Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing Chapter 253, Florida Statutes on behalf of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board). The Board holds title to submerged sovereign lands pursuant to Sections 253.03 and 253.12, Florida Statutes, and Article X, Section 11, Florida Constitution. Fraraccio, together with his wife, owns a parcel of real property located in section 13, township 38 south, range 41 east which is commonly known as 26 High Point Road and which is located in Martin County, Florida. The southern boundary of the Fraraccio's property (subject property) borders the St. Lucie and Indian Rivers. In June, 1987, Fraraccio filed an application for permission to alter mangroves which grow along the shoreline of the subject property. It was Fraraccio's intention to cut the tops of the trees in order to promote horizontal growth. This application was filed with and processed by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). On September 1, 1987, DER issued a permit for the mangrove alteration. Pertinent to this proceeding is the following specific condition of the Fraraccio permit: 4. "No person shall commence mangrove alteration or other activity involving the use of sovereign or other lands of the state, title to which is vested in the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the Department of Natural Resources under Chapter 253, until such person has received from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund the required lease, license, easement, or other form of consent authorizing the proposed use. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 16Q-14, if such work is done without consent, or if a person otherwise damages state land or products of state land, the Board of Trustees may levy administrative fines of up to $10,000 per offense. In October, 1987, the Department's Bureau of Survey and Mapping was asked to survey the west line of the Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve (Preserve) at the confluence of the St. Lucie River. Terry Wilkinson, chief surveyor for the bureau, conducted the field survey on October 14-16, 1987. Mr. Wilkinson placed a metal rebar with a cap designating "D.N.R." at a point on the mean high water (MHW) line at the Fraraccio's property. Mr. Wilkinson also staked three points with lathe markers on a line northerly along the MHW line from the rebar monument. It was Mr. Wilkinson's opinion that the Preserve abutted the Fraraccio property from the point marked by the rebar monument northward along the coast. That portion of the Fraraccio property which was south and west of the rebar did not abut the Preserve. Fraraccio disputed the findings regarding the Preserve boundary reached by Wilkinson and did not concede that his property abuts the Preserve. On December 15, 1987, the issue of the Preserve boundary was taken before the Governor and Cabinet sitting as the Board at the request of the Department, Division of State Lands. Fraraccio was represented before the Board by counsel who argued against the staff recommendation. Mr. Wilkinson's interpretation of the boundary line for the Preserve was approved. That area waterward of the MHW line from the rebar monument northerly along the Fraraccio shoreline was, therefore, deemed to be part of the Preserve and sovereign submerged land. Prior to cutting any mangrove trees, Fraraccio telephoned Casey Fitzgerald, chief of the Department's Bureau of State Lands Management, to inquire as to whether Department permission was required to trim mangroves located above the MHW line. Fitzgerald's letter advised Fraraccio "that trimming mangroves located above the MHW line would not be within the purview of this department." Fitzgerald further recommended that Fraraccio "employ the services of a registered land surveyor to specifically identify the individual trees which are so located." Fraraccio did not obtain an independent survey. Instead, he relied upon the rebar monument and the lathe markers placed by Wilkinson, and contracted to have the mangroves landward of that line trimmed. One of difficulties encountered in determining the location of a mangrove in relation to the MHW line is the fact that one tree may have several trunks and prop roots which emanate from the center of the tree. Consequently, there is some uncertainty regarding how to locate the tree. One method used locates the centermost trunk and considers that point the tree location. Another method calculates the greatest percentage of tree mass and considers that point the center of the tree. This calculated center is then matched against the MHW line. Either method results in a judgment based upon visual inspection. This judgment may differ among reasonable men. In January, 1988, Fraraccio supervised the cutting of mangroves based upon the MHW line as established by the Wilkinson survey. Fraraccio did not intend to cut trees waterward of the MHW line. No trees were cut waterward of the Wilkinson line. A number of trees were trimmed landward of the Wilkinson line. There is no evidence that either the rebar monument or the lathe markers placed by Wilkinson were moved either prior to or after the mangrove alteration. Fraraccio was responsible for the direct supervision of the workmen who completed the mangrove trim. No work was done without Fraraccio's authorization. On March 22, 1988, Kalani Cairns, inspected the Fraraccio property. Cairns took field notes of the inspection. One of comments made at that time was that it was "difficult to determine if MHWL stakes have been moved." Based upon his review of the area, Cairns determined approximately 20 mangrove trees below the MHW line had been topped. Subsequently, the Department issued the Notice of Violation and Order for corrective action. Since Fraraccio did not believe he had cut waterward of the MHW line, no corrective measures were taken. Subsequent to the Notice, additional mangroves were not cut. Fraraccio timely sought review of the notice. In preparation for the formal hearing in this cause, the Department contracted with Greg Fleming to prepare a survey of a portion of the Fraraccio property. The purpose of this second survey was to locate the MHW line along the Fraraccio shoreline and to plot mangrove trees which had been trimmed and which were waterward of the line. Approximately 24 trimmed mangrove trees were located waterward of the MHW line as determined by the Fleming survey. The Fleming survey resulted in a MHW line which was upland of the line established by the Wilkinson survey. The trimmed trees in dispute are located between the two lines, as marked on the ground, by the lathes placed by the two surveyors. Mr. Wilkinson did not testify and no credible explanation was given for why the lines, as marked in the field, differ. At the time of the cutting, however Fraraccio believed the Wilkinson lathes marked the MHW line. This belief was based upon the representations that the Department had made regarding the rebar monument marked "D.N.R." and the fact that the placement of the lathe stakes had coincided with placement of the rebar.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund enter a final order dismissing the Notice of Violation against Charles A. Fraraccio. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-4309 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 6, it is accepted Wilkinson put down three lathes and that there is no evidence that those lathes were moved. Otherwise, the paragraph is rejected. Mr. Wilkinson did not testify and, therefore, no evidence was presented on the issue of the lathes. It is clear Fraraccio believed the lathes to be the MHW line. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The MHW line was correctly depicted on the ground and on paper by the Fleming survey which was done after-the-fact. Pertinent to this case is the fact that Fraraccio and DNR treated the Wilkinson survey on the ground (as shown by-the rebar and the three lathes) as the MHW line prior to the cutting. Paragraph 9 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 10, the record shows Fleming was contacted to perform the second survey in December, 1988, and that it was dated February, 1989. With that modification and clarification, paragraph 10, in substance, is accepted. Paragraph 11 is accepted to the extent that the two surveys differed on the ground (as opposed to on paper). Paragraphs 12, 13, and 14 accepted but are irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 15, it is accepted that the workmen were instructed not to cut waterward of the MHW line. The remainder is irrelevant to this proceeding. Paragraphs 16 through 18 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 10, it is accepted Fraraccio cut or trimmed the trees based upon the Wilkinson survey as depicted by the rebar and 3 lathe markers. Otherwise, paragraph 19, is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is accepted. Paragraph 21 is rejected as irrelevant to this proceeding. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Department. Paragraphs 1 through 16 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 17 is accepted since both surveys coincided at the point of the rebar marked "D.N.R.;" otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence since the surveys differed as plotted on the ground. Paragraphs 18 and 19 are accepted. Paragraph 20 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 21 is accepted. Paragraph 22 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 23 is rejected as irrelevant. The number of trees cut waterward of the MHW line as established by the Fleming survey was approximately The size of the trees is irrelevant. Paragraph 24 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 25 and 26 are accepted. Paragraph 27 is rejected as irrelevant to this proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: William L. Contole McManus, Wiitala & Contole, P.A. O. Box 14125 North Palm Beach, Florida 33408 Ross S. Burnaman Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Gardner, Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact The City of Cocoa Beach is proposing to maintenance dredge a channel which connects land areas of the City with the open waters of the Banana River in Brevard County, Florida. The channel runs approximately one and three-fourth miles from east to west. Nearest the shore the channel is approximately seven feet deep. As it extends out into the river, the channel has deteriorated to the point where at approximately halfway along its length it is only two feet deep. From that point until the end of the channel in the Banana River, it gets no deeper than three feet. Silt-like material has accumulated in the bottom of the channel. During low-water periods, many boats are completely unable to utilize the channel. Smaller boats which can use the channel are able to do so either because they plane above the channel bottom, or because they plow through the silty material. There are two other channels available for use which have not deteriorated to this extent, and even in low-water periods, boats unable to use the subject channel are not landlocked. The City proposes to remove approximately 9,761 cubic yards of material from the channel, and to deposit it adjacent to the channel in a partially submerged and partially dry area. Several small islands run parallel to the channel. These were created from spoil which resulted from the original construction of the channel. The City proposes to deposit material that it dredges from the channel onto three already existing islands, combining them into one island, which would be approximately 120 feet by 650 feet. The City proposes to contain turbidity which would result from the dredging and depositing operations by placing a turbidity screen around the filled area. The area where the proposed dredging and filling would take place is within an aquatic preserve as specified in the Aquatic Preserve Act, Chapter 258, Florida Statutes. The Banana River has been classified as Class III Waters. There is very little tide in the area of the proposed project, other than wind-driven tide. The islands which would be covered by fill from the channel if the permit is issued as proposed by the City are ringed with mangroves except in those places where erosion has taken place. The submerged areas which would be filled are dominated by aquatic grasses, primarily manatee grass and Cuban shoalweed. The mangroves and sea grasses form a productive area which serves as the base of the food chain in the river. The vegetation also serves to filter and uptake nutrients from the water. The area thus performs important environmental functions in serving as a part of the food chain for fish and other wildlife in the river, and in preserving the water quality of the river through the uptake of nutrients. The area that would be filled would amount to just over three acres. There are approximately 7,000 acres in the subject portion of the Banana River which are similarly dominated by aquatic grasses. While the area is small, it is significant both because it is especially productive, and because there has been considerable development along the shoreline of the Banana River, which puts stress on wildlife and water quality. Placing the fill on the area would obliterate the mangrove and sea grass communities, and would put an end to the significant environmental functions that the area now performs. The sediment that is in the channel and which would be placed on the mangrove and sea grass communities is a fine, silty material. It contains hydrogen sulfide, a toxicant to marine life. The material is presently largely contained within the channel. It is anaerobic, meaning that oxygen is not present in it, and it has an unpleasant smell. If the material is not contained, and it is allowed to spread across the flat sea grass areas, it will have an adverse effect upon the area. Biochemical oxygen demand would be dramatically increased in areas where the material spreads, and violations of the Department's standards for toxic substances would be likely. The City proposes to contain the material by placing a turbidity screen around the filled area. A plastic screen with a chain bottom would be installed around the filled area with stakes holding it in place. Such screens are very effective in containing turbidity under some circumstances. In connection with the instant proposed project, however, it is unlikely that the turbidity screens would be sufficiently effective. In the first place, the screen would be anchored by stakes. Turbidity screens are effective when they are anchored at both ends to upland areas. When they are not so anchored, their efficiency decreases. Furthermore, the material that would be contained in this instance is extremely fine. Turbidity screens are not as effective in containing fine, silty materials as they are with coarser materials. It is likely under the best circumstances that the silty fill would seep under the screen, and through any gaps that might occur. Since the screen would be contained by stakes in an area which is subject to wind-driven tides, it is likely that fissures would occasionally develop in the screen, and that the silty materials would escape from the confined areas. It is therefore likely that violations of the Department's standards for turbidity and for toxic substances would occur outside of the screened area. Since the silty material is a toxicant to marine plant and animal life, the effects of placing the fill in this area would be to measurably degrade water quality beyond the limits of the filled area. The problems inherent in placing the fill along the channel could be avoided by pumping the fill to an upland area. The City has considered this alternative; however, it has been advised that the cost of such pumping activities would increase the cost of the maintenance dredging from approximately $20,000 to in excess of $100,000. The City would not be able to afford the cost of the project under these circumstances. The City has not received any formal estimates for pumping the fill material to an upland area, but has received only an informal estimate that pumping beyond 2,000 feet would dramatically increase the cost. In order to get the material to an upland area, it would need to be pumped at least 8,000 feet.
Findings Of Fact Respondent 360 North Corporation is seeking a permit to fill .05 acre of land dominated by submerged and/or transitional plant species as defined by the DER. The purpose of this fill is to enable Respondent 360 North Corporation to construct a residential building on its property. Respondent 360 North Corporation has proposed to create .15 acre of wetland habitat on its land in the vicinity of the proposed fill area to compensate for whatever detriment may ensue as a result of the .05 acre fill. Respondent 360 North Corporation has produced evidence, uncontroverted at the hearing, that it is the record owner of the real property for which the permit is being sought and of the area in which the proposed mitigation is to be conducted. Respondent 360 North Corporation established by testimony that there was no practical alternative by which the two proposed buildings could be located within the property without requiring significant modification to the buildings' structure or without the use of fill. Credible expert testimony characterized the vegetation within the .05 acre fill area as dominated by black mangroves (Avicennia gerrninans) and white mangroves (Laguncularia racemosa), all of which are less than 2.5 feet in height. The proposed fill activity is to be conducted in wetlands contiguous to Longboat Pass, Sarasota County, Florida, described by the DER as a Natural Class III Water Body. Respondent 360 North Corporation's witness testified that the placement of .05 acre of fill as proposed will have no significant effect upon the water quality in Longboat Pass. Respondent 360 North Corporation submitted a proposal for wetland habitat creation with its modified permit application. This proposal indicates the methodology by which the mangroves from the area to be filled will be transplanted to the mitigation area. It also indicates that the proposed fill will have a gradual slope and will be replanted with wetland herbaceous vegetation to prevent erosion. Testimony by 360 North Corporation's expert witness established that with proper planting and monitoring, the mitigation area would have an 80 percent chance of success barring any unforeseen acts of nature such as an extreme frost or hurricane. In addition, the expert testified that once established the mitigation area will create an environmentally superior habitat to that now existing in the area to be filled and would add to the stability of the shoreline at the north end of Longboat Key. The expert for Respondent 360 North Corporation testified that transplantation should be done in the spring of the year, preferably in March. In addition, he recommended that the trees be removed with a tree spade and replanted on four-foot centers. Additional mangrove plants and seedlings from nursery stock should be planted in the understory on two-foot centers. It was also recommended that a monitoring program be initiated to ensure survival of the trees in the mitigation area. The trees should be monitored at weekly intervals for the first six weeks, decreasing to biweekly intervals for the remaining first year, then at semiannual intervals for two additional years. The parties agreed to resolve this dispute if the requested permit was issued containing conditions requiring planting and restoration as outlined by Respondent 360 North Corporation's expert in his testimony at the hearing and in the proposal submitted to the DER with the modified permit application. Respondent 360 North Corporation agreed to revegetate with wetland vegetation the area disturbed by the use of scaffolding or other equipment employed during construction. Respondent 360 North Corporation additionally agreed to post a bond or other form of financial assurance in the amount of $10,000 with the DER to insure compliance with the conditions of the permit.
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
Findings Of Fact The Intervenors filed an Application for Dredge and Fill Permit with the Department of Environmental Regulation. The Department entered a notice of its intent to issue a permit. Petitioner requested a formal administrative hearing. The Department forwarded the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings, where it was given Case No. 82-3155. A Recommended Order which includes Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law has been entered in Case No. 82-3155. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set out in the Recommended Order are hereby incorporated into this Final Order and constitute a part of this Final Order. The Petitioner is an association of home owners within a residential development known as "Caloosa." Intervenors are seeking to develop an industrial park on land adjacent to the Caloosa development. Surface and ground waters from the proposed industrial park would drain toward Caloosa. Prior to the Department's entry of the notice of intent to issue a permit to Intervenors, the Department's personnel evaluated the application in free-form proceedings. An environmental specialist who works with the Department as a permit processor proposed to deny the application on account of the fact that Intervenors proposed to fill approximately 70 acres of wetlands, 24 of which were within the Department's permitting authority under Rule 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code. The administrator of the Department's Dredge and Fill Permitting Section came to the conclusion that denial of the application could not be justified. He felt that the wetlands to be filled served only marginally to preserve water quality in the area. The Intervenors had proposed to artificially create wetland areas in order to compensate for the loss of filled wetland areas. The program administrator suggested to the permit processor that they negotiate to get the Intervenors to create additional artificial wetlands in order to mitigate against any possible adverse effect from the loss of natural wetland areas. These negotiations occurred, and the Intervenors agreed to increase artificially created wetland areas. The Department of Environmental Regulation does not have a rule which provides that its personnel can engage in negotiations respecting a permit application. Negotiations are, however, an inherent part of a permitting process. The Department does not have any written or unwritten policy whereby it accepts such mitigating factors as artificially created wetlands as justifying the filling of natural wetlands. It does not appear that the Department has any rule or nonrule policy concerning mitigation or trade-offs, and it does not appear that the Department has ever had such a rule or policy. The Department does not have a policy of accepting concessions, trade-offs, or mitigating factors so as to allow an applicant to violate the Department's water quality standards. Since there has been a permitting process, such factors as artificially created wetlands have been considered by the Department in determining whether an application meets the Department's criteria for issuance of a permit. The Department's policy is to consider whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the short-term and long-term effects of proposed activities will not result in violations of water quality standards, as required under Rule 17- 4.28(3), Florida Administrative Code. If an applicant has proposed to construct artificial wetlands, the Department would logically consider it in making determinations about granting the permit. There is no evidence in the record of this proceeding from which it could be concluded that the Department has any unpromulgated "mitigation" policy which has the effect of a rule.
The Issue The issues presented concern the attempt on the part of the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to impose a fine against Ron Harrod (Respondent) for willfully or knowingly damaging or removing products from sovereign lands without the consent of DNR or the State of Florida, Board of Trustees of Internal Improvement Trust Fund. The products spoken to is timber allegedly cut and removed from state-owned lands on November 20, 1985, and April 1, 1986. This purported conduct on the part of the Respondent is said to have violated Section 253.04(2), Florida Statutes (1985), and Rule 16Q- 14.03(2) and (6), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact On September 1, 1985, Blanche Farrow made an agreement with the Respondent which allowed the Respondent as the owner of "Rons Cypress" to cut all the timber on her property. Rons Cypress is a business for cutting cypress slabs. This property is described in the agreement as being located on Highway 48 approximately 1 mile east of Floral City, on both the north and south sides of the road. Further it was stated that the timber contemplated in this arrangement could be found along Daniels Drive. A copy of the statement of agreement between Farrow and the Respondent may be found as Respondent's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. The exact nature of the Farrow property which is the subject of the agreement with the Respondent may be found in a copy of the Warranty Deed pertaining to this property, which has been admitted as DNR Exhibit 4. This property is located in Citrus County, Florida. The extent of the property over which Blanche Farrow and her husband, Chester B. Farrow, hold ownership does not extend into Lake Tsala Apopka, Lake Bradley and Little Lake, lakes adjacent to their property. These lakes constitute part of an historically meandered lake system and are subject to the sovereign rights of the State of Florida. In effect, the State of Florida owns those water bodies. The limitations of the boundaries of the Farrow property are made clear in the Warranty Deed in which certain language describes the boundaries of the property owned by the Farrows as being ". . . to the waters of Lake Tsala Apopka; thence Southerly along the water's edge of said Lake Tsala Apopka . . ." and ". . . to the water's edge of Lake Bradley . . ." Therefore, notwithstanding Respondent's protestations to the contrary and any statement made by Chester B. or Blanche Farrow, the legal description of the property does not convey title to those individuals for the several lakes described, nor create any leasehold interest on the part of the Farrows to the lakes. In pursuit of the agreement with the Farrows, Respondent made arrangements with Jerry Lovett, who is in the lumber business, to cut trees, principally cypress trees. Through this agreement, Lovett would write checks to Blanche Farrow which would be given to her by the Respondent. The Respondent in turn would be able to take the stumps left over from the cutting of cypress trees and use them for slabs in his business of selling cypress tree products. Respondent was to pay Ms. Farrow for the stumps from which he cut slabs. Respondent also took cypress knees in this area for use in his business. Respondent's Composite Exhibit 3 describes payment made by Jerry Lovett to Blanche Farrow for trees removed. On October 14, 1985, $600.00 was paid for cypress trees. On October 28, 1985, $1,275.72 was paid, of which 52.31 tons of cypress at $6.00 a ton was included in that purchase. On November 4, 1985, $551.28 was paid for cypress trees. On November 15, 1985, he paid $131.92 for removal of cypress trees. In this endeavor, Lovett in the person of his work crew had cut and removed cypress trees which belonged to the State of Florida. Respondent cut and removed slabs from the stumps left following Lovett's lumbering operation and took cypress knees as well belonging to the state. Respondent's involvement with the stumps and knees was through activities of a crew working for the Respondent. Neither the Farrows, Lovett nor Respondent had permission to take cypress products from this land belonging to the State of Florida. Lovett, in his activities, had operated under the misapprehension that the Farrows owned the disputed cypress trees that were cut from lands of the sovereign. He was led to believe in his discussions with Blanche Farrow that Respondent would point out the places where the cut could be made. Lovett also understood from his conversation with Ms. Farrow that certain monuments identifying the extent of her ownership could be found on the side of the road near Lakes Tsala Apopka and Bradley, described as cement corners. Lovett never located those monuments in that as he understood the outer bounds of the Farrow ownership, as Ms. Farrow described them, he would not approach those outer limits in his activities. Respondent likewise believed that the Farrows owned the property where the cypress cutting was being done. Nevertheless, Lovett cut and removed cypress trees in Lake Tsala Apopka, Lake Bradley and Little Lake and Respondent took stumps and knees from those lakes owned by the sovereign. Lovett sold the cypress logs which he removed from the area in dispute, to include cypress logs belonging to the State of Florida. Lovett removed less than 300 trees from the site and left some cypress logs at the site. Lovett through his crew was operating at the site of the dispute sometime approximately a week before October 14, 1985, through November 15, 1985. Lovett ceased his activities in the cutting of cypress when instructed to do so by the Respondent who mentioned something to the effect that the local zoning board said that this cutting had to cease. In the course of his operations in the three lakes, Respondent took 693 knees and between 800 and 1,200 cypress slabs. DNR became aware of the activities of Lovett and the Respondent based upon an investigation that was prompted by observations which Linda Sanford made. Linda Sanford is a zoning inspector for Citrus County. She also lives adjacent to Lake Bradley. As she describes it in her testimony, she observed work crews in the water cutting cypress "off and on." Among the people that she identified as being a member of the work crew was a James Gunn, who is an employee of the Respondent. The first time she saw the Respondent's crew was on November 13, 1985, around Daniels Road and Highway 48. Three persons were in the water and a chain saw was being operated. On November 16, 1985, while at home, Ms. Sanford received complaints from some neighbors about saws being operated and observed Respondent's crew again. One other time on a date that Ms. Sanford does not remember, which would have been following the first two occasions of her observations, Ms. Sanford asked the work crew if they had permits for the activities. Ms. Sanford never saw the Respondent's work crew remove any of the cypress materials. On November 20, 1985, Lieutenant Louis Feulner, then a Sergeant for the Florida Marine Patrol, went to the area where cypress trees had been cut by Lovett and cuttings from stumps and cypress knees were being taken by Respondent's work crew. This area was described by Feulner as the Lake Tsala Apopka chain. A copy of his report of the incident may be found as DNR Exhibit 7 admitted into evidence. Feulner was sent to investigate by his superior, Major Brown of the Florida Marine Patrol. Feulner arrived at the scene of the cutting activity around 3:30 in the afternoon and saw three subjects in the water. Those persons were James Gunn and Respondent's two sons. Feulner saw that cypress trees had been cut down on the site and some were located in the water. He observed stumps in the water as well. These observations were made of cypress products in knee- deep water. Feulner saw a chain saw being operated by the crew. The cutting that was being done was a slab from a stump. He did not see trees being removed from the site of the cutting. Upon inquiry, Gunn told Feulner that he worked for the Respondent and that the Respondent had gotten permission to cut the cypress trees from Ms. Farrow. Feulner advised Gunn that the activities involved in the cutting violated state law. In fact those activities did involve cutting of property belonging to the State. Major Brown had dispatched Lieutenant Fuelner to the questioned site on November 20, 1985, based upon a request of Gordon Roberts, Assistant Chief of Aquatic Lands for NR. At that time, Roberts was employed in a Division of State Lands, as an administrative assistant involved with investigations and enforcement. He held that position until May 1, 1987. On December 4, 1985, Roberts went to the site and observed that cypress harvesting had taken place in wetlands, in a submerged area. The area he observed was one involving buttress cypress trees. Roberts observed that harvesting was being done in an area below a line which represents the minimum flood plan line, a control line for what is described as the water management division. In conversation which Roberts had with the Respondent following the Feulner visit to the site, Roberts explained to the Respondent that there was some question about whether the cutting was on privately owned land or submerged land belonging to the State. He further advised the Respondent not to cut anymore in that area until a determination could be made about ownership of the property. Roberts wrote to the Respondent on December 13, 1985. A copy of this correspondence may be found as DNR Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. Respondent says he did not receive this correspondence Nonetheless it was sent to the address utilized in noticing of the Respondent of the final hearing in this cause, as attended by the Respondent. The letter mentions concerns of the State on the subject of the belief held by the State that cutting was being done on its property. It went on to say that a survey was going to be conducted to decide where the line of demarcation between the upland owners property and that of the State would occur. The letter states that DNR preferred to have the matter settled amicably but indicated that trees should not be cut where buttressed cypress were found nor any other trees below the ordinary high water line of the lakes in question. It warned Respondent that a fine of $10,000 could be imposed under the provisions of Rule 16Q-14, Florida Administrative Code, for unauthorized removal of the trees and that the fine could be mitigated. Further it was stated voluntary cessation of the tree cutting would be a consideration on the amount of the fine. Finally, the letter stated that the Respondent could contact the State concerning these issues. By activities of Louis Neuman, Senior Forester for DNR, an attempt was made to ascertain the value of cypress trees which were cut in the areas in dispute. Mr. Neuman is qualified to assess the value of the trees cut. A description of his evaluation may be found in DNR Exhibits 12A-C representing the assessment made in Little Lake, Lake Bradley, and Lake Tsala Apopka. This involves a survey of December 18-20, 1985, as made by Mr. Neuman. He found that value involved in the cutting to be $440, $1,364 and $2,948, respectively, for Little Lake, Lake Bradley and Lake Tsala Apopka. These findings were related to Gordon Roberts in a memorandum of February 25, 1986, a copy of which may be found as DNR Exhibit 2 admitted into evidence. His assumption was that 78 trees, 306 trees and 815 trees had been cut within Little Lake, Lake Bradley and Lake Tsala Apopka, respectively. The total amount for cut cypress trees in all three lakes was $4,752, per Mr. Neuman's observations. Comparing his observations to those of the Respondent and Lovett, there is a disparity in valuation; however, it suffices to say that a substantial dollar amount of product was destroyed and removed from sovereign waters. This was an arrangement in which the Respondent was a knowing participant, who profited from the endeavor. In spite of the conciliatory tone of the letter of December 13, 1985, from Roberts to the Respondent, on March 26, 1986, a notice of violation or administrative complaint was brought against the Respondent concerning the observations made on December 4, 1985 and in view of the $4,752 statement of damages on the part of Mr. Neuman. The State sought to collect that amount of money and $2,000 punitive damages. A copy of the March 26, 1986 complaint letter may be found as DNR Exhibit 3 admitted into evidence. That complaint or notice of violation was subsumed in action of July 2, 1986, which forms the basis of the present dispute and for which the Respondent sought timely hearing. In the present complaint, allegations are made concerning observations of November 20, 1985, and the assessment of an administrative fine of $6,752 for what is described as a first offense. There is set forth in the notice of violation a second count or claim of violation pertaining to events of April 1, 1986, in which Respondent is stated to have willfully and knowingly removed products from the same area in which sovereign lands are said to have been involved. For this alleged second offense, DNR sought the imposition of an additional $10,000 fine. The accusations concerning a second offense arise from an investigation performed by Robert Verlato, an officer with the Florida Marine Control, which was conducted on April 1, 1986. He went to the Bradley Lake site where the cutting had been done in the past and observed three individuals at work. These were members of the Respondent's crew, including James Gunn and Respondent's two sons. He saw them operating a chain saw cutting the base of the stump which was approximately two feet in length. Gunn was operating the saw. Verlato told the individuals to stop work and they did. He arrested them for trespassing and removing state property. Respondent then arrived at the scene and indicated that he should be charged if there were any violations, and that the three men were members of his crew under his supervision and control. Verlato also observed other freshly cut stumps than the one which he had seen crew members working on, which stumps were in the same general area. He collected ten of the these fresh-cut stumps and took them as evidence for the criminal court case. Respondent indicates that the activities of April 1, 1986, had to do with the cleanup of this site requested by Ms. Farrow and not for purpose of further removal of cypress products for Respondent's benefit. The facts lead to the conclusion that while the Respondent may have had in mind accommodating Ms. Farrow, he also was accommodating his financial interests as well. This conclusion is supported by Respondent's Exhibit 2 admitted into evidence which was a letter from Ms. Farrow to Respondent on May 19, 1986, after the April 1, 1986, incident in which she asked the Respondent to observe the state's suggestions that no further cutting and hauling be done related to the cypress trees in question. Composite Exhibit 5A-D constitutes photographs of the site related to Lake Tsala Apopka showing where trees have been removed. DNR Common Exhibits 6 and 14 is an aerial photograph which marks the places where the subject cypress trees have been cut in the three lakes. They are shown in red marking. The findings about cutting that was done in Tsala Apopka Lake are not conclusive because the ordinary high water line for Lake Tsala Apopka was not established. This circumstance is discussed in the following paragraph. DNR commissioned an ordinary high water line study to be performed by Douglas A. Thompson, Professional Land Surveyor, registered in the State of Florida, and other states. He is the Assistant Chief of the Bureau of Survey and Mapping for DNR. Other members of his team included Kenneth M. Campbell, Bureau of Geology, and geologist for DNR; Catherine M. Gilbert, Bureau of Aquatic Plants, and botanist for DNR; and Louis A. Neuman of the Bureau of Mine Reclamation, forester. The details of this study are set forth in DNR Exhibit 11 admitted into evidence which is a copy of the ordinary high water lines survey of Bradley Lake and Little Lake. This study established the ordinary high water line elevation for Bradley Lake at 42.75 feet and for Little Lake at 41.75 feet. Areas where cypress trees were observed to have been cut in the operations of Lovett and the Respondent showed that in Little Lake the maximum elevation for those cuttings was 40.3 feet and at Lake Bradley the maximum elevation was at 41.4 feet. Both of these measurements are below the ordinary high water line elevation for those two water bodies. This confirms that Lovett and the Respondent were destroying and taking products belonging to the State which were below the ordinary high water line and within the boundaries of the sovereign's ownership. Due to the special nature of Lake Tsala Apopka, DNR was unable to establish with exactitude the high ordinary high water line for Lake Tsala Apopka. They were able to approximate that line at 42.75 feet in a setting where the maximum elevation of cuttings of cypress within that lake were found at 41.2 feet.
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 The issues in this case are: Whether Petitioner, Warren M. Briggs ("Briggs"), should be issued a Wetland Resource Permit (WRP) for the construction of a single-family dwelling on a lot with jurisdictional wetlands in Santa Rosa County, Florida, as proposed in his application submission of 1998; and Whether the Department would permit the construction of a single-family dwelling on the subject lot under conditions and circumstances other than those set forth in Briggs' application.
Findings Of Fact Briggs is the owner of Lot 67, Block H, Paradise Bay Subdivision, located in southern Santa Rosa County ("Briggs lot"). Paradise Bay Subdivision was developed in approximately 1980, prior to the passage in 1984 of the Warren Henderson Wetland Protection Act. (Official Recognition of Section 403.918, Florida Statutes). The subdivision consists of modestly priced single- family homes that are attractive to young families because of the quality of nearby schools. The typical non-waterfront home in the subdivision is single story, approximately 2,000 square feet in area, and built on a concrete slab. The typical setback from the road to the front edge of a home is 75 feet. This fairly consistent setback from the road prevents the view from one home into the adjacent property owner’s back yard and, thereby, adversely affecting the neighbor’s property value. The undeveloped Briggs lot was purchased in 1981 for approximately $15,000 and remains undeveloped. Briggs bought the lot, along with three other lots in the subdivision, as investment property. The other three lots have been sold. One of the lots sold earlier by Briggs was a waterfront lot on East Bay located in jurisdictional wetlands. The entire lot was filled pursuant to a permit issued by the Department. The Briggs lot is 90 feet wide by 200 feet deep. It is located on the south side of Paradise Bay Drive. The lots on the north side of Paradise Bay Drive are waterfront lots on East Bay. To the rear (south) of the Briggs lot and other lots on the south side of Paradise Bay Drive, is a large swamp that eventually discharges into East Bay. The major connection between the Briggs lot and East Bay is through a culvert under Paradise Bay Drive. The Briggs’ lot consists of 2,914 square feet of uplands and 15,086 square feet of state jurisdictional wetland, with all of the uplands located in the northern half of the lot. Converted to acres, the Briggs lot consists of 0.067 acres of uplands and 0.347 acres of state jurisdictional wetland. Lot 66, immediately east of the Briggs lot, has been cleared and is about half tietie swamp with the remainder consisting of uplands and disturbed wetlands. Some fill has been placed on the lot. Lot 68, immediately west of the Briggs lot, is undeveloped and consists of all tietie wetlands. Lots 69, 70 and 71 of Block H of the subdivision are undeveloped and consist primarily of wetlands. The Department issued a permit on October 31, 1996, that allowed the owners of Lot 71 to fill 0.22 acres (9,570 square feet) of wetlands. The fill is allowed to a lot depth of 145 feet on the west side, and to a width of 73 feet of the total lot width of 90 feet. The fill area is bordered on the east and west by wetland areas not to be filled. The Department issued a permit on November 13, 1997, that allowed the owner of Lot 61 to fill 0.26 acres (11,310 square feet) of wetlands. Fill is allowed over the entire northern 125 feet of the 185 foot-deep lot. On April 28, 1998, Briggs applied to the Department for a permit to fill Lot 67. The Department, in its letter of August 7, 1998, and its permit denial of September 2, 1998, erroneously described the project as consisting of 0.47 acres of fill. The entire lot consists of only 0.41 acres, of which 0.067 acres is uplands, leaving a maximum area of fill of 0.343 acres. If Briggs’ residential lot is to be used, some impact to the wetlands on the lot is unavoidable. Alternatives discussed by Briggs and the Department, three of which are still available for Briggs to accept, included the following: One hundred feet of fill with a bulkhead separating the fill from the wetland area, with no off-site mitigation; Fill pad could be placed on property with the remainder of the wetlands on the site to remain in their natural state with no backyard, with no off-site mitigation required; One hundred feet of fill with a bulkhead separating the fill material from the wetland, with a small back yard, with no off-site mitigation required. Briggs did not accept any of the foregoing alternatives or proposed acceptable mitigation measures.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the permit application, provided that the parties may reach subsequent agreement regarding proper mitigation in order to make the construction of a single-family dwelling possible on the Petitioner’s property in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ DON W. DAVIS 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 19th day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Collette, Esquire Lucinda R. Roberts, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Jesse W. Rigby, Esquire Clark, Partington, Hart, Larry Bond and Stackhouse 125 West Romana Street, Suite 800 Post Office Box 13010 Pensacola, Florida 32591-3010 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
