Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing File in this proceeding. A copy of the Order is attached to this Final Order as Exhibit A.
Other Judicial Opinions THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(C) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399 2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. Final Order No. DCA10-GM-110 MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Community Affairs, and that true and correct copies en furnished in the manner shown below to each of the persons listed below on this day of fii “4 , 2010. aula Ford, Agency Clerk Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 By U.S. Mail and electronic mail: Jerri A. Blair, Esq. City Attorney City of Wildwood Post Office Box 130 Tavares, FL 32778-3809 jblair710@aol.com Cecelia Bonifay, Esq. Akerman Senterfitt 420 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 1200 Orlando, FL 32801 cecelia.bonifay@akerman.com By Hand Delivery and electronic mail: David L. Jordan, Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 david.jordan@dca.state.fl.us Linda Loomis Shelley, Esq. Fowler White Boggs Banker Post Office Box 11240 Tallahassee, FL 32302-3240 Ishelley@fowlerwhite.com By Filing with DOAH: The Honorable J. Lawrence Johnston Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-3060
The Issue Whether the amendments to the Franklin County (County) Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Ordinance No. 2005-20 (Amendments) on April 5, 2005, are “in compliance” as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact Background Franklin County (Franklin) is a coastal county located along the Gulf Coast of Florida's Panhandle. To the west is the Apalachicola River; it empties into a bay defined by barrier islands (St. Vincent, St. George, Dog), creating North America's second largest and most productive estuary. The eastern part of the County is St. James Island (SJI), separated from the mainland by the Crooked and Ochlockonee Rivers. Franklin's primary economic base is historically resource-based, including silviculture/timber, and since the 1930s primarily the fishing (seafood) industry. Tourism/retirement is an emerging industry especially on St. George Island, a noted resort destination. Retirees and vacationers come to enjoy the beautiful, pristine, relatively undeveloped, but still accessible waterfront stretches. Franklin's cities are Carrabelle, a 2.66 square mile fishing community about 50 percent developed and Apalachicola, a historic 4.81 square mile fishing community where about 90 percent of the land is still open for development. About 62- 70 percent of the County is federal or State land including the 1200-inmate State prison, Bald Point and St. George Island State Parks, Tate's Hell State Forest, and Apalachicola National Forest. FSU's Marine Lab is at Turkey Point. St. Joe owns over 55,000 acres in Franklin, mostly on SJI. Franklin has one of Florida's worst poverty rates. SJI's boundaries are the Crooked River and the Ochlockonee River and Bay on the north, Bald Point State Park on the east, Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve and the Gulf of Mexico on the south, and the City of Carrabelle on the east. SJI is mostly undeveloped except for: the Alligator Point area, including areas along County Road (CR) 370, areas along U.S. Highway (US) 98 including the unincorporated areas of St. Teresa and Lanark Village and adjacent to Carrabelle; and a few homes on Rio Vista Drive, just south of the Ochlockonee River. The natural systems on SJI are very diverse, and habitats range from xeric, well-drained uplands of pine and oak, to riverine swamps of cypress and hydric hardwoods, freshwater marshes, rivers and ponds, marine inter-tidal wetlands, bays, beaches, mudflats, seagrass meadows and open waters of the Gulf of Mexico. SJI is an ecologically significant and environmentally sensitive area that consistently scored in the 5 to 9 range (out of a high of 10) on the Florida Wildlife Commission's (FWC's) Integrated Wildlife Habitat Ranking System (IWHRS). SJI supports up to 388 species of birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, including a number of State-listed species. Of particular note is the presence of the black bear on SJI, which is a State-listed threatened species with substantial strategic habitats identified by FWC on SJI, particularly in the McIntyre, Brandy Creek, Cow Creek and Bear Creek corridors. The Gulf Sturgeon, a federally-listed threatened species, occurs in the Ochlockonee and Crooked Rivers and is subject to an ongoing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Study to determine the importance of the habitat to spawning and distribution of this prehistoric fish. SJI is surrounded by relatively clean (pristine) surface waters that have been designated as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs), including portions of Alligator Harbor and portions of the Ochlockonee Bay and River. A large part of Alligator Harbor is an Aquatic Preserve. Much of the Alligator Harbor and Ochlockonee Bay are designated as Class 2 Shellfish harvesting waters. SJI is home to Bald Point State Park, which provides a variety of wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities for nature observation and fishing. The eastern boundary of Tates Hell State Forest extends to Highway 319 on SJI and is separated from Bald Point State Park by approximately 7 miles of agricultural land (silviculture) through the center of SJI. Northeast Franklin, including SJI, is part of the Woodville Karst Plain, generally a sensitive karst area where some confining beds (especially in Wakulla County) are usually thin to absent, or breached. In unconfined karst hydrogeology, groundwater moves rapidly, but soil borings on SJI (Turkey Point) corroborate North Florida Water Management District maps which show a confining layer in eastern Franklin County varying in thickness from 15 to 20 feet. With such a confining layer, groundwater moves vertically at approximately 2 to 3 feet per year and laterally at approximately 100 feet per year in eastern Franklin County, including on SJI. Petitioners attempted to contradict evidence presented by St. Joe and prove that SJI has karst hydrogeology primarily on evidence of core samples taken in eastern Franklin County. These core samples were not explained by any expert testimony and did not prove the absence of any clay confining layer in eastern Franklin County. While unlikely, there may be places in eastern Franklin County where the confining layer thins or is absent or breached. In 1991 Franklin adopted a Plan for a long-term planning horizon of the year 2000. The Plan was found “in compliance,” at a time when approximately 27 percent of Franklin was in public ownership and Franklin was designated an Area of Critical State Concern (ASCS) largely due to the importance of the Apalachicola Bay Area and its natural resources. See §§ 380.05 and 380.0555, Fla. Stat. The 1991 Plan designated a critical shoreline district and impervious surface area limitations within 150 feet of shorelines and wetlands, which not only were determined by Franklin and the Governor and Cabinet to effectively protect County wetlands but also won an award from DCA for Outstanding Environmental Protection. The Administration Commission removed Franklin's ACSC designation in 1992, but the Plan was not changed prior to 1995. After 1995, and within the year 2000 planning horizon, there was one policy addition--FLUE Policy 2.2(k)-- and one policy amendment--to FLUE Policy 2.2(d). In approximately 1997, Franklin prepared an EAR on the 1991 Plan. It did not state a need for, or anticipate any, changes to the FLUE or FLUM or much else in the Plan. However, Franklin did not timely adopt EAR-based amendments to the 1991 Plan, and the planning horizon of Franklin's Plan remained the year 2000. Notwithstanding the 2000 planning horizon, there also were some amendments/additions/deletions to goals, objectives, and policies (GOPs) after 2000. Ordinance 2001-20 amended wetlands policies to reflect a change in State jurisdiction, amended FLUEP 1.2(d) and 3.1, deleted FLUEP 3.2 and 3.3, amended Coastal/Conservation Element (C/CE) Policy 1.5, and added FLUEP 1.6-1.9. Ordinance 2003-1 amended C/CEOs 1, 2, 3, and 7 and added Capital Improvements Element (CIE) Policies 4.4-4.6. Franklin also adopted two large-scale Plan amendments for mixed-use residential developments on SJI after 2000 without updating its Plan and planning horizon. In 2000 Franklin approved a FLUM amendment (FLUMA) from "Public Facilities" to "Mixed Use Residential" on 377.4 acres along US 98 at the intersection with Crooked River Road for a development of regional impact known as "St. James Bay." In 2002, Franklin transmitted a proposed FLUMA for 784 acres on Alligator Harbor from "Agriculture" to "Mixed-Use Residential," together with proposed FLUEP 11.11, for a St. Joe development called SummerCamp. During DCA's compliance review of the Summercamp amendments, the issue was raised whether the amendments should be found "in compliance" when Franklin's Plan was out-of-date and still planning for the year 2000. To resolve the situation, in 2003 Franklin adopted FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13 along with the SummerCamp FLUMA. These amendments were found to be "in compliance." FLUEP 11.12 required Franklin to conduct a county- wide assessment of eight key substantive areas, prepare an overlay map and plan policies for SJI, and update its Plan not later than April 1, 2004, on the basis of the county-wide assessments, and to include requirements that all FLUMA on SJI be "consistent with the overlay map and policies." The eight key substantive areas were: Protection of natural resources including wetlands, floodplains, habitat for listed species, shorelines, sea grass beds, and economically valuable fishery resources, groundwater quality and estuarine water quality; Protection of cultural heritage; Promote economic development; Promotion of emergency management including the delineation of the coastal high hazard area, maintaining or reducing hurricane evacuation clearance times, creating shelter space, directing population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high hazard areas, and implementing appropriate parts of the Local Mitigation Strategy; Adequate provision of public facilities and services including transportation, water supply, wastewater treatment, and facilities for access to water bodies; Provision of affordable housing, where appropriate; Inclusion of intensity standards; and A list of allowable uses. FLUEP 11.13 applied to any large-scale FLUMAs transmitted to DCA prior to the "effective date" of the Plan update pursuant to FLUEP 11.12, and required the FLUMA to "include an area-wide assessment covering the geographic area of the county where the FLUMA is located that addresses the same eight key substantive areas in FLUEP 11.12. Transmittal and Adoption Process The Plan Amendments at issue are the result of Franklin's endeavors to adopt EAR-based amendments and FLUMAs in accordance with FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13. Franklin initially contracted the Department of Urban and Regional Planning of the Florida State University (FSU) for: a review and evaluation of the current Plan and EAR to recommend plan changes; to have a consensus building process with at least six community workshops; to evaluate population and employment; to perform technical data assembly and analysis; to recommend updated GOPs; and to facilitate consensus on a planning overlay for SJI. FSU produced updated data and analysis (D&A) in Geographic Information System (GIS) format and GOP revisions. FSU found no need for more residential land through 2020. FSU prepared a GIS-based "suitability analysis and county-wide map." Based upon St. Joe's concerns, FSU was told to delete it, and Franklin did not transmit the suitability analysis/map. In lieu of the FSU's suitability analysis/map, a short narrative was submitted. On June 16, 2004, Franklin filed a "transmittal package" with DCA: a "complete revised plan" with D&A and GOPs; a "supplementary notebook"; and 13 large FLUMs. Franklin proposed 8 FLUMAs: Eastpoint Sprayfield (45 acres); Breakaway Lodge/Marina (17.3 acres); Ft. Gadsden Creek (78.6 acres); Otter Slide Road (46.4 acres); McIntyre Rural Village (RV) (1,740 acres); Conservation Residential (ConRes) (6,532 acres); Carrabelle East Village (CEV) (201 acres); and Marina Village Center (MVC) (1,000 acres). DCA found Franklin's transmittal insufficient per 9J-11.009(1). On July 13, 2004, Franklin transmitted St. Joe's "site suitability for Proposed St. James Island FLUM amendments"; "traffic study"; "historical data on City of McIntyre"; "St. James Island Forestry Type Map"; and "Archaeological Reconnaissance of the St. James Island/Ochlockonee River Tract." On October 15, 2004, DCA issued an ORC per 9J- 11.010. The ORC made numerous (49) objections, including, but not limited to: the SJI overlay/policies, FLUMAs, wetlands, population projections/need, potable water, Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), land use categories/density and intensity standards, affordable housing, water supply planning, water dependent uses, no capital improvements schedule (CIS), and internal inconsistency. DCA coordinated with Franklin and St. Joe on the ORC response (ORCR), which was transmitted to DCA along with Ordinance 2005-20, adopted April 5, 2005, consisting of amended GOPs and FLUM series. The Ordinance replaced the 1991 Plan, as previously amended, and repealed all prior ordinances to the extent of conflict. The Ordinance adopted seven elements--FLUE; traffic circulation (TCE); housing (HE); infrastructure (IE); C/CE; recreation and open space (ROSE); and intergovernmental coordination (ICE)--and a FLUM series. FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13 were deleted. There was no Capital Improvements Elements (CIE). In its new Plan, Franklin adopted five FLUMAs -- the Eastpoint Sprayfield and St. Joe's RV, ConRes, CEV, and MVC. The Eastpoint Sprayfield was dropped during DCA's compliance review, leaving the four St. Joe FLUMAs. During DCA's compliance review, many ORC objections were considered unresolved. Some issues were resolved on further review, but others remained, as reflected in a May 6, 2005, staff memo opining that the Plan Amendments were not "in compliance." This memo was written by DCA planners Susan Poplin and Jeff Bielling, who had extensively reviewed the County's transmittal and adoption packages. It was approved by their immediate supervisor, Charles Gauthier, a certified planner with extensive experience with Franklin, who left DCA not long after approving the memo. The memo was then presented to Valerie Hubbard, DCA's Director of the Division of Community Planning (and Gauthier's immediate supervisor), who considered the issues presented in the memo, along with additional information presented by the County, ultimately disagreed with the planners, and issued an "in compliance" Notice of Intent. No CIE A CIE is a mandatory element. See § 163.3177(3)(a); 9J-5.005(1)(c)2, 9J-5.0055(1)(b) and (2); 9J-5.016. The 1991 Plan had a CIE that was amended by ORD 2003-1 (CIEPs 4.4-4.6 were added). Franklin transmitted a proposed CIE to: change the "initial planning period" in CIEO 3.4 to 2004-2009; delete CIEPs 3.3 and 3.4; make a minor change to CIEP 2.1; and change CIEP 5.4 (LOS for potable water, principal arterial roads, and recreational facilities). DCA objected to the lack of a five- year CIS, which also is mandatory. In the ORCR, Franklin explained the absence of the CIS by maintaining that there were no capital improvements needed for the next five years. The adopted 2020 Plan has no CIS, which DCA found "in compliance" based on Franklin's explanation. However, it also has no CIE, which was not obvious or apparent to DCA in its compliance review because the CIE was not submitted in strike- through/underline format, as required by 9J-11. In addition, several adopted elements cross-reference to the CIE. Franklin contends that it did not adopt a CIE because there were no capital improvements to be shown on a five-year CIS and because of its understanding that many items, including building or paving roads, are not capital improvements. However, it appears Franklin may have inadvertently neglected to adopt the CIE as transmitted. The deletion was not discussed at the adoption hearing. When the deletion of the CIE came to the attention of DCA after the May 6, 2005, staff memo, DCA chose to accept Franklin's explanations as to why the CIE was deleted and why the 2020 Plan was "in compliance" without a CIE. But the evidence does not support these explanations. Notwithstanding Franklin's explanations, Franklin Ordinance 04-45 authorized a referendum on a local tourist development tax, which was approved by the voters on November 2, 2004, to provide for development of a beach park and for other recreational facility infrastructure. Franklin estimated $718,896 in tax receipts for FY 2005-06. The other parties contend that the expenditure of these capital improvement funds need not be addressed in the CIS or CIE in part because they are for the benefit of tourists, not residents. But it is clear from the evidence that both will benefit, and there does not appear to be any exception for capital improvements designed to benefit both. The other parties also point out, correctly, that only capital improvements needed to meet concurrency requirements need to be on the CIS. Besides the possible use of tourist development funds, Franklin's 2005-06 $34,036,313 annual budget includes a number of other items that appear to be capital improvement items: "capital outlay - land $100,000; capital outlay - imp. other than buildings $300,000; walk path Tillie Miller Park $10,000; Carrabelle Rec Park/FRDAP grant $200,000; Rec. Fac. Improvements other than buildings $25,000; Bald Pt. land $50,000; Bald Pt. improvements other than buildings $495,697; road paving-improvements $1,200,000; paving project-CR 30 $1,951,379; boating-improvements other than buildings $94,877; Lanark Village Drainage Improvement $92,059; Airport Fund capital outlay- improvements other than buildings $1,407,069." In addition, Franklin's CR 370 along Alligator Point has repeatedly washed out from storms, and current estimated repair costs are $2.1 million, with $1 million budgeted and FEMA matching funds anticipated. The other parties presented the direct testimony of several witnesses that none of the expenditures Franklin is planning to make in the next few years, even if capital expenditures, need to be on a CIS. Petitioners presented no direct testimony to the contrary. Based on the evidence, it was not proven that beyond fair debate that any of these expenditures were required to be included in a CIS. CIE requirements include GOPs. 9J-5.016(3). Franklin Planner Pierce and St. Joe witness Beck testified that CIE requirements can be found in other elements of the 2020 Plan. However, the 2020 Plan does not contain an explanation of any such combination of elements as required by 9J-5.005(1)(b). In addition, based upon the evidence, while some CIE requirements can be found in other elements, it is beyond fair debate that the other elements of the 2020 Plan do not contain all of the required CIE GOPs. One CIE requirement is to have a policy setting public facilities level of service standards (LOSS), including one for recreational facilities. See § 163.3177(3)(a)3; 9J- 5.016(3)(c)4. See also 9J-5.0055(1)(b) and (2). The 2020 Plan lacks LOSS for recreational facilities. ROSEP 1.2 purports to adopt LOSS "as provided in Exhibit 7-2 of this element," but Franklin did not adopt Exhibit 7-2. See 9J- 5.005(2)(g). Franklin's transmittal D&A proposed updated recreational LOSS using population forecasts for "projected need for 2010." Exhibit 7-2 in Franklin's June 14, 2004, transmittal was based on those 2010 forecasts. There was no projection of need for either five years or to 2020. Franklin's transmittal D&A showed a deficit for bike trails, fresh/saltwater fishing, football/soccer, tennis, and swimming pools through 2010. Franklin Planner Pierce testified Exhibit 7-2 was not adopted because it was inaccurate. He testified that it was based on total population, including incorporated areas, and failed to count some swimming pools and tennis courts. But he did not supply the corrected information, and accurate D&A was not submitted for review. Pierce admitted that no data in evidence showed that Franklin can meet recreational needs through 2020, or that current recreational LOSS are being met. Franklin operates Class 1 and Class 3 landfills located on the east side of CR 65, north of US 98. D&A indicated that there are two-three more years of Class 1 landfill capacity at 2004 collection levels, with household trash being trucked to Bay County under a contract valid until 2007. The Class 3 landfill takes construction debris for a fee. Franklin did not assess Class 1 disposal requirements after the 2007 contract expiration, or Class 3 disposal requirements, and the 2020 Plan is not supported by an assessment of future solid waste disposal requirements through either a five-year or 2020 time frame based upon the projected population. Franklin may need to expand either, or both, of its landfills during the 2010 and 2020 time frames, but there is no discussion of such improvements. DCA, Franklin, and St. Joe concede that Franklin's 2020 Plan without a CIE is deficient, but they characterize the deficiency as merely "technical" and "inconsequential" because: "there are no deficiencies for which to plan, and many Plan provisions ensure capital improvements implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and concurrency management"; and Franklin "has demonstrated that it can adopt a CIS and CIE in the future, if needed." But it is beyond fair debate that Franklin's 2020 Plan, as it stands now without a CIE, is not in compliance because it is inconsistent with Section 163.3177(3)(a), 9J-5.0055(1)(b) and (2), and 9J- 5.016(3)(c)4. Combination Coastal and Conservation Elements Petitioners also contend that the 2020 Plan combines the coastal and conservation elements but does not contain an explanation of such combination, as required by 9J- 5.005(1)(b). In a small jurisdiction like Franklin County, with the vast majority of its land in public ownership, combination of these two elements is appropriate because most of the County’s developable acreage is coastal, and conservation measures must necessarily focus on coastal areas. This combination was previously found in compliance in 1991. No expert witness for Petitioners testified that the combination of these elements is inconsistent with 9J- 5.005(1)(b), or that the 2020 Plan is not "in compliance" as a result. To the contrary, several experts for the other parties testified that the 2020 Plan is "in compliance." Two Planning Periods/Timeframes Petitioners contend that it is beyond fair debate that the 2020 Plan does not include a planning period covering at least the first five-year period after adoption, as required by Section 163.3177(5)(a). But the Plan contains a number of objectives and policies in the HE, IE, and C/CE that establish a five-year planning period for achieving certain objectives. See HEO 4; IEO 2.16; C/CEOs 5.9, 8.3, 9, 14.9, 15, 15.9, 18, and 21. Petitioners seem to contend that the 2020 Plan fails to include the two required time frames--one at least five years and one at least ten years--because Franklin's analyses included disparate time frames and lacked a uniform 2020 analysis. But there does not appear to be a prohibition against analyzing more time frames than just the long-term planning horizon. It was not proven beyond fair debate that the 2020 Plan does not cover at least two planning periods, one for at least the first five years and another for at least ten years after adoption. Affordable Housing Petitioners contend: "To the extent that FLUE Policies 11.12 and 11.13 required an assessment of affordable housing on SJI, there is no data or analysis to support a finding that an affordable housing assessment was prepared." Pam Ashley PRO, ¶ 42. But FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13 were deleted by the Plan amendments at issue. Besides, the county-wide assessment would include the area of SJI. Adopted HEO 2 provides: "There will be sites available for 473 units of housing for low and moderate families by the year 2020 2000." (Underlining/strikethrough in original.) As stated, the number in the objective clearly is incorrect. Actually, D&A showed a need for 473 units in addition to the 1803 units identified in the 1991 Plan. Adopted HEO 3 makes the same kind of error for mobile homes: "There will be adequate sites for 244 mobile homes in the County by the year 2020 2000." (Underlining/strikethrough in original.) It is beyond fair debate that these objectives, as stated, are not supported by D&A. The plan should be corrected to comport with D&A. CHHA Designation Section 163.3178(2)(h) defines the CHHA to mean the Category (Cat) 1 hurricane evacuation zone. See also Rule 9J- 5.003(17) (defining the CHHA to mean the evacuation zone for a Cat 1 hurricane as established in the applicable regional hurricane study). The Apalachee Regional Transportation Analysis Final Report is the most recent applicable regional hurricane evacuation study (HES) per 9J-5.003(17). According to the HES, Franklin's Cat 1 evacuation zone boundary "would roughly coincide with US 98 throughout the County. The HES map of Franklin's evacuation zone, which is in GIS format, depicts one minor exception south of US 98, east of CR 30A (which is west of Apalachicola), and another southeast of US 98 (and southwest of CR 370) in the middle of SJI. Both exceptions are inland--i.e., they do not extend seaward to the coast (St. Vincent Sound in the case of the first exception, and Alligator Harbor in the case of the second exception). The adopted FLUM series includes a CHHA map that notes: "The Coastal High Hazard Area shall be designated . . . as all areas seaward of Highway 98 or County Road 30A with the exception of areas depicted as 1 and 2 on this map. The Coastal High Hazard Area for unincorporated Franklin County is based on the Apalachee Regional Transportation Analysis Final Report." The Areas 1 and 2 exceptions on Franklin's CHHA map purport to be the same two exceptions in the HES map. But unlike the HES map, the two exceptions depicted on Franklin's CHHA map extend all the way to the coast. In addition, they are larger than the exceptions depicted on the HES map, with Franklin's Area 2 exception on SJI clearly much larger. DCA, Franklin, and St. Joe concede that Franklin's CHHA map does not correspond to the HES Cat 1 evacuation zone for Franklin. However, they characterize the differences as "slight" and attributable to the "representational nature" of the HES map. To the contrary, the HES map, which is in GIS format, fixes precise boundaries that clearly are not matched by Franklin's map in the cases of Areas 1 and 2. Besides, 9J- 5 does not permit Franklin's CHHA to take liberties with the applicable regional study's evacuation zone based on alleged generalized depictions or representations in the regional map. A witness for St. Joe testified that evacuation zones are related to clearly identifiable landmarks and physical features, like US 98, for easier and clearer communication to the public. But that clearly is not always the case, as can be seen from the various HES maps. In any event, there was no evidence that such considerations could justify Franklin's departure from the HES Cat 1 evacuation zone boundaries in this case, and such an argument is not made in the Joint PRO filed by DCA, Franklin, and St. Joe. It is beyond fair debate that the 2020 Plan's CHHA designation in the CHHA map does not correspond to the evacuation zone for a Cat 1 hurricane as established in the applicable regional hurricane study, as required by Section 163.3178(2)(h) and 9J- 5.003(17). Petitioners also point out that HES was based, in part, upon the National Hurricane Center's Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model in the 1994 Florida Hurricane Surge Atlas-Franklin County, and that HES included areas of Wakulla County north of SJI in the SLOSH Cat 1 area in Wakulla's Cat 1 evacuation zones, but excluded such areas south of the Ochlockonee Bay and River from Franklin's Cat 1 evacuation zone. They seem to contend that the HES Cat 1 evacuation zone for Franklin is not as large as it should be. But the evidence implied that the difference in treatment of these areas by HES was the result of lobbying by Wakulla's director of emergency management for their inclusion. In any event, as stated, Section 163.3178(2)(h) and 9J-5.003(17) accept the Cat 1 evacuation zone delineated by the applicable regional study, regardless of possible error. Inventory/Analysis/GOP for Natural Disaster Planning Petitioners question the adequacy of Franklin's inventory/analysis and GOPs for natural disaster planning under 9J-5.012. Besides citing some D&A, Petitioners make several major arguments: first, the CHHA may not plan to mitigate flooding damage; second, Franklin did not plan for projected populations; third, the 2020 Plan makes no provision for capital improvements to build shelters despite adding C/CEPs 14.8 and 14.12 regarding shelters inside and outside of county; fourth, parts of the evacuation routes out of Franklin are subject to storm surge and flooding; fifth, Franklin's planning ends at the county line; and, sixth, special needs persons were not considered. 45. 9J-5.012(2)(e)1. provides: (e) The following natural disaster planning concerns shall be inventoried or analyzed: 1. Hurricane evacuation planning based on the hurricane evacuation plan contained in the local peacetime emergency plan shall be analyzed and shall consider the hurricane vulnerability zone, the number of persons requiring evacuation, the number of persons requiring public hurricane shelter, the number of hurricane shelter spaces available, evacuation routes, transportation and hazard constraints on the evacuation routes, and evacuation times. The projected impact of the anticipated population density proposed in the future land use element and any special needs of the elderly, handicapped, hospitalized, or other special needs of the existing and anticipated populations on the above items shall be estimated. The analysis shall also consider measures that the local government could adopt to maintain or reduce hurricane evacuation times. These inventories and/or analyses are found in the C/CE, the regional hurricane evacuation study, the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP), and the Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS). The Plan incorporates the hazard mitigation appendix of the CEMP through C/CEP 15.7. Additionally, in C/CEPs 14.1, 14.6, the 2020 Plan recognizes appropriate parts of the LMS, such as the need to maintain and improve evacuation routes throughout the County. 9J-5.012(3) sets out requirements for coastal management GOPs, including the requirement in (a) for "one or more goal statements which establish the long term end toward which regulatory and management efforts are directed" to "restrict development activities that would damage or destroy coastal resources, and protect human life and limit public expenditures in areas subject to destruction by natural disasters"; and the requirement in (b) for "one or more specific objectives for each goal statement which . . . 7. [m]aintain or reduce hurricane evacuation times " To support their contention that the CHHA may not plan to mitigate flooding damage, Petitioners cite a statement in the CEMP that flooding is the greatest potential hurricane damage. The also cite D&A in Franklin's 6/2004 transmittal package that evaluated areas subject to coastal flooding and observed: Areas subject to coastal flooding resulting from storm surges are shown in Map 6.4. The map portrays substantial risk from flooding outside the Category 1 storm zone By limiting the CHHA to the Category 1 storm surge zone the county may not be planning to mitigate the substantial flooding risks posed by storm surges and Category 2 and 3 storms . . . . However, there was no evidence that Franklin, DCA, or anyone else ever came to the conclusion that the CHHA was inadequate for that reason. In any event, as stated in the discussion on the CHHA, state law defines the CHHA to coincide with the Cat 1 evacuation zone as drawn by the applicable regional hurricane evacuation study. See Finding 38, supra. Petitioners base their contention that Franklin did not plan for projected populations on a reference in the LMS to Franklin's future land uses as of 2000, instead of its future land uses in 2020. But is clear that Franklin also considered the four SJI FLUMAs with their future land uses for 2020. As to shelters, Petitioners essentially argue that the CIS is inadequate. But C/CEPs 14.8 and 14.12 require assessments of shelter availability inside and outside Franklin, pursuit of agreements with neighboring counties to provide out-of-county shelters, and exploration of the possibility of locating some shelters in Franklin (even though the entire county will be evacuated in the event of a Cat 2-5 storm). There was no D&A as to a need for capital funding within the next five years for inclusion in a CIS. Regarding the impact of storm surge and flooding on evacuation routes out of Franklin, there was evidence that US 319 is subject to flooding at the Ochlocknee River during a storm, that US 98 is subject to storm surge and flooding at the Ochlocknee Bay, and that the four SJI FLUMAs are expected to move the critical link in Franklin's evacuation plan from US 98 near Lanark Village to US 98 at the Ochlocknee Bay. But there was no evidence that Franklin failed to consider the impact of storm surge and flooding on evacuation routes out of Franklin. To the contrary, the evidence was clear that Franklin is planning for the complete evacuation of the county to take place before those routes are impacted by storm surge or flooding. The USACE guidance for HES states in part: Each jurisdiction's existing hurricane evacuation routes are evaluated. In choosing roadways for the hurricane evacuation network care should be taken to designate only those roads that are not expected to flood from rainfall or storm surge while evacuation is in process. There was no evidence that HES did not follow this guidance. Under C/CEO 14 of the 1991 Plan, reasonable hurricane evacuation standards of 16 hours for Cat 1 and 24 hours for Cat 2-5 storm events were adopted. The 2020 Plan amends C/CEO 14 to read: Hurricane Evacuation - The County shall conduct its hurricane evacuation procedures to ensure that Countywide evacuation clearance times do not exceed 16 24 hours for Category 1 & 2 storms and 24 30 hours for Category 2, 3, 4 and 5 storms. 9J5-012(3)(b)(7). (Underlining/strikethrough in original.) Actual hurricane evacuation times are based on models that estimate the amount of time it would actually take to evacuate the County. These models include consideration of behavioral tendencies and tourist occupancies. Without the SJI FLUMAs, actual hurricane evacuation clearance times for the entire County are 4 ½ hours for a Cat 1 evacuation and 8 ¼ hours for Cat 2–5 evacuations, with high tourist occupancy and a slow public response. With the additional populations from the SJI FLUMAs (none of which fall within the CHHA), actual clearance times would increase slightly to five hours for Cat 1 and 10 ½ hours for Cat 2 – 5 evacuations. However, today’s actual evacuation times of 4 ½ hours and 8 ¼ hours can be maintained or reduced with the use of reasonable mitigation measures found in C/CEP 14.1--namely, encouraging the use of SR 65 and SR 67 as alternatives to US 98 and SR 319. Petitioners contend that Franklin's hurricane evacuation standards actually have been lowered as a result of the amendment to C/CEO 14 by the addition of the word "clearance." But there was no evidence that the 1991 Plan's C/CEO 14 actually planned for something other than clearance from Franklin. Regardless whether evacuation plans changed by addition of the word "clearance," Petitioners question whether it is wise to plan only to clear Franklin before the arrival of tropical storm conditions when evacuees still must pass through Cat 1 evacuation zones in other counties, e.g., Wakulla, before reaching a place of safety. As they point out, the HES envisions the need for a regional evacuation in the event of a major hurricane with the majority of evacuees in the region evacuating to Leon County, and states: "For the near term, it may be most appropriate for the coastal counties, especially Franklin and Wakulla, to use the clearance times for Leon County rather than using their own specific figures." Moreover, HES stated: Until the roadway improvements are completed on the Crawfordville Highway and Capital Circle, the evacuation clearance times calculated for Franklin, Wakulla and Leon Counties can exceed one full day of heavy evacuation traffic movement for a worst-case storm if all those who wish to leave the area are to be accommodated. This timeframe easily extends beyond the maximum amount of warning and preparation time provided by the National Hurricane Center under a Hurricane Warning. This D&A in and of itself does not prohibit Franklin from using times to clear the county in its evacuation planning. But use of clearance times would require regional evacuation needs to be coordinated among the various counties and incorporated in the CEMP and LMS. There was no evidence in this case that such coordination has not occurred or that the various counties are not planning for evacuees to pass through all evacuation zones and reach places of safety soon enough to get out of harm's way. Petitioners also argue that special needs persons have not been considered. This argument is based on the supposed testimony of St. Joe's witness, Collins, that there is no provision in the 2020 Plan for the evacuation of persons with special needs. Actually, Collins' testimony was that there is a Plan provision that "definitely affects the evacuation" of persons with special needs, and not just indirectly, in that adult living facilities within the CHHA are prohibited. He also testified that the CEMP deals with those issues. Mr. Gauthier, the former DCA chief of comprehensive planning was subpoenaed by Petitioners and explained why, in his opinion, the 2020 Plan is not "in compliance" because of inconsistency with 9J-5.012. He based his opinion on the incorrect CHHA designation, failure to direct population concentrations away from the CHHA, and C/CEO 14's establishment of a clearance time standard greater than actual clearance times. While the CHHA may not be designated accurately, assuming a correct definition, there was at least fair debate as to whether the 2020 plan directs population concentrations away from the CHHA. As indicated, none of the FLUMAs are in the CHHA, either as designated or as it should have been designated. Elsewhere, both the 1991 and the 2020 Plans limited residential density in the CHHA to a maximum of one DU/acre, which arguably does not constitute a population "concentration." For the reasons described in the preceding findings, the evidence in this record did not prove beyond fair debate that Franklin's 2020 Plan is inconsistent with 9J- 5.012 and not "in compliance." SJI FLUMAs and FLUEPs RV consists of 1,704 acres on the 2020 FLUM and FLUEP 2.2(l). It is presently designated agriculture (with residential development allowed at 1 DU/40 acres), and parts are in silviculture. FLUEP 2.2(l) is designed as a rural village that focuses on the historical heritage and natural surroundings of the Crooked River, with the objective being to create a rural village center in proximity to the river and a supporting rural community of river cottages and single-family (SF) lots. FLUEP 2.2(l) lists seven allowable uses, including residential, some commercial, and recreational uses. Non- residential maximum intensity is expressed in terms of FAR and set at .20; maximum overall gross residential density is 1 DU/5 gross acres. FLUEP 2.25 does not apply. RV can be all residential. Franklin Planner Pierce testified that, at most, 340 acres can be used for non-residential uses. He calculated this by multiplying the total acreage by the FAR. He also testified that, if 340 acres are non-residential, a maximum of 272 residential DUs could be developed on the remaining 1,363 acres. If all 1704 acres of RV are residential, the maximum residential use would be 340 DUs. Clustering is allowed but not required. At least 25 percent (426 acres) must be in "common open space" (including roads and other infrastructure); 50 percent "common open space" is required for cluster developments. Central water and wastewater is mandatory, and SMSs must meet OFW standards. As transmitted, the ConRes FLUMA was 6,531 acres to the east of RV and along the Ochlocknee River and Bay. As adopted, it is 2,500 acres. The parts of the transmitted version adjacent to RV and along the river and Bear Creek were eliminated in the adopted version. The land is presently "Agriculture" (with residential development allowed at 1 DU/40 acres); the land is used for silviculture. As described in FLUEP 2.2(m), ConRes is generally intended for large, private tracts of land that are appropriate for low density residential development and the protection of natural and cultural resources. A stated important objective is to allow for low density residential development that accentuates and celebrates the natural environment and is designed to fit into the natural setting instead of altering the natural setting to fit the design of the development. It allows detached SF residential use, passive and active recreational uses, related infrastructure, silviculture, and accessory use for residents and guests, and other similar or compatible uses. Free- standing nonresidential or commercial uses intended to serve non-residents are not permitted. Neither "active" nor "passive" recreational uses are defined in FLUEP 2.2(m). "Timeshare" or "vacation rentals" may be allowed. Maximum gross density is 1 DU/5 gross acres, and maximum overall impervious surface coverage cannot exceed 15 percent of the land area. No FAR is included or, arguably, required because ConRes is primarily a residential concept. Septic tanks are allowed but may not be located within 500 feet of the Ochlocknee River, Ochlocknee Bay, or Bear Creek. "Aerobic systems" to provide a higher level of treatment apparently are not required, as they are on St. George Island and Alligator Point. IEP 1.2 states: "The County shall adopt a policy that mandates aerobic septic systems on a county-wide basis." Apparently, this has not yet occurred. SMSs must meet OFW standards. MVC is 1,000 acres presently "Agriculture" on the FLUM (with residential development allowed at 1 DU/40 acres); the land is used for silviculture. The land is to the immediate east of ConRes along the Ochlocknee Bay and west of the US 98 bridge over the bay. MVC is described in FLUEP 2.2(n). The intent is to create a southern coastal fishing village focused on a marina, which is a required use. In addition to the marina, the village may contain a mix of related activities including retail, office, hotel, restaurant, entertainment, and residential uses. "Public and private utilities" are allowed but are not defined; they probably contemplate those needed for MVC itself. Clustering is not required. Residential use may not be required, but it certainly is expected of a "southern coastal fishing village." Residential use may be any combination of SF, multi-family (MF), condominiums, private residence clubs, time shares, and other forms of fractional ownership. The maximum FAR for non- residential use is .30. The maximum residential density is "2 DU/gross acres", maximum ISR (impervious surface ratio) is .80, minimum "common open space" is .25, and other applicable Franklin zoning code provisions. FLUEP 2.25 applies, and at least three land uses are required, "none of which may be less than 10 percent of the total land area." Central water and wastewater is required. SMSs must meet OFW standards. CEV in the 2020 Plan FLUM and FLUEP 2.2(o) addresses 200 acres presently designated Agriculture (allowing 1 DU/40 acres residential use); the land is in silviculture. The CEV FLUMA represents the first phase of development. CEV is generally intended to create a self-sustaining community with a mixture of functionally integrated land uses anchored by a village center. It is to complement the existing community of Carrabelle and create places to live, work and shop in the context of promoting moderately priced housing and economic development opportunities. Allowable uses are limited to SF and MF residential, retail commercial, service-oriented commercial, office, business and industrial park, passive and active recreation, schools and other civic facilities, public and private utilities, and houses of worship. There is no definition limiting the type of industrial use allowed, but Franklin Planner Pierce interpreted FLUEP 2.2(o) to mean industry like a truss factory or a cement batching plant, not heavier industry. Performance standards are 1-3 DU per gross acre gross residential density, maximum non-residential intensity of .25 FAR, commercial and business park intensity of .25 FAR, minimum common open space of .25, minimum civic space of .10, and other applicable Franklin zoning code provisions. FLUEP 2.25 applies, and at least three land uses are required, "none of which may be less than 10 percent of the total land area." Density, Intensity, and Mixed-Use Standards Petitioners contend that the 2020 Plan provisions, including the SJI FLUMAs, are not "in compliance" for failure to identify densities and intensities of uses and for creating mixed-use categories without percentage distribution or other objective measures of the mix of land uses in each category, as mandated by 9J-5.006(4)(c) and (3)(c)7 and Section 163.3177(6)(a)("distribution, location and extent"). See also 9J-5.013(3)(b)("type, intensity or density, extent, distribution and location of allowable land uses"). However, it is clear that residential densities are provided for each category, and Petitioners concede in their PROs that the mixed-use residential category in FLUEP 2.2(e) has policies/standards for the percentage distribution among the mix of uses, or other objective measurement (of distribution), and the density or intensity of each use. In the ORC, DCA objected to Franklin's proposed plan for failure to identify non-residential intensities and for creating mixed-use categories without percentage distribution or other objective measures of the mix of land uses in each category. In response, Franklin added FAR standards and FLUEP 2.25. DCA's 5/06/2005 staff memo acknowledged the FARs and accepted them. The staff memo also acknowledged FLUEP 2.25 and accepted it as providing a percentage distribution mix of uses for mixed-use residential, mixed-use commercial, MVC, and CEV. However, the staff memo criticized the mixed-use categories for not requiring some residential use. Petitioners contend that, since FLUEP 2.25 does not apply to RV and ConRes, those categories fail to provide a percentage distribution or other objective measures of the mix of land uses. But it is at least fairly debatable that RV and ConRes are not true mixed-use categories, such that 9J- 5.006(4)(c) does not apply. Petitioners also contend that, since ConRes does not have FAR standards, intensity of non-residential uses is not provided for that category. In that regard, Petitioners argue that FLUEP 2.2(m) allows "free-standing non-residential or commercial uses" in ConRes and that Franklin Planner Pierce was unable to state how much of those uses are allowed in ConRes. Actually, FLUEP 2.2(m) disallows such uses if "intended to serve non-residents." It is not clear from the policy that such uses are allowed at all in ConRes since other allowable uses are described as "similar or compatible uses." If such uses are allowable by negative implication, they would have to serve only residents. Arguably, non-residential intensity standards are not required in ConRes. Petitioners put on no expert testimony to explain why the FLUMAs and related policies in the 2020 Plan do not meet the requirements of 9J-5.006(4)(c) and (3)(c)7 and Section 163.3177(6)(a), and they put on no expert testimony that the 2020 Plan is not "in compliance" for those reasons. Meanwhile, experts for the other parties testified that the 2020 Plan is "in compliance." On the evidence presented, it was not proven beyond fair debate that the FLUMAs and related policies in the 2020 Plan create mixed-use land use categories without the percentage distribution among the mix of uses, or other objective measurement, or without the density or intensity of each use. Predictable Standards for MVC and CEV Petitioners attempted to prove that wildly varied development scenarios could result from application of FLUEP 2.25 to MVC and CEV. The evidence did not disclose any reason to believe that uses will be combined so as to maximize certain types of uses and result in lopsided development scenarios. Assuming that were to occur, the evidence was not clear what the maximum possible density and intensity of particular uses could be under various scenarios. This is partly because Franklin's Planner Pierce seemed to interpret MVC and CEV as establishing a maximum gross residential density on the entire acreage (1000 acres for MVC and 200 acres for CEV), regardless how much land actually was devoted to residential uses. Using that interpretation (which runs counter to Mr. Pierce's interpretation of the RV FLUEP), taken to an extreme 2000 DU of residential could be developed in MVC even if 900 acres were used for non-residential uses (e.g., marina and other commercial or office) and only 100 acres were used for residential, and 600 DU of residential could be developed in CEV even if 180 acres were used for non- residential uses and only 20 acres were used for residential. Given those results, such an interpretation does not seem logical. In addition, the applicable Franklin zoning code provisions were not clear. Also, factors such as FAR and ISR limitations and the necessity for "common open space" were not applied in a clear or consistent manner in the testimony. It can, however, be found that, in the unlikely event that lopsided development were to occur, large amounts of either residential or non-residential uses theoretically could develop in MVC and CEV depending on the development scenario. In calculating some alleged development scenarios for MVC and CEV, Petitioners (and Mr. Pierce) also may have been applying the minimum common open space requirements and FAR intensity standards incorrectly. In some instances, they seemed to treat the minimum common open space requirements as if it were a separate allowable land use within the FLUMA and subtract the common open space minimum from total gross acreage to calculate acreage remaining for allowable land uses in the FLUMA. But it is not clear why minimum common open space requirements could (and should) not be incorporated within acreage devoted to the various allowable uses. In some instances, Petitioners (and Mr. Pierce) seemed to apply minimum FAR to gross acreage in the FLUMA to calculate maximum acreage that can be devoted to non-residential land uses. (This also was done for RV. See Finding 58, supra.) But it is not clear why FAR intensity standards should not be applied instead to the discrete acreage devoted to allowable non- residential uses to determine the maximum allowable floor area coverage within the acreage devoted to allowable non- residential uses. Petitioners put on no expert testimony to explain why the unlikely possibility of lopsided development in MVC or CEV makes those FLUMAs and related policies, or the 2020 Plan, not "in compliance." Meanwhile, experts for the other parties testified that the 2020 Plan is "in compliance." On the evidence presented, it was not proven beyond fair debate that the 2020 Plan is not "in compliance" because of the possibility of lopsided development in MVC or CEV. Failure to Consider/React to Best Available Data FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13 required consideration of eight key areas. These areas included protection of natural resources and cultural heritage, promotion of economic development and emergency management, provision of adequate public facilities and services and affordable housing, and inclusion of intensity standards and allowable uses. Based on all of the documents in the record, the updated 2020 Plan was supported by consideration of each of the eight key areas listed by FLUEP 11.12 and, for the four SJI FLUMAs, by FLUEP 11.13. Petitioners contend that Franklin's 2020 Plan is not based on the best available data existing as of the date of adoption, April 5, 2005, as required by: Section 163.3177(8)("elements of the comprehensive plan, whether mandatory or optional, shall be based upon data appropriate to the element involved") and (10)(e)("Legislature intends that goals and policies be clearly based on appropriate data"); 9J- 5.005(2)(a)("shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and the analyses applicable to each element" and "[t]o be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue"); and 9J-5.006(1)(FLUE data requirements). In support of that contention, they cite to a few of the voluminous data in the record submitted by St. Joe and used by Franklin that are not the best available or have errors or a weakness (an unknown source). But their argument concedes that the best available data are in the record, and no expert witness testified that the 2020 Plan is not based on the best available data. To the contrary, Petitioners' expert questioned the quality of the analysis of the data in the adoption package. Meanwhile, expert witnesses for the other parties testified that the 2020 Plan is based on the best available evidence. Petitioners also contend that inconsistent data was used in violation of 9J-5.005(5)(a)("[w]here data are relevant to several elements, the same data shall be used, including population estimates and projections"). While their PRO does not cite any specifics, during the hearing Petitioners directed Mr. Gauthier to two examples. One was that Florida Land Use Cover Classification System data was used to identify wetlands in the FLUE, while National Wetlands Inventory data (supplemented with hydric soils analysis) was used to identify wetlands for the SJI FLUMAs. But those data were used in the same element, not in different elements. The other was that a traffic study in the 6/2004 transmittal package used a projection of 2,965 residential units in the SJI FLUMA while Franklin Planner testified to a different number--3,400. But the higher number represented a theoretical maximum, which is not necessarily the data on which traffic analyses should be based. No expert testified that this constituted the use of inconsistent data in violation of 9J-5.005(5)(a). To the contrary, witnesses for the other parties testified that the 2020 Plan is based on the best available data and professionally acceptable analyses, that the County appropriately responded to the D&A in preparing the Plan update, and that the 2020 Plan is "in compliance." Suitability of SJI FLUMAs and FLUEPs Petitioners contend that none of the SJI FLUMAs are "inherently suitable for development at the permitted density and intensity." In their PRO, they based their contention in large part on FSU's analysis of various criteria, including proximity of three of the FLUMAs to the relatively pristine Ochlocknee River and Bay and their natural resources, presence of wetlands, soil types, floodplains, vegetative cover, habitat for Florida black bear and other wildlife, and alleged karst hydrogeology. They also cite DCA's 5/6/2005 staff memo, the concerns of Drs. Chanton and Livingston about density and intensity increases, and Mr. Gauthier's testimony that he is "concerned and believe[s] that there are compliance problems . . . based on suitability." The evidence might support the proposition that there are more suitable places in Franklin for development, including in the middle of SJI, where St. Joe also is contemplating possible development in the future, and nearer to Apalachicola and Carrabelle. But the middle of SJI would not be suitable for a marina village, and there may be other aspects of St. Joe's planned developments that could not be accommodated on other land available for development. In addition, Franklin wants to protect the land within the Apalachicola River and Bay basin. In any event, the question presented in this case is not whether there are more suitable lands for development. Rather, the question is whether, based on all the evidence presented, it is beyond fair debate that the locations of the FLUMAs are unsuitable. "Development suitability" is defined as "the degree to which the existing characteristics and limitations of the land and water are compatible with a proposed use or development." FLUEP 1.2 requires review of FLUMAs "to insure [sic] that the proposed uses, in the various categories, do not conflict with the prevailing natural conditions including": (a) soil conditions; (b) topography; (c) drainage; (d) wetlands; and (e) floodplains. In their PRO, Petitioners criticize the soil suitability analysis submitted in support of the FLUMAs as being "based upon a subset of on-site soils termed 'predominate' with no percentage quantification and no analysis of the other on-site soils" and as misrepresenting and selectively quoting from the soil survey. See Pamela Ashley PRO, ¶73. But the soils in the SJI FLUMAs were re- analyzed at length during the final hearing. The evidence was that there are upland soils in each SJI FLUMA. In the ConRes FLUMA, the only SJI FLUMA allowing septic tanks, suitable soils and a 500-foot setback from principal surface waters should provide adequate attenuation to accommodate on-site sewage systems. There are soils in each SJI FLUMA that are not the best for the proposed development. These soils are potentially limiting but arguably can accommodate the proposed development, given appropriate site planning and engineering, together with the 2020 Plan's provisions that operate to protect natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas. It was fairly debatable that the soils in the FLUMAs are suitable for the proposed development. Petitioners in their PRO also criticize the topography of the SJI FLUMAs in that parts are subject to inundation during a Cat 1 storm. But the evidence was that low-density development is not necessarily unsuitable in the CHHA, and it was fairly debatable that the topography of the FLUMAs is suitable for the proposed development. As for drainage, each SJI FLUMA requires an SMS employing OFW design criteria. OFWs have special resource value and need heightened protection. A 1991 Plan provision required County SMSs to collect and treat runoff from the first 1.5 inches of rainfall regardless of the area drained. This provision exceeds OFW criteria and applies to each SJI FLUMA. The SMS design criteria, buffers, setbacks, and the nature of development anticipated in each SJI FLUEMA are intended to work in concert to minimize surface water impacts. Employing these elements is anticipated to allow the development of the FLUMAs without impacting surface waters. If there is no measurable pollutant loading to nearby waters, aquatic flora and fauna should experience no impact. Fewer significant seagrass beds are located in waters north of where MVC is located, and it should be possible to site a marina facility there in deeper water without significant seagrasses. The strict SMS design criteria assure the collection and treatment of stormwater for water quality purposes. The SMSs also will provide important sources of groundwater recharge and help protect water quantity. Runoff collected in SMSs is retained on-site and returned to the groundwater component of the hydrologic cycle (minus losses to evaporation and evapotranspiration). The retention of stormwater on-site offsets the potential loss of runoff resulting from increased impervious surfaces, facilitating aquifer recharge. With proper engineering, runoff from each of the SJI FLUMAs could be collected within the required SMSs resulting in minimal or no adverse effect on aquifer recharge on SJI. Recharge rates on SJI vary from high (15 to 20 inches per year) to moderate (10 to 15 inches per year) to low (less than 5 inches per year), depending on location. As indicated, the confining layer between the surficial aquifer and the underlying Floridan aquifer in eastern Franklin thins from west to east but is not believed to degenerate into karst features. See Findings 4-5, supra. Rather, the confining layer in eastern Franklin County appears to vary in thickness from 15 to 20 feet. Assuming no karst features or other anomalies creating a direct conduit to the Floridan, groundwater moves vertically throughout SJI at approximately 2 to 3 feet per year. This rate would provide sufficient time for the natural breakdown (attenuation) of residual pollutants from on-site sewage and stormwater treatment systems as well as any additional pollutants that may be generated such that development within the SJI FLUMAs should not threaten the Floridan aquifer. Lateral flow of groundwater from beneath the SJI FLUMAs also should not pose a risk to surface waters. In contrast to unconfined karst, where the movement of groundwater to and through the Floridan aquifer may be rapid, groundwater appears to move laterally at approximately 100 feet per year in eastern Franklin, providing adequate time for the attenuation of any added pollutants prior to any such groundwater seepage reaching surface waters. Petitioners in their PRO also criticize the amount of wetlands in the FLUMAs. RV has 1,324 wetland acres (78 percent) with 380 acres (22 percent) of "interspersed" uplands; ConRes has 525 wetland acres (21 percent) with 1,975 acres of uplands (79 percent); MVC has 276 wetland acres (28 percent) and 724 upland acres (72 percent); and CEV has 66 wetland acres (33 percent) and 134 upland acres (67 percent). In response to ORC criticism, Franklin's wetlands policies were amended to address "high quality" and "low quality" wetlands and give a higher level of protection to the former. Petitioners criticize the 2020 Plan for not identifying and mapping the high and low quality wetlands. They also rely on Gauthier's opinion that "the wetland policies are flawed, in that they're vague and not specific and there are significant gaps" as a result of exceptions and waivers. They also contend that the 2020 Plan fails to direct development away from wetlands, which will result in degradation of water quality in the Ochlockonee River/Bay and Apalachicola Bay system primarily from increased urban runoff and nutrification. But it is at least fairly debatable that the amended wetlands policy will increase wetlands protections and that wetlands in the FLUMAs can be protected in the course of development as proposed under the amended wetland policies. Each SJI FLUMA allows “clustering,” which concentrates DUs in a portion of the overall site without increasing the overall number of units. Clustering is mandatory in ConRes and CEV. Clustering is advantageous to the extent that it encourages open space, reduces impervious surface, reduces pollutants generated from more widespread development, and enhances aquifer recharge. However, the advantages could be illusory to the extent that clustering simply allows the wholesale transfer of density from a portion of the site where development is unsuitable and should not be anticipated (e.g., high-quality wetlands) to other portions of the site. Such a result would be of particular concern in RV, which is 78 percent wetlands, if all 340 DUs were to be concentrated on 375 acres of uplands, effectively at a density of almost one DU/acre, interspersed among 1,330 acres of high- quality wetlands. (The concern would be even greater if non- residential uses in RV were surprisingly high, and if the interpretation of "gross density" suggested by Franklin's planner for MVC and CEV were applied to RV, thereby further increasing the effective residential density interspersed among high-quality wetlands.) C/CEP 10.1 requires that the County's site plan review process be amended to take into consideration natural constraints, including wetlands, and restricted depending upon the severity of those constraints. Because no site plan has been proposed for any of the SJI FLUMAs, it is unknown to what extent, if any, the privately-owned wetlands may actually be disturbed. It is at least fairly debatable that, given the relatively low overall densities, the extent of available uplands (at least in ConRes and MVC), the arguably-enhanced wetland protections, and properly-implemented clustering, wetlands in the SJI FLUMAs can be protected in the course of development as proposed and that the FLUMAs are suitable for the proposed development notwithstanding the wetlands in the SJI FLUMAs. Petitioners in their PRO also criticize the suitability analysis submitted in support of the FLUMAs for failure to quantify floodplains (although admittedly depicting them on maps and citing FIRM maps), for "inaccurate and generalized narrative," and for stating "that development is allowed 'but flood considerations must be evaluated'." Pamela Ashely PRO, ¶ 76, citing the ORCR. As to "areas subject to coastal flooding" (the hurricane vulnerability zone), all of the SJI FLUMAs are subject to Cat 3 evacuation and the vast majority are within the Cat 3 SLOSH surge area. But some effort was made to focus development outside of the floodplains. Besides, development within floodplains is not prohibited by state or federal law. Rather, development within a floodplain must be constructed above certain elevations and provide compensating flood storage for any displaced flood plain area. The evidence was that low density development is not necessarily unsuitable in the these areas, and it was at least debatable that the FLUMAs are suitable for the proposed development notwithstanding the presence of floodplains in the FLUMAs. Petitioners in their PRO also criticize the suitability analysis submitted in support of the FLUMAs as to "vegetative cover" and "wildlife habitats" for only addressing bald eagle nests and bear sightings and road kill locations, and for generally stating that St. Joe's silvicultural use has "vastly altered" or otherwise displaced the natural vegetation and wildlife habitat. IWHRS data and best available bear data was not addressed in the suitability analysis. However, all of this D&A was presented and analyzed during the hearing. The SJI FLUMAs comprise a fraction of the 1.2 million acres of habitat supporting the Apalachicola black bear population, of which SJI bears are also a fraction. In response to the ORC, Franklin and St. Joe made some accommodation to the black bear by significantly reducing the size of the ConRes FLUMA and removing the Bear Creek area from the FLUMA. The SJI FLUMAs also preserve the possibility of a bear corridor of appropriate dimensions connecting Bald Point State Park on the east end of SJI with the Crooked River Tract and the larger publicly-owned bear habitat to the west. Along with the availability of public lands, residential clustering will help facilitate bear movement through SJI notwithstanding the development of the SJI FLUMAs. Bears should still frequent the FLUMAs when food supplies are ample, even during construction. Even with the accommodation and a corridor, the proposed development will impact the black bear. Road kills occur where bears and roadways mix. (Generally, the more people there are in and near bear habitat, the more problems will arise from bear encounters with people, and the more likely that the resolution of such problems will not benefit the bears.) But the SJI FLUMAs themselves are not considered critical bear habitat, and their development alone should not result in a significant adverse impact on the bear population. While the gulf sturgeon, a protected species, is known to pass through nearby waters, neither the Ochlocknee River nor Bay has been designated critical habitat for the fish. No surface water impacts that would affect the sturgeon were proven. Based on the evidence, it is at least fairly debatable that the SJI FLUMAs are suitable for the proposed development notwithstanding the presence of the black bear, the Gulf sturgeon, and other wildlife now using SJI. Based on the foregoing, it was not proven beyond fair debate that the SJI FLUMAs are unsuitable for the proposed development, notwithstanding the issues raised by Petitioners as to soils, topography, drainage, wetlands, floodplains, vegetative cover, and wildlife and their habitat. Deletion of FLUEP 11.12 and 11.13 The County deleted FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13 as part of the Plan update. This decision was appropriate because the substantive aspects of FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13 were considered and would be incorporated within the various provisions of the updated Plan, once effective. Also, the assessments required under those policies must be made regardless of whether policies are included within the Plan because they are required under 9J-5. All of the expert planners--including Mr. Gauthier--testified that the 2020 Plan is "in compliance” notwithstanding deletion of those policies. Once FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13 are no longer necessary, it is the County’s prerogative to include them in or remove them from the Plan. FLUEP 11.12 required the preparation and adoption of an overlay plan for SJI, which would result in an overlay map and policies. Although an overlay plan was prepared, it was not adopted as part of the 2020 Plan but rather was included as an appendix to the Technical Data and Analysis Report submitted in support of the 2020 Plan update. Potential adoption of the overlay as part of the Plan was a concern to many of the citizens attending the visioning meetings. There was confusion as to what adoption of an overlay into the Plan actually meant and whether it established development entitlements. The County has the discretion to adopt or remove Plan provisions that duplicate or exceed statutory and regulatory requirements. Utilization of the overlay as D&A is consistent with state planning requirements. It was not proven beyond fair debate that the 2020 Plan would not be "in compliance" without the SJI overlay.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that that DCA enter a final order determining that Franklin's 2020 Plan update, with SJI FLUMAs, is not "in compliance" at this time. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2006.
The Issue Whether the permit Harbor Woods seeks should be denied lest effluent from a sewage treatment plant enter the proposed basin? Whether the proposed project will cause odors and degradation of water quality in contravention of DER standards and rules, as a result of stormwater runoff?
Findings Of Fact On Merritt Island in Brevard County, Harbor Woods owns an 80-acre parcel on the western shore of Newfound Harbor. From the north, Sykes Creek flows into Newfound Harbor, which opens into the Banana River to the south. The parties stipulated that Newfound Harbor, which is navigable, contains Class III waters. Paralleling the northern boundary of the Harbor Woods property is a ditch through which 800,000 gallons or more of effluent from a sewage treatment plant operated by Brevard County pours into Newfound Harbor daily, at a point about 400 feet north of the proposed flushing channel. A mile or so south of the proposed flushing channel is the nearest boundary of the Banana River Aquatic Preserve. PETITIONER'S INTEREST Robert B. Sampson, Carl Seidel and Betty Holcombe have all been boating in Newfound Harbor and expect to use the waters of Newfound Harbor in the future. Ms. Holcombe is an avid angler and has fished those waters often. MAN vs. MOSQUITO At one time an arm of Newfound Harbor extended onto the property Harbor Woods now proposes to develop. As a means of mosquito control, the authorities caused a dike to be built along the eastern edge of the property, wailing off the shallows and interdicting the tidal flow. The impoundment was then filled with fresh water in an effort to keep the bottom covered. The idea was to deprive mosquitoes of mud they need for depositing eggs. The effort was not completely successful, and the area continues to be sprayed with insecticides. The mosquitoes that now breed in the vicinity of the impounded fresh water are capable of transmitting encephalitis and other diseases and constitute a more serious problem than the mosquitoes whose larvae formerly hatched on the salt mud flats. The area of the original impoundment was reduced some time after 1967 by filling in conjunction with development to the north of the Harbor Woods property. PARTIAL RESTORATION PROPOSED Barber Woods, which owns the bottom landward of the dike, proposes to drain the fresh water to an unspecified upland site, uproot some seven and a half acres of cattails, remove the muck, and fill with clean sand so as to reshape the perimeter of the impoundment and its bottom contours; and consolidate four small islands into a single "recreational" island within the newly formed basin, which would only then be connected to Newfound Barber by dredging a flushing channel through the dike. Unplugging the dike would entail removal of about a quarter acre of productive wetlands, mainly mangroves, which would be transplanted inside the basin. The project would improve the property aesthetically and result in more land area for the "mid-rise" condominium buildings Barber Woods intends to erect. Although the project would not restore the site to its precise pro-impoundment state, the proposed basin is designed, in part, to fill the ecological role the pristine embayment once played. The level bottom of the new basin would lie at 1.5 feet NGVD; once the dike was breached, saltwater would fill the basin to a uniform depth of one and one half feet, and spill over to submerge five acres of cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) which would be planted along the northern and southern shores of the basin. The unplanted bottom of the basin would comprise another five acres. After removing 330 feet of the dike, and in order to insure the movement of water in and out of the basin, a channel 150 feet wide would be dug out into Newfound Harbor 92 feet waterward of the mean high water line. Turbidity curtains would be used during dredging. If the cordgrass and the mangroves, which are to be planted in the same area, take hold and flourish, white mangroves would dominate in five years' time, and the quarter acre strip along the dike which would be lost would then have been replaced by an area twenty times as large. Eventually red mangroves should become dominant. The uncontroverted evidence was that, because of all the new vegetation proposed, the project would ameliorate water quality in Newfound Harbor and provide a new food source, habitat and nursery area for various organisms, including mosquitophagous fish. AMBIENT POLLUTION The objectors raised the question whether any plantings in the new basin could be expected to survive in light of the poor water quality in Newfound Harbor. The waters of Newfound Barber do not meet minimum standards for Class III waters now, and would not be brought up to those standards by any project like the one proposed. Brevard County's Fortenberry Sewage Treatment Facility, the source of the effluent pouring into Newfound Harbor, has been the object of administrative proceedings in which DER has alleged that the facility is discharging excessive amounts not only of nutrients like phosphorous but also of copper, mercury, lindane, and malathion. Petitioners Exhibit No. 4. Excess nutrients in the water would foster, not retard, the growth of submerged plants, but some of the substances DER itself claims are being introduced into Newfound Harbor could be lethal to plants. DER has alleged in a notice of violation that effluent from the Fortenberry Sewage Treatment Facility "is acutely toxic." Petitioners' Exhibit No. 4. Reese Kessler, a DER employee, noted "a six inch layer of black ooze" along the Newfound Barber side of the dike in September of 1981, which, he reported, "Presumably resulted from a recent heavy discharge of sewage effluent." DER's Exhibit No. 2. If constructed as proposed, the basin would exchange waters with Newfound Barber, primarily under the influence of the wind. Southeast winds predominate at the site. When the wind blows from the southeast, a clockwise gyre in Newfound Barber takes the effluent due east from the mouth of the ditch and away from the proposed flushing channel, but a northeast wind would result in sewage effluent entering the basin, if it blew hard enough. Runoff entering the basin from upland would also be a motive force, as would the ebb and flow of the tide, to a lesser extent; the tidal range in the area is on the order of one-tenth of a foot. Ninety percent of the water in the basin would leave it and enter Newfound Barber in 30 days' time, even without any wind. The flushing channel is fairly wide and not much deeper than the surrounding bottom; natural circulation should be enough to keep it clear of siltation. Because water quality in Newfound Harbor is so bad, the water in the proposed basin would also fall below minimum standards for Class III waters. According to uncontroverted testimony, however, the new basin would not cause or aggravate water quality standard violations. The new vegetation would be protected from most boat traffic by being planted in shallow beds. The experts unanimously predicted it would thrive and ameliorate a bad situation. STORMWATER RUNOFF The dike not only keeps the waters of Newfound Harbor out; it also prevents any additional pollution of Newfound Harbor from upland source. Harbor Woods intends to construct parking lots, in conjunction with the multi-story condominium buildings it plans to build around the proposed basin. The precise location and dimensions of the buildings and parking lots have not been decided upon but it is clear that rainwater draining over the parking lots would make its way to the proposed basin and, eventually, to Newfound Harbor. Harbor Woods has proposed to encircle the new basin with grassy swales large enough to hold the first half inch of rain that would otherwise drain directly into the basin. Water overflowing the swales could reach the basin only by passing through a sand filter, which would remove all oil. Gasoline is not ordinarily split in most parking lots and quickly evaporates, in any case. But rain washing over parking lots picks up oils, greases and heavy metals. Bow badly water traversing a parking lot Is polluted depends principally on what the parking lot surface is. The optimal parking surface is concrete block, which allows for some percolation. The first inch of rainfall washes off 90 percent of the substances that pollute runoff The evidence was uncontroverted that the runoff would meet Class III standards before it entered the proposed basin. PROPOSED FINDINGS CONSIDERED Respondent DER filed proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommended order. DER's proposed findings of fact have been considered and in large measure adopted, in substance. To the extent they have been rejected, they have been deemed unsupported by the weight of the evidence, irrelevant, immaterial, cumulative or subordinate.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DER grant petitioner's application on the conditions proposed and on the additional condition that any parking lots over which draining water would eventually reach Newfound Harbor be paved with concrete block. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 10th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Joe Teague Caruso, Esquire Post Office Box 757 Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931 Dennis R. Erdley, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert B. Sampson Post Office Box 431 Merritt Island, Florida 32952 Carl Seidel c/o Robert B. Sampson Post Office Box 431 Merritt Island, Florida 32952 Betty Holcombe c/o Robert B. Sampson Post Office Box 431 Merritt Island, Florida 32952 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Crestwood Lakes Associates provided reasonable assurance that a modification to a conceptual surface water management permit complies with the permit criteria contained in statutes and rules.
Findings Of Fact Background This case involves a 900-acre parcel in the Loxahatchee Slough, west of the Florida Turnpike in Palm Beach County (County). Although the property occupies part of a slough, all of the wetlands in this case are isolated wetlands. Respondent Crestwood Lakes Associates (Applicant) owns the south 503 acres, Petitioner owns the north 287 acres, and the Village of Royal Palm Beach (Village) owns the remaining 115 acres, which abut the southwest boundary of the north parcel. The acreages do not total 900 acres because the numbers are approximate. The 900-acre parcel is generally bounded on the south by Okeechobee Boulevard and the north and east by the M-1 canal. The west boundary of the south part of the parcel adjoins a residential development known as Loxahatchee Groves, and the 115-acre parcel adjoins a County-owned preserve of at least 600 acres. Applicant’s land is undeveloped except for some landclearing. Petitioner’s land is partly developed, mostly in the south next to the boundary with Applicant’s land. The Village's 115 acres are a preserve, divided equally between wetlands and uplands. On February 11, 1988, Respondent South Florida Water Management District (District) issued surface water management (SWM) permit No. 50-00618-S-02 to Royal Palm Homes, Inc. for conceptual approval of a SWM system serving a residential development on the 900-acre parcel (1988 Permit). References to the Original Developer shall include Royal Palm Homes, Inc., its agents, lenders, and assigns, except for Petitioner and Applicant. The permitted development, which was known as the Royal Palm Homes PUD, comprises single-family and multifamily residences, wetland preserve areas, two 18-hole golf courses, and a park area. On August 3, 1994, Applicant filed SWM application number 940803-6 to modify the 1988 Permit to show the change in ownership and obtain conceptual approval of a modification to the permitted SWM system. The application was not complete when the new Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) rules replaced the old Management and Storage of Surface Water (MSSW) permit rules. On May 24, 1996, the District transmitted the staff report, which proposed the issuance of a permit modification. On June 13, 1996, the District approved the issuance of the proposed permit modification. On the same date, Petitioner filed its petition challenging the proposed agency action. Permits The first relevant SWM permit for the 900-acre parcel involved a larger parcel that includes the 900-acre parcel. On September 14, 1978, the District issued a two-page permit authorizing the “construction of a water management system serving 2073 acres of residential lands by waterways discharging into canal C-51.” This 1978 permit, which is identified as number 50-00618-S, contains a special condition calling for a minimum finished floor elevation of 18.0 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The next permit is the 1988 Permit, which is a substantial modification to the 1978 permit. The 1988 Permit covers only the previously described 900 acres and, as modified, currently remains in effect. The 1988 Permit requires the preservation of two large wetlands in the north parcel, just north of the 115-acre preserve; one wetland is about 30 acres and the other is about ten acres. The 1988 Permit requires the preservation of no other wetlands in the north parcel, but, in addition to the wetlands in the 115-acre preserve, the 1988 Permit requires the preservation of several much smaller wetlands in the south parcel. The staff report for the 1988 Permit divides into three basins the drainage area for the 900-acre parcel: a north basin of 98.9 acres, a central basin of 525.7 acres, and a south basin of 270.8 acres. The staff report states that basin runoff will pass through a system of inlets and culverts into a series of interconnected lakes, from which, through control structures, the runoff will pass into the M-1 canal and eventually into the C-51 canal. The staff report notes that the control elevations will be 17.25 feet NGVD for the north basin, 17.55 feet NGVD for the central basin, and 17.75 feet NGVD for the south basin. Under the discussion of environmental impacts, the staff report observes that the 1978 permit proposed for protection only 30 acres of wetlands among the 281 acres of isolated wetlands on the site. The staff report notes that “extensive” melaleuca invasion has taken place since the 1978 permit and only 160 acres of wetlands remain in “relatively good” condition, with much of this subject to melaleuca encroachment. Due to the “extensive seed source” and “seasonal drying of the wetlands,” the staff report predicts eventual melaleuca dominance of the “entire site.” The staff report asserts that the proposed development plan includes the protection of about 100 acres of the “best quality wetlands,” plus eight acres of wetlands created in conjunction with the golf courses and 15 acres of wetlands created as littoral zones in conjunction with the lakes to be constructed. The staff report calls a program “to eradicate all melaleuca from the site” “[t]he major environmental feature” of the proposed development plan. But this major environmental feature of the 1988 Permit is presently in jeopardy. One major component of the present case is that, following the conveyances of the three parcels by the Original Developer, the District has evidently concluded that no one is responsible to perform certain obligations under the 1988 Permit and no remedies are available for the nonperformance of these obligations. It appears that these conclusions are largely driven by the vagueness of the plan to eradicate the melaleuca. This plan is called the "Melaleuca Eradication Plan." The Melaleuca Eradication Plan is incorporated into the 1988 Permit. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan, which is dated December 11, 1987, recounts that the Original Developer and regulatory bodies agreed that the melaleuca should be “eradicated and a program for this should be developed and included as a part of the permit application.” The plan states that the eradication plan will cover the entire 900- acre site with the Original Developer performing the “initial . . . program” on the entire site, including the 115-acre preserve to be deeded to the Village. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan calls for the Original Developer to create a bonded authority to conduct the “ten-year melaleuca eradication program.” The program is phased to coincide with the projected 10-year buildout of the 3000-unit parcel. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan describes in detail the three phases of the program and exactly how the Original Developer will proceed to remove the melaleuca and restore wetlands by planting native wetland species in disturbed areas. The plan promises a yearly inspection followed by hand-removal of any seedlings discovered on the site. This last phase will terminate ten years after commencement of the first phase. A “Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program” is also incorporated into the 1988 Permit. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which is dated December 8, 1987, states that Dr. Dwight Goforth performed a wetlands survey of the 900-acre site in 1985 and divided wetlands into three categories based on their quality. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance promises the preservation of 112.71 acres of wetlands comprising 98.81 acres of “large wetlands totally preserved” and nine wetlands totaling 13.9 acres that will be “partially preserved.” Also, the program will create golf course wetlands of 6.93 acres and littoral-zone wetlands around the lakes of 15 acres. Thus, the program summarizes, the “total wetland acreage preserved, enhanced and created will [be] 134.64 acres.” The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program describes a three-year monitoring program using transects to assist in the vegetative mapping of the site. The program also promises semiannual observations of birds, small rodents, and larger mammals using the wetlands and adjacent preserved uplands, as well as semiannual sampling for fish, macroinvertebrates, and amphibians. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program outlines a plan to remove melaleuca and control algae buildup in the lakes. The program promises to contain algae through the use of “biological controls” and, when needed, hand-raking. The program also assures that the Original Developer will use a “conservative fertilization program” for the golf course and landscaped areas to reduce eutrophication in the created lakes. On February 18, 1988, the District issued its conceptual approval of the 1988 Permit. Among the special conditions of the 1988 Permit are Special Condition 15, which requires wetland monitoring and maintenance in accordance with the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, and Special Condition 16, which requires melaleuca removal in accordance with the Melaleuca Eradication Plan. Also, Special Condition 17 requires low berms around protected or created wetlands, including littoral zones, to protect against sheetflow runoff from the golf course or other areas of intense development. The references in the preceding paragraphs to the responsibilities of the "Original Developer" imply greater clarity than is present in the Melaleuca Eradication Plan or Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. The passive voice predominates in both these documents, so it is sometimes difficult to determine on whom a particular responsibility falls. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan states clearly that "[the Original Developer] will conduct the initial melaleuca eradication on the entire site including the dedicated park area [i.e., the 115 acres]." The next sentence of the plan contemplates the conveyance of the 115 acres to the County. But, after these clear provisions, the Melaleuca Eradication Plan lapses into the passive voice almost invariably. The next two sentences read, "A bonded authority will be created to conduct the ten-year melaleuca eradication program" and "The eradication program will be carried out through a bonded agreement with the [Original] Developer to remove the melaleuca . . .." Alluding to the several phases of melaleuca eradication, the plan states only "[t]he eradication program will be completed in stages " Only two other sentences establishing responsibility for melaleuca eradication identify the responsible party. The end of the plan states that the "bonded authority responsible for initial eradication clearance will likewise provide a yearly inspection." One of the final sentences of the plan adds: "the bonding authority's crew will hand remove entire seedlings found on site." The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program is similar except that it does not once name the entity responsible for the monitoring and maintenance duties or hiring the firm or individual to conduct the actual work. The two special conditions incorporating these two documents likewise are in the passive voice, implying only that the responsibility belongs to the Original Developer. Given the vagueness of the melaleuca-eradication and wetlands-maintenance documents, it is not surprising that they fail entirely to address the issue whether these responsibilities run with the land, remain the responsibility of the Original Developer, or, for the eradication of melaleuca, remain the duty of the "bonded authority," if the Original Developer ever created such an entity, which appears highly doubtful. The documents likewise do not disclose the penalties for noncompliance. On June 16, 1988, the District issued a modification to the 1988 Permit for the construction and operation of a 110.9-acre residential development in Phase I, which occupies the central basin. On October 1, 1988, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) issued the Original Developer a permit to destroy 164 acres of wetlands on the 900-acre parcel. Special conditions of the 1988 Army Corps permit require the preservation of "115 acres of high quality wetlands," the creation of 18 acres of wetlands and 15 acres of littoral shelf, and the implementation of a "Melaleuca Eradication Program," which is the same program as is incorporated in the 1988 Permit. The 1988 Army Corps permit contains an attachment dated October 24, 1987. This attachment identifies the protected wetlands as the two large wetlands in the north parcel totaling about 40 acres, 58 acres in the 115-acre preserve, and 53.5 acres in the south parcel. The 1988 Army Corps permit protects several wetlands in the south parcel, including wetland numbers 14 (3.04 acres), 16 (1.6 acres), 23 (0.53 acres), 30 (2.6 acres), 44 (0.8 acres), 29 (1.08 acres), and 46 (3.0 acres). These wetlands, which total 12.65 acres, are seven of the nine wetlands partially preserved in the 1988 Permit, although some of the acreages vary from those preserved in the 1988 Permit. Unlike the District's permits (except for the subject proposed permit modification), the 1988 Army Corps permit addresses conveyances by the developer. The 1988 Army Corps permit states: "If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the space provided and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization." Below the signature line of the 1988 Army Corps permit is language stating: When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below. On March 1, 1989, the Original Developer conveyed the 115-acre preserve to the Village, which later leased the preserve to the County. The Original Developer had not eradicated the melaleuca at the time of the conveyance, nor has anyone since done so. On August 17, 1990, water elevations in the wetlands in Phase I reached 19.4 feet NGVD, washing out construction pads, roads, and in-ground utilities. On September 7, 1990, the District issued a stop-work request because the SWM system was not working as required. On September 28, 1990, the District approved interim measures to preserve the wetland hydroperiod and allow for wetland overflow. These measures include berming the residential areas in Phase I/Plat I adjacent to wetlands. On June 13, 1991, the District approved additional modifications to the 1988 Permit and the construction and operations permit for Phase I and issued a conceptual approval for works in the north and central basins. The revisions to the conceptual approval include adding two control structures to the north wetland that connect to the water management system in the north basin and adding a berm around the smaller of the two preserved wetlands in the north parcel. The construction approval was for a perimeter berm along the south wetland and park areas. On June 24, 1992, the District issued a staff report recommending issuance of another modification of the 1988 Permit for the conceptual approval of a SWM system to serve the 900-acre parcel and approval of construction and operation of a SWM system to isolate and control the existing onsite wetlands and revise the control structure for the central basin. The staff report explains that this modification proposes berming the wetlands to the 100-year, three-day peak elevation. The staff report notes that the wetlands basin consists of 295.18 acres of wetlands, including 155.85 acres of “wetlands/uplands.” The staff report notes that the north basin contains 107.41 acres of “good quality wet prairie wetlands” with “minimal” melaleuca encroachment. The staff report restates that the purpose of the modification is to berm all of the wetlands and uplands not planned for development. Special Condition 19 requires the Original Developer to dedicate as conservation and common areas in deed restrictions the “wetland preservation/mitigation areas, upland buffer zones, and/or upland preservation areas," so that these areas are the “perpetual responsibility” of a named property owners’ association. Special Condition 22 states that “a wetland monitoring and maintenance program” and “a melaleuca eradication program” “shall be implemented,” but the condition does not expressly state by whom. Special Condition 22 requires that the work implementing these programs conform to these “approved environmental programs as outlined in the [1988 Permit].” Special Condition 25 provides that, on submittal of an application for construction approval in the south basin (Phase II), the "permittee shall submit a detailed wetland construction mitigation, monitoring and maintenance plan.” In evaluating the plan for approval, the District shall apply the “environmental criteria in effect at the time of construction permit application.” Although the approval of the District is not attached to the staff report, the District approved the June 24, 1992, staff report and proposed permit. The 1992 permit modification did not address the issue of who was responsible for melaleuca eradication after the sale of the property. On November 10, 1993, the staff report accompanying another request for a permit modification restates the special conditions of earlier permit modifications. Special Condition 23 restates the requirement that a melaleuca eradication program “shall be implemented,” again not stating by whom. Special Condition 23 now requires the completion of the melaleuca eradication program by February 25, 1994. The omission of a referenced exhibit to the permit from the exhibit filed in this case prevents a determination that this is the same as the Melaleuca Eradication Plan incorporated in the 1988 Permit and restated in the 1992 modification, although it probably is. In any event, Special Condition 23 concludes in another sentence lacking a stated or implied subject: “Maintenance of the preserved wetlands and berm planting areas shall be conducted in perpetuity to ensure that the conservation areas are maintained free from exotic vegetation (Brazilian pepper, Australian pine and melaleuca) . . ..” Although the record does not contain the written approval of the District to the staff report, the District approved the staff report dated November 10, 1993. On November 12, 1993, the Original Developer conveyed by special warranty deed the north to Petitioner. The deed is subject only to "easements, declarations, restrictions and reservations of record . . .." The record does not provide recording information for the deed. The Original Developer probably conveyed the south parcel to Applicant in the same fashion and at the same approximate time. Almost five months later, on March 29, 1994, the Army Corps issued another permit for the 900-acre parcel. Although the Original Developer had conveyed at least the north parcel, the Army Corps issued the 1994 permit to the Original Developer. The 1994 Army Corps permit authorizes the destruction of 158 acres. The general conditions governing transfers are the same as those in the 1988 Army Corps permit. The special conditions of the 1994 Army Corps permit require the permittee to preserve and enhance only 110 acres of high quality wetlands, instead of preserving 115 acres of such wetlands, as was required in the 1988 Army Corps permit. The 1994 Army Corps permit drops the requirement of creating eight acres of wetlands and 15 acres of littoral zone, as was required in the 1988 Army Corps permit, but requires the preservation of what appears to be the 39.5-acre preserve that is proposed by Applicant in the subject permit modification, as described below. Special Condition 3 of the 1994 Army Corps permit adds that all preserved areas "will be maintained in perpetuity free of Melaleuca. The permittee agrees to develop a bonded Melaleuca eradication program for the entire 906 acres. Copies of the bonded agreement will be provided to this office for approval before development can commence." The next permit activity affecting the 900-acre parcel is the subject application filed by Applicant on August 3, 1994, for its 503-acre parcel. On May 24, 1996, the District issued a staff report for conceptual approval of a SWM system proposed by Applicant for its 503-acre parcel. On June 13, 1996, the District issued an addendum to the staff report that contains another special condition that is not especially relevant to this case. In the background section, the staff report mentions the flooding of Phase I of the north parcel and states that the District had “assumed the adjacent wetlands would flow away from the development.” The staff report outlines the modifications implemented to eliminate the flooding; these modifications include connecting the M-1 canal, through inlets, with several wetlands located in the north and central basins. According to the staff report, Petitioner’s north parcel, which totals 287.34 acres, includes the Phase I/Plat 1 area, north basin, and part of central basin south of Phase I. Describing Applicant’s proposal, the staff report states that a preserve of 39.5 acres will be located in the northwest corner of the south parcel, adjoining the east boundary of the 115-acre parcel. The staff report states that the 39.5-acre preserve will sheetflow through cuts in the berm to wetlands in the 115-acre preserve. The 115-acre preserve is connected to the SWM system permitted on November 10, 1993, to eliminate flooding from these wetlands, whose control elevation is 19 feet NGVD. The staff report describes the south parcel as “dominated by flatwood habitat,” within which are stands of Australian pine and other exotic plant species that have recently been spreading across the site. The onsite wetlands are 4.93 acres of wet prairies, 18.4 acres of pond cypress strands, 1.56 acres of isolated marsh, 3.5 acres of cypress mixed with pine flatwood, and 163.91 acres of melaleuca. The staff report finds that only the 4.93 acres of wet prairies and 18.4 acres of cypress are in good condition, but melaleuca has become established in many of the wet prairies. The 1.56 acres of freshwater marshes and 163.91 acres of melaleuca are in poor condition. The 3.5 acres of cypress mixed with pine flatwoods are in fair condition. As for listed species, the staff report mentions only the possibility that herons might forage onsite during periods of standing water. Summarizing the impact of the proposed project on wetlands preservation, the staff report endorses the hydrologic reconnection of the 39.5-acre wetland/upland site with the 115-acre wetland. The staff report notes that water levels in the 115-acre preserve, which has been bermed to 21 feet NGVD, have stabilized at 19 feet NGVD. The staff report asserts that the “proposed wetland impacts (183.54 acres) were previously permitted under the conceptual permit application” for the original 1988 Permit. The staff report adds that this modification is to “change a portion of the original mitigation requirements . . . and includes impacts to a 6.78 acre wetland area that was previously permitted to be preserved.” But the staff report does not recommend the preservation of this wetland “[d]ue to the reduced hydrology and proximity to the proposed upland development” and the mitigation and compensation provided by the 39.5-acre preservation area. The staff report states that 8.76 acres of the 39.5- acre preserve are wetlands, and the remainder are uplands. As for the 8.76 acres of wetlands, the staff report lists 0.67 acres of mixed cypress and pine flatwoods, 4.93 acres of wet prairies, and 3.16 acres of cypress. Applicant would also restore 4.95 acres of pine flatwoods. As for the 183.54 acres of wetlands to be destroyed, the staff report lists 2.83 acres of mixed cypress and pine flatwoods in fair condition, 15.24 acres of cypress in fair condition, 1.56 acres of freshwater marshes in poor condition, and 163.91 acres of melaleuca in poor condition. Addressing the mitigation and monitoring elements of the current proposal, the staff report states that the modification would eliminate the creation of 15 acres of littoral wetlands around SWM lakes and 7.99 acres of marshes in golf courses in return for the creation of the 39.5-acre preservation area. The staff report assures that Applicant will perpetually manage and maintain the 115-acre preserve. Conceding that the 1988 Permit also required long-term maintenance of the 115-acre parcel, the staff report notes that the initial eradication effort was never completed. The staff report mentions an “access agreement” giving Applicant the authority to enter the 115-acre preserve for mitigation and monitoring, but “anticipat[es]” that Applicant will submit an application for another permit modification, on behalf of the two governmental entities, so that Applicant can “assume future maintenance responsibilities for this area.” As is clarified by the maintenance and monitoring plan, which is part of the proposed permit, Applicant's expectation is that the County and Village, not Applicant, will assume future maintenance responsibilities for the 115-acre preserve. The staff report concludes that the District should issue the permit subject to various conditions. Special Condition 1 is that the minimum building floor elevation is 20 feet NGVD. Special Condition 16 requires the implementation of a wetland mitigation program and requires Applicant to create 4.95 acres of marsh; restore 3.16 acres of cypress, 4.93 acres of marsh, and 0.67 acres of mixed forest; and protect 25.79 acres of uplands. Special Condition 17 sets performance criteria for the mitigation areas in terms of percentage and length of survival of vegetation. Special Condition 17 supplies completion dates for monitoring reports. Special Condition 21 addresses listed species. Noting that listed species have been seen onsite or the site contains suitable habitat for such species, Special Condition 21 requires Applicant to coordinate with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission or the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for guidance, recommendations, or permits to avoid impacts to such species. The monitoring and maintenance plan does not address direct and contingent liabilities for maintenance and generally is a poor candidate for enforcement. In addition to the vagueness of the passive voice, the plan is, at times, simply unreadable, as, for example, when it concludes boldly, but enigmatically: The site as a whole is evolving hydrologic trends which permits successional seres development toward communities with shorter hydroperiods and ultimately, toward more upland transitional and/or exotic species dominance of historically wetland habitats. Long-term prospectives infer that successional deflection has become a severe detriment for natural environmental control to alter the present scenario. Active management coupled with graduated balanced in hydrologic restoration and created habitat elements will become the processes engineered to obtain an infusion of probabilities fashioned to inscribe a regenerative adaptation to the present site condition while fostering in situ processes, to optimize derived functions, for the maintenance of both habitat and wildlife over the long-term existence of the Preserve. (Sic.) Water Quality Impacts Petitioner does not contend in its proposed recommended order that the proposed project fails to meet applicable requirements regarding water quality. Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed permit modification would not violate State water quality standards. Flooding Petitioner contends in its proposed recommended order that the proposed permit modification would not meet applicable requirements regarding water quantity and flooding. However, Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the project would not violate these requirements. There are several aspects to a SWM system. Undeveloped land stores and conveys rainfall through soil and surface storage. An artificial SWM system alters the undeveloped land’s storage capacity by the addition of a storage and drainage system, such as, in this case, conveying water through the soil into storm drains and then to lakes to store surface runoff prior to release, through an outfall structure, into a receiving body of water--in this case, the M-1 canal. The SWM system hastens the conveyance of stormwater runoff offsite. The control elevation of a SWM system is the height at which water in the lakes will flow through the outfall structure into the receiving body of water. Except during the dry season, the control elevation tends to establish not only the water level of the SWM lakes, but also of the nearby water table. The hastening of drainage offsite with the establishment of control elevations produce the drawdown effect of SWM systems. As to flooding, the basic underlying dispute between Petitioner and Respondents is whether to use the pre- or post- development depth to water table. In determining whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance as to the impact of a proposed development on wetlands, one would project the effect of any post-development drawdown on the wetlands themselves and their functions and inhabitants. It would be illogical not to do the same in determining whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance as to the impact of a proposed development on flooding. Pre-development, the average depth to water table on Applicant’s property is as little as two feet. Post- development, the average depth to water table on Applicant’s property will be five feet, which is the difference between the control elevation of 14 feet NGVD and ground elevation of 19 feet NGVD. Petitioner’s evidence concerning flooding is flawed because its expert witness based his calculations on an average depth to water table of two feet on Applicant’s property. He did not adjust for the considerable drawdown effect of the SWM system. The District table allows for no more than four feet between the water table and ground, so there is an added margin of safety in the ensuing flooding calculations. Another important factor in the flooding calculations is the soil type in terms of permeability. The District properly characterized the prevailing soils as flatwoods, and the soils onsite are in the category of “good drainage.” Applicant’s suggestion that flooding calculations use the post-development soils is rejected. Post-development depths to water table are used because they can be calculated to predict post-development conditions accurately. Applicant produced no proof that it would replace such massive amounts of soil from the site with more permeable soils so as to justify reclassifying the soil type. The District's flooding calculations probably overstate the risk of flooding in the three-day, 100-year design storm because they ignore lake bank storage, which is the additional amount of water that a lake can store in its sloped banks above the typical water elevation. The District could have relied on the effect of lake bank storage for additional assurance that the proposed project will not result in flooding. The proposed project contains a large number of long, narrow lakes, which will thus have a relatively high percentage of lake banks to lake area. Additionally, the District has raised the minimum floor elevation at this site by two feet over 18 years. Whatever other effects may follow from this trend, the higher floor elevation offers additional protection to onsite improvements. The flooding of Petitioner’s property seven years ago understandably is a matter of concern to Petitioner. Applicant proposes to change the configuration of drainage basins, but the District has adequately addressed the drainage issue, and this is not the first time in the 20-year permitting history of this property that the District has approved a reconfiguration of basins. Also, in the 1988 Permit, the District incorrectly projected the direction of runoff under certain conditions. However, the flooding was partly due to inadequate road- drainage facilities. Following the flooding, the Original Developer enlarged these features and bermed the flooding wetlands, so as to eliminate the flooding of developed areas due to design storm events. On balance, Applicant has proved that the proposed permit modification would not adversely affect flooding or water quantity. Environmental Impacts A. Wetlands Petitioner contends in its proposed recommended order that the proposed permit modification would not meet applicable requirements regarding environmental impacts to wetlands. Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed work would not violate these requirements. There are two major deficiencies in the District's analysis of wetland impacts and mitigation or compensation. First, the proposed permit modification includes mitigation or compensation in the form of melaleuca removal. But prior permits have already required the same work, no one has ever done the work, and the District does not know if these permit requirements are still enforceable. Second, the proposed permit modification ignores 13.9 acres of preserved wetlands in the 1988 Permit, allowing their destruction without mitigation or compensation. The permitting process requires the District to balance the impacts of development and mitigation or compensation on the natural resources under the District's jurisdiction. Balancing these impacts in issuing the 1988 Permit, the District required the complete eradication of melaleuca in return for permitting the residential, institutional, and recreational development proposed by the Original Developer. District staff, not the Original Developer or Petitioner, called the Melaleuca Eradication Plan “the major environmental feature” of the development plan approved by the 1988 Permit. The major environmental feature of the 1988 Permit clearly justified significant development impacts on natural resources. To justify additional development impacts on natural resources, the District now proposes to count again another developer’s promise to eradicate the melaleuca. The District claims that the term of the original melaleuca protection plan was only ten years, not perpetual as is presently proposed. However, the District's claim ignores Special Condition 23 in the 1993 permit modification. This condition set a deadline of February 25, 1994, for the eradication of melaleuca and made perpetual the requirement that one or more of the potentially responsible parties--the Original Developer, Petitioner, Applicant, the bonded authority, the property owners' association, or transferees-- maintain the wetlands free of melaleuca and other exotics. Unfortunately, this “major environmental feature” of the 1988 Permit, as well as subsequent permit modifications, was so poorly drafted as to leave potentially responsible parties unsure of their legal obligations. The District tacitly suggests that it cannot enforce the obligations imposed by the 1988 Permits and later modifications for the eradication of melaleuca. But there is presently no reason for the District to resort again to permitting without first reviewing carefully its enforcement options. The District should first determine whether anyone will voluntarily assume these obligations. As a business consideration, Petitioner may choose to eradicate the melaleuca from the north parcel and 115-acre preserve to prevent Applicant from providing this service and claiming that it should receive compensation credit against additional environmental impacts permitted by a modification of the 1988 Permit. Maybe the County or Village has already budgeted funds for this work. If no party offers to perform the necessary work, the District must next determine its legal rights and the legal obligations of these parties. Depending on the results of this research, the District may need to consider litigation and the cessation of the issuance of construction and operation permits on the 900-acre parcel or either the north or south parcel. At this point, the District should discuss joint litigation or permit revocation with the Army Corps, whose 1994 permit requires the permittee to develop a bonded melaleuca-eradication program and apparently imposes on the permittee the responsibility to maintain all preserved areas free of melaleuca. Only after having exhausted these options may the District legitimately conclude that melaleuca eradication on any part of the 900 acres represents fair compensation for the development impacts on jurisdictional natural resources. The second major problem as to wetlands impacts concerns the calculation of wetlands acreages to be destroyed by the proposed permit. The 1988 Permit expressly incorporates the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. This program, as an operative part of the 1988 Permit, represents that the developer will “partially preserve. . .” nine wetlands totaling 13.9 acres. The partial preservation of wetlands does not mean that a five-acre wetland will remain a five-acre wetland, except that its function will be impaired. Partial preservation means that, for instance, two acres of a five- acre wetland will be preserved. It is impossible for the District to have required mitigation to offset the destruction of these 13.9 acres of wetlands because the District denies that the 1988 Permit required the partial preservation of these nine wetlands. As noted below, neither the District nor Applicant can identify all of the wetlands that make up the 13.9 acres. Rather than account for these wetlands that were to have been partially preserved, the District instead contends that this undertaking by the Original Developer was ineffective or nonbinding because it was overriden by contrary statements in the staff report. Not so. The specific provisions delineating the preserved wetlands area in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which was prepared by the Original Developer, override more general statements contained in the staff report accompanying the permit. There is not necessarily a conflict between the staff report and the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. The staff report states that the plan “includes the protection of approximately 100 acres of the best quality wetlands,” together with the creation of eight acres of golf course wetlands and 15 acres of lake littoral zones. The plan “includes” these wetlands among those preserved or created; the word suggests that the list is not exhaustive, but only illustrative. Alternatively, if the list were exhaustive, the preservation of “approximately” 100 acres reasonably encompasses the 112.71 acres of partially or totally preserved wetlands cited in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. More to the point, on October 26, 1987, Donald Wisdom, the engineer handling the 1988 Permit, prepared a memorandum for the file stating that the total acreage of wetlands to be preserved or created was 134.45. This figure represents an insignificant deviation of 0.19 acres from the total listed in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which was dated six weeks later, on December 8, 1987. In the October 26 memorandum, Mr. Wisdom describes the preserved wetlands as 111.46 acres of A- and B-quality wetlands. This is 1.25 acres less than the acreage in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. These small discrepancies were eliminated by November 18, 1987, when Mr. Wisdom wrote a memorandum noting that the program called for the total preservation of 98.81 acres and partial preservation of 13.9 acres. Adding the created wetlands, the new total for preserved or created wetlands was 134.64 acres. A month later, a District employee wrote a memorandum to the file, expressing his “main concern” that the proposed development would protect only 99 acres of wetlands. It is unclear why the employee mentioned only the 98.81 acres slated for preservation. Perhaps he was confused or mistaken. But the misgivings of a single employee do not constitute the rejection by the District of a developer's proposal to preserve nearly 14 acres of high-quality wetlands. The staff report for the 1988 Permit notes that the 900-acre site contained about 281 acres of wetlands. If the 1988 Permit required the preservation, as an entire wetland or part of a larger wetland, of 112 acres of wetlands, then the 1988 Permit allowed the destruction of 169 acres, which is consistent with the 164 and 158 acres allowed to be destroyed by the 1988 and 1994 Army Corps permits. However, by the 1996 permit modification, the staff report refers, without explanation or justification, to the permitted destruction of 183.54 acres of wetlands--evidently adding the 13.9 acres to the 169 acres previously permitted to be destroyed. Tab 13 of the Wisdom bluebook identifies the nine wetlands constituting the 13.9 acres, which are entirely in Applicant's south parcel. Except for three, all of these wetlands were characterized as A-quality, meaning that they are in good to excellent condition and “have not been stressed significantly from the biological viewpoint.” B-quality wetlands are in disturbed condition and “are in various stages of biological stress caused primarily by a lowered water table and/or melaleuca invasion.” C-quality wetlands are highly disturbed and “are substantially degraded biologically.” The 13.9 acres of wetlands comprise wetland numbers 23 (0.5 acres), 46 (0.4 acres), 44 (0.6 acres), 37 (0.4 acres), 29 (1.1 acres), 20 [sometimes misreported as 21] (3.9 acres), 30 (2.6 acres), 16 (1.5 acres), and 14 (2.9 acres). Wetland numbers 46 and 29 are B-quality, and wetland number 20 is C-quality. The wetlands shown in District Exhibit 4 and Applicant Exhibit 3 inaccurately portray the wetlands constituting the missing 13.9 acres. A internal memorandum to the file notwithstanding, the District predicated the 1988 Permit in part on the preservation of 112.71 acres of functioning wetlands, including the 13.9 acres that the District now disclaims. The mitigation and compensation required of Applicant in the present case ignored the destruction of these wetlands. The District's analysis of mitigation and compensation in this case was fatally flawed by these two deficiencies. But more deficiencies exist in the District's analysis of wetland impacts. The District relied on faulty data in reviewing Applicant's request for a permit modification. Undercounting the extent of wetlands by at least 21 acres and their condition by an indeterminable amount, Applicant presented to the District a materially inaccurate picture of the wetland resources on the south parcel. Despite disclaimers to the contrary, the District relied on this inaccurate data in reviewing Applicant's request for a permit modification. There are possible problems with 39.5-acre preserve offered by Applicant. This parcel contains less than nine acres of wetlands, including two wetlands that Applicant may already be required to preserve under the 1994 Army Corps permit. At the same time, Applicant's proposal may include the destruction of a third wetland that is to be preserved under the 1994 Army Corps permit. The best rendering in the record of the 1994 Army Corps permit may be Applicant Exhibit 4, which shows eight large wetland areas to be “preserved/enhanced/created.” Two of these are the 10- and 30-acre wetlands on Petitioner’s property, which were preserved in the 1988 Permit. Three of the eight wetlands are in the 115-acre preserve; these were also preserved in the 1988 Permit. The remaining three wetlands to be preserved, enhanced, or created under the 1994 Army Corps permit are in the north end of Applicant’s property. It is difficult to estimate acreage given the scale of the drawing, but the two westerly wetlands are about 4-5 acres each and the easterly wetland is 3-3.5 acres. Subtracting the total preserved acreage of 110 from the acreage identified in the preceding paragraph, the total acreage of these remaining three wetlands is about 12. The two westerly wetlands are in the 39.5-acre preserve that Applicant offers as mitigation in the present case. According to Applicant Exhibit 6, the easterly wetland, or at least the most valuable part of it--the center--is slated for destruction if the District grants the subject permit modification. The proposed destruction of the third wetland is a matter of greater interest to the Army Corps than to the District, but the offer to preserve the other two wetlands really does not provide anything in return for the permitted development impacts because these two wetlands are already preserved under the 1994 Army Corps permit. As the District and Applicant contend, golf course marshes and littoral zones are typically of little environmental importance. Although the 1988 Permit addresses some of these problems, although without supplying any performance standards, golf courses themselves are often conduits of fertilizers and pesticides into the groundwater and nearby surface water. The District and Applicant justifiably question the value of the golf courses approved in the 1988 Permit as wildlife corridors. It is unclear what wildlife would use the corridor, which is surrounded by residential development and bounded by Okeechobee Boulevard. Other factors also militate in favor of Applicant's proposal. But, as the record presently stands, there is no way to find that Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed development and related mitigation and compensation, as described in the subject permit modification, meet the applicable criteria. The District substantially undervalued the environmental impacts of the proposed modification while substantially overvaluing the environmental impacts of Applicant's proposed contributions in the form of mitigation and compensation. To find adequate assurance as to wetland impacts in these circumstances, where the District did not perform an informed balancing of various impacts in a large-scale development, would permit the District to transform the unavoidably imprecise task of balancing wetland impacts into an act of pure, unreviewable discretion. Listed Species The only relevant listed species onsite is the gopher tortoise, which is a species of special concern. Gopher tortoises use the site to an undetermined extent. Applicant's suggestion that someone brought the tortoises to the site is rejected as improbable. However, due to the resolution of the wetlands issue, it is unnecessary to determine whether Applicant provided reasonable assurance as to the value of functions provided to wildlife and listed species by wetlands. Procedural Issues A. Standing Petitioner has standing due most obviously to flooding considerations. Additionally, the SWM system permitted in 1988 is for the entire 900-acre parcel, of which Petitioner’s parcel is a part. Applicability of ERP Rules The proposed permit modification would substantially affect water resources. The proposed permit modification would substantially increase the adverse effect on water resources. Requirement to Delineate Wetlands Due to the resolution of the wetlands issue, it is unnecessary to determine whether Applicant met applicable requirements concerning the delineation of wetlands. Improper Purpose Petitioner did not challenge the proposed permit modification for an improper purpose. Relevant Provisions of Basis of Review The District revised its Basis of Review after the adoption of ERP rules. Although the order concludes that the District should have applied the ERP rules, and thus the ERP Basis of Review, the order shall discuss both versions of the Basis of Review because the District ignored numerous provisions of both documents in approving Applicant's request for a permit modification. Section 4.6 MSSW Basis of Review requires the District to consider "actual impact" to the site by "considering the existing natural system as altered by the proposed project[,]" including "positive and negative environmental impacts." Section 4.6 requires the District to "balance" these impacts "to achieve a reasonable degree of protection for significant environmental features consistent with the overall protection of the water resources of the District." The proposed permit modification fails to comply with several provisions of Appendix 7 of the MSSW Basis of Review, such as Sections 4.2 requiring a detailed description of the isolated wetlands to be destroyed; 5.1.1(d) favoring the protection of isolated wetlands over their destruction, mitigation, and compensation, which are considered "only when there are no feasible project design alternatives"; and 5.1.6 prohibiting the alteration of water tables so as to affect adversely isolated wetlands. The proposed permit modification also violates various provisions of the ERP Basis of Review. Section 4.0 of the ERP Basis of Review sets the goal of permitting to be "no net loss in wetland . . . functions." Sections 4.2 and following generally require balancing. Section 4.2.1 predicates District approval on a showing that the SWM system does not cause a "net adverse impact on wetland functions . . . which is not offset by mitigation." The ERP provisions first require that the District "explore" with an applicant the minimization of impacts prior to considering mitigation. Section 4.2.2.4(c) specifically imposes monitoring requirements for SWM systems that "could have the effect of altering water levels in wetlands." Sections 4.3.2.2 and following discuss mitigation ratios under the ERP Basis of Review. If the District can explicate a policy to count as mitigation wetlands acreage already preserved under Army Corps permits, the ratios in this case might warrant further consideration, assuming Applicant resubmits an application for permit modification. But it would be premature to consider the ratios on the present record for several reasons. The District has not proved such a policy. If such a policy counts such wetland acreage, on the theory that the District protects function and the Army Corps protects merely the wetland, the record is insufficiently developed as to the functions of the wetlands proposed for protection, as well as the functions of the 13.9 acres of wetlands proposed for destruction. Also, the District has not sufficiently explored project minimization, as is now required under the ERP Basis of Review.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the District enter a final order denying Applicant's request for a permit modification. ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 13, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 13, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey D. Kneen John F. Mariani J. Barry Curtain Levy Kneen 1400 Centrepark Boulevard, Suite 1000 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Ronald K. Kolins Thomas A. Sheehan, III Moyle Flanigan Post Office Box 3888 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 John J. Fumero Marcy I. LaHart Office of Counsel South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Samuel E. Poole, III Executive Director Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for an environmental resource permit to remove two canal plugs in the Cahill canal system should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact The proposed project On March 19, 1998, Petitioner Cahill submitted a permit application to the Department to remove two canal plugs in the Cahill Pines and Palms subdivision on Big Pine key. A backhoe would be used to dredge and lower the plugs to a depth of minus five feet mean low water (-5 ft. MLW) for the purpose of providing boating access to the properties now isolated from open water. The Cahill canal system is located within class III waters of the state which open into Pine Channel, a natural waterbody designated as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). In 1991 and 1995 Petitioner Cahill submitted permit applications to the Department to remove the same two canal plugs. Those applications were initially denied and the denials were litigated in formal administrative hearings. Those hearings resulted in Department final orders denying both applications.3 Background4 In July, 1991, the Department received a permit application requesting the removal of two canal plugs down to a depth of minus five-and-a-half feet NGVD. A formal administrative hearing was conducted on March 3 and 4, 1994, in Key West, Florida, before Stuart M. Lerner, a duly designated Hearing Officer (now Administrative Law Judge) of the Division of Administrative Hearings. That initial permit application denial was based upon water quality considerations and the project's failure to meet the public interest test. On May 17, 1995, Petitioner submitted a permit application to the Department which was denied. The basis for the permit denial was that the project was substantially similar to the previously litigated project. On April 23, 1996, a second formal administrative hearing was held in Key West, Florida, before Administrative Law Judge Susan B. Kirkland. Judge Kirkland found that the 1995 permit application did not address the issues raised by the Department in the first administrative hearing. Judge Kirkland also concluded that the 1995 application should be denied on the basis of res judicata. The Department entered a Final Order on September 12, 1996, concluding that the doctrine of res judicata applied to support the denial of Petitioner's 1995 application. New facts/changed conditions In all material aspects, the proposed dredging activity in the current permit application is identical to the previously proposed dredging activity. Petitioner Cahill seeks to lower the two canal plugs to allow boat access. The documents submitted in support of the current application do not propose any significant changes to what was proposed in the two prior applications. Petitioner Cahill provided copies of provisions of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan and two Monroe County Ordinances, in support of the current permit application. This information does not constitute new facts or changed conditions sufficient to characterize the proposed project as substantially different from the previously denied applications. Petitioner Cahill provided a list of "enhancements" in the current permit application seeking to provide reasonable assurance for issuance of an environmental resource permit. These proposed "enhancements" are not binding on the Petitioner Cahill's members and do not constitute such new facts or changed conditions as to make the project substantially different from the previously denied applications. The differences between the current application and the two previously denied applications are primarily cosmetic differences. The substance of the matter is unchanged in any material detail.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case denying Petitioner's pending application for an environmental resource permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1998.
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether the Respondent, Roy Palmer, is entitled to a Noticed General Environmental Resource Permit, under Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-341, and a Consent of Use under Florida Administrative Code Chapter 18-21.
Findings Of Fact Procedural History On or about February 13, 1995, the Respondent, Roy Palmer (Palmer), applied for a wetland resource permit to construct a 395-foot boat dock for use at his single-family residence at property he owned on Sarasota Bay, an Outstanding Florida Water. As proposed, this dock was to originate from the northern part of Palmer's property and have a terminal platform with two boat moorings and two boat lifts. On September 1, 1995, the Department of Environmental Protection (the Department or DEP) gave notice of intent to issue a permit for a shorter (370-foot) dock originating from the southern part of the Palmer property. The Petitioners filed a petition for administrative hearing challenging the intended action. DEP referred the petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), where it was assigned DOAH Case No. 95-5311. On or about December 11, 1995, Palmer applied for a noticed general environmental resource permit (ERP) permit for his dock under new DEP rules went into effect on October 3, 1995. This proposal was for the 370-foot dock originating from the southern part of the Palmer property. On or about January 10, 1996, DEP acknowledged receipt of the noticed general ERP (No. 582819483) and informed Palmer that it appeared to meet the requirements of the new rule. DEP also gave notice of intent to grant Palmer's application for consent of use of sovereign submerged lands necessary to construct the dock. (The record is not clear when the application for consent of use was filed.) The Petitioners filed a petition for administrative hearing challenging agency action regarding both the noticed general ERP and the consent of use. DEP also referred this petition to DOAH, where it was assigned DOAH Case No. 96-0736. Palmer withdrew the original permit application and moved to dismiss DOAH Case No. 95-5311. In July, 1996, Palmer applied for a noticed general ERP to build a still shorter (232-foot) dock originating from the southern part of the Palmer property (Permit No. 292583). Apparently, no notice of the application was published or required to be published. It is not clear whether the Petitioners "filed a written request for notification of any pending applications affecting the particular area in which the proposed activity is to occur." Palmer's second noticed general ERP (No. 292583) was amended on or about August 19, 1996, to eliminate one boat mooring and one boat lift. DEP took no action on Palmer's second application for a noticed general ERP No. 292583. On September 23, 1996, Palmer filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Administrative Proceeding in DOAH Case No. 96-0736 because he had withdrawn the previous application for a noticed general ERP for a 370-foot dock (No. 582819483) and was proceeding only on the second noticed general ERP (No. 292583) for the 232foot dock. Palmer's intent was to dismiss only the portion of his prior application regarding the noticed general permit, but not the consent of use. On October 28, 1996, the Petitioners filed a petition for administrative hearing challenging noticed general ERP No. 292583 for the 232-foot dock. This petition alleged that the Petitioners filed a written objection to noticed general ERP No. on September 16, 1996, which requested a written response, and that no response of any kind was received until the Petitioners inquired and were told that DEP did not intend to respond to either the noticed general ERP (No. 292583) or the Petitioners' objection. Proposed Dock at Issue The proposal at issue is for a 227-foot access pier and 20 foot by 5 foot terminal platform with only one boat mooring and one boat lift. The length, location, and design of Palmer's proposed dock was changed in an attempt to satisfy the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP or the Department) and Palmer's neighbors. Palmer's task in this regard was difficult in part because a longer dock with a terminus in deeper water could have less impact on seagrasses (the major environmental concern) but would have a greater impact on the neighbors' views of Sarasota Bay (the major infringement of riparian rights concern.) In the final version, Palmer tried to balance these conflicting concerns. As proposed, neither the terminal platform, boat lift, nor mooring location occurs over submerged grassbeds, coral communities or wetlands. Starting at the mean high water line, the first 75 feet of the access pier for the proposed dock will traverse essentially no sea grasses. In the next 75 feet to 150 feet of the access pier, there will be approximately 80% vegetative cover consisting primarily of the seagrass halodule wrightii. Between 150 feet and 200 feet, there will be approximately 20% vegetative cover consisting of the seagrasses halodule wrightii and thalassia testudinum. Between 200 feet and 232 feet, seagrasses consisted primarily of thalassia testudinum, except that the terminal platform is located in an area of essentially bare sand. Starting at 80 feet from the mean high water line, the access pier for the proposed dock will ramp up to 5 feet above mean high water for the next 20 linear feet and continue at that elevation for the next 112 feet to reduce shading of the seagrasses. Then it will descend stairs for the next 5 linear feet, until it is 3.5 feet above mean high water, and will continue at that elevation for 10 more feet to where it joins the 20 foot by 5 foot terminal platform. In this way, wherever it traverses seagrasses, the access walkway portion of the pier will be elevated 5 feet above mean high water. The access walkway will be only 4 feet wide and will have half-inch wide gaps between its deck boards to allow sunlight through and further reduce shading of the seagrasses. The access walkway also will have handrails that are maintained in such a manner as to prevent use of the access walkways for boat mooring or access. As proposed, the terminal platform and boat lift occurs in a location with minimum depth of 2.2 feet below the mean low water level. There is some water 1.7 feet deep in the vicinity of the terminal platform, but the structure can be used without traversing the shallow water. The structure is designed so that boat mooring and navigational access will be in water at least 2 feet deep. Including access pier and terminal platform, the total area of Palmer's proposed dock over sovereign, submerged land would be 1,008 square feet. There will be no wet bars or living quarters over wetlands or surface waters or on the pier, and there will be no structures enclosed by walls or doors. There will be no fish cleaning facilities, boat repair facilities or equipment, or fueling facilities on the proposed dock. No overboard discharges of trash, human, or animal waste, or fuel will occur from the dock. The only dredging or filling associated with construction of Palmer's proposed dock will be the minimum dredge and fill required for installation of the actual pilings for the pier, terminal platform, and boat lift. Altogether, less than 30 square feet of bay bottom will be disturbed during construction and displaced to accommodate the pilings. Palmer's noticed general ERP is subject to the general conditions set out in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 341.427. Among those conditions is the requirement that Palmer implement best management practices for erosion, turbidity, and other pollution control to prevent violation of state water quality standards. The pilings will be jetted, not driven, into place to minimize disturbance of the bay bottom and temporary increases in turbidity. Turbidity barriers will be installed and maintained in a functional condition at each piling until construction is completed and soils are stabilized and vegetation has been established. Used properly, turbidity barriers have proved effective in containing temporary turbidity from dock construction. Based on the expert testimony, it is found that the construction of Palmer's proposed dock will not significantly impact seagrasses. The Petitioners presented expert testimony on seagrasses, but their expert testified only generally based on studies showing that shading negatively impacts seagrasses. He had no prior knowledge of the Palmer dock design, seagrass coverage, or the depth of the water. When apprised of some information concerning Palmer's proposed dock, he admitted that the studies involved far more severe shading conditions than would be caused by the proposed dock. He could not testify that the Palmer dock design would harm seagrasses, with the exception of those actually removed by the installation of the pilings. Accidental boat propeller dredging in using a dock can be a secondary impact on seagrasses from dock construction. But while a dock could perhaps attract a few boats, the dock's presence also might cause boaters to steer clear of the dock or reduce speed in the vicinity of the dock, which could result in a net reduction in the risk of damage to seagrasses from accidental prop dredging. Petitioners Dr. Franklin Pfeiffenberger, James Castoro, and Winifred Castoro jointly own a dock to the south of the Palmer property. This dock, which was built in the 1930's, projects 190 feet into Sarasota Bay and traverses seagrasses. Unlike the proposed Palmer dock, the Pfeiffenberger dock is not elevated, and it terminates in seagrasses. The seagrasses under the Pfeiffenberger dock are the same types as those located in the Palmer dock alignment--a combination of halodule wrightii and thalassia testudinum. The dock has been rebuilt a number of times over the years. Upon physical inspection, apparently healthy and growing seagrasses were found underneath the Pfeiffenberger dock. The proposed dock will not harm wildlife, including manatees (the only endangered species in the area, animal or plant). Manatees use Sarasota Bay in general, but the east side of the bay, where the Palmer property is located, is not a high use area. It is shallow and would not be considered "select" habitat for manatees. The proposed dock would not have any detrimental effect on manatee travel patterns; they could easily swim around the dock. Manatees eat seagrasses and other aquatic vegetation, but the proposed dock will not have significant adverse impact on those resources. Finally, while a dock could perhaps attract a few boats, the dock's presence also might cause boaters to steer clear of the dock or reduce speed in the vicinity of the dock, which could result in a net reduction in the risk of injury to manatees in the area from boat collisions and prop scarring. Except for temporary turbidity during construction, no other water quality parameters will be violated as a result of the construction of Palmer's proposed dock. Palmer's proposed dock and its use will not significantly impede navigability in Sarasota Bay. The bay is approximately 18,000 feet wide at that point, and it is approximately 4,800 feet from Palmer's property to the Intracoastal Waterway. Since the water is shallow near shore in the vicinity of the Palmer property, relatively few boats frequent the area. Those that do are generally smaller boats. These boats easily could navigate so as to avoid the dock; very small boats, such as canoes and kayaks, might even be able to carefully pass under the elevated portion of the dock. Palmer's proposed dock also would not be a serious impediment to other recreational uses of Sarasota Bay in the area. The water is too shallow for swimming. Fishing could improve because the dock could attract baitfish. People could continue to wade-fish by walking around or even under the proposed dock. Palmer's proposed dock is aesthetically consistent with the area in which it is located. All the Petitioners have some sort of man-made structure projecting out into Sarasota Bay from their property. As already mentioned, Dr. Pfeiffenberger and the Castoros have a 190-foot dock projecting straight out into Sarasota Bay. Within the past five years, Dr. Pfeiffenberger has installed a bench to sit on at the end of the dock. To the north of the Palmer property, property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Cabaniss has a yacht basin formed by a sea wall that projects roughly perpendicular to the shoreline out into the bay. Immediately north of the Cabaniss property, there is a boat house on the Goldman property where it abuts the yacht basin. The Goldmans' boat house is approximately 20 feet in length and 10 feet in height from ground level. Immediately south of the Palmer property, Ms. Stenhouse has a small dock (which appears to be located over seagrasses.) As a result, the viewsheds of Palmer and the Petitioners already contain many docks and man- made structures. In addition, the Ringling Causeway and bridge can be seen from all of these properties. Palmer's proposed dock will appear in some views from the Petitioners' properties. Generally, the closer the neighbor, the more will be seen of Palmer's proposed dock. Some of the Petitioners will only be able to see the proposed dock if they go out to the westerly edge of their properties on the bay. While the proposed dock will appear in and alter these views, it will not eliminate any Petitioner's view of Sarasota Bay. Even the closest neighbors will have some unobstructed views around the proposed dock. It also will be possible to see over and under the proposed dock, similar to the way in which many of the Petitioners now enjoy their views. There are tall pine and palm trees on the Cabaniss property between their house and their view of the bay. Most of the other properties in the vicinity appear to have similar viewsheds. Ms. Stenhouse has a large stand of mangroves of the western edge of her property; they cover approximately 60 percent of the panorama from her house, but they are trimmed up so she can see through them. While some people would prefer not to have the Palmer dock there, other people might view the availability of single- family residential docks to be an asset to the properties in the neighborhood. Based on expert testimony, it cannot be found that property values in the area would go down as a result of Palmer's proposed dock. Palmer's proposed dock does little if anything to further the idealistic goals and objectives of the City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan and the Sarasota Bay Management Plan to restore and expand seagrasses in Sarasota Bay in that the proposed dock will eliminate some seagrasses. However, only approximately 30 square feet of seagrasses will be lost. Otherwise, the proposed dock is consistent with other goals and objectives of the City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan and the Sarasota Bay Management Plan in that the dock has been aligned and planned so as to minimize impacts on seagrasses while balancing the neighbors' desire to minimize the impact on their views of Sarasota Bay. Palmer's Riparian Rights Palmer and his wife received a Warranty Deed, dated August 27, 1993, from James Kirk, II, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Marie Ferguson. The deed describes Lots 27 and 28 of the Indian Beach subdivision in Sarasota, Florida, with a western boundary "along the shores of Sarasota Bay." Palmer attached this deed to his applications. Since at least November 1992, the mean high water line of Sarasota Bay has been west of a seawall on the Palmer property. The evidence was clear that the seawall has been there since at least 1944 and that Palmer has not filled the area to the west of the seawall or built any structure that influences its existence. The evidence was not clear as to the creation and history of upland to the west of the seawall. From aerial photographs, it appears that at least some upland has existed to the west of the seawall at least from time to time for at least the last 30 years. For reasons no witness could explain, the Palmers also received a Warranty Deed from Kirk, dated September 3, 1993, purporting to convey title only up to the seawall on the Palmer property. Likewise for reasons no witness could explain, a land surveyor named Lawrence R. Weber prepared a boundary survey based on the description in the September 3, 1993, Warranty Deed. Also for reasons no witness could explain, the Palmers received a Quit Claim Deed from Kirk, dated October 20, 1993. This instrument quitclaimed to the Palmers "all of the Grantor's property to the mean high water line of Sarasota Bay, including riparian rights." Except for the mysterious September 3, 1993, Warranty Deed from Kirk, all deeds in the chain of title back to at least 1944 reflect an intention to convey riparian rights. A deed given by Helen and Frederick Delaute to Cecilia and Harold Wilkins, dated April 19, 1944, described the westerly boundary of the property as running northerly along the shores of Sarasota Bay and specifically referenced riparian rights. (This deed attached a survey showing the still-existing seawall.) The next deed in the chain of title was from the widowed Cecilia S. Wilkins to Edward and Laura Williams dated December 27, 1954. The metes and bounds description again referenced the westerly boundary as running along the shores of Sarasota Bay and specifically referenced foreshore accretions and riparian rights. The next deed in the chain of title was from Edward and Laura Williams to Aidan and Wilma E. Dewey dated June 30, 1958. This deed again defined the westerly boundaries of the property as the shores of Sarasota Bay and specifically referenced foreshore accretions and riparian rights. The next deed in the chain of title was from Aidan and Wilma Dewey to Edward and Marie Ferguson dated August 23, 1967. This deed again defined the westerly boundary of the property as the shores of Sarasota Bay and specifically referenced foreshore accretions and riparian rights.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order issuing Noticed General Environmental Resource Permit (No. 292583) and Consent of Use (No. 582819483) to Roy Palmer. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Filson, Esquire Filson and Penge, P.A. 2727 South Tamiami Trail, Suite 2 Sarasota, Florida 34239 Thomas I. Mayton, Esquire T. Andrew Zodrow, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 David M. Levin, Esquire Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg Post Office Box 4195 Sarasota, Florida 34237 Alexandra St. Paul, Esquire The Riverview Center 1111 3rd Avenue, West Suite 350 Bradenton, Florida 34205 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Office of General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Office of General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue is whether Largo Bayside, Inc., is entitled to a permit to alter mangroves on property it owns in Key Largo, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Largo Bayside, Inc., owns a condominium development located in Key Largo, Florida. There is a water body immediately outside the condominium units which is bounded by the mangrove berm which is approximately 4 acres in size. Florida Bay is on the other side of the berm. The view of Florida Bay is, to some extent, obstructed by the mangroves. Largo Bayside proposes to trim an area of mangroves in the center of the berm that is approximately two acres wide down to a height of 13 feet above grade, in order to provide its condominium owners with an improved view of Florida Bay. The berm's forest is 95 percent black mangroves. There are some red mangroves on the edges of the berm. The black mangroves are highest near the shore, and at the north end of the berm where they are approximately 25 feet high. About one half of the mangroves are not above the proposed trimming height of 13 feet. There is some wildlife at the site, but there is no nesting community of birds. Boat traffic from a nearby marina on Key Largo tends to keep birds from nesting there, although they do roost there. The proposed trimming will change the structural diversity of the mangrove forest which could result in a slight reduction in the diversity of the fauna. There is no reason to believe that there would be fewer birds roosting the mangroves after trimming. The applicant has agreed to a number of special conditions which the Department proposed on April 22, 1988, which will mitigate any environmental damage resulting from the trimming. These include: No alteration shall occur within a 120 feet of the north property line or within the section of the mangrove forest within 100 feet of the dock along the northeast side of the marina. This limits the trimming to the entire mangrove forest, but will permit improved visual access for all of the condominium units. There shall be no alteration of red mangroves, nor of any mangrove with an unaltered height of 20 feet or greater. Mangroves will be trimmed to height of 13 feet above grade. The pruning shall be limited to those branches and mangrove trunks less than 2 inches in diameter. all large branches, stems and limbs will be removed by hand from the forest after trimming to greatest extent practical. Fallen leaves and small trim debris will remain on the forest floor and all trimming shall be done by hand. By accepting the buffer zones along the north property line and the dock along the northeast side of the marina, Largo Bayside has given up the ability to exercise an exemption from the mangrove alteration rules, Rule 17- 27.060(2), Florida Administrative Code, which would have allowed it to trim all the mangroves to 75 percent of their original height. The permit that the Department proposes to issue allows some trees to be trimmed to less than 75 percent of their original height, but prohibits red mangroves from being trimmed. On balance, the extent of the mangrove alteration permitted is much less than what would have been allowed if Largo Bayside had merely exercised the exemption that is available to it. The mangrove alteration will have no impact on water quality or an adverse impact on fish or other wildlife.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order issuing Permit 441398145 to Largo Bay Side, Inc., to trim mangroves adjacent to its property with the special conditions contained in the Notice of Intent to Issue which had been served on the applicant on April 22, 1988. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of January, 1989. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th of January, 1989. APPENDIX The following are my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the petitioners pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1987). Rulings on DER's proposed findings of fact. Covered in finding of fact l. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 4b. Covered in finding of fact 4a. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Leland D. Egland 13340 North Calusa Club Road Miami, Florida 33186 Michael Halpern, Esquire 209 Duval Street Key West, Florida 33040 Richard Grosso, Esquire State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing relating to the issue of jurisdiction, the following relevant facts are found: On or about March 28, 1979, respondents T.V. Rodriquez and Trafalgar Developers of Florida, Inc. filed with the Department of Environmental Regulation an application for a permit to conduct dredge and fill activities on a 2.3 acre area located within a 495 acre planned unit development in Orlando. The 2.3 acre tract is located in a cypress swamp area in the northeast portion of the development site. The application sought authority to excavate 2,000 cubic yards of material for the installation of a five foot diameter drainage culvert, and to backfill the installed pipe with 3,000 cubic yards of fill material. All of the construction activity was to be confined to the 2.3 acre tract which, as noted above, was a cypress swamp area interior to the project boundaries. While there were no other property owners immediately adjacent to the cypress swamp upon which the dredging and filling was to occur, the applicants did provide for notification purposes the names of two property owners which were the closest, although not adjacent, to the proposed project site. Neither the petitioners nor the intervenors in this proceeding were among the two names provided. The Department of Environmental Regulation reviewed the application and, on April 5, 1980, requested further infor- mation. Upon receipt of this information, an employee of DER, Jim Morgan, conducted a field inspection of the dredge and fill site on May 10, 1979. It was Mr. Morgan's conclusion that the proposed project would result in the elimination of approxi- mately three percent of the wetlands associated with the eastern boundary of the 495 acre development, and would not significantly impact the remaining portion of the wetland community. Mr. Morgan recommended that the application be approved, with two specific conditions. One condition pertained to the containment of turbidity at the project site if the site is inundated during construction. The other condition pertained to a proposed swale for outfall of a planned ditch system for the drainage of the 495 acre planned unit development. On May 18, 1979, the Department of Environmental Regulation issued Permit No. 48-18682-4E to respondents to excavate 2,000 cubic yards of material for the installation of a five foot diameter drainage culvert and to backfill the installed pipe with 3,000 cubic yards of fill material suitable for use as-a golf course foundation. The permit contained the specific conditions recommended by Mr. Morgan. Specific Condition Number 1 reads as follows: "(1) The drainage plan for this proposed 495 acre planned unit development will require the lowering of the water table via way of a planned ditch system, thus making development feasible. This ditch system will ultimately [sici discharge to an existing county canal via way of a proposed swale, which is exempt from this department's per- mitting pursuant to Chapter 17-4.04(10)(k). A swale conveys water only during and immediately after the advent of a storm. This installation must conform to this explicit definition, otherwise, additional dredge and fill permits will be required, including the entire development's drainage facility. Upon completion of the development, this department shall be notified and periodic inspections will be performed by the department's staff to determine if the outfall conforms with the definition of a swale." By letters to DER dated August 20, 1979, the petitioners herein stated that they had just been informed on August 17, 1979, of the issuance of the subject permit to the respondents. Their original letters to the DER, as well as their amended and restated petition, claim that, as owners of property located adjacent to the property upon which the drainage project would be conducted pursuant to the subject permit, they were entitled to notice prior to the issuance of the permit and that their substantial interest will be affected by the drainage project authorized by said permit. The petitioners Frances Bandy and Charles R. Bandy own Lot 14 in Golden Acres which is a considerable distance from the 2.3 acre tract upon which respondents are permitted to conduct dredging and filling activities. The petitioners Anna and Lee Rowe and Fay M. Handy own Lots 20 and 21 in Golden Acres, as well as a five acre lake. These lots and lake are even further from the permitted dredge and fill site. None of the petitioners own property which is adjacent to the permitted 2.3 acre site. Betty J. Hardy, Wayne Hardy and Vista Landscaping Inc. moved to intervene in this proceeding by motion dated March 5, 1980. An amended motion to intervene was filed on March 17, 1980, adding Julian T. Hardy as a named party intervenor. The intervenors own and have a business interest in property located a considerable distance south of the permitted 2.3 acres. The intervenors conduct a wholesale nursery business on their property. Their complaint lies with the effect that the proposed drainage of the entire 495 acre development and the alleged drainage ditch located on property contiguous to their property will have on their property and business interests. As of the time of the hearing on March 18, 1980, construction pursuant to the permit issued on May 18, 1979, was approximately ninety-five percent (95 percent) complete.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the petitioners request for an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1) be dismissed, with prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of April, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Cleatous J. Simmons Lowndes, Drosdick and Doster Post Office Box 2809 Orlando, Florida 32802 Roger D. Schwenke Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanual, Smith and Cutler, P.A. Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601 Stanley J. Niego Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Jacob Varn Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues are (1) whether Respondents, Frank H. and Linda M. Molica, dredged and filled wetlands on their property in Merritt Island, Brevard County (County), Florida, without a permit and should take certain corrective actions, and (2) whether Respondents' activities are exempt from permitting under Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In 1990, Respondents purchased a 3.47-acre, rectangular- shaped parcel at 2050 North Tropical Trail, Merritt Island, Florida, which is located within the regulatory jurisdiction of the District. See § 373.069, Fla. Stat. The parcel identification number is 24-36-15-00-00764-00000.00. The property is less than a mile south of State Road 528 (A1A), approximately one-half mile west of State Road 3 (North Courtney Parkway), and around one-half mile east of the Indian River. The property is bounded on its western side by a roadway known as North Tropical Trail, on the south side by a drainage ditch, and on the east side by another drainage ditch. Further to the east of the drainage ditch on the eastern side of the property are a holding pond and a subdivision known as Copperfield Subdivision developed in 1993, while a nursery is located just south of the drainage ditch on the southern side. The northern boundary of the parcel is five hundred twenty feet long and is adjoined by a vacant parcel of land similar in size to the Molica parcel and which is owned by the Lacanos. The Lacano property is largely a wetland. To the north of the Lacano property is a parcel owned by the Stricklands. Historically, the natural flow of water in the area was north to south, that is, from the Stricklands to the Lacanos to the Molica's property, and then to the drainage ditch on the south side of the Molica's property. When Respondents purchased the property in 1990, citrus trees were located "mostly in the front half," or western side of the property, "but they were also located in the rear scattered throughout." There was also "weed grass" or "mini grass" throughout the entire parcel. In 2002 or 2003, the citrus industry was economically hurt by a drop in prices due to various problems, and it became difficult to find fruit pickers or purchasers for the fruit. Because of these conditions, and pursuant to a recommendation by another citrus grower, Respondents state that they began to "transform their property to palm tree production." In late 2003, Respondents began removing orange trees and clearing the land; this continued throughout 2004. At the same time, they began to remove vegetation from the eastern half of the property, which included the excavation of the vegetation, soil, and roots. This was accomplished by the use of heavy equipment, including a tracked cab with hoe, a bobcat with front end loader bucket and root rake, and a wheeled tractor with front end root rake. This is confirmed by photographs taken of the property in April and December 2004. See District Exhibits 8 through 10. Also, a few cabbage palms were removed that were damaged during the clearing process, as well as trees damaged by hurricanes that struck the east coast of Florida in 2004. The vegetation and soil were trucked off-site for disposal, and new soil or fill was placed throughout the eastern half of the property in which vegetation and soil had been excavated. In some cases, the fill measured as high as thirty-three inches but averaged around one foot in height. There is no dispute that dredging (or excavation) and filling on the property occurred. Respondents did not obtain an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) before performing this work. On December 13, 2004, the County received a complaint (generated by Mrs. Strickland, the neighbor to the north) about "heavy machinery operating in a wetland" on the Molica property. Mr. Pinnick, who was charged with enforcement of County environmental ordinances, visited the subject property to determine whether a violation of an ordinance had occurred. He observed heavy machinery operating on the central and eastern sides of the property and took several photographs of the site. See District Exhibit 12. He also observed vegetation and muck soil in the disturbed area and standing water in the ditch to the south and concluded that wetlands were being impacted. It is fair to infer that he then notified the DEP about the incident. On December 15, 2004, Mr. Pinnick, accompanied by two DEP employees, Mr. West and his supervisor, Ms. Booker, visited the site and met Mr. Molica and his consultant. At that time, "clearing and [dredging and filling] of wetland at rear [or east end] of Molica's property [was observed]." See District Exhibit 49. The DEP requested that Respondents' consultant "flag a [wetland] line and then Molica have all fill within wetland area removed." The DEP also advised Mr. Molica that "[a]rea then needs to be restored to natural grade." Id. Notes taken by Mr. Pinnick confirm that Mr. Molica agreed to remove the fill "to restore the natural grade and the wetland boundary would be delineated [by Mr. Molica's consultant.]" See District Exhibit The conclusion of both the County and DEP was that wetlands were present in the central part of the property. No formal delineation of wetlands was performed by them since the parties reached an understanding that Mr. Molica's consultant would perform this task. Because Mr. Molica thereafter denied access to the property, this would be the last time regulatory personnel were able to make an on-site inspection of the property until October 2008, when the District obtained an Order authorizing them to inspect the property. The County later charged Respondents with violating the County Code ("prohibitions in functional wetlands"), and the matter was considered by a Special Magistrate. An Order of Dismissal was entered by the Special Magistrate on February 1, 2006, on the grounds the property was zoned agriculture and enjoyed an agricultural exemption, and Respondents agreed to use Best Management Practices, as prescribed by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs. See Respondents' Exhibit 4. However, neither the DEP nor the District was involved in that action, and the matter concerned an alleged violation of a local ordinance, and not a provision in Chapters 373 or 403, Florida Statutes. At some point in time, but presumably after the site visit in December 2004, Mr. Molica asserted to the DEP that he was conducting an agricultural operation. In early 2005, the DEP referred the matter to the District since the two agencies have an operating agreement concerning which agency will handle certain types of permitting and enforcement matters. By letter dated August 15, 2005, Mr. Molica advised the local District office in Palm Bay, Florida, that the owners of the property were engaging in agricultural activities and denied that any unauthorized fill and excavation activities had occurred. He also requested copies of any statutes, rules, or case law that supported the District's position. See Respondents' Exhibit 2A. On August 3, 2007, the District advised Mr. Molica by letter that it had received a complaint from DEP, that the matter had not yet been resolved, and that it wished to inspect his property to determine if unauthorized fill and excavation activities had occurred. See Respondents' Exhibit 2B. According to a District witness, the delay in responding to Mr. Molica's letter was caused by the building boom occurring in 2005 and 2006, which required action on numerous pending permits, and in-house confusion over whether the DEP or District had jurisdiction to handle the complaint. There is no evidence to suggest that at any time the District agreed that the activities were lawful, or that the delay in responding to Mr. Molica's letter prejudiced Respondents in any manner. After conducting a preliminary investigation, which included a review of aerial photographs of the area, wetland maps, and soil maps, a visual inspection taken from the Copperfield Subdivision to the east and North Tropical Trail from the west, and a flyover of the property, the District issued its Complaint on August 8, 2008. Are there wetlands on the property? To determine whether wetlands were present on the Molica property, the District made a site inspection on October 22, 28, 29, and 30, 2008. Besides making a visual inspection of the property, the staff took photographs, performed twenty-nine soil borings on both the Molica and Lacano properties, reviewed soil surveys for the area, completed one west-to-east transect and five north-to-south transects to determine locations of hydric soils and any fill materials, and observed lichen and water stain lines on trees. The locations of the various soil borings are depicted on District Exhibit 22. Finally, the staff examined a series of aerial photographs of the property. Under the wetland delineation rule, three different indicators are used to make that determination: vegetation; soils; and signs of hydrology. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 340.300(2)(a)-(d). In addition, where the vegetation and soil have been altered by man-induced factors so that the boundary between the uplands and wetlands cannot be delineated by use of Rule 62-340.300(2), such a determination shall be made by using the most reliable information and "reasonable scientific judgment." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-340.300(3)(a). The parties presented conflicting evidence on the wetland issue; the District's evidence has been accepted as being the more persuasive and credible and supports a finding that the areas where dredging and filling occurred in the eastern and central parts of the property meet the test for a wetland. Wetland Soils Muck presence is a hydric soil indicator and also a wetland indicator. The District's expert, Mr. Richardson, established that the soil on the property where the dredging and filling occurred was hydric in nature, and therefore indicative of a wetland. Although Respondent's soil expert disagreed with this conclusion, he generally agreed with Mr. Richardson's methodology, and he agreed that muck was present below the fill material. Wetland Vegetation The presence or absence of wetland vegetation is another factor to consider in deciding whether an area is or was a wetland. Wetland hardwood trees, and not grass planted on top of the fill, are more appropriate for evaluating whether the area in which the trees are located was a wetland. Large trees, estimated to be fifty to sixty years old, remain on the property in the vicinity of certain District soil borings. They include boring 20 (swamp tupelo); borings 3, 4, and 5 (red maple, American elm, and holly); and borings 9 and 10 (maple and American elm). These are all wetland canopy species and provide further support for the District's position. Hydrologic Indicators Algal matting is found on the surface of the property in the vicinity of borings 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9. Algal matting occurs because water has inundated the surface of the ground sufficiently long for algae to grow in the water and then remains on the ground surface after the water no longer covers the ground. Rainfall alone does not produce algal mats. Trees on the property provided evidence of being in saturated or inundated soil conditions through the morphological adaptation of buttressing and adventitious roots, particularly in the vicinity of District borings 20, 8, 9, and 10. Also, the trees had lichen lines on them, which are indicators of seasonal high water inundation elevations in wetlands. The presence of muck soils is a hydrologic indicator. As noted above, the District determined through soil borings that muck was under the fill that had been placed on the property. Reasonable Scientific Judgment The evidence established that there was significant alteration to the soils and vegetation across the central and eastern parts of the subject property due to man-induced factors of vegetation removal, dredging, and filling. Through consideration of the most reliable information available, including aerial photographs, the remaining trees on the site, hydrologic indicators, the presence of hydric soils, coupled with reasonable scientific judgment, the evidence established that the areas where the recent dredging and filling occurred met the wetland delineation test in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 340.300(3). Agricultural Exemption Mr. Molica is a full-time practicing attorney. His wife is his legal secretary. Respondents contend that since they purchased the property in 1990, they have been continuously engaged first in the occupation of citrus farming, and then beginning sometime in 2004 in the production of palm trees. Therefore, they assert they are entitled to the exemption provided under Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes. That provision states in relevant part that "[n]othing herein . . . shall be construed to affect the right of any person engaged in the occupation of . . . horticulture . . . to alter the topography of any tract of land consistent with the practice of such occupation. However, such alteration may not be for the sole or predominant purpose of impounding or obstructing surface waters." The parties agree that the burden of proving entitlement to this exemption rests on Respondents. When the property was purchased in 1990, there were citrus trees on the land, mainly in the western half. A few navel oranges were later added, and some citrus trees were removed at that time. Beginning at the end of 2003, and continuing in 2004, the citrus trees were removed. At the time of the DEP inspection in December 2004, no potted palm trees were observed on the property. The precise date when they were first placed on the property is not clear. Photographs taken in January 2006, more than a year after the dredging and filling and just before the County code violation charge was resolved, reflect around fifty or so small trees in pots located in a small, cleared section of the property. See Respondents' Exhibit Photographs taken three years later (January 2009), long after the dredging and filling occurred, show a comparable number of small palm trees in pots placed on what appears to be the same part of the property. See Respondents' Exhibit 21. Mr. Molica also submitted numerous documents (dated 2005 and later) downloaded from the internet by his wife which pertain to palm trees, see Respondents' Exhibit 20; and he stated that a marketing plan for the sale of palm trees has been developed, which was simply a goal of selling the trees after they were ten years old. He further stated that he intends to work the "farm" as a business full-time after retiring from his law practice. Finally, he presented the testimony of an agronomist who stated that clearing property, filling holes, smoothing land, and building an access road are normal agriculture activities. It is fair to infer from the record that Respondents' activities can be characterized as an avocation, not an occupation. Notably, there is no evidence that since they purchased the property in 1990, Respondents have sold any citrus fruit or a single palm tree. There is no evidence that dredging and filling in wetlands is a normal agriculture practice, or that it is consistent with the practice of horticulture, including the growing of exotic palm trees. Mr. Molica's agronomist acknowledged that he has never been associated with an application to conduct agricultural or horticultural activities that involve the filling of wetlands. Moreover, extensive dredging, filling, and removal of vegetation were not necessary to accommodate the small area on which the potted plants sit. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that the topographic alterations on the property are not consistent with the practice of agriculture. The evidence shows that the filling on the property has obstructed the natural flow of surface water. More than likely, the filling of the wetlands was for the predominant purpose of obstructing and diverting surface water that flowed south from the Lacano property, and not for the purpose of enhancing horticultural productivity. Corrective Actions At hearing, the District submitted certain revisions to the proposed corrective action, which are described in District Exhibit 73. The revisions provide greater specificity regarding the formulation of a restoration plan and who must be involved in formulating that plan. In general terms, the corrective action offers Respondents the option of seeking an after-the-fact permit or restoring the wetlands. Respondents offered no proof at hearing that the original or revised corrective action is unreasonable. The revised corrective action is found to be reasonable and designed to address the restoration needs of the property and is hereby approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered sustaining the charges in the Complaint, requiring Respondents to take the corrective actions described in District Exhibit 73, and determining that Respondents are not entitled to an agricultural exemption under Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 12th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2009.
