In stage one the site will be cleared of vegetation, and the top soil on Phase I, the western 40 acre parcel, removed and used to construct a berm around the entire perimeter of the site as well as between the two 40 acre parcels. The berm will be entirely within property boundaries and used to isolate any water removed from the active phase within the site so that it does not flow onto adjoining property. The eastern 40 acre tract, (Stage II) will be used for water storage during the excavation of Stage 1. It is anticipated that no water will leave the site during construction of either stage with the exception of extraordinary waterfall during rainfall or hurricane. Before any water is discharged, it will go into a storage configuration so that any sediment therein would settle to the bottom before discharge. The discharged water will be filtered through hay bales or filter screens to avoid any turbidity in the surrounding water. The design of this holding capacity in the filter system is sufficient to accommodate the water of a 25 year storm. As Stage I is completed, Stage II will be opened, and the ground water from Stage II pumped back to Stage I for storage. A similar storage and filtration system will be utilized around Stage I. Primary access to the property will be along the western boundary of 8 Mile Canal, but if this is not allowed, Petitioner proposes to build a single span bridge across the 8 Mile Canal at 40th Street to allow access to the property. After the lime rock has been excavated, the berm will be removed and the side of the property graded to form the banks of a 56 acre lake for recreational purposes. The edge of the lake will be a meandering slope at a ratio of 10:1 which will be assured by survey to be in compliance with the County plan. The lake, which will have a maximum depth of 20 feet, will be excavated at a depth ratio of 2:1 from the edge of the slope to the bottom of the lake. During excavation and prior to restoration, heavy equipment will be used for the removal of the rock such as drag lines, back hoes, motor graders, and bulldozers and an area within the boundaries of the site will be isolated and set up for fueling and maintenance. It will be floored with a membrane to prohibit oil and fuel from getting into the ground as a result of accidental spills. Storage tanks for fuel and oil will be above ground and available for immediate inspection. Waste facilities will be in the form of porta-potties and any water falling in this maintenance area will be drained to a low sump within the membraned area for storage until evaporation or safe removal. In the event of a heavy rainfall, water can be stored and anti-sedimented and cleaned and, if necessary, operations can be temporarily stopped. Mr. Brundage indicates that he has never seen any standing water on the site during his five visits nor has any standing water ever been reported to him. He is aware of no historical or archaeological sites on the property, and at no point would rock be mined within 50 feet of the property line. Dr. Durbin Tabb, a botanist, was retained by the Petitioner to prepare a plan for restoration of the site after mining operations were complete. In preparing his plan, he visited the site on several occasions finding varying plant life, much of which was grasses and rushes. In the north was a pine lowland where he saw palmettos scattered in the grassland as well as a few dwarf cypress trees. He also observed a small cluster of cabbage palms in the southern portion of the eastern tract and noted that the currently existing berm along the eastern boundary of the eastern tract is currently being invaded by exotic plant life including the Brazilian pepper. Dr. Tabb found little evidence of recent surface water accumulation; mollusk residue showed no evidence of recent viability; and he found no crawfish burrows which, if present, would show a water table near the surface. Other visitors to the site, however, did find crawfish burrows. The marsh soil shows that, at some time in the past, it was wet enough to support a soil-forming community. This is no longer' the case according to, Dr. Tabb. The process was stopped by the formulation of the Golden Gate Canal System in the 1960's. The existing marsh does, however', hold sufficient water to support the growth of muhli grass. Dr. Tabb's restoration plan is his best estimate of how the property can be restored to its previous condition by replanting native species found in the area. The program will include littoral zone vegetation to provide shelter and a feeding zone along the water's edge which does not now exist. The plan calls for the saying of the marsh soil. Since neither DER nor the client responded to his plan, when submitted, with any suggestions or corrections, he assumed it was approved. Dr. Tabb, who is also an expert in estuarian biology and zoology, concluded that the area on which this site is located is a very poor habitat for deer and panther. The red cockaded woodpecker has no trees on the property which it specifically desires and the property is a poor or nonexistent habitat for the indigo snake and the Everglades snake. It might, however, constitute a habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow, but this bird has never been seen in this inland area. Panthers cross the area as do bears, but the presence of the excavated lake would be no more hindrance to them in their crossing than would the presence of Alligator Alley and the proposed 1-75. The area with sawgrass and muhli grass, which is dominant throughout the Golden Gate area, is called a "dry prairie" as opposed to a "wet prairie." While some of the same plants exist, it is somewhat different in that there are no viable wetlands wildlife organisms currently existing on the property. In Dr. Tabb's opinion, the property has lost its wetlands characteristics and only the marsh soil's water retention permits the life of the grasses currently existing. Wading birds would use the site later but do not currently utilize the area where excavation would take place. In Dr. Tabb's restoration plan, the slope to the lake would be replanted with saw and muhli grasses down to the litoral zone. From there on to the water, a palette of normal wet grasses would be planted to serve as feeding sites and roasting sites for the birds. In addition, an island planted with willows would be constructed off shore in the lake. Deer currently visit the area. They are not currently supported on the land though Mr. Barnett, of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, indicated that they come out of the pine flats at night to feed on the grasses on the prairie. These deer form a large portion of the food chain for the panther, and Dr. Tabb does not consider it conceivable that the project, replanted and restored, would in any way adversely impact the Florida panther or the birds in issue here. In Dr. Tabb's opinion, it is questionable whether the site comes under the jurisdiction of DER based on the grasses present because he cannot find the water connection to confer jurisdiction. Dr. Tabb has not seen standing water on the site as he has seen on two other sites within the area where DER has granted permits for rock pits. On a site like this, the vegetation changes with the seasons. This site is not now connected to the canal along Alligator Alley by vegetation. There may have been a vegetation connection in the past, but as one goes up toward the site from the canal, the grass changes gradually from low pineland grasses found on higher ground to the lower sawgrasses found on the site in question. In Dr. Tabb's opinion, if Mr. Houle's property is to be considered a wetland, it is a transitional wetland. Turning to the issue of loss of habitat, if one assumes that portion of the property that will be converted to a lake will be denied to the panther, this is not the case for the deer which, in this area, is considered to be aquatic. Any denial of the lake area would constitute a very small negative impact compared to what is going on in other areas of Collier County. Admitting that there is a requirement to consider the cumulative impact of a project, in Dr. Tabb's opinion, this project would constitute a "may impact" situation. There is no definitive evidence as to what would happen, and he would be more concerned if the area were now a good panther habitat. It is not, however, and in fact it is no more than a habitat for the grasses which grow there. As to the wetlands issue, the only sign of exotic plant invasion is in the disturbed area around the canal which was installed approximately 18 years ago. The absence of these exotic species is, in Dr. Tabb's opinion, a clear indication that there is no flowing or standing water since the site is too dry for the germination of the seeds. There will be some removal of the biomass by the excavation of the lake. This biomass, consisting of grass primarily, is consumed by fire every year or so and insects eat it as well. Admittedly, some of the biomass is being eaten by animals of some nature and that which is converted to a lake will be removed. There is a trade-off, however. Dr. Martin Roessler, a marine biologist, prepared a report, on the water quality of the adjacent 8 Mile Canal, and other water bodies in the area. In preparation of his report, he took water samples in the areas in question, read literature on the water quality in the area, and looked at water quality data provided by U.S. government agencies and private companies. On the several visits he made to the site, he has not seen any surface water. The first time he could get water only in the adjacent canal, and he also got some water from the land borings done by Dr. Missimer on the site. Dr. Roessler is familiar with State standards for water quality and, in his opinion, the turbidity standards would not be disturbed because there was no water on the ground to be sheet flow. All water was at least three feet underground and, in addition, Petitioner has agreed to properly sod or otherwise treat the berms he will build to prevent erosion and any resultant turbidity either off-site or in the 8 Mile Canal. Dr. Roessler also does not believe the project would violate the oil and grease standards. There is nothing inherent in the mining process to bring into play oils and greases except for the possible problem in refueling and maintenance operations. In that regard, Petitioner has shown how he will provide against that by placing a membrane to prevent any oil, grease or other contaminant from getting into the ground. This area does not contain the organic mulch which produces natural oils and greases. The water near the surface of the lake will contain sufficient dissolved oxygen to meet State standards without problem. In the summer months when the dissolved oxygen count is low, generally, the lake bottom water may not meet State standards, but that happens quite frequently, naturally, across the entire area. Dr. Roessler believes that the dissolved oxygen requirements of 2.5 at the surface and .5 at the bottom will most likely be met in the lake created by this project. Concerning the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), he concludes the operation in the quarry will not artificially decrease the available oxygen below the required amount. The BOD demand in this area would not be threatened by the lake. As to the iron standard and other toxic substances, Dr. Roessler does not believe that the project will create a violation of the standard nor will any runoff increase dissolved iron in adjacent waters. Hydrogen sulfide and pharasulfide standards will similarly not be violated. Sulfides are found only in trace amounts, if at all, in natural waters. In deep limestone lakes the chemical structure is not conducive to the formation of the acidic compounds. In short, Dr. Roessler believes the water in the mine would be very similar to that found in other rock quarries in the area. These lakes are a dominant portion of the recreational fresh water fishing availability. This instant lake also will, in time, upon development of the food chain for the fish, become an equivalent fishing habitat. Dr. Roessler concurs with Dr. Tabb regarding the flora on the site, which he observed himself. This site is 15 to 18 miles from marine or estuarian waters and to reach them one would have to go down a series of canals and past a saline dam to the coast. Any runoff from the site in question would have, if any, a minuscule effect on marine waters. This site was originally a wet prairie which was drained by the Golden Gate Canal System. As such it is a relatively poor habitat for life forms generally found in cypress wetlands. Creation of this lake will, in the opinion of Dr. Roessler, enhance the game, fish, and recreational activity of the area. It would be a benefit to the animal population to have a water source for drinking during drought. There would be no adverse effect on public health, safety or welfare. Turning to the major issue of water, Dr. Thomas Missimer, a hydrogeologist specializing in ground water, visited the site, examining the canal on the east side, and the soils and rocks exposed. He took soil borings and examined the site hydrology to see what fluctuations occurred in the water levels due to rainfall. Mr. Missimer, took numerous readings from September 18 through November 5, 1987 during a period of wet weather including a tropical storm. He carefully compared the site geology to other sites he had studied and compared the flow of water through the soil. He compiled existing information on chemistry in the streams in the area to see what the natural conditions were. He looked at other man-made lakes in the area which were previously borrow pits. As a result of his studies, he concluded that the groundwater level throughout the entire period never got higher than three feet below the land's surface and often was five feet below. During the previous July through September, 34 inches of rain fell in the area which was, in his opinion, average to above average. There is some evidence, however, to indicate that rainfall in the area was approximately 33 percent below average during the period. Nonetheless, Mr. Missimer took a measurement the day after a tropical storm had deposited three inches of water on the land. The water level at that time was still three feet below land level, and there was no standing water. Both the three foot and the five foot level are well below the top of the berm sloped at 10:1 as is proposed in the restoration plan submitted by Dr. Tabb. This site has, from a hydrological standpoint, been greatly affected by the installation, of the 8 Mile Canal and the canal system to the north. As, a result of this activity, standing water has not existed for many, years since the dredging of those canals. If de-watering is a necessary portion of the mining plan, any waters removed thereby would be retained in the impoundment area described by Mr. Brundage and switched back and forth. As proposed, the plan can completely avoid any impact to off-site property by water runoff. Construction of the pit and the lowering of the water level thereby will not have a major impact on the groundwater in the surrounding areas. Any effect would taper off as the distance increased from the site and would be of little significance. This proposal would also have little, if any, impact on groundwater quality. In Mr. Missimer's opinion, water quality is currently good and will stay good. This type of rock mine is very common in the area incident to construction. Some have been used as a source of potable water by The City of Naples; by Deltona Utility Company for Marco Island; and the south area of the County. These resources are still being used. There is little difference between those currently being used as potable water sources and the proposed lake here. Mr. Missimer also indicates the project will have little impact on the sheet flow of water. Sheet flow no longer exists here because of the canals and roads already existing. If there were a sheet flow created by a very heavy rain, this pit would have no impact on it. The water level in the lake will be approximately the same as exists in the ground currently and in the 8 Mile Canal. There should be no shoaling in the canal due to the project, and the presently existing spoil bank on the west side of the canal already prevents flow into the, canal from this land. If this pit is properly constituted and maintained, and if proper mining procedures are followed there should be no effect on the 8 Mile Canal to the east or the Alligator Alley Canal to the south. There is no surface water connection currently existing between this site and either canal. As to the issue of dissolved oxygen, the currently existing groundwater on the site and in the surrounding area has little or no dissolved oxygen in it. Water coming into the lake will be groundwater low in dissolved oxygen, which is identical to the water which currently goes into the canal system. The canal gets very little oxygen from the wind because it is so narrow. The lakes to be constructed, on the other hand, will get a large amount of oxygen from the 56 acres of water exposed to the open air. Consequently, construction of the lakes would increase the dissolved oxygen content of the water in the area, at least in the lakes, down to a level of several feet. This is a positive factor. Mr. Missimer recognizes, however, that during the dry seasons, when the lake is fed solely by groundwater generally low in dissolved oxygen, the lake water which has been converted to surface water may fail to meet the Department's surface water standards for dissolved oxygen. Warmer weather generally results in lower dissolved oxygen readings and, admittedly, Respondent's readings were taken in December when the dissolved oxygen levels are higher. As a result, the comparative samples which were taken in December are not necessarily indicative of what will be the situation in the lake, year- round. Respondent's witnesses present a more dismal picture of the effect of Petitioner's proposed project. Mr. Bickner, an Environmental Supervisor with DER's Bureau of Permits and himself an expert in water quality, zoology, and ecosystem biology, first became involved with this project while the permit request was being processed in late 1986. This application was a standard form project because of the quantity of material to be excavated. As a part of his processing, Mr. Bickner requested evaluations of the project from other agencies and divisions within DER and, on the basis of his personal evaluation and the recommendations he received, concluded that the application was not permittable. He recommended it be denied. Mr. Bickner considered Petitioner's application under the provisions of Chapter 403.918, Florida Statutes, which requires a two step evaluation. In the first step, the project must be determined to meet water quality standards. If it does, as a second stage, the project must be determined not to be contrary to the public interest. The major water quality standard in issue here was that of dissolved oxygen along with that concerning BOD and other deleterious substances. The water body involved was classified as a Class III Water under the provisions of Rule 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code, since it was designed to be a recreational, fish and wildlife habitat. The standards contained in the statute and the rule relate to surface water as opposed to groundwater and, as to the public interest question, Chapter 403 provides a list of seven factors which must be evaluated. In this determination the agency has wide latitude and no one factor is controlling. In evaluation, agency personnel try to look at the project overall. Specifically, the project cannot cause or contribute to an existing water quality violation. In evaluation, agency personnel do not look at the project by itself. They must keep in mind that other projects exist or are proposed for the area. This is known as the cumulative impact of the project which is provided for in Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. As to the variance requested, this is also provided for by statute. The criteria require that the petition be based on some specific ground. In the instant case, the ground utilized by Petitioner was that there was no alternative to the dissolved oxygen level proposed. Granting of a variance is totally within the discretion of the Department even if Petitioner can show grounds therefor. Mr. Bickner was at the site only once. He approached from the south. At the low end of the approach was a mixture of wetlands and upland vegetation, but as he got toward the site the upland species dropped off and only the wetland species only remained. These were primarily sawgrass, cattails, and the like. He was satisfied that there was no obvious break in jurisdiction, and the testimony of Mr. Beever confirmed that jurisdiction over the site was gained through the wetlands character of the property from the site down to the Alligator Alley Canal, which is considered a water of the state. The site consists primarily of sawgrass and muhli grass with minor amounts of other grasses. The site seems to rise toward the 8 Mile Canal where there is an invasion of Brazilian peppers and other exotic species. Mr. Bickner was looking for upland species and found only one specimen of one species, a few of another, and no invasion of slash pine on the site at all. As a result, he concluded that the site was not an upland site. There was no standing water on the site at the time Mr. Bickner visited it, but the soil was wet to the surface. In addition, there was a large number of recently dead shells in low spots which had held water. There were some tracks of a large animal and a large number of smaller animal tracks and scats (scats are animal droppings). He also saw some birds which were too far away to identify and observed what he thought were crayfish tunnels near the cypress trees. Mr. Bickner found evidence of dried periphyton widely scattered over the site. Periphyton, an algae which attaches itself to other plants and which in times of inundation, forms sheets across the water connecting one plant to another, is a sign of previous inundation. The other plants on the site were not showing water deprivation stress, and there was no evidence of upland species invasion. All of this leads Mr. Bickner to conclude that the area has plenty of water and this opinion was enhanced by the lushness of the plants' growth. This, along with the high diversity of plant life, indicated to him a healthy ecosystem. To Mr. Bikner, the fact that the area was not currently inundated is not significant. In this particular area there are wet and dry seasons and, even in the dry season such as existed at the time of his visit, the soil was wet. The signs he saw indicated to him there has to be standing water on the site at some time. His visit was in January, which is well within the dry season. As to water quality, Mr. Bickner does not believe that the water quality standards will not be violated. In fact, by the nature of the project, Petitioner has, in Mr. Bickner's opinion, assured that it will be violated. A 20 foot deep pit must, in his opinion, result in low levels of dissolved oxygen below standards. Any water below seven foot in depth has little dissolved oxygen. Most dissolved oxygen is in the surface water, and there is little exchange between deep and surface waters. As a result, he concludes that the groundwater has low dissolved oxygen, a fact confirmed by Mr. Missimer. Dissolved oxygen is the only source of oxygen for fish and aquatic animals. Without dissolved oxygen, the fish die. There are currently no fish on the property. Mr. Bickner was also concerned with the biochemical oxygen demand which would further reduce the oxygen levels in the water. He was further concerned with the hydrogen sulfide levels coming from deterioration of plant material in the bottom of the pit, and iron which he found to be already in the groundwater. Mr. Bickner contends that during construction of the pit petro- chemicals will be introduced into the water, and that during the construction period the on-site water will have increased turbidity which will most likely be transmitted off-site as the pit is de-watered. There are management procedures which can reduce the risk, but none can avoid it entirely. Mr. Bickner is satisfied that the water quality standards will not be met. It is so found. Mr. Bickner also evaluated the property from the public interest standpoint, and in that regard he is satisfied there is a substantial potential for damage to adjacent properties by de-watering. Based on his experience and observation of other projects, he is satisfied there is no way to keep people employed on the site from using adjacent property for parking and vehicle maintenance. The witness believes that the 56 acres of habitat removed by the lake, and the remaining acres, which will be replanted, will be permanently impacted. While he admits that the property as it currently exists, may not be a prime habitat for the panther, there is some evidence which indicates panthers do cross it. He is concerned that the applicants submission here does not sufficiently answer all the questions as to impact on the public interest. The mechanics of the maintenance yard, soil storage and other potential areas of trauma are not explained satisfactorily, and Mr. Bickner does not see how all that is proposed can fit on the site. As a result, in his opinion, there must be some off-site impact. As to cumulative impact, since the valuable rock does not lie only under Petitioner's property, owners of the surrounding property may want to mine their properties as Petitioner proposes to do. If that happens, Mr. Bickner cannot explain how the Department can deny these subsequent applications. If the current application is permitted, taken together with the others, there would be a serious effect on the panther population. This opinion is not supported by evidence, however. If the public interest test is the only basis for disqualification of the project, (here the water quality test is also not met) a permit can still be granted if the applicant agrees to take appropriate mitigation steps at the site. Mr. Bickner is of the opinion that the applicant's mitigation plan to create the 100 foot wide shelf around the lake is not the same type of system which currently exists, will not fulfill the same function as the present property, and is not sufficiently large to replace what is being lost. One basis for granting the variance suggested by the Petitioner was the public interest, (the material was to be used for a public road), and the other was that there was no alternative way to get the material. While it is possible the rock would be used for public road, Mr. Bickner was concerned no assurances were given by the Petitioner that it would be. No contract has been signed yet, and Mr. Bickner is not satisfied that the letter from the Department of Transportation, indicating the rock there would suit its purpose, is sufficient indication that a contract would be signed. There is a possibility of making the pit shallower, which would permit the dissolved oxygen content of the lake water to meet state standards, but even if that problem were solved, Mr. Bickner is not satisfied that Petitioner has met the public interest test. Respondent has granted three permits and a variance to the Department of Transportation to build a portion of I-75 across Alligator Alley in Collier County. These permits are for the dredging of canals parallel to the roadway and to develop a borrow lake of 73.1 acres to be excavated to a depth of from 6 to 9.7 feet. The variance in question applies to all three projects and relates to the dissolved oxygen level. The DOT variance was applied for on the basis that no practical means for avoidance of the pollution existed. The Department of Transportation did not request a variance for BOD or for toxic and deleterious substances or iron. Mr. Bickner, admitted that these permitted projects would possibly have the same problem of oils and greases as he foresees with Petitioner's project. Nonetheless, he concludes that Petitioner's project should not be permitted, even though the Alligator Alley canals are already below standards, because to do so would contribute to a currently existing violation. Mr. James Beever, an Environmental Specialist with the Department of, Environmental Regulation, visited the site on several occasions, both on the ground and from the air. He observed much of the same flora and fauna observed by the other visitors who testified in this case and took color photographs of the area which portray the character of the property. All of the plants he discovered on the site are on the DER jurisdictional list and, on at least one occasion, from the air, he saw standing water on the site. In his opinion, the property is a fresh water wet prairie system which is admittedly drier than it should be. The plants he saw on the site indicate the jurisdiction of DER if there is a connection to other waters of the state, and in Mr. Beever's opinion, there is connection through the flow of sheet water south from the site to the I-75 (Alligator Alley) canal; then, east to the 8 Mile Canal; then south to the Fuqua Union Canal which empties southwest to the Gulf of Mexico. In his opinion, therefore, this is definitely jurisdictional land, and it is so found. The site supports an underground system of roots as well as the upper portion of the, plants existing thereon. He observed periphyton and many other animal tracks and scats. He also saw signs of regular inundation such as numerous snail shells, and he is satisfied there is no indication of a change in the area from the wetlands to an upland area. Admittedly, the area has been dry for a while. Even after Hurricane Floyd in 1987, there was no standing water. The site is, in his opinion, definitely productive, however. The vegetation existing thereon stabilizes the soil and provides food for snails, insects and crayfish which are on the bottom of the foodchain for other life forms on the property. The grasses provide a habitat for animals such as cotton rats, roosts for birds, pollen for insects, all which, themselves, become food for the larger animals. This wetland is a part of a large wetland prairie system and part of the Fuqua Union drainage basin, and acts as a filter for the water system for the area. According to Mr. Beever, most borrow pits like this are located on uplands which then provide rain water lakes. The instant pit, however, is in a wetlands area and if built, he believes, will engender violations during the mining operation. Groundwater coming in will contain iron and hydrogen sulfide which will combine with the dissolved oxygen in the water and further deplete the already low oxygen levels. All of this will constitute a violation of the rules regarding waters of the state since the waters within the pit would fall within that category. Mr. Beever is also concerned with the `bridge over the 8 Mile Canal and the turbidity connected with its construction and removal. In substance, Mr. Beever is convinced that construction of the project will create violations of the water quality standards for the area. As to the public interest, the wetlands character of the site will be completely lost. The vegetation will be removed, and the animals utilizing it will either leave or be destroyed. After, construction, some natural healing will occur, but a long-term maintenance program will be required to provide even different functions for the land than those which currently exist. In that regard, Mr. Beever is convinced that the applicant's proposed restoration plan is not acceptable. It will not replace the lost functions of the site; it will replace the species removed with a different ecosystem; it will provide a habitat for different species of animals and birds; it will adversely affect the shoaling and erosion in the lake itself (this is found to be without merit); it will have some adverse effect on the property of others; and will have an adverse cumulative impact on the area. The habitat will not be used any more by endangered species such as the wood stork and the panther. Even assuming, arguendo, the plans were suitable, in Mr. Beever's opinion, the project would not work here because of the lack of information on what the actual water level of the lake will be. The plant species proposed may not remain because of possible changes in water level in the lake. In addition, the marl berms will dry out over the three years of their life while the pit is being worked, and form a location for a lot of invasive upland plants. Much of Mr. Beever's concern is shared by Mr. Barnett, of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, who indicated that birds now frequently use the area for nesting and feeding because of its wetlands character. Endangered species such as the Florida panther cross it from time to time as does the Florida black bear. Human encroachment reduces the panther's territory and reduces the area for forage of deer, which are the principal food of the panther. The bigger issue, however, is the cumulative impact. The 80 acres is not so important by itself, but to permit its removal would set a precedent for future encroachment by others. Mr. Barnett's experience is that restoration plans are quite often not successful. Even the successful ones, however, replace the removed system with a different system, and the species which now use the property would find it much less desirable as changed. Specifically, the bear, the deer, and the panther would find it unusable as proposed. At the present time, the deer spend their days in the pines forest to the north of the property, coming out onto the area, in question only at night to feed. It is during the night that the panther stalks. As presently constituted, this property is of no benefit to the wood stork or the red cockaded woodpecker. The Cape Sable sparrow could use it but does not. The development of Golden Gate Estates to the north and east and south of the property has a two pronged effect on the area in question. The southern portion of Golden Gate Estates has been abandoned, but the central and northern portions will be developed. On the one hand, it is likely that the increased population to the north and east will make the Petitioner's property less desirable and make access to it more difficult for the wildlife currently utilizing it. On the other hand, removal of the northern and central portions of Golden Gate from usable area for the panther and other species make it more important that Petitioner's area, which Barnett claims is not likely to be developed, remain as an animal habitat to offset the encroachment of the development area. There is no evidence to support this prediction of non- development, however. History tends to indicate otherwise.

Florida Laws (1) 120.57

# 3

BREVARD GROVES, INC., AND H AND S GROVES, INC. vs FLORIDA CITIES WATER COMPANY, INC., AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, 91-004177 (1991)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tallahassee, Florida Jul. 08, 1991 Number: 91-004177 Latest Update: Jul. 27, 1992

The Issue On June 7, 1991 the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) released its intent to issue Permit No. DC05-194008, authorizing Florida Cities Water Company (FCWC) to construct a 300-acre restricted public access spray irrigation system for the land application of treated domestic wastewater (Sprayfield Permit). And, on August 6, 1991 DER released its intent to issue Permit No. MS05-194894, relating to stormwater management and management and storage of surface waters (MSSW Permit) for the sprayfield site. Petitioners Brevard Groves, Inc. and H & S Groves, Inc. (Groves), Parrish Properties, Inc., Parrish Management, Inc. (Parrishes), Atico Financial Corp. (Atico) and David and Eleanor Shreve (Shreve), each requested a formal administrative hearing challenging the issuance of the sprayfield permit. Groves requested a hearing challenging the issuance of the MSSW Permit. The ultimate issue is whether FCWC is entitled to these permits.

Florida Laws (5) 120.57, 373.413, 373.416, 403.086, 8.08 Florida Administrative Code (2) 40C-4.301, 40C-42.061

# 4

CITY OF PARKER vs. JOHN E. BRAVO AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, 86-004410 (1986)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 86-004410 Latest Update: Jul. 29, 1987

Findings Of Fact The Applicant, John E. Bravo, applied for a dredge and fill permit to construct a dockage facility. The proposed facility will consist of a 910 foot pier with a "T"-shaped platform structure extending perpendicular in two directions from the seaward end of the pier, all of which is designed to accommodate 56 boat slips, restricted to the use of pleasure boats only. The proposed project site is located on the southeast side of "Long Point" and would extend into the waters of East Bay, which is a tidally influenced water body in Bay County, Florida. The project site lies in Class II waters of the State. The waters involved are not approved for shellfish harvesting, however, but rather are under a shellfish harvesting prohibition imposed by the Department of Natural Resources. The portion of East Bay involved also lies within the Intracoastal Waterway. The waterway is approximately 6,000 feet wide at the site of the proposed docking facility. The water along the shoreline of the area is shallow for a considerable distance waterward. The bay bottom is characterized by profuse seagrass for approximately 500 feet waterward of mean high water. Beyond that point, the seagrass (Cuban Shoal Grass) dissipates and disappears. The first 400 feet waterward of the mean high water line at the location of the proposed dock, is shallow and not truly navigable. The water then deepens to approximately five feet at mean low water some 525 feet from the shore. This distance from the shore marks the beginning of the area where no significant amount of seagrass exists and where the boat docking slips and mooring pilings would be installed in a waterward direction down the remaining length of the proposed dock. The water depth continues to increase to approximately 20 feet at the proposed location of the end of the dock. The dock would be constructed of pilings driven into the bay bottom supporting the decking of the walkway portion and "T" portion of the dock. The "T" would be installed on the seaward end of the dock, perpendicular to the walkway portion of the dock with most of the boat slips installed and operated at that point. The length of the docking facility is dictated by the fact that the Applicant seeks to locate the boat slips in a manner so that all boats will be moored and operated well beyond existing seagrasses. In fact, the length of the dock is more than absolutely necessary to accomplish this purpose since water depth and avoidance of seagrasses could accomplished with the dock ending approximately 700 feet from the mean high water line. In an abundance of caution, however, in order to avoid the possibility of propeller dredging and prop wash damaging the bottom substrates and grasses, and since the Intracoastal Waterway is over a mile wide here, the Applicant elected to design the dock in the length and configuration proposed. Such will cause no unreasonable impediment to navigation. In this connection, the Applicant has agreed to post Coast Guard- approved safety lights on the dock which will warn boats of its presence in hours of darkness. Further, the dock does not extend far enough into the 6,000 foot wide Intracoastal Waterway to pose a hazard to barge and other boating traffic in the Waterway. Some of the Petitioner's witnesses revealed that shrimp boats pull their nets during shrimping operations closer than 900 feet to the shore line and in the vicinity of the grass beds. While the presence of the dock may alter the trawling pattern of shrimp boats and the operations of other commercial fishermen, as well as water skiing and boating by members of the public, this may in fact have a beneficial effect by promoting the public interest in preserving marine habitat and the conservation of marine resources by preventing some damage to the grass beds. Such marine grass beds are valuable nursery areas for fishes and other marine animals, the effects upon which must be considered in weighing the various statutory indicia of the public interest which must be satisfied before granting a dredge and fill permit. Further, because the dockage facility at issue would be an isolated one with no significant similar docks in the immediate vicinity, the likelihood that it would pose a navigational hazard to water skiiers, fishermen, shrimpers, and other commercial and recreational interests is rather insignificant. Water Quality The water quality issues posed by a project such as this typically involve the water quality parameters of dissolved oxygen, nutrients, bacteriological quality, turbidity, oils, greases, fuel, paint or varnish, solvents and heavy metals, as contemplated by the below-cited rules concerning general surface water quality criteria and the specific rules related to Class II surface waters. The project site is located in Class II surface waters of the State. Those Class II waters are classified by the Department of Natural Resources as "not approved" for shellfish harvesting. The zone of the Class II waters of East Bay in which shellfish harvesting is not approved extends some two miles eastward of the project site. Marinas and dockage facilities such as this one, which will accommodate fairly large boats in significant numbers, typically pose potential pollution problems involving deposition of nutrients in State waters in the form of fish carcasses and offal, garbage and human wastes. Additionally, boats can pose pollution hazards because of attendant dumping of grease, oil and fuel residues in marina waters as well as the deposition of trash in various forms such as paper and plastic items as a result of human use of the boats and the marina facility itself. Perhaps the most severe potential problem is the deposition of human fecal matter into the water as a result of the flushing of marine heads on the larger boats, which the dockage facility will accommodate in the slips as designed. The fecal coliform bacteria which emanate from the deposition of human wastes into the waters around such a dockage facility can be concentrated in oysters and other shellfish to such an extent as to cause severe illness, permanent disability or even death in humans. Consequently, in order to avoid this problem in a magnitude which would violate the water quality parameter in the rule cited below for bacteriological quality, substantial measures must be taken with a project such as this to avoid the deposition of human wastes from the dockage facility itself and from the boats using the slips. In furtherance of this end, the Applicant proposes to allow no live- aboard vessels to be occupied over night while moored at the docking facilities. Live-aboard vessels are deemed to be those with sleeping accommodations and marine heads. The Applicant also proposes to employ a full-time dock master seven days a week, eight hours a day to ensure that all dockage users are familiar with dockage rules, and who would enforce them, especially that prohibiting any discharges from vessels using or docking at the marina. The rules would be incorporated in the dockage lease agreements. The dock master would be responsible for the clean up and correction of all unauthorized discharges. In view of the potential for sewage discharges from marine heads, even with sewage pump-out facilities and the other restrictions on the use of live-aboard type boats, the additional protective measure of requiring a sewage pump-out line and pump-out equipment, including a storage tank and a means to direct sewage pumped from boats into the upland sanitary sewer system, should be imposed as an additional condition. Additionally, the restriction against over night stays aboard boats, the discharge of marine heads into the marina waters and the requirement for use of the sewage pump-out system should be publicized on large, easily legible signs at various points on the pier so that all boat slip renters or users can be on notice of the restrictions and the dock master's and the Department's enforcement of them. Additional potential sources of nutrient and bacteriological degradation of the dissolved oxygen content and bacteriological integrity of the surface waters involved can be posed by the deposition of fish carcasses and parts, as well as food wastes and other garbage in the marina waters. In order to prevent this, the Applicant has proposed to provide fish cleaning stations located on the upland and to require all fish carcasses and other related wastes to be placed in upland containers and not disposed of in the Class II waters at the dock site. Additionally, waste containers will be located along the length and perimeter of the dock facility for garbage, with regular emptying of the containers enforced by the dock master to prevent spillage. In connection with the upland fish cleaning sites to be installed, the drainage waters or waste water from fish cleaning stations should be directed into an upland disposal system so that it may be ensured that the water does not get back into the Class II waters of the bay. In addition to the above measures, pump-out facilities and equipment will be provided by the Applicant for used engine oil removed from boats and oil and water from boat bilges. These wastes, under agreed-upon conditions, would be transported by pipeline to the upland to a storage tank pending proper disposal. Trash, garbage and other refuse will be deposited in dumpsters for removal by municipal garbage disposal services. No fueling facilities or fueling of boats will be allowed. Additionally, oil spill clean up materials will be maintained on the marina site in sufficient quantities to allow clean up of the maximum spill expected from the largest boat typically using the marina pursuant to the leases for the boat slips. In order to further lessen the possibility of spills of oils, greases and fuels, the permit should be conditioned (as should the leases) upon no boat maintenance being performed at the marina site other than minor engine adjustments. In this context, an additional enforcement measure will be in the boat slip rental agreements themselves. The agreements will contain restrictive provisions requiring lessees to properly handle and dispose of fish carcasses and wastes, used engine oil, bilge water and requiring them to comply with sewage pump-out and refuse disposal conditions enumerated above. Upon completion of the facility, the dock master will manage and accomplish maintenance of the various items of equipment, such as the pump-out facility, on an eight hour a day, seven day per week basis and will enforce the restrictive provisions incorporating the above conditions in the boat slip rental agreements. Those restrictive provisions should include putting the lessees on notice that violation of any of the conditions enumerated above and in the boat slip leases will result in a breach of the lease and removal of their vessel from the marina and reporting of the violation to regulatory authorities. The various expert witnesses agreed that the proposed permit conditions enumerated above, if enforced, would adequately protect water quality as to the above parameters at issue. The Class II water quality standards will not be violated by the installation and operation of the project as proposed, provided the above conditions are strictly enforced and adhered to. Mr. Jack Taylor, the expert witness for the Petitioner, agreed that the above measures would reasonably ensure that the marina will not cause pollution and contravention of Class II water quality standards, but feared that enforcement problems would prevent such conditions from prevailing. In view of the measures enumerated above which will be undertaken by the Applicant to ensure that water quality standards are adhered to, including the liberal use of warning signs for marina customers and slip lessees, the use of a full-time dock master to enforce the conditions and including the enforcement measure of putting the conditions as restrictions in the slip rental leases, it has been shown that the enforcement will be reasonably adequate. An additional and important enforcement measure can be incorporated into this project, however, by requiring the Applicant to submit an operation and maintenance plan for the marina and requiring a monitoring program under the auspices of the Department for at least a year of operation in order to ensure that the project operates as it is proposed under the above-delineated conditions. The Department has continuing enforcement power and the monitoring program would, with regular monthly inspections, allow early detection and correction of any water quality violations, to and including the voiding of the permit and the closing of the marina operation should violations prove severe and uncorrectable. 1/ Such a monitoring program and marina operation and maintenance plan should be required as a condition to granting of the permit. 2/ Finally, it should be pointed out that the area of East Bay where the project would be built is Class II shellfish prohibited waters. The proposed project itself will not likely adversely affect shell fishing to the extent of closing additional waters if the above water quality safeguards are imposed as conditions on the permit and on the marina operation. This is especially true because the boundary line of the shellfish approved water to the east is at least two miles away, which distance incorporates a substantial mixing zone in the open waters of East Bay to sufficiently dilute pollutants which might emanate from the marina or other sources to levels such that the shellfish waters presently open will not be subject to any further closures by the Department of Natural Resources, as a result of this installation. The primary reason the shellfish waters in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project are closed to harvesting is the presence of the Military Point Sewage Treatment Plant which discharges its effluent into the waters of East Bay, such that the DNR's dye flow studies reveal that a 5.1 square mile buffer zone around that plant is necessary for closure to shellfish harvesting to ensure that the public health is not adversely affected by consumption of shellfish from the waters in that buffer area. That buffer area includes the proposed marina site. Additional significant pollution sources include fecal coliform bacteria, oils and greases and other contaminants associated with rainfall events and resultant urban runoff from the City of Parker and surrounding areas, including septic tank leachate and petroleum residues. These influences also currently add to the reasons why shellfish harvesting is precluded in the area of the proposed facility. It was not demonstrated that the addition of the marina and the boats operating under the above strict conditions will result in any additional closures to shellfish harvesting in surrounding, presently approved areas as a result of any water quality degradation posed by the subject project. Public Interest The public interest criteria-enumerated at Section 403.918(2)(a), Florida Statutes, which are actually at issue in this proceeding concern: (1) whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare or property of others, (2) whether it will adversely affect conservation of fish and wildlife, including their habitats, (3) whether the project will adversely affect navigation, water flow or cause harmful erosion or shoaling, (4) whether it will adversely affect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in its vicinity, and (5) whether the current condition and relative value of the functions of the natural area involved at the project site will be adversely affected by the proposed activity. There is no issue or dispute raised concerning the permanence of the project for purposes of criteria number 5 under this subsection, nor as to number 6, concerning historical and archaeological resources. Concerning criteria numbered 1-4 and 7, of this subsection, it has been demonstrated that the project will not likely affect the public health, safety, welfare or the property of others if constructed and operated according to the conditions delineated herein. Some members of the public testifying on behalf of the Petitioner objected to the interference they feared the dock would cause with their jogging along the shoreline and feared an impediment to their use of the area for water skiing. This is the only dock in this vicinity, however, and such interference is minor. It will be well lit in order to avoid impeding navigation or posing a danger to the public health or safety during hours of darkness in terms of the public's ability to safely operate boats in the area. There is some potential for the project adversely affecting conservation of fish and wildlife or their habitats in that, if boats are permitted to operate in the vicinity of the dock and use the dock for mooring, loading and unloading purposes, and the like, closer than 500 feet off shore, harmful propeller washing or dredging of the bottom sediments and seagrasses growing therein will result. If such erosion of the bottom and seagrass growth begins occurring, it will adversely affect and gradually destroy the area as a habitat for fish and other marine life, which is of particular importance since such Cuban Shoal Grass stands are quite beneficial as nursery areas for fish and other organisms. Thus, if boating activity were allowed unimpeded around the dock, including in the near shore area within 500 feet from the mean high water line, the resultant erosion and propeller damage to the seagrass beds in the bottom would indicate that, as to criteria 2 and 3 of the above subsection, that the project would not be in the public interest and would be contrary to the public interest. This same consideration is true with regard to the fourth criteria concerning whether the project adversely affects fishing and recreational values or marine productivity for similar reasons. If marine habitat is disrupted or destroyed in whole or in part in the vicinity of the dock due to erosion and other damage caused by boat and propeller contacts with the bottom or prop wash near the bottom, then as to this criteria, concerning marine productivity and recreational value, the project will be contrary to the public interest also. To the extent that nursery areas for fish and other valuable marine organisms are destroyed, the recreational value in terms of quality of fishing will certainly be diminished. The "current condition and relative value of functions" being performed by the area of marine habitat affected by this project must also be considered. In a like vein, this particular area constituting dense growths of seagrasses has a relatively high functional value as a marine habitat and, particularly, a nursery for marine animals. This current condition and value of the area should be accorded a fairly high status in weighing and balancing the various considerations used in determining whether the project is or is not contrary to the public interest. If the boats which are to use the marina upon its construction and operation are permitted inside the grass bed area, roughly within 500 feet of the shore, then clearly the considerations mentioned above will be the subject of adverse effects caused by the boats' operation which in turn is a direct result of the installation of this marina, the dock and the slips. In view of the reasonable likelihood of the project causing some of the adverse effects mentioned above, resulting from contact by boat propellers and boat hulls with the grass beds or erosive prop wash caused by operation of boats in water so shallow that the propellers are too near the bottom, the Applicant has agreed to a condition which will effectively remove boats from the seagrass bed area, provided it is strictly enforced. That condition would provide that boats and the slips in which they would be moored cannot be landward of 600 feet off shore of the mean high water line along the sides of the seaward extending dock. All boat slips are to be located seaward of that point. The Petitioners, however, raised a valid point that, the dock being so long, the natural tendency of boat operators would be to moor their boats along the sides of the dock as close into shore as boat operation is possible in order to more easily load and unload their boats. In order to prevent this problem from occurring, therefore, an additional condition should be imposed on the permit which would provide that the sides of the dock be enclosed by a fence out to the 600 foot mark and of such a configuration and type as to prevent boat operators from mooring boats to the sides of the dock and gaining ingress or egress from their boats on the dock shoreward of the 600 foot point mentioned above. In other words, if it is made impossible to enter or leave a boat from the dock in the area of the seagrass beds, this would substantially reduce the likelihood that the seagrass beds would be damaged by boats using the dock. Additionally, prominent signs should be posted on or in the vicinity of the dock announcing the necessity to avoid operating boats landward of the point mentioned above and the necessity of avoiding contacting the seagrass beds with boats or boat propellors. If this condition is adhered to and strictly enforced, as even Petitioner's expert witness concedes, it will prevent the chief source of adverse effects upon the public interest. An additional consideration in determining whether or not this project is contrary to the public interest concerns its effect upon navigation. This has already been discussed in the above Findings of Fact. Since this would be the only dock in the immediate area, it is found that the presence of the dock, even though it extends a significant distance seaward of the shore line, will still not pose a significant impediment to navigation. Additionally, as has been pointed out above, the public interest might be served in a positive way by the installation of the dock to the extent that it might prevent shrimp boats and other fishing boats pulling nets from using the shallow seagrass area which will help prevent uprooting and other damage to the grass beds caused by the nets and associated fishing gear. Finally, it should be pointed out that to a certain extent the project will positively serve recreational values and the public welfare, in the context of balancing the various public interest considerations, because at least half the boat slips will be reserved for public use and because the addition of such a marina or docking facility will enhance the public's ability to obtain recreational value from the State waters involved in East Bay by improving marine access to those waters for fishing, boating, skiing and other purposes. In short, reasonable assurances have been provided that the project is not contrary to the public interest.

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 John E. Bravo for the dredge and fill permit at issue be GRANTED, provided that the terms and conditions enumerated in the above Findings of Fact are incorporated in the permit as mandatory conditions. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of July, 1987, 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, 1987.

Florida Laws (2) 120.57, 267.061

# 5

STRAZZULLA BROTHERS COMPANY, INC. vs. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, 78-001287 (1978)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 78-001287 Latest Update: May 19, 1979

Findings Of Fact The land here involved is located at the southern end of the Acme Improvement District. The northeastern portion of the tract is owned by Petitioner Leonard H. Tolley, and comprises some 15 percent of the total acreage of the tract. The remainder of the tract is owned by Petitioner Strazulla Brothers. The entire tract includes Sections 3 and 4, Township 455 Range 41E and a parcel of land in The Township 44 1/2 S Range 41E adjacent to Sections 3 and 4 and comprises some 1400 acres. The Strazulla property was acquired by Warranty Deed from the Trustees, Internal Improvement Trust Fund, by Philip Strazulla and subsequently conveyed to Petitioner. In 1978 real property taxes on the Strazulla property here involved was $17,453.42. The tract is bounded on the west by the L-40 levee and canal, on the north by Acme Improvement District Dike and C-27 Canal; on the east by property owned by Miller American Industries and on the south by property owned by the South Florida Water Management District. By this application Petitioner proposes to place levees with their borrow canals on the east and south sides of the tract and to construct a 240 acre reservoir adjacent to the L-40 levee by erecting a reservoir retention levee some 1400 feet eastward of the L-40 levee. By installing a 100,000 gallon per minute pump station at the southeast corner of the proposed reservoir, the water presently standing on the property could be drained allowing the eastern portion of the tract to be converted to agricultural use and the remainder converted into 2.5 acre residential sites. The 1972 Palm Beach County land use plan recommended the area here involved be zoned Preservation/Conservation, which effectively precluded development of the property. At that time, Strazulla attempted to sell the property or trade it to a governmental agency for property that could be developed, but without success. In 1978, the Palm Beach County Land Use Advisory Board changed the 1972 land use recommendation to Residential Estate to allow a reasonable use of the property. (Exhibit 7). The property abutting Petitioners' property to the north has been drained and thereon is located an orange grove and, west of the orange grove, 5- acre residential homesites. The property to the east is being developed as residential homesites. The property west of the C-40 canal comprises the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge consisting of some 221 square miles of traditional Everglades wetlands. The property to the south is owned by the South Florida Water Management District and is of a character similar to Petitioners' property. Some two to three miles south of Petitioners' property is an east-west canal. In 1900 the property here involved was located in the eastern part of the Florida Everglades and received the sheet flow that characterized the natural Everglades. This historic hydroperiod has been disrupted by levees at Lake Okeechobee and by various drainage and irrigation canals constructed to render the large tracts of land thereby drained suitable for agriculture. In the immediate vicinity of the property, the L-40 levee and canal, which enclose the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge (hereafter referred to as the conservation area) form a barrier to any sheet flow from this property onto the conservation area. This levee and canal bars practically all interchange of waters between Petitioners' property and the conservation area and is in the process of destroying part of the historical eastern boundary of the Everglades. Erection of the proposed levee on the east and south boundaries of the property would effectively stop the drainage now coming to this property from the east and the drainage from this property to the southeast. The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) owns a right-of- way to the east of the L-40 levee which is located in the area proposed by Petitioner for its reservoir. Petitioners' application to encroach on this right-of-way with the proposed reservoir was denied by SFWMD. This denial was based on the environmental impact, county zoning regulations (since changed) and the as yet undetermined effect of back pumping into the conservation areas. (Exhibit 17). Specifically, SFWMD Staff Report (Exhibit 17) found the environmental impact of the project will be: This proposed truck farming operation and residential development will destroy approximately 1100 acres of valuable wetland habitat by drainage. The impact on the 240 acres (60 acres of SFWMD right-of-way) of emergent marsh within the proposed reservoir will be determined by the water level management of the impoundment. A drastic change in water depth or inundation period could result in severe alterations of the present wetlands. An additional 50 acres of marsh will be lost due to dredge and fill operations for levee construction. The entire tract is poorly drained and is under water for considerable portions of the year, with the westernmost portion containing the longest periods and greatest depths of standing water. The soil in the eastern portion of the property is predominantly sandy, with a gray sandy loam layer at depths of 20 to 40 inches. The soil in the central portion of the tract is predominantly sandy, with a gray sandy loam layer at depths greater than 40 inches. The soil in the western portion of the tract is sandy, with a black organic surface layer (muck) 8 to 15 inches thick, underlain by gray sandy layers. Vegetation in the property goes from some pine and cypress in the eastern portion to sawgrass marshes in the western portion, with numerous varieties of plants associated with wet soil and marshy areas. During the proposed construction adequate safeguards can be imposed to prevent excess turbidity from entering State waters. This property comprises a large tract of pristine Everglades habitat for both plants and animals, and is of great value to the ecology of the state. In its undeveloped state it provides a buffer zone of up to two miles eastward for the conservation area. Water presently on the property is predominantly rainwater and of better quality than the water in the C-40 or C-27 canals adjacent to the property. Use of the land for agricultural purposes would increase the risk of water quality degradation caused by water runoff carrying fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides into the proposed reservoir and/or perimeter canals. If excess water on the property is pumped into the C-40 or C-27 canals, degradation of those waters could occur. The proposed development was opposed by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, not only because it would remove these fresh water marshes from the ecosystem and take away an essential habitat for birds and aquatic life, but also would remove a surface water retention basin and vegetation filtration of runoff from adjacent uplands. (Exhibit 16). The Permit Application Appraisal Report (Exhibit 15) which recommended denial of the application found the property acts as a buffer between the agricultural lands to the east and the conservation area and development as proposed would remove this buffer; and that water quality standards may be degraded due to agriculture runoff from the developed property being pumped into C-40 canal. Specifics of how runoff from property would be controlled were not obtained by the Environmental Specialist who prepared Exhibit 15. Pumping the surface waters on the property into a reservoir would reduce the diurnal variation in dissolved oxygen levels in the water and thereby improve water quality from that aspect. Water in the reservoir would be of greater depth than presently exists, thereby reducing photosynthesis and its concomitant benefits to the water quality. On the other hand, the greater depths could result in fewer grasses and more open surface water, thereby allowing more aeration of the water by wind action. Herbicides degrade fairly rapidly, and holding them in a reservoir would allow time to degrade. Many pesticides are water insoluble and would settle to the bottom of the reservoir.

Florida Laws (6) 120.57, 403.031, 403.061, 403.062, 403.087, 403.088

# 6

ST. JOHNS RIVERKEEPER, INC. AND HENRY O. PALMER vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, 09-007054RX (2009)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tallahassee, Florida Dec. 29, 2009 Number: 09-007054RX Latest Update: Nov. 16, 2010

The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are: whether Petitioners have standing; and whether Rule 62-302.800(2) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, as defined by Section 120.52(8)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes.3

CFR (1) 40 CFR 131.11(b)(1) Florida Laws (13) 120.52, 120.536, 120.54, 120.56, 120.57, 120.68, 253.03, 258.004, 258.007, 403.061, 403.201, 550.0251, 550.2415 Florida Administrative Code (7) 18-14.003, 18-21.004, 61D-6.002, 62-302.200, 62-302.800, 62-4.244, 62D-2.014

# 7

ATLANTIC CIVIL, INC. vs FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, 15-001746 (2015)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Miami, Florida Mar. 26, 2015 Number: 15-001746 Latest Update: May 09, 2016

The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the Administrative Order issued by DEP on December 23, 2014, is a reasonable exercise of its enforcement authority.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection rescind the AO or amend it as described above. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 15th day of February, 2016.

Florida Laws (4) 120.68, 403.061, 403.088, 403.151 Florida Administrative Code (1) 62-520.400

# 8

SRQUS, LLC vs CITY OF SARASOTA AND SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, 12-002161 (2012)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Sarasota, Florida Jun. 19, 2012 Number: 12-002161 Latest Update: Oct. 10, 2019

The Issue The issue is whether reasonable assurance has been provided by Sarasota County (County) for the issuance of Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 44040881.000 authorizing the proposed alteration of a drainage ditch in the City of Sarasota (City), and whether Petitioner, SRQUS, LLC, was entitled to receive notice of the application pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-1.603(9)(a) and (b).

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 approving the issuance of ERP No. 44040881.000 to the City and County, as joint permittees. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 7th day of May 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Blake C. Guillery, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 Erika Ginsberg-Klemmt SRQUS, LLC 3364 Tanglewood Drive Sarasota, Florida 34239-6515 Achim Ginsberg-Klemmt SRQUS, LLC 3364 Tanglewood Drive Sarasota, Florida 34239-6515 Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 7601 Highway 301 North Tampa, Florida 33637-6758 Alan W. Roddy, Esquire Office of the County Attorney 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Second Floor Sarasota, Florida 34236-6808 Michael A. Connolly, Esquire Fournier, Connolly, Warren & Shamsey, P.A. One South School Avenue, Suite 700 Sarasota, Florida 34237-6014

USC (2) 33 U.S.C 13, 33 U.S.C 1341 Florida Laws (7) 120.569, 120.57, 120.68, 26.012, 373.016, 373.414, 373.421 Florida Administrative Code (3) 40D-4.301, 40D-4.302, 40D-4.351

# 9

WALTER F DECKER vs. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, 85-001457 (1985)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 85-001457 Latest Update: Jan. 24, 1986

The Issue Whether the activities conducted on respondent's property required a dredge/fill permit and whether respondent violated the conditions of the permit issued on February 15, 1985.

Findings Of Fact Respondent is the record holder of a parcel of land located within Section 35, Township 45, South, Range 21 East, in Lee County, Florida. Respondent's property is contiguous to Pine Island Sound, a Class II, Outstanding Florida Water. Maureen Powers, an Environmental Specialist with the Department initially inspected respondent's property on May 23, 1984, after the Department received an anonymous complaint that someone was clearing away mangroves on the property. Ms. Powers-discovered that an earthen-fill road had been constructed on the property, and a portion of the road, 24' x 43'; was located within the landward extent of the state's waters. The determination that the portion of the road was within the Department's jurisdiction was based on the dominance of black and white mangroves. There had been recent mangrove cutting in the area, and a pile of vegetative debris, the result of the cutting, had been placed in the jurisdictional wetlands contiguous to Pine Island Sound. On June 1, 1984, Ms. Powers met with respondent in Langley Adair's office to discuss the violations observed on May 23, 1984, and to discuss the resolution of these violations. Respondent agreed to remove all of the earthen fill and vegetative debris that he had deposited within the jurisdictional wetlands. He agreed to refrain from any further work within the jurisdictional area prior to receiving a permit from the department. He also agreed to open up a flow channel in the berm along Pine Island Sound to restore circulation to the area. On July 11, 1984, Ms. Powers conducted an on-site inspection and discovered that the vegetative debris and the fill material had not been removed. Further, it was apparent that respondent's proposed home site, outlined by string and stakes, was submerged and directly connected by water to Pine Island Sound. The water standing on the property covered a portion of the fill area. On August 8, 1984, another inspection was performed, and it was discovered that respondent still had not removed the fill materials. The condition of the property was essentially the same as it had been on July 11, 1984. By letter dated August 20, 1984, respondent was again notified of the violations and reminded that he had agreed on June 1, 1984, to remove the vegetative and earthen fill. Respondent was informed that he needed to remove the fill materials within 30 days of receipt of the letter in order to avoid further enforcement action. On September 5, 1984, Ms. Powers again inspected the property and found that the proposed homesite and a portion of the fill were still submerged, that the water connected directly with Pine Island Sound and the fill materials had not been removed. Also apparent was a flume of milky white water which originated at the toe of the fill and continued into Pine Island Sound. Water samples were taken which revealed that the erosion of the unauthorized fill was resulting in a violation of state surface water quality criteria, specifically, turbidity1 greater than 29 Nephelometric Turbidity Units above natural background. The background sample, taken upstream from the site of the discharge, had a value of 5.2 turbidity units. The water sample taken two feet from the toe of the fill had a value of 69 turbidity units, and the sample from Pine Island Sound waterward of the mangrove fringe had a value of 46 turbidity units. On October 9, 1984, a letter was sent to respondent which pointed out that the earthen and vegetative fill had not been removed and notifying respondent that erosion of the earthen fill into the waters of Pine Island Sound had resulted in violation of surface water quality criteria. Respondent was requested to immediately cease and desist from all unauthorized. activity under the Department's jurisdiction. To clarify the situation, original photos of the site were sent with the letter which showed the earthen fill, the vegetative debris, and the turbid water leaving the site. A diagram of the site was also included to show the location fill materials that were to have been removed. On October 25, 1984, Ms. Powers met with Mr. Decker at the site. Ms. Powers showed respondent the earthen fill and vegetative debris that should have been removed. Ms. Powers noted that the waterward 23' x 24' section of the earthen fill had become heavily colonized by black mangrove seedings and, therefore, excepted that portion of the fill from the removal requirement so that the seedlings would not be disturbed. Mr. Decker stated that he would remove the unauthorized fill within two weeks. Meanwhile, apparently in September, respondent had submitted a permit application. Mr. Beaver was the field inspector assigned by DER to evaluate the application and make a recommendation on the feasibility of the project to the dredge and fill supervisor. On October 8, 1984, Mr. Beaver performed the field inspection at the site, and on October 23, 1984, issued his permit application appraisal recommending that the application be denied. Mr. Beaver recommended that the project be reconsidered for a permit if, among other things, the house site were removed from the landward extent of the state waters and located in the uplands, the septic tank were removed from the low lying portions of the site, and previously cut areas were allowed to regrow in native vegetation. On November 15, 1984, Mr. Beaver met with Mr. Decker and Mr. Cantrell, the district supervisor of dredge and fill, to discuss the project. Mr. Cantrell asked how the project could be modified so that Mr. Decker could have his house in the location where he wanted it. Mr. Beaver suggested a stilt, elevated house with a small fill pad that would allow access to the entrance of the house. The house would have to be elevated -enough so that revegetation of wetland plants could occur underneath the house structure and water flow could be maintained. On November 19, 1984, Ms. Powers and Mr. Beaver met Mr. Decker at the property. Ms. Powers and Mr. Beaver staked the DER jurisdiction line and marked the proposed location of Mr. Decker's boardwalk. Mr. Decker asked about placing wood chip mulch on the wetlands on his property in order to beautify the area. Mr. Decker was informed that wood chip mulch was considered vegetative fill and would require modification of his permit application. Subsequent to the meeting of November 15 and the on- site inspection of November 19, Mr. Decker modified his project. However, wood chip mulch was not mentioned. On December 7, 1984, Mr. Beaver recommended that the application be approved subject to specified conditions, which were ultimately incorporated into the permit. On December 11, 1984, Ms. Powers inspected the site and discovered that a large pile of wood chips had been placed on the northeast end of the fill road waterward of the jurisdiction line. The vegetative debris and earthen fill that had previously been on the project had not been removed. Respondent was notified of the violations by a Cease and Desist letter dated January 4, 1985. The letter pointed out that respondent had been told specifically that wood chip mulch was considered vegetative fill and that dredge/fill permit would be required prior to the placement of any fill material. On February 5, 1984, respondent met with DER, officials to discuss the violations. Mr. Decker stated that the fill had been removed as requested. The Department informed Mr. Decker that an inspection would be performed and, if the fill had not been removed, the Department would pursue formal enforcement action. On February 7, 1985, the site was inspected none of the fill material had been removed. A subsequent inspection on February 20, 1985, revealed that the wood chips had been spread throughout the jurisdictional wetlands. On February 15, 1985, respondent received a permit to fill and to construct a dock and boardwalk. The specific conditions of the permit include the following: 2. A 20' x 16' - 4" fill pad shall be the only fill placed waterward of the jurisdictional line. This fill pad will be composed of clean sand and have the banks stabilized by a riprap revetment with a slope not greater than 2H:1V. * * * The house and all associated structures shall be built upon stilts with concrete footings and/or wooden pilings. On-site turbidity control devices shall be installed and properly maintained to localize turbidity impacts to the construction area. * * * All vegetative debris, trash and spoil material resulting from concrete footing placement shall be removed from the landward extent of State Waters as defined by the jurisdiction line staked by the DER. Upon completion of construction, non- filled areas beneath the stilt house and associated structures shall be returned to original grade if they were altered by construction. Wetland vegetation shall be planted in the previously cleared area and mangroves removed by construction activities shall be replaced on a 2 for 1 basis with 80% survival over a three year period. * * * 11. The project shall comply with applicable State Water Quality Standards, namely: 17-3.051 - Minimum Criteria for All Waters at All Times and All Places. 17-3.061 - Surface Waters: General Criteria 17-3.111 - Criteria - Class II Waters Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting, Surface Waters General Conditions 2 and 5 of the permit provide: 2. This permit is valid only for the specific processes and operation applied for and indicated in the approved drawings or exhibits. Any unauthorized deviation from the approved drawings, exhibits, specifications, or conditions of this permit may constitute grounds for 81' filled area was located within the landward extent of the state waters. 19. Respondent has violated several conditions of the permit issued February 15, 1985. Specific Condition #2 provided that the 20' x 16' fill pad would be "the only fill placed waterward of the jurisdictional line." Instead, respondent filled an area approximately 78' x 81' to an average height of about 2\', totaling approximately 585 cubic yards of fill. The fill was non-native fill brought onto the site. The permit did not authorize fill for a septic tank in the revocation and enforcement action by the department. 5. This permit does not relieve the permittee from liability for harm or injury to human health or welfare, animal, plant or aquatic life or property and penalties therefor caused by the construction or operation of this permitted source, nor does it allow the permittee to cause pollution in contravention of Florida Statutes and department rules, unless specifically authorized by an order from the department. On March 19, 1985, an inspection of the property revealed that Mr. Decker had totally ignored the conditions of his permit. Rather than a fill pad of 20' x 16', respondent had filled an area approximately 78' x 81'.2 The fill was unstabilized, and no turbidity control devices were in place. Fill material had been used to construct a earthen berm across a natural flow channel, blocking the flow of water onto the property. Further, the vegetative debris resulting from the construction of the boardwalk had been deposited in the mangrove wetlands. On March 22, 1985, a Notice of Violation and. Orders for Corrective Action was sent to the respondent. Respondent received the notice on or about March 26, 1985. The landward extent of the state waters on respondent's property, the area in which a DER permit is required for dredging and filing, was determined by the presence of red mangroves (Rhizophora mangle), black mangroves (Avicennia germinans), and saltwort (Basis maritime) as the dominant species. The jurisdiction line was originally staked on November 19, 1984, and was reestablished on April 23, 1985, from remaining landmarks, due to the original markers being removed. The 78' x81' filled area was located within the landward extent of the state waters. Respondent has violated several conditions of the permit issued February 15, 1985. Specific Condition #2 provided that the 20' x 16' fill pad would be "the only fill placed waterward of the jurisdictional line." Instead, respondent filled an area approximately 78' x 81' to an average height of about 21/2', totaling approximately 585 cubic yards of fill. The fill was non-native fill brought onto the site. The permit did not authorize fill for a septic tank in the jurisdictional wetlands, but respondent placed a septic tank and drainfield in that area.3 By filling an area several times the size of the area authorized, respondent has seriously violated the conditions of the permit. A fill area of the size that now exists eliminates the habitat and water quality functions that the area historically performed. Respondent has violated Specific Condition #4, which required that the house and associated structures be built on stilts. The purpose of such a requirement is to preserve undisturbed the existing substrate, which constitutes the base of the food chain, and to allow for a free flow of water across the site, which is essential to the health of the mangrove system. Respondent not only filled an area larger than his proposed house, he poured a solid, continuous, concrete foundation on top of the fill, which would prevent the flow of water should the water rise high enough to come onto the filled area.4 By filling the area, destroying the substrate, and preventing the flow of water into the area, respondent has violated Specific Condition #4 of the permit. Respondent violated Specific Condition #5 of his permit in that respondent failed to install any turbidity control devices. Turbidity control devices of some sort are necessary in a fill area such as the one in this case. Turbidity screens or staked hay bales could have been used. Respondent also violated Specific Condition #8. Construction debris and vegetative debris were located throughout the area. Although respondent technically has not violated Specific Condition #9, in that it requires acts to be performed "upon completion of construction", respondent has made compliance with that provision an impossibility because he has filled the "non- filled areas beneath the stilt house" and therefore there are no "non-filled areas" to return to original grade. Respondent has never requested that his permit conditions and requirements be modified. By his actions, respondent has repeatedly shown a complete disregard for the requirements of the law, and he has totally ignored the conditions set forth in the permit. Mr. Decker was not qualified as an expert and I did not find him to be a credible witness. The reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the Department in relation to the enforcement aspects of this action are $866.17. These costs and expenses were incurred by the Department in its effort to control and abate pollutants and to restore the waters and property of the state to their former condition.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the respondent's permit, number 360902245, be revoked that the respondent be ordered to make payment to the Department in the amount of $866.17 for costs and expenses incurred by the state and that the following corrective action be ordered: Respondent shall within thirty (30) days, remove all unauthorized fill material placed within the area of Department jurisdiction. Prior to initiating the fill removal respondent shall arrange for Department personnel to stake the area to be restored. All areas shall be restored to the elevation and soil conditions which existed prior to the placement of fill material. Respondent shall take all necessary precautions to ensure that state water quality standards are not violated during the restoration work. Respondent shall not disturb adjacent areas within the jurisdiction of the Department unless approved by the Department in writing. DONE and ENTERED this a 24th day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 1986.

Florida Laws (5) 120.57, 120.60, 403.087, 403.141, 403.161

# 10