The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents Paul Crum, Sr., and Paul Crum, Jr. (the "Crums"), are entitled to the Noticed General Permit issued by the Department of Environmental Protection ("Department") for the construction of a single- family residential dock and associated structures.
Findings Of Fact Background The Crums are the owners of the riparian property located at 15696 Shark Road West, Jacksonville, Florida. The Crum property is adjacent to Pumpkin Hill Creek, which lies within the Nassau River-St. Johns River Marshes Aquatic Preserve. Extending from the Crum property into Pumpkin Hill Creek is an existing wood dock approximately 90 feet long and four feet wide, with a platform near the landward end of the dock. Petitioner Brooks owns the property immediately adjacent to and north of the Crum property. Petitioner Brooks has a dock and boat lift. Petitioner Cole owns the property immediately adjacent to and southeast of the Crum property. The Cole property is located on a salt marsh and has no dock. Petitioner Jones lives approximately 3,200 feet north of the Crum property, on a tributary to Pumpkin Hill Creek. Petitioner Jones has fished Pumpkin Hill Creek and the surrounding waters for over 25 years. Noticed General Permits are a type of environmental resource permit granted by rule for those activities which have been determined to have minimal impacts to water resources. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-341.427 grants by rule a general permit to construct a single family pier, along with boat lifts and terminal platforms, provided certain specific criteria are met. In August 2005, the Crums applied for a Noticed General Permit to extend their existing dock into deeper water. The Department issued a Notice of Determination of Qualification for Noticed General Permit, but later rescinded the authorization after Petitioner Brooks complained to the Department that the landward end of the existing dock is located only 21 feet from her property boundary and, therefore, did not comply with Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.004(3)(d), which requires that a dock be set back a minimum of 25 feet "inside the applicant's riparian rights lines." In November 2005, the Crums re-applied for a Noticed General Permit. Their revised plans called for removal of the existing dock and construction of a new dock extending approximately 255 feet out into Pumpkin Hill Creek. The proposed dock would be located a minimum of 25 feet inside the Crums' riparian rights lines. On December 6, 2005, the Department issued a Notice of Determination of Qualification for a Noticed General Permit for the revised dock, stating that the project satisfied the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-341.427, as well as the conditions for authorization to perform activities on state-owned submerged lands set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21 and for activities in an aquatic preserve under Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20. In April 2006, Petitioners filed three petitions for hearing with the Department alleging that the proposed dock significantly impedes navigation by restricting access to a tidal creek and extends more waterward than necessary to access a water depth of (minus) -4 feet at mean low water, which is prohibited for docks in aquatic preserves under Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.005(3)(b)3. Petitioners attached to their petitions a copy of a bathymetric survey showing the elevations of the submerged lands in the vicinity of the proposed project. In response to the information contained in the survey, the Crums revised their plans to shorten the dock to its currently proposed length of 186.56 feet. A new Notice of Determination of Qualification for a Notice General Permit was then issued by the Department on October 16, 2006. The final dock project consists of: (a) removal of the existing wood dock; (b) construction of a four-foot wide, 186.56-foot long, single family residential dock consisting of an access pier, a 12-foot by 12-foot terminal platform, and a 14-foot by 20-foot open boat lift with catwalk (the “proposed dock”). The proposed dock will terminate where the water will be four feet deep at mean low water. Navigating in and Near the Tidal Creek To the south of the Crum property is a wide expanse of salt marsh. Within the salt marsh are unnamed tidal creeks. The mouth of one tidal creek that flows to Pumpkin Hill Creek is located approximately 90 feet south of the existing Crum dock. The tidal creek is shallow and is not navigable at or near low tide. Petitioner Jones owns an 18-foot flatboat which he sometimes keeps at his residence and sometimes at Petitioner Brooks' property. The boat draws about one foot of water. Petitioner Jones uses this boat to fish in the tidal creek located near the Crum property about ten times every month. No evidence was presented to show that Petitioner Brooks or Petitioner Cole ever navigate in or otherwise use this tidal creek. There are many other tidal creeks located in the marshes associated with Pumpkin Hill Creek. Petitioner Jones boats and fishes in most of them. Petitioner Jones said that, currently, he must wait two hours past low tide for the water depth to be sufficient for him to get into the tidal creek near the Crum property. His usual course to the creek lies just beyond the end of the existing Crum dock. He claims there is a channel there, but no channel is shown on the survey or in any of the parties' photographs. After the proposed dock is constructed, Petitioner Jones' usual course to the tidal will be obstructed. He contends that the new course he would have to take to the tidal creek will take him across shallower areas of Pumpkin Hill Creek so that he will have to wait two more hours (a total of four hours) after low tide to get into the creek. Therefore, Petitioner Jones' alleged injury is the reduction of the hours available to him to navigate in and out of the tidal creek for fishing. The existing Crum dock terminates on a broad mud flat which is exposed at mean low water. However, the bathymetric survey shows the mud flat is at a lower elevation near the end of the dock so water covers this area before it covers the rest of the mud flat. However, the bathymetric survey also shows the elevation of the bottom rising as one moves south from the existing dock. At the mouth of the tidal creek the elevation is 1.0 feet NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum, an official, surveyed reference point). Because the tidal creek drains into the main body of Pumpkin Hill Creek, a reasonable inference can be made that the bottom elevations in the creek generally become higher (and the water depths decrease) as one moves up the creek toward dry land. Prop scars in the exposed bottom at the end of the existing dock indicate that boats have traveled over this area when the water was so shallow that the engine props were striking the bottom. Prop scarring can cause turbidity and damage to benthic organisms. The bathymetric survey indicates that mean high water in this area of Pumpkin Hill Creek is 3.03 feet NGVD, and the mean low water is -1.78 feet NGVD. The mean tidal fluctuation between mean low water and mean high water is thus 4.81 feet. Randall Armstrong, who was accepted as an expert in navigation and piloting, explained that in this area, where there are two daily tides, the water elevation will generally increase by 1/12 of the mean tidal fluctuation in the first hour after mean low water, another 2/12 of the fluctuation in the second, and 3/12 in the third hour. Applying this general rule to the tidal fluctuation here of 4.81 feet results in an estimated 1.2-foot increase in water elevation two hours after low tide and a 2.4-foot increase three hours after low tide. Based on the mean low water elevation of -1.78 feet NGVD, the water elevation would usually be about -0.6 foot NGVD two hours after low tide and 0.6 foot NGVD three hours after low tide. Therefore, the tidal creek (with a bottom elevation of 1.0 foot NGVD at the mouth) would usually be "dry" two hours after low tide and would usually have less than a foot of water three hours after low tide. That evidence contradicts Petitioner Jones' statement that he now navigates into the tidal creek two hours after low tide. That might occasionally be possible, but the bathymetric survey indicates the creek would usually be too shallow at that time. In fact, the evidence suggests that the tidal creek is only reliably navigable without causing prop scars to the bottom by using boats with very shallow draft and waiting until high tide (or shortly before or after) when the water depth at the mouth of the creek would be about two feet. It was Mr. Armstrong's opinion that the 1.0-foot NGVD elevation at the mouth of the tidal creek determines when and how long the tidal creek is navigable, and those times would not be affected by the proposed dock. He described the new course that a boater would use to navigate into the tidal creek after the proposed dock is built. He used the bathymetric survey to show that when the water is deep enough to navigate into the tidal creek, the water depth is also sufficient to navigate the new course. The proposed dock might, as Petitioner Jones alleges, cause boaters to traverse a longer section of the mudflat then they do currently. However, the more persuasive testimony supports the Crums' position that the navigability of the tidal creek is controlled by its shallowest point at the 1.0-foot NGVD elevation and that the proposed dock will not interfere with navigation of the tidal creek by requiring boaters to traverse shallower areas. Petitioner Jones testified that he regularly navigates his boat close to the existing Crum dock. The evidence does not indicate that the proposed dock would cause an unreasonable risk of collision for boaters using the new course to the tidal creek.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order that grants Noticed General Permit No. 16-253057-002-EG to the Crums. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 2006.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether, and under what conditions, the Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District (District), should grant Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 40-109-81153-1 authorizing Respondents, Jay and Linda Ginn (Ginns or Applicants), to construct a 136-unit single-family residential development with associated surface water management system.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Proposed Project Respondent, the District, is a special taxing district created by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, charged with the duty to prevent harm to the water resources of the District, and to administer and enforce the cited statutes and Florida Administrative Code Rules promulgated by the District under the authority of those statutes. (Unless otherwise stated, all Florida Statutes refer to the 2003 codification, and all Florida Administrative Code Rules refer to the current codification.) Respondents, Jay and Linda Ginn, are the owners of 47 acres of land located just west of the City of St. Augustine in St. Johns County, Florida. They are seeking ERP Permit No. 40- 109-81153-1 from the District to construct a 136-acre residential community and associated surface water management facilities on the property, to be known as Ravenswood Forest. The 47-acre project site is predominantly uplands, with a large (10.98-acre) wetland (Wetland 1) located on the eastern boundary and completely separating the uplands on the project site from adjacent properties to the east. While the central portion of the site is mostly a sand pine vegetated community, and the western portion is largely a pine flatwood community, there are six other smaller wetlands scattered within the upland areas lying west of Wetland 1, each numbered separately, 2 through 7. The site is currently undeveloped except for some cleared areas that are used as dirt road trails and a borrow pit or pond excavated in the central part of the site. This clearing and excavation was accomplished in the 1980’s for a project that was never completed. The project site is bordered on the north by Ravenswood Drive. On the east lies an existing residential development probably constructed in the 1970’s; to the west of the project site is a power-line easement; and to the south is a Time Warner cable facility. The land elevations at the project site are generally higher on the west and slope off to Wetland 1 on the east. Under current conditions, water generally drains from west to east into Wetland 1. Some water from the site, as well as some water entering the site from off-site properties to the west, flows into the existing pond or borrow pit located in the central portion of the site. Under extreme rainfall conditions, the borrow pit/pond can reach a stage that allows it to overflow and discharge into Wetland 1. Some off-site water also enters Wetland 1 at its north end. Water that originates from properties to the west of the Ravenswood site is conveyed through ditches to the roadside ditch that runs along the south side of Ravenswood Drive. Water in this roadside ditch ultimately enters Wetland 1 at its north end and flows south. Once in Wetland 1, water moves north to south. Water leaves the part of Wetland 1 that is located on the Ravenswood site and continues to flow south through ditches and culverts ultimately to the San Sebastian River. The Wetland 1 system is contiguous with wetlands located on property owned by Petitioner, Marilyn McMulkin. Mrs. McMulkin lives on Hibiscus Street to the east of the project. Mrs. McMulkin is disabled and enjoys observing wildlife from her home. Mrs. McMulkin has observed woodstorks, kites, deer, cardinals, birds, otter, indigo snake, flying squirrels, gopher tortoises, and (more recently) bald eagles on her property or around the neighborhood. Mrs. McMulkin informed the District of the presence of the bald eagle in 2002, but it was not discovered until November of 2003 that there was an eagle nest on the Ginns property in Wetland 1. Petitioner, Diane Mills, owns a house and property on Hibiscus Street to the east of the Project. The proposed stormwater discharge for the Project is to a wetland system that is contiguous with a wetland system that is in close proximity to Mrs. Mills' property. Petitioners' property is not located in a flood plain identified by FEMA. Nevertheless, Petitioners' property experiences flooding. At times, the flooding has come through Mrs. McMulkin's house and exited out the front door. The flood water, which can be 18-24 inches high in some places on Mrs. McMulkin's property, comes across her backyard, goes through or around her house, enters Hibiscus Street and turns north. The flooding started in the late 1980's and comes from the north and west, from the Ginns' property. The flooding started after Mr. Clyatt Powell, a previous co-owner of the Ravenswood property, started clearing and creating fill roads on the property using dirt excavated from the property. The flooding now occurs every year and has increased in duration and frequency; the flooding gets worse after the rain stops and hours pass. The evidence, including Petitioners' Exhibit 1, indicated that there are numerous other possible reasons, besides activities on the Ginns' property in the late 1980's, for the onset and exacerbation of Petitioners' flooding problems, including: failure to properly maintain existing drainage facilities; other development in the area; and failure to improve drainage facilities as development proceeds. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners have standing to object to ERP Permit No. 40-109-81153-1. Project Description As indicated, water that originates west of the project site currently enters the project site in two ways: (1) it moves across the western project boundary; and (2) it travels north to a ditch located on the south side of Ravenswood Drive and is conveyed to Wetland 1. The offsite water that moves across the western project boundary comes from a 16-acre area identified as Basin C (called Basin 4 post-development). The offsite water that moves north to the ditch and enters Wetland 1 comes from a 106.87-acre area identified as Basin D (called Basin 5 post-development). The project’s stormwater conveyance and treatment facilities include two connected wet detention ponds with an outfall to a wetland on the eastern portion of the project site. Stormwater from most of the project site will be conveyed to a pond, or detention area (DA) DA-1, which will be located near (and partially coinciding with the location of) the existing pond or borrow pit. The water elevation in DA-1 will be controlled at a level of 26 feet. Water from DA-1 will spill over through a control structure into a pipe that will convey the spill-over to DA-2. In addition to the spill-over from DA-1, offsite water that currently enters the project site across the western boundary will be conveyed to a wetland area at the southwest corner of the project site. At that point, some of the water will be taken into DA-2 through an inlet structure. The water elevation in DA-2 will be controlled at level 21. Water from DA-2 will be released by a control structure to a spreader swale in Wetland 1. While some of the water conveyed to the wetland area at the southwest corner of the project site will enter DA-2, as described, some will discharge over an irregular weir (a low area that holds water until it stages up and flows out) and move around the southern boundary of the project site and flow east into Wetland 1. Wetland 1 is a 10.98-acre onsite portion of a larger offsite wetland area extending to the south and east (which includes the wetlands on Mrs. McMulkin's property). For purposes of an Overall Watershed Study performed by the Ginns' engineering consultant, the combined onsite and offsite wetlands was designated Node 98 (pre-development) and Node 99 (post- development). From those areas, water drains south to ditches and culverts and eventually to the San Sebastian River. Best management practices will be used during project construction to address erosion and sediment control. Such measures will include silt fences around the construction site, hay bales in ditches and inlets, and maintenance of construction equipment to prevent release of pollutants, and may include staked sod on banks and turbidity barriers, if needed. In addition, the District's TSR imposed permit conditions that require erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented. The District's TSR also imposed a permit condition that requires District approval of a dewatering plan within 30 days of permit issuance and prior to construction. The Ginns intend to retain the dewatering from construction on the project site. Wetland Impacts Onsite Wetlands Wetland 1 is a 10.98-acre mixed-forested wetland system. Its overall condition is good. It has a variety of vegetative strata, a mature canopy, dense understory and groundcover, open water areas, and permanent water of varying levels over the course of a year. These attributes allow for species diversity. Although surrounded by development, the wetland is a good source for a variety of species to forage, breed, nest, and roost. In terms of vegetation, the wetland is not unique to northeast Florida, but in November 2003 an eagle nest was discovered in it. A second wetland area onsite (Wetland 2) is a 0.29-acre coniferous depression located near the western boundary of the site. The overall value of the functions provided by Wetland 2 is minimal or low. It has a fairly sparse pine canopy and scattered ferns provide for little refuge and nesting. Water does stand in it, but not for extended periods of time, which does not allow for breeding of most amphibians. The vegetation and inundation do not foster lower trophic animals. For that reason, although the semi-open canopy would be conducive to use by woodstorks, birds and small mammals do not forage there. A third wetland area onsite (Wetland 3) is a 0.28-acre mixed-forested wetland on the northern portion of the site. The quality of Wetland 3 is low. A 24-inch culvert drains the area into a 600-foot long drainage ditch along the south side of Ravenswood Drive leading to Wetland 1. As a result, its hydroperiod is reduced and, although it has a healthy pine and cypress canopy, it also has invasive Chinese tallow and upland species, along with some maple. The mature canopy and its proximity to Ravenswood Drive would allow for nesting, but no use of the wetland by listed species has been observed. In order to return Wetland 3 to being productive, its hydroperiod would have to be restored by eliminating the connection to the Ravenswood Drive ditch. A fourth wetland area onsite (Wetland 4) is a 0.01- acre portion of a mixed-forested wetland on the western boundary of the site that extends offsite to the west. Its value is poor because: a power line easement runs through it; it has been used as a trail road, so it is void of vegetation; and it is such a small fringe of an offsite wetland that it does not provide much habitat value. A fifth wetland area onsite (Wetland 5) is a 0.01-acre portion of the same offsite mixed-forested wetland that Wetland 4 is part of. Wetland 5 has a cleared trail road through its upland fringe. Wetland 5 has moderate value. It is vegetated except on its upland side (although its vegetation is not unique to northeast Florida), has a nice canopy, and provides fish and wildlife value (although not as much as the interior of the offsite wetland). A sixth wetland area onsite (Wetland 6) is a 0.28-acre wetland located in the western portion of the site. It is a depression with a coniferous-dominated canopy with some bays and a sparse understory of ferns and cord grass that is of moderate value overall. It does not connect with any other wetlands by standing or flowing water and is not unique. It has water in it sufficient to allow breeding, so there would be foraging in it. Although not discovered by the Ginns' consultants initially, a great blue heron has been observed utilizing the wetland. No listed species have been observed using it. Wetland 6 could be good gopher frog habitat due to its isolation near uplands and its intermittent inundation, limiting predation by fish. In addition, four gopher tortoise burrows have been identified in uplands on the project site, and gopher frogs use gopher tortoise burrows. The gopher frog is not a listed species; the gopher tortoise is listed by the State of Florida as a species of special concern but is not aquatic or wetland-dependent. Woodstorks are listed as endangered. Although no woodstorks were observed using Wetland 6, they rely on isolated wetlands drying down to concentrate fish and prey in the isolated wetlands. With its semi-open canopy, Wetland 6 could be used by woodstorks, which have a wingspan similar to great blue herons, which were seen using Wetland 6. However, Wetland would not provide a significant food source for wading birds such as woodstorks. The other surface water area onsite (Wetland 7) is the existing 0.97-acre pond or borrow pit in the southwest portion of the project site. The pond is man-made with a narrow littoral shelf dominated by torpedo grass; levels appears to fluctuate as groundwater does; and it is not unique. It connects to Wetland 1 during seasonal high water. It has some fish, but the steep slope to its littoral shelf minimizes the shelf's value for fish, tadpoles, and larvae stage for amphibians because fish can forage easily on the shelf. The Ginns propose to fill Wetlands 2, 3, 4, and 6; to not impact Wetland 5; and to fill a 0.45-acre portion of Wetland and dredge the remaining part into DA-1. Also, 0.18 acre of Wetland 1 (0.03 acre is offsite) will be temporarily disturbed during installation of the utility lines to provide service to the project. Individually and cumulatively, the wetlands that are less than 0.5-acre--Wetlands 3, 6, 2, 4, and 5--are low quality and not more than minimal value to fish and wildlife except for Wetland 5, because it is a viable part of an offsite wetland with value. While the Ginns have sought a permit to fill Wetland 4, they actually do not intend to fill it. Instead, they will simply treat the wetland as filled for the purpose of avoiding a County requirement of providing a wetland buffer and setback, which would inhibit the development of three lots. Offsite Wetlands The proposed project would not be expected to have an impact on offsite wetlands. Neither DA-1 nor DA-2, especially with the special conditions imposed by the District, will draw down offsite wetlands. The seasonal high water (SHW) table in the area of DA- 1 is estimated at elevation 26 to 29. With a SHW table of 26, DA-1 will not influence groundwater. Even with a SHW table of 29, DA-1 will not influence the groundwater beyond the project's western boundary. DA-1 will not adversely affect offsite wetlands. A MODFLOW model was run to demonstrate the influence of DA-1 on nearby wetlands assuming that DA-1 would be controlled at elevation 21, that the groundwater elevation was 29, and that no cutoff wall or liner would be present. The model results demonstrated that the influence of DA-1 on groundwater would barely extend offsite. The current proposed elevation for DA-1 is 26, which is higher than the elevation used in the model and which would result in less influence on groundwater. The seasonal high water table in the area of DA-2 is 28.5 to 29.5. A cutoff wall is proposed to be installed around the western portion of DA-2 to prevent it from drawing down the water levels in the adjacent wetlands such that the wetlands would be adversely affected. The vertical cutoff wall will be constructed of clay and will extend from the land surface down to an existing horizontal layer of relatively impermeable soil called hardpan. The cutoff wall tied into the hardpan would act as a barrier to vertical and horizontal groundwater flow, essentially severing the flow. A MODFLOW model demonstrated that DA-2 with the cutoff wall will not draw down the adjacent wetlands. The blow counts shown on the boring logs and the permeability rates of soils at the proposed location of DA-2 indicate the presence of hardpan. The hardpan is present in the area of DA-2 at approximately 10 to 15 feet below the land surface. The thickness of the hardpan layer is at least 5 feet. The Ginns measured the permeability of hardpan in various locations on the project site. The cutoff wall design is based on tying into a hardpan layer with a permeability of 0.052 feet per day. Because permeability may vary across the project site, the District recommended a permit condition that would require a professional engineer to test for the presence and permeability of the hardpan along the length of the cutoff wall. If the hardpan is not continuous, or if its permeability is higher than 0.052 feet per day, then a liner will be required to be installed instead of a cutoff wall. The liner would be installed under the western third of DA-2, west of a north-south line connecting the easterly ends of the cutoff wall. (The location of the liner is indicated in yellow on Applicants' Exhibit 5B, sheet 8, and is described in District Exhibit 10.) The liner would be 2 feet thick and constructed of clay with a permeability of no more than 1 x 10-6 centimeters per second. A liner on a portion of the bottom of pond DA-2 will horizontally sever a portion of the pond bottom from the groundwater to negate the influence of DA-2 on groundwater in the area. A clay liner would function to prevent adverse drawdown impacts to adjacent wetlands. The project, with either a cutoff wall or a clay liner, will not result in a drawdown of the groundwater table such that adjacent wetlands would be adversely affected. Reduction and Elimination of Impacts The Ginns evaluated practicable design alternatives for eliminating the temporary impact to 0.18-acre of Wetland 1. The analysis indicated that routing the proposed utility services around the project site was possible but would require a lift station that would cost approximately $80,000 to $100,000. The impact avoided is a temporary impact; it is likely that the area to be impacted can be successfully reestablished and restored; and preservation of Wetland 1 is proposed to address lag-time for reestablishment. It was determined by the Ginns and District staff that the costs of avoidance outweigh the environmental benefits of avoidance. Petitioners put on evidence to question the validity of the Wetland 1 reduction/elimination analysis. First, Mr. Mills, who has experience installing sewer/water pipes, testified to his belief that a lift station would cost only approximately $50,000 to $60,000. He also pointed out that using a lift station and forced main method would make it approximately a third less expensive per linear foot to install the pipe line itself. This is because a gravity sewer, which would be required if a lift station and forced main is not used, must be laid at precise grades, making it is more difficult and costly to lay. However, Mr. Mills acknowledged that, due to the relatively narrow width of the right-of-way along Ravenswood Drive, it would be necessary to obtain a waiver of the usual requirement to separate the sewer and water lines by at least 10 feet. He thought that a five-foot separation waiver would be possible for his proposed alternative route if the "horizontal" separation was at least 18 inches. (It is not clear what Mr. Mills meant by "horizontal.") In addition, he did not analyze how the per-linear-foot cost savings from use of the lift station and forced main sewer would compare to the additional cost of the lift station, even if it is just $50,000 to $60,000, as he thinks. However, it would appear that his proposed alternative route is approximately three times as long as the route proposed by the Ginns, so that the total cost of laying the sewer pipeline itself would be approximately equal under either proposal. Mr. Mills's testimony also suggested that the Ginns did not account for the possible disturbance to the Ravenswood eagles if an emergency repair to the water/sewer is necessary during nesting season. While this is a possibility, it is speculative. There is no reason to think such emergency repairs will be necessary, at least during the approximately 20-year life expectancy of the water/sewer line. Practicable design modifications to avoid filling Wetland 4 also were evaluated. Not filling Wetland 4 would trigger St. Johns County wetland setback requirements that would eliminate three building lots, at a cost of $4,684 per lot. Meanwhile, the impacted wetland is small and of poor quality, and the filling of Wetland 4 can be offset by proposed mitigation. As a result, the costs of avoidance outweigh the environmental benefits of avoidance. Relying on ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1 the Ginns did not perform reduction/elimination analyses for Wetlands 2 and 6, and the District did not require them. As explained in testimony, the District interprets ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.1 to require a reduction/elimination analysis only when a project will result in adverse impacts such that it does not meet the requirements of ERP-A.H. 12.2.2 through 12.2.3.7 and 12.2.5 through 12.3.8. But ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1 does not require compliance with those sections for regulated activities in isolated wetlands less than one-half acre in size except in circumstances not applicable to this case: if they are used by threatened or endangered species; if they are located in an area of critical state concern; if they are connected at seasonal high water level to other wetlands; and if they are "more than minimal value," singularly or cumulatively, to fish and wildlife. See ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1(a) through (d). Under the District's interpretation of ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.1, since ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1 does not require compliance with the very sections that determine whether a reduction/elimination analysis is necessary under ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.1, such an analysis is not required for Wetlands 2 and 6. Relying on ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.2, a., the Ginns did not perform reduction/elimination analyses for Wetlands 3 and 7, and the District did not require them, because the functions provided by Wetlands 3 and 7 are "low" and the proposed mitigation to offset the impacts to these wetlands provides greater long-term value. Petitioners' environmental expert opined that an reduction/elimination analysis should have been performed for all of the wetlands on the project site, even if isolated and less than half an acre size, because all of the wetlands on the project site have ecological value. For example, small and isolated wetlands can be have value for amphibians, including the gopher frog. But his position does not square with the ERP- A.H., as reasonably interpreted by the District. Specifically, the tests are "more than minimal value" under ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1(d) and "low value" under ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.2, a. Secondary Impacts The impacts to the wetlands and other surface waters are not expected to result in adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, including endangered or threatened listed species or their habitats. In accordance with ERP-A.H. 12.2.7(a), the design incorporates upland preserved buffers with minimum widths of 15 feet and an average width of 25 feet around the wetlands that will not be impacted. Sediment and erosion control measures will assure that the construction will not have an adverse secondary impact on water quality. The proposed development will be served by central water and sewer provided by the City of St. Augustine, eliminating a potential for secondary impacts to water quality from residential septic tanks or septic drainfields. In order to provide additional measures to avoid secondary impacts to Wetland 1, which is the location of the bald eagles’ nest, the Applicants proposed additional protections in a Bald Eagle Management Plan (BEMP) (App. Ex. 14). Under the terms of the BEMP, all land clearing, infrastructure installation, and exterior construction on homes located within in the primary zone (a distance within 750 feet of the nest tree) is restricted to the non-nesting season (generally May 15 through September 30). In the secondary zone (area between 750 feet and 1500 feet from the nest tree), exterior construction, infrastructure installation, and land clearing may take place during the nesting season with appropriate monitoring as described in the BEMP. Proposed Mitigation The Ginns have proposed mitigation for the purpose of offsetting adverse impacts to wetland functions. They have proposed to provide mitigation for: the 0.18-acre temporary impact to Wetland 1 during installation of a water/sewer line extending from existing City of St. Augustine service to the east (at Theodore Street); the impacts to Wetlands 3, 4 and 7; and the secondary impacts to the offsite portion of Wetland 4. The Ginns propose to grade the 0.18-acre temporary impact area in Wetland 1 to pre-construction elevations, plant 72 trees, and monitor annually for 5 years to document success. Although the easement is 30 feet in width, work will be confined to 20 feet where vegetation will be cleared, the top 1 foot of soil removed and stored for replacing, the trench excavated, the utility lines installed, the trench refilled, the top foot replaced, the area replanted with native vegetation, and re- vegetation monitored. To facilitate success, the historic water regime and historic seed source will give the re-vegetation effort a jump-start. The Ginns propose to restore and enhance a 0.12-acre portion of Wetland 1 that has been degraded by a trail road. They will grade the area to match the elevations of adjacent wetland, plant 48 trees, and monitor annually for 5 years to document success. This is proposed to offset the impacts to Wetland 4. The proposed grading, replanting, and monitoring will allow the area to be enhanced causing an environmental benefit. The Ginns propose to preserve 10.58 acres of wetlands and 3.99 acres of uplands in Wetland 1, 1 acre of upland buffers adjacent to Wetlands 1 and 5, and the 0.01 acre wetland in Wetland 5. The upland buffer will be a minimum of 15 feet wide with an average of 25 feet wide for Wetland 1 and 25 feet wide for Wetland 5. A conservation easement will be conveyed to the District to preserve Wetlands 1 and 5, the upland buffers, and the wetland restoration and enhancement areas. The preservation of wetlands provides mitigation value because it provides perpetual protection by ensuring that development will not occur in those areas, as well as preventing activities that are unregulated from occurring there. This will allow the conserved lands to mature and provide more forage and habitat for the wildlife that would utilize those areas. Mitigation for Wetlands 2 and 6 was not provided because they are isolated wetlands less than 0.5-acre in size that are not used by threatened or endangered species; are not located in an area of critical state concern; are not connected at seasonal high water level to other wetlands; and are not more than minimal value, singularly or cumulatively, to fish and wildlife. As previously referenced in the explanation of why no reduction/elimination analysis was required for these wetlands, ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1(d) does not require compliance with under ERP- A.H. 12.3 through 12.3.8 (mitigation requirements) for regulated activities in isolated wetlands less than one-half acre in size except in circumstances found not to be present in this case. See Finding 44, supra. The cost of the proposed mitigation will be approximately $15,000. Operation and Maintenance A non-profit corporation that is a homeowners association (HOA) will be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the surface water management system. An HOA is a typical operation and maintenance entity for a subdivision and is an acceptable entity under District rules. See ERP-A.H. 7.1.1(e) and 7.1.2; Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C- 42.027(3) and (4). The Articles of Incorporation for the HOA and the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions contain the language required by District rules. Water Quantity To address water quantity criteria, the Applicants' engineers ran a model (AdICPR, Version 1.4) to compare the peak rate discharge from the project in the pre-project state versus the peak rate discharge after the project is put in place. The pre-project data input into the model were defined by those conditions that existed in 1985 or 1986, prior to the partial work that was conducted, but not completed, on the site in the late 1980's. The project’s 1985/1986 site condition included a feature called Depression A that attenuated some onsite as well as offsite stormwater. Because of work that was done on the project site after 1985/1986 (i.e., the excavation of the borrow pit and road-clearing activities in the late 1980's), the peak rate of discharge for the 1985/1986 project site condition was lower than the peak rate of discharge for today’s project site condition. (Flooding at Mrs. McMulkin's house began after the work was performed on the project site in the late 1980's.) Because this partial work conducted in the late 1980's increased peak rate discharge from the site, by taking the pre-project conditions back to the time prior to that work, the peak rate of discharge in the 1985-86 pre-project condition was lower than it would be under today's conditions. The model results indicated that for the 25-year, 24- hour storm event, the pre-project peak rate discharge is 61.44 cubic feet per second (cfs). The post-project peak rate discharge is 28.16 cfs. Because the completed project reduces the pre-project peak rate discharges, the project will not cause any adverse flooding impacts off the property downstream. A similar analysis of the peak rate discharges under pre-project conditions that exist today (rather than in 1986) was compared to peak rate discharges for the post-project conditions. This analysis also showed post-project peak rate discharges to be less than the peak rate discharges from the site using today’s conditions as pre-project conditions. As further support to demonstrate that the project would not cause additional flooding downstream, a second modeling analysis was conducted, which is referred to as the Ravenswood Overall Watershed Model (OWM). The Applicants' engineer identified water flowing into the system from the entire watershed basin, including the project site under both the pre- and post-project conditions. The water regime was evaluated to determine what effect the proposed project will have on the overall peak rate discharges, the overall staging, and the duration of the staging within the basin that ultimately receives the water from the overall watershed. This receiving basin area was defined as the "wetland node" (Node 98 pre- project, and Node 99 post-project). As previously stated, the area within this "wetland node" includes more than just the portion of Wetland 1 that is located on the Ravenswood site. It also includes the areas to the south and east of the on-site Wetland 1 (including properties owned by the Petitioners) and extends down to an east-west ditch located just north of Josiah Street. The project’s surface water management system will not discharge to a landlocked basin. The project is not located in a floodway or floodplain. The project is not located downstream of a point on a watercourse where the drainage is five square miles or more. The project is impounding water only for temporary storage purposes. Based on testimony from their experts, Petitioners contend that reasonable assurances have not been given as to water quantity criteria due to various alleged problems regarding the modeling performed by the Ginns' engineer. Tailwater Elevations First, they raise what they call "the tailwater problem." According to Petitioners, the Ginns' modeling was flawed because it did not use a 19.27-foot SHW elevation in Wetland 1 as the tailwater elevation. The 19.27-foot SHW was identified by the Ginns' biologist in the Wetland 1 near the location of the proposed utility line crossing the wetland and was used as the pre-development tailwater in the analysis of the project site. The post-development tailwater condition was different because constructing the project would change the discharge point, and "tailwater" refers to the water elevation at the final discharge of the stormwater management system. (SW- A.H., Section 9.7) The post-development tailwater was 21 feet, which reflects the elevation of the top of the spreader swale that will be constructed, and it rose to 21.3 feet at peak flow over that berm. For the OWM, the final discharge point of the system being modeled was the east-west ditch located just north of Josiah Street, where the tailwater elevation was approximately 18.1 feet, not the 19.27 feet SHW mark to the north in Wetland 1. The tailwater condition used in the modeling was correct. Petitioners also mention in their PRO that "the Applicants' analysis shows that, at certain times after the 25 year, 24 hour storm event, in the post development state, Wetland 1 will have higher staging than in the predevelopment state." But those stages are after peak flows have occurred and are below flood stages. This is not an expected result of post- development peak-flow attenuation. Watershed Criticism The second major criticism Petitioners level at the Applicants' modeling is that parts of the applicable watershed basins were omitted. These include basins to the west of the project site, as well as basins to the north of the site, which Petitioners lumped into the so-called "tailwater problem." Petitioners sought to show that the basins identified by the Ginns as draining onto the project site from the west were undersized, thus underestimating the amount of offsite water flowing onto the project site. With respect to Basin C, Petitioners' witness testified that the basin should be 60 acres instead of 30 acres in size, and that consequently more water would flow into pond DA-2 and thus reduce the residence time of the permanent pool volume. In fact, Basin C is 16 acres in size, not 30 acres. The water from Basin C moves onto the project site over the western project boundary. A portion of the water from Basin C will be directed to pond DA-2 through an inlet structure, and the rest will move over an irregular weir and around the project site. With respect to Basin D, Petitioners' witness testified that the basin should encompass an additional 20 acres to the west and north. West of Basin D, there are ditches routing water flow away from the watershed, so it is unclear how water from an additional 20 acres would enter the watershed. The western boundary of the OWM is consistent with the western boundaries delineated in two studies performed for St. Johns County. Petitioners' witness testified that all of the water from the western offsite basins currently travels across the project site's western boundary, and that in post-development all of that water will enter pond DA-2 through the inlet structure. In fact, currently only the water from Basin C flows across the project site's western boundary. Post-development, only a portion of water from Basin C will enter pond DA-2. Currently and post-development, the water in Basin D travels north to a ditch south of Ravenswood Drive and discharges into Wetland 1. Petitioners also sought to show that a 50-acre area north of the project site should have been included in the OWM. Petitioners' witness testified that there is a "strong possibility" that the northern area drains into the project site by means of overtopping Ravenswood Drive. The witness' estimate of 50 acres was based on review of topographical maps; the witness has not seen water flowing over Ravenswood Drive. The Ginns' engineer testified that the area north of Ravenswood Drive does not enter the project site, based on his review of two reports prepared by different engineering firms for St. Johns County, conversations with one of those engineering firms, conversations with the St. Johns County engineer, reviews of aerials and contour maps, and site observations. Based on site observations, the area north of the project site drains north and then east. One report prepared for St. Johns County did not include the northern area in the watershed, and the other report included an area to the north consisting of 12 acres. The Ginns' engineer added the 12-acre area to the OWM and assumed the existence of an unobstructed culvert through which this additional water could enter Wetland 1, but the model results showed no effect of the project on stages or duration in the wetland. Even if a 50-acre area were included in the OWM, the result would be an increase in both pre-development and post- development peak rates of discharge. So long as the post- development peak rate of discharge is lower than the pre- development peak rate of discharge, then the conveyance system downstream will experience a rate of water flow that is the same or lower than before the project, and the project will not cause adverse flooding impacts offsite. Petitioners' witness did not have any documents to support his version of the delineations of Basins C and D and the area north of Ravenswood Drive. Time of Concentration Time of concentration (TC) is the time that it takes a drop of water to travel from the hydraulically most distant point in a watershed. Petitioners sought to show that the TC used for Basin C was incorrect. Part of Petitioners' rationale is related to their criticism of the watersheds used in the Ginns' modeling. Petitioners' witness testified that the TC was too low because the distance traveled in Basin C should be longer because Basin C should be larger. The appropriateness of the Basin C delineation already has been addressed. See Finding 71, supra. Petitioners' witness also testified that the TC used for the post-development analysis was too high because water will travel faster after development. However, the project will not develop Basins C and D, and thus using the same TC in pre- development and post-development is appropriate. The project will develop Basins A and B (called Basins 1, 2, and 3 post- development), and the post-development TC for those basins were, in fact, lower than those used in the pre-development analysis. Groundwater Infiltration in DA-2 One witness for Petitioners opined that groundwater would move up through the bottom of DA-2 as a result of upwelling (also referred to as infiltration or seepage), such that 1,941 gallons per day (gpd) would enter DA-2. That witness agreed that if a liner were installed in a portion of DA-2, the liner would reduce upwelling in a portion of the pond. Another witness for Petitioners opined that 200 gpd of groundwater would enter the eastern part and 20,000 gpd would enter the western part of DA-2. Although that witness stated that upwelling of 200 gpd is not a significant input and that upwelling of 20,000 gpd is a significant input, he had not performed calculations to determine the significance. Even if more than 20,000 gpd of groundwater entered DA-2, DA-2 will provide sufficient permanent pool residence time without any change to the currently designed permanent pool size or the orifice size. Although part of one system, even if DA-2 is considered separate from DA-1, DA-2 is designed to provide an additional permanent pool volume of 6.57 acre-feet (in addition to the 20.5 acre/feet provided by DA-1). This 6.57 acre-feet provided by DA-2, is more than the 4.889 acre-feet of permanent pool volume that would be necessary to achieve a 21-day residence time for the 24+ acres that discharge directly into DA-2, as well as background seepage into DA-2 at a rate of 0.0403 cfs, which is more upwelling than estimated by Petitioners' two witnesses. There is adequate permanent pool volume in DA-2 to accommodate the entire flow from Basin C and for water entering through the pond bottom and pond sides and provide at least 21 days of residence time. Water Quality Criteria Presumptive Water Quality The stormwater system proposed by the Ginns is designed in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rules 40C-42.024, 40C-42.025, and 40C-42.026(4). Wet detention ponds must be designed for a permanent pool residence time of 14 days with a littoral zone, or for a residence time of 21 days without a littoral zone, which is the case for this project. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C-42.026(4)(c) and (d). DA-1 and DA-2 contain sufficient permanent pool volume to provide a residence time of 31.5 days, which is the amount of time required for projects that discharge to Class II Outstanding Florida Waters, even though the receiving waterbody for this project is classified as Class III Waters. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C-42.026(4)(k)1. Best management practices will be used during project construction to address erosion and sediment control. Such measures will include silt fences around the construction site, hay bales in ditches and inlets, and maintenance of construction equipment to prevent release of pollutants, and may include staked sod on banks and turbidity barriers if needed. In addition, the District proposed permit conditions that require erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented. (Dist. Ex. 1, pp. 8-9, #4; Dist. Ex. 2, p. 1, ##3, 4, and 5, and p. 6, #10). ERP/MSSW/Stormwater Special Conditions incorporated into the proposed permit require that all wetland areas or water bodies outside the specific limits of construction must be protected from erosion, siltation, scouring or excess turbidity, and dewatering. (Dist. Ex. 2). The District also proposed a permit condition that requires District approval of a dewatering plan for construction, including DA-1 and DA-2, within 30 days of permit issuance and prior to construction. The Ginns intend to retain the dewatering from construction on the project site. As previously described, Petitioners' engineering witness sought to show that DA-2 will not provide the required permanent pool residence time because Basin C should be 60 acres in size. Petitioners' environmental witness also expressed concern about the capacity of the ponds to provide the water quality treatment required to meet the presumptive water quality criteria in the rules, but those concerns were based on information he obtained from Petitioners' engineering witness. Those issues already have been addressed. See Findings 77-78, supra. Groundwater Contamination Besides those issues, Petitioners raised the issue that groundwater contamination from a former landfill nearby and from some onsite sludge and trash disposal could be drawn into the proposed stormwater management system and cause water quality violations in the receiving waters. If groundwater is contaminated, the surface water management system could allow groundwater to become surface water in proposed DA-1. St. Johns County operated a landfill from the mid-1950s to 1977 in an area northwest of the project site. The landfill accepted household and industrial waste, which was buried in groundwater, which in turn could greatly enhance the creation of leachate and impacted water. Groundwater flows from west to east in the vicinity of the landfill and the project site but there was conflicting evidence as to a minor portion of the property. The Ginns' witness testified that if the landfill extended far enough south, a small part of the project site could be downgradient from the landfill. But there was no evidence that the landfill extended that far south. Petitioners' witness testified that the groundwater flow varies on the south side of the landfill so that groundwater might flow southeast toward the site. Even if Petitioners' witness is correct, the surface water management system was designed, as Petitioners' other witness agreed, so that DA-1 would have minimal influence on groundwater near the pond. In 1989, sewage sludge and garbage were placed in a pit in the central part of the project site, north of the existing pond, which also is the area for proposed DA-1; and at various times refuse--including a couple of batteries, a few sealed buckets, and concrete--has been placed on the surface of the site. In 1989, to determine the amount of sewage and garbage on the project site, the St. Johns County Health Department chose several locations evidencing recent excavation south of Ravenswood Drive, had the areas re-excavated, and found one bag of garbage and debris such as tree stumps and palmettos. In 2001, an empty 55-gallon drum was on the site; there was no evidence what it once contained or what it contained when deposited onsite, if anything. In addition, trespassers dumped solid waste on the property from time to time. Petitioners' witness searched the site with a magnetometer and found nothing significant. On the same day, another of Petitioners’ witnesses sampled with an auger but the auger did not bore for core or any other type sample; it merely measured groundwater level. In 1985, 1999, and 2000, groundwater offsite of the project near the landfill was sampled at various times and places by various consultants to determine whether groundwater was being contaminated by the landfill. The groundwater sampling did not detect any violations of water quality standards. Consultants for the Ginns twice sampled groundwater beneath the project site and also modeled contaminant migration. The first time, in 2001, they used three wells to sample the site in the northwest for potential impacts to the property from the landfill. The second time, they sampled the site through cluster wells in the northwest, middle, and south. (Each cluster well samples in a shallow and in a deeper location.) The well locations were closest to the offsite landfill and within an area where refuse may have been buried in the north- central part of the site. Due to natural processes since 1989, no sewage sludge deposited onsite then would be expected to remain on the surface or be found in the groundwater. The evidence was that the sewage sludge and garbage were excavated. Although samples taken near the center of the property contained substances that are water quality parameters, they were not found in sufficient concentration to be water quality violations. There is an iron stain in the sand north of the existing pond in the area where pond DA-1 is to be located. Based on dissolved oxygen levels in the groundwater, Petitioners' witness suggested that the stain is due to buried sewage, but the oxygen levels are not in violation of water quality standards and, while toward the low end of not being a violation, the levels could be due to natural causes. No evidence was presented establishing that the presence of the iron stain will lead to a violation of water quality standards. Petitioners' witness, Mr. Boyes, testified that iron was a health concern. But iron itself is a secondary drinking water standard, which is not a health-based standard but pertains to odor and appearance of drinking water. See § 403.852(12) and (13), Fla. Stat. Petitioners argued that the Phase I study was defective because historical activity on the project site was not adequately addressed. But the Phase I study was only part of the evidence considered during this de novo hearing. Following up on the Phase I study, the 2001 sampling analyzed for 68 volatile organics and 72 semi-volatile organics, which would have picked up solvents, some pesticides, petroleum hydrocarbons, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons--the full range of semi-volatile and volatile organics. The sampling in August 2003 occurred because some of the semi-volatile parameters sampled earlier needed to be more precisely measured, and it was a much broader analysis that included 63 semi-volatiles, 73 volatile organic compounds, 23 polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, 25 organic phosphate pesticides, 13 chlorinated herbicides, 13 metals, and ammonia and phosphorus. The parameters for which sampling and analyses were done included parameters that were representative of contaminants in landfills that would have now spread to the project site. They also would have detected any contamination due to historical activity on the project site. Yet groundwater testing demonstrated that existing groundwater at the project site meets state water quality standards. Based on the lack of contaminants found in these samples taken from groundwater at the project site 50 years after the landfill began operation, the logical conclusion is that either groundwater does not flow from the landfill toward the project site or that the groundwater moving away from the landfill is not contaminated. Groundwater that may enter the stormwater ponds will not contain contaminants that will exceed surface water quality standards or groundwater quality standards. Taken together, the evidence was adequate to give reasonable assurances that groundwater entering the stormwater ponds will not contain contaminants that exceed surface water quality standards or groundwater quality standards and that water quality violations would not occur from contaminated water groundwater drawn into the proposed stormwater management system, whether from the old landfill or from onsite waste disposal. The greater weight of the evidence was that there are no violations of water quality standards in groundwater beneath the project site and that nothing has happened on the site that would cause violations to occur in the future. Contrary to Petitioners' suggestion, a permit condition requiring continued monitoring for onsite contamination is not warranted. J. Fish and Wildlife Except for the bald eagle nest, all issues regarding fish and wildlife, listed species, and their habitat as they relate to ERP-A.H. 12.2.2 through 12.2.2.4 already have been addressed. When the Ginns were made aware in November 2003 that there was an eagle nest in Wetland 1, they retained the services of Tony Steffer, an eagle expert with over 25 years of experience working specifically with eagles and eagle management issues, including extensive hands-on experience with eagles and the conduct of field studies, aerial surveys, and behavioral observations as well as numerous research projects on the bald eagle. Mr. Steffer visited the Ravenswood site on numerous occasions since the discovery of the nest, made observations, and was integral in the drafting of the Ravenswood BEMP. It is Mr. Steffer’s opinion that the proposed project, with the implementation of the BEMP, will not adversely affect the eagles. This opinion was based on Mr. Steffer's extensive knowledge and experience with eagle behavior and human interactions. In addition, Mr. Steffer considered the physical characteristics of the Ravenswood site and the nest tree, the dense vegetation in Wetland 1 surrounding the nest site, and the existing surrounding land uses, including the existing residential community that lies a distance of about 310 feet from the nest site, the existing roadways and associated traffic, and the school (with attendant playground noise) that is to north of the site. In Mr. Steffer's opinion, the eagles are deriving their security from the buffering effects provided by the surrounding wetland. He observed that the nesting and incubating eagles were not disturbed when he set up his scope at about 300-320 feet from the tree. The BEMP requires that Wetland 1, and the upland islands located within it, be preserved and limits the work associated with the water/sewer line to the non-nesting season. With the BEMP implemented, Mr. Steffer expressed confidence that the Ravenswood eagles would be able to tolerate the proposed activities allowed under the BEMP. The Ravenswood project plans and the BEMP were reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The USFWS analyzed information in their files relating to projects which proposed activities within the primary zone of an eagle nest and reported abandoned nests. None of the reported abandoned nests could be attributed to human activities in and around the nest tree. Based on the project plans, the terms of the BEMP, and this analysis, the USFWS concluded that the Ravenswood project "is not likely to adversely affect" the bald eagles at the Ravenswood site. According to the coordination procedures agreed to and employed by the USFWS and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), the USFWS takes the lead in reviewing bald eagle issues associated with development projects. In accordance with these procedures, for the Ravenswood project, the USFWS coordinated their review and their draft comments with the FFWCC. The FFWCC concurred with the USFWS’s position that the project, with the implementation of the BEMP, will not adversely affect the Ravenswood eagles or their nest. This position by both agencies is consistent with the expert testimony of Mr. Don Palmer, which was based on his 29 years of experience with the USFWS in bald eagle and human interactions. Petitioners and their witnesses raised several valid concerns regarding the continued viability of the Ravenswood eagle nest during and after implementation of the proposed project. One concern expressed was that parts of the Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region (Eagle Management Guidelines) seem inconsistent with the proposed project. For example, the Eagle Management Guidelines state: "The emphasis [of the guidelines] is to avoid or minimize detrimental human-related impacts on bald eagles, particularly during the nesting season." They also state that the primary zone, which in this case is the area within a 750 foot radius of the nest tree, is "the most critical area and must be maintained to promote acceptable conditions for eagles." They recommend no residential development within the primary zone "at any time." (Emphasis in original.) They also recommend no major activities such as land clearing and construction in the secondary zone during the nesting season because "[e]ven intermittent use or activities [of that kind] of short duration during nesting are likely to constitute disturbance." But the eagle experts explained that the Eagle Management Guidelines have not been updated since 1987, and it has been learned since then that eagles can tolerate more disturbance than was thought at that time. Another concern was that the Ravenswood eagles may have chosen the nest site in Wetland 1 not only for its insulation from existing development to the north and east but also for the relatively sparse development to the west. Along those lines, it was not clear from the evidence that the eagles are used to flying over developed land to forage on the San Sebastian River and its estuaries to the east, as the eagle experts seemed to believe. Mr. Mills testified that eagles have been seen foraging around stocked fish ponds to the west, which also could be the source of catfish bones found beneath the Ravenswood nest. But it is believed that the confident testimony of the eagle experts must be accepted and credited notwithstanding Petitioners' unspecific concerns along these lines. Finally, Petitioners expressed concern about the effectiveness of the monitoring during the nesting required under the BEMP. Some of Petitioners' witnesses related less-than-perfect experiences with eagle monitoring, including malfeasance (monitors sleeping instead of monitoring), unresponsive developers (ignoring monitors' requests to stop work because of signs of eagle disturbance, or delaying work stoppage), and indications that some eagle monitors may lack independence from the hiring developer (giving rise, in a worst case, to the question whether an illegal conspiracy exists between them to ignore signs of disturbance when no independent observer is around). Notwithstanding these concerns, Petitioners' witnesses conceded that eagle monitoring can be and is sometimes effective. If Mr. Steffer is retained as the eagle monitor for this project, or to recruit and train eagle monitors to work under his supervision, there is no reason to think that eagle monitoring in this case will not be conducted in good faith and effectively. Even if the Ginns do not retain Mr. Steffer for those purposes, the evidence did not suggest a valid reason to assume that the Ginns' proposed eagle monitoring will not be conducted in good faith and effectively. K. Other 40C-4.301 Criteria – 40C-4.301(1)(g)-(k) 40C-4.301.301(1)(g) - No minimum surface or groundwater levels or surface water flows have been established pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rules Chapter 40C-8 in the area of the project. 40C-4.301.301(1)(h) - There are no works of the District in the area of the project. 40C-4.301.301(1)(i) - The proposed wet detention system is typical and is based on accepted engineering practices. Wet detention systems are one of the most easily maintained stormwater management systems and require very little maintenance, just periodically checking the outfall structure for clogging. 40C-4.301.301(1)(j) - The Ginns own the property where the project is located free from mortgages and liens. As previously indicated, they will establish an operation and maintenance entity. The cost of mitigation is less than $25,000 so that financial responsibility for mitigation was not required to be established. (Costs associated with the proposed BEMP are not included as part of the Ginns' mitigation proposal.) 40C-4.301.301(1)(k) - The project is not located in a basin subject to special criteria. Public Interest Test in 40C-4.302 The seven-factor public interest test is a balancing test. The test applies to the parts of the project that are in, on, or over wetlands, and those parts must not be contrary to the public interest unless they are located in, on, or over an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) or significantly degrade an OFW, in which case the project must be clearly in the public interest. No part of the project is located within an OFW. Balancing the public interest test factors, the project will not be contrary to the public interest. 40C-4.302(1)(a)1. - The project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others because the surface water management system is designed in accordance with District criteria, the post-development peak rate of discharge is less than the pre-development peak rate of discharge, and the project will not cause flooding to offsite properties. 40C-4.302(1)(a)2. - Mitigation will offset any adverse impacts of the project to the conservation of fish and wildlife or their habitats, and the BEMP is designed to prevent adverse effects on the Ravenswood eagles. Although active gopher tortoise burrows were observed on the site, the impacts to these burrows are addressed by the FFWCC’s incidental take permit. The mitigation that is required as part of that permit will adequately offset the impacts to this species. 40C-4.302(1)(a)3. - The project will not adversely affect navigation or cause harmful shoaling. The project will not adversely affect the flow of water or cause harmful erosion. The project's design includes erosion and sediment control measures. The project's design minimizes flow velocities by including flat slopes for pipes. The stormwater will be discharged through an upsized pipe, which will reduce the velocity of the water. The stormwater will discharge into a spreader swale (also called a velocity attenuation pond), which will further reduce the velocity and will prevent erosion in Wetland 1. The other findings of fact relevant to this criterion are in the section entitled "Water Quantity." See Findings 61-67, supra. 40C-4.302(1)(a)4. – Development of the project will not adversely affect the legal recreational use of the project site. (Illegal use by trespassers should not be considered under this criterion.) There also will not be any adverse impact on recreational use in the vicinity of the project site. Wetlands 1 and 5 may provide benefit to marine productivity by supplying detritus to the marine habitat, and these wetlands will remain. 40C-4.302(1)(a)5. - The project will be of a permanent nature except for the temporary impacts to Wetland 1. Mitigation will offset the temporary adverse impacts. 40C-4.302(1)(a)6. - The District found no archeological or historical resources on the site, and the District received information from the Division of Historical Resources indicating there would be no adverse impacts from this project to significant historical or archeological resources. 40C-4.302(1)(a)7. - Considering the mitigation proposal, and the proposed BEMP, there will be no adverse effects on the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed project. The proposed project is no worse than neutral measured against any one of these criteria, individually. For that reason, it must be determined that, on balance, consideration these factors indicates that the project is not contrary to the public interest. Other 40C-4.302 Criteria The proposed mitigation is located within the same drainage basin as the project and offsets the adverse impacts so the project would not cause an unacceptable cumulative impact. The project is not located in or near Class II waters. The project does not contain seawalls and is not located in an estuary or lagoon. The District reviewed a dredge and fill violation that occurred on the project site and was handled by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in 1989. The Ginns owned the property with others in 1989. Although they did not conduct the activity that caused the violation, they took responsibility for resolving the matter in a timely manner through entry of a Consent Order. The evidence was that they complied with the terms of the Consent Order. Applicants' Exhibit 30K was a letter from DER dated February 13, 1991, verifying compliance based on a site inspection. Inexplicably, the file reference number did not match the number on the Consent Order. But Mr. Ginn testified that he has heard nothing since concerning the matter either from DER, or its successor agency (the Department of Environmental Protection), or from the District. The evidence was that the Ginns have not violated any rules described in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40C- 4.302(2). There also was no evidence of any other DER or DEP violations after 1989.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order issuing to Jay and Linda Ginn ERP number 40-109-81153-1, subject to the conditions set forth in District Exhibits 1, 2, and 10. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2004, 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 16th day of April, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Urbanek owns land in and adjacent to Town Lots 93 and 94, Highland Beach, in Section 28, Township 46 South, Range 43 East, Palm Beach County, Florida. The real estate in question is located on the eastern shore of the Intra-Coastal Waterway approximately 2,000 feet south of the mouth of the C-15 Canal. Urbanek seeks a permit under Chapters 403 and 253, Florida Statutes, and water quality certification under Public Law 92-500, to dredge approximately 24,500 square feet of shoreline and shallow nearshore area, while installing approximately 240 linear feet of bulkhead and ten mooring piles, and constructing a marginal dock and piers for the use of future residents. The application also includes filling approximately 60,000 square feet of tidally connected ditches and wetlands to allow the construction of a high density residential development. On January 19, 1976, DER received a short form application for a permit from Urbanek pursuant to Subsection 17-4.28 (4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. On March 10, 1976, Urbanek received from DER a request for additional information. This occurred 51 days after Urbanek's original application for permit. Urbanek forwarded the requested additional information to DER on April 22, 1976, and April 30, 1976. On May 12, 1976, DER notified Urbanek that the project must be submitted using standard permitting procedures along with the incorporation of certain recommendations made by DER's field inspector. On June 9, 1976, Urbanek was notified by DER that his application had been forwarded to Tallahassee with a recommendation for denial on two grounds. First, that the application did not meet the criteria for short form applications and second, that the proposed project would eliminate valuable submerged and wetland habitats. On July 27, 1976, Urbanek was notified by DER's Tallahassee office that his application was received on January 1976, and that the application was incomplete. The notification requested additional information. On September 22, 1976, DER notified Urbanek that processing of his application was discontinued because required data was not sent by Urbanek to DER. Urbanek was further advised that processing of the application," would be continued upon receipt of the necessary information. On January 20, 1977, Urbanek submitted another modified permit application to DER. On February 28, 1977, DER sent Urbanek notice of receipt of the application once again requesting additional information be submitted. On March 4, 1977, Urbanek forwarded the requested information to DER. On April 1, -1977, DER forwarded to Urbanek its notice of intent to deny and the proposed order of denial of the permit application. On April 15, 1977, Urbanek petitioned DER for a hearing pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The area of the project, prior to the turn of the century, was a fresh water wetland. However, salt water intrusion from the permanent opening of the Boca Inlet in south Palm Beach County in the early 1900's paved the way for colonization of mangroves in the Spanish River Basin, now the Intra-Coastal Waterway. As the human population increased in Palm Beach County, the mangroves were destroyed in order to afford living spaces. As a result, approximately 77 percent of the mangroves in Palm Beach County have been removed. One of the last remaining mangrove areas in southern Palm Beach County is located on a strip of land which borders the eastern side of the Intra-Coastal Waterway. The applicant's project site represents a portion of that strip. The project site fronts 230 feet-of the Intra-Coastal Waterway and extends approximately 670 feet eastward to State Road A1A. The property is intersected by three mosquito control ditches which run perpendicular to the Intra-Coastal Waterway but do not connect with it, and by six lateral ditches which extend from north to south and adjoin the property to the south. The project site is thus divided into eighteen parcels of land or "islands" and a fringing shoreline area. A survey conducted on October 13, 1977, and October 18, 1977, revealed the emergent areas between the ditches to be vegetated by mostly white mangroves, with canopies ranging from fifteen to forty-five feet in height. Numerous white and red mangrove seedlings plus a few scattered black mangrove seedlings indicate that the area may be changing from a predominantly white mangrove to a mixed mangrove community throughout the project site. Batis and Sesuvium were found and Australian Pines and Brazilian Pepper were observed only in areas where spoil from dredging activities was placed on the emergent area. There are approximately seven to eight thousand trees, including seedlings, in the project area. The mangrove system at the project site was characterized as a very productive system by Dr. G. Alex Marsh, an expert in Estuarine Ecology, who testified for DER. Dr. Arnold Banner of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with Dr. Marsh that the eradication of the productive system would result in the removal of a significant source of food and habitat. The evidence shows that a wetland habitat such as the project site affords approximately 535 pounds of fishing products per year with a dollar value of $8,000 per acre to the public. Petitioner argues that it would be in the public interest to bulkhead and fill the subject property because rodents would be eliminated, trash and debris would no longer collect on the property and that further erosion of the property would be prevented. However, Urbanek has failed to establish with substantial competent evidence that there actually exists a rodent problem on the subject property. The evidence does establish that trash and debris collect among the root system of the vegetation and that severe erosion has occurred on the property from wave action created by vessels moving through the Intra- Coastal Waterway. Urbanek has failed to establish with substantial competent evidence that the proposed project will not degrade water quality, cause violation of water quality standards or criteria or cause pollution. In fact, no evidence was submitted whatsoever by Urbanek which would tend to prove any of these three preconditions to the granting of the requested permit. Nonetheless, DER's failure to act on the permit application within the time limits prescribed by Subsection 120.60 (2), Florida Statutes, as amended in 1976, mandates the issuance of the requested permit.
The Issue Issues presented here concerned the entitlement of Respondent, Russell D. Horn, Sr., to be granted an environmental permit by Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, to build a boat stall on an existing dock in Putnam County, Florida. The boat stall's dimensions are ten feet wide by twenty feet deep and the construction would be on the St. Johns River.
Findings Of Fact On July 13, 1981, Russell D. Horn, Sr., who has a residence in Putnam County, Florida, bade application to the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, for the necessary permits to construct a boat stall ten feet wide by twenty feet deep at the site of an existing dock. A copy of the application may be found as Respondent Horn's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. The dock where Horn applied to build the boat slip is found in the St. Johns River, a navigable water body and waters of the State of Florida in Putnam County, Florida. The application form which was executed by Horn required him to indicate the name of adjacent property owners to the property at which the dock site was located, both upland and adjacent to the uplands. See Rule 17- 4.28(11)(c), Florida Administrative Code. To accomplish this task, the applicant utilized a sketch which he had been provided when he purchased his homesite in the area and indicated to the Department that the adjoining landowners were Milton Kilis and Robert Michal. In fact, Robert Michal was not an adjacent landowner. The adjacent landowner, Milton G. Kilis, wrote to advise the Department that he had no objection to the construction of the boat slip. This correspondence was dated September 11, 1981. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Respondent Department's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence. After reviewing the initial application, additional information was requested by a document entitled "Completeness Summary" which was addressed from the Department to the Applicant Horn. A copy of this "Completeness Summary" requesting additional information may be found as Department's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. Through this summary, Horn was requested to provide written authorization from the dock owners. It was also requested that Respondent provide an affidavit of ownership of the upland property adjacent to the dock site. Horn received permission to construct from Frank Scussell and William A. Reaves, persons he understood to be the dock owners. See Respondent Horn's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence. Horn misunderstood the question related to ownership of upland property and provided a mortgage deed with its attendant description of his home site property in Putnam County, which is at a different location from that of the upland property adjacent to the dock. A copy of that deed and other matters may be found as Respondent Horn's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence. Department of Environmental Regulation reviewing authorities wrote on the "Completeness Summary" form, Respondent Department's Exhibit No. 1, indicating that the task of seeking written authorization from the dock owners had been achieved and that the affidavit of ownership of upland property owners was satisfactory. In fact, all adjacent property owners had not been notified of the pendency of the application request through the process of Horn's advising the Respondent agency of the names of all adjacent property owners to the uplands and the affidavit of ownership of the upland property owner at the dock site was not filed. During the review process, permission was given by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for the construction of the boat slip. A copy of this permission, by letter dated August 31, 1981, is Respondent Department's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. The Department of Environmental Regulation reviewed the permit application and prepared an application appraisal, which may be found as Respondent Department's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence. The findings made by that application appraisal related to application review are found to be accurate. In particular the permit application appraisal indicated that the boat slip would be located at the waterward end of the existing dock structure, which existing dock structure accommodated four boats. The appraisal found that the project was located in South Putnam County in the town of Georgetown on the St. Johns River. The permit appraisal found that the project site would be located in the littoral zone of the river about one hundred feet waterward of the mean high water line. No littoral growth was seen at the depth of the proposed construction. Tapegrass, Mexican waterlily and cattail were present near the shore. Several large hardwood swamp trees were present at the shoreline. The project was found to be located in a Water Class III and adjacent waters were Class III according to the appraisal, no significant immediate or long-term adverse environmental impacts were to be expected to occur due to the completion of the boat slip. Horn was subsequently given a construction permit to add the boat stall to the existing dock. A copy of that permit may be found as Respondent Department's Exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence. The only specific conditions related to that matter pertain to the necessity for the utilization of turbidity curtains throughout the project for purposes of containing the turbidity that might exceed State water quality standards, The permit was issued on September 22, 1981. After receiving the permit, sometime around October 20, 1981, Horn purchased the necessary lumber to construct the stall and on October 24, 1981, went to the dock site to begin the installation of pilings related to the construction of the boat stall. While placing the pilings on October 24, 1981, an adjoining property owner and Petitioner in this cause, Marshall Wolfe, stood on his dock, that is, Wolfe's dock, and hailed to Horn to stop building. Horn did not know Wolfe before that time and did not know that Wolfe, not Michal, was the adjacent property owner on that side of the dock. On October 28, 1981, Marshall Wolfe and his wife, Ann Wolfe, wrote to the Department in the person of G. Doug Dutton, Subdistrict Manager, and indicated that they were opposed to the issuance of the permit, which is under the number of the permit issued to Respondent, and requested a hearing on the question of the issuance. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Department's Exhibit No. 7 admitted into evidence. On the same date, October 28, 1981, Horn was contacted by the Department of Environmental Regulation and advised of the Wolfe complaint and Horn was told that he would receive a cease and desist order from the Department of Environmental Regulation. On October 30, 1981, Horn returned to the construction site and found four of his neighbors finishing the construction of the stall. In fact, the neighbors did conclude the construction and the boat slip remains in place. A cease and desist letter was mailed on November 2, 1981; however, this letter was not received by Horn immediately. Horn did subsequently learn of the contents of the letter some time in November or December, 1981. A copy of the cease and desist letter may be found as Respondent Department's Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. On December 13, 1981, an attempt was made at the instigation of Department officials for the Petitioners and Respondent Horn to resolve the controversy. This effort was unsuccessful. As a consequence, a formal hearing was necessary in keeping with the request of the Department that the Division of Administrative Hearings conduct a Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, formal hearing. This request had been made on November 12, 1981, and an initial hearings had been scheduled for February 11, 1982, following consultation between the various parties and the Hearing Officer. At the initial hearing session on February 11, 1982, which was to be held in Palatka, Florida, counsel for Department indicated that the upland property was not owned by Horn and that easement rights to that property were unclear. In view of this fact the hearing was continued until the ostensible upland property owner could be notified of the pendency of the issuance of an environmental permit and be allowed to participate. Notification was subsequently provided by an Intent to Issue Statement, a copy of which may be found as Respondent Department's Exhibit No. 9 admitted into evidence. This notification was through the Department at the instigation of the Hearing Officer. The date of notification was February 12, 1982. An order was entered on March 17, 1982, which allowed the intervention of St. Johns Crescent Lakesites, Inc. into the proceedings and that party, in the person of its counsel, Lauren E. Merriam, III, Esquire, participated in the April 15, 1982 hearing. St. Johns Crescent Lakesites, Inc. is the owner of the upland property adjacent to the dock in which Horn had constructed the boat slip. No indication was given that any easement rights were ever granted by that corporation to grant access to the boat slip from the adjacent property. The overall dock area, in terms of square feet, is between 500 and 1000 square feet. Other than the permit application made by Horn, no other permission has been received by the Department to construct the other features of the dock. A further appraisal of the project site subsequent to the September 18, 1981, appraisal has been made. That appraisal was made by the field inspector for the Department. This appraisal by Melvin Rechtor agrees with the project appraisal made by the first field inspector, John Hendricks. The testimony of Melvin Rechtor on environmental impacts of the project are accepted as accurate. Rechtor's testimony established that the project would have an insignificant impact on water quality considerations and would not adversely affect the species or the conservation of fish, marine and wildlife or other natural resources. Rechtor's testimony established that there would be no unreasonable interference with waterward access of adjacent property owners. Rechtor's testimony also established that there would be no navigational hazard nor interference with fishing and swimming by persons using the river.
Findings Of Fact Collier Development Corporation, Naples, Florida, owns a triangular tract of land consisting of approximately 16 acres in Naples, Florida. In 1958, the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund conveyed by quitclaim deed to Collier Development Corporation all its interests in the property. A 1958 affidavit of Collier's surveyor who prepared the legal description of the land was filed in the Collier County public records and states that the land conveyed by the quitclaim deed was "high land" erroneously shown as bay bottom land according to the original government survey, and that the deed was executed in exchange for the conveyance of certain parcels of bay bottom land in Naples Bay to the Trustees. (Exhibits 1-2) In 1976, Petitioner executed an option agreement with Collier Development Corporation to purchase the land in question, contingent upon certain conditions including a requirement to obtain any required fill permits. On December 27, 1976, Petitioner assigned the option agreement to Michael S. Spiegel and himself as joint tenants. On March 14, 1977, a "short form" application was filed by Petitioner, as authorized by Collier Development Corporation, with Respondent to fill the land above the mean high water line to building grade for future residential, multi-family, or commercial uses. The application reflected that 400 cubic yards of rock riprap would be placed at least five feet upland of the designated mean high water line along the boundary of the property that faced the Gordon River and Rock Creek. The riprap revetment is designed to provide a method of containing upland fill material. The application contemplates that a fabric-like material "Mirafi" will be placed on the ground and wrapped over the riprap barrier. The application further provides that approximately 90,000 pounds of fill material will be trucked into the site and placed behind the riprap material to fill the land to a minimum elevation of four feet. It is also proposed to slope the fill material behind the riprap and plant grass seed thereon. In October, 1977, Petitioner filed a "long form" application which merely amplified the original application. The mean high water line was established by a survey performed under standard procedures and which utilized the existing bulkhead line as a point of reference. The survey was conducted in 1977 and 1978, and the procedures used were approved by and the survey filed in the Department of Natural Resources on June 26, 1978. (Testimony of Park, Lawson, Exhibits 4, 6, 8, 11) By letter dated January 26, 1978, Respondent provided notice of its intent to deny the permit application pursuant to Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and Public Law 92-500. The reasons stated for the proposed denial generally were that filling the land would destroy mangrove vegetation which provides a major input of organic material to estuarine tropic webs, and filters and assimilates pollutants from upland runoff. It was stated that the proposed project would eliminate approximately 15 acres of submerged lands and transition zones, as defined in Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, which would reduce the quality and quantity of the state's marine resources adjacent to Class II waters and "tend to cause degradation of water quality conditions." Thereafter, on January 25, 1978, Petitioner submitted a petition for hearing wherein the jurisdiction of the Respondent in the matter and its grounds for the proposed denial were challenged. (Exhibit 5) The land in question is located south and adjacent to the confluence of the Gordon River and Rock Creek along the north side of U.S. Highway 41. The Gordon River and Rock Creek are tributaries of Naples Bay and all are Class II waters. The area is vegetated by red mangroves with a lesser number of white and black mangroves. A pond of about one-half acre surrounded by red mangroves is located in the southern section of the tract which occasionally overflows into a ditch running parallel to U.S. 41 located within the highway right-of- way. There is a berm alongside the ditch designed to prevent highway runoff from flowing onto Petitioner's land. During high tides, most of the land is inundated to varied depths ranging from two to eight inches. Certain marine vegetational species are present on portions of the land, such as sea grape, sea purslane, sea daisy, and button wood. Certain marine animal life is present in the mangrove area, including coffee bean snails, ribbed mussels, marsh clams, mangrove crabs, fiddler crabs, and mosquito fish. Other marine species, such as common oysters, scorched mussels, and barnacles inhabit the Rock Creek shore line. There is sparse bird population on Petitioner's land that may in part be due to the proximity of Naples Airport. (Testimony of Lawson, Park, Carroll, Fields, M. Spiegel, Exhibits 3, 7, 10) The quality of water in the Gordon River and Rock Creek is adversely effected to some degree by receipt of sewage plant effluent, discharge from nearby canals and runoff from residential and commercial areas. As a result of high bacterial count in these waters, shell fishing and swimming is not permitted. The mangrove forest on Petitioner's property is in a stressed condition as evidenced by the thinness of the canopy. It is probable that this condition was caused primarily by the introduction of fresh water from canals into the surrounding waters. (Testimony of Carroll, Fields, Erwin, Yokel) Mangrove wetlands are an important component of the estuarine ecosystem which provide nutrient stabilization and transformation in the supply of an organic base to the estuarine food chain, filtration of upland runoff, and storage of storm waters. They are a nursery for fish and invertebrate species, and a fish and wildlife habitat. The mangrove system on Petitioner's property is productive and contributing to the needs of marine life in the Naples Bay area. In this respect, most of the detritus produced by the mangrove system occurs below the mean high water line. However, the tidal flow during storm conditions at certain times of the year can release accumulated organic matter from the higher areas. This generally occurs in late summer and early fall when feeding demands of organisms are high. (Testimony of Erwin, Yokel) Although no system for containing surface water runoff was set forth in Petitioner's permit application, it is planned that such runoff will be retained on the site by a site drainage plan that would be accomplished by grading and the use of the existing pond or other means of retention, in addition to the natural percolation into the sandy fill material. (Testimony of Park) The application did not specify the precise distance from the mean high water line at which fill would be placed, but Petitioner clarified this point at the hearing. Fill material will not be placed closer than 100 feet upland of the mean high water line. The mangrove area left intact below that point will enable the ecological system to survive. However, due to the fact that the Naples Bay area does not produce sufficient organic matter to fully support animal life in the area, the loss of a substantial portion of mangroves will impact on the detrital food chain to some extent. (Testimony of Carroll, Yokel)
Recommendation That Respondent issue the requested permit to Petitioner, subject to the modification thereto made at the hearing with regard to the 100' setback as set forth in paragraph 8 of the foregoing Findings of Fact. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of February, 1979. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Ray Allen, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard Horowitz, Esquire 3550 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 402 Miami, Florida 33137 William Blackwell, Esquire 3003 North Miami Trail Naples, Florida
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
The Issue Whether Respondent Richardson’s application for a wetlands resource permit to construct a private road and bridge through wetlands should be denied for failing to provide mitigation to offset the impacts to existing wetlands. Whether Respondent Richardson had provided the Department with reasonable assurance that he or she owns or has sufficient authorization to use certain land in mitigation to offset the wetland impacts.
Findings Of Fact In January of 1990, John Richardson applied to the Department for a wetland resource (dredge and fill) permit under Section 403.918, Florida Statutes to construct a private road and bridge through wetlands. The proposed project would impact 0.032 acres of wetland. The proposed project is not located in an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). The proposed project would adversely affect the following: the conservation of fish and wildlife; the fishing, recreational values, and marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed project; and the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by the wetlands impacted by the project. The proposed project would be permanent in nature. The proposed project would not meet the criteria of Section 403.918(2)(a) Florida Statutes, without mitigation adequate to offset the impacts to wetlands. To provide adequate mitigation for the proposed project, Respondent John Richardson proposed to create and preserve 0.029 acres of new wetlands and preserve 4.35 acres of existing wetlands. The preservation would consist of granting to the Department a perpetual conservation easement over the mitigation wetlands. Respondent John Richardson represented to the Department that he was the record owner or had permission to use the land that he offered for mitigation. The Department reasonably relied on that representation. The mitigation proposed by Respondent John Richardson would be adequate to offset the impacts to wetlands resulting from the proposed project. On March 4, 1992, the Department issued to John Richardson a wetlands resource permit for the proposed project. The Department was not aware, before it issued this permit, that John Richardson might not own or have permission to use the mitigation land. The Department was substantially justified in issuing the permit to John Richardson on March 4, 1992. Specific conditions 28-31 of that permit required Respondent John Richardson to grant the Department a conservation easement over the mitigation land within thirty days after issuance of the permit. Respondent John Richardson failed to grant the Department the required conservation easement, and failed to publish notice of the Department’s action. On July 22, 1996, Petitioners filed a timely petition with the Department challenging the Department’s issuance of the March 4, 1992, permit to Respondent John Richardson. On September 11, 1996, Janet Richardson filed an application with the Department for transfer of the March 4, 1992, permit to her following the dissolution of marriage with John Richardson. By letter dated October 11, 1996, the Department requested Janet Richardson to provide additional documentation to show that she either owns the mitigation land or has permission to use that land. Janet Richardson was required to provide a legal survey drawing depicting the mitigation land, property records showing ownership of that land, and a notarized statement from the land owner authorizing her to use that land. The Department specifically advised Janet Richardson that it could not approve the proposed project if she failed to submit this requested documentation to the Department prior to the final hearing. Janet Richardson failed to provide the requested documentation by the date of the final hearing in this matter, or subsequently. As of November 6, 1996, no work had begun on the proposed project. At the hearing, the Department adequately explained its change in position from deciding to issue the permit (on March 4, 1992) and proposing denial of the permit (on November 6, 1996). The Department relies on an applicant’s representations regarding ownership of or right to use land unless a problem is brought to the Department’s attention. In this case, the Department was not aware that there was a problem with the applicant’s right to use the mitigation land until the petition was filed with the Department on July 22, 1996. Janet Richardson failed to provide proof that she either owns or is authorized to use the land to mitigate the impacts to wetlands from the proposed project. Without such proof, Janet Richardson failed to prove that she could mitigate those same impacts from the proposed project.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order denying Respondent Richardson’s request for a wetlands resource permit for the proposed project.ONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Stauffer Post Office Box 97 Aripeka, Florida 34679-097 Cy Plata Post Office Box 64 Aripeka, Florida 34679 Steven McCallum Post Office Box 484 Aripeka, Florida 34679 Leslie Neumann Post Office Box 738 Aripeka, Florida 34679 John Richardson 700 West Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34607 Janet Richardson 1603 Osowaw Boulevard Springhill, Florida 34607 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr., Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Perry Odom, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virgina B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
