Findings Of Fact The Proposed Permit This case involves a 65-acre site in north Lee County owned by the City of Ft. Myers. At all material times, the land has been zoned under industrial- equivalent designations. By leases that are not part of this record, Ft. Myers has leased 21.4 acres of the 65 acres to various governmental agencies, including Lee County, Lee County Sheriff's Office, and possibly the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (formerly known as Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services). The following facilities are presently located on the 21.4 acres: Juvenile Detention Center, Lee County Stockade, Price Halfway House, Sheriff's Office Aviation Department, and Emergency Operations Center. By lease dated September 20, 1993, Ft. Myers leased the remaining 43.6 undeveloped acres to Lee County for a term of 50 years. This lease allows Lee County to use the 43.6 acres for $1 per year, but only for the operation of a Juvenile Justice Facility. Under Paragraph 20 of the lease, Ft. Myers may terminate the lease if Lee County ceases to operate the facility. Likewise, Lee County may terminate the lease if the Department of Juvenile Justice ceases to fund the County's operation of the facility. Under the lease, preference is given to juvenile residents of Ft. Myers. Paragraph 22 of the lease allocates liability to Lee County for claims or damages arising from released fuels, including from pipelines. The lease is not assignable without Ft. Myer's consent. By agreement dated December 17, 1993, Ft. Myers consented to the sublease of the entire 43.6- acre parcel to the Department of Juvenile Justice for the purpose of the construction of a juvenile residential commitment facility. Lee County receives no rent from the Department of Juvenile Justice. In Paragraph 10 of the agreement, the Department of Juvenile Justice agrees to maintain, at its expense, "all improvements of every kind . . .." Lee County must make any repairs to improvements if the Department of Juvenile Justice fails to do so. By subsequent agreement, Respondent Department of Management Services (DMS) became the agent for the Department of Juvenile Justice for the design, permitting, and construction of the juvenile justice facility. By Application for a surface water management permit executed June 16, 1994, DMS applied for a surface water management permit for the construction and operation of a 10.9- acre project known as the Lee County Juvenile Commitment Facility. This 10.9-acre project is part of the 43.6 acres leased to Lee County and subleased to the Department of Juvenile Justice. The application states that the existing 21.4 acres of developed sites, which are leased under separate agreements to different governmental entities, "will be permitted as is." The Staff Review Summary of Respondent South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) describes the purpose of the application as follows: This application is a request for Authorization for Construction and Operation of a surface water management system to serve a 10.9 acre Institutional project discharging to Six Mile [Cypress] Slough via onsite wetlands and road- side swales. The application also requests Authorization for Operation of a surface water management system serving a 21.4 acre existing facility and 32.7 acres to remain unchanged for a total permitted area of 65.0 acres. Staff recommends approval of both authorizations with conditions. The Staff Review Summary accurately states that the owner of the land is Ft. Myers. Of questionable accuracy is the statement that Ft. Myers leases to Lee County the 21.4 acres devoted to the five existing facilities. Although Lee County probably is a lessee of some of these parcels, the Lee County Sheriff's Office is the lessee (or perhaps sublessee) of at least two parcels. One of the other parcels may involve a state agency, again under either a lease or a sublease. The Staff Review Summary inaccurately states that the project developer is Lee County. The project developer is DMS or its principal, the Department of Juvenile Justice. The Staff Review Summary reviews the existing development on the 21.4 acres. The improvements consist of the 4.8-acre Juvenile Detention Center, 2.9- acre Price Halfway House, 4.7-acre Lee County Stockade, 5.1-acre Sheriff's Office Aviation Department, and 3.9-acre Emergency Operations Center. The Staff Review Summary states that the footer of the Juvenile Detention Center was inspected in February 1980. The site drains into a 1.2- acre retention pond, which was a natural pond dug out to accept the drainage from the Juvenile Detention Center. A small amount of surface flow drains from the Juvenile Detention Center to a perimeter swale that drains west into a ditch running along Ortiz Avenue. The Staff Review Summary states that the building permit for the Price Halfway House was issued in October 1982. The site drains into the 1.2-acre retention pond, which was apparently enlarged a second time to accept the additional flow. A small amount of the flow from the Price Halfway House also drains to the perimeter swale and west into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary states that the building permit for the Lee County Stockade was issued on May 25, 1976. SFWMD issued an exemption and a determination that no permit was required for two additions to the stockade in 1988 and 1989. For the additional impervious surface added by these additions, one inch of water quality treatment was provided. After the abandonment of a pumping system, drainage of the stockade site consists of water building up in existing onsite ditches and sheet flowing into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary adds that a small retention area constructed at the southeast corner of the site treats stormwater from the stockade and the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department. The summary adds that a small amount of stormwater drains north into an exterior swale that drains into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary states that a building permit was issued for the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department in August 1977. Stormwater from the site sheetflows to exterior swales north and south of the building. When the swales fill up, the water flows into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary states that a building permit was issued for the Emergency Operations Center on October 11, 1977. Drainage from the center flows directly into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. Under "Water Quality," the Staff Review Summary reports that SFWMD "did not require compliance with discharge rate or criteria" based on Section 1.6, Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within the [SFWMD] March 1994 (Basis of Review), which contains guidelines issued by SFWMD for the construction and operation of surface water management systems. The summary adds that there have been no "water quality or quantity complaints associated with this site over the past 18 years since its initial construction." Noting that a surface water management permit is requested for the entire 65-acre parcel, the Staff Review Summary states that the above-described drainage systems for the five existing facilities are "operational and will remain as they now exist." Turning to the proposed development, the Staff Review Summary states that the remaining 43.6 undeveloped acres "will also be leased to Lee County by the City for the proposed commitment facilities." The facilities are accurately described as a 5.2-acre halfway house and a 5.7-acre bootcamp, both of which will be drained by internal drainage swales and culverts flowing into detention areas, which will discharge through a control structure into onsite wetlands leading to the Ortiz Avenue swale. Addressing designed discharge rates, the Staff Review Summary acknowledges that the bootcamp's discharge rate will exceed the allowable rate for a 25-year, three-day storm event. The allowable rate is .33 cfs, and the design rate is .37 cfs. The Staff Review Summary explains that this discrepancy results from the use of the minimum size orifice (three inches) in the control structure. Addressing water quality, the Staff Review Summary reports that commercially zoned sites are required to provide one-half inch dry pretreatment for water quality unless reasonable assurance can be provided that hazardous material will not enter the surface water management system. Determining that no hazardous material will be stored or generated on the site, SFWMD did not require the one-half inch dry pretreatment of runoff. Noting that no surface water management permits have ever been issued for any part of the 65-acre parcel, the Staff Review Summary recommends that, subject to the customary Limiting Conditions, SFWMD issue: Authorization for Construction and Operation of a 10.9 acre Institutional Project discharging to Six Mile Cypress Slough via onsite wetlands and roadside swales, Operation of a 21.4 acre existing facility and 32.7 acres to remain unchanged for a total permitted area of 65.0 acres. Limiting Condition 4 states that the permittee shall request transfer of the permit to the "responsible operational entity accepted by [SFWMD], if different from the permittee." Limiting Condition 8 adds: A permit transfer to the operation phase shall not occur until a responsible entity meeting the requirements in section 9.0, "Basis of Review . . .," has been established to operate and maintain the system. The entity must be provided with sufficient ownership or legal interest so that it has control over all water management facilities authorized herein. Special Condition 11 states: "Operation of the surface water management system shall be the responsibility of Lee County." The Permittee and the Entity Responsible for Maintenance The proposed permit consists of two authorizations. The first authorization is for the construction and operation of the surface water management system on the 10.9-acre parcel on which will be constructed the bootcamp and halfway house. The second authorization is for the operation of the existing surface water management system on the already-developed 21.4 acres and the unimproved surface water management system on the remaining 32.7 acres. There are two problems with the designation of Lee County as the entity responsible for maintaining the permitted surface water management systems. Basis of Review 9.1.B states: To satisfy [P]ermit [L]imiting [C]ondition [8], the Permittee must supply appropriate written proof, such as either by letter or resolution from the governmental entity that the governmental entity will accept the oper- ation and maintenance of all the surface water management system components . . .. The authorization for operation of the systems on the 21.4-acre and 32.7-acre parcels does not await any construction. Once the permit is issued, the authorization is effective. Therefore, all prerequisites to the designation must have been satisfied before the operation permit issues. For the 21.4-acre parcel, DMS has not provided reasonable assurance that Lee County is the lessee or sublessee of all of the parcels underlying the five existing facilities. In fact, it appears that Lee County is not the lessee or sublessee of all of these parcels. Even if Lee County were the lessee or sublessee of these five parcels, DMS has not provided reasonable assurance that Lee County has assumed responsibility for the maintenance of the surface water management system for the five parcels. Contrary to Basis of Review 9.1.B, there is no written agreement by Lee County to assume operational responsibility, nor is there even an actual agreement to this effect. SFWMD's rules sensibly require that written consent be obtained before the operation permit is issued. Likewise, DMS has failed to show that Lee County has agreed to assume responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the surface water management system for the 32.7-acre parcel. Again, SFWMD must obtain written consent before issuing the permit because no construction will precede operation for the surface water management system on this parcel. Unlike the situation as to the 21.4-acre parcel, the 32.7-acre parcel is leased to Lee County as part of the 43.6- acre parcel. But in the December 17, 1993, agreement, the Department of Juvenile Justice, not Lee County, assumes responsibility for maintaining all improvements, which arguably includes drainage improvements. As between Ft. Myers and Lee County, Lee County assumes secondary liability for the maintenance of all improvements. But the failure of the Department of Juvenile Justice to do so would likely represent a default under the agreement. In such a case, the lease and separate agreement probably would either be in litigation or Lee County would have terminated its obligations under the contracts. In either case, it is unlikely that Lee County would perform its secondary responsibility to maintain the drainage improvements, especially where it is receiving no rent from the Department of Juvenile Justice and priority is given to Ft. Myers juveniles in admission decisions. Construction will precede operation as to the 10.9- acre parcel so the parties have an opportunity, even after the construction and operation permit is issued, to secure the necessary written consent before the operation permit goes into effect. But similar deficiencies exist with respect to the 10.9- acre parcel because the same agreement imposes upon the Department of Juvenile Justice, not Lee County, the obligation to maintain improvements. An additional complication arises as to the 10.9-acre parcel. The Department of Juvenile Justice intends to contract with one or more private entities to operate the bootcamp and halfway house, so there is at least one more party that Lee County could claim was responsible for maintenance of the surface water management system. The question of who is responsible for maintaining the surface water management systems is important. Drainage quantities and directions can change if swales clog up with vegetation or other matter. In this case, one roadside swale in the area of the 21.4-acre parcel is blocked with vegetation. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the designated entity has assumed responsibility for the maintenance and operation of the existing systems or will assume responsibility for the maintenance and operation of the proposed system following its construction. Permit for Existing Development Section 1.6, Basis of Review, states: [SFWMD] issues construction and operation permits for proposed surface water management activities and operation permits for existing systems. The criteria herein are specifically designed to apply to proposed activities (construction and operation permits). Therefore, some of the criteria may not be applicable to the permitting of existing systems (operation permits). For example, in some cases, existing systems may not meet flood protection criteria. Criteria deviation for existing systems will be identified in staff reports. SFWMD has produced no evidence explicating the extent to which existing systems, such as the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels, are entitled to operating permits without meeting some of the criteria applicable to proposed systems, such as the system on the 10.9-acre parcel. There is nothing whatsoever in the record to explain why certain existing systems might not have to meet certain criteria, such as flood protection criteria. Except for the quantity deviation discussed below, there is nothing in the record disclosing the extent to which SFWMD has waived, or even considered the applicability of, certain or all criteria prior to the issuance of operation permits for the existing systems. In practice, SFWMD does not adhere even to the vague standards implied in 1.6. According to the SFWMD witness, the practice of SFWMD, as reflected in this case as to the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels, is to permit existing systems "as is, where is," as long as they have had no reported problems. There are numerous deficiencies in the "as is, where is" unwritten policy, apart from the obvious one that it conflicts with the assurance of 1.6 that only "some of the criteria may not be applicable" to existing systems. First, the record does not define what a "problem" is. Second, the record discloses no means by which reported problems are collected and later accessed, such as by a parcel index. The "as is, where is" policy is an abdication of the limited responsibilities that SFWMD imposes upon itself in 1.6, especially when applied to the present facts. The facts are straightforward. Neither Ft. Myers, Lee County, nor any other party has ever obtained a permit for any surface water management system, despite numerous improvements in the past 20 years requiring such permits, including the construction of a heliport, at which maintenance and refueling of helicopters takes place. In two relatively minor cases, discussed below, SFWMD erroneously determined that no permit was required. In one of those cases, the applicant, Lee County, candidly admitted the existence of a flooding problem. Based on the present record, neither DMS nor SFWMD has justified the issuance of an operation permit for the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels based either on Basis of Review 1.6 or on the "as is, where is" unwritten policy. Construction of the five improvements on the 21.4 acres began between 1975 and December 1977 with construction of a portion of the Lee County Stockade building and parking, Emergency Operations Center building and parking, and a now- removed barn for the Lee County Sheriff's Office. At the same time, a lake was dug, probably for fill purposes. By the end of 1977, about 2.39 acres of the 21.4 acres were converted to impervious surface. From 1978 to March 1980, another 0.96 acres of the 21.4 acres were converted to impervious surface by the construction of a perimeter dike and road. During this period, construction commenced on the Juvenile Detention Center, adding another 1.63 acres of impervious surface. Between March 1980 and December 1981, additions were made to the Lee County Stockade building and the lake for an additional 0.45 acres of impervious area. Between December 1981 and March 1984, the Price Halfway House building and parking were constructed, adding another 0.79 acres of impervious surface. Between March 1984 and February 1986, a heliport facility and landing area were constructed for the Lee County Sheriff's Office, adding another 1.01 acres of impervious surface. Between February 1986 and February 1990, an additional 2.31 acres of impervious surface were added through additions to the Lee County Stockade and parking area, juvenile detention center, and Emergency Operations Center parking area. Between February 1990 and April 1993, another addition to the Lee County Stockade added 0.62 acres of impervious surface. An additional 0.17 acres of lake was excavated. During this time, applicable rules and statutes required permits for the construction of "works" affecting surface water, including ditches, culverts, and other construction that connects to, or draws water from, drains water into, or is placed in or across the waters in the state. The buildings, parking, other impervious surfaces, ditches, swales, dikes, lake excavations, and, at one point, addition of a now- abandoned pump all constituted "works" for which surface water management permits were required. In 1988, Lee County or Ft. Myers applied for an exemption for an addition to the Lee County Stockade. The basis for the claim of exemption was that the parcel consisted of less than 10 acres and the total impervious surface did not exceed two acres. Although rules in effect at the time required consideration of the contiguous 65 acres under common ownership and the total impervious surface for the 9.7-acre "parcel" exceeded two acres, SFWMD erroneously issued an exemption letter. The second instance involving a claim of exemption took place in 1989 when Lee County submitted plans for another addition to the Lee County Stockade, adding 0.51 acres of impervious surface. The submittal acknowledged a "flooding" problem, but promised a master drainage plan for the "entire site." SFWMD determined that no permit would be required due to the promise of a master drainage plan. No master drainage plan was ever prepared. The flooding problem precluded issuance of the operation permit on an "as is, where is" basis for the already-developed 21.4-acre parcel, even assuming that SFWMD adequately justified the use of this unwritten permitting procedure. In fact, SFWMD has not explained adequately its "as is, where is" permitting procedure or even the undelineated permitting criteria referenced in 1.6, Basis of Review. The 65- acre parcel is a poor candidate for preferential permitting of existing systems. The owner and developer constructed the existing systems in near total disregard of the law. The two times that the owner and developer complied with the permitting process involved small additions for which exemptions should not have been granted. In one case, SFWMD exempted the proposed activity due to its error calculating minimum thresholds as to the areas of the parcel and the impervious surface. In the other case, SFWMD exempted the proposed activity partly in reliance on a promised master drainage plan that was not later prepared. To issue operation permits for the existing systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels would reward the owner and developer of the 65-acre parcel for noncompliance with the law and provide an incentive for similarly situated landowners and developers likewise to ignore the law. Before issuing operation permits on systems that have received no comprehensive review and that have been added piecemeal over the years, SFWMD must evaluate the surface water systems on the entire 65-acre parcel to determine whether they meet all applicable criteria. The "as is, where is" unwritten policy has no applicability where there have been reports of flooding. If SFWMD chooses to dispense with criteria in reliance upon Basis of Review 1.6, it must be prepared to identify and explain which criteria are waived and why. Water Quality Basis of Review 5.2.2 provides that projects that are zoned commercial or industrial, such as the present one, must provide one-half inch of "dry" detention or retention pretreatment, unless reasonable assurances are provided "that hazardous materials will not enter the project's surface water management system." There is no existing or proposed dry detention on the 65 acres. The existing development includes the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department, which serves as a heliport. The fueling and maintenance of helicopters means that contaminants may enter the stormwater draining off the site. The functioning of the surface water system on this site is therefore of particular importance. There also may be more reason to question the functioning of the surface water system on this site. It is south of the Lee County Stockade, where flooding has been reported. The heliport site has also been the subject of more elaborate drainage improvements, such as the location of a small retention pond near the Stockade boundary and a pump, the latter of which has since been abandoned. The existing system on the 21.4-acre parcel, as well as the existing and proposed systems on the remainder of the 65 acres, require dry pretreatment for reasons apart from the presence of the heliport. The materials likely to be used with the existing and proposed developments are similar to those found on residential sites. SFWMD and DMS contend that there is therefore no need to require dry pretreatment as to these areas. However, the existing and intended institutional uses, such as jails and bootcamps, represent an intensity of use that exceeds the use typical in areas zoned residential. This increased intensity implies the presence of typical residential contaminants, such as petroleum-based products or cleaning solvents, but in greater volumes or concentrations, if not also, in the case of solvents, different compositions. The lease addresses potential liability for released petroleum. In the absence of a showing that such hazardous materials are prevented from entering the runoff, SFWMD must require dry pretreatment for the systems occupying the entire 65-acre parcel. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the existing systems satisfy applicable water quality criteria or that the proposed system will satisfy applicable water quality criteria. Water Quantity The 65-acre parcel adjoins Ortiz Avenue on the west and property owned by Petitioners on the east and south that is undeveloped except for a borrow pit some distance from the 65- acre parcel. The parcel is roughly 1000 feet east- west and 2700 feet north-south. The proposed halfway house is at the north end of the parcel. The halfway house is situated between a proposed detention pond on the west and a recreation field on the east. A paved road divides the halfway house from the rest of the 65- acre parcel. South of the road are the Lee County Stockade on the west, which abuts Ortiz Avenue, and the Juvenile Detention Center on the east. A berm separates these two sites. The berm runs from the road along the west shore of the twice- enlarged 1.2- acre retention pond and the west boundary of the Price Halfway House, which is south of the Juvenile Detention Center. To the west of the berm, south of the Lee County Stockade, is the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department or heliport facility, which abuts Ortiz Avenue. South of the Aviation Department is an outparcel used by the Florida Department of Corrections that also abuts Ortiz Avenue. East of the outparcel is the proposed halfway house with a proposed detention pond west of the halfway house and south of the outparcel. The Emergency Operations Center, which abuts Ortiz Avenue, is south of the detention pond and surrounded on three sides by the 32.7 acres to be left undisturbed at this time. There are perimeter berms around all of the parcels except for the Juvenile Detention Center and Price Halfway House, which are served by a single berm, and the Emergency Operations Center, which appears not to be bermed. The prevailing natural drainage is not pronounced either by direction or volume because the land is nearly level. The natural direction of drainage is to the south and west and remains so on Petitioners' land to the east and south and the undisturbed 32.7 acres to the south. The variety of drainage directions within the remainder of the 65- acre parcel reflects the extent to which berms, swales, ponds, pumps, roads, buildings, parking areas, and other works have been added to the northerly parcels. Runoff reaching the northern boundary of the 65 acres will be diverted due west around the proposed detention pond to the swale running along the east side of Ortiz Avenue. Runoff from the recreation field and halfway house building and parking area drain into the proposed detention pond, which releases water through a gravity control device to the Ortiz Avenue swale. There appears to be a connection routing some runoff from the south side of the recreation field to the Juvenile Detention Center, where it travels west in a roadside swale to the Ortiz Avenue swale. A little less than half of the area of the Juvenile Detention Center site drains into perimeter swales along the north and east borders and then to the west before emptying into the Ortiz Avenue swale. The remainder of the Juvenile Detention Center drains into the retention pond. The same is true of the Price Halfway House. The Lee County Stockade drains to each of its borders where the water then runs west along the north or south border to the Ortiz Avenue swale. The southern half of the Lee County Stockade site drains into the small retention pond at the northwest corner of the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department. Most of the runoff from the heliport facility runs to the southwest corner of the parcel, which is the location of the abandoned pump. From there, the runoff continues to the Ortiz Avenue swale. Very little if any of the runoff from the heliport enters the small retention pond on the northwest corner of the parcel. The bootcamp drains into the detention pond, which then releases water by a gravity control structure into a portion of the undisturbed 32.7-acres before entering the Ortiz Avenue swale. The Emergency Operations Center site drains in all directions away from the building and parking area, eventually draining into the Ortiz Avenue swale. Stormwater discharge rates from the proposed halfway house and bootcamp are 0.28 cfs and 0.37 cfs. Under SFWMD rules, the allowable maximums in the Six Mile Cypress drainage basin are 0.30 cfs and 0.33 cfs, respectively. SFWMD and DMS contend that the excessive discharge from the bootcamp is acceptable because the gravity control device for the proposed detention pond is of the smallest size allowable, given the indisputable need to avoid clogging and ensuing upstream flooding. Initially, SFWMD approved the discharge rates for the halfway house and bootcamp because, when combined, they did not exceed the total allowable value. However, this approach was invalid for two reasons. First, the two sites contain entirely independent drainage systems separated by several hundred feet. Second, after correcting an initial understatement for the value for the halfway house, the actual total exceeds the maximum allowable total. SFWMD contends that the slight excess is acceptable because of the inability to use a smaller orifice in the gravity control structure. However, the discharge quantity easily could have been reduced by design alternatives, such as enlarging the detention pond, which is mostly surrounded by land that is to be left undisturbed. The ease with which the minimum-orifice problem could have been avoided rebuts the presumption contained in Basis of Review 7.2.A that excessive discharge quantities are presumably acceptable if due to the inability to use a smaller orifice. Also, SFWMD and DMS have failed to show that the effect of the excessive discharge quantities is negligible, so the exception in the SFWMD manual for negligible impacts is unavailable. Neither SFWMD nor DMS provided any reasonable assurance as to the quantity of discharge from the 21.4 acres. Rough estimates suggest it is more likely that the quantity of discharge may greatly exceed the allowable maximum. SFWMD must evaluate the water-quantity issues before issuing operation permits for the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7- acre parcels and a construction and operation permit for the 10.9-acre parcel. Obviously, if SFWMD determines that all water quantity criteria are met as to the existing systems, it may issue operation permits for the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7- acre parcels. Otherwise, SFWMD must quantify the extent of the deviation and, if it seeks to waive compliance with any or all quantity standards in reliance on Basis of Review 1.6, evaluate the effect of the waiver and explain the basis for the waiver. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the existing systems satisfy applicable water quantity criteria or that the proposed system will satisfy applicable water quantity criteria. Impacts on Adjacent Lands Petitioners' property is impacted by the above- described drainage in two ways. First, Petitioners' property abutting the east side of Ortiz Avenue, south of the 65 acres, is especially vulnerable to flooding because the Ortiz Avenue swale is not a V-notch, but a half-V. The closed side of the swale prevents the water from running onto Ortiz Avenue. The open side of swale abuts Petitioners' property, so, if the swale's capacity is exceeded, stormwater will be released onto Petitioners' land. Second, perimeter berming along the east side of the 10.9- and 21.4- acre parcels will impede flow off the part of Petitioners' property located to the east of the 65 acres. A swale between the proposed halfway house and the Juvenile Detention Center will receive runoff from a small portion of Petitioners' property to the east and mostly north of the 65 acres. But there is no indication how much runoff from Petitioners' property can be so accommodated, how much runoff is impeded by the existing berm along the east side of the Juvenile Detention Center and Price Halfway House, and how much runoff will be impeded by the addition of new berms along the east side of the proposed halfway house and bootcamp. Basis of Review 6.8 requires that swales and dikes allow the passage of drainage from off-site areas to downstream areas. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that a surface water management system will not cause adverse water quality or quantity impacts on adjacent lands. Neither SFWMD nor DMS obtained topographical information for Petitioners' property, as required by the Basis of Review. Rough estimates suggest that the proposed project may require Petitioners' property to retain considerably more stormwater from the design storm event of 25 years, three days. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed system would not have an adverse impact on Petitioners' upstream and downstream land.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order denying the application of the Department of Management Services for all permits for the operation and construction and operation of surface water management systems on the 65-acre parcel. ENTERED on June 19, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 19, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Proposed Findings of Petitioners 1-18: adopted or adopted in substance. 19: rejected as subordinate. 20-21: adopted or adopted in substance. 22-24 (first sentence): rejected as irrelevant. 24 (remainder)-46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47-53: rejected as subordinate. 54-64 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 64 (second sentence)-66: rejected as subordinate. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Respondent SFWMD 1-10: adopted or adopted in substance. 11: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 12: rejected as unnecessary. 13: adopted or adopted in substance. 14-15: rejected as subordinate. 16: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17 (except for last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 17 (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 18-32 (first sentence): rejected as unnecessary. 32 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 33: rejected as subordinate. 34: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that the proposed ponds are wet detention. 35 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 35 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 36-45: rejected as unnecessary. 46-47: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 48-50 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 50 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 51-52, 55-57 (first sentence), and 58: adopted or adopted in substance, although insufficient water quality treatment. 53: adopted or adopted in substance. 54: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 57 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 59: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 60: adopted or adopted in substance, except after "therefore." None of remainder logically follows from what is said in 1.6. 61: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 62-64: rejected as subordinate, unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, and irrelevant. 65: rejected as subordinate. 66: rejected as irrelevant. The burden is on the applicant and SFWMD, if it wishes to issue the permits, to provide reasonable assurances as to the adverse impact of the drainage systems. 67-68: rejected as subordinate. 69: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 70: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 71: rejected as repetitious. 72: rejected as irrelevant, except for past report of flooding, which is rejected as repetitious. 73: rejected as repetitious. 74: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 75 (first three sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 75 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 1 and 2: rejected as irrelevant insofar as the same result is reached with or without the permit modifications. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Respondent DMS 1-4: adopted or adopted in substance. 5: rejected as subordinate. 6: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8: rejected as subordinate. 9: adopted or adopted in substance, except that the excessive discharge was not "caused" by the minimum-sized orifice, only defended on that basis. 10: adopted or adopted in substance. 11-12: rejected as subordinate. 13: rejected as irrelevant. 14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15: adopted or adopted in substance, except for implication that no flooding problems existed. 16: rejected as recitation of evidence. 17: rejected as subordinate. 18: rejected as irrelevant. 19: adopted or adopted in substance, to the extent that separateness of systems is relevant. 20: rejected as subordinate. 21: adopted or adopted in substance, except for last sentence, which is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 22: rejected as subordinate. 23-30: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, recitation of evidence, and subordinate. 31: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, based on the present record. 33: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and relevance. COPIES FURNISHED: Tilford C. Creel Executive Director South Florida Water Management District P. O. Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416 Russell P. Schropp Harold N. Hume, Jr. Henderson Franklin P.O. Box 280 Ft. Myers, Fl 33902 O. Earl Black, Jr. Stephen S. Mathues Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Vincent J. Chen Toni M. Leidy South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, FL 33401
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondents, Kelly Endres and Ifrain Lima (Endres/Lima), are entitled to an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) that would allow use of 0.535 acres of previously impacted wetlands for the construction of a single-family residence and associated structures, a 30' x 30' private dock with a 4' access walkway, and a 12' wide boat ramp (Project) at 160 Long Acres Lane, Oviedo, Florida (Property).
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. The Parties The Department is the administrative agency of the state statutorily charged with, among other things, protecting Florida's air and water resources. The Department administers and enforces certain provisions of chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated, thereunder, in the Florida Administrative Code. Under that authority, the Department determines whether to issue or deny applications for ERPs. Respondents Endres/Lima own the Property and are the applicants for the ERP at issue in this consolidated proceeding. Petitioner Meier is a neighboring property owner to the south of the Property. Petitioner Meier's property includes a single-family residence with accessory structures and is located on Long Lake. Petitioner Meier is concerned that the NOI provides inadequate environmental protections and that there will be flooding on adjacent properties from the Project. Petitioner Hacker is the neighboring property owner adjacent to the south of the Property. Petitioner Hacker's property includes a single-family residence with accessory structures and is located on Long Lake. He is concerned with the completeness of the application for the Project, the calculation of wetland impacts, that reasonable assurances were provided, and that the Department's NOI ignores willful negligence and allows disparate treatment of Respondents Endres/Lima. Petitioner Kochmann is a property owner with a single-family residence and accessory structures located on Long Lake. She is concerned that the NOI is based on a misleading application and provides no evidence that the Respondents Endres/Lima made reasonable efforts to eliminate and reduce impacts detrimental to the environment. History of the Project and Application On April 12, 2018, Respondents Endres/Lima applied for an ERP for proposed wetland impacts associated with a planned single-family home on the Property. This was the first ERP application for the Property. The Department sent a Request for Additional Information (RAI) on April 24, 2018, and a second RAI on November 2, 2018. Respondents Endres/Lima provided a Mitigation Service Area Rule Analysis for "As If In-Basin" for the Lake X Mitigation Bank for the St. Johns River Water Management District Basins to the Department via email on May 10, 2018. Respondents Endres/Lima submitted revised plans to the Department on September 19, and October 30, 2018. On January 7, 2019, the Department denied the ERP application. The Department and Respondents Endres/Lima, on July 18, 2019, entered into a Consent Order (CO). The Department found, and Respondents Endres/Lima admitted, that approximately 0.80 acres of jurisdictional wetlands were dredged and filled without a valid ERP from the Department; and was done with improperly installed erosion and sedimentation controls. On August 22, 2019, Respondents Endres/Lima submitted a second ERP application. The Department sent an RAI on September 20, 2019, to which Respondents Endres/Lima responded on December 19, 2019. In addition, Respondents Endres/Lima reserved 0.60 of forested Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) wetland credits from the Lake X Mitigation Bank and provided the Department with an updated site plan and Lake X Mitigation Bank credit reservation letter. The Department issued an NOI on February 7, 2020, which was timely published in the Sanford Herald on February 9, 2020. Respondents Endres/Lima provided timely proof of publication to the Department on February 13, 2020. Consent Order and Compliance A warning letter was issued to Respondents Endres/Lima on January 30, 2019, for the dredging and filling of approximately 0.80 acres of forested wetlands and improper installation of erosion and sedimentation control. The CO, executed on July 18, 2019, required Respondents Endres/Lima to cease any dredging, filling, or construction activities on the Property, submit an application for an Individual ERP within 30 days, and pay $5,599.00 in penalties and the Department's costs and expenses. After the issuance of an ERP, Respondents Endres/Lima were also required to implement the restoration actions outlined in the CO. Respondents’ Endres/Lima’s application, dated August 19, 2020, was submitted to the Department on August 22, 2020. Respondents Endres/Lima paid the CO's penalties and costs, and had multiple meetings with the Department to complete the requirements of the CO. Respondents Endres/Lima’s expert, Mr. Exner, testified that he began working on a restoration plan for the Property, which will be provided to the Department once an ERP is issued. Permitting Criteria The Department reviewed the complete application and determined that it satisfied the conditions for issuance under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-330.301, and the applicable sections of the ERP Applicant's Handbook Volume I (AH Vol. I). The Department also considered the seven criteria in rule 62-330.302 and section 373.414(1)(a), and determined that implementing the Project would not be contrary to the public interest. Water Quantity, Flooding, Surface Water Storage and Conveyance Respondents’ Endres/Lima's civil engineering expert, Mr. Herbert, testified that according to the drainage design, the Property would have swales on either side of the proposed residence to slope water away from the residence. There would also be a conveyance swale on the north property boundary to convey water from the street area and front yard toward the restoration and wetland areas with ultimate discharge to Long Lake. He stated that the elevation of the road at the front of the Property would be at 47.4 feet, and the elevation at the terminus of the swale would be at 45 feet. This would allow a 2.4-foot vertical fall for the swales to convey water to the lake. The design would preserve pre-development surface water flow over the Property to Long Lake, which is the lowest elevation in the area, and will ensure that storm water does not flood adjacent properties. Mr. Herbert also testified that the Project design would maintain pre-development water storage capacity. The imported fill that is currently on the Property in the flood plain would be removed and reshaped so that the lake elevation would be maintained and water can flow correctly. Elimination or Reduction of Impacts and Mitigation Respondents Endres/Lima provided the Department with design modifications to reduce impacts associated with the Project. These included a 15-foot restoration buffer along the lake front's northern shoreline, an elevated access walkway five feet above the wetland restoration area to the proposed dock, limiting the width of the access walk to four feet, and limiting the boat ramp width to a single-lane. In June 2015, an informal wetlands determination was conducted for the Property. The informal determination concluded that the entirety of the Property were wetlands. However, this was an informal determination and was not binding. In October 2016, before the first permit application was submitted, Mr. Exner did a wetlands delineation flagging prior to the Property being cleared or disturbed. Mr. Exner testified that, in his opinion, the Property was not all wetlands because large pines near the road had no high water marks, adventitious growth around the bases, or evidence of pine borer beetles along with other indicators of upland habitat. This wetland delineation was part of the permit submittal, was shown on the plans, was accepted by the Department, and was used for the preparation of the UMAM scoring. Mr. Exner's wetland delineation line was used by the Department to help determine and map the wetland impacts identified in the CO. The direct impact area was assessed at 0.54 acres with a secondary impact area of 0.02 acres for a total impact of 0.56 acres, and a functional loss score of 0.364. Respondents Endres/Lima reserved 0.6 forested UMAM mitigation credits, almost double the amount of functional loss under the UMAM assessment, agreed to purchase 0.46 credits. The excess mitigation bank credits implement part of a plan that provides regional ecological value and greater long-term ecological value than the area of wetland adversely affected. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts The Project's UMAM analysis assessed 0.02 acres, or 870 square feet, of secondary impacts. These impacts would be fully offset by the mitigation proposed for the Project. Petitioners' expert, Mr. Mahnken, noted three areas where he thought the application was incomplete. The first was that the site plan did not call out the location of the secondary impacts. However, Part III: Plans of Section B of the application, does not require that the site plan show the location of the secondary impacts. The application requirements for "plans" requires only the boundaries and size of the wetlands on the Property and provide the acreages of the upland areas, wetland impact areas, and the remaining untouched area. Second, Mr. Mahnken questioned the calculation performed to determine the secondary impact acreage. However, Mr. Mahnken read the information incorrectly and stated that the secondary impact area was 0.002 acres, or 87 square feet, when the UMAM score sheet clearly showed that the secondary impact area is 0.02 acres, or 870 square feet. In addition, the Department's witness, Ms. Warr, testified that even if the Department were to use Mr. Mahnken's analysis, the result would have been the same, i.e., the requirement to purchase 0.46 mitigation credits. Thus, Petitioners failed to support their claim that the Project would have adverse secondary impacts. Third, Mr. Mahnken asserted that cumulative impacts were not adequately addressed. He testified that the assessment for the Property using spill over benefits, in his opinion, was not enough to fully offset the impacts of the Project. Mr. Mahnken acknowledged, however, that his opinion was open to debate, and that he had not conducted any rigorous hydrologic evaluation in reaching his opinion. Respondents Endres/Lima had submitted a report prepared by Breedlove, Dennis & Associates (BDA Report) with their application in order to demonstrate compliance with section 10.2.8, ERP AH Vol. I, regarding cumulative impacts. The BDA Report utilized peer-reviewed hydrologic data that was reviewed and approved by the South Florida Water Management District, and was accepted by the Department pursuant to section 373.4136(6)(c). This was consistent with the Property's location within the mitigation service area for the Lake X Mitigation Bank. The Project is located within the Econlockhatchee River drainage basin, which is a nested basin within the larger St. Johns River [Canaveral Marshes to Wekiva] drainage basin. The Lake X Mitigation Bank is located outside of the Econlockhatchee River drainage basin, but the Project is located within the Lake X Mitigation Bank service area. The BDA report determined that: In summary, the Lake X Mitigation Bank is a regionally significant mitigation bank site that has direct hydrological and ecological connections to the SJRWMD basins, to include the cumulative impacts basin in which the subject property is located (i.e., SJRWMD Basin 19). The size, biodiversity, and proximity of the mitigation bank site to the SJRWMD basins, and the regionally significant hydrological connection between the mitigation bank site and the contiguous SJRWMD mitigation basins, supports the use of this mitigation bank site “as if in basin” mitigation for the Lima/Endres Wetland Fill Project. Additionally, the evaluation of factors, to include connectivity of waters, hydrology, habitat range of affected species, and water quality, demonstrates the spillover benefits that the Lake X Mitigation Bank has on the St. Johns River (Canaveral Marshes to Wekiva) mitigation basin, which includes the Econlockhatchee River Nested basin, and demonstrated that the proposed mitigation will fully offset the impacts proposed as part of the Lima/Endres Wetland Fill Project “as if in-basin” mitigation. The Lake X Mitigation Bank will protect and maintain the headwaters of two regionally significant drainage basins [i.e., the Northern Everglades Kissimmee River Watershed and the Upper St. Johns River Watershed (to include the nested Econlockhatchee River basin)], and will provide resource protection to both river systems (SFWMD Technical Staff Report, November 29, 2016). Furthermore, the permanent protection and management of the Lake X Mitigation Bank will provide spillover benefits to the SJRWMD basins located within the permitted MSA. Mr. Mahnken stated that his review of the Project did not include a hydrologic study and only looked at basic flow patterns for Long Lake. By contrast, the BDA Report included an extensive hydrologic study, looked at all required factors in section 10.2.8(b), ERP AH, Vol. I, and determined that the Project would be fully offset with the proposed mitigation. Thus, Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts. Water Quality Rule 62-330.302(1)(e) requires that Respondents Endres/Lima provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the state water quality standards will be violated. The conditions of the ERP would require the use of best management practices including a floating turbidity curtain/barrier, soil stabilization with grass seed or sod, and a silt fence. Respondent Endres/Lima's experts, Mr. Herbert and Mr. Exner, testified that there is an existing turbidity barrier in the lake around the property and a silt fence around the east half of the Property. While these items are not required by the Department until construction of the Project, part of the silt fence and the turbidity barrier are already installed on the Property and will be required to be repaired and properly maintained in accordance with the conditions of the ERP and Site Plan SP-2. Mr. Herbert testified that the Property will be graded in a manner that will result in a gentle sloping of the lake bank in the littoral zone, which would allow revegetation of the lake bank. Outside of the restoration area and the undisturbed wetlands, the backyard would be covered with grass to prevent migration of sand and soil discharging into the lake. Mr. Exner testified that the grass swales proposed for the Project would provide a considerable amount of nutrient uptake and filtration of surface water on the Property. Also, in the restoration area next to the lake, the restoration plan includes a dense planting plan with native species that have good nutrient uptake capability. Impacts to Fish and Wildlife Rule 62-330.301(1)(d) requires that Respondents Endres/Lima provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Mr. Exner testified that, in his review of the Property, he did not identify any critical wildlife habitat. He visited the Property multiple times and he did not see any osprey nests, deer tracks, animal scat, gopher tortoises, or sand hill cranes. The Department's Ms. Warr testified that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission database was reviewed, and did not show any listed species in the area. Publication of Notice Petitioners argued that the notice published in the Sanford Herald on February 9, 2020, did not meet the requirements of section 373.413(4). Despite the notice having no effect on their ability to timely challenge the proposed ERP, Petitioners argued that the published notice was insufficient because the notice itself did not provide the name of the applicants or the address of the Project, only a link to the Department's permit file. Unlike the notice required in section 373.413(3), where a person has filed a written request for notification of any pending application affecting a particular designated area, section 373.413(4) does not specify the contents of the published notice. Section 373.413(4) does not require the published notice to include the name and address of the applicant; a brief description of the proposed activity, including any mitigation; the location of the proposed activity, including whether it is located within an Outstanding Florida Water or aquatic preserve; a map identifying the location of the proposed activity subject to the application; a depiction of the proposed activity subject to the application; or a name or number identifying the application and the office where the application can be inspected. In response to the published notice, the Department received approximately ten petitions challenging the NOI, including the petitions timely filed by Petitioners. Therefore, Petitioners were not harmed by any information alleged to have been left out of the published notice. Ultimate Findings Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; and will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project complied with elimination and reduction of impacts, and proposed more than adequate mitigation. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water resources; and unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters within the same drainage basin. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse water quality impacts to receiving water bodies. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife, and listed species by wetlands, or other surface waters. Petitioners failed to prove lack of reasonable assurance by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order granting Respondents’ Endres/Lima's ERP application. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 2020. Jay Patrick Reynolds, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Neysa Borkert, Esquire Garganese, Weiss, D'Agresta and Salzman 111 North Orange Avenue Post Office Box 398 Orlando, Florida 32802 (eServed) Tracy L. Kochmann 249 Carolyn Drive Oviedo, Florida 32765 (eServed) Shelley M. Meier 208 Long Acres Lane Oviedo, Florida 32765 (eServed) Brian Hacker 170 Long Acres Lane Oviedo, Florida 32765 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue This case involves a third-party challenge to South Florida Water Management District's (District's) proposed issuance of Amended Environmental Resource Permit number 43- 01438-P (ERP) for conceptual approval for a surface water management (SWM) system to serve 80.71 acres of residential development known as The Gables at Stuart and 1.42 acres of the entrance road easement. The issue to be decided by the ALJ is whether The Gables at Stuart (The Gables) provided reasonable assurances that the proposed development will not be harmful to the water resources of the District, and will comply with the water quantity, environmental and water quality criteria of the District's ERP regulations set forth in Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40E-4, and in the Basis of Review for ERP Applications (BOR) (collectively referred to as the ERP criteria).1
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Proposed Project The Gables project site is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the District in Martin County, Section 20, Township 37 South, Range 41 E, bordered to the north by Jensen Beach Boulevard and a 18.64-acre tract of commercial property that was previously included in the proposed project. To the west and partially to the south is the Pineapple Plantation residential development, and to the east is the Pinecrest Lakes residential development. The Petitioner resides in the Pineapple Plantation development which borders the Gables site. The Gables project site contains 29.54 acres of wetlands; 26.86 of these will be preserved onsite. Additionally, the project will include a conservation easement encompassing 32.7 acres which covers both wetlands and uplands. Development on the site will cover only 28.04 acres; the remaining acreage which is not under a conservation easement will nonetheless be preserved. Wetlands 1, 2, 3, and 4, which are the larger, higher quality wetlands on the site, will be entirely preserved, except for a 0.11 acre area in the southeast corner of wetland 1, where a berm will be constructed. All direct wetland impacts will result from construction of the multi-family housing and its access road on the northern portion of the site. These wetlands are in a more degraded condition than are the wetlands to the south, which are being preserved. The site includes the alignment of the proposed “Green River Parkway” for which Martin County has submitted a permit application. Although this area and the area to the east of it will be preserved by the Gables, no mitigation credit is given by the District. In fact, portions of wetlands 5 and 6 that are east of the proposed alignment have been considered by the District as secondarily impacted due to the fragmentation and size reduction expected to result from construction of the Parkway even though they are not impacted by the Gables project itself. The site is characterized by pine flatwoods and wet prairies typical of those found along the upper edges of the Savannas in Martin and St. Lucie Counties. The Gables project site is undeveloped but has been hydrologically altered in some areas by offsite conditions. In particular, a large ditch on the west side of the Pinecrest Lakes property adjacent to the eastern boundary of the subject property presently exerts adverse hydrologic affects, as does the entire Pinecrest Lakes development. There is an existing culvert outfall across Jensen Beach Boulevard in the northwest corner of the 18.64-acre commercial property to the north. Runoff from a portion of Jensen Beach Boulevard and undeveloped portions of the West Jensen project are conveyed into the commercial property by this culvert. This runoff then flows easterly and south within the commercial property and, ultimately, under an existing unpaved road used to access two Martin County Utility potable wells located in the eastern project area. The previously referenced north-to-south ditch located along the western edge of the adjacent Pinecrest Lakes project directs this flow southerly into the Pinecrest Lakes Phase I SWM system. A ridge traversing the northern portion of the Gables project site from west to east prevents appreciable volumes of this off-site discharge from reaching wetlands south of this ridge. In general, wetlands found over the southwestern one- half of the Gables project site are in very good condition, displaying healthy and appropriate vegetation and water levels. The northeast one-half was observed to have significantly less standing water when inspected, and vegetation appeared to be transitioning to less water-tolerant species such as slash pines. The southern portion of the Gables project site consists largely of wetlands. Wetlands designated as Wetlands 4 and 7B extend off-site westerly into the neighboring Pineapple Plantation development. The northernmost 18.64 acre commercial portion of the July 2003 Gables project site has been removed. The commercial portion will require a separate permit prior to any development on that parcel. The Gables has proposed an exfiltration trench to provide runoff from its multi-family section, which is on the northern portion of the site, with dry pre-treatment equal to one-half inch over the area prior to discharge into the master SWM system. An exfiltration trench consists of buried perforated piping surrounded by gravel which allows runoff to be filtered and treated before exiting the system. The southernmost area of the Gables development is to consist of single-family residential development located in an upland peninsula in the central western portion of the overall Gables project site. This area will be surrounded by a retaining wall. Runoff from the lots and the access road within the single-family area will be directed to the wet detention lakes of the master SWM system. The master SWM system water quality and storm attenuation facilities include 2.415 acres of wet detention pond to be located in the central eastern project site area, as well as dry detention areas, swales and the exfiltration trench located within the project. Discharge from the master SWM system is into the adjacent Pinecrest Lakes development within a previously established drainage easement. The revised conceptual design for the Gables project site continues to re-route the existing historical off-site discharge from West Jensen and Jensen Beach Boulevard southward to the on-site wetlands through a dedicated culvert conveyance that will commence at the northern boundary of the revised Gables project site area. Conveyance through the formerly included commercial tract will be through existing wetlands. The master SWM system conceptual design will continue to utilize a cascading wetland system, cascading from west to east in accordance with the natural hydrology of the site, with final connection into the master SWM wet detention pond. As the Gables application is for a conceptual permit only, final construction details are not required to be presented at this time, and modifications are to be expected when the applicant files an application for a construction permit. Conditions For Issuance In order to obtain an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions for issuance set forth in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. The Conditions for Issuance primarily focus on: a) water quantity, b) wetland environmental values, and c) water quality. Water Quantity Under Rule 40D-4.301(1), an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, or abandonment of a surface water management system: will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; will not cause adverse flooding to on- site or off-site property will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. The Applicant has demonstrated through hydrological analysis, which takes into consideration the systems on the surrounding properties, the hydrologic inflow from the north, from the West Jensen project, that the proposed project will not cause flooding to on-site or off-site property. Petitioner alleged that the proposal to install a berm around wetland 7 on the Gables property would cause flooding into Pineapple Plantation. But the evidence was that Pineapple Plantation’s SWM system, as permitted, was intended to contain the runoff within the boundaries of Pineapple Plantation’s property, including the small portion of wetland 7 that straddles the property line between Pineapple Plantation and The Gables. To accomplish this, permission was obtained from Mr. Gibson to install a berm on his property. However, the berm was never installed. The Gables now proposes to install the berm that was supposed to have been there since Pineapple Plantation was permitted. The proposed berm would be established at an elevation sufficient to control runoff produced by a 25-year rainfall event and maintain the previously-established hydrologic divide. For these reasons, installation of the proposed berm, which is necessary to make The Gables' proposed SWM system function properly, will not cause adverse flooding to the Pineapple Plantation. For various other reasons, Petitioner also alleged that The Gables project will lower wetland water levels in Pineapple Plantation, as well as on the Gables property, having adverse impacts on the quality of those wetlands. Petitioner did not present any expert opinion to support his allegations. Instead, he primarily pointed out what he termed "anomalies" in the permit file during cross-examination of expert witnesses for The Gables and the District. In most instances, the expert witnesses explained that Petitioner was mistaken. In every instance where Petitioner had detected an actual "anomaly," the experts explained that they were insignificant for purposes of the permitting criteria. The Gables provided reasonable assurances that it will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities through the determination of appropriate wetland control elevations which are based on wet season water levels. Petitioner raised a question regarding aquifer recharge, which is a consideration under Section 6.10(e) of the BOR, which requires the project to be designed to "preserve site ground water recharge characteristics." The project is designed so that water tables are preserved or even raised. It is also designed to preserve the significant wetland features of the site. There are large areas of contiguous areas of wetland and upland habitat which can function as groundwater recharge. The exfiltration trenches make runoff also available to the aquifer for storage. The lakes are not lined, so the water in the lake can leak out. Based on volumetric calculations, the site will have more water post-development than predevelopment. The types of regional investigations of aquifer recharge capabilities and impacts cited by Petitioner were relevant to consideration of groundwater withdrawal issues, not surface water management design. In conclusion, The Gables provided reasonable assurances that it would comply with the District rules pertaining to water quantity and flood control pursuant to Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a),(b), and (c) and the BOR. Value Of Functions Of Wetlands Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances to demonstrate that its proposed project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. The wetlands generally located on the north side of the Gables project site are in a more degraded condition than the wetlands to the south. Wetlands generally located over the southerly extent of the site are adequately hydrated and possess high-quality vegetation associations consisting of St. John's wort, maidencane, yellow-eyed grass, and beak rush. This habitat lends itself to utilization by a variety of wading birds, raptors, snakes, and small mammals such as raccoons, bobcats, armadillos, opossums, and feral pigs. In contrast, Wetlands 5, 6, and 7 on the north side exhibit slight-to-significant hydrologic and vegetation changes due to the adjacent Jensen Beach Boulevard and Pinecrest Lakes development to the north and east, respectively. The Gables is proposing both wetland and upland preservation. A mosaic of uplands and wetlands together enhances the value of both and provides a good habitat for wildlife. Mixing upland preservation mixture with wetland preservation increases the value of the wetlands because uplands support wetland habitat, and the “ecotone” at the edge of the upland and wetlands provides the most valuable part of the habitat. The value of preserving this area outweighs potential preservation of the less valuable wetlands to the north, which will be impacted by the multi-family portion of the project. The Gables has provided reasonable assurances to demonstrate that the value of functions provided by wetlands and other surface waters will not be adversely affected. Water Quality Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that state water quality standards will not be violated. Section 5.2.1 of the BOR requires that retention, detention, or both retention and detention be provided in the overall system in one of the following three ways or equivalent combinations thereof: Wet detention volume shall be provided for the first inch of runoff from the developed project, or the total runoff of 2.5 inches times the percentage of imperviousness, whichever is greater. Dry detention volume shall be provided equal to 75 percent of the above amounts computed for wet detention. Retention volume shall be provided equal to 50 percent of the above amounts computed for wet detention. Retention volume included in flood protection calculations requires a guarantee of long term operation and maintenance of system bleed-down ability. The Gables has proposed an exfiltration trench system for the multi-family parcel and a lake system to handle runoff from the overflow and from the single-family portion of the project. With these facilities in place, runoff from the proposed development will be treated before any stormwater is discharged off site. Calculations were performed to ensure that the project is engineered to meet these criteria. Petitioner suggested that the project may require more exfiltration trench than in the current plans, due to compaction of the soil from construction activities, which may affect permeability. However, Petitioner presented no evidence to support this suggestion. The expert witness for the Gables explained that compaction usually affects the top two feet of the soil profile, whereas the exfiltration trenches are designed to be 4-5 feet below the ground surface and probably will function as expected. In any event, when a construction permit is sought, final testing will be performed and additional trench will be installed if necessary. The project will accommodate double the amount of exfiltration trenching in the conceptual plan. The Gables has provided reasonable assurances to demonstrate that the project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that State water quality standards will not be violated. Reduction And Elimination Section 4.2.1 BOR requires that practicable design modifications be explored to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts to wetlands and maximize functions provided by wetlands on the project site. The applicant explored all practicable alternatives in order to reduce or eliminate wetlands impact. In 2000, the Applicant proposed approximately 7.5 acres of wetland impact. In 2001, the Applicant submitted a plan to the District that preserved part of Wetland 5 and impacted the remainder of Wetland 5 by dredging a lake. The current application proposes preserving more of Wetland 5 and three smaller lakes, rather than a single lake, which has the effect of further decreasing wetland impacts The site plan was also modified to address flowage from north of Jensen Beach Boulevard to the south, thereby reducing secondary impacts to all the wetlands that are now being preserved. In addition, a retaining wall has been added around much of the development to offset secondary impacts, and additional buffers have been put in place. Finally, as noted above, the preservation of a large tract of mixed upland and wetlands is more beneficial than preservation of a small amount of degraded wetlands. Conceivably, wetland impacts could be further reduced or eliminated by further decreasing the amount of development. But given the present layout of the proposed site plan, a further reduction would not be considered practicable. Therefore, The Gables has adequately applied the reduction and elimination criteria as required by the BOR and the District's regulations. Secondary Impacts Secondary impacts are indirect impacts that are reasonably expected to occur as a result of development. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f) and Section 4.1.1(f) of the BOR require an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed activities will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. The District conducted a secondary impact analysis and assessed secondary impacts to wetlands 5, 6, and 7. A small portion of wetland 1, which extends off-site, was also assessed as a secondary impact because approximately half an acre of it is cut off by a proposed berm. Pursuant to Subsection 4.2.7(a) of the BOR, a 25- foot buffer is required around a wetland to prevent secondary impacts. Except for the small portion of wetland 1 discussed above, wetlands 1, 2, 3, and 4 will not be secondarily impacted because each wetland has at least a 25-foot buffer and, in some cases, a retaining wall. Mitigation An applicant is required to mitigate for secondary impacts as well as for direct wetlands impacts.3 The Gables is providing a conservation easement in favor of the District to include 18.26 acres of high-quality uplands and 20.8 acres of high-quality wetlands, though mitigation credit is being allowed by the District for only 5.79 acres of the upland portion. The value and importance of a conservation easement is that it provides reasonable assurances that a resource will not be developed in the future. Inclusion of uplands in a conservation easement is particularly valuable because development of uplands ordinarily would be more likely, and because combining wetlands and uplands in a conservation easement has the effect of enhancing the value of the wetlands by encouraging their use by wildlife. Under Section 373.414, Florida Statutes, the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM), which is implemented through Rule Chapter 62-345, wetland impacts from the proposed project will result in 2.63 units of functional loss, while proposed mitigation will provide 2.87 units of functional gain. This UMAM analysis demonstrates that the proposed mitigation offsets wetland impacts. Petitioner questioned whether The Gables and the District properly applied Rule 62-345.600(3)(c) in determining the amount of required mitigation. Specifically, Petitioner contended that, since The Gables is not using a mitigation bank or a regional offsite mitigation area as mitigation, the acreage of mitigation required to offset wetland impacts was to be calculated by dividing functional loss (FL) by relative functional gain (RFG). However, Petitioner did not explain what the result would be if this calculation were made. Meanwhile, the expert witnesses for both the District and The Gables interpreted the language of the Rule to provide that one divides FL by RFG to determine acres of mitigation required only when one discrete area is being impacted and another discrete area is serving as mitigation, which is not the case here. According to the experts, the second sentence of subparagraph (3)(c) explains that, when there is more than one impact or mitigation assessment area, total functional loss and total RFG for each assessment area is determined by summation of the FL and RFG for each assessment area. While the language of the Rule is confusing, the expert testimony is credited and accepted as providing a logical and correct interpretation. The BOR specifically provides in Section 4.3.1.2 that mitigation is best accomplished on-site or in close proximity to the area being impacted. In this case, all of the mitigation proposed is onsite.4 Section 4.2.2 of the BOR provides that as part of the District's assessment of impacts of regulated activities upon fish and wildlife and their habitats, the District will provide notice of ERP applications to the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission (now the Fish and Wildlife Commission, or FWC) for its review and comment. The FWC did not comment on the Gables at Stuart application. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wrote a letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 2003, stating that it did not object to the applicant’s wetland impacts and proposed mitigation plan for the proposed project. The Gables provided reasonable assurances that mitigation will offset all impacts to wetlands. Petitioner's Extrapolation from Well Permitting Concerns Petitioner's testimony at final hearing revealed his challenge was motivated by his belief that, because the District has denied applications for permits to withdraw substantial amounts of groundwater in the region, in part due to potential impacts on surficial aquifer and wetlands, it does not make sense to allow any impacts to wetlands in SWM permitting. However, SWM permitting is governed by the criteria discussed above, not the criteria of consumptive use permitting. In addition, the potential impacts of massive consumptive use of groundwater cannot be compared to wetland impacts of the Gables proposal. Finally, as indicated, The Gables has established water table elevations for resulting wetland systems based on the existing condition of those wetlands. In some places, The Gables has proposed to raise water levels to benefit the wetlands and raise the water table above what it has been historically, primarily along the eastern boundary of the property in the Pinecrest Lakes subdivision. This has the effect of maintaining if not raising groundwater levels.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order issuing to The Gables ERP number 43-01438-P, to expire in two years, subject to the conditions set forth in the Amended Staff Report. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 2006.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the application of Respondents Falkner to transfer and modify a Water Use Permit should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) is responsible for regulation and protection of water resources in the geographic area involved in this proceeding. Since 1994, John Falkner has owned the property in Hillsborough County which is the subject of this proceeding. The Falkner property is farmed by Christopher Falkner, the owner's brother. Prior to purchasing the land, the Falkners farmed the property, also known as the Rogers farm, through a lease arrangement with the previous owner. Rose Ann DeVito owns property to the south of the Falkner property. In the time since Ms. DeVito purchased the property, the elevation of Sumner Road has been raised and culverts were replaced. A fish farm was constructed in close proximity to her property. The result of this and other development has been to direct all the water flow from the surrounding area into the stream adjacent to the DeVito property. Drainage patterns in the area of Ms. DeVito's property have been altered since she first occupied the property. A ditch along Sumner Road which used to handle runoff from her property has been blocked by a neighbor's driveway. Maintenance on the ditch, allegedly a county responsibility, is described as poor. The ditch at the rear of Ms. DeVito's property handled water flow to Bullfrog Creek until the water flow became blocked, and the water diverted onto her property. The effect is that Ms. DeVito's property often contains a large amount of water. A substantial amount of sand is visible on her property, allegedly deposited by water flow. According to Ms. DeVito, both the county and the District have blamed the Falkner farm for the water-deposited sand. Charles and Diana Booth own property adjacent and to the south of the Falkner property. From 1992 to 1994, the Booths suffered from water running off the Falkner/Rogers farm and flooding the Booth property. A flood of the Booth property in the Fall of 1994 was not caused by irrigation but was related to a ten inch rainfall event at the Falkner farm. A ten inch rainfall exceeds a 25 year storm event and would likely result in widespread flooding. The Booths' pasture, top soil and driveway were eroded by the flooding. During the two years of flooding, Mr. Booth complained on several occasions about the flooding to the Falkners' foreman, "Cleo." The complaints were not relayed to Mr. Falkner. In October 1994, Mr. Booth reported the problem to the Southwest Florida Water Management District. Soon after the complaint was made, a representative of the District inspected the property and determined that a ditch needed maintenance. Shortly thereafter, the ditch was cleaned and a berm was installed to redirect runoff away from the Booth property. There has been no further flooding of the Booth property. In October 1995, Mr. Booth became concerned that a ditch was filling with sand and would not continue to handle the runoff. After voicing his concern, a water diverter was installed in the ditch and appears to have remedied the situation. At the time the Falkners began to lease the Rogers property, an existing water use permit, numbered 206938.01, had been issued and was valid for the farm. The Falkners have applied to transfer the existing water use permit from the previous property owner. The Falkners also seek to modify the permit, increasing the total quantities which can be pumped by transferring previously approved quantities from another permit the Falkners currently hold. All of the relevant wells are within the District's Most Impacted Area (MIA) of the Tampa Bay Water Use Caution Area. The District allows a permit holder within the MIA to increase withdrawals from a well by transferring the quantities from another permitted well within the MIA. The other Falkner farm (the "301 farm") from which the quantities would be transferred is located approximately one-half mile to the south of the Rogers farm and is within the MIA. The District reviewed the application and, on September 29, 1995, issued its Proposed Agency Action to Issue Water Use Permit No. 206938.03. The proposed permit includes special conditions requiring monthly pumping reports, water quality reports, adherence to District irrigation allotments (irrigation levels established by the AGMOD computer model) and crop reporting. In reviewing the application the District utilized the criteria set forth in Florida Administrative Code, and the Basis of Review, incorporated into the code by reference. In order to obtain a Water Use Permit, an applicant must demonstrate that the water use is reasonable and beneficial, is in the public interest, and will not interfere with any existing legal use of water. Additionally, the applicant must provide reasonable assurances that the water use: will not cause quantity or quality changes which adversely impact the water resources, including both surface and ground waters; will not adversely impact offsite land uses existing at the time of the application; will not cause water to go to waste; and will not otherwise be harmful to the water resources within the District. The uncontroverted evidence establishes that the water use is reasonable, beneficial and is in the public interest. The Falkners irrigate farmland to produce agricultural products. The production of food is in the public interest. The proposed use is reasonable and beneficial. Further, uncontradicted evidence and opinions of expert witnesses establish that the proposed use will not interfere with any existing legal use of water. The applicant must provide reasonable assurances that the water use will not cause quantity or quality changes which adversely impact the water resources, including both surface and ground waters. The evidence establishes that pumping from the Falkner wells will not adversely affect the quality of water within the aquifers from which the water is drawn. Mr. Booth asserted that he is having water quality problems, specifically with rust in his well. The Booth well is approximately 25 years old. There is no evidence that the rust is related to the Falkner pumping. The DeVito and Booth wells draw from the Intermediate aquifer. Review of the potentiometric surface map of the intermediate aquifer indicates that there is a water level variation of 17 feet between the rainy and dry seasons. The result of the variance can be "dry" wells. There are two wells on the Falkner/Rogers property relevant to this proceeding. The first (District ID number 1) is 770 feet deep, is cased to a depth of 160 feet, and opens to the Floridan aquifer. The second (District ID number 2) is 1100 feet deep, is cased to a depth of 140 feet, and opens to the Intermediate and the Floridan aquifers. A cased well does not withdraw water from the formations through which the casing is placed. For example, a well cased to a depth of 160 feet draws no water from the top of the casing (at approximately ground level) to the bottom of the casing at 160 feet. The Intermediate aquifer releases water at a much slower rate than the Floridan aquifer. Based on the type and location of the Falkner wells, the vast majority of the water pumped by the Falkners comes from the Floridan aquifer. Impacts on existing wells are calculated through computer modeling. The "MOD" flow model demonstrates impacts that will occur after 90 days of pumping at peak month levels with no recharge to the aquifer. The MOD flow model results in a conservative "worst case" projection. The MOD flow model calculation projects the drawdown at Falkner well number 1 to be approximately .9 feet. The MOD flow model calculation projects the drawdown at Falkner well number 2 to be approximately 1.4 feet. The MOD flow model calculation projects the drawdown at the Booth well to be approximately one-half foot. The impact on the DeVito well will not exceed that projected at the Booth well. District permitting criteria allow for projected MOD flow model drawdown impacts of less than five feet at existing wells. The impact possible after approval of this application falls well within the District's guidelines. The impact of pumping if the application at issue in this proceeding is approved will result in a maximum variation of one-half foot at the Booth well. The evidence fails to establish that any problems related to water quantity encountered by the Booths are related to agricultural pumping at the Falkner farms. The evidence also establishes that, based on the existing retention and drainage system, the proposed use will not adversely impact surrounding surface water bodies. A system of swales and ditches is utilized to retain the water on the farm property. The evidence fails to establish that runoff from the Falkner/Rogers farm will adversely impact surrounding surface waters if this application is approved. The applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the water use will not adversely impact offsite land uses existing at the time of the application. The evidence establishes that the runoff from the Falkner farm does not discharge directly to the stream at the rear of the DeVito property. Other agricultural property discharges into the stream adjacent to the DeVito property. There is a steady waterflow through the stream at all times, whether or not the Falkner pumps are operating. Ms. DeVito's property consists of Myakka soil, which has little capacity to absorb rainfall and generates large amounts of runoff. The altered drainage patterns in the area have resulted in substantial water on her property. The evidence in insufficient to establish that the Falkner farm pumping has resulted in flooding on Ms. DeVito's property. The evidence fails to establish that approval of the application at issue in this proceeding will cause adverse impact to the DeVito property or will result in water quality or quantity problems. The Booths are concerned that the existing drainage system will not be maintained and that increased pumping will result in their land being flooded again. The evidence fails to establish a substantial likelihood that the Falkner farm drainage system will not be maintained. The applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the water use will not cause water to go to waste. The Falkners use a semi-enclosed seep irrigation system at the Rogers farm. Irrigation is only used when necessary. Mushroom compost, humates, and plastic mulch retain moisture in the soil. A special condition of the permit requires the Falkners investigate the feasibility of tail water recovery and reuse. The applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the use will not otherwise be harmful to the water resources within the District. The permit application results in no increased withdrawal of water than is allowed under the existing permits for the Rogers and the "301" farms.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order granting the Falkner application and issuing permit number 206938.03. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1996 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASES NO. 95-5763 and 95-5764 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioners Booth The Petitioners Booth proposed findings of fact fail to comply with the requirements of Rule 60Q-2.031(3), Florida Administrative Code, which requires citations to the record of hearing. The proposed findings are rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the greater weight of the evidence except where they are consistent with the Findings of Fact set forth herein. Respondents The Respondents' joint proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 15. Rejected, cumulative. 28-29. Rejected, subordinate. 33. Rejected, subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Rose Ann DeVito, pro se 11001 Sumner Road Wimauma, Florida 33598 Diana P. and Charles B. Booth, pro se 10812 Sumner Road Wimauma, Florida 33598 Patricia Petruff, Esquire Dye and Scott, P.A. 1111 Third Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34206 Martin Hernandez, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Peter G. Hubbell, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP or Department) should exempt Petitioner's alleged maintenance-dredging from wetland resource permitting under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 312.050(1)(e).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has applied for a maintenance-dredging exemption from wetland resource permitting for two channels in Goose Bayou on the two ends of a U-shaped upland cut canal adjacent to Goose Bayou. Rule 62-312 provides in pertinent part: No permit shall be required under this chapter for dredging or filling . . . for the projects listed below. * * * (e) The performance of maintenance dredging of existing manmade canals, channels, and intake and discharge structures, where the spoil material is to be removed and deposited on a self-contained, upland spoil site which will prevent the escape of the spoil material and return water from the spoil site into surface waters of the state, provided no more dredging is performed than is necessary to restore the canal, channels, and intake and discharge structures to original design specifications, and provided that control devices are used at the dredge site to prevent turbidity and toxic or deleterious substances from discharging into adjacent waters during maintenance dredging. This exemption shall apply to all canals constructed before April 3, 1970, and to those canals constructed on or after April 3, 1970, pursuant to all necessary state permits. This exemption shall not apply to the removal of a natural or manmade barrier separating a canal or canal system from adjacent waters of the state. Where no previous permit has been issued by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the United States Army Corps of Engineers for construction or maintenance dredging of the existing manmade canal or intake or discharge structure, such maintenance dredging shall be limited to a depth of no more than 5 feet below mean low water. There was no evidence of any dredging or application for dredging in the vicinity of the proposed alleged "maintenance- dredging" prior to 1971. There was evidence and a stipulation that Heritage Homes of Fort Walton, Inc. (Heritage Homes), applied to the State of Florida in or around 1971 to dredge two navigation channels in Goose Bayou for a project known as Venetian Villas and to remove two plugs separating a land-locked U-shaped canal from Goose Bayou. The navigation channels were to be 50 feet wide by five feet deep. The southern channel was to be 640 feet long, while the northern channel was to be 450 feet long. This proposal did not receive any governmental authorization. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that in 1973, based on the proposed project modifications, the State of Florida Department of Pollution Control (DPC), a predecessor of DEP, issued water quality certification, and the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (BOT) issued a permit for the project, as modified. It appears that the issuance of the water qualify certification and BOT permit was part of some kind of settlement reached between Heritage Homes and the State of Florida for dredge-and-fill violations. It appears that the settlement also involved the conveyance of ten acres of land to the State of Florida in lieu of payment for the spoil used in filling the marsh lands between Goose Bayou and the U-shaped canal. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, at some point in time, the DPC certification and a BOT permit were transferred from Heritage Homes to West Florida Construction Company (West Florida). There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, as of July 13, 1973, neither Heritage Homes nor West Florida had applied to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for a permit. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, over time and after receiving comments from various governmental agencies, West Florida's proposed project changed to involve a yacht basin/marina, a proposed southern channel, elimination of the proposal for a northern channel, and plugging the U-shaped canal to keep it separate from Goose Bayou. The location of the single, southern channel under this proposal was different from the proposed location of the southern channel under the Heritage Homes proposal, which was to start at the southernmost arm of the U-shaped canal. Instead, under West Florida's proposal, the single, southern channel was to be located directly north of the southernmost arm of the U-shaped canal. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, by August 21, 1974, West Florida applied to the Corps for a permit to dredge the single, southern channel (50 feet wide, 565 feet long, and four feet deep), to keep the northern canal plugged, and to construct a yacht basin/marina. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, the United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended several changes to the project before they could recommend that the Corps issue a permit for the 1974 application; however, it does not appear that the recommended changes were ever made or that the Corps ever took any action on the 1974 application or issued any permit for the proposed project. At some point in time after 1974, the two plugs were removed, which connected the U-shaped canal to Goose Bayou. There is now a wide, shallow channel from the waterward ends of the U-shaped canal into Goose Bayou. The evidence did not prove that these channels, which Petitioner now seeks to maintenance- dredge, were ever dredged by man. Their width and shallow depth are more consistent with natural scouring from surface water runoff leaving the canal system at low and extreme low tides than with dredging. There was no evidence of soil borings, which could have verified whether the channels had been dredged by man. Even if originally dredged, there was no evidence that a dredged channel had been maintained over the years. Mr. Stoutamire testified that DEP does not consider maintenance- dredging to include the restoration or rebuilding of a channel that has not been maintained and no longer exists. This interpretation of the maintenance-dredging exemption is reasonable. Mr. Stoutamire also testified that DEP interprets the last sentence of Rule 62-312.050(1)(e), limiting maintenance- dredging to no more than five feet below mean low water where no previous permit has been issued, to refer to canals constructed before April 3, 1970, since maintenance-dredging of canals constructed after that date would not be exempt if not previously permitted. This interpretation is reasonable.2 Petitioner's application did not state that control devices would be used to prevent turbidity and toxic or deleterious substances from discharging into adjacent waters during dredging.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner a maintenance-dredging exemption under Rule 62- 312.050(1)(e). DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 2009, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Crestwood Lakes Associates provided reasonable assurance that a modification to a conceptual surface water management permit complies with the permit criteria contained in statutes and rules.
Findings Of Fact Background This case involves a 900-acre parcel in the Loxahatchee Slough, west of the Florida Turnpike in Palm Beach County (County). Although the property occupies part of a slough, all of the wetlands in this case are isolated wetlands. Respondent Crestwood Lakes Associates (Applicant) owns the south 503 acres, Petitioner owns the north 287 acres, and the Village of Royal Palm Beach (Village) owns the remaining 115 acres, which abut the southwest boundary of the north parcel. The acreages do not total 900 acres because the numbers are approximate. The 900-acre parcel is generally bounded on the south by Okeechobee Boulevard and the north and east by the M-1 canal. The west boundary of the south part of the parcel adjoins a residential development known as Loxahatchee Groves, and the 115-acre parcel adjoins a County-owned preserve of at least 600 acres. Applicant’s land is undeveloped except for some landclearing. Petitioner’s land is partly developed, mostly in the south next to the boundary with Applicant’s land. The Village's 115 acres are a preserve, divided equally between wetlands and uplands. On February 11, 1988, Respondent South Florida Water Management District (District) issued surface water management (SWM) permit No. 50-00618-S-02 to Royal Palm Homes, Inc. for conceptual approval of a SWM system serving a residential development on the 900-acre parcel (1988 Permit). References to the Original Developer shall include Royal Palm Homes, Inc., its agents, lenders, and assigns, except for Petitioner and Applicant. The permitted development, which was known as the Royal Palm Homes PUD, comprises single-family and multifamily residences, wetland preserve areas, two 18-hole golf courses, and a park area. On August 3, 1994, Applicant filed SWM application number 940803-6 to modify the 1988 Permit to show the change in ownership and obtain conceptual approval of a modification to the permitted SWM system. The application was not complete when the new Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) rules replaced the old Management and Storage of Surface Water (MSSW) permit rules. On May 24, 1996, the District transmitted the staff report, which proposed the issuance of a permit modification. On June 13, 1996, the District approved the issuance of the proposed permit modification. On the same date, Petitioner filed its petition challenging the proposed agency action. Permits The first relevant SWM permit for the 900-acre parcel involved a larger parcel that includes the 900-acre parcel. On September 14, 1978, the District issued a two-page permit authorizing the “construction of a water management system serving 2073 acres of residential lands by waterways discharging into canal C-51.” This 1978 permit, which is identified as number 50-00618-S, contains a special condition calling for a minimum finished floor elevation of 18.0 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The next permit is the 1988 Permit, which is a substantial modification to the 1978 permit. The 1988 Permit covers only the previously described 900 acres and, as modified, currently remains in effect. The 1988 Permit requires the preservation of two large wetlands in the north parcel, just north of the 115-acre preserve; one wetland is about 30 acres and the other is about ten acres. The 1988 Permit requires the preservation of no other wetlands in the north parcel, but, in addition to the wetlands in the 115-acre preserve, the 1988 Permit requires the preservation of several much smaller wetlands in the south parcel. The staff report for the 1988 Permit divides into three basins the drainage area for the 900-acre parcel: a north basin of 98.9 acres, a central basin of 525.7 acres, and a south basin of 270.8 acres. The staff report states that basin runoff will pass through a system of inlets and culverts into a series of interconnected lakes, from which, through control structures, the runoff will pass into the M-1 canal and eventually into the C-51 canal. The staff report notes that the control elevations will be 17.25 feet NGVD for the north basin, 17.55 feet NGVD for the central basin, and 17.75 feet NGVD for the south basin. Under the discussion of environmental impacts, the staff report observes that the 1978 permit proposed for protection only 30 acres of wetlands among the 281 acres of isolated wetlands on the site. The staff report notes that “extensive” melaleuca invasion has taken place since the 1978 permit and only 160 acres of wetlands remain in “relatively good” condition, with much of this subject to melaleuca encroachment. Due to the “extensive seed source” and “seasonal drying of the wetlands,” the staff report predicts eventual melaleuca dominance of the “entire site.” The staff report asserts that the proposed development plan includes the protection of about 100 acres of the “best quality wetlands,” plus eight acres of wetlands created in conjunction with the golf courses and 15 acres of wetlands created as littoral zones in conjunction with the lakes to be constructed. The staff report calls a program “to eradicate all melaleuca from the site” “[t]he major environmental feature” of the proposed development plan. But this major environmental feature of the 1988 Permit is presently in jeopardy. One major component of the present case is that, following the conveyances of the three parcels by the Original Developer, the District has evidently concluded that no one is responsible to perform certain obligations under the 1988 Permit and no remedies are available for the nonperformance of these obligations. It appears that these conclusions are largely driven by the vagueness of the plan to eradicate the melaleuca. This plan is called the "Melaleuca Eradication Plan." The Melaleuca Eradication Plan is incorporated into the 1988 Permit. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan, which is dated December 11, 1987, recounts that the Original Developer and regulatory bodies agreed that the melaleuca should be “eradicated and a program for this should be developed and included as a part of the permit application.” The plan states that the eradication plan will cover the entire 900- acre site with the Original Developer performing the “initial . . . program” on the entire site, including the 115-acre preserve to be deeded to the Village. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan calls for the Original Developer to create a bonded authority to conduct the “ten-year melaleuca eradication program.” The program is phased to coincide with the projected 10-year buildout of the 3000-unit parcel. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan describes in detail the three phases of the program and exactly how the Original Developer will proceed to remove the melaleuca and restore wetlands by planting native wetland species in disturbed areas. The plan promises a yearly inspection followed by hand-removal of any seedlings discovered on the site. This last phase will terminate ten years after commencement of the first phase. A “Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program” is also incorporated into the 1988 Permit. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which is dated December 8, 1987, states that Dr. Dwight Goforth performed a wetlands survey of the 900-acre site in 1985 and divided wetlands into three categories based on their quality. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance promises the preservation of 112.71 acres of wetlands comprising 98.81 acres of “large wetlands totally preserved” and nine wetlands totaling 13.9 acres that will be “partially preserved.” Also, the program will create golf course wetlands of 6.93 acres and littoral-zone wetlands around the lakes of 15 acres. Thus, the program summarizes, the “total wetland acreage preserved, enhanced and created will [be] 134.64 acres.” The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program describes a three-year monitoring program using transects to assist in the vegetative mapping of the site. The program also promises semiannual observations of birds, small rodents, and larger mammals using the wetlands and adjacent preserved uplands, as well as semiannual sampling for fish, macroinvertebrates, and amphibians. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program outlines a plan to remove melaleuca and control algae buildup in the lakes. The program promises to contain algae through the use of “biological controls” and, when needed, hand-raking. The program also assures that the Original Developer will use a “conservative fertilization program” for the golf course and landscaped areas to reduce eutrophication in the created lakes. On February 18, 1988, the District issued its conceptual approval of the 1988 Permit. Among the special conditions of the 1988 Permit are Special Condition 15, which requires wetland monitoring and maintenance in accordance with the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, and Special Condition 16, which requires melaleuca removal in accordance with the Melaleuca Eradication Plan. Also, Special Condition 17 requires low berms around protected or created wetlands, including littoral zones, to protect against sheetflow runoff from the golf course or other areas of intense development. The references in the preceding paragraphs to the responsibilities of the "Original Developer" imply greater clarity than is present in the Melaleuca Eradication Plan or Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. The passive voice predominates in both these documents, so it is sometimes difficult to determine on whom a particular responsibility falls. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan states clearly that "[the Original Developer] will conduct the initial melaleuca eradication on the entire site including the dedicated park area [i.e., the 115 acres]." The next sentence of the plan contemplates the conveyance of the 115 acres to the County. But, after these clear provisions, the Melaleuca Eradication Plan lapses into the passive voice almost invariably. The next two sentences read, "A bonded authority will be created to conduct the ten-year melaleuca eradication program" and "The eradication program will be carried out through a bonded agreement with the [Original] Developer to remove the melaleuca . . .." Alluding to the several phases of melaleuca eradication, the plan states only "[t]he eradication program will be completed in stages " Only two other sentences establishing responsibility for melaleuca eradication identify the responsible party. The end of the plan states that the "bonded authority responsible for initial eradication clearance will likewise provide a yearly inspection." One of the final sentences of the plan adds: "the bonding authority's crew will hand remove entire seedlings found on site." The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program is similar except that it does not once name the entity responsible for the monitoring and maintenance duties or hiring the firm or individual to conduct the actual work. The two special conditions incorporating these two documents likewise are in the passive voice, implying only that the responsibility belongs to the Original Developer. Given the vagueness of the melaleuca-eradication and wetlands-maintenance documents, it is not surprising that they fail entirely to address the issue whether these responsibilities run with the land, remain the responsibility of the Original Developer, or, for the eradication of melaleuca, remain the duty of the "bonded authority," if the Original Developer ever created such an entity, which appears highly doubtful. The documents likewise do not disclose the penalties for noncompliance. On June 16, 1988, the District issued a modification to the 1988 Permit for the construction and operation of a 110.9-acre residential development in Phase I, which occupies the central basin. On October 1, 1988, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) issued the Original Developer a permit to destroy 164 acres of wetlands on the 900-acre parcel. Special conditions of the 1988 Army Corps permit require the preservation of "115 acres of high quality wetlands," the creation of 18 acres of wetlands and 15 acres of littoral shelf, and the implementation of a "Melaleuca Eradication Program," which is the same program as is incorporated in the 1988 Permit. The 1988 Army Corps permit contains an attachment dated October 24, 1987. This attachment identifies the protected wetlands as the two large wetlands in the north parcel totaling about 40 acres, 58 acres in the 115-acre preserve, and 53.5 acres in the south parcel. The 1988 Army Corps permit protects several wetlands in the south parcel, including wetland numbers 14 (3.04 acres), 16 (1.6 acres), 23 (0.53 acres), 30 (2.6 acres), 44 (0.8 acres), 29 (1.08 acres), and 46 (3.0 acres). These wetlands, which total 12.65 acres, are seven of the nine wetlands partially preserved in the 1988 Permit, although some of the acreages vary from those preserved in the 1988 Permit. Unlike the District's permits (except for the subject proposed permit modification), the 1988 Army Corps permit addresses conveyances by the developer. The 1988 Army Corps permit states: "If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the space provided and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization." Below the signature line of the 1988 Army Corps permit is language stating: When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below. On March 1, 1989, the Original Developer conveyed the 115-acre preserve to the Village, which later leased the preserve to the County. The Original Developer had not eradicated the melaleuca at the time of the conveyance, nor has anyone since done so. On August 17, 1990, water elevations in the wetlands in Phase I reached 19.4 feet NGVD, washing out construction pads, roads, and in-ground utilities. On September 7, 1990, the District issued a stop-work request because the SWM system was not working as required. On September 28, 1990, the District approved interim measures to preserve the wetland hydroperiod and allow for wetland overflow. These measures include berming the residential areas in Phase I/Plat I adjacent to wetlands. On June 13, 1991, the District approved additional modifications to the 1988 Permit and the construction and operations permit for Phase I and issued a conceptual approval for works in the north and central basins. The revisions to the conceptual approval include adding two control structures to the north wetland that connect to the water management system in the north basin and adding a berm around the smaller of the two preserved wetlands in the north parcel. The construction approval was for a perimeter berm along the south wetland and park areas. On June 24, 1992, the District issued a staff report recommending issuance of another modification of the 1988 Permit for the conceptual approval of a SWM system to serve the 900-acre parcel and approval of construction and operation of a SWM system to isolate and control the existing onsite wetlands and revise the control structure for the central basin. The staff report explains that this modification proposes berming the wetlands to the 100-year, three-day peak elevation. The staff report notes that the wetlands basin consists of 295.18 acres of wetlands, including 155.85 acres of “wetlands/uplands.” The staff report notes that the north basin contains 107.41 acres of “good quality wet prairie wetlands” with “minimal” melaleuca encroachment. The staff report restates that the purpose of the modification is to berm all of the wetlands and uplands not planned for development. Special Condition 19 requires the Original Developer to dedicate as conservation and common areas in deed restrictions the “wetland preservation/mitigation areas, upland buffer zones, and/or upland preservation areas," so that these areas are the “perpetual responsibility” of a named property owners’ association. Special Condition 22 states that “a wetland monitoring and maintenance program” and “a melaleuca eradication program” “shall be implemented,” but the condition does not expressly state by whom. Special Condition 22 requires that the work implementing these programs conform to these “approved environmental programs as outlined in the [1988 Permit].” Special Condition 25 provides that, on submittal of an application for construction approval in the south basin (Phase II), the "permittee shall submit a detailed wetland construction mitigation, monitoring and maintenance plan.” In evaluating the plan for approval, the District shall apply the “environmental criteria in effect at the time of construction permit application.” Although the approval of the District is not attached to the staff report, the District approved the June 24, 1992, staff report and proposed permit. The 1992 permit modification did not address the issue of who was responsible for melaleuca eradication after the sale of the property. On November 10, 1993, the staff report accompanying another request for a permit modification restates the special conditions of earlier permit modifications. Special Condition 23 restates the requirement that a melaleuca eradication program “shall be implemented,” again not stating by whom. Special Condition 23 now requires the completion of the melaleuca eradication program by February 25, 1994. The omission of a referenced exhibit to the permit from the exhibit filed in this case prevents a determination that this is the same as the Melaleuca Eradication Plan incorporated in the 1988 Permit and restated in the 1992 modification, although it probably is. In any event, Special Condition 23 concludes in another sentence lacking a stated or implied subject: “Maintenance of the preserved wetlands and berm planting areas shall be conducted in perpetuity to ensure that the conservation areas are maintained free from exotic vegetation (Brazilian pepper, Australian pine and melaleuca) . . ..” Although the record does not contain the written approval of the District to the staff report, the District approved the staff report dated November 10, 1993. On November 12, 1993, the Original Developer conveyed by special warranty deed the north to Petitioner. The deed is subject only to "easements, declarations, restrictions and reservations of record . . .." The record does not provide recording information for the deed. The Original Developer probably conveyed the south parcel to Applicant in the same fashion and at the same approximate time. Almost five months later, on March 29, 1994, the Army Corps issued another permit for the 900-acre parcel. Although the Original Developer had conveyed at least the north parcel, the Army Corps issued the 1994 permit to the Original Developer. The 1994 Army Corps permit authorizes the destruction of 158 acres. The general conditions governing transfers are the same as those in the 1988 Army Corps permit. The special conditions of the 1994 Army Corps permit require the permittee to preserve and enhance only 110 acres of high quality wetlands, instead of preserving 115 acres of such wetlands, as was required in the 1988 Army Corps permit. The 1994 Army Corps permit drops the requirement of creating eight acres of wetlands and 15 acres of littoral zone, as was required in the 1988 Army Corps permit, but requires the preservation of what appears to be the 39.5-acre preserve that is proposed by Applicant in the subject permit modification, as described below. Special Condition 3 of the 1994 Army Corps permit adds that all preserved areas "will be maintained in perpetuity free of Melaleuca. The permittee agrees to develop a bonded Melaleuca eradication program for the entire 906 acres. Copies of the bonded agreement will be provided to this office for approval before development can commence." The next permit activity affecting the 900-acre parcel is the subject application filed by Applicant on August 3, 1994, for its 503-acre parcel. On May 24, 1996, the District issued a staff report for conceptual approval of a SWM system proposed by Applicant for its 503-acre parcel. On June 13, 1996, the District issued an addendum to the staff report that contains another special condition that is not especially relevant to this case. In the background section, the staff report mentions the flooding of Phase I of the north parcel and states that the District had “assumed the adjacent wetlands would flow away from the development.” The staff report outlines the modifications implemented to eliminate the flooding; these modifications include connecting the M-1 canal, through inlets, with several wetlands located in the north and central basins. According to the staff report, Petitioner’s north parcel, which totals 287.34 acres, includes the Phase I/Plat 1 area, north basin, and part of central basin south of Phase I. Describing Applicant’s proposal, the staff report states that a preserve of 39.5 acres will be located in the northwest corner of the south parcel, adjoining the east boundary of the 115-acre parcel. The staff report states that the 39.5-acre preserve will sheetflow through cuts in the berm to wetlands in the 115-acre preserve. The 115-acre preserve is connected to the SWM system permitted on November 10, 1993, to eliminate flooding from these wetlands, whose control elevation is 19 feet NGVD. The staff report describes the south parcel as “dominated by flatwood habitat,” within which are stands of Australian pine and other exotic plant species that have recently been spreading across the site. The onsite wetlands are 4.93 acres of wet prairies, 18.4 acres of pond cypress strands, 1.56 acres of isolated marsh, 3.5 acres of cypress mixed with pine flatwood, and 163.91 acres of melaleuca. The staff report finds that only the 4.93 acres of wet prairies and 18.4 acres of cypress are in good condition, but melaleuca has become established in many of the wet prairies. The 1.56 acres of freshwater marshes and 163.91 acres of melaleuca are in poor condition. The 3.5 acres of cypress mixed with pine flatwoods are in fair condition. As for listed species, the staff report mentions only the possibility that herons might forage onsite during periods of standing water. Summarizing the impact of the proposed project on wetlands preservation, the staff report endorses the hydrologic reconnection of the 39.5-acre wetland/upland site with the 115-acre wetland. The staff report notes that water levels in the 115-acre preserve, which has been bermed to 21 feet NGVD, have stabilized at 19 feet NGVD. The staff report asserts that the “proposed wetland impacts (183.54 acres) were previously permitted under the conceptual permit application” for the original 1988 Permit. The staff report adds that this modification is to “change a portion of the original mitigation requirements . . . and includes impacts to a 6.78 acre wetland area that was previously permitted to be preserved.” But the staff report does not recommend the preservation of this wetland “[d]ue to the reduced hydrology and proximity to the proposed upland development” and the mitigation and compensation provided by the 39.5-acre preservation area. The staff report states that 8.76 acres of the 39.5- acre preserve are wetlands, and the remainder are uplands. As for the 8.76 acres of wetlands, the staff report lists 0.67 acres of mixed cypress and pine flatwoods, 4.93 acres of wet prairies, and 3.16 acres of cypress. Applicant would also restore 4.95 acres of pine flatwoods. As for the 183.54 acres of wetlands to be destroyed, the staff report lists 2.83 acres of mixed cypress and pine flatwoods in fair condition, 15.24 acres of cypress in fair condition, 1.56 acres of freshwater marshes in poor condition, and 163.91 acres of melaleuca in poor condition. Addressing the mitigation and monitoring elements of the current proposal, the staff report states that the modification would eliminate the creation of 15 acres of littoral wetlands around SWM lakes and 7.99 acres of marshes in golf courses in return for the creation of the 39.5-acre preservation area. The staff report assures that Applicant will perpetually manage and maintain the 115-acre preserve. Conceding that the 1988 Permit also required long-term maintenance of the 115-acre parcel, the staff report notes that the initial eradication effort was never completed. The staff report mentions an “access agreement” giving Applicant the authority to enter the 115-acre preserve for mitigation and monitoring, but “anticipat[es]” that Applicant will submit an application for another permit modification, on behalf of the two governmental entities, so that Applicant can “assume future maintenance responsibilities for this area.” As is clarified by the maintenance and monitoring plan, which is part of the proposed permit, Applicant's expectation is that the County and Village, not Applicant, will assume future maintenance responsibilities for the 115-acre preserve. The staff report concludes that the District should issue the permit subject to various conditions. Special Condition 1 is that the minimum building floor elevation is 20 feet NGVD. Special Condition 16 requires the implementation of a wetland mitigation program and requires Applicant to create 4.95 acres of marsh; restore 3.16 acres of cypress, 4.93 acres of marsh, and 0.67 acres of mixed forest; and protect 25.79 acres of uplands. Special Condition 17 sets performance criteria for the mitigation areas in terms of percentage and length of survival of vegetation. Special Condition 17 supplies completion dates for monitoring reports. Special Condition 21 addresses listed species. Noting that listed species have been seen onsite or the site contains suitable habitat for such species, Special Condition 21 requires Applicant to coordinate with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission or the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for guidance, recommendations, or permits to avoid impacts to such species. The monitoring and maintenance plan does not address direct and contingent liabilities for maintenance and generally is a poor candidate for enforcement. In addition to the vagueness of the passive voice, the plan is, at times, simply unreadable, as, for example, when it concludes boldly, but enigmatically: The site as a whole is evolving hydrologic trends which permits successional seres development toward communities with shorter hydroperiods and ultimately, toward more upland transitional and/or exotic species dominance of historically wetland habitats. Long-term prospectives infer that successional deflection has become a severe detriment for natural environmental control to alter the present scenario. Active management coupled with graduated balanced in hydrologic restoration and created habitat elements will become the processes engineered to obtain an infusion of probabilities fashioned to inscribe a regenerative adaptation to the present site condition while fostering in situ processes, to optimize derived functions, for the maintenance of both habitat and wildlife over the long-term existence of the Preserve. (Sic.) Water Quality Impacts Petitioner does not contend in its proposed recommended order that the proposed project fails to meet applicable requirements regarding water quality. Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed permit modification would not violate State water quality standards. Flooding Petitioner contends in its proposed recommended order that the proposed permit modification would not meet applicable requirements regarding water quantity and flooding. However, Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the project would not violate these requirements. There are several aspects to a SWM system. Undeveloped land stores and conveys rainfall through soil and surface storage. An artificial SWM system alters the undeveloped land’s storage capacity by the addition of a storage and drainage system, such as, in this case, conveying water through the soil into storm drains and then to lakes to store surface runoff prior to release, through an outfall structure, into a receiving body of water--in this case, the M-1 canal. The SWM system hastens the conveyance of stormwater runoff offsite. The control elevation of a SWM system is the height at which water in the lakes will flow through the outfall structure into the receiving body of water. Except during the dry season, the control elevation tends to establish not only the water level of the SWM lakes, but also of the nearby water table. The hastening of drainage offsite with the establishment of control elevations produce the drawdown effect of SWM systems. As to flooding, the basic underlying dispute between Petitioner and Respondents is whether to use the pre- or post- development depth to water table. In determining whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance as to the impact of a proposed development on wetlands, one would project the effect of any post-development drawdown on the wetlands themselves and their functions and inhabitants. It would be illogical not to do the same in determining whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance as to the impact of a proposed development on flooding. Pre-development, the average depth to water table on Applicant’s property is as little as two feet. Post- development, the average depth to water table on Applicant’s property will be five feet, which is the difference between the control elevation of 14 feet NGVD and ground elevation of 19 feet NGVD. Petitioner’s evidence concerning flooding is flawed because its expert witness based his calculations on an average depth to water table of two feet on Applicant’s property. He did not adjust for the considerable drawdown effect of the SWM system. The District table allows for no more than four feet between the water table and ground, so there is an added margin of safety in the ensuing flooding calculations. Another important factor in the flooding calculations is the soil type in terms of permeability. The District properly characterized the prevailing soils as flatwoods, and the soils onsite are in the category of “good drainage.” Applicant’s suggestion that flooding calculations use the post-development soils is rejected. Post-development depths to water table are used because they can be calculated to predict post-development conditions accurately. Applicant produced no proof that it would replace such massive amounts of soil from the site with more permeable soils so as to justify reclassifying the soil type. The District's flooding calculations probably overstate the risk of flooding in the three-day, 100-year design storm because they ignore lake bank storage, which is the additional amount of water that a lake can store in its sloped banks above the typical water elevation. The District could have relied on the effect of lake bank storage for additional assurance that the proposed project will not result in flooding. The proposed project contains a large number of long, narrow lakes, which will thus have a relatively high percentage of lake banks to lake area. Additionally, the District has raised the minimum floor elevation at this site by two feet over 18 years. Whatever other effects may follow from this trend, the higher floor elevation offers additional protection to onsite improvements. The flooding of Petitioner’s property seven years ago understandably is a matter of concern to Petitioner. Applicant proposes to change the configuration of drainage basins, but the District has adequately addressed the drainage issue, and this is not the first time in the 20-year permitting history of this property that the District has approved a reconfiguration of basins. Also, in the 1988 Permit, the District incorrectly projected the direction of runoff under certain conditions. However, the flooding was partly due to inadequate road- drainage facilities. Following the flooding, the Original Developer enlarged these features and bermed the flooding wetlands, so as to eliminate the flooding of developed areas due to design storm events. On balance, Applicant has proved that the proposed permit modification would not adversely affect flooding or water quantity. Environmental Impacts A. Wetlands Petitioner contends in its proposed recommended order that the proposed permit modification would not meet applicable requirements regarding environmental impacts to wetlands. Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed work would not violate these requirements. There are two major deficiencies in the District's analysis of wetland impacts and mitigation or compensation. First, the proposed permit modification includes mitigation or compensation in the form of melaleuca removal. But prior permits have already required the same work, no one has ever done the work, and the District does not know if these permit requirements are still enforceable. Second, the proposed permit modification ignores 13.9 acres of preserved wetlands in the 1988 Permit, allowing their destruction without mitigation or compensation. The permitting process requires the District to balance the impacts of development and mitigation or compensation on the natural resources under the District's jurisdiction. Balancing these impacts in issuing the 1988 Permit, the District required the complete eradication of melaleuca in return for permitting the residential, institutional, and recreational development proposed by the Original Developer. District staff, not the Original Developer or Petitioner, called the Melaleuca Eradication Plan “the major environmental feature” of the development plan approved by the 1988 Permit. The major environmental feature of the 1988 Permit clearly justified significant development impacts on natural resources. To justify additional development impacts on natural resources, the District now proposes to count again another developer’s promise to eradicate the melaleuca. The District claims that the term of the original melaleuca protection plan was only ten years, not perpetual as is presently proposed. However, the District's claim ignores Special Condition 23 in the 1993 permit modification. This condition set a deadline of February 25, 1994, for the eradication of melaleuca and made perpetual the requirement that one or more of the potentially responsible parties--the Original Developer, Petitioner, Applicant, the bonded authority, the property owners' association, or transferees-- maintain the wetlands free of melaleuca and other exotics. Unfortunately, this “major environmental feature” of the 1988 Permit, as well as subsequent permit modifications, was so poorly drafted as to leave potentially responsible parties unsure of their legal obligations. The District tacitly suggests that it cannot enforce the obligations imposed by the 1988 Permits and later modifications for the eradication of melaleuca. But there is presently no reason for the District to resort again to permitting without first reviewing carefully its enforcement options. The District should first determine whether anyone will voluntarily assume these obligations. As a business consideration, Petitioner may choose to eradicate the melaleuca from the north parcel and 115-acre preserve to prevent Applicant from providing this service and claiming that it should receive compensation credit against additional environmental impacts permitted by a modification of the 1988 Permit. Maybe the County or Village has already budgeted funds for this work. If no party offers to perform the necessary work, the District must next determine its legal rights and the legal obligations of these parties. Depending on the results of this research, the District may need to consider litigation and the cessation of the issuance of construction and operation permits on the 900-acre parcel or either the north or south parcel. At this point, the District should discuss joint litigation or permit revocation with the Army Corps, whose 1994 permit requires the permittee to develop a bonded melaleuca-eradication program and apparently imposes on the permittee the responsibility to maintain all preserved areas free of melaleuca. Only after having exhausted these options may the District legitimately conclude that melaleuca eradication on any part of the 900 acres represents fair compensation for the development impacts on jurisdictional natural resources. The second major problem as to wetlands impacts concerns the calculation of wetlands acreages to be destroyed by the proposed permit. The 1988 Permit expressly incorporates the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. This program, as an operative part of the 1988 Permit, represents that the developer will “partially preserve. . .” nine wetlands totaling 13.9 acres. The partial preservation of wetlands does not mean that a five-acre wetland will remain a five-acre wetland, except that its function will be impaired. Partial preservation means that, for instance, two acres of a five- acre wetland will be preserved. It is impossible for the District to have required mitigation to offset the destruction of these 13.9 acres of wetlands because the District denies that the 1988 Permit required the partial preservation of these nine wetlands. As noted below, neither the District nor Applicant can identify all of the wetlands that make up the 13.9 acres. Rather than account for these wetlands that were to have been partially preserved, the District instead contends that this undertaking by the Original Developer was ineffective or nonbinding because it was overriden by contrary statements in the staff report. Not so. The specific provisions delineating the preserved wetlands area in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which was prepared by the Original Developer, override more general statements contained in the staff report accompanying the permit. There is not necessarily a conflict between the staff report and the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. The staff report states that the plan “includes the protection of approximately 100 acres of the best quality wetlands,” together with the creation of eight acres of golf course wetlands and 15 acres of lake littoral zones. The plan “includes” these wetlands among those preserved or created; the word suggests that the list is not exhaustive, but only illustrative. Alternatively, if the list were exhaustive, the preservation of “approximately” 100 acres reasonably encompasses the 112.71 acres of partially or totally preserved wetlands cited in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. More to the point, on October 26, 1987, Donald Wisdom, the engineer handling the 1988 Permit, prepared a memorandum for the file stating that the total acreage of wetlands to be preserved or created was 134.45. This figure represents an insignificant deviation of 0.19 acres from the total listed in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which was dated six weeks later, on December 8, 1987. In the October 26 memorandum, Mr. Wisdom describes the preserved wetlands as 111.46 acres of A- and B-quality wetlands. This is 1.25 acres less than the acreage in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. These small discrepancies were eliminated by November 18, 1987, when Mr. Wisdom wrote a memorandum noting that the program called for the total preservation of 98.81 acres and partial preservation of 13.9 acres. Adding the created wetlands, the new total for preserved or created wetlands was 134.64 acres. A month later, a District employee wrote a memorandum to the file, expressing his “main concern” that the proposed development would protect only 99 acres of wetlands. It is unclear why the employee mentioned only the 98.81 acres slated for preservation. Perhaps he was confused or mistaken. But the misgivings of a single employee do not constitute the rejection by the District of a developer's proposal to preserve nearly 14 acres of high-quality wetlands. The staff report for the 1988 Permit notes that the 900-acre site contained about 281 acres of wetlands. If the 1988 Permit required the preservation, as an entire wetland or part of a larger wetland, of 112 acres of wetlands, then the 1988 Permit allowed the destruction of 169 acres, which is consistent with the 164 and 158 acres allowed to be destroyed by the 1988 and 1994 Army Corps permits. However, by the 1996 permit modification, the staff report refers, without explanation or justification, to the permitted destruction of 183.54 acres of wetlands--evidently adding the 13.9 acres to the 169 acres previously permitted to be destroyed. Tab 13 of the Wisdom bluebook identifies the nine wetlands constituting the 13.9 acres, which are entirely in Applicant's south parcel. Except for three, all of these wetlands were characterized as A-quality, meaning that they are in good to excellent condition and “have not been stressed significantly from the biological viewpoint.” B-quality wetlands are in disturbed condition and “are in various stages of biological stress caused primarily by a lowered water table and/or melaleuca invasion.” C-quality wetlands are highly disturbed and “are substantially degraded biologically.” The 13.9 acres of wetlands comprise wetland numbers 23 (0.5 acres), 46 (0.4 acres), 44 (0.6 acres), 37 (0.4 acres), 29 (1.1 acres), 20 [sometimes misreported as 21] (3.9 acres), 30 (2.6 acres), 16 (1.5 acres), and 14 (2.9 acres). Wetland numbers 46 and 29 are B-quality, and wetland number 20 is C-quality. The wetlands shown in District Exhibit 4 and Applicant Exhibit 3 inaccurately portray the wetlands constituting the missing 13.9 acres. A internal memorandum to the file notwithstanding, the District predicated the 1988 Permit in part on the preservation of 112.71 acres of functioning wetlands, including the 13.9 acres that the District now disclaims. The mitigation and compensation required of Applicant in the present case ignored the destruction of these wetlands. The District's analysis of mitigation and compensation in this case was fatally flawed by these two deficiencies. But more deficiencies exist in the District's analysis of wetland impacts. The District relied on faulty data in reviewing Applicant's request for a permit modification. Undercounting the extent of wetlands by at least 21 acres and their condition by an indeterminable amount, Applicant presented to the District a materially inaccurate picture of the wetland resources on the south parcel. Despite disclaimers to the contrary, the District relied on this inaccurate data in reviewing Applicant's request for a permit modification. There are possible problems with 39.5-acre preserve offered by Applicant. This parcel contains less than nine acres of wetlands, including two wetlands that Applicant may already be required to preserve under the 1994 Army Corps permit. At the same time, Applicant's proposal may include the destruction of a third wetland that is to be preserved under the 1994 Army Corps permit. The best rendering in the record of the 1994 Army Corps permit may be Applicant Exhibit 4, which shows eight large wetland areas to be “preserved/enhanced/created.” Two of these are the 10- and 30-acre wetlands on Petitioner’s property, which were preserved in the 1988 Permit. Three of the eight wetlands are in the 115-acre preserve; these were also preserved in the 1988 Permit. The remaining three wetlands to be preserved, enhanced, or created under the 1994 Army Corps permit are in the north end of Applicant’s property. It is difficult to estimate acreage given the scale of the drawing, but the two westerly wetlands are about 4-5 acres each and the easterly wetland is 3-3.5 acres. Subtracting the total preserved acreage of 110 from the acreage identified in the preceding paragraph, the total acreage of these remaining three wetlands is about 12. The two westerly wetlands are in the 39.5-acre preserve that Applicant offers as mitigation in the present case. According to Applicant Exhibit 6, the easterly wetland, or at least the most valuable part of it--the center--is slated for destruction if the District grants the subject permit modification. The proposed destruction of the third wetland is a matter of greater interest to the Army Corps than to the District, but the offer to preserve the other two wetlands really does not provide anything in return for the permitted development impacts because these two wetlands are already preserved under the 1994 Army Corps permit. As the District and Applicant contend, golf course marshes and littoral zones are typically of little environmental importance. Although the 1988 Permit addresses some of these problems, although without supplying any performance standards, golf courses themselves are often conduits of fertilizers and pesticides into the groundwater and nearby surface water. The District and Applicant justifiably question the value of the golf courses approved in the 1988 Permit as wildlife corridors. It is unclear what wildlife would use the corridor, which is surrounded by residential development and bounded by Okeechobee Boulevard. Other factors also militate in favor of Applicant's proposal. But, as the record presently stands, there is no way to find that Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed development and related mitigation and compensation, as described in the subject permit modification, meet the applicable criteria. The District substantially undervalued the environmental impacts of the proposed modification while substantially overvaluing the environmental impacts of Applicant's proposed contributions in the form of mitigation and compensation. To find adequate assurance as to wetland impacts in these circumstances, where the District did not perform an informed balancing of various impacts in a large-scale development, would permit the District to transform the unavoidably imprecise task of balancing wetland impacts into an act of pure, unreviewable discretion. Listed Species The only relevant listed species onsite is the gopher tortoise, which is a species of special concern. Gopher tortoises use the site to an undetermined extent. Applicant's suggestion that someone brought the tortoises to the site is rejected as improbable. However, due to the resolution of the wetlands issue, it is unnecessary to determine whether Applicant provided reasonable assurance as to the value of functions provided to wildlife and listed species by wetlands. Procedural Issues A. Standing Petitioner has standing due most obviously to flooding considerations. Additionally, the SWM system permitted in 1988 is for the entire 900-acre parcel, of which Petitioner’s parcel is a part. Applicability of ERP Rules The proposed permit modification would substantially affect water resources. The proposed permit modification would substantially increase the adverse effect on water resources. Requirement to Delineate Wetlands Due to the resolution of the wetlands issue, it is unnecessary to determine whether Applicant met applicable requirements concerning the delineation of wetlands. Improper Purpose Petitioner did not challenge the proposed permit modification for an improper purpose. Relevant Provisions of Basis of Review The District revised its Basis of Review after the adoption of ERP rules. Although the order concludes that the District should have applied the ERP rules, and thus the ERP Basis of Review, the order shall discuss both versions of the Basis of Review because the District ignored numerous provisions of both documents in approving Applicant's request for a permit modification. Section 4.6 MSSW Basis of Review requires the District to consider "actual impact" to the site by "considering the existing natural system as altered by the proposed project[,]" including "positive and negative environmental impacts." Section 4.6 requires the District to "balance" these impacts "to achieve a reasonable degree of protection for significant environmental features consistent with the overall protection of the water resources of the District." The proposed permit modification fails to comply with several provisions of Appendix 7 of the MSSW Basis of Review, such as Sections 4.2 requiring a detailed description of the isolated wetlands to be destroyed; 5.1.1(d) favoring the protection of isolated wetlands over their destruction, mitigation, and compensation, which are considered "only when there are no feasible project design alternatives"; and 5.1.6 prohibiting the alteration of water tables so as to affect adversely isolated wetlands. The proposed permit modification also violates various provisions of the ERP Basis of Review. Section 4.0 of the ERP Basis of Review sets the goal of permitting to be "no net loss in wetland . . . functions." Sections 4.2 and following generally require balancing. Section 4.2.1 predicates District approval on a showing that the SWM system does not cause a "net adverse impact on wetland functions . . . which is not offset by mitigation." The ERP provisions first require that the District "explore" with an applicant the minimization of impacts prior to considering mitigation. Section 4.2.2.4(c) specifically imposes monitoring requirements for SWM systems that "could have the effect of altering water levels in wetlands." Sections 4.3.2.2 and following discuss mitigation ratios under the ERP Basis of Review. If the District can explicate a policy to count as mitigation wetlands acreage already preserved under Army Corps permits, the ratios in this case might warrant further consideration, assuming Applicant resubmits an application for permit modification. But it would be premature to consider the ratios on the present record for several reasons. The District has not proved such a policy. If such a policy counts such wetland acreage, on the theory that the District protects function and the Army Corps protects merely the wetland, the record is insufficiently developed as to the functions of the wetlands proposed for protection, as well as the functions of the 13.9 acres of wetlands proposed for destruction. Also, the District has not sufficiently explored project minimization, as is now required under the ERP Basis of Review.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the District enter a final order denying Applicant's request for a permit modification. ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 13, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 13, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey D. Kneen John F. Mariani J. Barry Curtain Levy Kneen 1400 Centrepark Boulevard, Suite 1000 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Ronald K. Kolins Thomas A. Sheehan, III Moyle Flanigan Post Office Box 3888 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 John J. Fumero Marcy I. LaHart Office of Counsel South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Samuel E. Poole, III Executive Director Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioners' activities on their property in Sumter County, which impacted 38 acres of wetlands, are exempt under Section 373.406(2)-(3), Florida Statutes,1 from environmental resource permit (ERP) regulation.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners hold title to approximately 180 acres of agricultural land north of State Road 44 in Sumter County.3 Danny J. Suggs and his wife purchased the property in 1997 and 1998 to start to fulfill his "dream" to build multiple residences for himself and his wife and for members of his family on the property and to raise cattle and plant a pecan grove and retire from his construction and roofing contracting businesses. His concept was for the real estate to be held in a family trust. When Mr. Suggs began to implement his plans, he learned that Sumter County required that the building permit for each residence be on a separate parcel of at least five acres in size. For that reason, he gave his family members five-acre deeds for each residence he wanted to build. However, while they had deeds for their lots, none of the family paid more than nominal consideration, paid for costs of development or construction, or had any actual control of Mr. Suggs' plans for the property. Soon after buying the property, Mr. Suggs bought a few head of cattle that were allowed to roam and graze on the property. He then began to develop the property. He dug canals, ditches, and ponds, and constructed fill roads. As part of his surface water management system, Mr. Suggs constructed an earthen berm along part of the western perimeter of the property to keep water from flowing off his property and into Rutland Swamp and Creek, which are waters of the State. Some of Mr. Suggs' land alterations were in the 100-year floodplain, including an encroachment into land owned by a neighbor. Mr. Suggs testified that he has the neighbor's permission, but he has no written permission for the encroachment. Mr. Suggs' activities on the property impacted approximately 38 acres of wetlands. In December 2002, the District cited Petitioners for dredging and filling wetlands on the property without a permit. Extensive litigation ensued, during which Petitioners took the position that they were exempt under Section 373.406(2)-(3), Florida Statutes--the "agricultural" and the "agricultural closed system" exemptions, which are set out in Conclusion 18. Petitioners continued development and construction activities until enjoined by the circuit court in March 2004. By the time of the court's injunction, Mr. Suggs had completed about 80 percent of his planned surface water management system for the property. Mr. Suggs intended his design to retain all surface on the property in a 50-year, 24- hour storm event. However, it was not proven that Mr. Suggs' design would have accomplished his intended purpose. By the time of the court's injunction, Mr. Suggs also had built six large residences for family members and dug ditches around each residence for drainage. He says he has plans to build another eight identical residences for other family members. In May 2004, Petitioners retained Gary Bethune, an agricultural engineer, to attempt to design an agricultural closed system that would be exempt under Section 373.406(3), Florida Statutes, for presentation in a hearing before the state circuit court. Mr. Bethune completed his design in June 2004. Mr. Bethune's design includes an earthen berm to retain all surface on the property in a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. It also incorporates a spillway to discharge excess water into the Rutland Swamp and a covered conveyance structure to allow water from the eastern side of the property to pass through without commingling with surface water on the property and to discharge into Rutland Swamp on the western side of the property. Mr. Bethune's design will not retain surface water on the property in the event of a storm exceeding the 100-year, 24- hour design storm; it also will not necessarily retain all surface water on the property in the event of multiple storm events not exceeding the 100-year, 24-hour storm event. Mr. Bethune's design does not address groundwater. Groundwater will flow under the property towards Rutland Swamp and Creek. Surface water on the property, together with contaminants from cattle grazing on the property and fertilizer and pesticides used growing pecan trees, will percolate into the ground, mix with the groundwater, and flow into Rutland Swamp and Creek. Mr. Bethune's design is not appropriate or reasonable for either a cattle ranch or a pecan grove. It will cause the property to flood during the design 100-year, 24-hour storm and in various combinations of lesser storms. A bona fide cattle ranch is not designed to flood during the wet season. Similarly, a bona fide pecan grove is not designed to flood during the wet season. During and after Mr. Suggs' development and construction activities, his cattle have continued to roam freely around the property. However, besides the inappropriateness and unreasonableness of Mr. Bethune's design for a cattle ranch, Mr. Suggs' other activities also are inappropriate and unreasonable for a bona fide cattle ranch. The ponds, canals, and ditches he dug are much deeper and have banks much steeper than a bona fide cattle ranch would have. They are so deep and steep that cattle will have great difficulty using them for drinking water. In addition, fill from the extraordinarily deep ponds, canals, and ditches as well as fill Mr. Suggs had delivered from offsite has been spread on the property to a thickness that has reduced the amount of cattle forage on the property, instead of increasing and improving it, as would occur on a bona fide cattle ranch. Besides the inappropriateness and unreasonableness of Mr. Bethune's design for a pecan grove, there are no pecan growers anywhere near Petitioners' property. Even if feasible to grow pecans for profit on the property, there was no evidence that any alteration of the property would be appropriate or reasonable to plant a pecan grove. Although there is an area of upland where Mr. Suggs says he wants to plant pecan trees, not a single pecan tree has been planted yet (as of the time of the final hearing). In addition, there was no evidence that the land designated for a pecan grove would not be needed for the eight additional residences Mr. Suggs says he plans to build on the property. The primary purpose of Mr. Suggs' surface water management system is not for agricultural purposes, or incidental to agricultural purposes. Rather, the primary purpose is to impound and obstruct the flow of surface water to facilitate the construction of the residences on his property--the six already built and another eight he plans to build. Mr. Suggs refers to the residences he has built and plans to build as family residences to be owned by a family trust, the six residences already built are now for sale at an asking price of a million dollars each.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District enter a final order that Petitioners' activities on their property are not exempt from ERP regulation. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Description of Proposed Fill Project DER proposes to deny three alternative proposals to fill all or part of Petitioners' real property located in Key West, Florida. The property is rectangular, approximately three acres in size, with 300 feet bordering Roosevelt Boulevard (High-Way A1A) to the south and approximately 300 feet bordering Key West International Airport to the north. The easterly property line is 489.4 feet and the westerly line is 434.63 feet. The Straits of Florida (Atlantic Ocean) are immediately on the other side of Roosevelt Boulevard to the south. The property has a strip of approximately 90 feet of upland and transitional wetland adjacent to Roosevelt Boulevard, with the rest of the property being covered by a salt pond of approximately 40 acres in size (Jnt. Ex. 1). Petitioners initially submitted a permit application in July, 1983, to fill the entire property for construction of multifamily housing units. On May 4, 1984, after discussion with a DER permitting official, Petitioners submitted a second application containing two alternative, less extensive development proposals. The first alternative involves the placement of fill over a 300' x 230' area (approximately 9722 cubic yards) extending 230 feet from the property along Roosevelt Boulevard out into the water. This alternative would entail construction of 24 family housing units, consisting of six basic structures, each four-stories high. The second alternative involves subdividing the property into six separate lots connected by a central fill road with cul-de- sac. Each lot, approximately .4 acres in size, would contain a single family house on pilings and an associated fill pad for parking. The fill pads would be connected to a approximately 300' x 30' entrance road constructed on fill material. Presumably, this second alternative would contain the same amount of total fill as required in the first. As it presently exists, the salt pond (a part of which applicant would fill) serves several significant and beneficial environmental functions. In regard to water quality, the pond stores, filters, and purifies large quantities of storm water which drain from the airport and South Roosevelt Boulevard. The filling of any portion of this pond would diminish this capacity. (Jnt. Ex. 1) Because of their relatively isolated nature, the organic detrital material that is produced from the leaf litter of fringing mangroves is broken down into a very fine and readily usable form by bacteria. As a result, when there is an occasional exchange between the salt pond and tidal waters, the exported organics are in a very desirable form for higher trophic levels in the food web such as small fish, crustaceans, filter feeders, and various larval forms of marine life. (Jnt. Ex. 1) The salt pond proper provides valuable habitat for fish and wildlife, most notable of which are avifauna. The pond has apparently become established as a healthy, self-sustaining ecosystem providing permanent and temporary food, shelter and refuge for many faunal species which play significant and necessary ecological roles both in the salt ponds and other tidal and brackish water systems. (Jnt. Ex. 1) Through the placement of fill and the displacement of present salt pond habitat, water quality and the biological resources in the immediate and surrounding areas would be expected to undergo degradation. (Jnt. Ex. 1) Through the encroachment of development in this area, which presently lacks residential development, biological integrity standards would be expected to fall below acceptable levels. The proposed fill areas would reduce wind- driven circulation in the pond so as to stress levels of oxygen, salinity, temperature and turbidity. Runoff from the proposed fill would introduce nutrients and elevate turbidity during storm events. Finally, elevated turbidity levels could be expected during the actual filling process and the various species of fish and wildlife now located over the project site would be temporarily disturbed by construction activities and permanently displaced in the long term through the loss of habitat. (Jnt. Ex. 1) There is a 40' zoning setback and another 50' easement owned by the City of Key West, which together form a 90' strip on the property adjacent to Roosevelt Boulevard. This 90-foot strip is largely upland and some transitional wetland. There is no zoning impediment to any of the development alternatives proposed by Petitioners. The property is currently zoned R2H (multifamily residential) by the City of Key West. II. DER's Action on the Application After DER received and reviewed Petitioners initial application on July 22, 1983, a completeness summary was sent on August 17, 1983, requesting additional information. DER received the additional information on March 23, 1984, after which it notified Petitioners that additional information was needed. Petitioners met with DER officials on April 20, 1984, and submitted additional information on May 4, 1984, including the two alternative proposals. DER issued the "Intent to Deny" all three of the proposed projects on July 19, 1984 (Jnt. Ex. 1). On May 16, 1984, a DER Environmental Specialist visited the site of the proposed projects and conducted a biological and water quality assessment. This assessment was later submitted, in report form, as the Permit Application Appraisal, dated June 7, 1984. This appraisal, uncontested by Petitioners, indicates that each of the three fill proposals would take place in waters of the state and result in water quality violations under Rules 17-3.051(1), 17- 3.061(2)(c), (j) and (r); 17-3.121(7), (13) and (28); Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code; and Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. Water quality problems associated with the project were identified as diminished storm water treatment, reduced beneficial deterital material, stress on oxygen levels, salinity, temperature, and turbidity, and an introduction of nutrients. (Jnt. Ex. 1) Although a DER dredge and fill permitting official testified that any filling of the salt pond would be detrimental to the birds and animals which feed there on a daily basis, and that, in his view, a "substantial amount" of filling would not be allowed by DER, there are development projects (other than the three presented by Petitioners) which, in his view, may qualify for a permit under DER rules. DER has, in the past, issued permits authorizing the construction of above-ground residences over wetland properties. Under DER's permitting standards, one or more single-family residences could be built on the property if the structures were built on stilts, did not violate water quality standards, had acceptable drainage, and did not result in adverse storm water discharges. In evaluating such an application, any mitigation an applicant could provide, such as enhancing flushing in the salt ponds by the installation of a culvert to open water, would be balanced against any adverse impacts expected from the filling activity. The three alternative filling proposals submitted by Petitioners (including drawings and designs) do not, however as yet, fall within or satisfy these general perimeters of permitting acceptability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioners' application to fill (containing three alternative proposals) be denied for failure to prove compliance with applicable permitting standards contained in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 17-3 and 17- 4, Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1985.
Findings Of Fact On or about March 7, 1986, Petitioner submitted an application for a variance from the open space and rear set-back line requirements applicable to property located at 2612 U.S. 19 North, Clearwater, Florida. The subject property is zoned CC (commercial center). Petitioner's application requests a variance to provide 12.33% open space instead of 25%, and to construct a building 30 feet from the rear property line rather than 50 feet as required by the Land Development Code for property zoned CC. On or about April 24, 1986, the Development Code Adjustment Board denied Petitioner's application for a variance, and Petitioner timely appealed on May 6, 1986. The only evidence in support of its application offered by Petitioner was the testimony of Robby Tompkins. He testified that Petitioner's application is "unique" because Petitioner was 90% complete with its architectural plans for the renovation and modernization of the subject property when the current ordinance took effect, and Petitioner therefore urges that the current ordinance should not apply. Additionally, Petitioner argues that there will be no injury to the public as a result of the variance, and in fact the project will add 6800 square feet to its shopping center. Tompkins admitted that an increase in financial return was the primary reason Petitioner has sought the variance. Finally, he stated that if Petitioner complies with the 25% open space requirement, there will not be enough parking to meet Code provisions, and if sufficient parking is provided, there will not 25% open space.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and the Property. The Respondent, Saddlebrook Resorts, Inc. (Saddlebrook), is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Florida, and is wholly owned by the Dempsey family. Saddlebrook is located on approximately 480 acres in central Pasco County, east of I-75 and south of State Road 54. The Petitioner, Wiregrass Ranch, Inc. (Wiregrass) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Florida, and is wholly owned by the Porter family ("the Porters"). Wiregrass owns approximately 5,000 acres of property which extends from Saddlebrook west approximately one mile to State Road 581 and south for approximately four miles. The Respondent, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), is a political subdivision created pursuant to Chapter 61-691, Laws of Florida, which exists and operates under the Water Resources Act, Fla. Stat., Ch. 373. SWFWMD is charged with regulating, among other things, surface water management systems in Pasco County. Saddlebrook discharges surface water onto Wiregrass at two locations on the southern and western boundaries of Saddlebrook, known as the south outfall and the west outfall. Saddlebrook's property is part of a drainage basin totalling approximately 1400 acres that contributes runoff to Wiregrass' property. Until approximately 1973, the Saddlebrook property was undeveloped and owned by the Porters. In approximately 1973, the Porters sold the Saddlebrook property to the Refram family, which began developing the property. In approximately 1979, Saddlebrook acquired the property from the Reframs. The Saddlebrook property includes residential development, a conference center, and golf course and tennis facilities. Wiregrass' property, which is largely undeveloped and used for ranching, consists of pine-palmetto flatwoods, wetland strands, isolated wetlands, and improved pastures. The Porters' Civil Action Against Saddlebrook. The Porters instituted a civil action against Saddlebrook, Porter, et al. v. Saddlebrook Resorts, Inc., Case No. CA 83-1860, in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Pasco County, complaining that post-development discharges from Saddlebrook exceed pre-development discharges. In the civil litigation, the Porters contended that Saddlebrook's peak flow discharges should be returned to pre-development, or 1973, levels. A primary purpose of Saddlebrook's proposed redesign is to return peak flow discharges to those levels that existed in 1973, in response to the Porters' complaints in the civil action. Saddlebrook's current surface water management system is deemed by SWFWMD to be in compliance with Rule 40D-4, and SWFWMD's regulations do not require redesign or modification of the current system. Prior to Saddlebrook's submission of its application, SWFWMD advised Saddlebrook that, because Rule 40D-4 became effective on October 1, 1984, SWFWMD considered that date to be the "pre-development" condition for purposes of evaluating Saddlebrook's discharges. Saddlebrook requested that SWFWMD evaluate its application using 1973 as the pre-development condition. SWFWMD advised Saddlebrook that it would apply 1973 as the pre-development condition if the Porters consented. By letter from the Porters' counsel to SWFWMD dated January 31, 1990, the Porters provided their express consent to SWFWMD's use of 1973 as the pre- development date for purposes of evaluating those discharges relevant to Saddlebrook's MSSW permit application. Saddlebrook's MSSW Permit Application. On or about February 8, 1990, Saddlebrook submitted its application for MSSW permit no. 497318.00, seeking SWFWMD's conceptual approval of the redesign of Saddlebrook's surface water management system. The proposed redesign calls for modification of most of the existing drainage control structures at Saddlebrook and installation of new control structures at several locations, including the south and west outfalls. After submission of its initial application, Saddlebrook made various subsequent submittals in response to SWFWMD requests for additional information. Saddlebrook's response to SWFWMD's requests culminated in final submittals on March 7, 1991 and April 5, 1991. In its various submittals, Saddlebrook provided, among other things, detailed descriptions of all proposed modifications to its drainage system, engineering reports, and computerized flood-routing analyses of runoff from Saddlebrook under pre-development (1973) and post-modification conditions. Saddlebrook provided all information requested, and SWFWMD thereafter deemed its application complete. SWFWMD's Review of Saddlebrook's Application. In the fifteen months following Saddlwbrook's initial February, 1990, submittal, SWFWMD conducted an intensive review of the application. During the course of this review, SWFWMD staff performed numerous field inspections, made an independent determination of all input data to the computer analyses of Saddlebrook's discharges, and made six separate formal requests for additional information. SWFWMD's requests for additional information required, among other things, that Saddlebrook modify various input data and rerun its computer analyses of discharges under the pre-development and post-modification conditions. In addition, SWFWMD required Saddlebrook to perform computer modelling analyses of discharges from Wiregrass' property onto the property of downstream landowners. Because, unlike the Porters, these downstream owners had not provided consent to use 1973 as the relevant pre-development date, SWFWMD required Saddlebrook to model this downstream discharge using a "pre- development" date of 1984. SWFWMD performed its standard review procedures in connection with Saddlebrooks' application. In addition, SWFWMD also performed its own computer-modelling analyses of Saddlebrook's discharges. This modelling was based on input data independently collected by SWFWMD staff in the field and from other sources. SWFWMD staff also met with the Porters' hydrologist, Dr. Gerald Seaburn, and thoroughly reviewed concerns he expressed in connection with Saddlebrook's application. In addressing these concerns, SWFWMD performed additional work, including conferring with an independent soils expert, performing additional field inspections, and modifying the SWFWMD computer modelling analyses based on alternative input parameters suggested by Dr. Seaburn. In reviewing Saddlebrook's application, SWFWMD applied the design and performance criteria set forth in its "Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications" ("Basis of Review"), which is incorporated by reference in F.A.C. Rule Chapter 40D-4. Based upon its review of Saddlebrook's application, SWFWMD concluded that Saddlebrook had demonstrated compliance with the design and performance criteria set forth in SWFWMD's Basis of Review and the conditions for permit issuance under F.A.C. Rule 40D-4.301. By a Staff Report dated April 29, 1991, and Notice of Proposed Agency Action dated May 3, 1991, SWFWMD recommended approval of Saddlebrook's application. Compliance With SWFWMD Permitting Criteria. The design and performance criteria for MSSW permitting set forth in SWFWMD's Basis of Review fall into four categories: (1) water quantity, in terms of peak flow discharges for projects, like Saddlebrook's, located in open drainage basins; (2) flood protection; (3) water quality; and (4) wetlands impacts. Water Quantity. Under the Basis of Review's water quantity standards, SWFWMD requires that projected peak flow discharges during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event under the proposed system be reasonably similar to peak flow discharges under the pre- development condition. The evidence presented at the formal hearing demonstrated that Saddlebrook's application satisfies SWFWMD's water-quantity standards. This evidence demonstrated that peak flow discharges during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event under the proposed system will be less than, but reasonably similar to, pre-development (1973) peak flow discharges. The evidence presented at the formal hearing also demonstrated that, under the proposed system, peak flow discharges during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event from Wiregrass' property onto downstream landowners will be less than, but reasonably similar to, 1984 peak flow discharges. The evidence presented by Saddlebrook further demonstrated that storage will be increased under the proposed redesign versus the pre- development, 1973 condition. On Saddlebrook's property, there will be approximately 35 percent more storage than existed in 1973, and the total storage for Saddlebrook and the contributing drainage basin upstream of Saddlebrook will be increased by approximately 15 percent over that existing in 1973. Flood Protection. Under the flood-protection standards of the Basis of Review, SWFWMD requires that the applicant demonstrate that under the proposed condition the lower floor of all residential and other buildings on-site, and in areas affected by the site, will be above the 100-year flood elevation. SWFWMD also requires that there be no net encroachment into the flood plain, up to that encompassed by the 100-year event, which will adversely affect conveyance, storage, water quality or adjacent lands. The evidence presented at the formal hearing demonstrated that Saddlebrook's application satisfies SWFWMD's flood-protection standards. The testimony of Mr. Fuxan and Wiregrass' related exhibit, Ranch Ex. 35, purporting to show that in a 25-year, 24-hour storm Saddlebrook's proposed redesign will "flood the [Saddlebrook perimeter] roads and just sheet flow onto the Porter property" is not accurate. As part of its redesign, Saddlebrook will construct an additional berm along the southwestern and southern perimeters of its property. This berm will detain water on Saddlebrook's property during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event and prevent it from "sheet-flowing" onto the Wiregrass property. Water Quality. Under the water-quality standards of the Basis of Review, SWFWMD requires, for systems like Saddlebrook's involving wet detention and isolated wetlands, that the applicant provide sufficient storage to treat one inch of runoff from the basins contributing runoff to the site. This volume must be discharged in no less than 120 hours, with no more than one-half of the volume being discharged within the first 60 hours. The evidence presented at the formal hearing demonstrated that Saddlebrook's application satisfies SWFWMD's water-quality standards. Wetland Impacts. Under the wetland-impacts standards of the Basis of Review, SWFWMD requires that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that the proposed system will not adversely impact on-site and downstream wetlands. The evidence presented at the formal hearing demonstrated that Saddlebrook has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed redesign will cause no adverse impacts to on-site wetlands. Saddlebrook's proposed redesign will impact only approximately .167 acres of on-site wetlands, for which Saddlebrook will fully mitigate by creating .174 acres of forested wetlands and buffer area. The evidence presented at the formal hearing also demonstrated that Saddlebrook has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed redesign will cause no adverse impacts to off-site wetlands. Reasonable assurance that off- site wetlands will not be adversely impacted was demonstrated by, among other things, evidence establishing that: (1) discharge points will not change under the proposed condition; (2) discharge elevations will be reasonably similar under the proposed condition; (3) there will be no significant variation in the water fluctuations in the wetlands adjacent to the south and west outfalls as a result of the proposed condition; (4) the drainage basin areas will be reasonably similar under the proposed condition; and (5) the proposed redesign will satisfy SWFWMD's water quality requirements. Wiregrass' Petition. In its Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing, Wiregrass focused primarily on water quality issues and stormwater runoff rates (or peak flow discharges), alleging the following "ultimate facts" which it claimed "entitle [it] to relief": The application, as submitted, contains insufficient storage to meet water quality criteria. The application, as submitted, will result in storage volumes on the project site which will not be recovered within 72 hours [sic] as required by the DISTRICT criteria. The application, as submitted, contains calculations based on erroneous hydraulic gradients. The application, as submitted, will result in storage volumes insufficient to meet water quality criteria as required by DISTRICT criteria. Post development stormwater runoff rates are underestimated in the application, resulting in system design with insufficient retention storage capacity to meet the DISTRICT's water quantity criteria. The failure to store stormwater or irrigation runoff impacts the substantial interest of the RANCH in that it deprives it of groundwater resources necessary for the successful operation of the ranch. Further, the lack of storage of stormwater and irrigation water is a prohibited waste of the water resources. At the formal hearing, Wiregrass presented no evidence to support any of the foregoing allegations of its Petition. Objections Raised by Wiregrass At The Hearing. At the final hearing, Wiregrass' opposition to Saddlebrook's permit application focused on three different grounds: For purposes of evaluating peak flow discharges, SWFWMD does not have jurisdiction to use a pre-development date prior to October 1, 1984. Under F.A.C. Rule 40D-4.301(1)(i), which provides that an applicant must give reasonable assurance that the surface water management systems "is consistent with the requirements of other public agencies," SWFWMD must apply not only its own permitting criteria but also those of other governmental entities, including county planning ordinan Under F.A.C. Rule 40D-4.301(1)(b), which provides that a permit application must give reasonable assurances that the surface water management system "will not cause adverse water . . . quantity impacts", SWFWMD must consider whether the annual volume of runoff will increase as a result of the proposed surface water management system. None of the foregoing objections was raised in Wiregrass' Petition as a basis for denying Saddlebrook's application. (Annual volume was alluded to in the Petition only as being pertinent to the question of Wiregrass' "substantial interest" for purposes of standing.) In any event, for the reasons set forth below, each of these objections was refuted by the evidence presented at the formal hearing. The 1973 Pre-Development Date. In their civil action against Saddlebrook, the Porters took the position that Saddlebrook's surface water management system should be redesigned so that discharges approximate those levels existing in 1973, before development of the Saddlebrook property. Dr. Gerald Seaburn, a hydrologist retained by the Porters, testified in the civil action that 1973 is the appropriate pre-development date for purposes of evaluating Saddlebrook's peak flow discharges. David Fuxan, a civil engineer retained by the Porters, took the position in the civil action that Saddlebrook should modify its surface water management system so as to return peak flow discharges to 1973 levels. At the formal hearing in this proceeding, Mr. Fuxan testified that it is still his position that Saddlebrook should modify its surface water management system so as to return peak flow discharges to 1973 levels. By letter from the Porters' counsel to SWFWMD dated January 31, 1990, the Porters provided their express consent to SWFWMD's use of 1973 as the pre- development date for evaluating those discharges relevant to Saddlebrook's MSSW permit application. Use of a 1984 "pre-development" date would prevent Saddlebrook from making the modifications the Porters claim in the civil litigation that it must make. Saddlebrook's existing system, about which the Porters complain in the civil litigation, is in all material respects the same system that was in place on October 1, 1984. Use of this existing system as the benchmark of comparison for attenuation of peak flows, therefore, would mean that substantial modifications to the existing system could not be made without substantially increasing retention storage on Saddlebrook. Substantially increasing retention storage on Saddlebrook is not possible due to the high water table and proximity of the lower aquifer. See Finding of Fact 70, below. In addition, a primary claim of the Porters in the civil action is that duration of flow under Saddlebrook's existing system exceeds 1973 levels and has resulted in expanded wetlands on the Porter property. But duration of flow and peak flow discharges are inversely related: duration of flow can be decreased only if peak flow discharges are increased. Accordingly, the only way that Saddlebrook can reduce the duration of flow onto Wiregrass to 1973 levels, as the Porters have demanded, other than increasing retention storage on Saddlebrook, is to return peak flow discharges to 1973 levels. Other Governmental Agencies' Requirements. F.A.C. Rule 40D-4.301(1)(i) provides that a permit applicant must give reasonable assurance that the surface water management system "is consistent with the requirements of other public agencies." SWFWMD has consistently interpreted this provision to be "advisory", i.e., to apprise applicants that they must also comply with other applicable laws and that issuance of an MSSW permit by the District does not relieve them of the responsibility to obtain all necessary local and other permits. SWFWMD's long-standing and consistently-applied interpretation and practice is not to require applicants to prove compliance with the regulations of other govermental agencies in order to obtain an MSSW permit. There are two primary reasons for this interpretation and practice. First, the Southwest Florida Water Management District includes 16 counties and 96 municipalities. In addition, other state and various federal agencies have jurisdiction within its territory. It is impracticable for SWFWMD to become familiar with, and to apply, the permitting and other regulations of more than 100 other agencies. Second, SWFWMD has concluded that, under Part 4 of Secton 373 of the Flordia Statutes, it does not have authority to deny a permit application based on its interpretation of another governmental agency's regulations. In any event, the evidence demonstrates that Saddlebrook has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed redesign will be "consistent with the requirements of other public agencies" as provided in F.A.C. Rule 40D- 4.301(1)(i). Limiting Condition No. 3 of the proposed permit requires that Saddlebrook must comply with Pasco County and other local requirements: The Permittee shall comply with all applicable local subdivision regulations and other local requirements. In addition the permittee shall obtain all necessary Federal, State, local and special district authorizations prior to the start of any construction or alteration of works authorized by this permit. In addition, Standard Condition No.3 ensures that SWFWMD approval will not supersede any separate permitting or other requirements imposed by Pasco County: The issuance of this permit does not . . . authorize any . . . infringement of federal, state or local laws or regulations. (Emphasis added.) Finally, the Pasco County ordinance upon which Wiregrass relies imposes requirements that are in substance identical to SWFWMD's with respect to MSSW permit applications. Saddlebrook's compliance with SWFWMD's regulations likewise would satisfy the substance of the requirements of the county ordinance. Annual Volume of Runoff. F.A.C. Rule 40D-4 (incorporating the Basis of Review) does not address, and SWFWMD does not regulate, the annual volume of runoff in open drainage basins. If annual volume of runoff is relevant under Rule 40D-4.301, as Wiregrass contends, that rule requires only that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that "the surface water management system" will not cause adverse quantity impacts. Saddlebrook's existing surface water management system has not caused a significant increase in the annual volume of runoff onto Wiregrass' property. The increase in the annual volume of runoff from Saddlebrook that has occurred over the pre-development 1973 condition has resulted from the urbanization of Saddlebrook's property. The increase in the annual volume of runoff from Saddlebrook over that existing prior to development (1973) is approximately 3.4 inches. This increase is only a small fraction of the natural year-to-year variation in runoff resulting from differences in rainfall alone. Rainfall can vary up to 30 inches on an annual basis, from 40 to 70 inches per year. The resulting year-to-year variations in runoff can total as much as 20 inches. The approximately 3.4 inches increase in the annual volume of runoff from Saddlebrook due to urbanization has caused no adverse impact to Wiregrass. The natural drainage system on the Wiregrass property has in the past and throughout its history received and handled increases in the annual volume of runoff of up to 20 inches due to rainfall differences. Such increases simply flow through Wiregrass' property. Of the approximately 3.4 inch increase in annual runoff due to urbanization, only approximately one-third of an inch is due to the filling in of bayheads by Saddlebrook's prior owner. This increase is insignificant and has not caused a substantial adverse impact to Wiregrass. Any reduction of storage resulting from the filling of bayheads will be more than compensated for under the proposed redesign. Storage on Saddlebrook's property will be increased by approximately 35 percent under the proposed condition over that existing in 1973, before the bayheads were filled. In open drainage basins, like Saddlebrook's, downstream flooding is a function of the rate of peak flow of discharge, not the annual volume of runoff. This is one of the reasons why, in the case of open drainage basins, SWFWMD regulates peak flow discharges and not the annual volume of runoff. Because Saddlebrook's proposed redesign will attenuate peak flow discharges to those levels that existed in the pre-devlopment 1973 condition, Saddlebrook has provided reasonable assurance that there will not be increased flooding on Wiregrass' property in the future. The evidence does not establish that Wiregrass has suffered, or will suffer, any adverse impact due to an increase in the annual volume of runoff from Saddlebrook as a result of the design, or redesign, of the system, or as a result of urbanization, or otherwise. It is not possible to design a surface water management system at Saddlebrook that would reduce the annual volume of runoff. Such a system, which involves the percolation of surface water from retention ponds into a deeper, aquifer system, requires a deep water table. At Saddlebrook, the water table is near the ground surface. As a result, it is not possible to store a significant quantity of water in retention ponds between storm events. In addition, the water levels in the deeper and the shallower aquifer systems at Saddlebrook are approximately the same and, therefore, there is insufficient hydraulic pressure to push the water through the confining layer between the two systems and into the deeper aquifer system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order granting Saddlebrook's application for surface water management permit no. 497318.00, subject to the terms and conditions in the SWFWMD Staff Report. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-3658 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-4. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 7.-9. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. First sentence, accepted. Second sentence, rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but not necessary. 12.-13. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but not necessary. The extent of the wetland expansion is rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The rest is accepted. However, the increased volume is due in large part to urbanization, not to the surface water management system. It also is due in part to alterations to the property done by the Porters. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted. However, this would occur only during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, and there was no evidence that one has occurred or, if it has, whether Mr. Porter was there to observe it. 18.-20. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Characterization "much of" is rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that lichen lines, by themselves, are ordinarily are sufficient to set jurisdictional lines. 26.-29. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Even if it were proven that the wetlands had expanded, it was not proven, and is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, that Saddlebrook (and, especially, Saddlebrook's surface water management system) caused the expansion. First sentence, accepted but cumulative. The rest is rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. In any event, both factors are undeniably significant. 32.-34. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 39.-41. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that SWFWMD does not apply it. The evidence was that SWFWMD interprets it differently than Wiregrass proposes and applies its own interpretation. Under the SWFWMD interpretation, the permit conditions requiring compliance with other legal requirements constitute the necessary "reasonable assurance." In addition, SWFWMD's review and evaluation is not complete until this formal administrative proceeding is completed, and the Pasco County ordinance has been considered as part of this proceeding. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Again, SWFWMD's review and evaluation is not complete until this formal administrative proceeding is completed, and annual volume has been considered as part of this proceeding. That consideration has affirmed SWFWMD's position that, at least in this case, the proposed stormwater management system does not cause an increase in annual volume that would result in denial of the application. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. First sentence, accepted (although the characterization "far exceed" is imprecise) and incorporated. Second sentence, rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary that no "stipulation" was entered into. But the evidence is clear that Wiregrass, Saddlebrook and SWFWMD all agreed to the use of 1973 as the point of comparison for peak flow discharges. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact. The proposed findings of fact contained in the Proposed Recommended Order of Respondents Saddlebrook Resorts, Inc., and Southwest Florida Water Management District are accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas P. Manson, Esquire Foley & Lardner 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 3650 Tampa, Florida 33602 Stephen R. Patton, Esquire Jeffrey A. Hall, Esquire Kirkland & Ellis East Randolph Drive Chicago, Illinois 60601 Enola T. Brown, Esquire Lawson, McWhirter, Grandoff & Reeves East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 800 Post Office Box 3350 Tampa, Florida 33601-3350 Mark F. Lapp, Esquire Edward Helvenston, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
