The Issue This is a challenge to certain administrative rules adopted by the St. Johns River Water Management District relating to permitting criteria for isolated wetlands. Section 373.414, F.S. mandates that permitting criteria for isolated wetlands be adopted by water management districts, by rule, by March 31, 1987. The statute also includes four more specific requirements for those rules. Petitioners contend that St. Johns River Water Management District Rule Chapter 40C-4, F.A.C. and the Applicant's Handbook, Management and Storage of Surface Waters, adopted as a rule by reference, fail to comply with the statutory mandate and are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority by the District. Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District, contends that its rules comply with Section 373.414, F.S.. St. Johns River Water Management District contests the standing of Petitioner, the Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. Intervenors, E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, Inc. and Associated Minerals (USA), Inc., support the District's position and contest the standing of both Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Sierra Club, Inc., (Sierra) is a non-profit corporation registered to do business within the state of Florida. It is an international organization, with regional committees, state chapters, and local regional groups. The Florida chapter has 15 regional groups, several of which are located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). About 6,000 members live within the boundaries of the SJRWMD. The overall purpose of Sierra is to explore, enjoy and protect the natural resources of the earth. Sierra commonly offers outings for the enjoyment and education of its members and the general public. These involve traveling, hiking, birdwatching and other wildlife observation. Part of the outings program includes hiking and viewing of isolated wetlands and wildlife dependent on those wetlands. These outings take place within the SJRWMD. Some Sierra members are actively involved in work related to isolated wetlands, including studies, consulting, and managing of wetlands, some of which are located within the SJRWMD. The Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. (FWF) is a non-profit corporation registered to do business in the state of Florida. It is comprised of organizations and individual members who support the wise use and management of Florida's natural resources. Sportsmen and naturalists who belong to the club are involved in hunting, fishing, hiking, birdwatching, nature photography and other activities loosely called "naturalizing". These activities take place within SJRWMD boundaries and rely on wildlife species which live in, or are dependent upon, isolated wetlands. FWF attracts membership by publicity of its existence and purpose directed to sportsmen and naturalists. Respondent, SJRWMD, is a political subdivision of the state of Florida, with the authority to regulate, through its permitting process, the management and storage of surface waters (MSSW) within its designated geographical boundaries, pursuant to Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S. Prior to adoption of the administrative rules in issue in this proceeding, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) delegated to Respondent the responsibility for administration of its stormwater rule. Intervenors conduct heavy metal mining operations within the District. These mining operations are regulated pursuant to Chapter 40C-4, F.A.C. and the Applicant's Handbook. Virtually all mining activities exceed existing permitting thresholds and all District wetland criteria apply to the activities. Since 1983, SJRWMD has been regulating wetlands and wetland MSSW impacts, including isolated wetlands, throughout its 19-county area. The rules adopted in 1983 included all wetlands, both isolated and non-isolated. In 1986, the legislature created Section 373.414, F.S., which provided as follows: 373.414 Wetlands.-- By March 31, 1987, for those water management districts to which the department has delegated the responsibility for administration of its stormwater rule, each district shall adopt a rule which establishes specific permitting criteria for certain small isolated wetlands which are not within the jurisdiction of the department for purposes of regulation of dredging and filling. The rule shall include: One or more size thresholds of isolated wetlands below which impacts on fish and wildlife and their habitats will not be considered. These thresholds shall be based on biological and hydrological evidence that shows the fish and wildlife values of such areas to be minimal; Criteria for review of fish and wildlife and their habitats for isolated wetlands larger than the minimum size; Criteria for the protection of threatened and endangered species in isolated wetlands regardless of size and land use; and Provisions for consideration of the cumulative and offsite impacts of a project or projects. This section does not affect the authority of the water management districts to regulate impacts on water quality and water quantity. Until a water management district has adopted a rule to implement the provisions of subsection (1), review of fish and wildlife impacts in small isolated wetlands shall be limited to: Wetlands that are 5 acres in size or larger; or Wetlands that are used by a federal or state designated threatened or endangered species; or Wetlands located within an area of critical state concern designated pursuant to chapter 380; or Wetlands that are less than 5 acres in size having a cumulative total acreage greater than 30 percent of the total acreage proposed for development, within a development project greater than 40 acres in size. Section 373.414(3), F.S. (1986) was repealed effective March 31, 1987, the deadline by which the districts were to have their own isolated wetlands rules in place. Sections 373.414(1) and (2), F.S. remain in effect. "Wetlands" is defined in SJRWMD's MSSW rule as: ...hydrologically sensitive areas which are identified by being inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater with a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. Rule 40C-4.021(11), F.A.C. This definition is repeated in Section 10.7.3 of the Applicant's Handbook. Section 10.7.3 also provides: Wetlands are important components of the water resource because they serve as spawning, nursery and feeding habitats for many species of fish and wildlife, and because they provide important flood storage and water quality benefits. Not all wetlands provide these benefits, nor do they provide them to the same extent. A wide array of physical and chemical factors affect the functioning of any wetland community. * * * Small isolated wetlands are totally unique biological systems. They are not small versions of large wetlands. They play two major roles in animal ecology: to harbor diverse species that use the habitat for their entire life cycle, and to provide a productive resource for transient species. If a wetland is truly isolated, its fish population is generally limited to the smaller-bodied, smaller-mouthed varieties which are limited in their predatory abilities. This permits the abundance of amphibians and invertebrates not found in larger, more permanent wetlands where the fish would rapidly decimate the population. Amphibians are a cornerstone of the vertebrate food chain. They are food for a variety of snakes, which in turn, are food for hawks. Wading birds find easy prey as the isolated wetlands begin drying up and contracting. The entire cycle of the pond, from fully wet to dry, is significant. Ambystoma tigrinum (tiger salamanders) are hatched and raised in isolated wetlands; they leave, and must return to breed in the same pond. They have a strong homing instinct. Ignorant of intervening events, they are often found spending their honeymoon dodging cars on an apartment complex pavement, seeking in vain the pond of their birth. The SJRWMD adopted Chapter 40C-4, F.A.C. and its Applicant's Handbook to regulate the construction, operation, alteration, removal or abandonment of surface water management systems, to insure that those activities will not harm the water resources of the District and insure that they are consistent with the objectives of the District. Activities which do not meet certain thresholds established in Rule 40C-4.041, F.A.C. do not require a District MSSW permit, including those activities impacting an isolated wetland. The threshold provisions pre-date Section 373.414, F.S. and still apply. The threshold provisions of Rule 40C-4.041(2)(b), F.A.C., challenged by Petitioners, state as follows: 40C-4.041 Permit Required. * * * (b) An individual or general permit is required prior to the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, abandonment or removal of a surface water management system which: Is capable of impounding a volume of water of forty or more acre feet; or Serves a project with a total land area equal to or exceeding forty acres; or Serves a project with a total land area equal to or exceeding ten acres, when any part of the project is located within the Wekiva River Hydrologic Basin north of State Road 436; or Provides for the placement of twelve or more acres of impervious surface which constitutes 40 or more percent of the total land area; or Provides for the placement of one half acre or more of impervious surface, when any of the impervious surface is located within the Wekiva river Hydrologic Basin north of State Road 436; or Contains a traversing work which traverses: A stream or other watercourse with a drainage area of five or more square miles upstream from the traversing work; or An impoundment with more than ten acres of surface area; or Contains a surface water management system which serves an area of five or more contiguous acres of a hydrologically sensitive area with a direct hydrologic connection to: A stream or other watercourse with a drainage area of five or more square miles; or An impoundment with no outfall, which is not wholly owned by the applicant and which is ten acres or greater in size; or A hydrologically sensitive area not wholly owned by the applicant. Is wholly or partially located within the Wekiva River Hydrologic Basin's Riparian Habitat Protection Zone as described in paragraph 40C-41.063(3)(e). The same threshold provisions are contained in Section 3.3.1, Applicant's Handbook, also challenged by Petitioners. In 1987, after passage of Section 373.414, F.S. the District amended its wetland regulations to provide that all wetlands would be evaluated, regardless of size, within the already-established permit thresholds: A wide variety of wetland habitats exist within the St. Johns River Water Management District. The functions which these habitats serve are dependent on many factors. Biological and hydrological evidence demonstrate that size is not the single determinant of wetland value. Since the District bases its evaluation on wetland functions, the District will review impacts to all wetlands (a zero acre threshold will be employed) in reviewing impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitats for systems requiring a permit from the District. * * * 10.7.5 Wetland Evaluation Applicant's Handbook As the result of an objection by the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC) stating that the District had failed to comply with Section 373.414(1)(a), F.S., the District amended the zero acre review threshold for isolated wetlands and adopted a 0.5 acre review threshold, based upon biological investigations indicating that wetlands below this size have minimal fish and wildlife value. In all applications for MSSW permits under Chapter 40C-4, the District reviews impacts to isolated wetlands unless those wetlands are less than 0.5 acre in size and are not used by threatened or endangered species. No permit application, however, is required for projects under the thresholds described in paragraph 13, above, even though those projects might include wetlands larger than 0.5 acres. Staff of the SJRWMD concedes that the non-regulated isolated wetlands might have significant value and agrees with Petitioner's experts that isolated wetlands found in projects below the Rule 40C-4.041(2)(b), F.A.C. thresholds (called "get-in-the-door" thresholds) could have more than minimal fish and wildlife value. Petitioners challenge the entire Chapter 40C-4, F.A.C. and Applicant's Handbook for non-compliance with Section 373.414(1)(d), F.S. The SJRWMD does not consider, and nothing in its rules require consideration of, cumulative impacts of a series of isolated wetlands included in below-threshold projects even though there could be a negative cumulative impact from the loss of those wetlands. Petitioners challenge section 10.7.4 Wetland Review Criteria, Applicants Handbook, to the extent that it may limit consideration of impacts to isolated wetlands to off-site aquatic and wetland dependent species, unless threatened or endangered species are involved. This section provides in pertinent part: 10.7.4 Wetland Review Criteria In determining whether a system will meet the objective contained in Paragraph 9.1.1(j) and that part of the criterion contained in Paragraph 10.2.1(e) regarding hydrologically related environmental functions, the District will, except when threatened or endangered species are involved, consider only the impacts to off-site aquatic and wetland dependent species relative to the functions currently being provided by the wetland to these types of fish and wildlife. This assessment of off-site impacts is based upon a review of pertinent scientific literature, soils and hydrologic information, and a general understanding of the ecological resources of the site. Generally, site specific biological data collection is not required. An applicant must provide reasonable assurance that a proposed system will not cause adverse off-site changes in: the habitat of an aquatic and wetland dependent species, the abundance and diversity of aquatic and wetland dependent species, and the food sources of aquatic and wetland dependent species. The only exception to limiting review of a system under this Subsection to off-site impacts is where wetlands are used or reasonable scientific judgement would indicate use by threatened or endangered species listed in Sections 39-27.003 and 39-27.004, F.A.C., which are aquatic or wetland dependent. In this instance, both off-site and on-site impacts will be assessed. Petitioners also challenge section 16.1.3(a), Applicant's Handbook, to the extent that it may limit mitigation requirements to off-site impacts. If a project as initially proposed is subject to Respondent's surface water permitting requirements, and as initially proposed fails to meet wetland review criteria, mitigation may be considered as a means of bringing the proposed project within permitting requirements. The challenged portion provides: 16.1.3 Mitigation (a) Mitigation is defined here as action or actions taken to offset the adverse effects of a system on off-site functions and in the care of threatened or endangered species, to offset the adverse effects of a system on on-site and off-site functions. Although there may be a difference in degree of functions performed by isolated wetlands on site, as compared to the degree of functions performed by isolated wetlands off-site, the difference in negligible. Adverse ecological effects on-site will also be felt off-site. In developing its criteria SJRWMD staff could not conceive of a situation where a functioning wetland or isolated wetland would be eliminated and not have an off-site impact. Finally, Petitioners challenge the last paragraph of Section 16.1.4, Applicant's Handbook, related to mitigation for mining projects that fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) pursuant to section 378.601, F.S. (heavy mineral extraction). Section 16.1.4, Wetland Creation, Applicant's Handbook, provides guidelines to be used to estimate the extent of wetland creation which may mitigate for the destruction of a unit of wetland. The challenged portion of the section provides: For lands and mining activities that fall under the jurisdiction of the Florida Department of Natural Resources pursuant to section 378.601, F.S. mitigation or compensation plans that are consistent with the land reclamation policies and criteria approved by that agency will be considered by the District as satisfactory mitigation. (emphasis added). The District is not required to allow mitigation if impacts are so substantial that they cannot be offset. If the District does not consider a DNR reclamation plan as sufficient, the District applies its wetland review criteria in section 10.7.4, Applicant's Handbook. For heavy mineral mining, DNR requires one-to-one mitigation for every wetland, regardless of type, that is disturbed by the zoning activity, and the restoration of wildlife habitat, including threatened or endangered species. Heavy mineral mining, in contrast to other mining such as phosphate, has far less impact on the environment. This is reflected in the success which has been experienced in restoring wetlands disturbed by heavy mineral mining.
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 comprehensive plan and subsequent remedial plan amendments adopted by Lake County are "in compliance" pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (F.S.).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive plans pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, F.S., and Chapter 380, F.S., as it relates to the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern. Friends Friends, is a not-for-profit tax exempt membership corporation, founded for the express purpose of overseeing implementation of Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. Friends has members who reside in, own property and operate businesses within the County. Friends submitted oral and written objections during the County's review and adoption proceedings. Friends is an "affected person." Friends did not challenge the cumulative notice issued in DOAH Case No. 93-2289GM. Hal Turville owns property and resides in the County. Turville submitted oral and written objections during the review, and adoption proceedings. Turville is an "affected person." Turville did not challenge the cumulative notice issued in DOAH Case No. 93-2289GM. Lake County Conservation Council Council et al. is a not-for-profit Florida corporation whose business is the preservation of the natural resources and the quality of life in the County. Members of the Council submitted oral or written comments during the plan review and adoption proceedings. Council is an "affected person." Council failed to challenge the cumulative notice issued in DOAH Case No. 93-2289GM. The individual Petitioners who sought intervention simultaneous with the Council are all natural persons who own real property and/or conduct business in the County. All Petitioners submitted oral or written objections during the plan review and adoption proceedings. All Petitioners are "affected persons." These Petitioners however, failed to challenge the cumulative notice issued in DOAH Case No. 93-2289GM. CLAUDE SMOAK/LAKE COUNTY CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION/ LAKE COUNTY FARM BUREAU Smoak is a resident and property owner in the County. Smoak submitted written and oral comments during the plan review and adoption proceedings. Smoak is an "affected person." Lake County Cattlemen's Association is a Florida nonprofit membership association which conducts business in the County. The Association, on behalf of its members who own property or conduct business in the County, submitted oral or written comments during the plan review and adoption proceedings. The Association is an "affected person." Lake County Farm Bureau is a Florida nonprofit membership association which also conducts business in the County. The Bureau submitted comments during the plan review andadoption proceedings. The Bureau is an "affected person." 1/ LYKES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, et al./DALE LADD, et al./ CHRIS BLANTON, et al. Lykes Development Corporation, et al., Dale Ladd, et al., and Chris Blanton, et al., are owners of real property and/or own and conduct business within the County. Intervenors submitted oral and written comments during the plan review and adoption. Intervenors are "affected persons." LAKE COUNTY Lake County is a local government required to adopt a comprehensive plan pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. The County is located in central Florida, with the incorporated City of Tavares being the County seat. The County is bordered by Orange, Seminole and Volusia Counties to the east and northeast; Marion and Sumter Counties to the west and northwest; and Polk County to the South. The County is approximately 1,150 square miles in size, or approximately 736,000 acres. The unincorporated County's population in 1990, including seasonal population, was 123,555, and is projected to be 177,402 by the year 2005. The economy of the County in years past relied upon the citrus industry. Recent freezes, however, caused the loss of approximately 90 per cent of the citrus crop. The County is currently making a transition to a more urban economic base. The County contains many natural resources including the Wekiva River Protection Area, the Ocala National Forest, and the Green Swamp. GREEN SWAMP CONCERNS The primary focus of the challengers' remaining issues concerns the level of protection afforded the Green Swamp. The Green Swamp is approximately 556,000 acres in size, encompassing portions of Lake, Polk, Pasco, Hernando, and Sumter Counties. As of 1974, approximately 200,000 acres of the Green Swamp was in public ownership, either by state agencies, water management districts, local governments, or environmental protection organizations. Of the remaining 356,000 acres, approximately 106,000 acres are located in Lake County. The 106,000 acres within Lake County are comprised of approximately 60 per cent uplands and 40 per cent wetlands and lakes. The Green Swamp is not a continuous expanse of swamp, as its name implies, but instead is a composite of swamps separated by flatwoods, low hills and ridges, and sinkhole lakes. The Green Swamp serves as the headwaters of five major rivers: The Hillsborough, Withlacoochee, Peace, Oklawaha, and Kissimmee Rivers. In the early 1970's, the Florida Legislature designated the Green Swamp, because of its environmental importance and sensitivity, as an Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) under Chapter 380, F.S. The Green Swamp was designated an ACSC due partly to the important role this large relatively undeveloped tract of land plays in the protection of the Floridan Aquifer, the main drinking water source for central and south Florida. The Floridan Aquifer in central Florida particularly, is near land surface and therefore vulnerable to contamination. The potentiometric high or area of the Floridan Aquifer most susceptible to contamination, however, is not found in Lake County but instead is in adjacent Polk County. Other reasons why the Green Swamp was designated as an ACSC include: The abundance and variety of wildlife species and habitat, the important environmental functions played by the wetlands of the Green Swamp, the Green Swamps floodwater retention and treatment capabilities, and as mentioned earlier the Green Swamp's role as the headwaters of five river systems. The Green Swamp is a regionally significant natural resource. The Local Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. (the Act), generally requires at Section 163.3177(6)(d), F.S., that each local government comprehensive plan contain: A conservation element for conservation, use, and protection of natural resources in the area, including air, water, water recharge areas, wetlands, water wells, estuarine, marshes, soils, beaches, shores, floodplains, rivers, bays, lakes, harbors, forests, fisheries and wildlife marine habitat, minerals and other natural and environmental resources. Rule Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., is the minimum criteria rule adopted by the Department to further implement the provisions of the Act. Rule 9J-5.005(1)(b), F.A.C., requires that natural resources be designated on the comprehensive plan's existing land use map. Rule 9J-5.005(4)(b), F.A.C., also requires that natural resources be depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) or map series. Rule 9J-5.005(3)(b)4., F.A.C., further requires that the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) contain one or more specific goals, objectives and policies which ensure the protection of natural resources. GREEN SWAMP/DENSITY Intervenors opine that the County's Comprehensive Plan fails to adequately protect the natural resources associated with the Green Swamp, specifically in the Core Area of the Green Swamp. Intervenors primarily base this assertion on the fact that the County did not incorporate a recommendation found in the Task Force Report, which recommended a core density of one dwelling unit per forty acres (1 du/40 acres). The Task Force Report is a study which was commissioned by the Polk County Board of County Commissioners as part of the final stages of the development of the Polk County Comprehensive Plan. A technical committee was tasked with the responsibility of compiling information concerning the Green Swamp. Representatives of Lake County did not participate in the creation of the Task Force Report, nor did they select any of the representatives who served on the Task Force. Lake County has not had the opportunity to refute the findings of the Task Force or the recommendations of the Task Force Report. While the Task Force Report was not finalized until July of 1992, many of the data sources in the Task Force Report mirror those in the Lake County Comprehensive Plan adopted July 1, 1991. The Task Force Report (p. 14) recommends that in order to adequately protect the Core Area of the Green Swamp, the land use densities in the Core should be in the range of l dwelling unit per 40 acres to l dwelling unit per 160 acres. However, as established at the final hearing, that density is but one planning tool which can be used to protect natural resources and even the Task Force Report recognized that if certain planning controls were implemented other requirements could be relaxed. In protecting the natural resources of the Green Swamp, the County, as a result of the second settlement agreement, adopted a planning approach which separated the Green Swamp into 4 separate land use classifications. The categories include the Ridge Area, Transition Area, Rural Conservation Area and the Core Conservation Area. Depending on the land use classification, the County established the following criteria: Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern: Ridge area: residential densities shall be permitted up to 4 units per acre of uplands. Developments with a density greater than 1 unit per acre must be connected to a regional sewer system, defined as a central sewer system with a capacity of 500,000 GPD or greater. However, a central sewer system having a capacity of at least 100,000 GPD or more may be permitted on a temporary basis until such time as a regional system becomes available. The temporary system shall be staffed by a class C or higher operator for a minimum of three hours per day for five days per week and one visit on each weekend day. Further, these temporary facilities shall be planned, designed, and constructed so that they either serve as the nucleus of a future regional system that later developments will also connect to, or can be abandoned and the system merged into a regional sewer system constructed at another location. The maximum impervious surface system constructed at another location. The maximum impervious surface ratio shall be no greater than 45 percent of the gross development parcel. Maximum building height is 40 feet. Transition area: residential densities shall be permitted up to 1 unit per acre of uplands. The maximum impervious surface ratio shall be no greater than 30 percent of the gross development parcel. Maximum building height is 40 feet. Rural/Conservation: residential densities shall be permitted up to 1 unit per 10 acres of uplands. Core/Conservation: residential densities shall be permitted up to 1 unit per 20 acres of uplands. The County adopted further planning controls to limit development and the types of uses allowed within the boundaries of the Green Swamp, specifically the Core. In specifically addressing the Core, the plan at Policy 1-1.15.11 requires: Core/Conservation: All land uses are allowed within the Core/Conservation land use category except for the following land uses: residential developments over 1 DU/20 AC commercial development industrial development mining, excluding sand mining roadway construction utilizing public funds except paving which may be provided to assure access for emergency vehicles necessary for the protection of the resident's health, safety and welfare. Active Tourist Attraction Based Recreation facilities which include such uses as water slide parks, RV parks, stadiums, racetracks, Jai-Alai frontons, arenas, amusement parks, zoological/ botanical gardens and parks, and aquariums. other active facility based recreation unless provided solely for the purpose of serving the residents within the GSACSC golf courses power plants incinerators Class I, Class II and Class III sanitary landfills as identified in Chapter 17-701, F.A.C. airports as defined in Chapter 9J-5.003(3) F.A.C. Notwithstanding the requirements identified above for the Ridge, Transition, Rural/Conservation and Core Conservation land use categories, Class III sanitary landfills as defined in Chapter 17-702, F.A.C. shall be permitted with a Conditional Use Permit at inactive mine and borrow pit sites as identified on Map I-A. In addition to the foregoing provisions found in Policies 1-1.13 and 1-1.15, the County adopted a limitation on the number of building permits which could be issued on a yearly basis in the Green Swamp (CAPS). The CAPS also place a yearly limitation on the number of lots which can be created. The CAPS are set out as follows: Policy 1-1.12A: As part of the County's efforts to direct growth to the urban land use categories, the County shall limit the number of lots it approves for platting and the number of building permits it issues in the following rural land use categories as follows: LAND USE CATEGORY ANNUAL MAXIMUM LOTS PERMITS Core/Conservation 35 50 Rural/Conservation 60 50 3. Rural Villages 250 200 4. Rural 350 300 In no event shall the total annual maximum of platted lots for all of the land use categories set out above exceed 500 lots or the maximum number of building permits issued in a year exceed 400. As established at hearing, the allowable building permit cap over the planning period, divided into the number of acres in the Core/Conservation and Rural/Conservation areas yields an overall density of one dwelling unit per sixty acres throughout the Core. Actual building densities could be in the range of one dwelling unit per 80 acres. To further limit development, the County adopted minimum open space requirements for all land use categories, including those found in the Green Swamp. The Plan also requires at Conservation Element Policy 7-5.4A minimum wetland buffer requirements for isolated, non isolated and river and stream systems. In FLUE Policy IA-2.9 and Conservation Element Policy 1-2.IE, the plan requires to the extent practicable that wetlands within a project which are to be preserved shall be placed in a conservation easement which shall run in favor of the land. The plan at FLUE Policy 1-2.IC limits the wetland densities which may be transferred to uplands in the Green Swamp. Specifically the policy provides that density in the Green Swamp may be transferred from the wetlands to the uplands portions of a site at a ratio of 1 unit per 20 acres. For development in the Green Swamp which uses septic tanks, the plan at Policy 1A-2.8 establishes stringent septic tank requirements which include the periodic mandatory monitoring of septic tank systems. In addition to the above-referenced policies, the County adopted plan provisions which address the protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat within the Green Swamp and county-wide. These provisions include Conservation Policies 7-6, 7-7, 7-8 and FLUE Policies 1A-1.3:7 and 1A-2.2:7. Through the above referenced policies and requirements, the County put forth a comprehensive approach to protecting the natural resources of the Green Swamp. The County's approach does not rely solely on a density limitation, but also incorporates various planning controls in conjunction with the four Green Swamp land use designations found on the FLUM. The County's approach is consistent with and provides more protection than the 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres density limitation and other requirements suggested by Intervenors. GREEN SWAMP BOUNDARY DESIGNATIONS Intervenors assert that the County's designation of the Core area of the Green Swamp on the FLUM is incorrect solely because the boundaries of the Core follow section lines and not the natural resource characteristics of the Core. The Act at Section 163.3177(6)(d), F.S., requires that the land use map or map series generally identify and depict natural resources. The Act also, at Section 163.3177(6)(a), F.S., requires that the identification and depiction of natural resources be based upon surveys, studies and data regarding the area. Rule 9J-5.006(1)(b), F.A.C., requires among other things, that rivers, bays, lakes, floodplains, and wetlands shall be shown on the existing land use map or map series. Rule 9J-5.006(4)(b), F.A.C., makes these mapping requirements applicable to the FLUM. The Act as well as the Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., generally requires that the FLUM, and the designations on it, be based on appropriate data and analysis. In depicting the Green Swamp on the FLUM, the County initially analyzed the maps found in the adopted plan's data. This data included generalized maps prepared by several state and federal agencies. These maps were consistent with and in most cases mirrored those used by Intervenors in developing their depiction of the Green Swamp boundaries. These maps include but are not limited to: A Floodplains Map, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a Wetlands Map prepared by the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC), maps showing lakes, and major drainage basins prepared by the County, using information provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), a Generalized Soils Map prepared by the County using information prepared by the Lake County Soils Conservation Service (SCS), Natural Communities Maps prepared by the Center for Wetlands Land Cover, Groundwater Resource Maps prepared by the County using information from the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), Groundwater Pollution Potential Maps, prepared using DRASTIC information from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Potentiometric Surface Maps prepared using information by the USGS and SJRWMD. Based on these maps as well as those maps found in the 1974 Green Swamp Report, the County began preparation of the boundaries which comprise the land use categories of the Green Swamp. Because of the increased development limitations imposed by the Core/Conservation Area, the County took the additional step of "ground truthing" the boundaries of the Core Area. The County's purpose in ground truthing was to make the Core boundary as accurate as possible. Based on this additional step, the County determined the boundaries of the Core. The boundaries were not at major variance from already established section lines and the County therefore, used these section lines to delineate the Core. The section lines relate to the natural resources actually on the ground. In any event, the natural resources (wetlands) which Intervenors are concerned with, based on the plan policies referenced earlier, will receive adequate protection regardless of whether they fall within the Core/Conservation land use category or the Rural/Conservation land use category. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION Intervenors allege that Lake County has failed to coordinate with adjacent local governments concerning the protection of the Green Swamp and that a commission ought to be established consisting of representatives from the several local governments in which the Green Swamp is located. This Commission's sole responsibility would be to coordinate further protection of the Green Swamp. The Act at Section 163.3177(6)(h), F.S., requires the comprehensive plans to include: An intergovernmental coordination element showing relationships and standing principles and guidelines to be used in the accomplishment of coordination of the adopted comprehensive plan with the plans of school boards and other units of local government providing services but not having regulatory authority over the use of land, with the comprehensive plans of adjacent municipalities, the County, adjacent counties, or the region, and with the state comprehensive plan, as the case may require and as such adopted plans or plans in preparation may exist. This element of the local comprehensive plan shall demonstrate consideration of the particular effects of the local plan, when adopted, upon the development of adjacent municipalities, the County, adjacent counties, or the region or on the state comprehensive plan, as the case may require. Rule 9J-5.015(3), F.A.C., goes on to require the Intergovernmental Coordination Element to contain goals, objectives and policies which coordinate the County's comprehensive plan and the development impacts which may occur with the comprehensive plans and potential development impacts of adjacent local governments. Rule 9J-5.015(2)(d), F.A.C., also requires the coordination of the County's plan with the rules, principles for guiding development, and development regulations in any designated area of critical state concern. (Rule 9J-5.015(3)(a-c), F.A.C.) The County has adopted an Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Goal 9 clearly provides that the purpose of the element is: To foster improved governmental efficiency and effectiveness and resolve incompatibilities or conflicts through mechanisms which encourage cooperation, communication and coordination between Lake County and its municipalities, adjacent governments, regional, state, and federal government and quasi government entities in order to establish improved growth management, development activities and natural resource conservation. The Element also contains policies and objectives which address the county's communication and coordination with various entities including adjacent counties. Specifically at Objective 9-10 the adopted plan provides: Lake County shall coordinate with its seven adjacent counties on comprehensive planning issues such as land use activities and public programs which would affect either Lake County or the adjacent county. The element also includes Policy 9-10.1 which provides: Upon Comprehensive Plan adoption, Lake County shall institute a program whereby a request will be made to the seven adjacent counties for Lake County to received and review the comprehensive plans and proposed plan amendments for impacts to Lake County which are or may be inconsistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies. The County shall reciprocate by forwarding its comprehensive plan and plan amendments to the adjacent counties. Any conflicts arising from this exchange of informa- tion shall be handled amongst the parties or through the informal mediation process outlined above in Policy 9-9.1. Policy 9-10.2, further provides: Lake County shall coordinate growth management issues which overlap jurisdiction boundaries through cooperative communications with the staff and appropriate officials by presenting Lake County concerns through documented trans- mittals, scheduled meetings, attendance at public hearings, joint and hoc technical coordination committees, and, where relevant, less formal communications. The County shall reciprocate by notifying the adjacent counties' staff and officials of functions where their attendance is warranted. Growth management issues to be pursued, but are not limited to, consist of the following: Continued participation in the four corners group meetings between Polk, Orange, Osceola, and the Reedy Creek Improvement District. Continued coordination between Sumter County on the proposed Federal Prison; Marion and Sumter Counties on development patterns and their effects on levels of service on the Lake County portion of U.S. 27/S.R. 500; Seminole and Orange Counties (and the Orlando/Orange County Expressway Authority) on the proposed Northwest Beltway and the resource management of the Wekiva River Protection Area; Seminole County on the expansion of the airport and the proposed mall in the Sanford Area; Orange County and the Florida Turnpike; Orange, Osceola, and Polk counties and the RCID on the ever expanding tourist commercial center, Polk County on the development pattern on South U.S. 27 and issues related to the Green Swamp ACSC. While Intervenors suggested that the plan establish a committee whose purpose is to better review development within the Green Swamp, the testimony at the final hearing establishes that such an endeavor could not be mandated through a plan's Intergovernmental Coordination Element. In addressing coordination with the principles for guiding development pursuant to Rule 9J-5.015(2)(d), F.A.C., the FLUE at Policy 1-17-2 provides: Residential development in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern shall conform to the regulatory guidelines and objectives outlined in the Principles for Guiding Development for the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern. Policy 1-17.5 goes on to adopt the language of Rule 28-26, F.A.C., which contains the Principles for Guiding Development. As with all other plan provisions all development must be consistent with these policies and therefore also, consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the GSACSC. URBAN SPRAWL/MULTIPLIER Intervenors allege that the plan fails to discourage urban sprawl specifically in the Green Swamp and generally Countywide. As justification for this allegation Intervenors assert that the data used to analyze future needs did not include certain vested developments and also that the "multiplier" was calculated in an incorrect manner. Generally, the Act, the State Comprehensive Plan, and Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., require that each comprehensive plan should work to discourage urban sprawl. In addressing these requirements, the County adopted a new FLUM which encouraged development to occur adjacent to existing municipalities and areas where services were available to support future development. The revised FLUM works to discourage urban sprawl. In addition, the FLUM was also revised to provide a clearer separation of urban and rural land uses which is another way in which a plan discourages urban sprawl. This was accomplished by the elimination of the Semi-Rural land use category and the reduction in densities in the Urban, Urban Expansion, Suburban, Rural Village and Rural land use categories. In a further effort to discourage urban sprawl the County adopted plan provisions which serve to direct growth to the more urban areas of the County and ensure that such development occurs in a timely manner. For example, the amount of building permits issued per year in the Core Conservation, Rural Conservation, Rural Villages, and Rural land use categories is limited. In addition, the plan establishes criteria concerning the provision of sanitary sewer in the Urban and Urban expansion areas which require either a public or private sewer systems to be in existence before development can occur in these areas. Further, the plan specifically provides guidance and timing criteria for the location of development within the Suburban land use designation. Based on the plan provisions and the requirements found therein it is clear that the plan discourages urban sprawl. In addressing the issues raised concerning the multiplier, testimony at hearing establishes that developing a multiplier is more an art than a science. Generally, a multiplier is a calculation which analyses many factors including total projected population, densities established on the FLUM, projected need and projected growth. Based on these factors, the calculation yields a percentage of future development that will be allowed or allocated over the planning period. An unusually high multiplier may indicate that a plan fails to discourage urban sprawl. A local government, to allow some degree of development flexibility in the plan, will allocate more land than is actually needed. The overall multiplier calculated by the County was approximately 4.88. The multiplier was calculated using acceptable professional planning methodologies and is well within the range of the multipliers for plans of other counties found acceptable by the Department. This is especially true when the multiplier is considered in combination with the planning controls and limitations discussed earlier. The multiplier does not indicate a failure to discourage urban sprawl. MINING Intervenors allege that the plan fails to meet the statutory and rule requirements concerning the protection of natural resources from the adverse impacts of mineral extraction. As discussed earlier the Act and Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., generally require that a comprehensive plan must address the protection of natural resources. The Act also mandates that plan must be consistent with the requirements of Chapter 187, F.S., the State Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 187, F.S., specifically at Section 187.201(14)(a), F.S., establishes as a goal the following: Florida shall protect its air, land, and water resources from the adverse effects of resource extraction and ensure that the disturbed areas are reclaimed or restored to beneficial use as soon as reasonably possible. Section 187.201(14)(b)5., F.S., goes on to implement this by requiring the prohibition of: resource extraction which will result in an adverse effect on environmentally sensitive areas of the state which cannot be restored. The plan at Objective 7-13 provides: The County shall regulate extraction activities to minimize any adverse impacts to the quality of the air, surface waters, groundwaters, land and wildlife. Policy 7-13.1 goes on to establish a prohibition of mining in specified areas in the County. In relevant part, the Policy prohibits: [M]ineral extraction in the environmentally sensitive areas of the County which cannot be restored. Areas within Lake County which fall in this include, but are not limited to, the limestone deposits within the Green Swamp Wildlife Management Area and the Okahumpka Swamp, . . . Policies 7-13.2 through 7-13.11 further provide mining criteria which address mining in other natural resources such as prime aquifer recharge areas. The plan clearly contains policies and objectives which address the protection of natural resources from the adverse impacts which may result from mining.
Recommendation It is recommended that a final order be entered finding that the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, as subsequently amended, is "in compliance". DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of August, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings 10th day of August, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitutes my rulings on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in accordance with requirements of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes. Proposed Findings of Fact filed by 1000 Friends. 1.-2. Adopted. 3.-4. Rejected, relevance. 5.-12. Rejected, recitation of testimony, relevance. 13.-14. Rejected, relevance. 15.-16. Rejected, subordinate, relevance. 17.-18. Rejected, recitation. 19. Rejected, relevance. 20.-23. Adopted by reference. 24.-47. Rejected, these findings basically recite page numbers and quotations from the data and analysis accompanying the adopted plan. 48.-49. Adopted in principle, although not verbatim. 50.-59. Rejected, cumulative. 60.-64. Rejected, subordinate to hearing officer findings. 65. Rejected, relevance. 66.-72. Rejected, see hearing officer ruling with regard to the task force report. Otherwise, these proposed findings are subordinate to findings of the hearing officer. 73.-74. Rejected, inadequate reference to source. 75.-80. Rejected, see hearing officer ruling with regard to the task force report. Otherwise, these proposed findings are subordinate to findings of the hearing officer. 81.-85. Rejected, cumulative. 86.-92. Rejected, relevance. 93.-104. Rejected, see previous ruling regarding admissibility of the content of the task force report; further the proposed findings are cumulative and subordinate to hearing officer findings. 105.-106. Rejected, relevance. 107.-117. Rejected, cumulative, argumentative and subordinate. Accepted. Rejected, relevance. Accepted. 121.-136. Rejected, subordinate to hearing officer's findings. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, relevance. 139.-140. Adopted, but not verbatim. Rejected, subordinate to hearing officer's findings in this point. Rejected, relevance. 143.-148. Rejected, subordinate to hearing officer's findings. 149.-153. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 154.-155. Rejected, relevance. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, see previous ruling regarding the task force report. Rejected, subordinate to hearing officer's finding. Also, see previous ruling regarding task force report. Rejected, opinion. Rejected, legal argument. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Adopted. 163. Rejected, recitation of testimony. 164.-166. Rejected, argumentative. 167.-169. Rejected, subordinate to hearing officer's findings. 170. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 171. Accepted as regards the first sentence. The remainder of this finding is rejected as argumentative. 172.-173. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, subjective and opinion. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, argumentative. 177.-178. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 179.-180. Rejected, subordinate to hearing officer's findings. 181. Rejected, argumentative. 182.-184. Rejected, subordinate to hearing officer's findings. Rejected, no supported by weight of the evidence. Rejected, hearsay. 187.-188. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, opinion. Accepted. 191.-192. Rejected, cumulative and theoretical. The addition of a policy to the plan requiring the establishment of such a board would not make it so since Lake County would not have the authority to implement such a provision. 193.-194. Rejected, opinion and relevance. Proposed Findings of Fact filed by The Lake County Conservation Counsel. Accepted. Rejected, inadequate citation of record source. Accepted. 4.-5. Rejected, inadequate citation to record source. Accepted, though not verbatim. Rejected, inadequate citation to record source. 8.-14. Rejected, proposed findings appear directed to the March 1993, amended plan. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, inadequate citation to record source. Rejected, argumentative and inadequate citation to record source. Rejected, conclusion of law. Rejected, argumentative and conclusionary. Rejected, conclusion of law. 21.-22 Rejected, relevance. 23.-27. Rejected, argumentative, inadequate cite to record source and relevance. Rejected, relevance. Rejected, argument. 30.-31. Rejected, relevance. 32. Rejected, argumentative and lack of relevance. 33.-35. Rejected, relevance. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Accepted as to first sentence. Rejected as to remainder. Rejected, lack of adequate citation to record source. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, legal conclusion. Rejected, argumentative and lack of adequate citation to record source. 41.-47. Rejected, relevance. 48. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 49.-50. Rejected, relevance. 51.-52. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 53. Accepted. 54.-55. Accepted in substance, although it is recognized that the Lake Wells Ridge runs through a large area of Florida and not just Lake County. 56. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Intervenor, Lykes Development Corp., et al., Dale Ladd, et al., and Chris Blanton, et al. Counsel for these Intervenors submitted a proposed recommended order of twenty-seven pages. Pages 16 through 24 of that proposed recommended order, contains unnumbered paragraphs and quoted material addressing proposed findings of fact. The proposed recommended order has been reviewed and to the extent possible, addressed by the findings of fact set forth in this recommended order. Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Lake County. Counsel for Lake County submitted a proposed recommended order consisting of twenty-three pages. The paragraphs were unnumbered and were not confined to proposed findings and proposed conclusions of law. However, the entire proposed recommended order has been reviewed and, to the extent possible, addressed by the findings of fact contained in this recommended order. Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Petitioner, Department of Community Affairs. Petitioner Department of Community Affairs submitted forty-eight numbered paragraphs in the proposed findings of fact of their proposed recommended order. Those proposed findings are treated as follows: 1.-29. Accepted, although not necessarily verbatim. 30. Accepted, although substantially restated to eliminate surplusage and unnecessary statements. 31.-48. Accepted in substance. Copies furnished: Terrell K. Arline Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Thomas A. Cloud Gray Harris et al. P. O. Box 3068 Orlando, FL 32802-3068 Frank Gaylord Post Office Box 7800 Tavares, FL 32778-7800 Jacob D. Varn, Esquire Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Richard Grosso, Esquire 1000 Friends of Florida Civil Law Clinic NOVA Southeastern University 3305 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314 Rolon W. Reed, Esquire P.O. Box 565 Lake Jem, FL 32745 Claude Smoak 8810 County Road 561 Clermont, FL 34711 Lake County Cattlemen's Association 21335 Wiygul Road Umatilla, FL 32784 Lake County Farm Bureau 30241 State Road 19 Tavares, FL 32778 Cecelia Bonifay Attorney at Law Post Office Box 39 Tavares, FL 32778
Findings Of Fact Occidental owns land or mineral rights to land over a broad area adjacent to the Suwannee River near Lake City and White Springs in Hamilton County, Florida. Occidental has invested approximately $350 million in the area, and presently has two phosphate mines and two chemical plants in operation. Occidental intends to expand its mining operations into an area known as the "Roaring Creek Basin." Occidental has estimated that two and one- half million tons of phosphate are available to be mined in the area with a market value of $25.00 per ton. The company's present timetable would be to commence mining operations in the Roaring Creek Basin by midsummer, 1980. The mining operations would require dredging and filling activities. 1/ The Roaring Creek Basin is a small portion of the Suwannee River Basin. The area of Occidental's mining operation is fairly unique within the Suwannee River Basin. It has been characterized as a relatively high, flat plateau region. The Suwannee River flows in this area through a limestone channel, which is a cut in an older, broader riverbed or flood plane. Roaring Creek and other tributaries of the Suwannee River in the area flow through incisions which have been cut into the plateau area. The incisions become fairly steep in lower areas of the tributaries in close proximity to the Suwannee River. In the upper areas, the incisions are not particularly steep. Limestone beds underlie the area. Sandy clay beds which interbed with the limestone formations lie on top of the limestone beds and are covered by surficial sand beds. The surficial sands are relatively permeable, while the sandy clay beds are relatively less permeable. Rainfall in the area, therefore, typically permeates through the surficial sands and forms an aquifer above the sandy clay layers. This aquifer provides additional water to streams flowing through incisions which have cut into the sandy clay layers. Sources of water for such tributaries are rainfall and the aquifer above the sandy clay layers. There are lower aquifers which could serve as potential sources of water in the tributaries but do not because geologic conditions are not sufficient to force these waters to the surface. 2/ Viewed as a single stream, Roaring Creek has its initial source at a "bayhead" or "cypress swamp" which is located approximately four and one-half to five miles upgradient from the Suwannee River. Prior to the excavation of a channel which occurred sometime during the early 1960's, water flowed from the bayhead through a small incision which does not cut through the surficial sand layers until it reaches a point approximately 2.5 miles upgradient from the Suwannee River. An excavation has been cut through the original meandering streambed from the bayhead to approximately the point where the creekbed cuts into the lower strata. In various places, water from the natural bed flows into the excavation, while in other places, water in the original streambed has been cut off from the excavation by debris. During periods of heavy rainfall, waters in the bayhead rise and flow through the original streambed and the excavated channel to the lower areas of Roaring Creek. The bayhead collects rainwater from surrounding areas and drains fairly slowly in response to rainfall. During dry periods, water does not flow from the bayhead to the lower areas of the creek; however, normally there will be standing water in portions of the original streambed and in portions of the excavation even during drier times. The evidence offered in this proceeding would not support a finding as to the portion of time that water flows all of the way from the bayhead to the lower regions of Roaring Creek. Rainfall is the only source of water for the bayhead and the upper area of Roaring Creek, and the upper area contains water flows throughout its length solely in response to the rainfall. 3/ At a point approximately 2.5 miles upgradient from the Suwannee River, the incision or channel cut by Roaring Creek extends down into the sandy clay layers below the surficial sands. At that point, ground water, which is easily transmitted through the surficial clays, forms an aquifer above the sandy clay layers and seeps rather constantly into Roaring Creek. The point is a short distance upgradient from a road known as "Burned Bridge Road". Roaring Creek flows during all but the very driest periods from that point until its waters reach the Suwannee River. This point, which has been called the "point of intermittency", was placed at slightly different locations by various witnesses, depending upon the sort of analysis that was used. The conclusion that has been found most credible is that presented by Phillip E. LaMoreaux. Dr. LaMoreaux found the point of intermittency to be a short distance upgradient from Burned Bridge Road, approximately 2.46 miles from the mouth of Roaring Creek at the Suwannee River. The point is depicted with precision on Occidental Exhibit 19A. The UTM coordinants of the point are 3367025N336650E. 4/ Downstream from the point of intermittency, Roaring Creek cuts deeper and deeper into the sandy clay strata. It receives waters from several tributaries and form seepage of ground water which occurs throughout this lower portion of Roaring Creek, ultimately cuts into the limestone beds and earns its name as it forms two waterfalls near its mouth at the Suwannee River. 5/ Within and immediately adjacent to the streambed upgradient from the point of intermittency, the dominant vegetation is vegetation which is included in DER's list of freshwater submerged land indicator species. Rules of the Department of Environmental Regulation, Section 17-4.02(17), Florida Administrative Code. The predominant vegetational species are pond cypress (Taxodium Ascendens) and black gum trees (Nyssa Biflora). Within the streambed itself, there are no upland indicator species. Within the excavated channel that has been cut through the natural streambed above the point of intermittency, the predominant vegetation is Maiden Cane (Panicum Hemitomon). Within the bayhead or cypress swamp which is circled on DER Exhibit 8, and is designated with the initials "JK", the dominant vegetation is pond cypress and black gum. The dominance of wetland indicator species which occurs within and directly adjacent to the streambed and the excavated channel does not extend laterally to any great extent. While wetland indicator species will occur sporadically outward from the channels, upland indicator species begin to predominate in all but the areas immediately adjacent to the channels. This reflects the fact that the upper portions of Roaring Creek are in a high upland plateau region. Any effort to determine dominant vegetation outward from the confines of the stream channels would result in a bias in favor of upland species. Within the streambed, there are no small cypress seedlings. This reflects that the streambed has not been dry for any prolonged period of time so as to permit the germination of cypress trees. There are also no hardwood or upland indicator species within the streambed, which reinforces the conclusion that the streambed even above the point of intermittency does not remain dry for long periods of time. 6/ There are several Roaring Creek tributaries where the extent of DER's jurisdiction is at issue. One tributary flows not Roaring Creek from the south and meets the creek at a point upgradient from the point designated "RO-1" on DER Exhibit 8 and on Occidental Exhibit 8. This tributary is outlined with black lines on DER Exhibit 8 and with red lines on Occidental Exhibit 8. The parties agree that DER has jurisdiction over it. A tributary of this tributary is bordered in red on DER Exhibit 8 and in yellow in Occidental Exhibit 8. Very little testimony was elicited with respect to this tributary of the Roaring Creek tributary. It appears that it flows only in response to rainfall events, but the evidence is insufficient to establish whether it normally contains contiguous areas of standing water. Another tributary over which there is a dispute flows into Roaring Creek from the northwest and meets the creek at a point almost halfway between the points "RO-1" and "RO-2", as depicted on DER Exhibit 8 and Occidental Exhibit 8. A portion of this tributary is outlined in black and a portion in green on DER Exhibit 8. Only a portion of it is outlined on Occidental Exhibit The portion of it outlined on Occidental Exhibit 8, and in black on DER Exhibit 8, is below the point of intermittency. The portion outlined in green on DER Exhibit 8 is above the point of intermittency. There is an identifiable streambed above the point of intermittency which connects several cypress swamps. Wetland indicator species (pond cypress and black gum) constitute the dominant vegetation within the cypress swamps and within and directly adjacent to the identifiable streambed. The portion above the point of intermittency flows only in response to rainfall. The evidence would not support any finding with respect to whether it normally contains contiguous areas of standing water. The final testimony over which jurisdiction is disputed enters Roaring Creek from the south, just upgradient from the point designated "RO-4" on DER Exhibit 8 and Occidental Exhibit 8. This tributary is outlined in red on DER Exhibit 8 and in yellow in Occidental Exhibit 8. An identifiable streambed connects the cypress swamp at the head of this tributary with the upper portion of the Roaring Creek channel. Wetland indicator species (pond cypress and black gum) predominate within and directly adjacent to the channel, and within the cypress swamp. It appears that water flows from the cypress swamp to the upper channel of Roaring Creek only in response to rainfall. The evidence would not support any finding as to whether the cypress swamp and streambed of this tributary normally contain contiguous areas of standing water. 7/
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Environmental Regulation finding that the Department has jurisdiction over those portions of Roaring Creek described in Paragraph 5 of the Conclusions of Law set out herein. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 1980, at Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, 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 23rd day of May, 1980.
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether Respondent, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) should grant the applications of Petitioner, John Rondolino, for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and a Sovereign Lands Consent of Use for a proposed single-family dock on his property on the Rainbow River in near Dunnellon in Marion County, Florida; and (2) whether the landward extent of DEP's wetlands jurisdiction on Petitioner's property should be determined in this proceeding and, if so, the landward extent of those jurisdictional wetlands.
Findings Of Fact Procedural Background On February 23, 2000, DEP received an anonymous complaint regarding the clearing and filling of a parcel of property that was subsequently purchased by Petitioner, John Rondolino. Petitioner's property is Parcel Number 34581-001-02, Section 18, Township 16S, Range 19E, Marion County, 7069 South West 190th Avenue Road Extension, Dunnellon, Florida 34432-2827. Comprising approximately 1.159 acres, the pie-shaped parcel is located adjacent to the Rainbow River, which is a Class III Outstanding Florida Water and an Aquatic Preserve. As a result of the anonymous complaint, DEP inspected the site on February 24, 2000, and determined that a fill violation of Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, had occurred. During this inspection, DEP delineated an informal wetland jurisdictional line such that approximately 0.47 acre of the property nearest the river was claimed as state jurisdictional wetlands. On March 29, 2000, Petitioner purchased the property upon which the alleged fill violation had occurred. On May 4, 2000, Petitioner and his wife met with DEP staff and indicated that he wanted to construct a structure for water-related activities (SFWRA)(a single-family dock) and make other improvements to the property. During this meeting, Petitioner challenged DEP's informal wetland jurisdictional line. At Petitioner's request, DEP delineated a second informal wetland jurisdictional line on May 23, 2000. The second delineation was somewhat different than the first but still included approximately the same amount of Petitioner's land within the state's jurisdictional wetlands. In discussion with DEP, Petitioner was informed that, in order to construct a SFWRA and make other improvements within the jurisdictional wetlands, he had to submit an application in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.007 and Chapter 373, Florida Statutes1. It was recommended that, although Petitioner only wanted to build a single-family dock at the time, he might want to apply for all of the activities planned for the future in a single application. Petitioner was concerned that such an application might lead to expenditures which he did not want to incur at the time. During the summer of 2000, Petitioner consulted the Fowler, White law firm and, after approximately two months, had confirmed to him that it would be best for him to file a single application for all the activities Petitioner planned whether now or in the future. Petitioner authorized the law firm to prepare and file such an application. Petitioner's application was submitted in December 2000, and the law firm sent Petitioner a bill for $2,200 for legal services rendered. The application itself was not placed in evidence, but it was possible to infer some of its content from other evidence. DEP responded to Petitioner's application in January 2001 with a Request for Additional Information (RAI). When Petitioner consulted Fowler, White about a response to the RAI, he was informed that it would require another $15,000 to $20,000 of attorney fees and $25,000 to $30,000 of other professional fees to respond and prosecute the application to completion. In response, Petitioner terminated the relationship with Fowler, White and advised DEP to communicate only with him. Petitioner then responded to the RAI himself by letter dated February 22, 2001. He advised DEP that, in view of the costs associated with aspects of his application other than the proposed dock, as well as other factors, he was "withdrawing that portion of our permit application that deals with filling those portions of the property the DEP has delineated as a wetland." However, he continued to dispute the informal jurisdictional wetlands delineation, notifying DEP that he was "refuting the wetland delineation on the basis of section 62-340.550, F.A.C." and was "requesting in writing what would be considered by the DEP as sufficient hydrologic records or site specific hydrologic data of such a duration, frequency, and accuracy to demonstrate that the records or data are representative of the long-term hydrologic conditions, including the variability in quantity and seasonality of rainfall." (Emphasis in original letter.) If there was no such information available, Petitioner requested a meeting or an agreement "to outline the terms of study, including data collection, the specific model, model development and calibration, and model verification as stated in said section 62- 340.550, F.A.C." As for his proposed dock, Petitioner responded separately that he could not provide the requested information until DEP advised him if the proposed dock was in a Resource Protection Area (RPA) 1, 2, or 3. While DEP was preparing a reply to Petitioner's response to the RAI, Petitioner sent DEP several more letters in the succeeding months. Among other things, these letters repeated Petitioner's request for advice as to the RPA status of the location of his proposed dock. Also, by letter dated March 26, 2001, Petitioner made clear that he was not requesting, and refused to agree to, a formal delineation of the jurisdictional wetlands on his property; and yet by letter dated April 30, 2001, Petitioner informed DEP that he was still waiting for a response to his request to challenge DEP's jurisdictional wetland delineation under Rule 62-340.550. As Petitioner's letters kept coming in, DEP never finalized its reply, and Petitioner did not receive a response to his request until May 2001. One draft of a reply stated that DEP would involve its Wetland Evaluation and Delineation section in Tallahassee to assist in the disputed wetlands delineation on Petitioner's property at no cost to Petitioner and would have directed Petitioner to John Tobe, Ph.D., of that office "for more information regarding hydrologic records and site specific hydrologic data necessary to refute the Department's wetland delineation pursuant to 62-340.550, F.A.C." But this letter apparently never was finalized or sent, and there was no evidence that the information in the draft letter ever was imparted to Petitioner. On May 9, 2001, DEP sent Petitioner a letter preliminarily evaluating his application. Notwithstanding Petitioner's attempt to delete portions of the application dealing with fill of delineated wetlands, the evaluation addressed the entire application and presumed that proposed dredge and fill activities would occur in jurisdictional wetlands. As for the proposed dock, DEP's preliminary evaluation notified Petitioner: that it extended more than 20 percent of the width of the river at that location, contrary to Rule 18- 20.004(5)(a)1; that the proposed terminal platform was 225 square feet, contrary to Rule 18-20.004(5)(b)6; and that it extended out from the shoreline to a depth greater than -4 feet, contrary to Rule 18-20.004(5)(b)3. (None of these citations refers to special requirements for docks in an RPA.) DEP then suggested, based on "a thorough evaluation of the project location," how Petitioner could amend his application to cure those defects, including for Petitioner's use a scaled drawing of a proposed dock alignment in relation to a large bed of paspaladium geminatum (also known as knot grass or Egyptian paspaladium) (RPA 1) and some disturbed knot grass (RPA 2) determined by DEP to exist in the river at the project location. In response, Petitioner wrote DEP a letter dated May 21, 2001, stating that DEP's preliminary evaluation ignored prior correspondence amending Petitioner's proposed dock application which Petitioner said cured the very defects cited in the preliminary evaluation. (None of this alleged previous correspondence was placed in evidence or, except as discussed in Petitioner's letter dated May 21, 2001, referenced in other testimony or evidence.) Petitioner's letter then attached a drawing of the amended proposed dock and repeated the substance of the alleged prior amendments to the dock application: reduction of the length of the dock to 40 feet from the waters edge, terminating in water -3 feet deep, to comply with Rule 18- 20.004(5)(a)1 and Rule 18-20.004(5)(b)3; and reduction of the size of the terminal platform to 160 square feet to comply with Rule 18-20.004(5)(b)6 (although the exact dimensions of the terminal platform were left undetermined, and it appeared from the attached drawing that the 160 square foot terminal platform was alongside the end of the access pier). Petitioner's letter dated May 21, 2001, acknowledged that DEP's proposed alternative alignment and dock structure was designed to avoid the RPA 1 and RPA 2 knot grass beds determined by DEP to exist at the project location. But Petitioner pointed out that under DEP's proposed alignment mooring pilings would have to be eliminated from Petitioner's project, or else they either would encroach into the 25-foot setback from the downriver neighbor's riparian line or the dock structure would have to be moved further upriver, which would place it directly over the knot grass bed. Petitioner's letter dated May 21, 2001, also acknowledged that DEP's drawing depicted the area where Petitioner proposed to place the dock as covered with RPA 1 and RPA 2 knot grass. However, Petitioner's letter disputed the accuracy of DEP's depiction, maintaining that "the area described . . . as 'disturbed emergent grassbed' in fact is an area where the weeds have begun to encroach into the existing access channel and cut off access to the property." On June 4, 2001, DEP issued a Consolidated Notice of Denial. Despite Petitioner's attempt to delete portions of his application dealing with fill of delineated wetlands, the Consolidated Notice of Denial addressed and denied Petitioner's original application in its entirety. In so doing, it also addressed at length Petitioner's position that his proposed fill activities were planned to take place in areas upland of and outside DEP's jurisdictional wetlands and that no ERP was required. In response to DEP's Consolidated Notice of Denial, Petitioner requested an administrative proceeding. During the course of this proceeding, Petitioner has made it clear that he has deleted portions of his application dealing with fill of delineated wetlands, leaving only the application for an ERP and consent of use for his proposed dock. However, he also seeks a determination that DEP's jurisdictional wetlands do not extend landward to the areas Petitioner plans to fill. Jurisdictional Wetlands Delineation DEP's first informal jurisdictional wetlands delineation on February 24, 2000, was performed by Blake Meinecke and Brad Rosenblatt. Both had experience performing jurisdictional wetland delineations for DEP. At the time, Meinecke had been a DEP employee for three years; Rosenblatt had been with DEP for about a year and a half. They walked the property, took photographs, took some soil samples, made field notes, and placed seven flags on the property signifying the landward extent of jurisdictional wetlands at those points. They connected the flags to delineate a jurisdictional wetlands boundary line. The field notes and jurisdictional wetlands boundary delineation indicated that the first flag was placed three feet from the downriver property line and 145 feet landward of the river shoreline; the second flag was placed 28 feet upriver from the first flag and 149 feet from the river shoreline; the third flag was placed 53 feet upriver from the second flag and 113 feet from the river shoreline; the fourth flag was placed 75 feet upriver from the third flag and 97 feet from the river shoreline; the fifth flag was placed 102 feet upriver from the fourth flag and 92 feet from the river shoreline; the sixth flag was placed 121 feet upriver from the fifth flag and 108 feet from the river shoreline; and the seventh flag was placed 147 feet upriver from the sixth flag and 111 feet from the river shoreline. It is not clear from those documents whether the seventh flag was placed directly on Petitioner's upstream property line or at some distance inside the property line. The field notes suggested the presence of two sweet gum trees near the landward extent of the jurisdictional wetlands in the vicinity of the second flag, a bay tree within the jurisdictional wetlands closer to the river between the second and third flags, four bay trees2 within the jurisdictional wetlands at approximately the same distance from the river between the fourth and sixth flags, and bay trees and "osmunda" within the jurisdictional wetlands between the sixth and seventh flags. An Enforcement Inspection Report prepared in connection with the informal wetlands delineation added more specifics, indicating the presence of Magnolia virginianica [sic],3 Liquidambar sturaciflua [sic], Acer rubrum, and Osmunda regalis. It also indicated the presence of "[v]egetated tussocks/hummocks," which were referred to as "hydrologic indicators," and a "[m]ucky modified mineral layer present, greater than 2' [sic] within the first 6 inches." The photographs depicted mucky soils near the river shoreline; it is not clear from the photographs how far landward the obviously mucky soils extend. DEP's second informal jurisdictional wetlands delineation on May 23, 2000, was performed by Allen Shuey, who has 16 years of experience doing and teaching jurisdictional wetlands delineations for DEP and its predecessor agency, assisted by Blake Meinecke. Shuey first re-staked the flags in the positions indicated in the first informal delineation and took soil samples. First, samples were taken in areas where confirmation of muck soils appeared likely. Then soil samples were taken in sandier-looking places farther upslope away from the river where wetland species Shuey saw growing made him suspect that the soils had to be mucky under the sand. Altogether at least 6-20 soil samples were taken. They confirmed to Shuey that the soil was indeed mucky, even where covered with a thin layer of sand. Shuey made some field notes and adjusted the placement of the seven flags on the property signifying the landward extent of jurisdictional wetlands at those points. He then connected the flags to delineate an adjusted jurisdictional wetlands boundary line. As indicated by Shuey's field notes and jurisdictional wetlands boundary delineation, Shuey adjusted the first two flags towards the river, the first by 26 feet and the second by 15 feet; he adjusted the next five flags landward, the third by 21 feet, the fourth by 17 feet, the fifth by 28 feet, the sixth by 14, and the seventh by 8 feet; he also moved the seventh flag upriver by 5 feet. Generally, Shuey moved the boundary line closer to the river on the downriver side of the property and away from the river on the upriver side. As a result, the sweet gum trees no longer were within the jurisdictional wetlands,4 and Petitioner had them removed. Shuey's field notes listed numerous plant species, including water hemlock, dogwood (blue), cephalanthis [sic], Jack-in-the-Pulpit, centella, apios (potato Bear), Boja Maria, Woodwardia, royal fern, and climbing hydrangia [sic] (on sides). Like Meinecke and Rosenblatt before him, Shuey failed to list either of the wetland species Shuey says prompted him to take soil samples farther upslope. His best explanation for these failures was that the lists were not meant to be exhaustive, but he also characterized the failures as "unfortunate." As will be seen, one of the species--Saururus cernuus (common name, lizard's tail)--was later listed in answers to interrogatories; the other-osmunda cinnamomea (a/k/a cinnamon fern)--was never mentioned before Shuey's final hearing testimony. Shuey's notes also indicated mucky mineral soils (2 inches within the first 6 inches), ferns on tussocks, and moisture on the bottom layer of wood chip fill on the property. Except for stating that the climbing hydrangea was "on sides," Shuey's notes did not specify the location of the plants, soils, or moist wood chips on the property. Shuey's Enforcement Inspection Report prepared in connection with his informal wetlands delineation indicated the presence of: Magnolia virginianica [sic], Liquidambar sturaciflua [sic], and Acer rubrum in the tree canopy; Boja maria cylindrica, Cutica mexicana, Cephalanthis [sic] occidentalis, and Cornus foemina in the understory; and herbaceous Woodwardia virginica, Arisaema triphylum, Centella spp., and Osmunda regalis. It also indicated the presence of "[v]egetated fern tussocks/hummocks," which were referred to as "hydrologic indicators," and a "[m]ucky modified mineral layer present, greater than 2' [sic] within the first 6 inches." Shuey's Enforcement Inspection Report also noted: "Vegetation on the property has apparently been cleared since the original inspection of the complaint." Meinecke visited Petitioner's property again on April 23, 2001, with DEP Environmental Specialist Pete Slezinski, who manages biological and resource issues in the Rainbow River Aquatic Preserve. However, they traveled by boat and focused on the proposed dock alignment; they did not consider wetland jurisdictional issues on this visit. DEP's Consolidated Notice of Denial issued on June 4, 2001, stated in part: Selective removal of both herbaceous and canopy species appeared to have taken place within the wetland area. Mulched vegetation remnants from the removal activity appears to have been spread within the bayhead. The bottom of the mulch layer appeared to be moist. The canopy of the wetland area is dominated by sweet bay (Magnolia virginianica [sic]), an obligate wetland species, red maple (Acer rubrum) and sweet gum (liquidambar styraciflua) which are facultative wet wetland species. The understory within the wetland area contained false nettle (Boja maria cylindrica), water hemlock (Cutica mexicana) and buttonbush (Cepahalanthis [sic] occidentalis) which are obligate wetland species, along with blue dogwood (Cornus foemina) a facultative wet wetland species. Herbaceous and groundcover species observed within the wetland area were jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphylum), pennywort (Centella sp.), Virginia chain fern (Woodwardia virginica), which are facultative wet wetland species, along with royal fern (Osmunda regalis), an obligate wetland species. Soil samples taken throughout the wetland area indicated a prevalent mucky mineral layer at least 2 inches thick, and within the first 6 inches. Hyrologic indicators on site include the presence of fern tussocks. DEP's Consolidated Notice of Denial also stated: Maps and topographic aerials obtained by the Department show that the property is located on the inside of a bend in the Rainbow River. Because of the project location on the point bar, and its associated lower water velocities, the shoreline experiences higher siltation rates due [to] the deposition of suspended solids as the water slows. It can also be observed from historic aerials that the limits of the wetland area on the property have remained constant since 1972. Through Shuey's authorship, DEP also responded to Petitioner's discovery interrogatories in this case on the subject of the jurisdictional wetlands delineation. Except as pointed out in subsequent findings, Shuey's testimony supported the interrogatory answers. Apparently not wanting to stumble into an inadvertent admission that there are two separate wetlands on Petitioner's property, DEP declined to accept Petitioner's requests in several of the interrogatories that, in answering them, DEP "[c]onsider the area upland of the row of bay trees and area water ward [sic] of the bay trees separately." DEP responded consistently that there was "no justification" to do so since "[t]he wetland area delineated" was "one wetland area." Shuey testified that he actually does consider different parts of wetlands separately in certain circumstances. For example, in this case, where there was canopy, he considered the canopy vegetation; where the canopy had been cut, he looked at under-story or, if there was no under-story, ground cover; where there was not even any ground cover due to mowing, he looked only at soils. He used different means of analyzing the different areas in the exercise of professional judgment. Shuey's testimony was not always clear as to exactly how he analyzed the different areas so as to arrive at his jurisdictional wetlands delineation. Asked in Petitioner's interrogatories "whether any portions of Petitioner's property is considered . . . 'inundated' or 'saturated'," DEP responded that the wetlands jurisdictional boundary established by DEP on Petitioner's property was based on the "area [being] considered 'inundated' and 'saturated' to the extent that the area supports water dependent vegetation and has soils which have developed 'Hydric Soil Indicators.'" Asked in Petitioner's interrogatories for "any records of hydrologic evidence of regular and periodic inundation and saturation," DEP limited its response to a 1972 topographic map, a 1996 aerial map, and a Soil Survey published in 1979. Asked in Petitioner's interrogatories to explain how DEP applied "reasonable scientific judgment . . . in evaluating all reliable information," DEP responded that it included within the jurisdictional wetlands land "from the river to where two wetland indicators consistently occurred together, the presence of obligate and facultative wetland plants and soils which had hydric indicators such as the presence of peat soils and/or soils which had a mucky layer or texture." DEP also stated that the 1979 Soil Survey confirmed that soils in the area were "labeled a poorly drained soil unit (Pm-Placid sand)." Asked to detail its analysis, DEP stated: Much of the vegetation in the wetland area had been removed by the Petitioner prior to the [sic] any site visits by the Department. Some of the canopy vegetation was removed and virtually all of the under-story and ground cover had been removed. In determining if the area was a wetland the Department was forced to look at the remaining vegetation [in] all three strata and the remains of vegetation (stumps, branches, leaves etc.) plus the soils in determining that this area was a wetland. A compete species list for the wetland area was not compiled . . .. Only dominant species and species which are crucial to determining the upland edge of the wetland were recorded and/or noted specifically. Species noted on site or recorded in notes but not included in the Denial include: At this point in the answer, DEP listed the following plants listed in Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62-340: in the canopy, Quercus laurifolia (laurel oak), Persea palustris (swamp bay), Sabal palmetto (cabbage palm); in the under-story, Cornus foemina (swamp dogwood), Myrica cerifera (wax myrtle); and, as ground cover, Saururus cernuus (lizard's tail). DEP also listed as ground cover Apios americana (groundnut), which is a vine not listed in the Florida Administrative Code but which a wetland plant. (Vines are not listed in Rule 62-340.450 because it can be difficult to determine where they originate.) DEP stated that it could not answer Petitioner's interrogatory asking for percentages of upland, obligate, facultative wet, and facultative vegetation in the canopy, under- story, and ground cover for two reasons: first, "Petitioner had removed part of the canopy" and "virtually eliminated" the under- story and ground cover (although, DEP maintained, "the dominance of wetland species in an area still can be determined by examination of stumps, vegetation re-sprouts, and the remains of vegetation (branches leaves, etc) which remain"); and, second, no specific cover estimates by strata were taken. Notwithstanding DEP's answers to interrogatories, Shuey insisted in testimony at final hearing that he did visually estimate percentage of cover in the canopy (although he did not make a note of his estimate) and applied test (b) of Rule 62- 340.300(2) to delineate the wetlands on Petitioner's property. When Petitioner asked at final hearing, Shuey provided an estimate of greater than 80 percent cover of obligate and facultative wetland species in the canopy, at least in the forested area closer to the river, based on recently-cut stumps. Pressed further by questioning by DEP counsel, Shuey increased the estimate to "probably greater than 85%." It was clear from the testimony, but it appears that Shuey meant to also qualify the 85 percent coverage estimate to apply to canopy in the forested part of the wetlands based on recently-cut stumps. It appears that the recently-cut stumps included in Shuey's canopy cover estimate are the Persea palustris (swamp bay) reintroduced through DEP's interrogatory answers to the list of species in the canopy after having been deleted from earlier lists and replaced by Magnolia virginiana (sweet bay). As reflected in the previous findings, DEP's interrogatory answer was the first mention of any kind of oak being on the property. This interrogatory answer was given after Petitioner took the position that there were several large laurel oaks (Quercus hemisphaerica) on the property. After the interrogatory answer, Petitioner took the position that Shuey used the incorrect scientific name in the interrogatory answer's listing of the canopy vegetation in the wetland area. In testimony at final hearing, Shuey acknowledged that the interrogatory answer's listing of the canopy vegetation in the wetland area was in error in giving laurel oak as the common name of Quercus laurifolia; he testified that he meant to list swamp bay as the common name for that species. Actually, Quercus laurifolia is an incorrect scientific name; swamp bay is one of the common names for the facultative wetland species, Quercus laurifolia Michauxii. (Another common name for that species is swamp chestnut oak.) Perhaps misled by Shuey's errors, Petitioner also erred in contending that swamp laurel oak cannot be used as either an obligate or a facultative wetland species under test (b) because Quercus laurifolia is not listed under Rule 62-340.450. Quercus laurifolia is not listed, but Quercus laurifolia Michauxii is. In addition to the confusion in naming the different oak species, it also is not clear from the evidence whether the oaks considered by Shuey in estimating canopy cover percentages were laurifolia Michauxii or hemisphaerica. Shown photographs of a number of oak trees on the property, Shuey was unable to identify the species with any certainty. As previously indicated, it was not clear that Shuey testified to a canopy cover percentage for the delineated wetlands area as a whole (as opposed to just the forested portion). But Shuey clearly conceded that, if the trees he identified as laurifolia Michauxii were actually hemisphaerica, the percentage of obligate and facultative wetland species in the canopy of the delineated wetlands area as a whole would be less than 80 percent. As reflected in previous findings, DEP's interrogatory answer was the first mention of lizard's tail being on the property. No lizard's tail or cinnamon fern was evident in any of the photographs placed in evidence by Petitioner. But these photographs were taken by Petitioner in February 2001, well after DEP's site visits; and the evidence was that Petitioner now regularly mows the area upland of the line of bay trees on his property. Even if any lizard's tails or cinnamon ferns were there at the time of the photographs, it is not clear whether the photographs would have been taken close enough or with the necessary resolution to detect these plants, depending on their growth stage. As previously indicated, it appears that in applying test (b) Shuey may have estimated canopy coverage based on recently-cut stumps; he also may have "dropped strata" in places where canopy trees had been cut or were nonexistent so as to estimate cover percentages for lower strata. In places where all vegetation was removed and mowed, it appeared that he relied on soil characteristics. Shuey's testimony at final hearing appears to have been the first explicit notice to Petitioner that DEP also applied test (d) of Rule 62-340.300(2) to delineate the wetlands on Petitioner's property (although it is possible to glean from a fair reading of the interrogatory answers that DEP was not only relying on test (b)). Although Shuey's testimony was not clear, it appears that he may have used test (b) for the part of the wetlands closer to the river and test (d) for the part landward of the line of bay trees. It appears that the indicators DEP variously referred to as vegetated or fern tussocks or hummocks and relied on under test (d) were essentially thick root mats. Like elevated patches of soil that allow plants to grow in places frequently inundated or saturated, these elevated root mats similarly allow plants to survive those conditions. It was not clear from the evidence exactly where Shuey saw these vegetated or fern tussocks and hummocks. Shuey conceded that they did not exist throughout the area DEP delineated as jurisdictional wetlands on Petitioner's property. Neither Shuey, Meinecke, or Rosenblatt took any pictures to verify where these indicators were on the property or even specifically noted or reported exactly where they were found. Although Shuey maintained that some of these indicators were seen landward of the line of bay trees on the property, it is not clear from the evidence whether they actually were found on that part of the property. Shuey testified at final hearing that, contrary to the interrogatory answers, he did not use the 1972 topographic map or any aerial photography in delineating jurisdictional wetlands on Petitioner's property and did not see how they would be useful in this wetlands delineation. He thought their only usefulness in connection with this case might have been to determine whether any wetland vegetation had been removed. DEP also re-called William Vorstadt on the subject of DEP's jurisdictional wetlands delineation on Petitioner's property. Vorstadt visited the site twice, the second time in January 2002, and concurred with Shuey's jurisdictional boundary line. Vorstadt took two sample soil borings, one between the boundary line and the line of bay trees and another landward of the boundary line. Both samples revealed wet, hydric soils which Vorstadt considered to be hydrologic indicators of inundation. At the time of Vorstadt's visits, the area between the line of bay trees and the boundary lined had been well-mowed in the vicinity of the flags Shuey placed on the property. Vorstadt was unable to determine much about the vegetation that might have been there; nor could he determine much about vegetation that might have been there in the past. There was no evidence that any holes were dug at any time by any DEP personnel to establish the level of the water table on Petitioner's property. There was no evidence to establish the seasonal high water table on the property. Petitioner contended that development on lots upriver and downriver from Petitioner's property altered the hydrology on Petitioner's property so that hydric soils can no longer form or be sustained, and wetland vegetation adapted for life in saturated soils no longer can be supported there. But, except with respect to narrow strips of land along the boundary lines between Petitioner's property and the adjoining lots upriver and downriver, there was no evidence whatsoever to prove Petitioner's contention in this regard. (In addition, the evidence was clear that there are at least some jurisdictional wetlands on Petitioner's property.) It appeared from photographs introduced into evidence by Petitioner that relatively narrow strips of land along the boundary lines between Petitioner's property and the adjoining lots upriver and downriver are higher than the rest of Petitioner's property, giving the impression of ridges along the property boundary lines, especially the upriver boundary line. These ridges approximately coincide with the land upriver of the seventh flag and downriver of the first flag placed on the property during DEP's informal wetlands delineations. Petitioner suggested that these ridges were formed when the neighboring property owners filled their lots as part of development and that fill material spilled over onto the property Petitioner purchased. Shuey agreed in testimony that, if the ridges were the result of fill that altered the character of the land, so as to no longer be periodically inundated and saturated, and no longer support wetland plant species, the land no longer would be considered jurisdictional wetlands. However, while it appears that the upriver ridge may well have been part of a berm along that boundary line, there was no proof as to how the smaller apparent ridge on the downriver side came to be. In addition, it was not clear from the evidence whether the ridges should be included in the jurisdictional wetlands on Petitioner's property. Petitioner attempted to utilize various aerial photographs to establish that his property had no jurisdictional wetlands because they showed only evergreen trees. But the only witness who spoke to the aerials was Shuey; and, while acknowledging his inability to discern wetlands from the aerials, Shuey refused to agree that the aerials showed only evergreen trees or that they showed only non-wetlands on Petitioner's property. Besides, as previously found, it was clear that there are at least some jurisdictional wetlands on Petitioner's property. Shuey testified persuasively that the aerials are of little or no use in determining where to draw the line between jurisdictional wetlands and uplands on Petitioner's property. Petitioner introduced in evidence several exhibits to establish that in late 1993 the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) delineated jurisdictional wetlands on the adjacent lot upriver from Petitioner's (the Thurman lot) and on a lot four lots downriver from Petitioner's property (the Grant lot). Petitioner contended that the landward extent of those wetlands delineations "approximated Control Elevation A, the top of the bank of the river which approximates the 31 foot contour line known as Control Elevation A the 10 year flood line." But the exhibits themselves are considered insufficient to prove all of Petitioner's contentions, and Petitioner introduced no other testimony or evidence to explain those wetlands delineations (except the testimony of Shuey, who refused to agree with all of Petitioner's contentions). It is not even clear from the evidence exactly where Control Elevation A, the 31-foot contour line, and 32-foot contour line are in relation to DEP's jurisdictional wetlands boundary on Petitioner's property. In addition, the relevance of the Grant wetlands delineation four lots downriver is questionable; it seems quite possible that site-specific conditions of Petitioner's property, which is at the center of the inside of a bend in the river, would result in a different wetlands delineation. As for the Thurman lot, it appears from some of the exhibits that Petitioner's property (at least on the upriver side of the lot) is lower than the Thurman lot; and the apparent 31-foot contour line sweeps significantly farther landward as it approaches and enters Petitioner's property. It seems that this might explain why wetlands on Petitioner's lot could be larger than those on the Thurman lot. At best, these exhibits raised suspicions that SWFWMD might have approved a wetlands jurisdictional boundary that approximated Control Elevation A (approximately the 31-foot contour line); if so, it also is possible that those delineations were done in error, or that the wetlands delineation methodology used by SWFWMD in 1993 was somewhat different from the current methodology codified in statute and rule, or both.5 Petitioner also introduced numerous exhibits relating to the construction of the canoe launch ramp, boathouse, and observation deck facilities at Rainbow Springs State Park near the river's head. Given the greater distance from Petitioner's property, these exhibits are even less relevant than the exhibits relating to the Grant lot. As Shuey testified, wetlands jurisdictional delineations are site-specific. In addition, like the Grant and Thurman lot exhibits, the State Park exhibits themselves are considered insufficient to prove all of Petitioner's contentions, and Petitioner introduced no other testimony or evidence to explain them (except the testimony of DEP witnesses, who refused to agree with all of Petitioner's contentions). At best, these exhibits raised suspicions that SWFWMD might have approved a wetlands jurisdictional boundary at the State Park that approximated either the shoreline or Control Elevation A (approximately the 31-foot contour line) and that DEP's facilities at the State Park might have been built in part on jurisdictional wetlands. Similarly, Petitioner introduced several generalized topographic and soils maps intended to prove that there are no wetlands on Petitioner's property, or perhaps that Petitioner's property is identical to the Grant and Thurman lots and the State Park property. But these generalized maps were insufficient to prove Petitioner's contentions. The maps themselves are considered insufficient to prove all of Petitioner's contentions, and Petitioner introduced no other testimony or evidence to explain them (except the testimony of Shuey, who refused to agree with all of Petitioner's contentions). Petitioner contended that DEP used one of the topographic maps to support a favorable wetlands delineation in its application to SWFWMD for a permit for the facilities at the State Park. But it actually appears that the map was only used as a location map. Proposed Single-Family Dock Neither party introduced into evidence either Petitioner's consolidated ERP/consent of use application or DEP's RAI. As a result, it cannot be determined from the evidence precisely what Petitioner has proposed or what additional documentation DEP requested. No cross-sections or plan views of the proposed project were in evidence. The only document submitted into evidence by Petitioner to illustrate his proposed dock structure was a partial copy of Petitioner's correspondence to DEP dated May 21, 2001. The letter referred to four attached drawings, but only one was attached to Petitioner's Exhibit 3B. The drawing included in the exhibit was not drawn "to-scale." In addition, it is unclear from the drawing whether the 160 square foot "terminal platform" included the four-foot walkway adjacent to the platform. As Petitioner suggested, the square footage of the terminal platform could be clarified in a final order. A more serious matter is the dock alignment. When the proposed dock is superimposed on DEP's drawing showing the existing knot grass beds adjacent to Petitioner's property, the proposed dock appears to cross and terminate over an area that is either an RPA 1 (knot grass beds "of the highest quality and condition for that area") or an RPA 2 (an area where the knot grass is "in transition with either declining resource protection area 1 resources or new pioneering resources within resource protection area 3"). See Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.003(54)-(55) for definitions of RPA 1 and RPA 2. Petitioner contended that his proposed dock alignment actually crosses and terminates over an area "characterized by the absence of any significant natural resource attributes" so as to be neither an RPA 1 nor an RPA 2, but rather an RPA 3. See Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.003(56) for definition of RPA 3. There was evidence of some hydrilla (an aquatic plant not considered "significant" but rather a harmful, invasive, exotic nuisance plant) in the vicinity of his proposed dock alignment between the water's edge and the knot grass beds, but Petitioner's evidence did not prove that the knot grass in the vicinity of Petitioner's proposed dock alignment is not continuous--i.e., that there is a clear path or channel between two separate beds of knot grass; to the contrary, the evidence was that the knot grass bed in the river adjacent to Petitioner's property is one continuous bed, mostly RPA 1 and some RPA 2. In addition, the evidence was that at least some of the area of declining knot grass in the vicinity of Petitioner's proposed dock alignment was thicker, more vigorous, and of better quality in the not-too-distant past. It is not clear from the evidence when it was thinned out. In addition, citing Joint Prehearing Statement of Undisputed Facts 29 and 30, Petitioner contended that his dock application fell victim to an invalid DEP policy that all resources in an aquatic preserve are "significant" so as to be either RPA 1 or RPA 2. The evidence failed to prove that DEP has such a policy. Indeed, Joint Prehearing Statement of Undisputed Facts 29 and 30 are to the contrary. While there may be room for Petitioner to quarrel with the interpretation of the RPA 1 and RPA 2 definitions given by one of DEP's witnesses (Pete Slezinski, who thought that any area having native vegetation or animals would be either an RPA 1 or RPA 2), Petitioner did not dispute that knot grass beds have "significant natural resource attributes" so as to qualify as RPA 1 or RPA 2. Petitioner also contended that he was singled out for denial of his proposed dock--i.e., that his would be the first and only dock on the Rainbow River to be denied a permit. Other than some aerial photographs indicating that a neighbor's dock may terminate in the vicinity of a spring head, Petitioner introduced no evidence whatsoever about the circumstances of any dock on the river except for DEP canoe launch ramp, boathouse, and observation deck facilities at the Rainbow Springs State Park near the head of the Rainbow River. The aerial photographs were inconclusive as to how close the neighbor's dock was to the spring head. There also was no evidence as to whether the neighbor's dock was permitted under the DEP rules now in effect or, if so, any particulars of the neighbor's dock application. Petitioner introduced a great deal of evidence concerning the DEP facilities at the State Park upriver. There were numerous photographs, some before construction of the facilities and many more during and after construction. There also was testimony from Slezinski, who had raised questions about initial plans for construction of the facilities. But Slezinski testified to his understanding that steps were taken in response to his concerns so as not to place facilities over any RPA 1 or RPA 2. Viewing the photographs, he was unable to conclude, and it is not clear, that any facilities were in fact placed over any RPA 1 or RPA 2 at the State Park. Petitioner also contended that DEP's denial of his dock application is a punitive measure, not supported by the facts, to deny him water access to his property. As evidence, Petitioner cited DEP's preliminary evaluation contained in its letter dated May 9, 2001, which cited some general requirements for docks in an aquatic preserve but did not specify any of the special requirements for docks over RPA 1 and RPA 2. But the preliminary evaluation contained a proposed dock alignment obviously intended to avoid RPA 1 and RPA 2 to the extent possible. The preliminary evaluation suggested that DEP would grant a modified application (minus mooring piling) in the proposed alignment meeting all of the general requirements. Petitioner attempted to modify his application by letter dated May 21, 2001, to address the general requirements cited in the preliminary evaluation, but he declined DEP's suggested dock alignment. As a result, in considering the modified application, DEP was constrained to apply the special requirements for docks in an RPA 1 or RPA 2. Contrary to Petitioner's contentions, these actions by DEP did not prove any intent to punish Petitioner. Finally, Petitioner contended that certain special rules for docks over RPA 1 or RPA 2--namely, those requiring minimum spacing between deck planks and requiring decking to be elevated--should not be applied because the knot grass in the river adjacent to Petitioner's property is "emergent," i.e., it grows from the bottom to and above the surface of the river and, Petitioner contends, "does not need the same concessions to assure . . . light penetration for the continued survival of the plants." Besides being essentially a rule challenge, a matter addressed in the Conclusions of Law, Petitioner introduced no evidence of the facts he alleges in support of his contention. To the contrary, Petitioner called Slezinski on the subject, and Slezinski attempted to explain that, while knot grass is "emergent," much of the plant is below the water surface and provides the functions of submerged aquatic vegetation. It would follow, and Petitioner put on no evidence to disprove, that knot grass also would have some of the needs of submerged aquatic vegetation for light penetration.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP a final order denying Petitioner's application for an ERP and Sovereign Lands Consent of Use for his proposed single-family dock and declining to rule on the jurisdictional wetlands delineation issue for lack of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is reserved for ten days to rule on the pending motions, if necessary. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 2002.
The Issue The issue is whether the District should approve Environmental Resource Permit No. 43024788.002 for the construction of a surface water management system to serve the proposed residential subdivision on Westfield’s property in southern Pasco County, and based upon the prior litigation between the parties in DOAH Case No. 04-0003 and the pre-hearing rulings in this case, the issue turns on whether Westfield has provided “reasonable assurances” in relation to the proposed development's potential impacts on Wetland A3 and fish and wildlife.
Findings Of Fact Parties Dr. Blanco is a veterinarian. He grew up on, and has some sort of ownership interest in the property (hereafter “the Blanco property”) immediately to the west of the property on which the proposed development at issue in this case will occur. Dr. Blanco is particularly concerned about the impacts of the proposed development on the ecological health of Wetland A3, a significant portion of which is on the Blanco property. He has spent considerable time over the years observing and enjoying that wetland. Westfield is the applicant for the ERP at issue in this case, and it owns the property (hereafter “the Westfield property”) on which the development authorized by the ERP will occur. The District is the administrative agency responsible for the conservation, protection, management, and control of the water resources within its geographic boundaries pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40D. Among other things, the District is responsible for reviewing and taking final agency action on ERP applications for projects within its boundaries. The District includes all or part of 16 counties in southwest Florida, including Pasco County. The Proposed Development (1) Generally The Westfield property consists of 266.36 acres.3 It is located in southern Pasco County on the north side of State Road 54, approximately three miles west of U.S. Highway 41 and less than one-half mile east of the intersection of State Road 54 and the Suncoast Parkway. The Westfield property is bordered on the south by State Road 54,4 on the north by an abandoned railroad right-of- way and undeveloped woodland property, on the east by pastureland and property that has been cleared for development, and on the west by the Blanco property. The development proposed for the Westfield property is a residential subdivision with 437 single-family lots and related infrastructure (hereafter “the Project” or “the proposed development”). The ERP at issue in this proceeding is for the surface water management system necessary to serve the Project. There are 19 isolated and contiguous wetlands on the Westfield property, including Wetland A3, which is partially on the Westfield property and partially on the Blanco property. Wetlands cover 72.69 acres (or 27.3 percent) of the Westfield property. The proposed development will result in 1.61 acres of the existing wetlands -- Wetlands B4 and C4, and a portion of Wetland B12 -- being permanently destroyed. The remaining 71.08 acres of existing wetlands will be preserved. Wetlands B4 and C4 are small (each less than 0.75 acres), shallow, wet depressions in a pasture that have been significantly impacted by livestock grazing and periodic mowing. Wetland B12 is a low-quality, small (0.58 acres), isolated, forested wetland that has been impacted by livestock grazing and the intrusion of exotic species. The proposed development will create 2.89 acres of new wetlands, which means that the Project will result in a net gain of 1.28 acres of wetlands. The created wetlands, referred to as Wetland B2 or the “mitigation area,” are in the northern portion of the property along the abandoned railroad right-of-way and to the east of Wetland A3. The proposed ERP includes a number of special conditions, Nos. 6 through 11, related to the mitigation area. Among other things, the conditions require monitoring of the mitigation area to ensure that it develops into the type of forested wetland proposed in the ERP application. (2) Prior ERP Application The ERP at issue in this case is the second ERP sought by Westfield for the Project. The first ERP, No. 43024788.000, was ultimately denied by the District through the Final Order in Blanco-I. Blanco-I, like this case, was initiated by Dr. Blanco in response to the District’s preliminary approval of Westfield’s ERP application. Administrative Law Judge David Maloney held a three- day final hearing in Blanco-I at which the parties, through counsel, fully litigated the issue of whether Westfield satisfied the regulatory criteria for the issuance of an ERP for the proposed development. On December 17, 2004, Judge Maloney issued a comprehensive, 64-page Recommended Order in which he recommended that Westfield’s ERP application be denied. Judge Maloney determined in his Recommended Order that Westfield failed to provide reasonable assurances as required by the applicable statutes and rules because “[1] it omitted an adequate wildlife survey from the submission of information to the District and [2] it failed to account for seepage from Pond P11 and its effect on Wetland A3 and the Cypress-forested Wetland.”5 In all other respects, Judge Maloney determined that the applicable permit requirements had been satisfied. Dr. Blanco did not file any exceptions to the Recommended Order in Blanco-I. Westfield’s exceptions to the Recommended Order in Blanco-I were rejected by the District, and the Recommended Order was adopted “in its entirety” in the District’s Final Order. The Final Order in Blanco-I was rendered on January 27, 2005, and was not appealed. (3) Current ERP Application On April 29, 2005, approximately three months after the Final Order in Blanco-I, Westfield submitted a new ERP application for the Project. The current ERP application, No. 43024788.002, is identical to the application at issue in Blanco-I, except that the depth of Pond P11 was reduced in certain areas from a maximum of approximately 25 feet to a maximum of approximately 12 feet, an analysis of the potential impact of Pond P11 on Wetland A3 resulting from “seepage” was included with the application, and additional wildlife surveys were included with the application. On July 29, 2005, the District gave notice of its preliminarily approval of the current ERP application. The notice was accompanied by a proposed ERP, which contained a description of the Project as well as the general and special conditions imposed by the District. On August 24, 2005, Dr. Blanco timely challenged the District’s preliminary approval of the current ERP application. The Request for Administrative Hearing filed by Dr. Blanco in this case is identical to the request that he filed in Blanco-I. Disputed Issues Related to the Current ERP Application Impact of Pond P11 on Wetland A3 Dr. Blanco’s primary objection to the Project is the excavation of Pond P11 adjacent to Wetland A3. Wetland A3 is on the western border of the Westfield property and, as noted above, the wetland extends onto the Blanco property. The portion of Wetland A3 that is on the Westfield property is approximately 30 acres, and the portion of the wetland on the Blanco property appears to be slightly larger. Wetland A3 is a large, mature, Cypress-forested wetland. It has been impacted by nearby development and is not a pristine wetland, but it is still a mid to high quality wetland for the area.6 Wetland A3 is part of a larger wetland system that extends northward and westward beyond the abandoned railroad right-of-way that serves as the northern boundary of the Westfield and Blanco properties. Cypress-forested wetlands, such as Wetland A3, are very tolerant of prolonged periods of drought and inundation. The seasonal high groundwater level in Wetland A3 is approximately one foot below the surface in most areas of the wetland. There are, however, areas in Wetland A3 in which water is frequently a foot or two above the surface. The groundwater levels in Wetland A3 have, in the past, been significantly impacted by drawdowns in the aquifer caused by pumping in nearby wellfields. The impact has been less significant in recent years as a result of the reductions in pumping mandated by the Tampa Bay Consolidated Water Use Permit. The planned interconnection of several nearby wellfields is also expected to minimize the drawdowns in the aquifer and should further stabilize the groundwater levels in Wetland A3. Pond P11 will be located adjacent to Wetland A3. There will be a 25-foot buffer between the pond and the wetland. The location of Pond P11 is unchanged from the first ERP application. Pond P11 will have a surface area of approximately 37 acres. The surface area of Pond P11 is unchanged from the first ERP application. Pond P11 is a necessary component of the surface water management system for the Project. It also serves as a “borrow pit” because the soil excavated from the pond will be used on- site as fill for the proposed development. The excavation of Pond P11 to the depth proposed in the current ERP application is not necessary for water storage. The pond could be excavated to the seasonal high water level -- approximately 2.5 feet deep -- and still function as intended as part of the proposed surface water management system. Pond P11 will be used for attenuation, but the pond is also expected to provide at least some amount of water quality treatment, which is an added benefit to Wetland A3 into which the proposed surface water management system will ultimately discharge through Pond P11. The only change made to Pond P11 between the first and current ERP applications was a reduction in the pond’s maximum depth. The pond, which had a maximum depth of approximately 25 feet in the first ERP application, was “shallowed up” in the current ERP application. Pond P11 will now be approximately 12-feet deep at its deepest point, unless the District authorizes excavation to a greater depth in accordance with special condition No. 28. The shallowest area of Pond P11 will be along the western edge of the pond adjacent to Wetland A3 where there will be an expansive “littoral shelf” that will have almost no slope and that will be excavated only to the seasonal high water level.7 There was no change in the design of the surface water management system between the first ERP application and the current ERP application. The reduction in the depth of Pond P11 will have no impact on the operation of the system, which was described in detail in Blanco-I.8 Pond P11 will have a control structure to allow water to be discharged into Wetland A3 near its southern end, which is a more upstream location than water is currently discharged as a result of the ditches that intercept surface water flowing across the Westfield property. This design feature of the surface water management system is intended to mimic historic hydrologic conditions and is expected to increase the hydration of Wetland A3. The ERP includes a special condition, No. 28, relating to the excavation of Pond P11. The condition provides: Maximum depth of excavation will be +38 feet NGVD[9] unless additional field observations and data are provided that support excavation to greater depth, subject to review and approval by District staff. Proposed maximum depths of excavation . . . may be exceeded based upon field observations and approval as specified. Due to the potentially irregular depths to limestone, excavation will be stopped at a shallower depth if confining soils are encountered before reaching the maximum depth specified in Subcondition A, above. A geotechnical field technician will be present on site during the entire excavation process in order to monitor excavated soils. The field technician will be under the supervision of a Professional Geologist or Professional Engineer. For the purposes of the specific project, confining soils are defined as soils with more then 20 percent fines passing a No. 200 sieve. The field technician will be authorized to halt depth of excavation when confining soils are encountered. Excavation may proceed deeper than soils containing 20 percent or more fines if the soils are shown to be an isolated lens of material significantly above underlying confining soils or limestone, as determined by field observations and data subject to approval by District staff. Confining soils do not uniformly overlie the limestone; therefore it is possible that the underlying limestone could be encountered in spite of precautions in Subconditions A and B above. If the underlying limestone is encountered, excavation will be halted in the area of exposed underlying limestone. The area of exposed limestone will be backfilled to a minimum depth of two feet with compacted material meeting the specification of confining soils, having more than 20 percent fines passing a No. 200 sieve. The geotechnical field technician must certify that the backfill material meets this specification. One of the reasons that the ERP application was denied in Blanco-I was that Westfield failed to take into account the potential hydrologic impacts on Wetland A3 caused by “seepage” of water from Pond P11 due to the depth to which the pond was to be excavated and the corresponding removal of the confining layer of soils between the bottom of the pond and the aquifer. After Blanco-I, Westfield retained Marty Sullivan, a professional engineer and an expert in geotechnical engineering and groundwater and surface water modeling, to evaluate the seepage issue and the potential hydrologic impacts of Pond P11 on Wetland A3. Mr. Sullivan developed an integrated or “coupled” groundwater/surface water model to assess these issues. The model was designed to project the change in groundwater levels caused by the proposed development more so than absolute groundwater levels. The model utilized a widely-accepted computer program and incorporated data from topographic and soil survey information maintained by the U.S. Geologic Service; data from soil borings performed on the Westfield property in the vicinity of Wetland A3 in the area where Pond P11 will be located; data from groundwater monitoring wells and piezometers installed around the Westfield property; data from soil permeability tests performed on-site and in the laboratory; data from a rain gauge installed on the Westfield property; and data from the District’s groundwater monitoring wells in the vicinity of the Westfield property. Mr. Sullivan “calibrated” the model based upon known pre-development conditions. He then “ran” the model with the data from the Interconnected Pond Routing (ICPR) model10 used to design of the surface water management system in order to project the post-development groundwater conditions over a simulated ten-year period. Mr. Sullivan’s coupled groundwater/surface water model addresses the shortcoming of the ICPR model set forth in Blanco- I.11 The model projects that the post-development groundwater levels at the western boundary of the Westfield property in Wetland A3 adjacent to Pond P11 will be the same as the pre-development levels during the “wet season” of June to September, and that, on average and during the “dry season” of October to May, the post-development groundwater levels will be 0.3 feet higher than the pre-development levels. Mr. Sullivan summarized his conclusions based upon these projections in a report provided to the District with the current ERP application. The report states that: no adverse hydrologic effects will result from the excavation of Pond P11 and the development of the surrounding area. Particularly, Wetland A3 will be essentially unaffected and will be slightly enhanced by this development. Some additional hydration of wetland A3 will occur due to eliminating the north-south drainage ditch and instead routing runoff to Pond P11, which is adjacent to Wetland A3. The relative differences in the pre- and post- development levels are more important than the absolute levels projected by the model and, in this case, there is almost no difference in the levels. The minimal change in the water levels expected in Wetland A3 will not affect the wetland’s ecological functioning or its viability. A 0.3-foot change in the water level is well within the normal range of hydroperiod fluctuation for Wetland A3. The rate at which water increases and decreases in a wetland can impact wetland ecology and wetland-dependent species. The proposed surface water management system will not increase the surface water discharges from the Westfield property, and in compliance with Section 4.2 of the Basis of Review (BOR),12 the post-development discharge rates will not exceed the pre-development peak discharge rates. There is no credible evidence that there will be an adverse impact on Wetland A3 caused by changes in the discharge rate from the Westfield property through Pond P11 into Wetland A3. The range of error, if any, in Mr. Sullivan’s model is unknown. He has never performed a post-development review to determine how accurately the model predicts the post-development conditions that are actually observed. Nevertheless, the more persuasive evidence establishes that Mr. Sullivan’s model is reasonable, as are his ultimate conclusions based upon the model’s projections. Mr. Sullivan recommended in his report that Pond P11 be excavated no deeper than two feet above the limestone to avoid potential breaches of the confining soils above the aquifer. That recommendation led to the pond being “shallowed up,” and it was incorporated by the District into special condition No. 28. The provisions of special condition No. 28 are reasonable to ensure that excavation of Pond P11 will not breach the confining layer. The standards in special condition No. 28 pursuant to which a geotechnical field technician will monitor the excavation of Pond P11, and pursuant to which the District will determine whether to authorize deeper excavation of the pond, are generally accepted and can be adequately monitored by professionals in the field and the District. There is a potential for the loss of “significant volumes of water” from Pond P11 through evaporation “[d]ue to the sheer size of P11’s open surface area.”13 It is not entirely clear how the evaporation of water from Pond P11 was taken into account in Mr. Sullivan’s model, but it appears to have been considered.14 Dr. Mark Rains, Petitioner’s expert in hydrogeology, ecohydrology, and geomorphology, testified that evaporation from open water is generally about 12 inches more per year than evaporation from a wet meadow or Cypress forest, but he did not offer any specific criticism of the projections in Mr. Sullivan’s model related to the issue of evaporation. In sum, the more persuasive evidence establishes that Wetland A3 is not likely to suffer any adverse ecological or hydrological impacts from the proposed surface water management system and, more particularly, from Pond P11. Westfield has provided reasonable assurances in that regard. (2) Adequacy of the Wildlife Surveys The other reason why the first ERP application for the Project was denied in Blanco-I was that the wildlife surveys submitted with that application were found to be inadequate. Wildlife surveys are not required with every ERP application and, in that regard, Section 3.2.2 of the BOR provides that: [t]he need for a wildlife survey will depend on the likelihood that the site is used by listed species, considering site characteristics and the range and habitat needs of such species, and whether the proposed system will impact that use such that the criteria in subsection 3.2.2 through 3.2.2.3 and subsection 3.2.7 will not be met. Westfield conducted a “preliminary” wildlife assessment in 2001. No listed species were observed, nor was any evidence of their presence on the Westfield property. Nevertheless, as detailed in Blanco-I,15 the District requested that Westfield perform a wildlife survey of Wetlands B4, C4, and B12, because all or part of those wetlands will be permanently destroyed by the proposed development. In an effort to comply with the District’s requests, Westfield conducted additional field visits in 2003 and also performed specific surveys for Southeastern Kestrels and Gopher Tortoises. The field visits “confirmed” the findings from the preliminary wildlife assessment, and no evidence of Southeastern Kestrels and Gopher Tortoises was observed during the surveys for those species. Judge Maloney found in Blanco-I that the wildlife surveys conducted by Westfield were inadequate because they “did not employ the methodology recommended by the District: the FWCC methodology.”16 However, the wildlife surveys were not found to be inadequate in Blanco-I because they focused on Wetlands B4, C4, and B12, instead of evaluating the entire Westfield property and/or all of the potentially impacted wetlands, including Wetland A3. After Blanco-I, a team of qualified professionals led by Brian Skidmore, an expert in wetlands, Florida wetlands ecology, and listed species assessment, conducted additional wildlife surveys of the Westfield property. Mr. Skidmore and his team had performed the preliminary wildlife assessment and the supplemental surveys submitted with Westfield’s first ERP application. The “FWCC methodology” referenced in Blanco-I is a methodology developed by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) to evaluate potential impacts to listed species from large-scale projects, such as developments-of- regional impact and new highways. It is not specifically designed for use in the ERP process, which focuses only on wetland-dependent species. Mr. Skidmore adapted the FWCC methodology for use in the ERP process. The methodology used by Mr. Skidmore was reviewed and accepted by the District’s environmental regulation manager, Leonard Bartos, who is an expert in wetland ecology and ERP rules. The surveys performed by Mr. Skidmore and his team of professionals occurred over a five-day period in February 2005. The surveys focused on Wetlands B4, C4, and B12, and were performed at dawn and dusk when wildlife is typically most active. Additional wildlife surveys of the entire site were performed on five separate days between October 2005 and January 2006. Those surveys were also performed at dawn and dusk, and they included observations along the perimeter of Wetland A3 and into portions of the interior of that wetland on the Westfield property. Mr. Skidmore reviewed databases maintained by FWCC to determine whether there are any documented waterbird colonies or Bald Eagle nests in the vicinity of the Project. There are none. Mr. Skidmore contacted the Florida Natural Area Inventory to determine whether there are any documented rare plant or animal species on the Westfield property or in the vicinity of the Project. There are none. The post-Blanco-I wildlife surveys did not evaluate the usage of the Westfield property by listed species during the wetter spring and summer months of March through October even though, as Mr. Skidmore acknowledged in his testimony, it is possible that different species may use the property during the wet season. The post-Blanco-I wildlife surveys, like the original wildlife surveys, focused primarily on the species contained in Appendix 5 to the BOR -- i.e., wetland-dependent species that use uplands for nesting, foraging, or denning -- but Mr. Skidmore testified that he and his surveyors “were observant for any species,” including wetland-dependent species that do not utilize uplands. No listed wetland-dependent species were observed nesting or denning on the Westfield property. Several listed wetland-dependent birds -- i.e., snowy egret, sandhill crane, wood stork, and white ibis -- were observed foraging and/or resting on the property. Those birds were not observed in Wetlands B4, C4, or B12. The parties stipulated at the final hearing that the determination as to whether Westfield provided reasonable assurances with respect to the statutory and rule criteria related to fish and wildlife turns on whether the wildlife surveys submitted by Westfield are adequate.17 BOR Section 3.2.2 provides that “[s]urvey methodologies employed to inventory the site must provide reasonable assurance regarding the presence or absence of the subject listed species.” The wildlife surveys conducted by Westfield subsequent to Blanco-I in accordance with the FWCC methodology meet this standard. Although the surveys could have been more extensive in terms of the species assessed and the period of time over which they were conducted, the more persuasive evidence establishes that the wildlife surveys are adequate to document the presence or, more accurately the absence of listed wetland- dependent species on the Westfield property. The wetlands that will be directly impacted by the proposed development -- Wetlands B4, C4, and B12 -- do not provide suitable habitat for listed species. Those wetlands are small, low-quality wetlands, and Wetland B12 is technically exempt from the District’s fish and wildlife review because it is a small isolated wetland. There is no credible evidence that there will be any other adverse impacts to fish and wildlife from the proposed surface water management system. For example, even if there are undocumented listed species -- e.g., frogs, snakes, snails, etc. -- in Wetland A3, Mr. Skidmore credibly testified that the expected 0.3-foot increase in groundwater levels in that wetland during the dry season is not likely to adversely affect those species or their habitat because the water will still be below the surface. In sum, Westfield has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed development will not adversely affect fish and wildlife.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District issue a final order approving Environmental Resource Permit No. 43024788.002, subject to the general and special conditions set forth in the proposed ERP dated July 29, 2005. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 10th day of April, 2006.
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.
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)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the requested dredge and fill permit and stormwater permits be issued to applicant to construct the northern extension of the Eastern Beltway of the Orlando-Orange County Expressway System in Orange County, Florida. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of September, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 17th day of September, 1986.
